I think some recently adjusted fighter need to be nerfed a bit. Especially Hegemony's craft equipped with a light rail gun that can steamroll event the most expensive high tech craft and the ability to flame the heck out of high tech ships that now have a hole in the rear for some reason with no armor to support the exposed engine. Most high-tech crafts with non 360' need 360' shield to make it work properly only half frontal shield is not enough no matter how strong the shield is and it should improve CPU consumption a bit if it doesn't have to rotate the shield. And it should be fairer as low-tech craft's armor protects the entire hull from every angle. For example a Flash bomber with hefty shield value, the moment it went over the enemy ship it exposes it non-shielded rear that has no armor and will pop in a few hit with no chance of surviving. So it becomes pretty useless if you can't already overwhelm the enemy ship to the point that it can't retaliate.
I will try to do another spreadsheet if you agree on another adjustment pass.
I'll try to explain my reasoning with these things:
Wing vs ship:
High tech ships were far too immune to weapons like the Reality Disruptor and missiles with EMP arcs (including kinetic missiles with Ionized Warheads) with base 360 degree shields. This also serves to give a bit of a counter to their hit and run tactics for the player. However, that change should be completely mitigated by using Extended Shields - which previously had no use on high tech ships at all. Or, alternatively, Insulated Engines can help at least keep the engines running alongside Automated Repair Unit. Both of those were also previously unused on high tech ships (or at least I never considered them - which was a concern for me). Interdiction missiles and fighters alike were completely useless as well. Also, consider that Armored Weapon Mounts and Heavy Armor are flat increases now. That makes them more valuable on low-armor high tech ships wanting to prevent rear damage. So I think there are a lot of avenues to counteract the new weakness, if that makes sense. This might be a bit of an OP tax, but it doesn't
have to be if one is willing to weigh the risks. To me this is the hallmark of good design. Build choices should be difficult and sometimes you will regret them when things go wrong with the choice you made.
I think it overall opens up some significant gameplay and build options when facing high tech factions. Some ships still keep 360 degree shields in the next update though - such as the Astral which already can't kite well and so it is less necessary. I *think* also the Megalith since it is slow enough that you'd never need to bring down its engines. That and good shields are kind of its signature thing since the large weapon mounts are placed so far back on the hull which sort of limits its potential weapon options. At first it was a blanket change, and as I tested things I thought "nah not necessary for this ship" in a few cases for the next update, iirc.
Wing vs wing:
I honestly think Hegemony wings needed the boost a bit. I saw no reason to use them considering their higher OP than low tech yet same survivability as low tech. Yes, they dealt decent damage to shields - but they were very squishy compared to high tech wings and were pretty poor against most craft except the shielded ones. High tech wings still deal a lot more damage overall too. If high tech interceptors are lacking, then I can possibly buff their weapons. With their rapid replacement rate though I'm not sure if its really needed - especially after Wasp's mine buff/bug fix (not sure if that is in the current update or not but it will be a noticeable thing if it is). Similarly, the Talon (T) has better missiles (as does all craft that use anti-fighter missiles) and anything with Burst PD Beams or Smokescreen Rockets should wreck other wings regardless of armor considering I increased the wing vs wing damage modifier to 5X base damage and both of those weapons have pinpoint accuracy. So as a result, I am assuming you are strictly talking about the bombers and gunships here. Let me know if not though!
That said, by all means give me your thoughts and a spreadsheet is definitely a valuable way to do that. I'll do some tests and consider changes based upon what I read. Specific test parameters would also be great as supporting evidence. Keep in mind I kind of want to have high tech be a little less survivable than low tech stuff as a trade off for the damage. It does mean that it will feel bad if their runs are stopped since there is more down time for the carrier between them. The thing is, when they
do succeed most ships outside of a capital are just dead in the
water space if there are any nearby warships to capitalize on the strike - which has more reliability if not more range than LRMs. Even capitals take a lot of damage in that circumstance. Obviously this varies from wing to wing though.
Also, I am still on the fence as to the best way to implement Deflector Shell. I'm tossing around a longer cooldown, less damage reduction while active, and limited charges as the different levers for a good balance. It seems really strong right now and was kind of implemented that way on purpose so that I can tweak it down as needed. It is meant as a way to deliberately differentiate low tech from midline in a noticeable way. Hegemony is technically more midline with a low tech style flavor - so they get Deflector Shell and more advanced weapons just like the Persean League. Luddic Church/Path on the other hand, are roughly the same OP with a more low tech style/flavor - and as such they deal a bit more damage than low tech stuff and simultaneously replace a bit faster than either of the previously mentioned factions.
Hopefully this makes sense, and if this is not what you are experiencing definitely let me know. Build info is also useful - since the update has of course changed things up. For instance, in the linked builds by numerous people over the last couple of years I've noticed a tendency to ignore rear weapon slots. That probably isn't a solid idea anymore, at least not on every build - which to me is great!
TLDR: I'm
definitely open to it, but the more specific the details as to why this is that way, etc, etc, the more likely there will be changes because time is a factor and I've already spent a lot of time testing this stuff out. Of course, I'm certainly not perfect and may have missed things. There are a crazy amount of potential scenarios to test after all, and I'm just a single person. That's why all of the feedback responses are so valuable.