Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Wed, 15. Sep 21, 01:23

Hello everybody :)

I decided to test the effectiveness of fighters against capital vessels, in 4.10.
This is the battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVmfpBL_PBM

I'm satisfied with the results. Even more so, because, to my delight, the importance of carrier ability to repair and to that extent, rearm fighters, is now paramount (even tho, I guess an aux ship could do the same, but lack the ability to launch fighters fast or have good AA defence). 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 the sector where one's forces are being deployed.

Egosoft team did a fine job implementing this new mechanic, congratulations are in order :thumb_up: :thumb_up: :thumb_up:

Note: My Chimeras have terran shields. If you are to use "pure" split equipment (shields), the results may vary, so use caution if you want to replicate this experiment.

-=SiR KiLLaLoT=-
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sat, 3. Mar 12, 19:58
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by -=SiR KiLLaLoT=- » Wed, 15. Sep 21, 02:57

I agree! Excellent result :boron: 8)
HW Spec:
CPU: Core i9 9900k @ 5.0Ghz - MOBO: MSI Z390-A PRO - RAM: 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix MAX DDR4 4400Mhz CL19 - GPU: nVidia RTX 3070 FE - M.2: Samsung 980 512GB - SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB - Samsung 850 EVO 250GB - Sandisk Plus 240GB – HDD: WD Caviar Black 1TB – WD Caviar Blue 1TB – WD Caviar Black 2TB - PSU: Enermax Liberty 82+ PRO 620w - CASE: iTek Iron Soldier - MONITOR: 27” Acer ED270UP - Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit - KEYBOARD: Logitech G11 – MOUSE: Red Dragon Perdition
My X4 Steam screenshots.

User avatar
bubbabenali
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue, 14. Jan 14, 07:30
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by bubbabenali » Thu, 16. Sep 21, 15:31

Bottom Line: Don't waste your time on fighters anymore when 101 Plasma turret get it done faster and with way less downtime.

capitalduty
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon, 23. May 16, 02:02

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by capitalduty » Thu, 16. Sep 21, 16:22

This mechanic IMO is not really necessary, this I believe is a move by Egosoft to try prevent big swarm of fighters from dominating most big targets.

For me, a better approach could be:

-Rebalancing faction ai to better employ their assets to respond this kind of attack (eg: making jobs for fighter squadrons with hunter-killer mechanics addressing these swarms)
-Rebalancing m turrets to really pose a threat to fighters. (eg: make flak cannons have more aoe and range, bolt m turrets could have higher damage, etc).
-Making faction fleets be protected with plenty of aa supporting vessels

Another point I dislike it's a mechanic that makes ai appear even dumber and more "unrealistic" (pilots wont react to this incoming explosion)
This tactic also pose a serious threat to balance...just need to suicide some bombers to strip a fleet of most of its turrets...making even easier to defeat a faction defense fleet.

As another post, this will make even more relevant capital ships for siege warfare (more even than before).

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Thu, 16. Sep 21, 18:44

bubbabenali wrote:
Thu, 16. Sep 21, 15:31
Bottom Line: Don't waste your time on fighters anymore when 101 Plasma turret get it done faster and with way less downtime.
Yeah, but split shields (my Raptor equip is pure split), 1 I + 2 K's in close proximity, explosion damage, L turetts not working IS, apparently...I would not like my Raptor chances in that scenario :gruebel:
Plus, that potential epic half an hour fight to bring down a lone Xenon M, no thanks, I'm good :mrgreen:

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Thu, 16. Sep 21, 19:15

capitalduty wrote:
Thu, 16. Sep 21, 16:22
This mechanic IMO is not really necessary, this I believe is a move by Egosoft to try prevent big swarm of fighters from dominating most big targets.

For me, a better approach could be:

-Rebalancing faction ai to better employ their assets to respond this kind of attack (eg: making jobs for fighter squadrons with hunter-killer mechanics addressing these swarms)
-Rebalancing m turrets to really pose a threat to fighters. (eg: make flak cannons have more aoe and range, bolt m turrets could have higher damage, etc).
-Making faction fleets be protected with plenty of aa supporting vessels

Another point I dislike it's a mechanic that makes ai appear even dumber and more "unrealistic" (pilots wont react to this incoming explosion)
This tactic also pose a serious threat to balance...just need to suicide some bombers to strip a fleet of most of its turrets...making even easier to defeat a faction defense fleet.

As another post, this will make even more relevant capital ships for siege warfare (more even than before).
I agree to a point. I was one of those that pointed out that in X4 ship lore (or X games for that matter) there is no "warp core" to go supernova, in space :gruebel: However, Egosoft decided to go ahead with the mechanic and I'm happy with how they implemented it because it did not turn in to be the the fighter armaghedon I feared it would be.
Last edited by Ragnos28 on Thu, 16. Sep 21, 19:34, edited 1 time in total.

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Thu, 16. Sep 21, 19:22

capitalduty wrote:
Thu, 16. Sep 21, 16:22
As another post, this will make even more relevant capital ships for siege warfare (more even than before).
Capital ships are always relevant for siege warfare...even before 4.1, sending fighters to atack stations was a sure way to shift+delete them :D

LameFox
Posts: 2410
Joined: Tue, 22. Oct 13, 15:26
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by LameFox » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 06:29

It may not be armageddon for player fighters which can be withdrawn and repaired when necessary but while I was watching the AI deal with it (e.g. fighting xenon) they definitely had no way to cope with it at all. If a few Ks came through a gate all the S ships there would be dead by the end. The capital ship's explosion is laughably more effective against fighters than its weaponry. IMO at the very least there needs to be something telling the AI to withdraw out of range when the ship is dying.

And while it doesn't matter much if you remain in a carrier, testing it in a well shielded fighter flying nearby I found the 'explosion imminent' warning was only of marginal use. It gives no hint of direction or distance that would make it useful in a larger fight (e.g. conflict near a gate) and in fact you hear it from outside the damage radius, so you won't even know if you are in danger—responding could make your situation worse. The damaging AOE itself is invisible which in principle I find disappointing. Invisible AOE damage is just not good gameplay. And the range is so extreme relative to fighter weapons that you absolutely rely on having shields to boost away with. Conventional flight is not fast enough. Considering how fast an L ship's hull can go down once its shields drop it seems set up to cause sudden deaths from unseen damage, poorly indicated by one audio warning.

Overall this game gives me very mixed messages about fighters. I agree with the earlier comment about turrets—it seems to me they were made notably less effective compared to older titles, probably to get people into fighters personally, but then as a side effect swarm tactics became too easy. Now they're trying to swing things back the other way but the method feels very unpolished right now and, based on having played with mods that improve turrets, it is not even a better experience from within a fighter than if they hadn't made them so useless to begin with.

Much like the way ships would struggle with landing or flying near stations at release, I feel like this is one of those things that will be immersion breaking and frustrating for players trying to get into this game.
***modified***

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 08:25

LameFox wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 06:29
It may not be armageddon for player fighters which can be withdrawn and repaired when necessary but while I was watching the AI deal with it (e.g. fighting xenon) they definitely had no way to cope with it at all. If a few Ks came through a gate all the S ships there would be dead by the end. The capital ship's explosion is laughably more effective against fighters than its weaponry. IMO at the very least there needs to be something telling the AI to withdraw out of range when the ship is dying.

And while it doesn't matter much if you remain in a carrier, testing it in a well shielded fighter flying nearby I found the 'explosion imminent' warning was only of marginal use. It gives no hint of direction or distance that would make it useful in a larger fight (e.g. conflict near a gate) and in fact you hear it from outside the damage radius, so you won't even know if you are in danger—responding could make your situation worse. The damaging AOE itself is invisible which in principle I find disappointing. Invisible AOE damage is just not good gameplay. And the range is so extreme relative to fighter weapons that you absolutely rely on having shields to boost away with. Conventional flight is not fast enough. Considering how fast an L ship's hull can go down once its shields drop it seems set up to cause sudden deaths from unseen damage, poorly indicated by one audio warning.

Overall this game gives me very mixed messages about fighters. I agree with the earlier comment about turrets—it seems to me they were made notably less effective compared to older titles, probably to get people into fighters personally, but then as a side effect swarm tactics became too easy. Now they're trying to swing things back the other way but the method feels very unpolished right now and, based on having played with mods that improve turrets, it is not even a better experience from within a fighter than if they hadn't made them so useless to begin with.

Much like the way ships would struggle with landing or flying near stations at release, I feel like this is one of those things that will be immersion breaking and frustrating for players trying to get into this game.
Yes, from what I have seen the fighters AI have no means to deal with explosion damage. I guess the player can compensate for that by ordering the fighters to atack the capital ship then queue an order to move to a safe position after, rince and repeat. Not the most elegant solution, but it might work.

Agree on the point of invisible AOE damage, also, in my clip, the K's exploded simultaneously, but only one have display the circle of the explosion animation :gruebel:

Don't know about the turrets eficiency changes in 4.10...for me, my bolt turetts on the Raptor seem to be more efficient now, even surgical to some degree. That is one of the reasons I went and tested a torpedo loaudout for some fo my wings, I was like...whelp, now turetts are more precise, so I must destroy the capitals faster, but aparently, the xenon made no gains in that area :gruebel:

Honestly, I don't know what is the best aproach on fighters efficiency against capital ships. I remember in X3TC fighters being a joke against capitals...I also remember the 5 xenon Q camping the gate, ready to reduce your mighty destroyer to dust...so there were always counters to destroyers. I also remember chiling in some fighter...boom, splat, game over...what happen?...a hostile destroyer passed by, 5 km away...ahhh :lol: I'm not really sure if I want to return to that :roll:

LameFox
Posts: 2410
Joined: Tue, 22. Oct 13, 15:26
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by LameFox » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 09:11

There was some discussion on those explosions during the beta, from what I was told they are a random effect on large ships and station modules that pre-dates the AOE damage and are not related to it. I guess that makes sense since the AOE is 3D so those disc explosion effects would not really describe it anyway.

Yeah I don't really want to return to X3's fighter effectiveness per se, but I think it has swung too far in the other direction now. When playing VRO for instance, I am still able to use fighters effectively even though its turrets are much nicer and capital ships stronger. I think the ability of both the player and AI to hit subsystems has really made a critical change from the X3 days when only raw damage to the ship's main hp pool would defeat it. With the ability to kill its armament, fighters only need to be able to cripple it in the short term in order to win, instead of racing to kill it before it kills them, and losing damage output for each fighter destroyed while the capital ship remained functional.
***modified***

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 09:45

LameFox wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 09:11
With the ability to kill its armament, fighters only need to be able to cripple it in the short term in order to win, instead of racing to kill it before it kills them, and losing damage output for each fighter destroyed while the capital ship remained functional.
That reminds me of a fun little experiment I did when 4.1 pop up. I wanted to see the increase effectiveness of flak turetts. Brought a Behemoth (dear God, I cant believe they call that thing a "destroyer" :o ), flak on the turetts, best speed to a xenon sector with a nice S/M swarm at the gate. I go to the location, to see the wonder of the new and improve flak turetts in 4.10. My turetts and engines reduce to dust really fast...my shields at full strength, almost :D I say screw that, ported to my Raptor parked in the next sector, sell the Behemoth to Zya, let them deal with the problem. Set course to the xenon sector to avenge the poor Behemoth, while I approach the gate, I see a Zya Behemoth at full speed chase by a bunch of xenon M's :mrgreen: Aparently, me selling the ship lead to the insta repair of the engines (and maybe the turetts as well) :lol:

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7830
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by GCU Grey Area » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 10:24

Interesting video. Your Chimeras fared much better than I expected, given their comparatively weak shielding. Guess that 6k hull really makes a difference for the ones which get a bit too close to the blast.

Ragnos28 wrote:
Thu, 16. Sep 21, 19:15
I was one of those that pointed out that in X4 ship lore (or X games for that matter) there is no "warp core" to go supernova...
Antimatter containment breach? Engine Parts = Antimatter Cells + Refined Metals

Ragnos28 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 09:45
Brought a Behemoth (dear God, I cant believe they call that thing a "destroyer" :o ), flak on the turetts, best speed to a xenon sector with a nice S/M swarm at the gate. I go to the location, to see the wonder of the new and improve flak turetts in 4.10. My turetts and engines reduce to dust really fast...my shields at full strength, almost :D
Rather fond of Behemoth myself, particularly when flying one alone without a carrier nearby to provide fighter support. Key advantage over other destroyers is the 4 S docks. Makes it much more efficient at deploying drones and/or fighters when taking on a big swarm of S/M's.

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 11:04

GCU Grey Area wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 10:24
Interesting video. Your Chimeras fared much better than I expected, given their comparatively weak shielding. Guess that 6k hull really makes a difference for the ones which get a bit too close to the blast.

Ragnos28 wrote:
Thu, 16. Sep 21, 19:15
I was one of those that pointed out that in X4 ship lore (or X games for that matter) there is no "warp core" to go supernova...
Antimatter containment breach? Engine Parts = Antimatter Cells + Refined Metals

Ragnos28 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 09:45
Brought a Behemoth (dear God, I cant believe they call that thing a "destroyer" :o ), flak on the turetts, best speed to a xenon sector with a nice S/M swarm at the gate. I go to the location, to see the wonder of the new and improve flak turetts in 4.10. My turetts and engines reduce to dust really fast...my shields at full strength, almost :D
Rather fond of Behemoth myself, particularly when flying one alone without a carrier nearby to provide fighter support. Key advantage over other destroyers is the 4 S docks. Makes it much more efficient at deploying drones and/or fighters when taking on a big swarm of S/M's.
I did mention that my Chimeras have terran shields :) I am sure I would not have been such a happy camper if the shields were split :P

Hmm, what you say makes me wonder...in X4, the casing of the engines is made from...exploding metal? :D I mean engines are made from engine parts, slap/weld those things together and..tadda..you have an engine :) Maybe that implies some "core" but the entirety of the engine is made from the same material (explosive+metals) :gruebel:

I like the Behemoth as well, but I see it like some sort of freighter with some weapon systems, kind like the Eureka Maru from Adromeda TV series (don't know if you are familiar with the series), a ship to do missions in (repair satelites, mine swiping, ship retrieval, place mines and laser towers) not a combat ship.

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7830
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by GCU Grey Area » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 11:54

Ragnos28 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 11:04
I did mention that my Chimeras have terran shields :) I am sure I would not have been such a happy camper if the shields were split :P
Still only 1 of them & while Terran mk3 S shields are stronger, it's only by about 20%. Might have taken a bit more hull damage with Split shields but suspect they would still have survived.
Hmm, what you say makes me wonder...in X4, the casing of the engines is made from...exploding metal? :D I mean engines are made from engine parts, slap/weld those things together and..tadda..you have an engine :) Maybe that implies some "core" but the entirety of the engine is made from the same material (explosive+metals) :gruebel:
It's all fairly basic & abstract, with only a couple of resources required to make something which would probably be hideously complex in practice. However, in essence think the idea is that engines are made of Refined Metals, with Antimatter Cells providing the fuel.

EDIT: in-game description of Antimatter Converters (also used in ship engine production): "Attached to the antimatter cells used in engine parts for both main engines and thrusters, antimatter converters fine-tune the amount of energy used to a more specific configuration. It is the use of this component that allows so many variations of engine, as their number and set up greatly impact the power and efficiency of the final product."
I like the Behemoth as well, but I see it like some sort of freighter with some weapon systems, kind like the Eureka Maru from Adromeda TV series (don't know if you are familiar with the series).
Familiar with Andromeda, however think Behemoth's a bit better than that. Does have the firepower to take on L & XL capitals, particularly if they're busy shooting at a swarm of S ships launched from the Behemoth while it's closing to optimal main gun range. Indeed Behemoth's probably my favourite of the L warships - the Terran L's have good firepower but are dreadfully slow, Rattlesnake has appalling bad shielding & short range guns, Phoenix has comparatively weak main guns (though do like the distributed engines), while Odysseus is just plain ugly - can't bring myself to ever use them (prefer shooting them, just to make the universe a prettier place).

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 12:57

GCU Grey Area wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 11:54
Familiar with Andromeda, however think Behemoth's a bit better than that. Does have the firepower to take on L & XL capitals, particularly if they're busy shooting at a swarm of S ships launched from the Behemoth while it's closing to optimal main gun range. Indeed Behemoth's probably my favourite of the L warships - the Terran L's have good firepower but are dreadfully slow, Rattlesnake has appalling bad shielding & short range guns, Phoenix has comparatively weak main guns (though do like the distributed engines), while Odysseus is just plain ugly - can't bring myself to ever use them (prefer shooting them, just to make the universe a prettier place).
I'm a fan of the series, almost all my ships that get named, get their names from the New Systems Commonwealth Wiki :mrgreen: and Andromeda Ascendant is the most beautifull ship in sci-fi, imo 8) (Andromeda mod for X4 let's go, pretty please :D )

Yeah, I agree, if Behemoth get a chance to launch some drones/fighters, its combat capabilities grow exponentially :) In my scenario, my Behemoth was "empty" that is why about 5-6 xenon M's left me "bald". :D
As for other L warships, I do have a soft spot for the Rattlesnake. :P (I think I will test its AA abilities in 4.10 as well, with bolt M turetts this time, never had one in my current game) :) What the Rattle does best, imo, is engine sniping. Trust me, you don't want the front side of the Rattlesnake to be pointed at your engines :mrgreen: Is like the rogue in a fantasy MMOPRG's :mrgreen:

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7830
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by GCU Grey Area » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 13:40

Ragnos28 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 12:57
As for other L warships, I do have a soft spot for the Rattlesnake. :P (I think I will test its AA abilities in 4.10 as well, with bolt M turetts this time, never had one in my current game) :) What the Rattle does best, imo, is engine sniping. Trust me, you don't want the front side of the Rattlesnake to be pointed at your engines :mrgreen: Is like the rogue in a fantasy MMOPRG's :mrgreen:
Ironically, one of the things which typified my Split games when flying a Rattlesnake was frequent engine trouble. They're very exposed & poorly shielded:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8cbzy8rddw5ab ... 1.jpg?dl=0
By the way it's not by chance that this screenshot was taken at a shipyard. The very last thing I did in that game (before starting my current Terran game) was fly it to the nearest shipyard after this happened:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/epky5sg7flkvq ... 1.jpg?dl=0
Bloody ARG Cerburus frigates & their H Swarm missiles... :evil:

At least Behemoth has it's engines partially recessed into the hull:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lrc4le298n4xp ... 1.jpg?dl=0

By the way, if you're going to try M Bolt turrets for anti-fighter defences on a Rattlesnake can recommend pairing them with L Beam, at least on the stern turrets. The combination works well together. Essentially L Beam suppresses shields & keeps them down while an enemy fighter remains within 5km (which it pretty much needs to if it wants to shoot), while the M Bolt's finish them off.

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Fri, 17. Sep 21, 14:01

GCU Grey Area wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 13:40
By the way, if you're going to try M Bolt turrets for anti-fighter defences on a Rattlesnake can recommend pairing them with L Beam, at least on the stern turrets. The combination works well together. Essentially L Beam suppresses shields & keeps them down while an enemy fighter remains within 5km (which it pretty much needs to if it wants to shoot), while the M Bolt's finish them off.
Ahh, that goes w/o saying, L beam turetts is a standard loadout on all my destroyers, already have the main baterry to dish out dps. Plus, the split L beams make such an "agressive" sound :mrgreen:

User avatar
surferx
Posts: 1184
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by surferx » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 15:55

Ragnos28 wrote:
Fri, 17. Sep 21, 11:04

I did mention that my Chimeras have terran shields :) I am sure I would not have been such a happy camper if the shields were split :P
Fwiw, I only use each race's equipment on any of my ships. So all Split ships in my game have Split engines, shields, etc. I do this because
1. Egosoft carefully balanced ships and equipment for the game, each having it's own advantages/disadvantages. In this instance, Split are on average faster, and good weapons, but shields not so much. I just like to retain that balance in my game.
2. It lessens the realism. You don't see, for instance, German aircraft switching to Chinese engines, (not without extensive modifications).
3. Personally I view it as a cheat, kind of making an IWIN ship, but do what makes you happy. Just my personal feelings. :D
(And yes, I'm aware pirate vessels carry different race's equipment. This was intended and does not unbalance the game. )

Interesting video anyway, I enjoyed it. Thanks for posting.
If you want to go fast, go alone.
If you want to go far, go together.

Operating System:
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit CPU: 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900KF RAM: 32606 MBytes MBO: Gigabyte Z790 UD AC (U3E1) GPU: ZOTAC GEFORCE RTX 4080 Trinity OC NVIDIA 16 GB GDDR6 SSD: AJP600M2TB 1907 GB

Ragnos28
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed, 4. Mar 20, 00:28
x4

Re: Video: Explosion damage in 4.10

Post by Ragnos28 » Sat, 18. Sep 21, 23:36

surferx wrote:
Sat, 18. Sep 21, 15:55
Fwiw, I only use each race's equipment on any of my ships. So all Split ships in my game have Split engines, shields, etc. I do this because
1. Egosoft carefully balanced ships and equipment for the game, each having it's own advantages/disadvantages. In this instance, Split are on average faster, and good weapons, but shields not so much. I just like to retain that balance in my game.
2. It lessens the realism. You don't see, for instance, German aircraft switching to Chinese engines, (not without extensive modifications).
3. Personally I view it as a cheat, kind of making an IWIN ship, but do what makes you happy. Just my personal feelings. :D
(And yes, I'm aware pirate vessels carry different race's equipment. This was intended and does not unbalance the game. )

Interesting video anyway, I enjoyed it. Thanks for posting.
Thank you, glad you enjoy the video :) I do have more :P In fact I started the "series" because I could not find good X4 fleet combat clips on youtube :lol:

As for the Chimeras having terran shields...I build them "in house", In my curent playthrough, I am terran, so my shipyards only "know" how to make terran shields :P (damn it, I now realise that even the engines must be terran :lol:)

I did not wanted to buy split shields or engines BP for something that was, initially, just an experiment and, from what I know, we can't "unlearn" BP (Chimera BP is the only commonwealth ship BP that I have bought). But, hey...at least the Raptor is pure split, build in a split shipyard, with split crew (in my story, the Raptor is an reward from the split, for services rendered :roll: ).

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”