Video: Raptor vs Asgard

[Imperial Good]

My loudout for the Raptor is plasma on L turetts and bolt on everything else.

The people who reported soloing Is with the Raptor either use full Plasma turret loadout, or L plasma turrets and M Flak turrets and possibly all of it with powerful ship modifications installed. The fact you are in turret range of the I does not matter as your turrets should have the I's turrets stripped before they can kill you. Gravaton Turrets are L so have huge hit boxes. I do admit they might have been using specific approach strategies, but at least one of them reported cruising at it into turret range.

I am unsure how effective missile spammage from a Raptor would be at the I. It used to be the main way to kill them back before the removal of recharge delay for L and XL ships and the buff to main batteries. However given the Raptor can probably fire 100+ of them at any given time maybe...

[Ragnos28]

...and being a some what history buff in regards to the Battle of the Pacific...

For a self proclaimed history buff, you really don't seem to understand a carrier's role, or the relationship of aircraft vs naval forces, and how X4 is very very different from an Earth-based naval war.

Aircraft have a distinct advantage vs navies, pretty much always have and always will, their problem is they have range limits due to fuel. A Carrier isn't a warship, it's a floating mobile base to overcome aircraft's primary weakness, needing to refuel and rearm in relatively close proximity to the conflict.

Now take a look at X4, see how those fighters don't have fuel gauges? Also see how most of the weapons don't have ammo counters? This means the only time you need a carrier is if you are going on 'deep' missions and relying on missiles/torpedoes.

Having a carrier to defend your own space is pointless as their is no need for a mobile base next to your actual bases.
Attacking a system next to you, there is no need for a carrier as your fighters can just fly into the system themselves.

If I'm going to be leading an attack, it would be far better to do it with an actual warship than a Raptor any day of the week.

Well, the battle of the Pacific was won from a cockpit not from behind a mighty gun of some battleship. Those floating mobile bases have sent the most powerfull battleships ever created to provide refuge for the fishies. Google "Death of Battleship Yamato" see how that turn out.

Now on to X4. Yes, I heard the argument that fighters can just fly to the system in which you have the engagement, but carriers can repair damage fighters and transport them safely over hazardous areas, now with 4.1 introducing hazardous effects OOS as well, that will become important.

As for me, I use both ships. For the East side of the map I use my terran fleet that consist of:
1 Asgard
3 Syn + 3 Osaka asign to protect the Asgard
2 Tokyo + 40 kukri each on intercept
1 Honshu + 20 Jian on defend + 20 torpedo falx on atack

For the west side I use just the Raptor + 100 chimera (1 missile launcher + 4 bolt) for the same role (xenon "harvesting", have my fun in their sectors, let them recover, repeat)

I prefer the Raptor over the Asgard because of tactical flexibility. If I enter a xenon sector and there are K's, I's, S/M escorts all over the map, I would have flown the Asgard in all corners of the sector to destroy the capitals, while having all the small fry buzzing over me, with me having to target them, one by one, to be killed by the L beam turetts, plus, I think you know, if just a xenon N fires at you = no travel drive. If I do the same with the Raptor, I just send my fighter wings against all targets, take out the capitals, give an atack multiple targets for the small fry, order them to dock at my location and set course to the nearest EQ.

Let's say you are at the "wheel" of your lone Asgard, what oponent would you say is easier to deal with? Another Asgard or 100 Chimeras launch from a Raptor? Ahh, the AI does not know how to use fighter swarms or fighters for that matter (you know, having fighters targeting turetts and engines)? That is a different story.

Now, at the "wheel" of my Raptor I don't care who my opponent is, Asgard or 100 Chimeras, my fighters wings can deal with both.

You are welcome to play anyway you want, but, the way I see it...battleship < carrier full of fighters.

[Raylak]

Again, you are completely missing the point to try and defend your argument.

Firstly,

Well, the battle of the Pacific was won from a cockpit not from behind a mighty gun of some battleship. Those floating mobile bases have sent the most powerfull battleships ever created to provide refuge for the fishies. Google "Death of Battleship Yamato" see how that turn out.

This isn't a carrier beating anything, those bombers would have been equally effective had they been launched from any airbase in range.

A carrier IS NOT a tactical asset, it's a strategic asset like bases and supply lines are.
Wings of fighters and bombers are tactical assets that have a short deployment range.
A battleship is a very strong tactical asset in conventional war designed to take out other naval assets or bombard costal bases. They have always been weak to aircraft because they are slow and focus on big guns that don't shoot up.

As for X4, deployment ranges no longer matter, greatly weakening the strategic value of a mobile base, aka a carrier.
Next an Asgard battleship can hold it's own fighter craft, 40 of them, plus it can supplement it's 'AA' capabilities with a M gunboat sat on the deck giving 6 extra medium guns. That's enough to hold off the small fighter wings it will encounter.
Stationary defence platforms also come into play, something not used in RL naval warfare because we can't just build floating fortresses that are magically anchored in 1 location. Do I want to try and bombard this with 2 carriers and their fighters, or do I want to take 2 battleships and bombard from a safe distance keeping their fighters at a safe distance ready to intercept enemy bombers en route.

Your method of sending in fighters results in casualties and repair work being needed. My battleship method will clear a system much cleaner and now instead of waiting in the now controlled system for replacement fighters the battleships can move on to purge the next hostile zone.

Now, at the "wheel" of my Raptor I don't care who my opponent is, Asgard or 100 Chimeras, my fighters wings can deal with both.

Firstly, your raptor wouldn't survive against any opposing carrier's properly fitted fighter wings, because they'd kill you before your fighters can stop them. You could also take down the enemy carrier as well but for the most part, both fleets would take catastrophic losses.

Now with the way the AI controls fleets in X4, yes you could engage any of the random patrols in a sector quite easily, but so could any half competent player with a properly fitted Asgard.

Now on to X4. Yes, I heard the argument that fighters can just fly to the system in which you have the engagement, but carriers can repair damage fighters and transport them safely over hazardous areas, now with 4.1 introducing hazardous effects OOS as well, that will become important.

Oh great more ways for the AI to screw up. Asteroids and similar hazards should pose 0 threat to S/M ships out of combat. As for destructive nebula and similar, are there any that REQUIRE flying through instead of around?

I prefer the Raptor over the Asgard because of tactical flexibility. If I enter a xenon sector and there are K's, I's, S/M escorts all over the map, I would have flown the Asgard in all corners of the sector to destroy the capitals, while having all the small fry buzzing over me, with me having to target them, one by one, to be killed by the L beam turetts, plus, I think you know, if just a xenon N fires at you = no travel drive. If I do the same with the Raptor, I just send my fighter wings against all targets, take out the capitals, give an atack multiple targets for the small fry, order them to dock at my location and set course to the nearest EQ.

You conveniently and consistently always paint the picture of the Asgard being alone without it's fighter complement and it's M docking pad. Perhaps because 40 fighters pretty much negates any threat from S/M ships, leaving it free to roam around and kill any enemy capital?

[Ragnos28]

You conveniently and consistently always paint the picture of the Asgard being alone without it's fighter complement and it's M docking pad. Perhaps because 40 fighters pretty much negates any threat from S/M ships, leaving it free to roam around and kill any enemy capital?

You know...I would pay good money to watch you launching your 40 fighters from your Asgard while being atack by 100 fighters. The Behemoth can also carry 40 fighters, yet by some strange reason I don't see ppl going around saying..."I use the Behemoth as a "pocket carrier", is so fun, the fighters launch so fast, yeah is great"

The point is there is nothing an Asgard can achieve from a tactical point of view that a Raptor can't. You can clear a xenon or a faction sector with the Asgard? Good! I can do the same with the Raptor. If it is a matter of removing all the ships in the sector, I would argue that the Raptor can achieve that faster. You can bombard stations from a safe distance? Well, guess what, I can do the same in a Raptor, 8 L plasma turetts can make that xenon shipyard, wharf or defence station go boom as well, just not as fast as an Asgard.

This is what a lone Asgard can do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zyGfuN65Q&t=1s

Can I duplicate the same result with the Raptor + fighter wings? Yes, I can Prioritize the I's, next the K's and clean up after the small fry.

Now on the OOS hazardous area effects issue. I am not happy about the 4.1 change as well, as I am pretty fond of using torpedo boats, so I do wonder if that change will eliminate M ships from my fleet composition. There are dangerous areas that cannot be bypassed, one example is that in my current terran playthrough, my shipyard is in Getsu Fune, so all my fleet sorties in to the "world" must go through The Void, another example is represented by some Xenon sectors that can only by acces by passing through a hazardous area sector (Tharka's Cascade XV).

[GCU Grey Area]

As for X4, deployment ranges no longer matter, greatly weakening the strategic value of a mobile base, aka a carrier.
Next an Asgard battleship can hold it's own fighter craft, 40 of them...

Deployment speed however does matter. If you want fighters to protect your Asgard you'd be much better off using them from a Tokyo, rather than having the Asgard carry them itself. Tokyo's got 18 S docks (compared to Asgard's 3), greatly speeding up the rate at which fighters can be launched & retrieved after a battle. Asgard is also incapable of repairing or rearming fighters. Furthermore carriers are the only ships which have the automatic launch & dock facility for fighter subordinates. Personally find carriers have high strategic value & would never contemplate sending a high value asset such as an Asgard into battle without a carrier full of fighters to protect it.

[flywlyx]

Personally find carriers have high strategic value & would never contemplate sending a high value asset such as an Asgard into battle without a carrier full of fighters to protect it.

Carrier is ok for defensive roles, since AI only sending small fleets for invasion, but if you want to clean up a sector, the carrier is way too messy, fighters keep dying in front of stations and new pilots will die even faster.
Comparing to Asgards fleet with supply ships, 0 maintenance slaughter machine.

[GCU Grey Area]

Carrier is ok for defensive roles, since AI only sending small fleets for invasion, but if you want to clean up a sector, the carrier is way too messy, fighters keep dying in front of stations and new pilots will die even faster.
Comparing to Asgards fleet with supply ships, 0 maintenance slaughter machine.

Prefer to keep my fighters well away from stations. They serve 2 roles in my fleet & bombarding stations isn't one of them.

My fighters distract enemy capitals, drawing turret fire & hindering their approach to my fleet, & they protect my fleet from enemy fighters & drones. Incidentally, usual mix in my fleets is around 1/3 anti-capital fighters assigned to Attack role, while remaining 2/3 are equipped for anti-fighter duties & use the Intercept role.

When my fleet is demolishing a station I form a firing line for my destroyers at around 10km or so from the target, i.e. within destroyer main gun range but just outside L plasma turret range. My carrier (& auxiliaries, if present) are positioned much further back, close enough that fighters are readily available if needed to protect my destroyers if the station launches a huge drone swarm, but not so close they'll engage the station itself.

Tends to look like this in action:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v01ehsklet07z ... 1.jpg?dl=0
My destroyers are on the left, exploding station's on the right, big melee in the middle is my interceptors hunting down the station's defence drones before they can reach my destroyers.

[Ragnos28]

Personally find carriers have high strategic value & would never contemplate sending a high value asset such as an Asgard into battle without a carrier full of fighters to protect it.

Carrier is ok for defensive roles, since AI only sending small fleets for invasion, but if you want to clean up a sector, the carrier is way too messy, fighters keep dying in front of stations and new pilots will die even faster.
Comparing to Asgards fleet with supply ships, 0 maintenance slaughter machine.

Personally, I would never send fighters against stations. When I have wings of fighters asign to intercept for a carrier, I am really grateful for the "stay docked" command, because prior they would launch, chase some drone near the station and die on mass. Part of the reason for which I keep the fighters wings of the Raptor unassigned to it is to prevent things like this from happening (to atack what I want, when I want, if I want)

Yes, Asgard is a great "buster" but when I see how much it struggle to kill the ocasional M or P, I always have the feeling....hmm something is missing That is why my Asgard is always part of a fleet. I did the whole sole Asgard clear the sector act only to discover how anoying it is that I can't go to travel mode because a Xenon N was firing at me Actually that is something that I'm curious about, what is the logic/explanation for the fact that the biggest ship in the game can't go to travel mode because of an "mighty" Xenon N?

Like I said, I enjoy using both ships, but imo, the Raptor offer more tactical options for me, there is almost no target or situation that it cannot handle (in player hands, sure), maybe with the exception of fighting a Xenon invasion in Tharka's Cascade XV
It's 8 L plasma turetts, while breaking the carrier status quo (carriers do not or should not have big guns, imo) it does give it the capability to destroy stations. If it did not have those, I would be..sure, give me an Asgard, Raptor is great and all but I really want to destroy that station

[Karmaticdamage]

With 4.1 the asgard got a little better, and the raptor a little worse. Argon M flak turrets with slasher mod installed are now very op in 4.1, even a syn with the few it can equip can fend off smaller ships now. Knife fighting is no longer viable because of capital ship explosion damage. If you take a raptor into a blob of xenon capital ships now and start destroying them, you will lose all of your turrets, shields, and engines in the resulting explosions. Fighters aren't a good idea for tackling capital ships anymore either, as they die in the explosions.

[GCU Grey Area]

Fighters aren't a good idea for tackling capital ships anymore either, as they die in the explosions.

Fighters are OK as long as you're careful about which ones you use against capitals & how they're equipped. Good shielding (at least 2 mk3 shields) is absolutely essential. Weapon selection also appears to be a highly significant factor in how close fighters approach a capital ship & consequently how much they get cooked by the blast. In my tests during the beta Eclipses armed with 2x Plasma & 2x Heavy Swarm launchers tended to survive, mostly without hull damage. They were reasonably good at lurking at about 4km from the target, tending to fly in tight loops launching missiles whenever they were facing the enemy. Weapons to avoid appear to be short range, rapid fire weapons (e.g. Pulse). Fighters armed with such weapons behave very differently. They do long attack runs directly towards the enemy & therefore have a much higher tendency to be in close proximity when the capital goes boom.

[Karmaticdamage]

Fighters aren't a good idea for tackling capital ships anymore either, as they die in the explosions.

Fighters are OK as long as you're careful about which ones you use against capitals & how they're equipped. Good shielding (at least 2 mk3 shields) is absolutely essential. Weapon selection also appears to be a highly significant factor in how close fighters approach a capital ship & consequently how much they get cooked by the blast. In my tests during the beta Eclipses armed with 2x Plasma & 2x Heavy Swarm launchers tended to survive, mostly without hull damage. They were reasonably good at lurking at about 4km from the target, tending to fly in tight loops launching missiles whenever they were facing the enemy. Weapons to avoid appear to be short range, rapid fire weapons (e.g. Pulse). Fighters armed with such weapons behave very differently. They do long attack runs directly towards the enemy & therefore have a much higher tendency to be in close proximity when the capital goes boom.

I've switched to using packs of sniper oddys. Their small relative size and fast speed for a destroyer plus their long range main guns allow them to group up and pummel capitals from afar pretty effectively. They don't do the most damage, but they have incredibly high alpha strike potential; so he bigger the pack, the stronger they become until they begin one volleying other capitals off the field. Their flak turrets and docked flak jians make them pretty much untouchable to enemy small ships, especially when they are grouped up. Add Par L plasma for station siege and you have a fast moving capital fleet that will bulldoze anything in its path.

[GCU Grey Area]

I've switched to using packs of sniper oddys. Their small relative size and fast speed for a destroyer plus their long range main guns allow them to group up and pummel capitals from afar pretty effectively. They don't do the most damage, but they have incredibly high alpha strike potential; so he bigger the pack, the stronger they become until they begin one volleying other capitals off the field. Their flak turrets and docked flak jians make them pretty much untouchable to enemy small ships, especially when they are grouped up. Add Par L plasma for station siege and you have a fast moving capital fleet that will bulldoze anything in its path.

This is what I'm using in my current game:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vnbelfrzftxl ... 1.jpg?dl=0
Don't really worry much at all about enemy capitals exploding near my fighters, 4x mk3 Terran shields on a Kalis means they can pretty much ignore the blast. I don't use L Plasma for station demolition, prefer using L main guns & Asgard beams for that task. Instead have my capital ship turrets configured predominantly for anti-fighter defence, 50/50 of L Beams & L Bolts on the Syns & Asgards, while the Osakas have L Beams & M Bolts. Don't like to use an L Plasma approach to station bombardment because enemy stations often have them & have seen NPC defence platforms with 70+ L Plasma turrets. Not sending my fleet anywhere near that level of firepower if I don't need to.

[Karmaticdamage]

I've switched to using packs of sniper oddys. Their small relative size and fast speed for a destroyer plus their long range main guns allow them to group up and pummel capitals from afar pretty effectively. They don't do the most damage, but they have incredibly high alpha strike potential; so he bigger the pack, the stronger they become until they begin one volleying other capitals off the field. Their flak turrets and docked flak jians make them pretty much untouchable to enemy small ships, especially when they are grouped up. Add Par L plasma for station siege and you have a fast moving capital fleet that will bulldoze anything in its path.

This is what I'm using in my current game:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9vnbelfrzftxl ... 1.jpg?dl=0
Don't really worry much at all about enemy capitals exploding near my fighters, 4x mk3 Terran shields on a Kalis means they can pretty much ignore the blast. I don't use L Plasma for station demolition, prefer using L main guns & Asgard beams for that task. Instead have my capital ship turrets configured predominantly for anti-fighter defence, 50/50 of L Beams & L Bolts on the Syns & Asgards, while the Osakas have L Beams & M Bolts. Don't like to use an L Plasma approach to station bombardment because enemy stations often have them & have seen NPC defence platforms with 70+ L Plasma turrets. Not sending my fleet anywhere near that level of firepower if I don't need to.

Depends on the station, non paranid plasma has less range then paranid plasma, so if its an argon or teladi station you can out range their plasma with your plasma. If its a paranid station, just snipe off the defense mods first, then send in plasma demo team. This is if you want to do it the fun way, the easier way of course would be just to sling the destroyer blob at the station in OOS, stations can't fend off multiple aggressors in OOS very well, the dps gets split up too much.

[Ragnos28]

With 4.1 the asgard got a little better, and the raptor a little worse. Argon M flak turrets with slasher mod installed are now very op in 4.1, even a syn with the few it can equip can fend off smaller ships now. Knife fighting is no longer viable because of capital ship explosion damage. If you take a raptor into a blob of xenon capital ships now and start destroying them, you will lose all of your turrets, shields, and engines in the resulting explosions. Fighters aren't a good idea for tackling capital ships anymore either, as they die in the explosions.

Just come back after testing my Raptor in sector Matrix #451. I'am happy to report that explosion damage work as it should, it strip the shield, does some dmg to the hull (to Chimeras), but no splat. I confess that I dreaded the effect of explosion damage against fighters, but all is good. I have engage multiple I's and K's and lost maybe 1 fighter do to explosion dmg. In fact, now I am happy with the change, because, to my delight, the importance of carrier ability to repair and to that extent, rearm fighters, is now paramount. No longer will the..."just send 100 fighters, no carriers needed" be enough, because if you keep sending damaged fighters against capitals or S/M ships you will spent your fighters rather fast, especially if you want to maintain presence in that sector.
I did lose fighters, but most of them were destroy by the S/M ships (maybe because my wings were focus on the capitals and Xenon began to spit K's and I's like candyes ). In the future I plan to have dedicated torpedo fighter wings against capitals and some wings with anti S/M loadout to engage small fry, to reduce loses. (all my Chimeras have 4 bolt, but some wings will have 1 torpedo launcher, while the others will have 1 missile launcher).
Other observations: turetts seems to be more precise now, Raptor is more of an AA beast that it ever was
As for the "knife fighting", not really afected as it is a matter of principle for me to never use carriers as destroyers with the exception of station busting.

All in all, so far I'm happy with 4.10 Fighters land now flawless to the Tokyo, even it is on the move (was beautifull to see, a small tear was drop ), my M ships from my fleet have succesfully pass OOS through Tharka's Cascade XV w/o problems, explosion damage is not the fighters armaghedon I fear it would be

Beautifull, good job Egosoft!

Note: I just check, my Chimeras have terran shields ...so, if one is to test "pure split" Chimera against capitals, results may vary, there is indeed the posibility for them to go splat Guess terran shields will be all the rage now, for fighters at least

[GCU Grey Area]

Depends on the station, non paranid plasma has less range then paranid plasma, so if its an argon or teladi station you can out range their plasma with your plasma. If its a paranid station, just snipe off the defense mods first, then send in plasma demo team. This is if you want to do it the fun way, the easier way of course would be just to sling the destroyer blob at the station in OOS, stations can't fend off multiple aggressors in OOS very well, the dps gets split up too much.

Just not my way of doing things. Aside from the fact that many of my targets are Paranid, 300m margin for error isn't even close to good enough. Makes ship placement far too fiddly. Very much prefer to have a range advantage measured in km. Like to mod my destroyer main guns with Expediters to give them an extra ~30% range. Incidentally, obtaining the mod parts is the main reason I do so many station demolition missions. Not much interested in OOS battles, just don't enjoy watching two groups of different coloured icons "fighting", IS battles are much more fun. As for sniping defence modules, I'm generally too busy keeping watch for enemy forces moving towards my fleet to take a personal role in the demolition job itself.