Subjugator

I didn't mean to criticise your work, PR team. The whole point was to adress inconstistencies that occur if strictly following "canon" and "official" data, because this is mainly established on some odd stuff, or other games where you get to be an uber character, wiping out entire task forces with a single fighter, defeating entire sectors single-handendly etc. Just read several "canon articles" on Wookieepedia, and you'll get my point:
A Dreadnaught-class is an equal to Victory II;
you need 12 Venators to take on a Lucrehulk, while on the Venator article it says a few can easily take down Lucrehulk's shields;
you need around 1000 Recusants to take on a Mandator II (still weaker than an Executor-class)
you need around 4-6 Recusants to take on a Venator, BUT if you count the Recusants listed armament, its: "an oversized heavy turbolaser", 4 heavy turbolaser, 6 heavy turbolaser turrets five turbolaser cannons, thirty dual laser cannons, twelve dual light laser cannons, and sixty point-defense laser cannons., which is what the Mk1 in-game has. Oh and it says a Venator has 52 (!) dual lasers or turbo-lasers (!) as point-defence. Note how they generalize everything into the same class: the Recusants single and Munificient's double oversized are named the same as some rather smaller other guns; while the "turbolaser" is used as a generic term covering everything from close-defence to heavy battleship armament. This is just a glimpse of how stupid these articles are, and how hampering for actual balancing they are.

My question on blaster weaponry was why is an infrantryman more capable of hitting a distant infrantryman than a distant vehicle, which is obviously much bigger? This doesn't seem right. You might want to set a single circular area value against all targets, except against airspeeders, as you have already said they are limited in operating height. For example, AT-AT's secondary batteries have a higher chance to hit a single person than a T4 tank or a structure at the same distance. Or a scoutrooper missing buildings, while hitting infrantry more often? Just imagine, you are aiming a blaster, I doubt you could hit a person more often than a vehicle or a building.

All of my posts were made as I have playtested that the transports and bombers are the absolute bane of everything. You don't even have to spend that much. Transports have turreted anti-fighter weaponry or missiles, both of higher class than those of fighters , so they are even self-escorting against fighter screens. You make several upgraded squads of both and you take down practically everything in single passes. Both the Empire and the Rebellion can rely only on fighters or only on transports to do the fighting, and they do it most effectively that way.

Hm, alright them, it seems you didn't get my post. Compare those several 22 meter walkers and shuttles +9000 troops with the size of the Star Destroyer. (modern US carriers, a fraction of SW capitals, have 5.700 crew). Really insignificant.
I've already given my opinion on those various official nonsense, because canon, as in real life canon, just doesn't do it.
They have smaller hangar facilities than Venator (72 vs 420), yet house more troops. Pretty silly for me.
If you are implying that an Imperial I has the same main battery, almost the same shields and hull, much reduced starfighter complement, while being 50% longer, more massive, with a bigger reactor, just to carry additional 7.700 troops and AT-AT instead of AT-TE (20 vs 20) when compared to Venator. And now where exactly does the Tector profit from its role as a battleship when compared to Imps?The Tector I, dispensing with everything except space battle, still the same battery as Venator. Why on Earth would you give away starfighter support? To receive plated bottom? To get some poorly positioned secondary light guns?
Please make my day.

Thanks for the reply
I don't really get it with the Imp I. Where exactly do we get the carrier/assault ship role? I have the impression that it has reduced starfighter complement, and it goes along Tarkin doctrine of big, firepower focused battleships. Hence, they discontinued the Venator. My suggestion is to discard all that crappy wookieepedia "battery" "cannon" "generic turbolaser/turboion" stats, as they are useless in real games. I really should point out that you can't really expect a picket, or corvette to have the same class weaponry as battleships and dreadnoughts? Or transports and corvettes matching MC's main batteries?
When I go into cinematic mode, those capitals really dwarf those frigates, cruisers, destroyers etc. Yes, the Imp houses some bases (obviously not too big actually, where would you unload them? Add some AT-AT (22.5 m), but we are talking about a 1600 m long, fat , wide sector command ships!). And some 270 m tiny thin frigate has heavier firepower?!
I will repeat myself and ask, ok they improved technology in those 20-some years. Why not make then something the size of Imps or Tecs with the same technology as Strike? You do realise it would need to have 300+ HTL? Nearly three Strikes make it in the length, while many more if we count by mass or volume. Or the Rebels with the 1200 m Republic-class, again 40 HTL versus 270 m CC-9600 30 HTL (chronologically near).
My point is even if you simply, and that would be inaccurate too, scale the armament to length proportionally, you still underpowered your bigger classes, just by arming them with the same class armament.

PS: My regard with the Invincible-class was that it is a big, useless, practically unarmed ship. A single bomber squadron is more useful for the AI / pirates.

I've pointed out those 2 as the most overpowered smaller craft.
I've just pointed out the Imperial I as the most immediate one. The same, if not even more, goes for Mon Cal designs. Just compare MonCal 80 line armament/size versus the Strike and CC-9600. I personally believe, that in order to make a good and interesting tactical and strategic SW universe game, you should abandon most of "canon" and wookieepedia to be honest. Not only beacuse I personally despise most of those comics and the number of generic characters that appear there (Rule of Two somehow became Rule of Two Thousand among other). The content can mostly be summarized into Rambo-style Rebels defeating legions of heavy Imperial forces led by ever more stupid and incompetent leaders (crash into each other, hyperspace into eavh other) oh and of course some crappy uberretarded complex plot, and lastly the R2D2, that singlehandendly wipes out everything. Because a superfleet or a supercomputer are too mainstream, you need a simple astrodroid to defeat your oponents.
If we have a 1250 m bulky ship (MC 80) versus a 270 m rather thin CC-9600, how can this one pack 30 HTL, while the bigger, better shaped MC 80 48 TL? It just doesn't feel right to have so overpowered smaller craft. You might ask the question, well why aren't the 1250 m ships just 5 times more powerful? In fact, they should be even more powerful than how many times they are long (the mass and space obviously are not linear with length of the hull). Why don't the Rebels have a 1350 m with 150 + HTL? (it should have even more).
How many Strikes fit into an Imperator? Why not simply count then and add the appropriate increase in weapons? The technology is obviously present.
I am a great fan of all SW mods, from Warlords (0.xx), across Awakening of the Rebellion, SOGE's, and of course, PR. Each had pros and cons, but the PR is the most complete one, definitely. However, it it might borrow some concepts and ideas from others.