[FEEDBACK]New Paranid Carrier can only carry 16 fighters? - WAI.

[Ragnos28]

Now with that said, I do agree with Axeface. Like, how often do you see the AI field 24 fighters in a single battle group?
Imo what X4 really needs is less ships flying around but with heavier calculations for the AI.

Well...that's the beauty of X4..the player can do whatever the hell he wants...because is not an AI. There is no reason for which I should copy in detailed the tactics the AI uses and not try to develop and use my own.

[Ragnos28]

It's 8+16 right? So 24 total?
My issue with it is generally that I want a certain mass of fighters for OOS fights to reduce losses. More fighters -> Quicker kills -> Less damage.

I want a certain mass of fighters, IS, so I can do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccNBsTc8hzo&t=113s

[mr.WHO]

The small internal storage bothers me, but since there is no jumpdrives, there isn't much of a point to have big internal storage in a first place.

Are dammage fighters repaired only when sitting on the landing pad, or in internal storage as well?

[Ragnos28]

The small internal storage bothers me, but since there is no jumpdrives, there isn't much of a point to have big internal storage in a first place.

Are dammage fighters repaired only when sitting on the landing pad, or in internal storage as well?

I believe in 5.00, the isue of fighters not being repaired when sitting on the landing pad (those that exceed S ships capacity), will be addressed. In internal storage they are always repaired, to my knowledge.

[Raptor34]

Now with that said, I do agree with Axeface. Like, how often do you see the AI field 24 fighters in a single battle group?
Imo what X4 really needs is less ships flying around but with heavier calculations for the AI.

Well...that's the beauty of X4..the player can do whatever the hell he wants...because is not an AI. There is no reason for which I should copy in detailed the tactics the AI uses and not try to develop and use my own.

I don't think there is much tactics involved in just drowning the AI with numbers.
And it's not like you cannot still do that.

[GCU Grey Area]

To provide a sense of scale, Zeus E with a Paranid fighter parked just above one of the fast launch tubes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3lfdz0wg8ykn4 ... 1.jpg?dl=0 & https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdy1pm6oujmfr ... 1.jpg?dl=0
Not hard to see there's plenty of room for many more behind it & there are 10 of those launch tubes. It's clear that the reduction in the fighter complement for the Zeus E has nothing to do with realism. Indeed one of the devs already stated in this thread it's all to do with rapid recovery of fighters. However shouldn't that be something for each player to decide for themselves? With the upper limit being constrained instead by the physical size of the carrier & likely internal volume used for fighter storage. It's remarkably easy to not use the full capacity of a carrier if you don't want to (in my Split games none of my Raptors were ever more than about half full).

[Ragnos28]

I don't think there is much tactics involved in just drowning the AI with numbers.
And it's not like you cannot still do that.

Well, in carrier based combat, drowing the oposition in numbers is a good tactic, that is why the US navy for example, make it a point that their carriers can launch more "birds" in the air (80 fighters) that any other nations carriers, also US navy has "the total combined deck space over twice that of all other nations combined" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

And yes, I can still do that...but when I see opinions like...carriers need rebalance, they should should all carry about 20 fighters...
I don't think there was/will be a carrier commander that says...gee, I hope my ship can carry fewer fighters, that would be so awesome

[S!rAssassin]

Yeah, because in RL fighters are not bombers as well...wait, they are...oh well. Propeller planes in ww2 were fighters and bombers, modern jet planes are fighters and bombers, space fighters will most likely be the same..why?

Cause in RL small planes do not carry 20 heavy torpedoes. They carry 1 or 2. Bigger planes (X4 M-size) can carry more. So...

S ships task suppose to be intercept bombers (not being the bomber)

Now M-ships are useless for carrier. If only M-class can carry torpedoes, then makes sense to use them.

[Ragnos28]

It's clear that the reduction in the fighter complement for the Zeus E has nothing to do with realism. Indeed one of the devs already stated in this thread it's all to do with rapid recovery of fighters. However shouldn't that be something for each player to decide for themselves? With the upper limit being constrained instead by the physical size of the carrier & likely internal volume used for fighter storage. It's remarkably easy to not use the full capacity of a carrier if you don't want to (in my Split games none of my Raptors were ever more than about half full).

Exactly, the devs take, from what I can gather, is that the Zeus E would be a fast response carrier, but like I said, the increase speed of a carrier is ierelevant, because fighters with their instant travel drive time, will always be faster that the carrier, just like RL fighters were/are much faster that the carrier.
And yes, let the player chose....don't come with...I don't use carriers so screw everyone else.

[Ragnos28]

Cause in RL small planes do not carry 20 heavy torpedoes. They carry 1 or 2. Bigger planes (X4 M-size) can carry more. So...

That is true, but in X4, S ships don't have the scale of small fighters, they are freaking huge.

Now M-ships are useless for carrier. If only M-class can carry torpedoes, then makes sense to use them.

Yes, but torpedo boats don't keep their distance, so you can't use them properly. Atm, the only platform that can fire torpedoes with a decent survival rate, are S ships.

[S!rAssassin]

Yes, but torpedo boats don't keep their distance, so you can't use them properly. Atm, the only platform that can fire torpedoes with a decent survival rate, are S ships.

Mind, M-ships attacks not main weapons only, like S, but trying to attack with turrets also. And commence suicide...
Patching required

[Ragnos28]

Cause in RL small planes do not carry 20 heavy torpedoes. They carry 1 or 2. Bigger planes (X4 M-size) can carry more. So...

Also, modern fighters don't bother with torpedoes, F16 for example can fire anti ship Harpoon missile, with the largest one having a warhead of 360 kg and F16 being able to carry 2 of those bad boys

[Raptor34]

To provide a sense of scale, Zeus E with a Paranid fighter parked just above one of the fast launch tubes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3lfdz0wg8ykn4 ... 1.jpg?dl=0 & https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdy1pm6oujmfr ... 1.jpg?dl=0
Not hard to see there's plenty of room for many more behind it & there are 10 of those launch tubes. It's clear that the reduction in the fighter complement for the Zeus E has nothing to do with realism. Indeed one of the devs already stated in this thread it's all to do with rapid recovery of fighters. However shouldn't that be something for each player to decide for themselves? With the upper limit being constrained instead by the physical size of the carrier & likely internal volume used for fighter storage. It's remarkably easy to not use the full capacity of a carrier if you don't want to (in my Split games none of my Raptors were ever more than about half full).

Aren't they still keeping the old carriers?
So you already have a choice. Not like they are taking those away.

[Ragnos28]

Aren't they still keeping the old carriers?
So you already have a choice. Not like they are taking those away.

There is a post, more lines up, that says that what happen to the Zeus E should happen to all carriers in the game...rebalance and all that...from someone that admits that he don't use carriers anyway, so he thinks nobody should.

[GCU Grey Area]

Aren't they still keeping the old carriers?
So you already have a choice. Not like they are taking those away.

Great, so if I want a proper carrier for a Paranid fleet I have to use the ugly old one (which incidentally is a hell of a lot smaller than the new one). It's not that I don't want fighter capacities rebalanced. Indeed would very much like to see a rebalance of fighter capacity for all existing capitals in line with what's been done with the other Paranid capital ships. It's simply that I think fighter storage for the new Zeus has been cut back too far by using the same ratio (i.e. 2 in storage for every dock) as that applied to non-carriers. I'm absolutely fine with the new Odysseus only having storage for 4x S & 2x M ships. Consider that a sensible number & think the other destroyers etc should be adjusted accordingly. However for a carrier, a ship which has the primary function of fighter transport/deployment, internal storage for 16 fighters simply isn't good enough.

[Slashman]

So I think the main issue is that folks were expecting that destroyers would get a rebalance to limit the ridiculous number of fighters they carry. That is fair and good. I personally think it should be averaging around 4 plus an M ship at the most.

The contention comes when we see the Paranid carrier getting adjusted to 16 fighters. People think this is terrible (with some hyperbole thrown in because its the internet). What I'd first like to know is how many fighters the other carriers get rebalanced to. Does this rebalance come with a price change as well and are other things being planned to make this not have a large impact on fighter combat?

And if this is a complete rebalance of all ship capacities in the game, maybe we should wait and see what they have in mind before we get all hot under the collar and start throwing things at Egosoft.

[Axeface]

And if this is a complete rebalance of all ship capacities in the game, maybe we should wait and see what they have in mind before we get all hot under the collar and start throwing things at Egosoft.

This.

Aren't they still keeping the old carriers?
So you already have a choice. Not like they are taking those away.

There is a post, more lines up, that says that what happen to the Zeus E should happen to all carriers in the game...rebalance and all that...from someone that admits that he don't use carriers anyway, so he thinks nobody should.

Perhaps I didnt explain myself properly. I didnt say that all carriers should get exactly the same treatment as the Zeus E, that would result is zero variety which is the opposite of what im obviously asking for...... I said the rest of the game should be rebalanced around this new paradigm of balance and variety.... I didnt say the colossus shouldnt have 40 S capacity (although Ide prefer if it was reduced to some degree to make it functional), I said I want variety and I also appreciate the other benefits that an overall reduction (for all freighters and destroyers) and reshuffle (for carriers) in capacity affords.

[GCU Grey Area]

I didnt say the colossus shouldnt have 40 S capacity (although Ide prefer if it was reduced to some degree to make it functional...

I'm curious, why do you consider Colossus a non-functional carrier because it can carry 40 fighters?
Worked perfectly fine for me during my Argon game, even with a full complement of fighters.

[jlehtone]

Having a bigger gun is no advantage if one does not use it. What is the Order of Battle of the NPC factions? How many ships do they have and how do they use them? Does that match both the ship capabilities and the enemies that they must face?

In other words, will Zeus E give Paranid an advantage that the old Zeus did not? Does the old Zeus ever have over 24 fighters? If not, then only player is affected. Unfortunate, but as already said: player has liberties that AI can never take.

[Raptor34]

Aren't they still keeping the old carriers?
So you already have a choice. Not like they are taking those away.

Great, so if I want a proper carrier for a Paranid fleet I have to use the ugly old one (which incidentally is a hell of a lot smaller than the new one).

Huh? I was assuming it would be the same size more or less at the very least.
If it's even bigger it sounds annoying to fly around. Isn't it supposed to be faster? And presumably more maneuverable?