I like to run my big ship lists ( MC80, Assault frigates) with leia, in an CR90 ( as I always have one floating about in my lists, for activation manipulation ) all command flex you want for two extra points...

Her point cost is right for its flexibility, but it's also an activation order cost, and the cost of not necessarily doing what's best for Leia herself.

So it's still good, and the flexibility (it can go to any one ship per round, better than most upgrades that are obviously static to a particular ship) is great - but she comes with some hidden costs.

Then again, I play Imperial, so I can't judge the net value of those costs as it applies to practical gameplay very well.

I don't use them because I fly nothing but CR90s much of the time. I may be an idiot¹, but I'm usually not so much of an idiot that I set the wrong command dial for literally the turn on which I am setting it².

With that said, the one I see the biggest use for is definitely Wing Commander; if you fly squadrons in decent numbers this seems like an obvious upgrade to me. You essentially NEVER have to plan for activating your squadrons with a command and can always be taking repairs or navigates, and then switch to squadron commands as needed based on the exact board state for that turn. The flexibility here is actually very useful, as it serves as a threat: your opponent can never be certain you are commanding or repairing / navigating, and the operational uncertainty this creates³ is valuable for the commander doing it. Is this worth 6 points? On ships with a high squadron value that aren't otherwise using this slot? I suspect yes.

1 - Almost certain.

2 - Or so I claim, being an internet tough guy.

3 - It also means your opponent cannot plan for precisely how you will use your ships in terms of phase, as if they rush in you can squadron, but if they don't, you might not use the squadron command and then deploy them as a screen instead, so for defending against alpha strike Gencon Special style lists this adds a significant additional dimension to their planning.

I wish they weren't 6 points. If THESE were 3 points, I'd take them.

They work best on ships who really like to give specific commands a lot. Like SQ commands.

The repair one should be good too.

Imo, the tactical expert for conc fire actually isn't that great, cuz that's my default choice.

I've actually really loved every minute of Ray Antilles on my Ackbar. It really rewards having commands in the right turn: Correctly predicted a good shot? Conc fire add and reroll!

Need a repair? Regen 3 shields!!!!! AHH. so good.

But I use him for non-squadron ships atm.

The Issue I Personally have with them, is that, they're okay... But I only get one Crew Slot.

If I'm going Squadron Heavy with the Rebel Fleet (which is most often), then I won't be able to use a Wing Commander, because Adar Tallon is my Wing Commander.. I won't be able to have a backup Wing Commander, because Raymus Antilles is my backup Wing Commander...

Okay, there seem to be two thoughts about these styles of upgrades. Are they there to cover mistakes? Or are they there to allow for tactical flexibility?

If they are there just to cover mistakes, then I think I agree that they are not worth the costs involved. You can practice with a fleet and really minimize mistakes.

But, if you can take advantage of the increased flexibility to maximize your command choice each turn, I think that they can really be worth it. I've been playing a lot with CR-90s lately. The flexibility of being command 1 has been huge in getting the most out of those ships as I can capitalize on opportunities as they present themselves. I think that is where these upgrades could be more than worth the cost.

Okay, there seem to be two thoughts about these styles of upgrades. Are they there to cover mistakes? Or are they there to allow for tactical flexibility?

If they are there just to cover mistakes, then I think I agree that they are not worth the costs involved. You can practice with a fleet and really minimize mistakes.

But, if you can take advantage of the increased flexibility to maximize your command choice each turn, I think that they can really be worth it. I've been playing a lot with CR-90s lately. The flexibility of being command 1 has been huge in getting the most out of those ships as I can capitalize on opportunities as they present themselves. I think that is where these upgrades could be more than worth the cost.

Agreed.

That's why I see the wing commander one as an obvious choice for squadron-heavy players. It allows you to esentially take the squadron command every single turn, but with the option to use what was on your dial instead if you don't need it. Thought of that way, I think it's clear where the value is.

Taking them to cover mistakes is poor, because you don't know in advance what the mistake you are going to make is (or if you do, don't make it!); taking them to provide options in specific fleet builds has value. I have a hard time seeing fleets that always want concentrate fire or always want repair, but I can see fleets that always want nav (though they tend to be small and fast enough ships that it's easy to get one, hence the diminished value) and I can definitley see fleets that always want squadron (anyone squadron-heavy).

It's interesting. I'm now drafting up ideas for lists using wing commanders after this thread. Though it means moving away from my beloved CR90s and back to the shrimp cocktail lists...

In my mind taking one of the commanders removes the possibility of a mistake. Others have made a similar point with their flexibility comments. I can have a Wing Commander and now I never do not have a squadron command if I need it. I now only have three commands to choose from which reduces the possibility that I won't turn over a navigate or engineering command when I need it.

Alternately stated: you put Wing Commanders on ships you expect to be ordering squadrons to cover a mistake. You put Wing Commanders on ships you don't expect to be ordering squadrons to give flexibility. Yavaris doesn't need a Wing Commander but would be well served with an engineering captain for a not best example.

I can't agree with that line of thinking.

There are so many variables that go into executing a solid squadron attack on a ship that I understand the appeal of being able to default to that command. However, I think that's approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

Becase a squad attack requires your ship, your opponent's ship and 2+ sqauds all in the correct alinement before a dial is called for it seems far less likely to come up by surprise. If surprise opportunity isn't a major consideration the Wing Commander loses it's appeal. The way I see it, you start spamming squad dials on turn 2 and stop on turn 4 you've probably got the peak squadron turns covered. By turn 5 you'll probably be fine with a token command, which you can bank if you miss your guess turns 2-4. With that in mind I say you're better off with a Navigation or Engineering captain, so you can default away from squadrons if disaster strikes during the peak turns. Or any other turn, for that matter.

But then I happen to think the support officer is all four specialty captains in one 4 point package. I'm putting him in all kinds of ships these days.

If you think about wing commander on the 3 command carrier, at the beginning of the fighter engagement ( round 2 or 3) you may miss judge you command by 1 round ( your opponent slows right down etc) you may also loose a round at the end, (going out of range, enemy moving away, all your fighters dead etc) so in effect you are looking at potential insurance for two commands at 6 points ( so 2 extra dice, or 4 shield on a VIC) in truth you unlikely to mess up at both ends of the engagement so in effect your buying insurance for 1 lost command costing you 6 points and the opportunity to take some very powerful officer options.

For me that's not worth it.......I'm not saying it's not a good card it's just the ecconomics and opportunity cost do not add up.

I personally do not take them because I find that I build my ships to a goal which then helps limit the commands that I will pick and what I will use. What do I mean by that... we I will usually have my ship geared towards either a fighter type carrier or more towards bringing the pain. Because of that my commands are usually more focused to the Roll. So if I have a ship that is geared towards the fighters the likely hood that I will pick a firepower command is less likely, which helps limit down my choices for which command I will take. Then I think that either a movement or a Repair once you get into battle are usually never wasted getting that extra Yaw value is always awesome and once you loose some shields repairs is always nice.

So I usually do not take any of these guys because I do not find it necessary and I would rather put the 6 points into something that I think it going to be used much more.

I don't even care for looking at them like "a crutch against making command mistakes" implying weak playing. If the difference between you winning and losing its a command modifier then that's what one should run.

You aren't a weak player if you are winning, even if you rely on the flexibility. Flexibility is obviously better than not flexibility.

I think the tendency to look at them as a crutch is just a natural reaction that people have if they don't feel like they need them. If I choose to never run XI7s I could say that they are a crutch for weaker players - of course that isn't true either.

I don't use them because I fly nothing but CR90s much of the time. I may be an idiot¹, but I'm usually not so much of an idiot that I set the wrong command dial for literally the turn on which I am setting it².

You may be an idiot but you're my kind of idiot.

I've used these before and often found I really wished I had brought another one to the table. One thought is that the six-pointers allow you to never take that command - just use the upgrade when you need engineering, or whatever.

I have found that CR90s can only be run in pairs though. If you run a group of 3, one ends up overshooting and not being able to fire

Princess Leia's cmd/cntrl Vette (CR90a, Leia, Tantive IV) was my Wave 1 darling, letting me re-set dials as needed and essentially moving Ray Antillies from ship to ship. I phased it out after a while, but I've often considered going back there with then options for carrier based strategies.

But the thing of it is, and I keep harping on this, I only really needed to jump my dials 1-2 times per game. I see the 6 point specialist captains as the same thing. I'm paying to make a crucial adjustment to my plan, but I'm only really in need of that kind of change once or twice. Hence my admiration of the Support Officer.

I can't react with the same timing agility (command phase vs. activation makes a big difference the later in the turn I want to use the ship) but for 4 points I can make changes to 2-3 turns, which is as often as I'd uses a specialist captain, and I have total freedom of commands. In terms of cost/benefit I feel that is stronger than the Engineering Captain and Navigation Officer, who are both better than the Wing Commander, who switches back and forth with the Tactical Expert, depending on the ship.

At this point, people seem to favor offensive boosts over command flexibility. I wonder if I could build a list to take advantage of that?

Ozzel. Setup with your opponent expecting you to slow roll or speed in, and they will program their commands accordingly. Ozzel will let you mess with that predictability - by suddenly changing the turn upon which you will engage fleets. As I saw in the battle report on your blog, Ozzel can pull off some serious tricks! Just turn to the dark side... ;-)

I've seen this. My regular opponent has an Akina Speed Star(Destroyers) list that uses Ozzel and it can be offputting even when you're wise to the potential.

I would say the Support Officer is great for changing your plans, but not for reactions.

Consider an ISD with bombers. You have engineering lined up for the next three turns. A space opens up on a nearby frigate.

The support officer lets you react to the situation once, reset your dials, and send the bombers for a run.

The Wing Commander lets you react now, also sending them for a run.

Now consider the next turn. Having used your squad command, you find another opportunity opens that you had not foreseen.

The Support Officer is unconscious in sickbay. He hopes you planned well.

The Wing Commander is already on the radio.

The point is that the additional two points allow you continued flexibility instead of a one-time change. I would even say that is the core of flexibility vs insurance.

I think people are misunderstanding my point about squadron commands:

• Squadrons require a lot of coordination with their ships and placement.
• A good opponent also knows this, and using squadrons often involves telegraphing your intentions at least somewhat, because you know the range bands for the squadrons and ships.
• Therefore, the better your opponent is, the more likely they are to predict your plan and monkey with it. As an example, in my last game against a squadron heavy player, I saw him setting up his alpha strike and took a bunch of nav commands, along with my nav tokens with Garm, to jam several whales down to speed 1 instead of speed 3, leaving his alpha strike out of range. The next turn, I could activate first and slam all my A-wings into his guys to tie them up, while accelerating with the whales to re-engage from the side. Basically, one turn ended the game because I set everything back.
• The counter to this, of course, is that you take squadron commands every single turn so it's not predictable when you will act, but this locks you out of other commands.

Therefore, by using a Wing Commander, you can think of your dial stack for a carrier as always, always, always reading Squadron-Squadron-Squadron-Squadron... it's Squadrons all the way down, so to speak.

However, it's also a free option to swap to repair, nav, or CF, whatever you had actually set on the dial. In the situation above, my opponent should have stalled a turn, and in that context, having a free repair or nav would have been great. Similarly, when you have carriers that are about to die, no matter how valuable the squadron might be, it's often better to have a nav or repair if that will keep you alive.

So my point about Wing Commander is that, as an upgrade for a carrier, it allows you to have options beyond just carrying out your squadron plan. In fact, by making your squadron plan more unpredictable (they don't know you won't nav to stall out and wait a turn yourself, etc.) but always having the option to launch a strike, it makes it much harder to plan against a squadron player.

That, to me, is the real value. It's not about mis-setting your dials, or mis-timing your strike. It's about maximizing the flexibility you have to deliberately disguise it and/or give your ships bail out options with repair/nav.

Edit: This is also why I am not nearly as jazzed about any of the other command swap upgrades. They don't really provide the additional level of obfucsation + flexibility that the Wing Commander does.

I think people are misunderstanding my point about squadron commands:

• Squadrons require a lot of coordination with their ships and placement.
• A good opponent also knows this, and using squadrons often involves telegraphing your intentions at least somewhat, because you know the range bands for the squadrons and ships.
• Therefore, the better your opponent is, the more likely they are to predict your plan and monkey with it. As an example, in my last game against a squadron heavy player, I saw him setting up his alpha strike and took a bunch of nav commands, along with my nav tokens with Garm, to jam several whales down to speed 1 instead of speed 3, leaving his alpha strike out of range. The next turn, I could activate first and slam all my A-wings into his guys to tie them up, while accelerating with the whales to re-engage from the side. Basically, one turn ended the game because I set everything back.
• The counter to this, of course, is that you take squadron commands every single turn so it's not predictable when you will act, but this locks you out of other commands.

Therefore, by using a Wing Commander, you can think of your dial stack for a carrier as always, always, always reading Squadron-Squadron-Squadron-Squadron... it's Squadrons all the way down, so to speak.

However, it's also a free option to swap to repair, nav, or CF, whatever you had actually set on the dial. In the situation above, my opponent should have stalled a turn, and in that context, having a free repair or nav would have been great. Similarly, when you have carriers that are about to die, no matter how valuable the squadron might be, it's often better to have a nav or repair if that will keep you alive.

So my point about Wing Commander is that, as an upgrade for a carrier, it allows you to have options beyond just carrying out your squadron plan. In fact, by making your squadron plan more unpredictable (they don't know you won't nav to stall out and wait a turn yourself, etc.) but always having the option to launch a strike, it makes it much harder to plan against a squadron player.

That, to me, is the real value. It's not about mis-setting your dials, or mis-timing your strike. It's about maximizing the flexibility you have to deliberately disguise it and/or give your ships bail out options with repair/nav.

Edit: This is also why I am not nearly as jazzed about any of the other command swap upgrades. They don't really provide the additional level of obfucsation + flexibility that the Wing Commander does.

This. This this this. It's a Moonring Mirror for your Command Stack, except the other stack is all Squads.

Last game I wasted my entire command ability on my ISD because I set everything to navigate. This was because I was at sped three against a lot of corvettes, and I didn't trust myself not to get outmanuvred. In effect though I think I only actually made use of the one NAV.

So sure, I need to get better at gauging the speed and manouvrebility of the ISD. But a Navigation officer would be a great backup.

I think people are misunderstanding my point about squadron commands:

• Squadrons require a lot of coordination with their ships and placement.
• A good opponent also knows this, and using squadrons often involves telegraphing your intentions at least somewhat, because you know the range bands for the squadrons and ships.
• Therefore, the better your opponent is, the more likely they are to predict your plan and monkey with it. As an example, in my last game against a squadron heavy player, I saw him setting up his alpha strike and took a bunch of nav commands, along with my nav tokens with Garm, to jam several whales down to speed 1 instead of speed 3, leaving his alpha strike out of range. The next turn, I could activate first and slam all my A-wings into his guys to tie them up, while accelerating with the whales to re-engage from the side. Basically, one turn ended the game because I set everything back.
• The counter to this, of course, is that you take squadron commands every single turn so it's not predictable when you will act, but this locks you out of other commands.

Therefore, by using a Wing Commander, you can think of your dial stack for a carrier as always, always, always reading Squadron-Squadron-Squadron-Squadron... it's Squadrons all the way down, so to speak.

However, it's also a free option to swap to repair, nav, or CF, whatever you had actually set on the dial. In the situation above, my opponent should have stalled a turn, and in that context, having a free repair or nav would have been great. Similarly, when you have carriers that are about to die, no matter how valuable the squadron might be, it's often better to have a nav or repair if that will keep you alive.

So my point about Wing Commander is that, as an upgrade for a carrier, it allows you to have options beyond just carrying out your squadron plan. In fact, by making your squadron plan more unpredictable (they don't know you won't nav to stall out and wait a turn yourself, etc.) but always having the option to launch a strike, it makes it much harder to plan against a squadron player.

That, to me, is the real value. It's not about mis-setting your dials, or mis-timing your strike. It's about maximizing the flexibility you have to deliberately disguise it and/or give your ships bail out options with repair/nav.

Edit: This is also why I am not nearly as jazzed about any of the other command swap upgrades. They don't really provide the additional level of obfucsation + flexibility that the Wing Commander does.

Many in my area like Engineering Captain but I love Wing Commander. Simply because when I run a carrier I enjoy stacking squadron commands. With this simple upgrade I get to decide when and where I feel I have the right time to use my squadrons.

The first upgrades (the Liasons) weren't very good. They forced you to discard a valuable command token which meant you had to make at least two incorrect decisions in a row, It was rarely a very smart choice when you could have had a token that did something similar ven with a lesser effect. And of course, players were used to having to predict everything.

The new replacements are more interesting. Support Officer, Wing Commander, etc. are all very functional options to outright replace commands with no penalty other than their own points costs. This makes officers like Wing Commander and Engineering Team great, because they allow you to load you dials up in advance with a single command (such as Navigate or Engineering), change the command to something important for 1-3 turns, then go back to the original. Also, they make you functionally immune to any card or critical effect that might force you to make a specific command.

I think people are misunderstanding my point about squadron commands:

• Squadrons require a lot of coordination with their ships and placement.
• A good opponent also knows this, and using squadrons often involves telegraphing your intentions at least somewhat, because you know the range bands for the squadrons and ships.
• Therefore, the better your opponent is, the more likely they are to predict your plan and monkey with it. As an example, in my last game against a squadron heavy player, I saw him setting up his alpha strike and took a bunch of nav commands, along with my nav tokens with Garm, to jam several whales down to speed 1 instead of speed 3, leaving his alpha strike out of range. The next turn, I could activate first and slam all my A-wings into his guys to tie them up, while accelerating with the whales to re-engage from the side. Basically, one turn ended the game because I set everything back.
• The counter to this, of course, is that you take squadron commands every single turn so it's not predictable when you will act, but this locks you out of other commands.

Therefore, by using a Wing Commander, you can think of your dial stack for a carrier as always, always, always reading Squadron-Squadron-Squadron-Squadron... it's Squadrons all the way down, so to speak.

However, it's also a free option to swap to repair, nav, or CF, whatever you had actually set on the dial. In the situation above, my opponent should have stalled a turn, and in that context, having a free repair or nav would have been great. Similarly, when you have carriers that are about to die, no matter how valuable the squadron might be, it's often better to have a nav or repair if that will keep you alive.

So my point about Wing Commander is that, as an upgrade for a carrier, it allows you to have options beyond just carrying out your squadron plan. In fact, by making your squadron plan more unpredictable (they don't know you won't nav to stall out and wait a turn yourself, etc.) but always having the option to launch a strike, it makes it much harder to plan against a squadron player.

That, to me, is the real value. It's not about mis-setting your dials, or mis-timing your strike. It's about maximizing the flexibility you have to deliberately disguise it and/or give your ships bail out options with repair/nav.

Edit: This is also why I am not nearly as jazzed about any of the other command swap upgrades. They don't really provide the additional level of obfucsation + flexibility that the Wing Commander does.

No, I got that, which is actually why I think Support Officer is better.

Just because you can always default to Squadron doesn't mean that your opponent is ever going to change focus, thinking it's a possibility. In a six turn game with comparatively fixed movement there are only so many times Squadrons are feasible. Then there are turns when it's feasible, but some other command has to get priority.

With Wing Commander you may be able to give a Squad command at any time, but both you and your opponent know you won't. Moreover, the better your opponent is the more valuable tactical flexibility becomes. The Support Officer lets you see your opponent's hand before you show yours. Yes you have to blink in the command phase rather than at activation, but you get access to all 4 commands! You're not even prevented from spamming the same command over and over, if that's what the situation calls for. So you can either set up back to back attack runs or abandon your squadrons at no sunk cost in addition to the fighters themselves.

Taking that a step further, that sunk cost is part of why I rate the Navigation and Engineering captains higher than the Winger. Navigation and Engineering can be valuable on literally every turn of the game. Between getting into a better spot and keeping your self alive, it is pretty unlikely there will be a single turn of the game where having instant access to one of those two commands represents a non-choice. Even just picking up the token has merit most turns. Squadrons, while they extend your carrier's threat and damage significantly, are far more limited in when they're applicable. Three, maybe four, turns out of the game require squadron commands, in my experience. And I'm including in that count the turn(s) where you bank a token for later when a whole dial would be a waste. Boosted Comms might buy another turn, they might not, but they certainly make the turns you do use squadrons easier. Either way, hard setting your dial to squad on turns 2-5 and aborting to engineering or navigation via the specialty captain is functionally the same as Wing Commander, in that you have squadron commands when you are most likely to want them, except you get added benefit if you decide to stop throwing squadron dials. If you do it the other way, guessing at what dial you'll need and defaulting to squadrons, you have far less protection against dice spikes wrecking your plans. Guess wrong and you have no recourse but the (potentially stymied) squadron command. Stop needing squadron commands and you've gained nothing at all.

For the same points spent (all else being equal) you get more potential effect from Navigation and Engineering than you do from the Wing Commander.

edit: Of course, the good Ol' SupOff costs less and lets you flex into either responding to a sudden change or letting you switch gears between cautious and aggressive.

I think people are misunderstanding my point about squadron commands:

• Squadrons require a lot of coordination with their ships and placement.
• A good opponent also knows this, and using squadrons often involves telegraphing your intentions at least somewhat, because you know the range bands for the squadrons and ships.
• Therefore, the better your opponent is, the more likely they are to predict your plan and monkey with it. As an example, in my last game against a squadron heavy player, I saw him setting up his alpha strike and took a bunch of nav commands, along with my nav tokens with Garm, to jam several whales down to speed 1 instead of speed 3, leaving his alpha strike out of range. The next turn, I could activate first and slam all my A-wings into his guys to tie them up, while accelerating with the whales to re-engage from the side. Basically, one turn ended the game because I set everything back.
• The counter to this, of course, is that you take squadron commands every single turn so it's not predictable when you will act, but this locks you out of other commands.

Therefore, by using a Wing Commander, you can think of your dial stack for a carrier as always, always, always reading Squadron-Squadron-Squadron-Squadron... it's Squadrons all the way down, so to speak.

However, it's also a free option to swap to repair, nav, or CF, whatever you had actually set on the dial. In the situation above, my opponent should have stalled a turn, and in that context, having a free repair or nav would have been great. Similarly, when you have carriers that are about to die, no matter how valuable the squadron might be, it's often better to have a nav or repair if that will keep you alive.

So my point about Wing Commander is that, as an upgrade for a carrier, it allows you to have options beyond just carrying out your squadron plan. In fact, by making your squadron plan more unpredictable (they don't know you won't nav to stall out and wait a turn yourself, etc.) but always having the option to launch a strike, it makes it much harder to plan against a squadron player.

That, to me, is the real value. It's not about mis-setting your dials, or mis-timing your strike. It's about maximizing the flexibility you have to deliberately disguise it and/or give your ships bail out options with repair/nav.

Edit: This is also why I am not nearly as jazzed about any of the other command swap upgrades. They don't really provide the additional level of obfucsation + flexibility that the Wing Commander does.

No, I got that, which is actually why I think Support Officer is better.

Just because you can always default to Squadron doesn't mean that your opponent is ever going to change focus, thinking it's a possibility. In a six turn game with comparatively fixed movement there are only so many times Squadrons are feasible. Then there are turns when it's feasible, but some other command has to get priority.

With Wing Commander you may be able to give a Squad command at any time, but both you and your opponent know you won't. Moreover, the better your opponent is the more valuable tactical flexibility becomes. The Support Officer lets you see your opponent's hand before you show yours. Yes you have to blink in the command phase rather than at activation, but you get access to all 4 commands! You're not even prevented from spamming the same command over and over, if that's what the situation calls for. So you can either set up back to back attack runs or abandon your squadrons at no sunk cost in addition to the fighters themselves.

Taking that a step further, that sunk cost is part of why I rate the Navigation and Engineering captains higher than the Winger. Navigation and Engineering can be valuable on literally every turn of the game. Between getting into a better spot and keeping your self alive, it is pretty unlikely there will be a single turn of the game where having instant access to one of those two commands represents a non-choice. Even just picking up the token has merit most turns. Squadrons, while they extend your carrier's threat and damage significantly, are far more limited in when they're applicable. Three, maybe four, turns out of the game require squadron commands, in my experience. And I'm including in that count the turn(s) where you bank a token for later when a whole dial would be a waste. Boosted Comms might buy another turn, they might not, but they certainly make the turns you do use squadrons easier. Either way, hard setting your dial to squad on turns 2-5 and aborting to engineering or navigation via the specialty captain is functionally the same as Wing Commander, in that you have squadron commands when you are most likely to want them, except you get added benefit if you decide to stop throwing squadron dials. If you do it the other way, guessing at what dial you'll need and defaulting to squadrons, you have far less protection against dice spikes wrecking your plans. Guess wrong and you have no recourse but the (potentially stymied) squadron command. Stop needing squadron commands and you've gained nothing at all.

For the same points spent (all else being equal) you get more potential effect from Navigation and Engineering than you do from the Wing Commander.

edit: Of course, the good Ol' SupOff costs less and lets you flex into either responding to a sudden change or letting you switch gears between cautious and aggressive.

I think that's true no matter what upgrade you have.

But play the odds.

If an engineering or nav command is almost always useful, but squadron commands require a very specific arrangement of pieces, then a measured bet on squadron commands with an out to engineering or nav will yield more consistently positive results* than an out to squadrons and bets all over the dial.

Concentrated Fire, on a carrier, is a bad bet regardless. One red/blue die (maybe a black if you're playing saucy) should be less than the net effect of a squadron command. If it isn't then your game plan has probably broken down. Heck, given the engineering stats on the carrier class ships, the expected damage on a concentrated fire command is probably less than the damage mitigation of an engineering command. If it's a straight-up shoot-out you might still be better off throwing repair. But that's admittedly a judgement call you have to make on the table.

*Frequently the results will be identical.

I think that's true no matter what upgrade you have.

But play the odds.

If an engineering or nav command is almost always useful, but squadron commands require a very specific arrangement of pieces, then a measured bet on squadron commands with an out to engineering or nav will yield more consistently positive results* than an out to squadrons and bets all over the dial.

Concentrated Fire, on a carrier, is a bad bet regardless. One red/blue die (maybe a black if you're playing saucy) should be less than the net effect of a squadron command. If it isn't then your game plan has probably broken down. Heck, given the engineering stats on the carrier class ships, the expected damage on a concentrated fire command is probably less than the damage mitigation of an engineering command. If it's a straight-up shoot-out you might still be better off throwing repair. But that's admittedly a judgement call you have to make on the table.

*Frequently the results will be identical.

With Wing Commander, you can evaluate what is the current situation and if you need the command and not. All the while having your Navigation and Engineering commands handy as you expect to need them