Looking for some strategies for dealing with "I's". My fleets not my own ship

[Targ Collective]

It depends on whether you are playing fleet commander or wanting this fully automated.

If you want to quarantine a Xenon sector then an OWP with ridiculous missiles is the Way. The link in my sig contains a Terran build method OWP that is *guaranteed* to do the job.

If you are looking at OOS automation then you'll want to use mass fighters to try and overload the ship's turrets, backed by large amounts of capital ships. I'll be honest, missiles are still the best option if you are playing Terran and are a solid choice for the other factions too if you can afford them; the primary reason is range advantage and dumbfires are less accurate but give deeper ammo reserves. Please remember that ships can't use tracking and dumbfire missiles at the same time - the missile equip option seems to not have the ability to split turrets. I haven't reported that one, unless my memory is astray, so I'll be heading to Tech Support so this issue gets the visibility it needs in a moment.

The general idea is to overload the I with targets - mass fighters, basically - while your capships go for the kill. Paranid Plasma is the best energy weapon for range but Argon, if I remember correctly, has better tracking. Heavy Swarms are the most practical (because Heavy Clusters are too slow and too easy to shoot down) while Dumbfire Mk. II gives the best range advantage. Depending on whether you value accuracy or range these two are your best bet.

[vvvvvvvv]

I did wonder what bombard was for.
Yes, I have slashers installed and I hope to have chosen the best turrets by race:

Bombard is to make them attack capitals. You can make it more interesting.

Set (plasma) Syns to Bombard, and then set all its (plasma) turrets to "only attack capitals". Basically, it'll begin to approach the enemy, and the turrets will begin to fire at it as soon as it gets in the range.

For plasma + laser, you can set plasma to "attack only capitals" and lasers to attack fighters first, then regardless of orders it'll be blasting nearby enemies, focusing on capitals with plasma, and focusing on fighters with beams. And it'll always do it even if it is sitting still.

An even better combo is half and half asgard. Because Asgard has twin turrets. So with turrets alone it is like two syns even without death beam.

[Targ Collective]

Good refinements. Ammo turrets should always be set to Attack Only Capitals, while fighter-specialised defences should always be set to Attack Fighters First. In the event you are using Plasma for your capitals - or some other anticapital energy weapon - then Attack Capitals First becomes the best option. Since I play Terran my fleet has a better resupply pool than you'll get with Community weapons; the Terrans don't have Plasma but it could be argued that if you scale Asgard L Bolters up that they'd simply be overpowered if they had them.

Turret settings are incredibly important. Terran L Bolts shoot capitals first; Terran L Beams shoot fighters first; plasma should favour capitals; missiles should only be used on capitals unless you have rock solid missile resupply. Some weapons are better at icing fighters because they favour accuracy over damage; some weapons favour damage over accuracy; dumbfires have deeper missile reserves and range; tracking missiles have higher accuracy. Turret settings can get the best out of all of that, especially if you utilise varied fleet disposition.

Have fun with it. There's a craic - a wonderful word that translates loosely into 'sense of satisfaction well earned' - from intelligent ammo conservation and energy weapon optimisation.

If you do use missiles from capital vessels then you'll need resupply economy but you'll also need resupply vessels. I recommend one resupply vessel every three missile specialised capital vessels both for missile reserves and for dock-undock capacity. The slower the ship and the higher the missile capacity the more important it is to have more resupply capacity. The Hyperion is lightly shielded but resupplies like a dream. The Asgard? It will take forever to resupply and will need many resupply runs to fill its launchers.

[charlie1024]

If you MUST destroy them, many fighters swarm will help.

Such as 90 Cutlasses, or 100 Asps. Really effective. XEN capships are vulnerable against fighter swarms.
(Low attention recommended)

Of course, I don't think you must destroy them; just supplying factions more resources will help them, and they'll try to destroy the XEN ships. So, the answer will be different based on your perspective. I think the game would recommend the economical way than the heroical way.

[Brinnie]

I am using Capital ship first and Fighters first for Paranid Plasma and Terran Beam respectively.

I am also saving money for blueprints for the Asgard and the XL construction fab.

I believe in 1000+ hours of gameplay I still haven't used a single missile. I am sure I will get down to it, eventually.

The main problem that I am trying to address is the fact that at times my AI ships are slow to react, in firing the weapon and in manouvering defensively and offensively.

ps. I wish there was a way to store and recall turrets configurations.

[flywlyx]

The main problem that I am trying to address is the fact that at times my AI ships are slow to react, in firing the weapon and in manouvering defensively and offensively.

The AI—particularly for capital ships—performs significantly better in low attention (out of sector). If you insist on fighting in high attention(in sector), you'll either need to pilot the ships yourself or micromanage them all the time.
It's unlikely this will see any improvement in the foreseeable future.
A straightforward comparison of two Odyssey E vs a Xenon K:
High attention: https://youtu.be/oiLupFqal8c
Low attention: https://youtu.be/IpqesnBY_T4
They completely wipe out the Xenon K without a scratch in low attention, but get utterly destroyed in high attention.
Ideally, you should keep the combat in low attention, as it significantly improves AI performance.

[Brinnie]

The AI—particularly for capital ships—performs significantly better in low attention (out of sector). If you insist on fighting in high attention(in sector), you'll either need to pilot the ships yourself or micromanage them all the time.
It's unlikely this will see any improvement in the foreseeable future.
A straightforward comparison of two Odyssey E vs a Xenon K:
High attention: https://youtu.be/oiLupFqal8c
Low attention: https://youtu.be/IpqesnBY_T4
They completely wipe out the Xenon K without a scratch in low attention, but get utterly destroyed in high attention.
Ideally, you should keep the combat in low attention, as it significantly improves AI performance.

Yes, I have learned it (or rather was reminded of it) by "jlehtone" over the course of this post.

Piloting the ships myself is what I do normally, mainly for the reason that you have mentioned yourself. However I did think, or hope, that the poor performance was due to my doing rather than the game mechanics.

If it is indeed as you say, it is a shame as IMHO high attention large scale (even just 20+ ships) would be the best aspect - the coming together of all - of X4.
Kind of a hybrid RTS (pausable while you can still issue orders etc.) that you can play in first person, getting into the action yourself if you wish or just command the AI directly from the battlefield with no need for personal piloting skills.

[flywlyx]

If it is indeed as you say, it is a shame as IMHO high attention large scale (even just 20+ ships) would be the best aspect - the coming together of all - of X4.
Kind of a hybrid RTS (pausable while you can still issue orders etc.) that you can play in first person, getting into the action yourself if you wish or just command the AI directly from the battlefield with no need for personal piloting skills.

The RTS aspect of X4 is likely a very low priority. The UI and AI aren't designed to support that style of gameplay effectively. Fundamentally, the game's design seems to treat all units as economic assets, meant to be deployed without micromanagement and replaced when lost. It's unlikely that Egosoft ever intended for players to approach X4 as a traditional RTS.

[jlehtone]

ps. I wish there was a way to store and recall turrets configurations.

Aren't turret orders part of what a stored loadout has? (I've never paid attention.)

[zakaluka]

command the AI directly from the battlefield with no need for personal piloting skills.

I have great success with this, from in sector. In sector isn't only downsides, there are also substantial upsides. you just have to learn how to make use of them. Some situations even favor being in sector. But yes, many favor being out of sector.

this being a sandbox game, you are not forced out of sector by any means. You might have to change your doctrine, your fleet configuration, you may have to micro differently. But the key difference is practice. Just spend some time in sector, you will learn how to do it through experimentation.

[Brinnie]

The RTS aspect of X4 is likely a very low priority. The UI and AI aren't designed to support that style of gameplay effectively. Fundamentally, the game's design seems to treat all units as economic assets, meant to be deployed without micromanagement and replaced when lost. It's unlikely that Egosoft ever intended for players to approach X4 as a traditional RTS.

I said hybrid RTS. Typical RTS as I know them would be something like Homeworld, that is a totally different thing from what I have in mind. It is me who can't describe what I am referring to. With X4 it would a far more strategic implementation but yet different from a turn based kind of thing. You set your units in position giving all the commands/orders while the game is paused, unpause and step into the action yourself (if you wish).
Pausing as little or as often as you need.

I think all the elements are there, of course the ability of the AI to execute your instruction will make a big difference with the micromanagement. As far as the UI goes, the ability of selecting units from the external view and being able to assign units to hotkeys for recall (like Ctrl+1,Ctrl+2 etc..) would be useful but either than that I don''t feel the UI is lacking much.

I also think Egosoft gave us near enough total freedom to approach the game whichever way we want, maybe so much freedom that can leave players that are used to more traditionally linear games feeling in need of guidance on what to do.

Aren't turret orders part of what a stored loadout has? (I've never paid attention.)

Not as far as I know, I am talking about saving configs of turrets assignments that can be recalled via the menu.

... You might have to change your doctrine, your fleet configuration, you may have to micro differently. But the key difference is practice. Just spend some time in sector, you will learn how to do it through experimentation.

Well I am happy to hear that and I would be even happier if you wouldn't mind to elaborate on it. Also it helps me to get back on topic

[flywlyx]

I think all the elements are there, of course the ability of the AI to execute your instruction will make a big difference with the micromanagement. As far as the UI goes, the ability of selecting units from the external view and being able to assign units to hotkeys for recall (like Ctrl+1,Ctrl+2 etc..) would be useful but either than that I don''t feel the UI is lacking much.

I also think Egosoft gave us near enough total freedom to approach the game whichever way we want, maybe so much freedom that can leave players that are used to more traditionally linear games feeling in need of guidance on what to do.

That’s a common misunderstanding. RTS gameplay isn’t just about selecting units on a map and issuing attack commands—it’s a whole style of play that revolves around deploying the right units against the right enemies, at the right place and at the right time. Anything that disrupts this flow limits the player’s ability to engage with the game in this way. And let's have a look at X4.

First, timing: due to the travel drive mechanics and inconsistent AI behavior, it becomes very difficult for players to accurately predict when their units—especially fleets with capital ships—will actually arrive at a destination.

Second, positioning: the UI makes it incredibly difficult to issue commands on planes other than the ecliptic, and since units don’t clearly indicate where they’re actually moving, effective micro-management becomes nearly impossible.

Third, unit matchups: many of the issues with capital ships stem from Egosoft prioritizing visual aesthetics over practical combat performance, which compromises their effectiveness in strategic scenarios. AI capital ships are treated more as background elements than as a central focus of gameplay.

You’ll notice the game becomes much easier when approached as a space shooter or an economic simulation, because that’s clearly what it was designed for. RTS-style gameplay feels more like an unintended byproduct. Just consider this: after seven years of updates, capital ships still can’t aim properly in high attention. The only reasonable conclusion is that they were never meant to function correctly in that context.

this being a sandbox game, you are not forced out of sector by any means. You might have to change your doctrine, your fleet configuration, you may have to micro differently. But the key difference is practice. Just spend some time in sector, you will learn how to do it through experimentation.

I'm not sure how you're defining "forced to do something," but X4 simply isn’t designed for that kind of gameplay.
Players can wrestle with the UI and AI to micromanage a Behemoth and take down a Xenon K in-sector, but in reality, all they need is another Behemoth left in low attention, where the AI will take out the K without even a scratch to their paint.

[Brinnie]

...

While I do find the argument interesting I don't mean to derail my on post, at least not by my own doing, I will just say something as I might have said something misleading.

I don't mean RTS, not as in the traditional sense as in Real Time Strategy, that is why I said "Hybrid". In fact only the last of the 3 words applies, but it might feel like a real time strategy game when you unpause it, but just the use of the pause to apply the strategy would stop the flow. The name tag really is of no importance, clearly there is an incredible depth to X4 I think it is impossible to put it into a simple category.


So, to avoid misunderstandings Not RTS.

[zakaluka]

this being a sandbox game, you are not forced out of sector by any means. You might have to change your doctrine, your fleet configuration, you may have to micro differently. But the key difference is practice. Just spend some time in sector, you will learn how to do it through experimentation.

I'm not sure how you're defining "forced to do something," but X4 simply isn’t designed for that kind of gameplay.
Players can wrestle with the UI and AI to micromanage a Behemoth and take down a Xenon K in-sector, but in reality, all they need is another Behemoth left in low attention, where the AI will take out the K without even a scratch to their paint.

this is weird.

I like in sector gameplay, so I spend time doing it. Through practice I've found situations where I'm going to win in-sector, but the moment I teleport out of sector things turn quickly to my disadvantage. This is mostly situations with mixed fleets, but lots of small ships fielded by both sides. So in many situations (but not all) I stand on the bridge of my command ship or in the cockpit next to one of my fighter pilots. And because it plays to my advantage I field very large fighter swarms.

it's just a matter of practice and playing to your advantages.

I literally don't know what you mean when you say "x4 isn't designed for that". sometimes it's the optimal choice.

[zakaluka]

Well I am happy to hear that and I would be even happier if you wouldn't mind to elaborate on it. Also it helps me to get back on topic

I don't mind sharing an example. Start with something simple, like gate defense. This is small stuff. For learning. Fighter swarm, but I'm coming around to anti-capital combat in a sec.

Set yourself up with a carrier group defending the xenon attack lane in hatikvah's choice 1. Put your carrier on position defense, set up 4 squads on position defense with subordinate attack wings (so that your force picks up to 4 targets and focus fires them). Put those defense positions in between the gate and the HAT defense station so you're fighting everything without help from the station.

Now go about your business doing other things, elsewhere, out of sector. When you start to get complaints about incoming damage from your fighters there are choices to make:
- if you see they're fighting a capital ship, you're going to make things worse by teleporting in-sector. Maybe put their default response to "attack" on ignore, move all of your positions behind the defense station, and cancel individual orders (back off and let the HAT handle it for now). Maybe bring in your bombers. (I figured out how to deal with destroyers in-sector using bombers but there will be losses)
- if they're overwhelmed by small and medium ships? your presence is required. If you so much as teleport onto one of your ships, the losing situation becomes a winning one. It's.... such a substantial difference, you can save and test both choices. Stay out of sector and watch them all die, reload, teleport in sector and watch your fighters take a convincing win.

you are going to have to get comfortable with replacing losses for this, don't try to save scum every tough outcome.

But how does this make sense, why would being out of sector handicap only player fighters, but not xenon fighters and corvettes? I don't know, maybe that's not the best way to describe what's happening. but this is easy to reproduce.
In this process if you start to experiment you will also learn how to deal with capital ships in-sector. And as others have pointed out, destroyers probably aren't the go for that. It's somewhere between bombers and frigates with repair drones. Though the latter may be criticized as cost inefficient. but hey, it's a sandbox. In sector, your destroyers are for station assault. And you can stay in sector for that but you're going to have to micro.

[flywlyx]

While I do find the argument interesting I don't mean to derail my on post, at least not by my own doing, I will just say something as I might have said something misleading.

I don't mean RTS, not as in the traditional sense as in Real Time Strategy, that is why I said "Hybrid". In fact only the last of the 3 words applies, but it might feel like a real time strategy game 0 to X4 I think it is impossible to put it into a simple category.


So, to avoid misunderstandings Not RTS.

"Real-time" means players and NPCs act simultaneously—having a pause function doesn’t change that, so X4 still qualifies as real-time. What I’m referring to is strategic depth. In X4, players have limited strategic options, and the AI shows minimal strategic behavior. Most of the game’s depth lies in its economic systems—just look at the variety of options available for station and trade management.

I like in sector gameplay, so I spend time doing it. Through practice I've found situations where I'm going to win in-sector, but the moment I teleport out of sector things turn quickly to my disadvantage. This is mostly situations with mixed fleets, but lots of small ships fielded by both sides. So in many situations (but not all) I stand on the bridge of my command ship or in the cockpit next to one of my fighter pilots. And because it plays to my advantage I field very large fighter swarms.

it's just a matter of practice and playing to your advantages.

I literally don't know what you mean when you say "x4 isn't designed for that". sometimes it's the optimal choice.

I'm specifically referring to capital ships here. Fighter swarms can perform differently depending on weapon loadouts, so you're still pushed toward certain combat methods to get better results. Practicing capital ship combat feels pointless, as the game engine just doesn’t support that style of gameplay effectively.

[charlie1024]

If you insist the high attention play, I think there's nothing you can do 'at least currently'.

The game is slowly, but gradually changing. So, not thinking too stubbornly about the ship managing will help to play the game conveniently.

XEN capship vs faction capship is also not good idea, because faction capships not only are very slow but don't have significant firing range superiority compared to the XEN ships.

It means, faction capships are not for against XEN capships. They're rather for against the stations.

If you want to destroy XEN capships, you'd better to try fighter swarm. Actually, for example, Asgard is too big and too slow, even with the cost and construction time. If you can get an Asgard, you will easily get 100 fighters, and they're more effective not only against capships but fighters.

[jlehtone]

you are going to have to get comfortable with replacing losses for this, don't try to save scum every tough outcome.

The economy strategy. Victory by attrition. You (re)produce ships faster than the enemies kill them, while they cannot replace their losses as fast. Ships (and crews) are consumables, meant to die. (This is also the NPC's strategy and they are not very good at it.)

The other strategy is to be so overwhelmingly strong that your fleet oneshots everything before they can do anything. Therefore, you won't lose ships. However, such slaughter is not a "fight". You will not "win", because you did smart; the foes die, because they face impossible odds. (You can send 10'000 ships against one enemy. No NPC can do that.)

Set yourself up with a carrier group defending the xenon attack lane in hatikvah's choice 1. Put your carrier on position defense, set up 4 squads on position defense with subordinate attack wings (so that your force picks up to 4 targets and focus fires them).

I have seen that when one Position Defense group picks a target, other groups can join the fight, even from other sectors. Therefore, they may all target the same ship. (There is some option to disable that.)

The "nested" setup has merit though. Ten ships in a group usually start by targeting the same foe, but can end up with 9 on next foe and 1 on third (which had friends.) Therefore, it is better to have only two ships in a group, each with four wingmen. That way the "group" may still pick up to two targets, but will have five ships on each target.


Position Defense attacks all targets. Its "reaction radius" is fixed (or was; haven't rechecked with 7.60). The "reaction radius" of Intercept and Bombard is fixed too. The Attack picks as target what the leader picks.

[taztaz502]

Small fighters equipped with torps are a cheap and easy way to melt I's and Ks.

The faster they are the better they will perform, if the capital ships have no escorts you rarely get any losses in OOS combat. IS the results are variable but they still smash.

[vvvvvvvv]

don't have significant firing range superiority compared to the XEN ships.

Paranid plasma (~8 km) outranges xen gravitons (5.5 km) by something like 2.5 kilometers. If you REALLY want to make a point you can increase its range to about 10 kilometers with Expediter. However it is a royal pain and it is better to do this with asgard, because it has twin turrets. Projectile Speed + 10%, Weapon Lifetime +25%. But slasher usually packs more punch.

The economy strategy. Victory by attrition. You (re)produce ships faster than the enemies kill them, while

I very much prefer victory by overwhelming firepower. With enough syns target will be vaporized before anyone has a chance to die.