A few ships have double slots. These are the only ones I can think of:

ISD I- Double offensive retrofit

Mc-80 Battle cruiser - Turbolaser

MC-80 Assault cruiser - defensive retrofit

Pelta with Phoenix home - officer

But with any of these, I have never seen a combination that really struck me as having amazing synergy. And at least most of the time, my points are spent better other places. Is there some combination that I am missing?

Extraordinary combos? Not really. A few good ones though

Adar/Ahsoka on the Pelta is pretty effective but expensive for feeding a Pelta Upgrade.

Any combination of ECM/AP/RS/RBD on the assault cruiser is really effective.

ISD-I with Expanded Hangars and Boosted Comms can get some work done as a super-carrier but it's not really as strong as some of the other doubles (...yet, we'll see with wave 6).

The Spinal Armament + H9s combo on the LMC80 can allow you to get some damage in on flotillas from long range.

Also spinal+quad turbo cannons pair very nicely together. At 19 points it is pricey, but what do you expect when adding TWO red dice? (Provided you have a red accuracy in the original roll)

Offensive Retrofits aren't a particularly strong group of upgrades. The Boosted Comms + Expanded Hangars combo that @Snipafist mentioned is the only one I've seen used.

Turbolasers have some different options although most are expensive. @Drasnighta uses XI7s and XX9s together as part of his drill build. It's really fun.

Defensive Retrofits see a ton of play and just about any combo of those are good. They all stack together pretty welll.

Officers seem like a fun place to double up, but not many really lend themselves to the Pelta. It's often Ahsoka + something. Flight Commander plus Adar has potential. Lando + Derlin would make the Pelta fairly resilient. Leia + a Liason would give your fleet some impressive flexibility.

I think the ISD-I with Expanded Hangars + Rapid Launch Bays will be a thing once we have an FAQ.

Liaison+Raymus=Always the right command whenever you want.

13 hours ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

MC-80 Assault cruiser - defensive retrofit

Ecms and Advanced Projectors is a fun combo.... if they're not running X17s, they basically have to eat through 15 extra shields

Run in combo enginnering teams on the 80 withredemption and a pelta doing "shields to max" both with projection experts and a gr75 with comms net... that MC80 will be tanking a ton of damage.... per round that's something like 9 shields regenerated

1 hour ago, Democratus said:

I think the ISD-I with Expanded Hangars + Rapid Launch Bays will be a thing once we have an FAQ.

It really isn't all that frightening, even once we get a faq confirming the proper use is they drop and shoot. Dengar, maarek, jendon, bomber/morna/other drops are not world ending. MC80 can bear that avenger strike generally.

2 minutes ago, Darthain said:

It really isn't all that frightening, even once we get a faq confirming the proper use is they drop and shoot. Dengar, maarek, jendon, bomber/morna/other drops are not world ending.

Nothing should be "world ending" in a game that is well-made and balanced.

But it will be very fun to be able to carry bombers in a tough (and speedy) ship in order to deliver squadrons with no risk of losing the squadrons before arriving at the target site.

Fun is what I'm looking for. Fun and interesting/difficult tactical choices.

1 minute ago, Democratus said:

Nothing should be "world ending" in a game that is well-made and balanced.

But it will be very fun to be able to carry bombers in a tough (and speedy) ship in order to deliver squadrons with no risk of losing the squadrons before arriving at the target site.

Fun is what I'm looking for. Fun and interesting/difficult tactical choices.

The only choices are for the opponent really, yours are pretty simple 'this is my fire boat'. It briefly surfaced here, then faded into obscurity.

Just now, Darthain said:

The only choices are for the opponent really, yours are pretty simple 'this is my fire boat'. It briefly surfaced here, then faded into obscurity.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate?

45 minutes ago, Democratus said:

I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate?

Your ISD 1 is a fireboat, your opponent gets to choose whether to avoid or engage, your MO is going to be engage, as that is how you get its potential. It is a glorified torpedo.

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

Your ISD 1 is a fireboat, your opponent gets to choose whether to avoid or engage, your MO is going to be engage, as that is how you get its potential. It is a glorified torpedo.

How is this a point? ISD 1 is built to move close and engage, with or without a squadron dump. But that doesn't mean it can't also use RLB. And it doesn't mean there are no tactical decisions to be made.

I think the main argument against a Rapid Launch Bays super ISD-I is it consumes a huge amount of points, which hurts you in both your activations and deployments (as the ISD itself is expensive and its baby squadrons live inside of it instead of getting deployed) and also makes your fleet's threat projection very predictable. When an ISD with 5 bomber squadrons inside is lurking around then you clearly know where a lot of the enemy oomph is and can take steps to address that/avoid it/whatever.

It would be pretty fun in a for funsies game, though. I'm just very skeptical that's it's a competitive setup overall.

Just now, Snipafist said:

I think the main argument against a Rapid Launch Bays super ISD-I is it consumes a huge amount of points, which hurts you in both your activations and deployments (as the ISD itself is expensive and its baby squadrons live inside of it instead of getting deployed) and also makes your fleet's threat projection very predictable. When an ISD with 5 bomber squadrons inside is lurking around then you clearly know where a lot of the enemy oomph is and can take steps to address that/avoid it/whatever.

It would be pretty fun in a for funsies game, though. I'm just very skeptical that's it's a competitive setup overall.

Yeah. I'm thinking how good it will be in CC play - especially when you have much more control over objectives and can cap at 500 points.

1 hour ago, Snipafist said:

I think the main argument against a Rapid Launch Bays super ISD-I is it consumes a huge amount of points, which hurts you in both your activations and deployments (as the ISD itself is expensive and its baby squadrons live inside of it instead of getting deployed) and also makes your fleet's threat projection very predictable. When an ISD with 5 bomber squadrons inside is lurking around then you clearly know where a lot of the enemy oomph is and can take steps to address that/avoid it/whatever.

It would be pretty fun in a for funsies game, though. I'm just very skeptical that's it's a competitive setup overall.

The baby squadrons need Rhymer.

Before someone pointed it out to me that it was illegal my favorite combo was a pair of quad laser turrets on an ISD.

27 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

The baby squadrons need Rhymer.

They do, but it's still a limitation compared to the freedom with which they can roam when deployed normally.

1 hour ago, Snipafist said:

I'm just very skeptical that's it's a competitive setup overall.

I die a little inside every time someone says something like this.

Not everything has to be grafted around leaderboards and rankings.

It's a game, have fun with it.

Besides, who knows? an ISD I with EHBs and RLBs and sloane could get mean really quick.

Is it perfect? nah, but that doesn't mean it couldn't compete.

(not to single you out man, I've been hearing that phrase a lot recently, and it just sucks the enthusiasm right out of me lol)

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

I die a little inside every time someone says something like this.

Not everything has to be grafted around leaderboards and rankings.

It's a game, have fun with it.

Besides, who knows? an ISD I with EHBs and RLBs and sloane could get mean really quick.

Is it perfect? nah, but that doesn't mean it couldn't compete.

(not to single you out man, I've been hearing that phrase a lot recently, and it just sucks the enthusiasm right out of me lol)

I already said it could be fun in a more casual fleet, what else do you want from me? If we're just throwing whatever we like into fleets with no consideration of what's the most effective way to accomplish things how do we even have a basis for conversation in anything outside of the arts and crafts sub forum and off topic sub forum?

0 Interdictors.

You call that casual ?!

Lrn 2 Git Slack, Son.

14 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

If we're just throwing whatever we like into fleets with no consideration of what's the most effective way to accomplish things how do we even have a basis for conversation in anything outside of the arts and crafts sub forum and off topic sub forum

I would venture, that between chosen objectives, player skill, and the human condition, almost any fleet given even a moderate amount of thought could compete.

To discount an idea's potential because it doesn't fit what you consider to be effective in a game where there is no "end all" solution is arrogant. Even if you are a well known and highly experienced member of the community lol

Maybe I'm making a fuss over nothing, which, if I am, just disregard as casual banter, but if there's no set fleet or play style winning at every competitive level, then... why couldn't it compete?

I am having some fun using H9+QTC on my MC80 Battle Cruiser. It can lock down both defensive tokens on a flotilla, plus it can help with locking down the ships that have double of the same defensive token like a MC30. There is also the added benefit of using the extra red die added to reroll using Leading Shots if I am going for raw damage output.

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

I would venture, that between chosen objectives, player skill, and the human condition, almost any fleet given even a moderate amount of thought could compete.

I would not. Some fleet archetypes are simply better than others given the state of the options available and the meta (the good news for us is there are a lot of top-tier archetypes right now, but that doesn't mean everything is top-tier). Maybe a Konstantine with VSDs and Interdictor fleet can do well in a small meta (with thought put into it) but it won't at a Regional event (and @shmitty 's Regional data collection bears this out). Plus the terminology is very vague: "could compete"? What does that mean? How do we qualify that? "Can show up and play games?" "Can win the whole event? (if so, what kind of event?)" "Can win at least half its games over X games?"

Quote

To discount an idea's potential because it doesn't fit what you consider to be effective in a game where there is no "end all" solution is arrogant. Even if you are a well known and highly experienced member of the community lol

It's a thread devoted to examining the most effective upgrade combinations. The entire thread is people voicing their opinions about what they feel is the most effective versus what isn't as effective. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings(you "die a little inside" and "it sucks the enthusiasm right out"), but I take much umbrage at being told that voicing an opinion politely and appropriately in accordance with the thread's intent is "arrogant" but showing up suddenly to tell someone that their opinion being expressed hurts your feelings and they're wrong to express it isn't. If you don't like discussions about competitiveness because you'd rather play more casually, that is fine. Just don't read those discussions and then ask people to change to accommodate you.

If you disagree with my conclusion about the ISD+XHB+RLB, that's also fine. Give evidence of why you feel that is the case, but do so constructively ("who knows what the meta could be anywhere so nothing has any meaning" is not a constructive argument, we can't even discuss anything in a state of "everything is absolute chaos and nothing has inherent value"). Or even better, use that combination competitively, do well, and prove me wrong. Just don't come in here expecting to upend the entire conversation because your feelings got hurt because someone has an opinion contrary to yours.

Quote

Maybe I making a fuss over nothing,

You are.

Quote

which, if I am, just disregard as casual banter,

I'm not. Let me follow you into some other random thread where you're responding appropriately to the discussion and single you out and tell you why you hurt my feelings and you're arrogant and completely wrong and see how casual you feel about it.

Quote

but if there's no set fleet or play style winning at every competitive level, then... why couldn't it compete?

It can certainly compete in less cut-throat environments but that's true of just about everything in the game (maybe even Point Defense Reroute?). I don't think it would ever win a Regional event or large (20+) store tournament simply because of the reasons I already gave: better players can see it's a lot of eggs in one fairly predictable basket. A fleet running it is lower on activations (given it's going for an upgraded ISD-I and a sizable enough squadron presence we would assume) and much lower on deployments (which in my mind is one the biggest downsides of the RLB, I would've preferred that you could deploy squadrons "into" the RLB rather than give them up for deployment purposes altogether). Those are all disadvantages. The advantage is you can get a lot of damage in on one particular target when it's used well. That can certainly be useful from time to time but does the payoff merit all the downsides? I don't really feel it does.