[Poll] Should station weapons reach further than capitals'?

[jojorne]

Aren't stations bigger and more powerful than Capital ships?
They should use bigger and more powerful weapons than Capital ships.
To destroy a station you should hack it or even use cannon fodder to distract its defenses.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch any video on YouTube and see for yourself how people kill stations.
They take ranged weapons and position some Capitals at a safe distance, well out of range of the station's weapons.
And then they complain when their ships leave position and go closer to the station...
This takes about 15 minutes, sitting, doing nothing, just watching. Is this what it's supposed to be like to destroy a station?

[S!rAssassin]

This takes about 15 minutes, sitting, doing nothing, just watching.

Most disgusting side of the game...

IMO, stations should have some torpedo launchers for defense with greater firing range (about 20 km). This launchers may be available to install only in administrative centers for balance.

Also, all rocket propelled weapons should have increased range at least twice for making sense to use.

[Repli]

Hey,
with the possibility to use fighters to destroy surface elements, it could really improve the strategic part of the game, if ranges would be greater for all weapons. The only problem for those parked destroyers are defense drones (Xenon!) and of course fighter squads. I dont know if I have ever seen NPC stations equipped with missle-turrets, but these would have a larger range than the main batteries of destroyers.
Remember the defense platforms in XR with their big guns? A torpedo launcher sounds fine, i would add a L-torpedo turret as option for ships, too. And as many people suggested before: make more of the existing weapons usable for turrets, like railgun, mesonstream (for long range anti capital turrets) and even L-Flak oder proton barrage

[dtpsprt]

Since, supposedly, a Station can produce higher power levels than any ship (Asgard included) it just makes sense that the "same" weapons (dedicated as station only for programming reasons?) should have longer range and be more destructive (beams) than their ship counterparts.

On the other hand, of course, kinetic weapons (railguns) with practically infinite range (the projectile goes on and on until it hits something) could (and should) be used against them, since they are stationery objects, but such weapons usually are "spine mounted" on ships (meaning they run through the length of the ship) to accelerate their sizable projectiles and absorb the big reaction force of the shot. This brings us to player only operated ships or massive pilot AI improvement from it's current levels so that the captain should put the turrets at rest, stay well away and turn the ship directly to the target.

Of course, the "infinite range" advantage is easily compensated by the ship shutting down down all other weapons and lowering the shield energy (to 10-20% maybe?) during the spooling up of the energy needed, making it extremely vulnerable to attacks...

Needless to say that such an "evolution", logical as it may be, would make a very unhappy person of Linolafelt that would have to rego over the Big Captital Ship designs of all factions and even, in a spirit of fairness, create such a Capital Ship for the Xenon.

EDIT: Of course torpedoes can be used against stationery objects but their lack of speed along with the long travel distance makes them extremely vulnerable to the Station's A/A fire, AND the piloting AI would have to be "upgraded" to release them from a "safe" distance from the Station's guns for the Capitals and differentiate and make S/M ships manoeuvering around the Station's A/A and release them in line of the target onclose range... Tall order if you ask me.

EDIT 2: Also, in case of kinetic weapons, there should be another form of "rep" loss/penalty if they are used with a planet in the backdrop or "friendly/neutral" installations because their missed projectiles will hit them. This will further "even the field" as it reduces the vectors of attack for these mobile "superguns".

[flywlyx]

I do agree stations should over range ships, but this change has to come with AI improvement.
Current AI doesn't have the ability to deal this kind of stations, adding such weapon will not benefit the game play.

[dtpsprt]

I do agree stations should over range ships, but this change has to come with AI improvement.
Current AI doesn't have the ability to deal this kind of stations, adding such weapon will not benefit the game play.

AI improvement: It seems to me that 90% of any improvement suggestions ever made had that prerequsite, whether stated or not. The remaining divided 1% in direct asking for this 3% in making stationwalks more pleasant(!!!) and 6% in improvements to the UI. My estimates, can be wrong but I don't think by far.

[GCU Grey Area]

Voted no, prefer the current balance between stations & destroyers.

I run a relatively small demolition fleets (around 10 or so destroyers with supporting ships) & invest time & effort into making sure they have the best gear, mods, crews, captains, etc. The primary determinant in the success of the fleet is in the quality of the orders I give them. If I give them good orders they can eliminate a station for me without taking losses. If I make a mistake I lose ships (some of the stations they take on are quite well armed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/npwt9i2ny53l6 ... 1.jpg?dl=0).

Would find the game much less interesting if every station demolition became just a simple battle of attrition - either I brought enough disposable ship that they they can eliminate the station before they are all destroyed or I lose the entire fleet. Would have much less incentive to put any time or effort into optimising those ships if I knew I was certain to lose most/all of them, only numbers would matter.

[Alan Phipps]

We have had this discussion a few times before - Example.

My opinion (I voted no) is that the turrets and weapons on both stations and ships should be drawn from the choices and pool of blueprints available to the relevant factions. Hence they would largely have the same range per weapon type, but the station is far larger and offers many more turret hardpoints spread across many widely distributed modules; almost enticing attacking capitals to position unsafely.

An improved defence tactic for stations would be to prevent ships picking their coverage deadspots and then sitting stationary and firing with impunity. A more directed use of its defence drones and subordinate fighter groups is needed to disrupt and move on stationary capital attacks. That may see some of the attackers manoeuvre into station turret range as well as facing the defence ships.

I do think that the odd heavy missile turret in the station defence mix would somewhat reduce the inherent advantage of capital fixed frontal weapons. However, missiles resupply should be finite and liable to becoming depleted.

[jlehtone]

If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch any video on YouTube and see for yourself how people kill stations.
They take ranged weapons and position some Capitals at a safe distance, well out of range of the station's weapons.

How many of those videos have Split Rattlesnakes with Split turrets (range under 7km) against ARG/PAR L Plasma station turrets (range over 8.5km)?

Do use that combo and then ask again: Is this what it's supposed to be like to destroy a station?

[Hector0x]

Stations should not have any weapons at all and there should also be no travel drive.

Invasions would take hours and weaken your defense.

[KextV8]

Stations should have Asgard beams as turrets.

[mr.WHO]

Personally, I'd prefere if stations had less L and M turrets, but special XL (like turreted destroyer battery) turret module.

That way stations could fire back at destroyers, but wouldn't be a chore and the XL turrets would be valid target for bombers and player to take down (unlike dozens upon dozens of L and M turrets).

[surferx]

You could make a poll-
Do you want an easy game even if it kills immersion?
Do you want a more challenging game that adds realism?
I think you would get the same results.

[Ragnos28]

I also voted no.
I'm not aware of any fortress, in history or sci fi, that had weapons that reach further that any of the atackers artillery or capital ships.
Take Star Trek DS9, for example, it has phazers and photonic torpedo launchers just like capital ships, only better shielding.
Fortresess, in general, are defences that can resist for a while, until you bring your own forces in the field to deal with the atackers.

And in regard with their role in X4, I see defence stations for what they are, defences that can hold for a while, until you bring your fleets to deal with atackers. Given them weapons that can reach further that capitals, would make defence stations even more OP that they already are, impossible for the AI to deal with. No sector would ever change ownership, the sectors would remain the same for the entirety of the game. And like I said, defence stations are already OP, my current save is 54 days old, and I don't think I ever saw a xenon defence station, once completed with turrets, to be taken out by factions forces. Now, imagine if those defence stations had weapons that can reach further than capitals.

[S!rAssassin]

Take Star Trek DS9, for example, it has phazers and photonic torpedo launchers just like capital ships, only better shielding.
Fortresess, in general, are defences that can resist for a while, until you bring your own forces in the field to deal with the atackers.

But... Only Rattlesnake and Xenon have short range weaponry, all other destroyers have main guns shooting from much greater distance! Where is battles “station vs ships” like DS9? Just boring pressing fire button when weapon get cooled...

[MrDGY]

I agree with OP that station combat needs some change. Currently fleets outrange station while being much more mobile than it. This basically means station L turrets are absolutely meaningless IF fleet AI ever learnt to take full advantage of its range and mobility superiority.

But if we are to make station outrange ships, there needs to be some counter measure and/or limitation to prevent station from being too overpowered. This means that buffing station should be complemented with a whole system of changes, which is likely quite complicated and might be a nightmare to balance. I think it is probably one of the reasons why this idea is not so popular, at least in this forum.

Actually not too long ago I also posted a similar idea in viewtopic.php?f=181&t=450860, which additionally proposed carrier as a possible counter measure against station. Sadly, it seems many players are not interested in such kind of change, as indicated by the poll.

[chew-ie]

Voted "No" - the changes to station combat in 6.0 are good enough for me. Opening yet another can of worms won't help the game in other areas. I'm glad Egosoft improved this aspect of the combat / sector ownership gameplay and hope they now move on to other pressing matters.

I'd e.g. would like to see more changes to the overall turret variety & balancing instead of adding yet another complexity layer (=XL turret for stations).

The X4 platform can be enhanced in various ways, but there are just so many Egosoft devs available. So: No to this one

[Baddieus]

I voted 'no' because the gates only recently opened back up so all resources are kind of limited and it makes sense they would use the same weapons on both ships & stations.

[Ragnos28]

Only Rattlesnake and Xenon have short range weaponry, all other destroyers have main guns shooting from much greater distance!

Yes, but the factions destroyers will not keep their distance and will not take advantage of the long range weapon. Same with the players destroyers, and you can only circumvent this (AFAIK) with manual "fly to" orders, to positions around the station, for each individual destroyer, and repeat that if the targeted modules are on the other side, or take out the L turrets in a player piloted destroyer or Asgard. Take a wing of 10 destroyers and give them direct atack orders and see just how "helpless" defence stations are atm.

Just boring pressing fire button when weapon get cooled...

Take a look at this: https://youtu.be/4AoaQcQP84o. Is just a standard...destroy a xenon station, get an exceptional weapon mod mission. Look at the time and forces required to get to the...boring part.
And fortress sieges are suposed to be boring, how you siege fortresses in real life? You bring artillery or bombard the damn thing. It is true we have the example the Battle of Fort Eben-Emael between Belgian and German forces that took place between 10 May and 11 May 1940, were german forces place explosives on the walls and throw smoke grenades in the ventilation shafts, but that was a singular event.

[S!rAssassin]

I voted 'no' because the gates only recently opened back up so all resources are kind of limited and it makes sense they would use the same weapons on both ships & stations.

Both? Destroyers have main guns with 10 km firing range. Station has... nothing? It’s fair?