The problem, in my optinion and experience, is that all three weapon choices result in practically the same result. Combat resolved in a same way no matter what weapon branch you selected. Only protection and, so lesser measure, tactics chosen. With singular protection, be it shield\HP, or only HP, not only weapon type specialization will play bigger role, but smaller ship types will at last play some role. Rule of the thumb in ES1 was build "biggest ships once available". For example smaller "Missile ships" could be useful as long-range supportm, while more armored capital ships that can close in to the foe could utilize kinetic advantage. That is not possible with hard counter system, sadly.

I was thinking that missiles should also be countered be kinetics but be able to launch from the other side of the system or before a battle starts. That way the most expensive have the capacity to project power without putting themselves in danger, but cheaper fleets can still defend themselves, and take out more expensive missile fleets if they can manage to get close. In this way all three weapon types will change the characteristics of the fleets that use them.

Having 5 weapon and defense types would probably end up resulting in fleets blowing each other up all the time, and Big Space Leadthrowers/Lazors/Technobabble Torpedoes work way better than whatever 5 weapon types you'd have. I think having beams/energy blast weapons and shields power dependant while kinetics and missiles are more expensive does sound interesting, maybe all defenses could be power dependant, because Deflectors would need power too and Flak could just as well be crappy point-defense beams(Flak should also defend against Bombers/Fighters anyway, just makes sense).

Also, what if there were 2 Main Weapon Types, Beams and Kinetics, and you had Missiles and Fighters/Bombers to augment them and maybe only start doing real damage once their shields are depleted or something?



I dunno

Personally, I had no issues with it.

I think adding more weapon types will not solve fundamental problem of a hard counters. It still will be the same random gamble on what AI will take just with slightly less options to retrofit your ships. Anyway you will still end up with hard couters to enemy weapon loadout.

I think one thing which may work wonders is to expand it into a rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, with 5 offensive and defensive options. That makes it less likely to have a slam-dunk happen on either way.

Each weapon/defense system would be optimal against one, pessimal against one, and average against two.



That would make minmaxing a loser's proposition.



Also, one of the defeating stuff in the game is the super-high cost of refitting ships.



It should be possible to have military surplus and repair ships which retool the weapons systems. This way a fleet would be able to adapt itself more easily after a failed encounter. It should still take time and resources, but not as much as the ES1 way, where the player would end up with fleets and fleets which do peewee damage against just the right enemy.



TL;DR: Make the retrofitting system more fluid; cost less and take less time, and possible to do it while the fleet is away from owned systems.

Yeah I don't really like how they balance the weapons, they feel fundamentally similar.



What if lasers and shields were both powered by the ships reactor, the amount of damage dealt and absorbed was based on how much power is diverted to each system (by battle cards). For example an early laser might do 2 damage per mega joule the next level would be 3 per mega joule and the shields also behave in this way. That way you wouldn't have to keep stacking these modules to increase their effect, on the other hand you couldn't do that if you wanted to either. These systems are the easiest way to bring firepower into a fight and they might win you a few battles but if you want more firepower you have to bring more expensive kinetic and missile weapons as well because they aren't constrained by the amount of energy the ship produces.

From the [ES2] GDD 2 - Overview:

SHIP DESIGN



Rationale

The goal is not to expand the time required for ship design, but to make it more interesting and allow for better choices and more personalization. A battle will not be won by ship design, but it will play an important role in the outcome when combined with the ‘play’ tactical system for pre-battle planning.

Seems like that your problem is already addressed

I'd like to throw my voice behind this. I've never liked hard counters in any game, since they are prone to leaving a player with a feeling of "Yup, we're boned" just because he didn't prepare for one specific item in the enemy's arsenal. I much prefer soft counters in which one bonus subtly counteracts another, or one option is simply a more effective defense than another, without completely negating the opponents advantage.

In my experience, hard counters don't allow a lot of flexibility in player choices.