Energy weapons are the best weapons?

[Esteban Whinniesmore]

I always try to balance out energy anti armor weapons (like neutron torpedos) with kinetic anti shield weapons (like kinetic artillery). But then it hit me- why should i do that? NP do less damage to shields but more damage to armor- if the enemy have somewhat equal destribution of those (it almost always does) it does not matter. NP only fleet will be just as effective as mixed weapons fleet- destroying shields will take more time but destroying armor will take less time, it all evens out.

Why specifically energy weapons? In all my games psysics was the first type of reseach that gets to repeatable tech. That leads towards energy weapons always having more repeatables reseached then kinetic. So why not use energy weapons only? Engeneering repeatables can be defence stations/armor/minerals instead.

You may argue however- "Esteban, what if unbidden comes? They have high shields and no armor." Good question, imaginary voice in my head. First- i reached end game years (2400+) three times and galaxy wide invasion never happened. And if it does happens- you have disruptors, cloud lighting and arc emitter. These are energy weapons too and they completly ignore shields.

Plasma is obviously an exception however- it does too little damage to shields. 25% instead of 50%.

[Sabaithal]

Well its more of the case of "use the kinetics to bring down shields, the the ones using energy weapons kill the armor". All-strength no-weakness is the general idea.

[Danny]

Torpedo corvettes with autocannon.
Torpedoes deal with the armour and autocannon deals with shields.
When shields are gone torpedoes should have finished armour too.
They both can work on the hull.

That's until the enemy has PD in any decent number.


You could also have PD corvettes, PD-Autocanon-Plasma/Laser.
Not as effective, but will keep your bigger ships save from enemy missiles.
Haven't tried this one myself though, I just go on theory here, but seems a good all rounder.
And you can have a few artillery battleships behind those corvettes.

[Thunderchief]

Just started playing again after 1.5 years and can't remember.

Is there anything bad about disruptors? It seems like if your close range ships have them then they are bypassing shields and armor and damaging the hull directly

[Esteban Whinniesmore]

Originally posted by Thunderchief:

Is there anything bad about disruptors?

Disruptors are bad if the enemy have only hull or low amounts of shields/armor compared to hull.

Disruptors are bad if you mix them with weapons that dont ignore shields or armor.

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by Esteban Failsmore:

Originally posted by Thunderchief:

Is there anything bad about disruptors?

Disruptors are bad if the enemy have only hull or low amounts of shields/armor compared to hull.

Disruptors are bad if you mix them with weapons that dont ignore shields or armor.

To expand on this, disrupters have lower DPS than kinetics or energy weapons, to compensate for the fact that they bypass shields and armor. Anything with high hull points will be difficult to kill with disruptors alone. More often than not you would be doing more DPS with a mix of the right kinetics and energy.

[CaptainSpacetime]

Disruptors you have to go all in and go 100% shield/armor bypassing weapons.

[Kitten Food]

I prefer energy class weapons just because they deal raw damage once you get rid of shields. Kinetic doesn't do this and Explosives can be bypassed pretty easily with PD and 'filler ships'. Since armor and hull (esp hull) is what carries most of the crisis/fallen/guardian ships, that is what I focus on taking out. Shields are secondary.

While Kinetic is better overall for taking down shields, we now have Null Void beams.
These are not as effective as Kinetic at base power, but they do synergize well and allow you to focus on Energy Damage repeatable techs, giving your whole fleet increased performance all at the same time.

When I start building my fleets that will last all game, I go for 2 destroyer escorts per battleship. I build one battleship that is entirely Null Void beams for every 4 proton torp battleships. I have never met a fleet that can win against mine even when fleet power of the enemy is higher.

[Esteban Whinniesmore]

Originally posted by Kitten Food:

I build one battleship that is entirely Null Void beams for every 4 proton torp battleships.

Butt null beam has much shorter range. By the time null beam ships get into range- many shields will be destroyed by neutrons.

[Kitten Food]

Originally posted by Esteban Failsmore:

Originally posted by Kitten Food:

I build one battleship that is entirely Null Void beams for every 4 proton torp battleships.

Butt null beam has much shorter range. By the time null beam ships get into range- many shields will be destroyed by neutrons.

Just 10 range difference. That is nothing at all. Especially when taking out FE starbases and battleships.

[SievertChaser]

I’ve made similar observations, OP.

And a problem with 2.2.x is that you can no longer slant your empire towards a certain research type outside of the Natural X traits.

So here’s a mad proposal for the devs: move basic kinetics to Physics.

[Esteban Whinniesmore]

Originally posted by dennis.danilov:

I’ve made similar observations, OP.

And a problem with 2.2.x is that you can no longer slant your empire towards a certain research type outside of the Natural X traits.

So here’s a mad proposal for the devs: move basic kinetics to Physics.

I had a stupid idea once- create an empire wich is obsessed with engeneering reseach. Every single lab is engeneering lab. Amass a stupid amount of engeneering reseach and become engeneering GOD with god tier armor and kinetic slug throwers, while barely understanding how anything else works. Sadly cant do this anymore(

In the current system distinction on three reseach resources does not makes any sence. They should just mesh it all together in "science".

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by Esteban Failsmore:

Originally posted by Kitten Food:

I build one battleship that is entirely Null Void beams for every 4 proton torp battleships.

Butt null beam has much shorter range. By the time null beam ships get into range- many shields will be destroyed by neutrons.

Null void beams vs Kinetic Artillery. The latter is usually more effective at taking down shields, if you can equip it.

[Esteban Whinniesmore]

Originally posted by Sabaithal:

Originally posted by Esteban Failsmore:

Butt null beam has much shorter range. By the time null beam ships get into range- many shields will be destroyed by neutrons.

Null void beams vs Kinetic Artillery. The latter is usually more effective at taking down shields, if you can equip it.

Kinetic Artillery is kinetic. Whole point of this thread is that you can get away with energy weapons only.

[Belhedler]

Good question. I would ask why mix kinetic and energy? Mostly to get down to damaging the hull as soon as possible and thus reducing the opponent's retaliation as its effectiveness is reduced by half the damage taken to the hull up to 50% when hull reaches 0.

[Sabaithal]

Originally posted by Belhedler:

Good question. I would ask why mix kinetic and energy? Mostly to get down to damaging the hull as soon as possible and thus reducing the opponent's retaliation as its effectiveness is reduced by half the damage taken to the hull up to 50% when hull reaches 0.

You have to factor in specialized weaponry. Kinetic artillery and Neutron torpedos do more raw damage than any other weapon in their field with the exception of XL weapons. However to compensate for their raw power, they can only be equipped to L-sized slots, and they have less effectiveness versus higher evasions scores (neutrons are actually less effective against corvettes than gamma lasers).

However against larger targets, a combined assault of XL weapons with either kinetic artillery and/or Neutron torpedos will often do more damage versus most classes of ships than just using disruptors + arc emitters.