This is actually more thought out than most that try to make more sense out of the limited game lore, but I have an issue with this. I don't think its fair to compare weapon strength either visually or with the in game DPS numbers. For balance reasons there is no way the beam weapons on a carrier could be equal to that of a battleship, and this could be explained in universe by the battleships obviously having far superior conventional power systems than other capitals.
This may surprise you, but I agree... mostly. It's a game -- balance trumps realism.
That said, capital ships may differ by class, but there's no reason to assume that any given capital ship has a more powerful reactor than another's unless explicitly noted. For example, if you compare the Skirantra Carrier and the Kortul Devastator, these are the numbers you get:
- Wave DPS: 12
- Phase Missile DPS: 6
- Pulse beam DPS: 30
- Wave DPS: 9
- Phase Missile DPS: 12
If you ignore the pulse beams, the Skirantra actually comes out AHEAD in terms of cumulative DPS. So here we have a carrier which does more DPS than a battleship in its forward arc.
Naturally, the devs omitted certain weapons systems on the Skirantra because it's a CARRIER -- its power is intended to be in its strike craft.
That said: all but two of the pulse beams on the Devastator are flank mounted, essentially reducing its frontal DPS from these weapons by 2/3s. So even with these weapons, the Devastator does only 7 more DPS than a Skirantra on a consistent basis. You could even argue that the Skirantra has the advantage here, because more of its DPS is concentrated in phase missiles, which can ignore shield mitigation.
I chose the Halcyon for a comparison for three reasons:
- It has two (four total) plasma beam weapons in a flank firing arc, in much the same way as a Devastator has two (four total) plasma beam weapons in a flank firing arc.
- I argue that plasma beams and pulsed plasma beams are related
- The weapons are roughly comparable in size and power
That said, there is an obvious error: the Halcyon's 20 beam DPS is calculated for TWO weapons -- the Kortul's 30 pulse beam DPS is calculated for THREE weapons. Meaning that plasma beams and pulsed plasma weapons are essentially equal, the primary advantage being that pulsed beams deal their full damage instantaneously, whereas beams must concentrate on their target for a while.
I might offer a different explanation for Advent beam weapons. While I agree they are probably plasma, the unusual uniformity of the beam (compared to the actual plasma weapons of the desdra or the vasari pulse weapons) seems to suggest this is supercold plasma, which could explain their lack of an ionic cloud around them (the other weapons show a little of this even though they must have a containment field, but super cold plasma would presumably be easier to contain).
Rather than cold plasma, I would argue that the Advent are using psitech to augment the plasma beam's containment field.
And on the TEC versus Vasari armor thing, I don't think its wrong to say the TEC have better armor in absolute terms. What the Vasari do better is make better armor for the weight.
What I was trying to say is that the TEC are basically using an extremely advanced form of the materials sciences we use today to make highly resilient alloys and polymers. TEC armor is probably composed of several functional layers, including ablative layers, gas pockets to disperse shocks, meshes to absorb impacts, and crystalline structures to absorb, disperse, or reflect beam weapons. They have reached the point where their armor is about is good as it can get using the techniques they use.
By comparison, the Vasari use a completely DIFFERENT synthesis method: nano-engineering. Being able to basically create "perfect" substances on a molecular level probably results in a vastly different research and development process, since you're basically identifying the most efficient nano-scale structures you can and the growing it en masse around a skeleton. The result is a much more homogenous armor type -- lighter, stronger, and more universally effective than TEC composites, but requiring extensive infrastructure geared towards nano-engineering. By comparison, composite armor is a hodgepodge of different materials and manufacturing techniques, each with different strengths and weakensses. That said, there may be circumstances in which TEC armor actually EXCEEDS the performance of Vasari armor, but overall, I would assume that Vasari armor offers better protection for less weight.
To replicate this achievement, the TEC would basically have to reboot their industrial base and start down an entirely new tech path (nano-engineering), and it would almost certainly take them a while to catch up to the Vasari, who have been doing nano-engineering for a long, LONG time, and perfecting it under fire as they dealt with rebel "valued citizens." Early TEC nano-engineering efforts would probably yield spectacularly inefficient results until they arrived at optimal results. Unfortunately, neither they nor the Vasari have that kind of time. It remains to be seen whether or not Vasari rebels will buy TEC support by selling them nanoengineering techniques to use against the Advent (not without deliberate flaws, of course -- it would never due to have these non-people cruising the stars with Vasari-equivalent hulls, particularly with their industrial base and stubborn refusal to SUBMIT).