The current defense platform, for reference, has 1000 Hull and takes four months to build, at a cost of 60 Alloys. With no disengagement or evasion. Defense Platform sections are monotype exclusively, offering four S equivalent slots, and each Defense Platform has two slots. In comparison to the Destroyer, it has 200 more Hull and superior weapon slots overall, with an advantage of about 120% more utility slot durability from being Medium instead of Small slots, as well as an extra Utility slot. Meanwhile, the Destroyer can move, has the best disengagement chance, and has 35% base Evasion, as well as more versatility in weapon slots. In terms of cost, they have the same cost, in both time and Alloy.
I'd suspect that they could have 2000 base hull (or perhaps disproportionate hull improvements, starting at 1200 and upgrading to 2200, somewhere in the ballpark of these numbers) and remain able to be dealt with due to their limited numbers in a given system and lack of recovery, with sections being unlocked as the game goes on. The start-of-game sections being shifted to perhaps 5S/1A utility slots, containing Small and Point Defense dedicated sections, as well as a single-G section, while the midgame sections would shift to 3M/1A utility slots and Medium and Heavy dedicated slots, as well as the solely missile section. Then you get the endgame sections, carrying 2L/2A utility slots, with the X-size and Hanger weapons being present.
And yes, they'd take the same time and base Alloys to build, regardless of section. You're losing them every time a serious fight breaks out, and they're static, so they can afford to escalate cost and time effectiveness quite immensely because you're burning those things by the dozen. Also, for reference, the only things able to one-shot the 2k Hull platforms are X-class weapons and Perdition Beams. At the end, they would basically be two-thirds of a Battleship. The goal, here, is to delay while inflicting noteworthy damage, or turning the tide of a battle with a friendly fleet for them to support. Cost efficiency is the name of the game, and having defenses be extremely cost effective does a lot to discourage war reliance.
---
Personally, when it comes to counters, I'd prefer them to be matters of tech types being fielded instead of classes countering eachother in general. Roughly balanced monofleets, but mixed fleet value being very imbalanced and generally quite superior to monofleets. The role of ship types should be based on their cost-effectiveness, making mixed fleets optimal by making ships deliberately unable to be optimal in cost-effectiveness as monofleets. Corvettes being very good for niches like point defense and missile damage, Destroyers having the best damage by cost rate, Cruisers being really good for soaking damage for their cost, Battleships being less effective at any particular thing but making up for it by being more cost-effective than the equivalent stats in other ships, as well as deeper dynamics with regards to preserving damage for long periods or immediately removing a couple important targets.
Of course, if you've had a large tech lead the whole game because you went tall, you could get away with replacing your Cruisers with Battleships and rely on very quickly crushing the enemy's primary fleet before sending in Destroyer fleets to run over their stations and seriously hamper their ability to recover. Similarly, if you have a large economy lead, you could rush out a large number of Destroyer fleets to run over the enemy with mass firepower they can't keep up with your production of. There'd be checks and balances built into the tech-based counters, such as the former specializing in Kenetics being stonewalled by armored ships, while conversely being very vulnerable to a Bastion with the weapons to counter their defenses gutting their hard-to-replace fleet.
.png){kind=avatar}
