I really don't understand what you mean. You bring up that you can't use full caps on every planet, yet imply that for energy costs it is the same as MK I turrets. You say energy is the limiter, yet that in of itself doesn't favor chokepoints.
<...>
It is inherently preferring choke points.
What I was trying to do was put numbers to resource cost, energy useage, and damage. Where a 4-cap of turrets is as powerful as a Fortress Mk II, it costs twice the M+C and half the Energy. Energy being the ongoing cost, this is a net benefit.
On a per-turret basis, Core Turrets currently cost the same energy as a base Mk I turret of the same type. A Mk I Needler is 200 energy, a Mk V Needler is 200 energy. Lightning Turrets are 800 Energy, Mk I or Mk V. But, because Core Turrets are per-planet cap and you are expected to build on multiple planets, the Energy cost is important to re-balance for the expected use, rather than re-using the Energy value that comes from the hard cap of the Mk I turret.
If you notice, I DO agree that the Core Turrets are perhaps too expensive right now. I just think the Energy cost is more important than the M+C.
Finally, I agree with Faulty:
They don't at their core though: Because they still favor chokepoints.
The controllers are more effective the more systems experience combat. No-choke means that more systems experience combat. So while the the controllers do benefit choke games, they benefit non-choke more.
Core Turrets provide relatively little gain to your chokepoint. However, they provide a MASSIVE relative boost in defensive power for your other protectables. ASC, FacIV, Fabs, etc, can be protected from casual combat easily, WITHOUT the necessity of making sure that every single capturable is behind your chokepoint.
On a Snake, Maze, X, or other Choke-point-heavy maps, you can easily go forth finding little use for Core Turrets. On Simple, or any other more connected map type, the Core Turrets will allow you to build protection without being forced to capture unwanted systems just to protect the few you DO want. On Highly-connected maps, like Crosshatch, Realistic, or Wheel, playing with a Chokepoint is almost impossible, and the Core Turrets give you a chance of actually keeping you systems alive.
Chokepoints being better than non-choke even in the presence of controllers does not mean that controllers benefit chokepoints.
If your energy is limited, then chokepoints are better. Even if energy is not strictly limitted, excess energy provides a buffer. Hence, chokepoints.
It it trivial to point out that as long as you have even 1 unit of any type that does not have a per-planet cap, chokepointing will be better. But, as Faulty and I have pointed out that while Core Turrets provide a gain to choke-points, they provide relatively more gain to non-chokepoint worlds. This makes the non-choke systems more survivable, and non-choke strategies/maps more playable at higher difficulties. I think this is a good thing.
What would you prefer to happen with Core Turrets, if you don't like them as is?
