So, I take it that means that in-combat regeneration is 1/5th, meaning when it says 10% it actually means 2% per day? That's a much more reasonable number.
(As an aside, this is one of Stellaris' many (miserable) discoverability problems: Stellaris uses an 'x% modifier' to mean
completely different things, all over the place. There's no firm consistency on how the modifiers work, nor how the UI presents them, and good luck figuring it out as a player unless the wiki custodians happened to dig out the details for you (and you know where to look on the wiki to find that).
For example, sometimes +x% means addition. Sometimes it means multiplication. Sometimes it means that it applies to the *base* value of an attribute in question (discounting any other modifiers), sometimes it means that it applies to the total cumulative value of an attribute in question.)
Back on topic, I haven't experimented in combat yet with all the new technologies. I worry a bit that there's a (massive) MMO-like "power creep" going on here with this expansion, though, especially with the buildings, where these have severely distorting effects on gameplay.
Some of the ship components seem to be a bit similar, but I haven't yet, as mentioned, gotten to the point to trying them all out. The ancient nano-missiles, for example, are completely penetrating (with a bonus to hull)
and they have basically the same fire rate as PD. I'd gotten to the point the other day of changing out the standard 6 disruptors on my typical Torpedo Cruisers with 3 disruptors and 3 of the ancient nano-missile, but I haven't had a chance to try them in a real combat situation yet. But each of those firing at the same rate as PD - that's an awful lot of PD saturation to provide more "air cover" for your Torpedoes that seems like it could be worrisomely distorting to whether it's even possible to protect your capital ships from torpedoes anymore... I'll have to see whether it actually turns out to work in practice or not, though.
(I'd have considered putting them on my standard PD destroyers too for the not-very-useful S-slot, except destroyers get, well, destroyed, all the time, and that's a huge tax of Minor Artifacts down the drain continuously to replace them.)
Edit: One other observation is that Minor Artifacts ship components seem to have a few possible knock-on consequences :
1) First they lean in with yet more enthusiasm towards the (rather unpleasantly configured) disengagement mechanics. Because Minor Artifacts are a fairly supply-constrained resource (yet with low maximum resource cap?) in comparison to e.g. Alloys which you can get more of - it's just expensive - there's more incentive for ships to prefer disengagement as that means that one's Minor Artifacts aren't depleted building replacement ships.
2) For similar reasons, it seems like it's probably inadvisable to put a lot of Minor Artifact ship components on smaller ships, because these get destroyed all the time, and that's going to be a huge drain on resources to keep replacing. So that's Cruisers, Battleships, and above.
While the thread mostly talked about *ship* components, the Zroni Storm Caster seemed similarly incredibly power creep-ified as well on the defense side. Forget the pulsar shield negation; is it now the case that any system that's *either* an ionized nebula *or* a neutron star can get that 90% sublight speed reduction, that makes wiping out the Autocannon-heavy-fleets that the AI is so (inappropriately) fond of very, very trivial, with the Storm Caster deployed? I haven't gotten to see it yet, but, yikes; I'm not really sure what the balance design points were here beyond "stir vigorously"...
.png){kind=avatar}
