Must-Have Upgrades/Hardpoints

[Ruckdog]

One of the things that came up on the SG forums when my campaign rules were posted there is that some players feel certain fleets really need to have certain upgrades/hardpoints to be competitive. Does this jive with any of your experiences? If so, do you care to give specific examples?

[Dakkar]

Additional Wings, Launch Tubes, 2nd Assault, and Quick launch are pretty much automatic where available in most cases - at least in my experience.

By Faction? Energy Transfer is an auto-take for Aquans, along with Difficult target MAR on their Cruisers.

[Ruckdog]

Right,

Additional Wings, Launch Tubes, 2nd Assault, and Quick launch are pretty much automatic where available in most cases - at least in my experience.

By Faction? Energy Transfer is an auto-take for Aquans, along with Difficult target MAR on their Cruisers.

Good to know! Now, one thing I'm interested in knowing for the campaign rules I wrote is if those factions/models are unplayable or unbalanced without those upgrades. Keep in mind, your opponents would be similarly disadvantaged by a lack of upgrades at the start. 

[Dakkar]

I'm sure there are Dindrenzi players who say they MUST get rid of the Ablative MAR. Or Terrans who won't field without Nuclear Torps, etc.
I don't see those as essential though to what makes each *work*.

Aquans are still tough without E-Transfer, just less deadly.

Sorylians are odd ducks, benefitting greatly from Weapon Shielding and Shield add-ons here and there. Not sure if that means *essential*. Though i wouldn't use their Frigates (or anyone's where optioned) without Pack Hunter.

Directorate *must* have some upgrades chosen, to either go for an Assault fleet, a firepower fleet, or a cyberwarfare crippling fleet. or to have dedicated element for each. Without that tailoring, they don't do much of anything well.

Relthoza can't run their Stealth game without key upgrades.

Looking at the Marauder preview doc, briefly, there are whole fleets that make no sense at all without using their upgrades. There, options are used to define a ship's role - and without a choice, they have no role.

[Stephan]

The complete lack of any hard point or upgrade options was a concern for me when reviewing the campaign info.  Perhaps a middle ground where you can take the Hardpoints, but not the Upgrades in an initial list.  That would make thematic sense to me since you'd assume the ships would have *something* on their Hardpoints at the start of the campaign while leaving open the Upgrades for future expansion. 

[Ruckdog]

Interesting idea...I'm also tossing around allowing players to select one or two upgrades for free at the start of the game, and then having them earn the rest. Do you think that would be sufficient mitigation?

[Stephan]

If I was playing in the campaign, I'd honestly be fine with no Upgrades allowed for the initial lists provided Hardpoints are allowed.

[Ruckdog]

Yeah, that approach made sense to me, which is why I went with it initially. On the other hand, in addition to possible balance issues, there is also play style ones; I am getting the impression that some players depend on certain upgrades/hardpoints to play their fleets the way they want.

[markymark1970]

One of the things that came up on the SG forums when my campaign rules were posted there is that some players feel certain fleets really need to have certain upgrades/hardpoints to be competitive. Does this jive with any of your experiences? If so, do you care to give specific examples?

I agree.  I had a Sorylian Battleship down to its last two HPs last night (thanks Landlubber) that still had some port/starboard teeth due to weapons shielding and additional shields, and shields saved a few of my cruiser's bacon.  And the few times I've ran Aquan, additional shields and energy transfer.  Beams and nukes on Terrans are a few of the horrors Stephan has released upon us.