So with the SSD, it’s pretty clear that you’ll only be able to run one ship in your list most of the time, if not maybe two (the SSD and a Gozanti or a Raider). Because of this disadvantageous situation when going up against opponents with more ships, is it better to be second player so as you can effectively force the objectives of your choosing on your opponent? If you’re first player, I gaurentee your opponent will have some nasty anti-SSD objective cards you don’t want.

What do you guys think?

If you are first player you still get to choose the least bad from his three objectives so your opponent would need 3 disastrous missions to your list to really hurt.

You can fit an SSD and a Cymoon with Strategic Adviser into a 400 point fleet so that is 4 activations which isn't so bad.

Or, as you say, an SSD and Gozanti with a decent fighter or bomber force. Not too great in activations but deployment should be ok with the flotilla deploying first followed by lots of pairs of squadrons and then finally the big wedge deployed in the most advantageous position. Another option is to place the SSD first then benefit from its long base and place bombers at distance 2 approaching the half way line.

Preference for first or second player is an eternal debate and the SSD doesn't change things too much. It gets a natural ability like Strategic Adviser to partially offset the low activations. You still have to decide if you should bid for first/second or just max out and leave it to the enemy. Thinking carefully about your missions is still important as even if you have a decent 10 point bid you can always meet an opponent with a 20+ point yearning to go first.

You can easy combine an SSD (with nearly full upgrades) with 2 Gozanti. And this give you as well 4 activations. This is still a nice number for imperials, and full in the current average. All you lack are the squadrons, that a normal 3-4 imperial activation list has.
The SSD is only 100 points more than an ISD. 100 Points either from squadrons or could be one ship. Because the SSD has a build in Strategic Adviser it is really not this bad.

And anti SSD missions are a bad idea. Because they might be no problem, or even a drawback, against other fleets.
You should NEVER pick your missions depending what your opponent could maybe play (this will not end well). You always pick the missions what is best fitting for your fleet.

20 minutes ago, Tokra said:

You should NEVER pick your missions depending what your opponent could maybe play (this will not end well). You always pick the missions what is best fitting for your fleet.

Not to just be contrary, but it is possible to do both.

There are several fleet architypes seen in Armada. It is entirely possible to have a list that is strong against most, and your objective selection is based on mitigating your disadvantage against a particular list architype you know your list will have issues with.

Essentially you are correct, but I would change your wording only slightly.

" You should NEVER pick your missions depending what your opponent could maybe play (this will not end well), unless you pick the missions what is best fitting for your fleet."

SSD vs contested outpost... Priceless