So if anyone hasn't seen The Mandalorian... I know, silly question, but now we know what the hanger bay of a light cruiser looks like. We also know that it has at least two drop shuttles and it looked like six Ties.

Any Light Cruiser will fit the bill, I wouldn't go with anything smaller than that. Keep in mind it's not just the vehicle bay that's important but the ship needs to be large enough to accommodate at least 20 troops plus officers per lander. Also not all ships are going to carry a dedicated complement of ground troops but most can if you need them too so just do it if you need it.

And humble too...

Either these guys are best friends or they hate each other so much, if given the opportunity, they'd poop in each other's pillows.

I'm just talking character attributes, the mechanics of the character, not the roleplaying of the Players, bad roleplaying as you are describing isn't the issue here. PCs optimized for combat can be roleplayed well and I have players that play them well but the fact is in a purely mechanical sense they fail a lot rolls outside of combat. Whereas the PCs who have a broader range of Skills and such succeed more often and move the story along. Mechanically (ie. rolls and such) it's the "weaker" PCs that generally end up contributing more to an adventure than the "stronger", combat focused PCs. Also I didn't say combat was boring I said it was easy to do. What I mean is the "stronger" the PC the less imaginative they have to be to succeed, it doesn't mean they can't be super creative it's just they don't generally have to be. Weaker PCs on the other hand have to come up with creative solutions during combat or they'll end up dead. So again my point is, roleplaying skill aside, it's the weaker, more balanced PCs that contribute the most to an adventure, and it's the stronger, combat oriented PCs, while valuable when the **** hits the fan and still fun to play, that are kinda weak sauce everywhere else.

I see, so their effectiveness in combat is the measure when you say weaker and stronger. If that's the case I'd argue that from my experience as a GM it's the combat focused PCs that offer the least to a good adventure. Combat is easy and generally mindless in RPGs: choose weapon, choose target, roll to hit, do damage, repeat until one side is defeated. The "stronger" the PC the less they actually do, sure they pump out damage but other than that what are they good for? They've had to sacrifice other useful Skills and Talents to get that DPS and generally look at every problem as nail to pound on, I guess if that's what gives you that tingle more power too you. Let's be honest though and acknowledge that it ends up being the "weaker" PCs that solve the mysteries, find the important info, get past the security systems, fast talk the NPCs, get the best deals on stuff, and generally move the story along while the "stronger" PCs sit back and try and figure out how to carry an E-Web into battle and still have room for a half dozen grenades. So sure it can make combat a bit more challenging to have weaker PCs but let's not say that they are somehow contributing less to the adventure.

I don't want to assume before I respond so what do you mean when you say "**** hits the fan"?

I tell my Players to make the character they want to play and that to survive in my games it's going to take more than just killing well, so not to overly concern themselves with, what do the kids call it theses days... "DPS". My general advice is have an idea of what kind of PC abilities they want as a goal but to play the campaign not just their character concept. Players should be open to changing their focus as they gain experience during the campaign or they will find themselves without the skills they need to succeed. In practice it's a mixed bag but I find that Players that build more well rounded PC's have a wider range of options open to them then those that min-max. More options mean more fun in the long run and Players that build PCs like that are generally more engaged in the story. It's not always the case but in the 25 or so years I've GM'd it's a noticeable pattern. Just as a side note on two House Rules I have on spending EXP in FFGSW, the first is that a PC cannot go up more than one Rank in a particular Skill or one Row down in a Talent or Power Tree between sessions. I also allow a PC with saved EXP to spend that EXP on raising one Rank in a non-combat Skill once during a session.

Just be careful when messing around with the Specialization trees. Unlike those in the supplements the Core Specializations were play tested pretty extensively and the Talents within were chosen not just for their usefulness but also as part of the overall Career and Character balance structure. Not all of the Talents within the trees are supposed to be the best they also act as buffers before getting "better" talents. It's also assumed that a character will have more than one Specialization over the course of their lives. To make it worth the EXP to take a second or third Specialization they all have to have something worth having the another Specialization doesn't. There is a method to the madness, mess with it at your peril.

I must carry all the things!