Your Ideas to make Carriers useful

[dholmstr]

Short and simple answer - the game engine implementation changed making such know how on the most part moot and irrelevant.

I don't mean the actual execution, but the logic/mechanics implemented there. From how a single follow command worked to fleet or trade behaviours.
Also don't mean a rewrite of the same things but lots of ideas there would work well with vanilla, and raise gameplay to a much higher level.
Too much left for modding.

Ideas are all well and good but it takes time to implement such things properly - X3 had at least the work of 3 previous games to build on for example. X-Rebirth signified a restart from scratch essentially and so it will undoubtedly take time to get things right. X4 has only X-Rebirth to build on by comparison, the concepts may be around but they have to be worked into a solution using current implementation approaches. You can not jump straight from concept to implementation in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

I getting somewhat tired of the "it's a new engine" answers. Yes most people understand that, but so much functionality do NOT need to be trown out the window just because a new engine. XR had many things that X4 do not have, and the big differens between them is Vulcan, and if I understand correctly is for graphics? X3 had 3 games before it...you mean X4 can not take anything from them? Is it soooo vastly different that simple function cannot be comprehended by this new and awsome engine?? They did a new and powerful engine but forgot how to build a transmission and a stearingwheel?
I'm all for new and improved, but part of the game doesn't feel improved. More like lost in space....

[pref]

You can not jump straight from concept to implementation in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

Jump straight? 5 years have passed already since the release of the new engine.. no idea what you try to express with this.
Sit on it for 10 years until the engine becomes obsolete again?

[ragamer]

Combined Ideas extracted from RL Carriers:

- Specialized launch and recovery equipment (That explains weaponry reduction) is what should set a Carrier apart. Carriers should have multiple CONCURRENT exit "lanes" and entry "lanes". This will make Carriers the prefered ships to simply manage lots of fighters.

- Specialized Huge Ammunition Storage. The pressence of a resuply source were fighters/bombers can rearm fast will definitively give the edge on medium to long engagements, as sector takeovers. Fleet resupply ships can then load this supplies, instead of providing them directly to consumers (fighters).

- Safe Zone generators. Carrier weaponry should be tailored to anti-fighter so they create a "safe zone" were friendly fighters can dock/operate with minimum risk. Maybe adding some "carrier only" anti-fighter turrets.

- Jump Drive. Breaching ZOC is what a Carrier should be good at... Been able to "raid" suply lines avoiding heavily defended choke points will definitively grant a niche for carriers. This should come with risks, ofc. Charging a JD should drain shields. All JDs should be able to operate in 2 modes:
1) Safe mode. Requires an immobile carrier, charging process would be interrupted on any damage received and requires allied radar contact with destination. Long range and precission as in previous X games.
2) Emergency mode. Can be performed on the move and under fire. Short range (adjacent sectors), bad precission (possibly totally random placement) but not requiring radar contact with destination. The JD should require long repairs (and specialized parts the carrier itself shouldn't be able to carry) after an Emergency Jump is completed.

- Combat repairs. Carriers should be able to "patch" their figthers very fast but never been able to top their hulls to 100% condition (ideally reducing temporally the max HP of their fighters on each repair cycle). So they can give their wings the edge versus enemy carrierless fighters but not making obsolete the role of shipyards/wharfs (which are the only ones able to TOP hull condition).

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

you mean X4 can not take anything from them? Is it soooo vastly different that simple function cannot be comprehended by this new and awsome engine?? They did a new and powerful engine but forgot how to build a transmission and a stearingwheel?

I think you miss the point, but in essence based on my knowledge of modding both games such matters need to be redone from the ground up due to the fundamental dependencies on implementation where matters such as AI scripting are concerned. You may get tired of this point being raised, but at least some of us are tired with the old X3-this/X3-that refrains.

Sometimes it is easy to port concepts from one engine/system to another, other times it is not so easy. In the case of X-Rebirth/X4 v X2/X3 there are stark fundamental differences in the way things are done. The revised approaches in the new engine have the potential to be far superior and not as constraining in the long run but the change in approach has notionally required some legacy material to be summarily dumped and would have to be rewritten from scratch for the new engine.

Alot of the issues we seem to be having at the momment with X4 seems to be with core elements of the AI and engine implementation, that is even before we start adding additional more complex elements on top. Egosoft need to get the basic elements working properly before it is fair and reasonable to build on those elements with more advanced features. That being said, it would appear that Egosoft are on the case with 2.20 seemingly making moves in the right direction wrt addressing at least some of the core element issues.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

You can not jump straight from concept to implementation in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

Jump straight? 5 years have passed already since the release of the new engine.. no idea what you try to express with this.
Sit on it for 10 years until the engine becomes obsolete again?

From what I understand of the revised engine design from a modding perspective, it is unlikely to be obsolete in 10 years time. It also may not take 10 years for things along the lines of what you are asking for to be fully implemented and working either. Talk about hyperbole....

[dholmstr]

you mean X4 can not take anything from them? Is it soooo vastly different that simple function cannot be comprehended by this new and awsome engine?? They did a new and powerful engine but forgot how to build a transmission and a stearingwheel?

I think you miss the point, but in essence based on my knowledge of modding both games such matters need to be redone from the ground up due to the fundamental dependencies on implementation where matters such as AI scripting are concerned. You may get tired of this point being raised, but at least some of us are tired with the old X3-this/X3-that refrains.

Sometimes it is easy to port concepts from one engine/system to another, other times it is not so easy. In the case of X-Rebirth/X4 v X2/X3 there are stark fundamental differences in the way things are done. The revised approaches in the new engine have the potential to be far superior and not as constraining in the long run but the change in approach has notionally required some legacy material to be summarily dumped and would have to be rewritten from scratch for the new engine.

Alot of the issues we seem to be having at the momment with X4 seems to be with core elements of the AI and engine implementation, that is even before we start adding additional more complex elements on top. Egosoft need to get the basic elements working properly before it is fair and reasonable to build on those elements with more advanced features. That being said, it would appear that Egosoft are on the case with 2.20 seemingly making moves in the right direction wrt addressing at least some of the core element issues.

No I don't miss the point, I do understand than the mechanics and maths done by the engine is vastly different and need to be written over, but the player do not see that. Nor should he care. For example a good old shortcut to command a wing to "attack my target", I don't care how many lines of code it takes it just should be there. That function has been in many other games than just X and long before X4, why can't it be in the game? We know it is a good thing/concept/function. I know Egosoft will keep adding and writing new codes and polish, but sometimes it feels they try to reinvent the wheel, this time with carbonfiber instead of steel. I don't care if its steel or carbon, just have it in the game.

But I think we can agree on disagree? This is about carriers and what should be done to them.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

No I don't miss the point, I do understand than the mechanics and maths done by the engine is vastly different and need to be written over, but the player do not see that. Nor should he care. For example a good old shortcut to command a wing to "attack my target", I don't care how many lines of code it takes it just should be there. That function has been in many other games than just X and long before X4, why can't it be in the game? We know it is a good thing/concept/function. I know Egosoft will keep adding and writing new codes and polish, but sometimes it feels they try to reinvent the wheel, this time with carbonfiber instead of steel. I don't care if its steel or carbon, just have it in the game.

The point is what can be considered reasonable levels of expectations given the situation in play thus such factors need to be kept in mind - especially when considering porting features from one product to another.

But I think we can agree on disagree? This is about carriers and what should be done to them.

Ok, but I fundamentally disagree with the premises some are asserting - Carriers are anything but the white elephant that some are trying to portray them as.

Carriers in X4 may not fill exactly the role that some may wish they did but the role they do fill is consistent with current the current state of play with the X-Universe game lore.

[dholmstr]

No I don't miss the point, I do understand than the mechanics and maths done by the engine is vastly different and need to be written over, but the player do not see that. Nor should he care. For example a good old shortcut to command a wing to "attack my target", I don't care how many lines of code it takes it just should be there. That function has been in many other games than just X and long before X4, why can't it be in the game? We know it is a good thing/concept/function. I know Egosoft will keep adding and writing new codes and polish, but sometimes it feels they try to reinvent the wheel, this time with carbonfiber instead of steel. I don't care if its steel or carbon, just have it in the game.

The point is what can be considered reasonable levels of expectations given the situation in play thus such factors need to be kept in mind - especially when considering porting features from one product to another.

But I think we can agree on disagree? This is about carriers and what should be done to them.

Ok, but I fundamentally disagree with the premises some are asserting - Carriers are anything but the white elephant that some are trying to portray them as.

Carriers in X4 may not fill exactly the role that some may wish they did but the role they do fill is consistent with current the current state of play with the X-Universe game lore.

What is the role they are filling, that is current state of play within the game lore? Is it the role Egosoft is aiming for? Driving around with small ships in the belly? Again I think many players see that the fighters will get to said area faster than the Carrier will. And bringing firepower to the field?
Indeed damaged fighters can dock into safety, but without repairs and the pricetag on one fighter is nothing you'll just let it die and buy 10 more. And the docking is not automated so you need to give that order to that fighter to "dock damnyou DOCK!", wich probably is too late. Could this be automated for carrier wings?

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

No I don't miss the point, I do understand than the mechanics and maths done by the engine is vastly different and need to be written over, but the player do not see that. Nor should he care. For example a good old shortcut to command a wing to "attack my target", I don't care how many lines of code it takes it just should be there. That function has been in many other games than just X and long before X4, why can't it be in the game? We know it is a good thing/concept/function. I know Egosoft will keep adding and writing new codes and polish, but sometimes it feels they try to reinvent the wheel, this time with carbonfiber instead of steel. I don't care if its steel or carbon, just have it in the game.

The point is what can be considered reasonable levels of expectations given the situation in play thus such factors need to be kept in mind - especially when considering porting features from one product to another.

But I think we can agree on disagree? This is about carriers and what should be done to them.

Ok, but I fundamentally disagree with the premises some are asserting - Carriers are anything but the white elephant that some are trying to portray them as.

Carriers in X4 may not fill exactly the role that some may wish they did but the role they do fill is consistent with current the current state of play with the X-Universe game lore.

What is the role they are filling, that is current state of play within the game lore? Is it the role Egosoft is aiming for? Driving around with small ships in the belly? Again I think many players see that the fighters will get to said area faster than the Carrier will. And bringing firepower to the field?
Indeed damaged fighters can dock into safety, but without repairs and the pricetag on one fighter is nothing you'll just let it die and buy 10 more. And the docking is not automated so you need to give that order to that fighter to "dock damnyou DOCK!", wich probably is too late. Could this be automated for carrier wings?

WRT travel times - that is actually fundamentally flawed reasoning in general, sure I can send 40 drones across the gate network but they may not take the same route nor will they necessarily arrive at the same time - more likely they will arrive in dribs and drabs. That is not a subjective assessment either, it is based on current in-game experience. The benefit of carriers in the main is that they can be tuned for travel drive speed and the fighters tuned for cruise/boost speed. In such a circumstance, the carriers will be able to get from point A to point B faster and more consistently than the ships flying individually - especially when there is not a highway to benefit from for a large portion of the fastest route. The fastest route is likely to be different for both travel cases. For L/XL craft, the fastest route is also the shortest route but for S/M craft there is highway usage/availability to consider.

WRT repairs - ships in general have support for self-repair courtesy of on-board service crew, no need for specific repair facilities on carriers. Repair of docked ships using the carrying ship's crew if done should be a universal feature of all ships that can dock other ships. Ultimately, such a feature is unnecessary and would be a waste of resources at Egosoft for them to implement IMO. If own-ship repairs work reliably enough then that would be sufficient.

WRT order execution in general, no-one is disputing that the baseline behaviours need more work from Egosoft but fundamentally that is still a work in progress - For example, V2.20 is slated to address at least some of the concerns.

As for role fit where X4 Carriers are concerned - they are essentially more defensively focused than Destroyers where own weapons are concerned and can both launch and recover the ships they can carry faster than the corresponding same-race Destroyer. On top of this they have the largest baseline missile capacity of all ships, not sufficiently larger than other ship capacities to justify rearm facility though. Carriers are essentially moving armed bases of operations that can support both military and civilian activities, they are balanced in a way that makes them weaker than destroyers in some ways, and stronger in others. Carriers can not do everything destroyers can as well as a destroyer can nor can destroyers do everything carriers can do as well as carriers can. There is a significant degree of overlap in capabilities between X4 Destroyers and X4 Carriers but that is not entirely unexpected given the state of the X-Universe where resources are (and more significantly were for a long time - during the gate network shutdown period) at a premium (or at least limited).

The X4 role fit mapping is similar (but not identical) to X2 in many ways - X3 Carriers (with some specific notable exceptions) did not have a significant TS/TP internal carrying capability for example while X2 did. The TS/TP carrying capability from X2 maps reasonably well onto the X4 M-size vessel carrying capability. Only ONE destroyer of the 3 primary types (Behemoth, Odysseus, and Phoenix) can carry M-size vessels and that comes at the cost of launch and recovery speed for both S and M sized vessels.

[GCU Grey Area]

What is the role they are filling, that is current state of play within the game lore? Is it the role Egosoft is aiming for? Driving around with small ships in the belly? Again I think many players see that the fighters will get to said area faster than the Carrier will. And bringing firepower to the field?

Roger covered most of this, so I'll just put some numbers on it. The engines on my fighters are tuned for forward thrust. Since I don't have nearly enough purple mods these are basic greens which means their travel mode is compromised. Max travel speed for most of them is around 2.4km/s. In contrast the rest of the fleet is substantially faster, around 7.2km/s for the carriers, 8.6km/s for the destroyers. It's simply more convenient to use carriers to transport the fighters, rather than have the fleet regularly waiting around for fighter support to arrive under their own steam - there's not always a highway for the entire journey my fleet makes, particularly in Xenon sectors where my fleet primarily operates.

As for firepower, my Condors don't generally get involved in the fighting (I have fighters & destroyers for that), however they do fill the role of strategic bomber during station demolition. The Ventral M turrets are all Plasma & the 2 lower docks contain Osprey Sentinels with a full Plasma turret loadout (total of 15 M Plasma turrets for each Condor). It's kind of glorious watching my Condors circling low over a Xenon station raining plasma bolts down at it.

Indeed damaged fighters can dock into safety, but without repairs and the pricetag on one fighter is nothing you'll just let it die and buy 10 more. And the docking is not automated so you need to give that order to that fighter to "dock damnyou DOCK!", wich probably is too late. Could this be automated for carrier wings?

Prefer not to just 'let it die' if that can possibly be avoided. Current game was started in 2.0 so don't have the bottomless cash reserves I did in my 1.0-1.6 game. Tends to fluctuate around 100-150 million. Price of a new Buzzard Sentinel with my usual spec is around 2 million. Can afford replacements but buying a lot has a noticeable impact on my cash reserves & I do have other uses for that (new stations etc). Have also modified all of my fighters (chassis: max hull, shield: capacity, engines: forward thrust) so have invested quite a lot of cash (up to around 500k in some cases) & resources in them. Another reason I'd prefer to send them to eq dock or wharf for repair, rather than replace.

My fighters are also setup for fast evac in case of damage. All fighters are running 'dock & wait' default behaviour so if I spot a damaged fighter all I need to do is 'remove all orders' & they automatically break off the attack, fly back to their carrier & dock. It's a hell of a lot more convenient than trying to extract a damaged fighter from battle if there wasn't a carrier around to designate for 'dock & wait'. They also automatically RTB whenever they have completed their attack orders, which is fairly useful.

[sh1pman]

Roger covered most of this, so I'll just put some numbers on it. The engines on my fighters are tuned for forward thrust. Since I don't have nearly enough purple mods these are basic greens which means their travel mode is compromised. Max travel speed for most of them is around 2.4km/s. In contrast the rest of the fleet is substantially faster, around 7.2km/s for the carriers, 8.6km/s for the destroyers. It's simply more convenient to use carriers to transport the fighters, rather than have the fleet regularly waiting around for fighter support to arrive under their own steam - there's not always a highway for the entire journey my fleet makes, particularly in Xenon sectors where my fleet primarily operates.

So, we’re talking numbers, right? Can I suggest an experiment? Order your carrier and fighters to fly somewhere 5 gates away, separately. See who gets there first and note the difference between their times. You (the player) should stay at the beginning of the race and not follow the ships. Then post the numbers here, so we can clearly see who’s faster in a realistic situation.

[GCU Grey Area]

So, we’re talking numbers, right? Can I suggest an experiment? Order your carrier and fighters to fly somewhere 5 gates away, separately. See who gets there first and note the difference between their times. You (the player) should stay at the beginning of the race and not follow the ships. Then post the numbers here, so we can clearly see who’s faster in a realistic situation.

In what way is that a 'realistic situation'? I simply don't use my fleet that way. Entire fleet travels together (normally fly one of the carriers myself) & pauses after each gate to reform. What's the point of a test where different elements of the fleet arrive at different times? Doesn't really matter what order they arrive in, it's simply not a practical approach to battle - my destroyers need their fighter support if Xenon capitals are present in numbers (or if a single I is around - those things scare me in 2.0).

Instead tried doing a test where I gave the fighters follow orders (rather than having them travel inside the carriers) to simulate a fleet with no carriers. Fighters did OK at keeping up where they could use a highway, but lagged behind where there was none available. It wasn't a terribly long delay, however on a few occasions had unexpected difficulty charging up my travel drive in the middle of a swarm of fighters (kept disengaging - close proximity of the fighters?). Furthermore came damn close to losing a couple when the fleet encountered a pack of Ps along the way - this sort of thing is simply a non-issue if the fighters are safely packed away inside their carriers. No, don't think I'll be selling my carriers any time soon, just find them too useful to manage without. Travelling with a swarm of fighters in tow was simply too much of a chaotic mess to put up with.

[dholmstr]

Wait, what carrier goes 7,2km/s and what destroyer goes 8,6 km/s? Fastest I've seen with travel engines are around 4 ish...

[GCU Grey Area]

Wait, what carrier goes 7,2km/s and what destroyer goes 8,6 km/s? Fastest I've seen with travel engines are around 4 ish...

Those numbers are for Condor & Phoenix Vanguards with all-round engines & purple mods for Chassis (mass mod) & Engines (forward thrust mod).
Probably could go even faster in travel mode (with a travel engine & specific travel mode mod), however the purple forward thrust mods come with a decent enough modifier for travel mode & prefer my capitals to have good performance on conventional drives.

[adeine]

The current equivalent of that is the travel speed match up. Carried fighters can afford to be cruise/boost focused and their Carrier can focus on maximising travel speed.

Except capital ships are ridiculously slow under AI control to the point of being unusable, due to frequently stopping and starting the (already slow) travel drive, having to manoeuvre around the back side of gates, trying to recall subordinates which more often than not ends up getting stuck.

Even the slowest non capital ship will traverse the galaxy an order of magnitude faster, and that's not even taking into account core systems with highways.

[pref]

You can not jump straight from concept to implementation in the manner you seem to be suggesting.

Jump straight? 5 years have passed already since the release of the new engine.. no idea what you try to express with this.
Sit on it for 10 years until the engine becomes obsolete again?

From what I understand of the revised engine design from a modding perspective, it is unlikely to be obsolete in 10 years time. It also may not take 10 years for things along the lines of what you are asking for to be fully implemented and working either. Talk about hyperbole....

Not suggesting anything, just trying to interpret if what you say has any real meaning to it or it's just a hidden insult.
But your reply makes it clear

[GCU Grey Area]

Except capital ships are ridiculously slow under AI control to the point of being unusable...

What a ludicrous assertion - pure hyperbole. It is simply not the case at all - I know for a fact that capital ships are far from unusable because I use them on a daily basis! Indeed when I give the order for the fighters to attack I always have to wait for a few moments before giving the same order to the destroyers, otherwise they overtake their own fighter support & reach the target first.

By the way, if anyone's having issues with Recall Subordinates suggest using 'Dock & Wait' behaviour instead. It has proved very reliable in getting my fighters to return to their carriers automatically - been using it for weeks & not once have I seen a single fighter 'getting stuck'.

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

I think to make carriers useful, the fighters need to be considered as part of the weapon system, much like ammunition rather than being a fleet of ships. They should deploy to attack, dock when all enemy objects are outside of the detection range ( or recall issued ) and not randomly dock/undock just because the ship is moving/stopped ( one of the most frustrating things that ships with docks do ). In less words, the fighters should do what the carrier tells them to as a coordinated group, the number of wings that can be controlled should depend on management skills. The lack of coordination in a wing is quite bad and more often than not I spend the time herding cats. Repair/reloading aside, a carrier should be a way to manage a large group of fighters without having to tell cat 47 of wing 3 to stop chasing that ball of yarn and work with the group.

Perhaps that is part of a larger issue with Wings, I don't even know how many times when moving a wing of 45 fighters from point A to B I have to click recall subordinates because 3 decided to chase after the solo Xenon that is just going to boost all over the place until it gets just 1 that it will kill. It's like a group of dogs in a park with a squirrel outbreak and a carrier does nothing to alleviate that.

Short answer, Wings manage subordinates, Carriers manage wings, you need only manage carriers ( but can issue wing commands ). The fleet hierarchy should be a chain of command, not a file cabinet.

[dholmstr]

Wait, what carrier goes 7,2km/s and what destroyer goes 8,6 km/s? Fastest I've seen with travel engines are around 4 ish...

Those numbers are for Condor & Phoenix Vanguards with all-round engines & purple mods for Chassis (mass mod) & Engines (forward thrust mod).
Probably could go even faster in travel mode (with a travel engine & specific travel mode mod), however the purple forward thrust mods come with a decent enough modifier for travel mode & prefer my capitals to have good performance on conventional drives.

Have you played without mods for the AI? Because I'm not going to go for 20-30 capitals with purple-grade mods that will get eventually shot down. I want the stock mass build ships functionality to be something before we start to judge one playstyle with mods as the way to do it.

[adeine]

What a ludicrous assertion - pure hyperbole. It is simply not the case at all - I know for a fact that capital ships are far from unusable because I use them on a daily basis! Indeed when I give the order for the fighters to attack I always have to wait for a few moments before giving the same order to the destroyers, otherwise they overtake their own fighter support & reach the target first.

By the way, if anyone's having issues with Recall Subordinates suggest using 'Dock & Wait' behaviour instead. It has proved very reliable in getting my fighters to return to their carriers automatically - been using it for weeks & not once have I seen a single fighter 'getting stuck'.

Oh, I have used and am using them. Doesn't change the fact that trying to do most anything fleet related is seriously an attempt at herding cats right now.

I take it in your example you assume an ideal scenario with both ships already in the system they need to be, travel in a straight line from A to B, in which case yeah, they will be quicker. When sending forces across the galaxy however I always have to wait for bigger ships, making sure they don't randomly get stuck if I was in sector and they might have launched drones. And of course making sure none of the ships were distracted by a random enemy fighter along the way, which they've decided to chase to the ends of the universe at cruise speed.