Your Ideas to make Carriers useful

[GCU Grey Area]

Destroyers have superior damage

Disagree, at least with respect to Behemoth & Colossus, the 2 capitals I'm most familiar with.

When testing a Behemoth found it took an eternity (unless I was flying it personally) to get into a firing position where it could use it's main guns &, even then, was very poor at using them effectively if the target was moving. Without those main guns it's relying on it's turrets & it simply has far fewer of them than the Colossus - 1 extra L turret on Behemoth does not make up for having 8 fewer M turrets than Colossus. That's before you dock a bunch of M ships on the Colossus (I favour Peregrines) to provide up to an additional 16 M turrets, though I find 12 is more than enough & leaves me a free docking bay for my personal ship.

They should be able to kill 2-3 destroyers (without using fighters, that is) before going down. Point defenses should be able to pop enemy fighters at a reasonable rate.

This is precisely what I've been using my Colossus for. It has had no difficulty at all dealing with 2-3 Xenon destroyers, even simultaneously - it simply out-guns them. On some occasions there have been many more than that in sector & still no serious problems. It's the main reason I got it - Colossus kills the capitals (their hulls are tediously thick to deal with any other way), while I go after the fighters. Quite often I'm struggling much more than the Colossus on these engagements & frequently have to run away to let my shields recharge if there's more than half a dozen or so on my tail. These days have no concerns at all about actually losing the Colossus, even on the rare occasions when it's shields have failed it has proved really quite resilient, much more so than I was expecting (certainly when compared to X3 equivalents, which were pretty much doomed as soon as their shields went down). Worst that's happened so far was having to repair 18% of the hull, 1 engine & a main shield. It's a very tough ship.

[Shehriazad]

TEXT

First of all the ship by itself has numerically higher dps output...except for the Behemoth since that one isn't allowed to use L Missiles turrets (must be a bug)...AI not being able to use stuff properly inside of sector is to be seen as bug and not be used as argument...and out of sector the game calculates battles way differently.

Furthermore telling me I can dock a bunch of M fighters with turrets on a carrier is a bit...weird. Because M Ships cannot fit M-Missiles turrets and thus have very low range...if you want the most damage you will fit missiles that have FAR more range...by the time a ship gets into range of docked M turrets it usually gets nuked by missiles already....especially in OOS calculations.


Not to mention 16 M turrets that aren't missile turrets are (if they are ALL modded) like what... 3200 dps? That is...an awful addition of dps if compared to missiles. This is what a torpedo-boat easily gets out of ONE turret...with far superior range.

[GCU Grey Area]

First of all the ship by itself has numerically higher dps output...except for the Behemoth since that one isn't allowed to use L Missiles turrets (must be a bug)...AI not being able to use stuff properly inside of sector is to be seen as bug and not be used as argument...and out of sector the game calculates battles way differently.

Furthermore telling me I can dock a bunch of M fighters with turrets on a carrier is a bit...weird. Because M Ships cannot fit M-Missiles turrets and thus have very low range...if you want the most damage you will fit missiles that have FAR more range...by the time a ship gets into range of docked M turrets it usually gets nuked by missiles already....especially in OOS calculations.


Not to mention 16 M turrets that aren't missile turrets are (if they are ALL modded) like what... 3200 dps? That is...an awful addition of dps if compared to missiles. This is what a torpedo-boat easily gets out of ONE turret...with far superior range.

Maybe, but really don't care. I don't use missiles - not nearly as much fun as getting up close & personal with Shard guns (particularly after modding them for high reload rate). Don't like missiles on my capitals either. They do an adequate enough job of killing stuff with a mix of Pulse & Plasma turrets & provide a pretty lightshow while they're doing it. Also comparing stats doesn't tell the whole story - only find out what ships are really capable of by throwing them at the enemy & seeing what happens. In my tests Colossus outperformed Behemoth by a considerable margin, so Colossus gets to kill stuff with me, while Behemoth was relegated to OOS defence duties protecting PHQ.

[Shehriazad]

First of all the ship by itself has numerically higher dps output...except for the Behemoth since that one isn't allowed to use L Missiles turrets (must be a bug)...AI not being able to use stuff properly inside of sector is to be seen as bug and not be used as argument...and out of sector the game calculates battles way differently.

Furthermore telling me I can dock a bunch of M fighters with turrets on a carrier is a bit...weird. Because M Ships cannot fit M-Missiles turrets and thus have very low range...if you want the most damage you will fit missiles that have FAR more range...by the time a ship gets into range of docked M turrets it usually gets nuked by missiles already....especially in OOS calculations.


Not to mention 16 M turrets that aren't missile turrets are (if they are ALL modded) like what... 3200 dps? That is...an awful addition of dps if compared to missiles. This is what a torpedo-boat easily gets out of ONE turret...with far superior range.

Maybe, but really don't care. I don't use missiles - not nearly as much fun as getting up close & personal with Shard guns (particularly after modding them for high reload rate). Don't like missiles on my capitals either. They do an adequate enough job of killing stuff with a mix of Pulse & Plasma turrets & provide a pretty lightshow while they're doing it. Also comparing stats doesn't tell the whole story - only find out what ships are really capable of by throwing them at the enemy & seeing what happens. In my tests Colossus outperformed Behemoth by a considerable margin, so Colossus gets to kill stuff with me, while Behemoth was relegated to OOS defence duties protecting PHQ.

Well again...Behemoth is not only the weakest out of all destroyers...it is also bugged right now since its' L turret is FUBAR. So I totally believe you when a Colossus outperforms it once it's positioned. But a Colossus wouldn't outperform a Paranid Destroyer....

Of course if you like to go into close range combat...sure that might be okay to use thte Colossus because of its' increased tanking capabilities...but if I want to take down stations or go face to face with the Paranid fleets...I'll always prefer staying the hell away and bombarding them to avoid unnecessary losses...especially since Paranid also sport missiles tthat LOVE to take out your turrets in a single attack...leaving you with nothing but a floating husk.

I'm not mocking your playstyle...but if you want to take down things within seconds..missiles/torps are your way to go in MY opinion.

I think I bought 6 Quasars fit with Torpedo launchers and was able to take down Argon Primes Colossus in a single Kamikaze attack..turretts not having any defense against such things ALSO makes me prefer missiles for big boy boats.

In the end this seems to come down to preference.

I also like close-up combat...but ramming damage is currently disabled, so my most loved tactics are not an option yet..so....missiles ^^;

And I STILL think tthat carriers should have more UTILITY. I don't even care about their DAMAGE.

[GCU Grey Area]

But a Colossus wouldn't outperform a Paranid Destroyer....

Got one of those (found it abandoned in a Xenon sector), it ended up in the PHQ defence fleet too...
Sure, it has got a few more L turrets than Behemoth, however in practice they're not all that much more powerful than Ms (e.g. for Pulse roughly +50% more, somewhere around +75% for Plasma IIRC) - tend to prefer a ton of M turrets over a handful of Ls

if I want to take down stations...

That's the thing - I don't - the stations make the ships which I smash to get the High Energy Catalyst I need for weapon modifications. Counterproductive for me to go after stations. Got to raid the Xenon sectors to get the HEC to improve the guns ready for the next expedition...

or go face to face with the Paranid fleets...I'll always prefer staying the hell away and bombarding them to avoid unnecessary losses...especially since Paranid also sport missiles tthat LOVE to take out your turrets in a single attack...leaving you with nothing but a floating husk.

Shoot Paranids? I couldn't possibly do that, they're some of my best customers - they may be war-crazed maniacs but they pay well.

I'm not mocking your playstyle...but if you want to take down things within seconds..missiles/torps are your way to go in MY opinion.

No thanks, killing things that fast or at long range isn't what I'm looking for, just don't find it fun - when a ship goes boom I want it to fill the screen. Also makes the loot much more convenient to pick up if most of it's concentrated around my Colossus, rather than scattered all over the sector.

I also like close-up combat...but ramming damage is currently disabled...

Yeah, it's a pity. Very fond memories here of my Elephant class missile in X3 - apparently I was supposed to build stations with it, but ramming K clusters was so much more fun...

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Destroyers have superior damage

Disagree, at least with respect to Behemoth & Colossus, the 2 capitals I'm most familiar with.

Actually, they are correct when considering aggressive fire power - that is true of Argon/Teladi/Paranid destroyers relative to the same race carriers.

Ignoring missiles for a minute, then the aggressive firepower of the Behemoth is 2 long range main guns plus 2 L turrets compared with 1 L turret on the Colossus - that can mean at least 4 times the damage potential at ranges of 4-5km, and at 5-7km the Behemoth can hit with the power of around 2 L Plasma Turrets. The Colossus and other carriers lack the main weapon reach and damage output of Destroyers on their own. You could argue well what about missile turrets, the destroyer can fit those too but we will get onto that later.

The M turrets are really self-defence weapons in the context of L/XL craft - the only M turrets in the context of such craft that can be considered aggressive firepower candidates would be missile turrets and Plasma turrets - the rest have too short ranges to be considered anything but self-defence weapons.

Sure a carrier can have up to 4 surface docked turreted craft that could engage enemies while docked and therefore add to the defensive capabilities of the carrier but there seems to be too much emphasis loaded onto such weapons from at least some quarters.

Add missiles to the equation and the Carrier has one major advantage on that score over Destroyers - ammo capacity, which is 2-3 times that of the corresponding destroyer (at least if you disregard L missile turrets which also add oodles of ammo capacity). However, missiles in either case are not an unlimited resource on the field of battle and that fact is also a form of balancing factor.

When attacking larger targets without missiles or support craft/drones, destroyers win over carriers. Add missiles and support craft to the mix and things become more hazy.

The main benefits of Carriers over Destroyers in X4 (other than the missile capacity mentioned above) are:-

1. Far superior (potential/actual) ship deployment and recovery rates (due to number of surface pads and internal launch tubes)
2. Shield strength (at least double relative to same race and variant destroyer)
3. Hull integrity (at least double relative to same race and variant destroyer)
4. 3-4 times Crew capacity (v same race and variant destroyer) for boarding ops and repairing boarded capitals in the field (i.e. swap the boarding marines for experienced crewmen to repair the ship)
5. Drone capacity (20 on a Carrier/10 on a Destroyer)
6. Cargo capacity (4-5 times that on the same race and variant Destroyer)

The main benefits of Destroyers over Carriers in X4 (other than price) are:-

1. 2 honking 7km range main guns
2. At least double the number of L turrets versus the same race Carrier
3. Slightly faster than the same race and variant Carrier
4. Around 50% (or better) greater acceleration and manoeuvrability than the same race and variant Carrier
5. Physically smaller

[mr.WHO]

The main benefits of Carriers in X4 (other than the missile capacity mentioned above) are:-

1. Potential ship deployment and recovery rates (due to number of surface pads and internal launch tubes)
2. Shield strength (at least double relative to same race and variant destroyer)
3. Hull integrity (at least double relative to same race and variant destroyer)
4. Crew capacity for boarding ops and repairing boarded capitals in the field (i.e. swap the boarding marines for experienced crewmen to repair the ship)
5. Drone capacity (20 on a Carrier/10 on a Destroyer)
6. Cargo capacity (4-5 times that on the same race and variant Destroyer)

1. Why would you need fast deployment when you can deploy them even faster via highways?
Why would you need fast recovery if you can't even repair & resupply recovered ships? YOu can do the same with Destoryer or freighter.

2. OK glorified bullet sponge.
3. Big bullet sponge.
4. You want to do boarding with a frickin' Carrier? It's liek hunting rats with grenade launcher.
5. 10+ drone desn't make a difference and without better drone (mk.2 and mk.3) it's mostly crappy feature.
6. Again why would you need cargo capacity on the carrier? You don't need it as a freighter nor there is a need for storage for drone/missile production.

[GCU Grey Area]

Actually, they are correct when considering aggressive fire power - that is true of Argon/Teladi/Paranid destroyers relative to the same race carriers.

Ignoring missiles for a minute, then the aggressive firepower of the Behemoth is 2 long range main guns plus 2 L turrets compared with 1 L turret on the Colossus - that can mean at least 4 times the damage potential at ranges of 4-5km, and at 5-7km the Behemoth can hit with the power of around 2 L Plasma Turrets. The Colossus and other carriers lack the main weapon reach and damage output of Destroyers on their own.

Agree on paper it seems a decisive advantage & indeed is the main reason I tested Behemoth first when assessing anti-capital options for my Xenon sector raids. However, in practice found I got better results (i.e. faster kills) by having a Colossus fly into knife-fighter range & unload with numerous M turrets rather than with a Behemoth shooting a few big guns at long range. Hence choice of Colossus for my Xenon sector raids, rather than any of the destroyers. Not so much interested in the potential a ship might have in ideal circumstances, but rather it's performance on the battlefield.

The M turrets are really self-defence weapons in the context of L/XL craft - the only M turrets in the context of such craft that can be considered aggressive firepower candidates would be missile turrets and Plasma turrets - the rest have too short ranges to be considered anything but self-defence weapons.

Nevertheless, when my Colossus gets into optimal range it fires everything it's got at enemy capitals, including all those Pulse turrets. They should not be discounted in anti-capital engagements, they do provide a useful contribution to total damage output even if their range is relatively short.

Sure a carrier can have up to 4 surface docked turreted craft that could engage enemies while docked and therefore add to the defensive capabilities of the carrier but there seems to be too much emphasis loaded onto such weapons from at least some quarters.

It all adds up, more guns = quicker kills. Currently pondering whether to stick some M Plasmas in the starboard turrets of my Peregrines (i.e. forward facing relative to Colossus), beginning to think having 12xM Pulse there is overkill against fighters (8xM Pulse on the underside is doing a decent enough job after all).

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

TBH your approach (using surface docked M vessels with turrets set to attack all enemies) may work but that approach is not the way that things were seemingly intended to work.

Without using your approach (one I would not personally recommend for a variety of reasons - first and foremost reason being lack of control of the turrets of the surface docked ships, second to that is if you are in M turret range then you are more likely to take more hits), the fire power advantage of the Destroyer is not just on paper - it is an actual advantage. Besides which whether those M craft are docked or flying they are not actually part of the carrier, they can be legitimately considered support craft which kind of negates the argument that carriers are stronger than destroyers from a firepower perspective.

Without support craft (surface docked or otherwise) Carriers do have less turrets than the same race Destroyer which was the fundamental point regardless of any other consideration - that is not just on paper, that is actual fact. If we start to consider support craft (which add to overall ship cost/value - using your approach that accounts for c. 15-20 million by my estimate depending on precise loadouts), then whether they stay surface docked and operate from there or launch and fly in formation the net result is mostly the same on balance.

As for Plasma M turrets, personally I do not consider them viable options as aggressive weapons on most Carriers/Destroyers due primarily to range. I only use them on the Teladi capitals for the dome M guns because otherwise the forward arc would be restricted to main guns on the Destroyer. Plasma M turrets on paper have better tracking rates and higher bullet speeds than their L turret counterparts BUT they have a much shorter range (3km v 5km) and deal about half the damage.

If going up against stations, then destroyers can out range the station defences with their main guns too.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The main benefits of Carriers in X4 (other than the missile capacity mentioned above) are:-

1. Potential ship deployment and recovery rates (due to number of surface pads and internal launch tubes)
2. Shield strength (at least double relative to same race and variant destroyer)
3. Hull integrity (at least double relative to same race and variant destroyer)
4. Crew capacity for boarding ops and repairing boarded capitals in the field (i.e. swap the boarding marines for experienced crewmen to repair the ship)
5. Drone capacity (20 on a Carrier/10 on a Destroyer)
6. Cargo capacity (4-5 times that on the same race and variant Destroyer)

1. Why would you need fast deployment when you can deploy them even faster via highways?
Why would you need fast recovery if you can't even repair & resupply recovered ships? YOu can do the same with Destoryer or freighter.

2. OK glorified bullet sponge.
3. Big bullet sponge.
4. You want to do boarding with a frickin' Carrier? It's liek hunting rats with grenade launcher.
5. 10+ drone desn't make a difference and without better drone (mk.2 and mk.3) it's mostly crappy feature.
6. Again why would you need cargo capacity on the carrier? You don't need it as a freighter nor there is a need for storage for drone/missile production.

1. We are talking about Carriers v. Destroyers here - and deployment/recovery rates have absolutely nothing to do with travel times in this context.
2/3. Your response is dissmissive to the point of being ignorable
4. Carriers in boarding ops could be considered stand-off support vessels - sure you could use a wing of smaller ships but managing the crews would be worse on the whole. To match the same kind of crew levels you would need a fair number of ships in tow which introduce command and control complications (as well as being more expensive).
5. The drones as they stand are not that ineffectual, further more there is more to drones than just defence drones.
6. Whether you think it is a necessary feature or not is moot, the feature still has value - as I have said before X4 Carriers are not just about carrying ships. However, if you need a use case example - the Carrier cargo levels are nearly at Freighter level even without docked ships which effectively means they can operate as heavily armed and shielded Freighters which when you consider the general background lore around the X4 universe state should not be considered surprising.

[GCU Grey Area]

TBH your approach (using surface docked M vessels with turrets set to attack all enemies) may work but that approach is not the way that things were seemingly intended to work.

For me it's all part of the Think aspect of the game.

Without using your approach (one I would not personally recommend for a variety of reasons - first and foremost reason being lack of control of the turrets of the surface docked ships, second to that is if you are in M turret range then you are more likely to take more hits), the fire power advantage of the Destroyer is not just on paper - it is an actual advantage. Besides which whether those M craft are docked or flying they are not actually part of the carrier, they can be legitimately considered support craft which kind of negates the argument that carriers are stronger than destroyers from a firepower perspective.

Turret control for the docked ships is identical to that of the Colossus (same options). Have seen no 'actual advantage' to destroyer's firepower. If it existed I'd be using one instead. Perhaps they're bugged with respect to effective use of main guns & if a patch improves their performance relative to carriers I'll reconsider. As it is right now however they're simply not good enough for me to take them anywhere near a real enemy, though do like using them as wing leaders for my OOS defence forces. As for the docked ships, just found in testing I got much better results out of them by keeping them docked in a tight cluster on a stable firing platform, rather than by undocking & deploying as independent units.

Without support craft (surface docked or otherwise) Carriers do have less turrets than the same race Destroyer which was the fundamental point regardless of any other consideration - that is not just on paper, that is actual fact.

Sorry, no. Colossus has 16xM + 1xL turrets, whereas Behemoth has only 8xM + 2xL turrets. The other capitals follow a similar pattern - carriers more turrets, destroyers fewer.

If going up against stations, then destroyers can out range the station defences with their main guns too.

Maybe, however found it took a VERY long time when I attempted to eliminate a Xenon defence platform by relying on a destroyer's main guns alone. In the end I got bored - was considerably quicker to eliminate turrets on the defence platform personally, then fly the destroyer right up to the station (under manual control) so it could use it's turrets too. Have not tried this with Colossus (simply have not felt any need to shoot at stations since then) so don't know how effectiveness would compare.

[popeye2o1o]

Convert CODEA and MEFOS to X4 - thats it

[Archaeosis]

1. Fix the disastrously broken docking AI - ships get stuck calmly floating above pads as they get shredded by hostiles all the time
2. Double carrier hull and shielding to help them stay alive (yes, make them even tankier - that should be the point)
3. Markedly increase damage of useless capital turrets, and give carriers a better but modest number - destroyers should be much better equipped and do far more damage, but carriers should easily brush off a few fighters without having to field defenders)
4. Automatic free repair and non-free restocking of all onboard ships - that this doesn't happen already is baffling
5. Rapid docking of S/M ships into large hangar bays (redocking a large wing with 8 pads is excruciatingly slow with the utterly broken docking pathing AI at present)
6. Markedly increase drone storage and add slow internal drone and fighter construction capacity - this could be led by a manager who can have assigned medium trader ships to supply the needed parts
7. Independent drone launch AND RECOVERY tubes that don't have to use the damn pads

Carriers should be very heavily armoured and reasonably armed capitals which depend on their fighter wing for damage dealing but have no reason to fear small squadrons of fighters. They are utterly unable to fulfil this role currently no matter how many pages Roger writes explaining how objectively wrong everyone else's opinions on balance are - swarms of small ships should not be the pinnacle of combat effectiveness. For carriers to work they OBVIOUSLY need to be able to repair docked ships automatically and that they don't already feels terribly lazy of Egosoft. Launching works reasonably, but carriers need to be able to recover ships that rapidly as well (pads are crap and landing AI is a buggy disaster). If they can't fix the landing AI they should make it time-out after 5 seconds and just teleport ships aboard so we at least have functionality while they fix the form.

There is no point at all in having a large cargo bay if they can't hold the materials needed to build further fighter craft and drones as their complement is destroyed in the field, and it should be possible to assign medium traders to resupply the carrier in the field so it can remain an independent but exceedingly expensive well-defended mobile mini-station able to project power wherever it goes.

At present they're barely-functional half-implemented destroyer+ ships with useless turrets, broken AI, and broken docking, effectively being portable shield generators that gently tickle passing hostiles with their peashooters. Whatever the design philosophy behind them is (it would certainly be interesting to see what Egosoft would like them to be!), it hasn't been realised yet - they're clearly unfinished. Let's hope that changes soon!

[mr.WHO]

1. We are talking about Carriers v. Destroyers here - and deployment/recovery rates have absolutely nothing to do with travel times in this context.
2/3. Your response is dissmissive to the point of being ignorable
4. Carriers in boarding ops could be considered stand-off support vessels - sure you could use a wing of smaller ships but managing the crews would be worse on the whole. To match the same kind of crew levels you would need a fair number of ships in tow which introduce command and control complications (as well as being more expensive).
5. The drones as they stand are not that ineffectual, further more there is more to drones than just defence drones.
6. Whether you think it is a necessary feature or not is moot, the feature still has value - as I have said before X4 Carriers are not just about carrying ships. However, if you need a use case example - the Carrier cargo levels are nearly at Freighter level even without docked ships which effectively means they can operate as heavily armed and shielded Freighters which when you consider the general background lore around the X4 universe state should not be considered surprising.

1. It's like saying that one bolt-action rifle is superior to another because it can fix bayonet...when everyone field assault rifles. It doesn't matter than Carrier is superior to destroyer in launch/recovery if the feaure is not that useful in overall game setting.

2/3. Dismissive, but I do agree that for now this is the only useful valor of the Carrier - huge bullet sponge. I wouldn't have any problem if Egosoft would rename entire Carrier class to "bullet sponge" class.
Alternatively add more turrets (both L and M size) and turn them to some kind of Battlestar.

4. Huh? Why not to use Argon L-size freighter? Cheaper, faster more compact and can carry 200+ marines.

5. OK, it could be that +10 repair drones might make a difference - I rarely use more than 5 repair drones on my ship.

6. After 100 hours of the game and default freighter reaction "run away" I'm yet to lost even single M-size freighter (and I nver use S-size freighters). Seem like using Carriers as armed freighters is quiete useless. Maybe if there would be some kind of trade route trough Xenon space like in X3? Unfortunately there os nothing like that in X4.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

TBH your approach (using surface docked M vessels with turrets set to attack all enemies) may work but that approach is not the way that things were seemingly intended to work.

For me it's all part of the Think aspect of the game.

Without using your approach (one I would not personally recommend for a variety of reasons - first and foremost reason being lack of control of the turrets of the surface docked ships, second to that is if you are in M turret range then you are more likely to take more hits), the fire power advantage of the Destroyer is not just on paper - it is an actual advantage. Besides which whether those M craft are docked or flying they are not actually part of the carrier, they can be legitimately considered support craft which kind of negates the argument that carriers are stronger than destroyers from a firepower perspective.

Turret control for the docked ships is identical to that of the Colossus (same options). Have seen no 'actual advantage' to destroyer's firepower. If it existed I'd be using one instead. Perhaps they're bugged with respect to effective use of main guns & if a patch improves their performance relative to carriers I'll reconsider. As it is right now however they're simply not good enough for me to take them anywhere near a real enemy, though do like using them as wing leaders for my OOS defence forces. As for the docked ships, just found in testing I got much better results out of them by keeping them docked in a tight cluster on a stable firing platform, rather than by undocking & deploying as independent units.

Without support craft (surface docked or otherwise) Carriers do have less turrets than the same race Destroyer which was the fundamental point regardless of any other consideration - that is not just on paper, that is actual fact.

Sorry, no. Colossus has 16xM + 1xL turrets, whereas Behemoth has only 8xM + 2xL turrets. The other capitals follow a similar pattern - carriers more turrets, destroyers fewer.

If going up against stations, then destroyers can out range the station defences with their main guns too.

Maybe, however found it took a VERY long time when I attempted to eliminate a Xenon defence platform by relying on a destroyer's main guns alone. In the end I got bored - was considerably quicker to eliminate turrets on the defence platform personally, then fly the destroyer right up to the station (under manual control) so it could use it's turrets too. Have not tried this with Colossus (simply have not felt any need to shoot at stations since then) so don't know how effectiveness would compare.

Ok … it has been a while since I bought my Behemoth and Collosus and so I have just checked my in-game ships - for these two (and really only these two) you are correct where the M turrets and only the M turrets are concerned. Look at the Odysseus/Zeus or Phoenix/Condor and the situation is somewhat different, the relative M turret counts are far from being universal. The difference in weapon counts between the Odysseus and Zeus is not as big (2 x MG + 4 x L + 12 x M v. 1 x L + 18 x M). The Phoenix and Condor are a bit of a joke as capital craft due to overall positioning of turrets and ship geometry but again weapon count differences are not as stark as with the Behemoth/Colossus (2 x MG + 2 x L + 9 x M v. 1 x L + 12 x M). The only real common factor is that ALL Carriers have only 1 L turret and ALL Destroyers have at least 2 MG + 2 L turrets.

The Behemoth may seem to be short changed on this due to the lower M turret count but in practice I have not found the lower M turret count a significant enough factor to worry about - the damage potential of 2 x MG + 1 x L Plasma is of the order of 3 x L Plasma turrets (arguably more than this due to the range of the main guns) which in plasma gun count terms effectively matches the >6 x M Plasma turrets (albeit at greater range).

The range element can not be dismissed out of hand BUT tactics determine how significant this is. Personally, with both carriers and destroyers (Teladi Carrier/Destroyer being perhaps the only exception due to - IMO - poor ship design) I leave M turrets to act as defence weapons and only rely on the main guns and L turrets for actual attacking the intended target.

Overall though, it is fair to say that without supplementing a carrier with additional ships (by whatever means) they are actually weaker direct damage dealing wise than their counterpart destroyers - this is not just on paper but in practice too. That being said, carriers are in general tougher and are better positioned to make use of any ships they carry thus on balance can deal more damage quicker in a whole fleet/squadron context.

The net effect of this is that Destroyers and Carriers are balanced off against each other - Carriers really being more defensive in configuration with regards to their own hull and Destroyers being more aggressive in configuration with regards to their own hull.

AI control of capitals in the X-games has never been particular good in any of the X-games, X4 is not unique in this regard. In fact, decent AI for fleet control is arguably bad in most games (if not all of them) due to varying considerations. The only things that generally save them is when they tend to be OP mobile weapons platforms rather than ships that are pilotable in any reasonable sense of the term. Carriers and Destroyers in X4 may not be the ultimate engines of destruction that some have come to expect from similarly labelled ships in previous X-games but they are far from being useless or senseless either. Egosoft seem to have done a reasonable job of balancing these craft so they are reasonably pilotable while still serving the capital craft type role.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

4. Huh? Why not to use Argon L-size freighter? Cheaper, faster more compact and can carry 200+ marines.

Numerous reasons - The argon L sized freighters in general have weaker shields, weaker damage potential, less missiles (should I need them), worse ship deployment/recovery capability, also on the whole slower both in terms of Travel speed and normal Cruise speed.

I got a Colossus Vanguard as one of my first L/XL capitals and it has served me very well since day one, my only real complaint if anything about carriers is the M surface dock management aspect - one you get over 4 M ships, things get ALOT more awkward than they really should be where dock management is concerned. That being said, it should be an easy thing for Egosoft to resolve without touching the actual functionality or utility aspects of these craft and such a fix would notionally resolve surface dock management in general where player assets are concerned. All that would be notionally required is the ability to manually tell a docked ship to move to an internal slot (assuming one is available).

1. It's like saying that one bolt-action rifle is superior to another because it can fix bayonet...when everyone field assault rifles. It doesn't matter than Carrier is superior to destroyer in launch/recovery if the feaure is not that useful in overall game setting.

Nope, not even close - the utility of said feature is perhaps debatable depending on specific tactics chosen BUT it is still useful in the overall game setting.

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the preconception that somehow combat balance should be done in a specific way, and fails to give reasonable consideration to all the factors and how they fit together.

[Bozar69]

The problem is fighters are too powerful. Unlike caps a fighter can disengage from combat and quickly recharge shields. A single fighter also has the firepower to break the tank of a cap while no cap really has much in terms of fighter defense. Ignoring how useless turrets are for damage and tracking for now, I feel there are not enough defensive turrets and their placements can be better for proper fighter defense.

Outside of combat fighters are much more mobile then caps completely removing the need to be carried anywhere. This is especially true when you consider how long it takes to undock and redock. Docking platforms I think are a huge step backwards from X3 overall and add an extra complexity that really feels broken when dealing with lots of traffic or trying to quickly launch or recall fighters.

[Shehriazad]

L size freighters were very obviously nerfed right before release btw... which is a bit sad.


Take a look at the Argon L freighters and you will see a lot of the M turrets sitting on mod-slots for L turets ESPECIALLY ON ARGON...for some reason Egosoft chickened out completely and turned all those turrets into M turrets. I think one of the Argon freighters even has 3 or 4 L turrets holders still visible...that would have been a very unique concept to play around with if I'm very honest.

I hope they reconsider and just go ahead with that...because L-Freighters make some of the most interesting "Marauder" vessels with their huge storage and crewnumbers...the weaponry is just so shoddy that they are too awkward to use.

Plus it wouldn't be OP, either. You'd have a freighter with 3/4L turrets and 0-2M turrets closing in on a destroyer...you better be planning properly. It's not gonna be impossible, just hard.

Currently L Traders are too weakly armed in general...they are a total joke to take down/steal...but at least with those a bunch of L turrets they would be interesting to use for twisted "Blitzing" tactics. Travelspeed onto your target, launch a bunch of L-turret attacks to disable critical points fast and then board the mofo.

After that just get the hell out again.


Only brought it up since L freighters were a topic right now

[mr.WHO]

Actually fighters are the only thing in X4 that feels right (except pathetic amount of flares) in terms of power and ballance. They might seems like OP, but it jsut because everything else sux, because eveyrything else rely on broken (by weak dammage stats and bad accuracy) turrets.

Actually when you arm capships with missile turrets then the roles reverse because fighters don't have any defence against missiles apart from one token flare.


..but then missile based ships are chore because Egosoft won't adress actual missiel resuply until 2.5 and knowing Egosoft they just slab the huge ressuply ship and call it a day (yeah it will be great to have to have 100+ mil Ressuply mothership to resupply even single fighter).

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The problem is fighters are too powerful. Unlike caps a fighter can disengage from combat and quickly recharge shields. A single fighter also has the firepower to break the tank of a cap while no cap really has much in terms of fighter defense. Ignoring how useless turrets are for damage and tracking for now, I feel there are not enough defensive turrets and their placements can be better for proper fighter defense.

Outside of combat fighters are much more mobile then caps completely removing the need to be carried anywhere. This is especially true when you consider how long it takes to undock and redock. Docking platforms I think are a huge step backwards from X3 overall and add an extra complexity that really feels broken when dealing with lots of traffic or trying to quickly launch or recall fighters.

To be fair, the relative capabilities of fighters in X2 was pretty similar in at least some-ways - an X2 Argon Nova (M3/Heavy Fighter) could be used to take down almost any X2 capital. PSG equipped ships in X2 were similarly powerful.

Personally, I prefer the X2 like ship and combat balance of X4 as opposed to the ship/combat balance of X3. That is not to say X3 balance was bad, just different. I consider X4 a return to the general principles of how the Vanilla X-games should be balanced.