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 distribution 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 physics was the first type of research that gets to repeatable tech. That leads towards energy weapons always having more repeatable researched then kinetic. So why not use energy weapons only? Engineering repeatable can be defence stations/armor/minerals instead.
You may argue however- “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 completely ignore shields.
Plasma is obviously an exception however – it does too little damage to shields. 25% instead of 50%.
Original Link – Continuation of discussion