That idea would already be a possible if an order of battle or priority targeting system were to be implemented.

PD systems and armor both serve the same exact function; to keep the ship running longer. beyond that they are mearly aesthetically different.

yes, they are the same thing. not in real life, but certainly in game.
its nice to have differences where they can be afforded. but its simply not feasible here.

who's to say you aren't overcomplicating it?

I highly doubt they would run a unit-total system like that, at best it would run by percentage-takedown.

you're gonna have difficulty making up the credibility.

they serve an identicle function. they serve it in different ways, but its the same function nonetheless.

hm...
I'm having trouble finding where either one of us is being aggressive... a little sarcastic perhaps but...
well if I said anything offensive, I didnt mean it that way

all different means to the same end;
keep the ship alive. anything beyond that is really just fluff. fluff that is nescessary for a decent game, but fluff regardless.

for instance if the kol's flak burst was anti-missile instead, or perhaps the magnetic charge; that would be fine.
but having all cap ships have it and use it continuously would be a strain.

this is the question here.
is the eye candy that a serious PDS-like system would create (not just pretty explosions and dissapearing missiles, seriously tracking counter-weapon weapon platforms) worth the taxing that it would apply to the system?

I would propose to you that it isnt.

By the way, I just read the gamespot's interview with Blair Fraser:







So at least I still have a reason to be happy and hope for

when I crush you in combat, I'll just point out your capital-conservative tactics.

also keep in mind that all of your flak frigs will have this, possibly another type of frigate, maybe even your scouts.

precisely.

not what I said.
I'm not supporting kicking shields and just keeping the hull. what I'm saying is that adding another defensive layer, which we dont need and may very well break the game, is unescessary.

but seriously, the only thing thats actually different from a PDS to a shield is that the shield takes down lasers as well.
a PDS is nothing but an offensive shield using hard ammo, now an energy shield (if energy or some sort of particle) is another offensive shield, but instead using a field of interacting particles/energy to take down the targets.
beyond that there really isnt a difference, reloading bullets, reloading shield energy etc.

I didnt say no difference. I said a no difference in their physical duties. no matter how insane or benign, your shield will do the same thing as the PDS; take down incoming weapons.

neither did I.

flak frigs would serve that duty, that is the point of their guns.

how many of our naval craft are capable of doing that...
none.

now, say I were to go all sorts of easy on your arguement; aircraft. there are maybe 2 aircraft in the world capable of outmanuvering tracking, high speed missiles. there really isnt a way to get the massive-butt scouts to go fast enough to avoid the missiles (unless 1) they PS away or 2) you really slow down the missiles by modding, which is always fun)

unfortunately with the current frigate selection that wont be the case...

currently the shield is universal.
I dont see how weakening the shield only to replace it with a similar system has... well... a point?

also you are leaving the frigates open as hell. what is their defense to be against mechanical weaponry? they dont have PDS to stop missiles (thanks to your explanation) only shields against ion and beam weaponry. that seriously unbalances the game.

keep in mind this game does not focus on ship to ship tactics. its about overall military strategy. if you come into this expecting complex ship-ship interactions, you're going to be dissapointed.

PT boats are not ships.
sorry if I was ambiguous

and no, a light cruiser cannot outurn a torpedo. do you realize how long it takes those ships to turn?
no wait... apparently not. (sorry, had to do that part)

you know what this does?
unbalances the game! gasp!
now bombers will be far too weak, seeing as they wont be able to hit.

except by your logic the frigate will take all 10 hits, where the battleship will only take 3 or 4 (ECM/PDS). now considering that battleships are already far hardier, thats too much.

1) how is having your ships be impervious to a certain type of attack "strategy"
2) no, I dont think it would be cool. quite a bit of this game is spent zoomed out telling your ships what to do. its too much for the system for such little benefit.

your still stuck on ship-ship combat. fleet-fleet combat is what SoaSE focuses on, not on the strategy of ship placement and how your ships shoot down missiles, but how you choose to compose your fleets and where you send your fleets to strike.

what you're asking for is simply infeasible both for system requirements and game mechanic.
heres the issue
p1) you place PDS in, but its too much for the system
a1) reduce the number of ships with PDS to just cap ships
p2) now the cap ships have more defense than is feasible for their balance, they now become even more insanely powerful than they originaly were
a2) you reduce the effectiveness of shielding, removing the anti-physical properties of it (so that such things as siege frigs and bombers actually have some effect)
p3) now frigs are defenseless against said strategy of bombs and siege frigs
a3) place PDS on the frigs

do you see the catch-22 here? if you can succesfuly find some way to break it that doesnt result in another catch-22 I'll congratulate you.

That's a refenrence to why you want to put PDS on a scout.



I'm not talking about battlecruiser or armored cruiser, the modern missile cruiser is faster then you think.




And even if I'm wrong, the destroyer and frigate are still mobile enough to do so, which in turn doesn't say any better about your earlier statement. So tone down the sarcastic will you?



Again, a blow of out proportion thinking. Since when PDS means "Missile immunity"? You said it yourself that in term of perfection Shield is better then PDS because it's a more complete net, now in order to support your argument you make it sounds like a PDS is a perfect net. You know, PDS, unlike shield, has holes. But again, I think you know that, but right now it's not as favorable to your "balance argument" as it was to your "shield vs PDS" argument so I guess PDS == missile immunity now.






Oh yes, that's exactly how it is. I already said a battleship is, a battleship in term of fire power, defense, functionality, acquisitions. Imbalance? Of course! A balance doesn't exist between a battleship and a frig because such thing doesn't exist! The only virtual balance is the number between them, whether there are several dozen of frigs but there is only one or two battleship. And if the game economy and structure allow player to have as many battleship as frig then no, the problem is not with the ship, but with the system. A battleship is a battleship, is a battleship and is a battleship. A frigate is a frigate, is a frigate, and is a frigate. They don't have a balance. The reason a battleship only take 3 or 4 hits because it should take me a much longer time, and much more resource to build one! That's where the balance is, and where the balance end. A battleship should be more then just an oversize frigate!







1) Impervious, no since PDS is not 100% effective. Harder, yes? Strategy, how about now you have to come up with better plan to take down those monsters?

2) Another blow out of proportion statement? Surely something like a "Fighter Screen", "Capital Phalanx" formation is not too much to do? Surely you don't want a battle without any orientation where ships just roll into each others like street brawling?






p1) not if it's done right, without an "out of proportion implementation"
a1) for good reasons that I explained a few times.
p2) Yes, because they're supposed to be insanely powerful to begin with. I would rather have 5 battleships that actually feel like they're battleship, rather then 20 battleships when they actually feel just like oversize frigates.
a2) this make me wonder if you give my post enough attention before you replied

And you even quoted that, did you read what you quote? *I never said anything about remove or reduce shield functionality.
p3) And I ask again, did you read what I post before making your response?

And since I never said to remove impact base defense from shield, so yes it still has defense against missiles, *just not as much as battleship*. And thus ... leading to
a3) There is no need for PDS on frig.





No, see above ^. Over half of your analysis pattern completely missed my point due to the fact that you didn't seem to even read them, there is no catch-22 in my logic, just one that you created.

You know, I don't think it's worth it any more. We don't agree but at least we can still respect and make an afford to stay constructive. But it seems you just want to mix, bend, and ignore argument just so they work in your favor, and your over sarcastic tone offer little constructive criticism. No bragging, but at least I make the afford to come up and defense my argument (be it wrong or right). So I think this is where the debate between you and me should end since I don't find it necessary to pursuit an argument with unhealthy attitudes. Everything are mutual.

lets have a discussion not a fight

and still, a torpedo runs by a propeller. missiles run by pure rocketry.

almost nothing can outrun a missile, excluding as I said before, a few aircraft.