So in another thread I pointed out my thought that the A-wing suffers because it gets stuck between being a TIE/F and X-wing. In terms of 'realism' this makes sense -- the A-wing is manueverable like a TIE but stronger like a X-wing. Except at the end of the day this is a game played on a table. FFG has done a great job balancing the gameplay mechanics with the spirit of SW dogfights. But the A-wing got me wondering, do you see ship stats governed by role (swarm, tank, support, etc.) or realism (it's place in the SW universe). For instance, would future ships' stats prioritize fitting one of these in-game roles or living up to its in-galaxy character? Because they'll never fit perfectly and trying to satisfy both seems to create a ship that isn't true to the game or SW galaxy.
It's a game. So dynamic simplicity is important. Swarms, tanks, and such are inevitable and necessary. But do you think ship stats are or ought to be made with an eye toward certain fixed roles -- in which the A-wing and TIE/Adv can't seem to make up their minds -- or have their in-galaxy realism catered to even if it means bending the in-game system?
Sticking with the A-wing example. If we go by roles, it seems lost and is so considered largely to be in need of tweaking. If we go by realism so to speak, should we then give it perhaps +1 attack but -1 hull/shield? The latter approach plays up the A-wings more robust yet fragile in-galaxy reality but slightly breaks the in-game roles by "equating" its 2 lasers with an X-wing's 4.
Thoughts? I'd personally rather prioritize in-galaxy character over the in-game roles because, with so many ships, they'd create unique combinations inevitably and keep each ship playable in itself. Otherwise we just get pretty models that amount to different versions of 5 swarm vs. 1 support/2 attackers. Roles vs roles instead of X-wings vs. TIE, A-wings vs. TIE/Int, etc.