Back to the initial idea (Counter sizes)..
This is an unusual opportunity. We have an issue in the game of standardization on bases. We currently have three different bases, that, geometrically, have nothing to do with one another
-- Mongoose Scale (as sold).
Circular. I understand this to be the primary standard, as it is the currently sold product.
-- Fleet Action
Hex-shaped. The figs certainly should be leveraged, but provide an extra advantage in having small bases over the Mongoose Scale (and thereby makes it so that the same ship in two different fleets isn't the same ship)
-- Counters
Square. Big help in selling the game.
The problem is, because of the no-base-overlap rule, these aren't equal. Mongoose's scale is the worst to have, counters second worst, and fleet action best. This is pretty counterintuitive.
Fleet Action we may be able to handle later. For example, distribute the plastic disks without stems that can hold a hex-shaped figure securely inside, so that you can still use the figure but it covers the same physical space. Some sort of thing like that. If you painted the disk matte black, it could event look pretty good. We can handle that .... later.
Counters, however, are now. Once we make 'em, we'll be suck with 'em for the whole next edition, which will probably span 3 years. Do we want to seriously consider making counters with the same base sizes and shapes as those specified for the Mongoose Scale figures as sold so the game still has the draw of bringing players in with counters, but does have a basing standard to cover that awkward overlap rule?
I know -- you'll get a LOT fewer counters per sheet, guaranteed, when you get to the ships with big bases. Small ships will still get there in quantitiy, and I don't see too bad an issue with auxiliary craft if you kept them as is. The Drazi, Abbai (I think the Milani is large-base), Centauri, and Brakiri will have tons of large bases, however, and you'll get a lot fewer per sheet, perhaps as few as 8 or 11. This will make counters notably more expensive. I agree with that assessment heartly. But how much more is it? Double?
Is this something we want to consider --- once and for freakin' all, handle the uniform basing issue?
We won't get another opportunity for quite a while.