OA vs Shields

[Taera]

Dont wanna hijack the thread... about OA vs Shields issue, the main point is that there is a Shield Depleter and Shield Distruptor, when there is no such thing to counter armor. Besides, shields take up supplies to regenerate - armor only takes up repair, and thats not a problem in a solid fleet.

[oleg]

shard cannon ? engine killers ?

[Taera]

shard cannons hurt. engine killes... get some shields, whoever goes in with OA only? ^_^

[Fyron]

The point is that you don't get a chance for the regeneration to occur in most situations...

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Puke:
yes, high level phased shields might give a bit more strength than organic armor, but when you can have twice as many ships with the organics... with high tech levels you can have your cake and eat it too, but starting with lower levels or when rushed for construction, you have to prioritize.

I did say higher level shields, not lower level.

OA III: 5 hp/kT
PSG V: 10.375 hp/kT (don't forget the structure of the comp itself)

Twice as much raw defensive strength.

Shield Disruptors are at best equal in strength to Shield Depleters (they both take out roughly the same amount of shield points, and Shield Regenerators are a joke for most uses).

[Puke]

except in some mods, shield regenerators are a total joke. pre-regeneration helped alot for OA, but i believe that it has been patched out.

here are the advantages that i see for each option:

advantages to org. armor: effective against mines, effective for ramming (ramming sats can be ALOT easier than shooting them down), self repairing, can potentially allow you to build ships in half the time, doubling both your hitpoints AND firepower, invulnerable to shield killing weapons, less effected by TDB.

advantages to shields: twice as many hit points, protects against engine killers, protects against boarding parties, protects against shard cannons, no need for repairs if shields are not breached