If the player can not drive a battleship, how to compensate it?

[bbgun77]

If me not a AI to pilot a capital ship,I can dodge incoming PPC instead of take it by shield.I can face wings use my flak most effect.
And now it has been negatived.

So I am thinking how to compensate for it、

Before in X3, by attacking a position to lead the whole ship was destroyed I think it is unreasonable.becouse the ship is a "whole hull",the attack process is actually a subtraction,but in reality you only get a hole.

I suggest that only heavy weapons to fight against the hull, lead to the destruction,light weapons can disable it by destroying weaknesses.Marines can stop it repair(less) and occupation of the ship(more).

In addition, the ship consists by several modules, a module is destroyed and will not affect the other modules, for example, you destroy the bow, but can not destroy the engine of the stern, you continued to attack the bow just doingexercise in futility - it has a block of scrap metal.

[Frymaster-UK-]

[Virtualaughing]

This is all depends of how fast we can change between our ship interface and all the remote controled BSs interface. If it will be with some fancy transfer effect then older PCs may be laggy ;p

Be kind and let us order USEFULL commands which can avoid weaponfire. If all will be between shields and weapons then that is pure math and powerplay instead of tactics.

[SinisterDeath]

I still say we need longer ranged weaponry then we currently do, it may not be as accurate, but with as powerful as it 'could' be, and knowing your 'enemy' would have access to it to, would put combat at further range than is currently applied.

Alot of people think of space combat as naval warfare. Not only that, they think of it like 1500s naval warfare, and forget taht the modern 'warship' has a range upwards of 100 miles. <_<

[Spero]

[dougeye]

i would like to see a mini rts interface for large fleet battles (with cap ships) you can open the map console, click point order and shoot etc quickly in the map view and then exit that view to view the battle in real time. a bit like supcom etc were you cchange on the fly from player view to battle overview. this would allow for many advanced tactics imo and would be superior to a convo orders wheel etc.

[Général Grievous]

[BGrey]

What I felt the OP was kind of getting at was some sort of an armor system. I hate pure hp/damage based systems. If the real world worked like the game you could blow up a tank with a pellet gun if you shot it enough. An armor rating of some sort where small weapons were simply unable to damage heavier ships armor would make the game much more dynamic and actually give a real role for missiles on the fighter sized ships.

[bbgun77]

ye, A rts interface is almost I want.

Did u play a new game demo "starfarer"?Is a good answer for it with its fleet command interface.

U can give a tactical instructions on the map by a beacon,these AI will be in accordance with the priority to arrange the implementation of, simple and effective.

[Freeman_79]

Even if you could fly a capital ship in X-Rebirth you can forget about dodging incoming fire, like PPC etc.

Bernd already said the capital ships have a whole new idea behind it and will be extremely large and very slow.
You cant fly capitals like fighters anymore.
Now capital ships probably have to tank incoming fire

[KongRudi]

I assume you can fit alot more defensive systems on bigger ships aswell.
i.e. If you have a small capital, you can't have as many defensive systems as if you have a bigger capital.

[mrscribbler]

[Chris0132]

In the real world though, capital ships were highly vulnerable to fighter attack, that's why they stopped making them.

If fighters can't damage large objects, then the only point in having them is to destroy other fighters, which you don't need to do because by simply not fielding any fighters, you can render yourself immune to them.

[Freeman_79]

[Spero]