OK, that test is easy to do. Start a Battle of the Gods scenario.
Attack Ship has 3 hyperwarp3s, 14 blackhole eruptors, and one aereon defense to fill leftover space. Huge hull, 299/300 space. Cost 3120.
Total stats: 388 attack and 18 defense. (that's after I give it to the Altarians, it was only 353 attack, 12 defense for me)
Defense Ship has 3 hyperwarp3s, 4 blackhole eruptors, and 21 aereon defenses. Huge hull, 299/300 space. Cost 4320.
Total stats: 101 attack, 264 defense.
I fought this battle 5 times, and the defense ship always won.
ok, do the same test but use say 5 ships and see what happens?
For what it's worth, in the five on five, the attack ships win. I already mentioned that offense can ultimately outpace defense, and nullspace already admitted that at the end point defense is no longer useful.
I'm not arguing that defense is overpowered or that it's always useful. Using defense is bad in some situations, for example, it's hopeless against the ultimate fleet in Wyndstar's screenshot. Bit it's very powerful when you can do ShipDefense >= FleetAttack/2, which happens when your hull size and defense are better than your enemy's weapons and logistics.
How fast you get to endgame weapons and fleets depends a lot on galaxy size, tech speed and the number of planets out there. There is a large area in the middle game where if you manage to outpace the enemy, you can make defensive ships that are worthwhile, at least for a short time (but come on, how long does any war take?)
I'm happy for the people that get defense to work for them. Overall, offense is the way to go these days, and I dislike that because my games have become much less interesting. I ignore what weapons/defense the AI uses, and I have not suffered since I noticed the cost imbalance in DA. This is a problem, because if even on the highest difficulty level a player is able to ignore weapon types and defense, then a lot of depth has been removed from the game. If I give the AI the best defense against the weapons I use, that should slow ME down, not them (which it currently does).
Thinking about it, maybe changing the 1hp rule would be a good way to take exp away from offense, which has many advantages at this point. I like defense, and I'm very happy the devs have agreed to look at it. I hope the defense modules come out a lot cheaper - even endgame that could change the cost/benefit analysis to bring defense back to being useful almost always.
I have gotten defense to work in DA (using the Krynn mostly) - but it is very difficult. It is almost artwork to craft a successful situation and ship where the price is justified. For instance - trade all of your enemies beam weapons that are higher than they have researched in the first year... knowing this will make the AI switch weapon tracks. THEN research shields with large hulls, and you will do pretty well.
Ancedotes and stories about specific situations only carry so much weight. Part of the current problem is that the "uselessness" of mid range defense really hurts the AI - that is the kind of defense it always uses. I included specific fleets and descriptions of games I have played not to show how clever I am, but because I strongly believe that vis a vis the AI, the new value of defense becomes a systemic disadvantage for my opponents always.
I'm very curious to see how this is re-balanced in the first real patch (and yay, we will finally get research treaties that work!)