I'd like an XL battleship DLC

[jlehtone]

How is a backstory not part of the lore? Maybe it's an excuse to do something but frankly, so is most lore. It gets written and re-written to justify what gets put in games all the time.

Of course. However, "Split this, Terran that" lore ought to co-align with the design of those factions, while "you stumbled on scrap of unknown origin that nobody else knows about" can be more unhinged. If Teladi suddenly sport the fastest gun platform in the Galaxy, then something is very non-Boron. If player suddenly has the fastest gun platform in the Galaxy, then we just say "lame".

For my defination of the battleship, I will just reference my previous comment here:

Fine. Except that I oppose the presence of "main weapon" on "battleship". If we keep a fixed front gun, then why not call them "XL Destroyers" (for added confusion)?

[flywlyx]

Fine. Except that I oppose the presence of "main weapon" on "battleship". If we keep a fixed front gun, then why not call them "XL Destroyers" (for added confusion)?

I don't think that's the right way to distinguish things. Otherwise, all L ships without main weapons would be classified as freighters. By that logic, if we remove the main guns, they should be called "XL freighters". A lot of players using the Erlking in that way is a different story.

Anyway, I don’t really mind whether battleships have main weapons or not. From my perspective, the biggest issue with turret-only ships is the lack of control over them. Manually changing turret targets is really annoying, especially when you have more than four turret groups.

[LameFox]

TER has the best S-class weapons, with the Meson Stream being a standout. A Gladius equipped with four Meson Streams can one-shot any S-class fighter in the game. The recent update adding gimbals to Meson Streams makes this S-class death beam even more deadly. Saying they don’t have one of the best fighters in the game is simply unfair.

The idea that TER doesn’t have supremacy is simply too biased. They have the best weapons, shields, and engines. Complaining that other factions having just one comparable component would undermine their dominance is unfair. There’s no reason to compromise for such an unbalanced perspective.

Their S/M weapons are nice but also heavily limited by their ship hulls, and are quite generic in their function. For instance other races have better offerings specifically tailored to things like killing shields, piercing shields, killing surface elements. Nothing very special about the Gladius (very similar stats to Eclipse, but slower, less agile, and very slightly higher hull hp) or Kukri (like a notably slower but slightly more agile Asp). I do count the Takoba as one of the best fighters of its type but then that's a Pioneer ship.

They have decent L weapons, at the cost of range, and the only mass produced XL weapon. However their L turrets are sorely lacking a heavy weapon, which is frankly weird given they used to field PSPs. Their M turrets are just sad reskins.

Whether their engines are the best or not is highly subjective. I know a lot of people like them for player-specific manoeuvres with FA off and travel charge time but they also have serious downsides in that top speed often directly affects survival rate in fighters, and Terran fighter hulls are already slow. Their shield modules are still the strongest overall (although the gap is closer in S ships) but there again they are limited by their hulls, because they often don't mount many shields on them, and for that reason other races often out-compete them in durability.

You can say that is "biased" if you want—who isn't?—but I am not personally very invested in whether or not Terrans are powerful, it's just my experience in the game that a lot of their stuff is pretty mid. Their fighter attrition rate is something I've found particularly egregious, and on my Terran tech runs I nearly always resort to Takobas which live way longer. Personally I actually think that is probably for the best (except the M turrets being reskins, that sucks). A game where one faction was just super great at everything would probably be less fun, and I think it's actually pretty normal for games with external lore saying there's a faction/group like that to sacrifice it for the sake of better balance.

Of course. However, "Split this, Terran that" lore ought to co-align with the design of those factions, while "you stumbled on scrap of unknown origin that nobody else knows about" can be more unhinged. If Teladi suddenly sport the fastest gun platform in the Galaxy, then something is very non-Boron. If player suddenly has the fastest gun platform in the Galaxy, then we just say "lame".

To be clear I don't think there is anything wrong with having the story say some random people built a weirdly powerful battleship out of scraps, but it does establish that this kind of thing is possible, not exclusively the domain of super high tech economical powerhouse factions. Funny enough in terms of racial specialities I feel like the one that really fell short are the Split. Known for being well armed and fast but it seems like they've been losing ground on both fronts in the time since SV.

[Nerwesta]

While discussing the grand scheme of things, I would humbly say not to tunnel vision solely on what happened during WW2, a lot of technologies were on their novelty, nations tried and retried sometimes with huge losses.
There are instead millenias worth of stories before that, with literal empires warring at each other to control the trade routes.
I had in mind the HMS Victory, Santisma Trinidad and l'Océan that did lead their own front.

Again, please tell me how the hell do you attack a station with a Ray ? How this Destroyer is anything close to the Behemoth or the Rattlesnake, despite bearing the same class. ( Destroyer ! )

I just use several of them, albeit a few more than if I was using Behemoth or Rattlesnake, etc. In my current Boron-only game the business end of my demolition fleet consists of 14 Rays, in 2 groups of 7, which work their way around enemy stations in opposite directions. If I was playing with other destroyers I'd need fewer of them (typically 8-10) but the approach I use would be identical. If I recall correctly when I was playing as a Terran my demolition fleet consisted of 4x Osaka & 4x Syn. Did try adding a couple of Asgards to the fleet but they were so slow to manoeuvre into position that they'd generally only fire a couple of shots while the rest of the fleet did the bulk of the work. Found them too annoying to work with & ended up repurposing them as permanently docked turret batteries for my HQ instead. Rays however are my firm favourites for demolition work. Their main gun may be a bit on the weak side but their instant travel drive make them exceptionally swift to reposition as the demolition job progresses.

Interesting.
May I say 14 Rays is a massive amount of ships, not just several of them. I use one or two Osaka to that task, with their S/M fleet.
This means exactly the point I was trying to make, you print a lot of Rays to get the output another Destroyer could have, this also means Destroyers have to be printed ( no matter what anyway ) and are fundamentally different to each others.

Battleships shouldn't be printed, and should serve as an ultimate weapon, not a force of quick intervention. I can sling Osakas wherever I want in comparison.

I still don’t understand why people are so fixated on this power creep assumption when no one here is asking for battleships as strong as the Asgard.

Sure they are. That's exactly what most players who want them would expect. The Asgaard is a battleship and that's what some people want for the other factions. They aren't asking for battlecruisers.

tbh I suspect a lot of it is working backwards from "I don't want battleships". The idea that people will pour out of the woodwork to insist on Terran supremacy

It's not "people will pour out of the wordwork", it's that people want the lore to be consistent. Every other major faction suddenly possessing such ships without the Terrans responding goes against all the lore. Maybe in a future game set much further in the future, the other races could have the time and tech to build their own. But expecting them suddenly to possess battleships in X4 is lore-breaking, IMO.

From reading carefully people who want more Battleships, I've yet to see anyone who defends that idea. I got the sence you're trying to put words on people's mouths.
Everyone agrees the Asgard lore wise should be the most powerful one.
Lore being 115% consistent to you should stop certain features of gameplay on a game set to add anyway more content, no matter what ?
May I ask how lore is less consistent than say, Argon designs on Boron ships and stations ? Those stand out to me, and kind of got explained via a direct dialogue.

Also, does this mean the lore should stay intact no matter which DLC gets added( Borons barred from the universe if you didn't buy Kingdom End's etc ) and what the players does ?
Triggering a weaponry escalation before the Terrans can react is perfectly doable, especially if late game pushes towards factions being united, and the Xenon crisis.
In fact this should be a non-problem here, Terrans aren't forced to build yet another ship on this timeframe.

Egosoft can't make everything squared like a novel, but it's net plus for those asking these ships, without butchering the stories.

I got the sense a lot of arguments are just there just to avoid other factions ( and people ) to get somewhat the same tools as the Terrans. They already have a perfect economy, and very capable offensive capabilities, players doing "Terran" only playthroughs should wipe anything they meet, that includes the PIO start since they are intertwined.
Split are on literal ICU on most of my seeds, unless I artifically help them.


edit :

Sadly most of the mods adding newly designed Battleships are for the Terrans, looking at the "Osaka" Nagoya makeover or that mod :
https://www.nexusmods.com/x4foundations/mods/1330

[jlehtone]

Anyway, I don’t really mind whether battleships have main weapons or not. From my perspective, the biggest issue with turret-only ships is the lack of control over them. Manually changing turret targets is really annoying, especially when you have more than four turret groups.

Now that is an idea. A ship class that has turrets and special gunnery control seat for extra control.

[Thomas2052]

Interesting.
May I say 14 Rays is a massive amount of ships, not just several of them. I use one or two Osaka to that task, with their S/M fleet.
This means exactly the point I was trying to make, you print a lot of Rays to get the output another Destroyer could have, this also means Destroyers have to be printed ( no matter what anyway ) and are fundamentally different to each others.

I too am a Ray-lover.

I also weirdly use fleets of about 12-14.

It's not the fastest at station demolition, but the range and accuracy of the gun, chunky shields and instant travel make it a solid and safe choice. Plus the flak turrets can strip station harpoints very well if it strays too close.

And when they're not station destroying, which is most of the time, I find them to be one of the most effective anti-fighter and anti capital ships in class. I prefer having a jack of all trades, even if it will take a few more minutes per station.

Anyway, I don’t really mind whether battleships have main weapons or not. From my perspective, the biggest issue with turret-only ships is the lack of control over them. Manually changing turret targets is really annoying, especially when you have more than four turret groups.

Now that is an idea. A ship class that has turrets and special gunnery control seat for extra control.

Was that feature not in X2/3? Never understood why they got rid of that. Was great fun.

Regards

[GCU Grey Area]

Interesting.
May I say 14 Rays is a massive amount of ships, not just several of them. I use one or two Osaka to that task, with their S/M fleet.
This means exactly the point I was trying to make, you print a lot of Rays to get the output another Destroyer could have, this also means Destroyers have to be printed ( no matter what anyway ) and are fundamentally different to each others.

You must either have a LOT more patience than me, or use very different tactics (or possibly both). In either case it's not really a valid comparison.

I would not consider 1-2 Osakas to have anywhere near enough firepower for station demolition in a reasonable amount of time. Have played a Terran game & found I needed a minimum of 4 Osakas & 4 Syns to achieve acceptable results (as mentioned in my earlier post).

For the sake of clarity, my destroyers operate entirely on their own when doing station demolition (no S/M support other than interceptors in case the station's got a big drone swarm) & only attack the station with their main guns.

Suspect that's what makes the difference in the number of destroyers we each use, rather than 14 Rays only having the firepower of 1-2 Osakas (which clearly isn't the case).

[flywlyx]

Their S/M weapons are nice but also heavily limited by their ship hulls, and are quite generic in their function. For instance other races have better offerings specifically tailored to things like killing shields, piercing shields, killing surface elements. Nothing very special about the Gladius (very similar stats to Eclipse, but slower, less agile, and very slightly higher hull hp) or Kukri (like a notably slower but slightly more agile Asp). I do count the Takoba as one of the best fighters of its type but then that's a Pioneer ship.

They have decent L weapons, at the cost of range, and the only mass produced XL weapon. However their L turrets are sorely lacking a heavy weapon, which is frankly weird given they used to field PSPs. Their M turrets are just sad reskins.

Whether their engines are the best or not is highly subjective. I know a lot of people like them for player-specific manoeuvres with FA off and travel charge time but they also have serious downsides in that top speed often directly affects survival rate in fighters, and Terran fighter hulls are already slow. Their shield modules are still the strongest overall (although the gap is closer in S ships) but there again they are limited by their hulls, because they often don't mount many shields on them, and for that reason other races often out-compete them in durability.

You can say that is "biased" if you want—who isn't?—but I am not personally very invested in whether or not Terrans are powerful, it's just my experience in the game that a lot of their stuff is pretty mid. Their fighter attrition rate is something I've found particularly egregious, and on my Terran tech runs I nearly always resort to Takobas which live way longer. Personally I actually think that is probably for the best (except the M turrets being reskins, that sucks). A game where one faction was just super great at everything would probably be less fun, and I think it's actually pretty normal for games with external lore saying there's a faction/group like that to sacrifice it for the sake of better balance.

The Gladius can one-shot any ship in the same class, and if that’s nothing special, then I don’t think there’s anything particularly special about the Asgard or any ship in this game, since they all have their own drawbacks.

While I’d personally love to see TER get their PSPs back, their current armament can be explained by the fact that they’re relying on Asgards to take down capital-class opponents.

Their engine capabilities also align well with their tactics. If no one can stand up to a frontal assault, all TER needs to worry about is how quickly they can move between battlefields, and their superior travel drive acceleration makes them the best across all classes.

The high casualty rate you’ve noticed in fighters is likely due to the AI setting that allows TER pilots to use boosts regardless of their pilot levels. I haven’t noticed my TER-only fleet suffering the highest casualty rate compared to other factions' 5-star gate defense fleets. Since most combat takes place in low attention, where AI doesn’t suffer from friendly fire or excessive damage, they perform overwhelmingly well.

Sadly most of the mods adding newly designed Battleships are for the Terrans, looking at the "Osaka" Nagoya makeover or that mod :
https://www.nexusmods.com/x4foundations/mods/1330

The most download battleship mod is ARG Titan
It meets most of the requirements people have raised here—a fancy, unique flagship that’s fun to fly, weaker than Asgard, and lacks a main weapon. While it doesn’t match my expectations as the cornerstone of ARG’s strategy, I wouldn’t complain too much if Egosoft ended up making a battleship package DLC with this kind of design.

Was that feature not in X2/3? Never understood why they got rid of that. Was great fun.

Not really, but X3AP had a custom turret priority function, which eliminated the need for manual turret control in most situations.

[Raptor34]

Anyway, I don’t really mind whether battleships have main weapons or not. From my perspective, the biggest issue with turret-only ships is the lack of control over them. Manually changing turret targets is really annoying, especially when you have more than four turret groups.

Now that is an idea. A ship class that has turrets and special gunnery control seat for extra control.

Was that feature not in X2/3? Never understood why they got rid of that. Was great fun.

Regards

From what I remember you were still nominally in control of your ship, i.e. no AP or anything. Well, X2 had that remote viewing thing, can't remember if X3 had that.
But it does meant it wasn't that fun because you couldn't be just a turret operator, you were basically letting the ship continue on, I think, or did it stop?
It'll work way better in X4 because you can have the captain fly the ship and you just sit at a turret.

[Karvat]

Trying to understand. So you want each faction to have a battleship, but you want each battleship to be different. So... what's a battleship?

A battleship, in this context, would be a heavily armed and armored capital ship designed for frontline combat, typically excelling in endurance, firepower, and command capabilities. It should serve as the backbone of a faction’s fleet, capable of standing its ground in large-scale engagements.

However, the key issue isn’t just giving each faction a battleship, it’s making sure they are distinct and meaningful within the game’s ecosystem. Each faction’s battleship should reflect its doctrine, technology, and design philosophy rather than being simple reskins or slight stat variations.

For example:

A militaristic faction might have a heavily armored, slow-moving dreadnought with massive frontal firepower.
A high-tech faction could favor a sleek, shield-heavy battleship with advanced energy weapons.
A pirate or guerrilla faction might deploy a more mobile battleship with stealth capabilities or hit-and-run mechanics.
The goal should be to create real variety that makes each battleship feel like an extension of its faction, rather than just another large ship with bigger guns.

[j.harshaw]

However, the key issue isn’t just giving each faction a battleship, it’s making sure they are distinct and meaningful within the game’s ecosystem.

Agreed, but I have to echo Feloidea's sentiment from page 1: why does this epitome ship have to be a "heavily armed and armored capital ship designed for frontline combat, typically excelling in endurance, firepower, and command capabilities" for each faction?

Taking from your example, if someone wanted something mobile and stealthy that would excel at hit-and-run tactics, why would they design it as a big honking battleship?

Stretch a concept far enough, it'll stop meaning anything. And the battleship concept, as it stands, appears to be meaningful enough to make a bunch of people want more of them. And to be clear, what I'm really interested in is what, in that meaning, are you after?

[Nerwesta]

Interesting.
May I say 14 Rays is a massive amount of ships, not just several of them. I use one or two Osaka to that task, with their S/M fleet.
This means exactly the point I was trying to make, you print a lot of Rays to get the output another Destroyer could have, this also means Destroyers have to be printed ( no matter what anyway ) and are fundamentally different to each others.

You must either have a LOT more patience than me, or use very different tactics (or possibly both). In either case it's not really a valid comparison.

I would not consider 1-2 Osakas to have anywhere near enough firepower for station demolition in a reasonable amount of time. Have played a Terran game & found I needed a minimum of 4 Osakas & 4 Syns to achieve acceptable results (as mentioned in my earlier post).

For the sake of clarity, my destroyers operate entirely on their own when doing station demolition (no S/M support other than interceptors in case the station's got a big drone swarm) & only attack the station with their main guns.

Suspect that's what makes the difference in the number of destroyers we each use, rather than 14 Rays only having the firepower of 1-2 Osakas (which clearly isn't the case).

No I'm not saying they were, in fact I've never deployed that many Rays. I had like 3 at any point and found their firepower very lacking, understandably.
I could somehow make it work with 2 Osakas and their fleets.
I'm in no way alluding your (14)Rays had less firepower than my experience, for clarity aswell.

Interesting.
May I say 14 Rays is a massive amount of ships, not just several of them. I use one or two Osaka to that task, with their S/M fleet.
This means exactly the point I was trying to make, you print a lot of Rays to get the output another Destroyer could have, this also means Destroyers have to be printed ( no matter what anyway ) and are fundamentally different to each others.

I too am a Ray-lover.

I also weirdly use fleets of about 12-14.

It's not the fastest at station demolition, but the range and accuracy of the gun, chunky shields and instant travel make it a solid and safe choice. Plus the flak turrets can strip station harpoints very well if it strays too close.

And when they're not station destroying, which is most of the time, I find them to be one of the most effective anti-fighter and anti capital ships in class. I prefer having a jack of all trades, even if it will take a few more minutes per station.

I get that, I really like it too. In fact that's why I bring some on my fleet for the reasons you just named, even if I'm not playing Borons.
My point rather was how different this can be played, and that's a pretty good aspect !

Gunnery seats and control is a great idea ! In fact while viewing different point of views ( with "More Rooms" mod ) I wondered myself why it didn't make it to the game. Viewing the combats from below your ship or on it's sides is a whole new experience

Sadly most of the mods adding newly designed Battleships are for the Terrans, looking at the "Osaka" Nagoya makeover or that mod :
https://www.nexusmods.com/x4foundations/mods/1330

The most download battleship mod is ARG Titan
It meets most of the requirements people have raised here—a fancy, unique flagship that’s fun to fly, weaker than Asgard, and lacks a main weapon. While it doesn’t match my expectations as the cornerstone of ARG’s strategy, I wouldn’t complain too much if Egosoft ended up making a battleship package DLC with this kind of design.

True, I somehow missed that one as I thought it was a leftover from earlier games. Mods should definitely be a source of inspiration indeed, and quickly skimming the comments here and there, it seems to me a lot of people are asking for more Battleships. ( in fact, since it's a popular mod, it should be a truism )
The other mod I linked is also interesting, as it adds the ability to launch several torpedoes from a hatch on top of the ship ( I think it's featured on the Hengdao, heavy fighter )
https://www.nexusmods.com/x4foundations/mods/1330

I imagine if a modder could make it, it can be doable to widen the range of possibilities for Egosoft.

[flywlyx]

Taking from your example, if someone wanted something mobile and stealthy that would excel at hit-and-run tactics, why would they design it as a big honking battleship?

It's quite common for large, big ships to be surprisingly fast in X4. If we're talking about a highly mobile fleet, the most obvious choice would be PAR, as most of their capital ships have high cruise speeds and top-tier travel speeds.

Since the goal is to make an entire faction stealthy, modifying all PAR ships with a hull mod doesn’t seem practical. The most logical solution would be a ship capable of jamming radar signals and reducing the detection range of the entire fleet. A powerful jammer requires a substantial power supply, making a big honking battleship the perfect fit.

[LameFox]

The Gladius can one-shot any ship in the same class, and if that’s nothing special, then I don’t think there’s anything particularly special about the Asgard or any ship in this game, since they all have their own drawbacks.

This actually doesn't take much, especially if you count missiles. 4 Mesons also gives you a pretty long cooldown between shots and, if you have more than one ship equipped thus, fighting ships in their own class, you're likely to get cases of extreme overkill followed by a bunch of very slow ships getting picked off while their weapons cool down. So no I do not think it is particularly special. Outside of player hands I only let bombardment ships use that weapon. In player hands it can be an amusing way to fight (mostly with the new physics) but isn't superpowered or anything, just easy to use.

Their engine capabilities also align well with their tactics. If no one can stand up to a frontal assault, all TER needs to worry about is how quickly they can move between battlefields, and their superior travel drive acceleration makes them the best across all classes.

This is one of those things I've heard before but it seems very situational in my experience. IF your ships haven't got far to go, it's a good engine to have. It also kinda benefits them if they're interrupted frequently, but that's complicated by the fact that if it's a larger ship they'll manoeuvre slowly around obstacles having both slow hulls and slow engines. Over longer distances however the lower top speed is not great. It reminds me of when the conventional wisdom going around was that combat engines were the best for everything, including traders, but in practice I found a lot of my ships were consistently reaching and limited by their top speeds and setting them up to race travel engine ships along their routes had them lose soundly. Fast starts and lower top speeds are a niche benefit (which is as it should be tbh).

The high casualty rate you’ve noticed in fighters is likely due to the AI setting that allows TER pilots to use boosts regardless of their pilot levels. I haven’t noticed my TER-only fleet suffering the highest casualty rate compared to other factions' 5-star gate defense fleets. Since most combat takes place in low attention, where AI doesn’t suffer from friendly fire or excessive damage, they perform overwhelmingly well.

I took a Terran tech save into the current beta and my gate fleets fighting Xenon still lost Kukris and Gladii at way higher rates than Takobas, so I don't think it's related to boosting. Slow fighters are vulnerable. To fighters, to Gravitons, anything that targets them.

[LameFox]

However, the key issue isn’t just giving each faction a battleship, it’s making sure they are distinct and meaningful within the game’s ecosystem.

Agreed, but I have to echo Feloidea's sentiment from page 1: why does this epitome ship have to be a "heavily armed and armored capital ship designed for frontline combat, typically excelling in endurance, firepower, and command capabilities" for each faction?

Taking from your example, if someone wanted something mobile and stealthy that would excel at hit-and-run tactics, why would they design it as a big honking battleship?

Stretch a concept far enough, it'll stop meaning anything. And the battleship concept, as it stands, appears to be meaningful enough to make a bunch of people want more of them. And to be clear, what I'm really interested in is what, in that meaning, are you after?

Well... you can have a hit-and-run battleship if you want (but the Erlking is already very good at that, and the AI never run anyway, so I wouldn't). It only has to be able to outrun what it can't kill and kill what it can't outrun, which are incidentally qualities that I look for in player ships. Plus, given most ships in this game are designed to be intentionally weak from behind, being the faster of the heavy gun platforms is a valid way to beat them (although again, not for the AI, as the Split like to demonstrate). It could also serve as a platform to show up and saturate a target like a station with fire before moving off to avoid defenders. But I do start to feel like I'm describing a ship the AI in this game simply cannot use for any of its ideal functions.

I guess my point here is that the ship size does not preclude fitting a given theme, unless the theme is specifically "don't use big ships", like VIG. If your focus is stealth (if that existed) and hit and run (if the AI did this) that doesn't mean that amongst your ships you would not want one that is relatively tough and heavy-hitting, or one that can carry your smaller ships around and repair them, even if that sort of thing implies a ship that isn't in the fastest or stealthiest class.

[capitalduty]

However, the key issue isn’t just giving each faction a battleship, it’s making sure they are distinct and meaningful within the game’s ecosystem.

Agreed, but I have to echo Feloidea's sentiment from page 1: why does this epitome ship have to be a "heavily armed and armored capital ship designed for frontline combat, typically excelling in endurance, firepower, and command capabilities" for each faction?

Taking from your example, if someone wanted something mobile and stealthy that would excel at hit-and-run tactics, why would they design it as a big honking battleship?

Stretch a concept far enough, it'll stop meaning anything. And the battleship concept, as it stands, appears to be meaningful enough to make a bunch of people want more of them. And to be clear, what I'm really interested in is what, in that meaning, are you after?

A battleship is way more than a ship. I think is combination of symbol of power, strength and resolve to deter any aggression and ultimately inflict the maximum damage, have a demoralizing effect to an enemy bolt enough to confront it. Take for example, why the surrender of japan during WW2 was done in USS Missori battleship and not in a carrier, or cruiser or other kind of vessel?, well maybe the answer is not that easy, but normally this class is associated with power projection. Also serves role command of a fleet, finally becoming what is know a flagship of an armada. This vessel inherits the war tactics that their faction want to use. Germany used Bismarck battleship to raid supply lines, German and Britisht BBs fought in jutland battle, Nagato and Yamato were used as command vessel. Modern culture worship this ships not only by their deeds but because what they represent, is a finally a question of "national pride".

[flywlyx]

Well... you can have a hit-and-run battleship if you want (but the Erlking is already very good at that, and the AI never run anyway, so I wouldn't). It only has to be able to outrun what it can't kill and kill what it can't outrun, which are incidentally qualities that I look for in player ships. Plus, given most ships in this game are designed to be intentionally weak from behind, being the faster of the heavy gun platforms is a valid way to beat them (although again, not for the AI, as the Split like to demonstrate). It could also serve as a platform to show up and saturate a target like a station with fire before moving off to avoid defenders. But I do start to feel like I'm describing a ship the AI in this game simply cannot use for any of its ideal functions.

I would be content if AI could execute basic tactical-level flanking, similar to how it performs in low-attention combat:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHEZGqTK6bI
It is pretty hard to understand why low attention is so much better than high attention.

[jlehtone]

Trying to understand. So you want each faction to have a battleship, but you want each battleship to be different. So... what's a battleship?

A battleship, in this context, would be a heavily armed and armored capital ship designed for frontline combat, typically excelling in endurance, firepower, and command capabilities. It should serve as the backbone of a faction’s fleet, capable of standing its ground in large-scale engagements.

The current L destroyers do have more firepower, shield, and hull than the small and medium combat vessels. Are they not designed for frontline combat and endure longer than smaller vessels? "Command capabilities" might not be there, but are they in any ship? (Well Position Defense in Carriers ...)

No vessel in X4 can "stand its ground", except perhaps the one flown by player.


If we look at naval WW2 ships (and did someone point out that we should not), then don't they all (cruisers and battleships, of all nations) look essentially the same? The battleships were just the largest of them. Significant investments, which spurns "national pride".

How many minutes does it take from TER Shipyard to spawn a new Asgard to replace a loss? Not many. Peanuts. Considering how quickly an Asgard can die and how "cheaply" it can be replaced, it is rather insignificant. Not pride-inspiring.


Perhaps only one ship in the faction has escape pods and hence it is "superior" to all other ships. Would that make it a "battleship"?


While all (space)ships basically look the same and have about the same gear, there could be -- and have been -- "distinctive features". Take the X2 M6 class. Osprey was slow tank, Dragon was made to run away -- propelled by four gammaHEPTs, and Hydra was -- there were no words for it. (That Dragon has remained rather unique -- is any other ship in any of the games "worst from behind"?)

Another feature from the past, from Xbtf to X2 was that the M2 Destroyers were fast. Faster than small fry. That made them scary. The game technical reason was to give the player a reason to work from the starting ship towards something that could beat, or at least survive, the beasts. They had "firepower and endurance", and thanks to speed also awesomeness.


What is the effect on balance between factions, if some may get in (optional) DLC "serious firepower"? Then again, if the AI cannot make use of the "unique advantages" of the heap of scrap, then scrap it is, not "national pride".

[Raptor34]

Another feature from the past, from Xbtf to X2 was that the M2 Destroyers were fast. Faster than small fry. That made them scary. The game technical reason was to give the player a reason to work from the starting ship towards something that could beat, or at least survive, the beasts. They had "firepower and endurance", and thanks to speed also awesomeness.

I liked that part actually. Big ships with their big engines give them great top speed, but bad acceleration. Of course we all had boost extensions so that part became irrelevant, but even so.

[LameFox]

Well... you can have a hit-and-run battleship if you want (but the Erlking is already very good at that, and the AI never run anyway, so I wouldn't). It only has to be able to outrun what it can't kill and kill what it can't outrun, which are incidentally qualities that I look for in player ships. Plus, given most ships in this game are designed to be intentionally weak from behind, being the faster of the heavy gun platforms is a valid way to beat them (although again, not for the AI, as the Split like to demonstrate). It could also serve as a platform to show up and saturate a target like a station with fire before moving off to avoid defenders. But I do start to feel like I'm describing a ship the AI in this game simply cannot use for any of its ideal functions.

I would be content if AI could execute basic tactical-level flanking, similar to how it performs in low-attention combat:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHEZGqTK6bI
It is pretty hard to understand why low attention is so much better than high attention.

I was under the impression that it should want to, even in high attention. It just doesn't seem very good at navigating in that more complex simulation. A pair of destroyers like that attacking a K in high attention would, in my experience, frequently result in at least one being killed because by the time it realizes it needs to move away it's already too late. Even in greater numbers, some stop short, others get too close, many struggle to aim their main guns and thus foresake most of their damage output.

Consequently a lot of ship design philosophies one could theoretically add to this game would end up being things that never work in practice. There can be no "hit and run" if everything fights to the death. No sneaking around with a reduced radar signature if your AI simply paths right across a hostile defence platform. No flanking with speed and superior firepower if ships bumble helplessly around any obstacle.

Personally I think turrets and capital-to-capital torpedoes have the best potential for XL ships in direct combat. Suppose you had a hypothetical Argon battleship, then in keeping with their destroyer design it might have an artillery focus, and some XL turrets, like the Behemoth gun on a slow-tracking swivel. If HOP invented one—since of the Paranid factions they seem to like missiles and prefer destroyers over carriers—it could have primary torpedo launchers and a decent array of L and M turrets. Split might make theirs move quickly and pack a massive number of turrets on the front of it, intending to simply approach an enemy like a K or I head-on and saturate it with fire that strips it of surface elements. This is the sort of thing I'd like to see more of, ships designed with the limits of the game's AI in mind.