M2 Ships should be able to dock small quantities of fighters

[rustamk]

I would be for allowing three M3, M4, M5 docking slots in the M2. So that you can dock your personal fighter, some hauler M3s and so on.

I am against TS docking. One Super Freighter can hold 14000 cargo while the M2 can hold approx 13000. Allowing those things to dock with M2s would actually spoil the balance.

What I am for is fighter docking. Personal ship, an M5 to "go ashore" to stations etc etc.

Keep the votes and the comments coming.

Rustam

[Yonder]

Refueling all the escorts would still be a chore, but at least it could be done OOS.

So this means that freight beams can not be used OOS, correct?

I personally like the idea of TSs externally docking with capital ships, but some sort of restriction would need to take place while they were doing so, such as being restricted to half normal speed, or being unable to jump, or both.

[Mightysword]

I am against TS docking. One Super Freighter can hold 14000 cargo while the M2 can hold approx 13000. Allowing those things to dock with M2s would actually spoil the balance.

What I am for is fighter docking. Personal ship, an M5 to "go ashore" to stations etc etc.

Rustam

Well, depend on how you put it.


I notice that you can not upgrade Cargo Space of Capital Ship (TL/M2/M1) using space compressing while the TS does. So, logicially, I take that 14000 cargo unit on a TS take a lot less space then 14000 cargo unit on a capital ship



My idea is to have an "external freight docking point for a TS", it can be balance out like some guys suggested, when this docking point is used, the Capital ship has to immpolize and bring the shield down, make sense anyway, since I never mid fight refueling for large ship. And allow the M2 can hold at least one wing of fighters (4 ships) to be its "personal" escort.

[rustamk]

Perhaps docked ships could take up cargo space?

What you say is acceptable. I remember watching star trek and the way two similar sized ships docked there.

Rustam

[jlehtone]

I think we have two different issues here. One is about 'docking' and the other is about 'docking'.

'Dock' into a harbour, station, carrier and be contained and carried by it. Implies that something small 'docks' into something bigger. Internal docking.

'Dock' two objects together to make a connection for example to transfer something. External docking. Not related to size.

So the first 'dock' is about whether a M2 should carry some small craft(s) to do reconnaissance, drop off-shore, or do fighting with. That is probably relatively easy to achieve. It is a logical option.

Size considerations/consumption with the internal docking could be a solution, but the X-style docking bays are separate from the cargo hold. Besides, one could compute the volumes of the 3D-models to figure out how many boxes you can fit into one suitcase. Bag of holding does belong to an another genre. One idea, mentioned during the "X2 jumpdrives are too powerful" was to have a separate 'ferry' ship class that has the purpose of carrying other ships for longer ranges. I find the idea (of docked ships having size) worthy, but my proposal is written below.


The second 'dock' is about making a connection to refuel or otherwise transfer cargo in space. This is a difficult operation for seaships in heavier weather, but in X-space it is calm, unless you hit spaceflys. However, problem that requires solving is not about how to fit one (big) ship into another, but to exchange cargo. Typical tender action. No internal docking required. And this is not about M2. It applies to all capital ships. I would say all non-fighter ships. Have a Dolphin superfreighter and a couple Caiman speedboats. When the mobile miners are satisfied, i.e. can mine at all, they surely will call for this feature. That is inevitable.

Now if this latter 'dock' is not done with transporter device, then one requires at least (1) autopilot command, and (2) visual cues a la complex connection tubes to be shown. Speed restriction is likely. However, how easy it is for the autopilot to fly 'close' to another ship, even if that ship lies standstill? Furthermore, fighters probably lack the equipment. Which is why fighters do dock internally to 'carriers'. Only the autopilot command is required with the transporter device and the X2 bonus scripts are a likely base for that.

Thus, the refueling is a big issue and does not limit to battle fleets. It is technically possible. The requirement of transfer device would be strange from the viewpoint of races. It is just an easier way. Dropping stuff in space is an odd and risky way. Does it work OOS now? I thought that objects exist in space only in-sector. I do not think that we will see two ships docked together with a tunnel tube.

[rustamk]

I am still not convinced, while I like the TS docking temporarily idea, I still think that 2-5 fighter bays for each M2 are necessary, and logical. And I would be happy if they took up "normal" docking spaces like in the M1.

I would also like to repeat what I said earlier about M1s and M2s balance. If every M2 has 5 spaces, and every M1 has 60, and every M1 and M2 costs 80Million, then you would need 12 M2s to have the same amount of docking space as one M1. That is 12 times the cost, i.e. 960 Millions.

Balance Issue Resolved then?

Rustam

[James_2k]

Well i am of the opinion that several M5 class ships should be able to dock. to serve as shuttles for the crew.

which brings me to a new point, there should be crew!

[rustamk]

Well, that is a huge subject, worthy of a thread of it's own, but I suspect most people will be against. I don't know - you can start a thread too if you want to.

My thread is more of a "petition" to Egosoft to restore this feature. Seeing that people are 9:1 for it, I think it would be logical for Egosoft to restore this feature.

Rustam

[James_2k]

Well, that is a huge subject, worthy of a thread of it's own, but I suspect most people will be against. I don't know - you can start a thread too if you want to.

My thread is more of a "petition" to Egosoft to restore this feature. Seeing that people are 9:1 for it, I think it would be logical for Egosoft to restore this feature.

Rustam

well as has been said in these forums, polls are not generally indicative of the general concensus.

plus, this isnt the forum for alerting ego, try the devnet forum

[steel chicken]

M2's DO need a few fighters. For scouting, recon, whatever. a few fighters does not make the M2 a carrier.

M6's also need a single M5 slot like X2 so you can do long range recon. Jump in a sector with your M6, scout around in your zippy fast M5. So much fun to explore that way!!

I also think TS's should be able to dock at TL's like before.
Jump into a sector with your mining TL, blow up every asteroid in site, have your TS's pick up the goodies, jump back to known space to sell em. That was so much fun in X2. It also made remote factory building much easier. Now you have to buy transports super far away, and spend hours escorting them through hostile space. With the TL, you could buy your station, dock a few TS's, jump, build your station, set TS' in motion. FUN!

Please Egosoft, dont restrict how we want to play them game. If people dont think M2's should carry fighters, they can CHOOSE not to do so. We can't choose to carry them though, whens its impossible to do so.

Dont limit our flexibility. The games mantra should be
Build Fight Trade Think CHOOSE

if people dont think you should do certain things (like SETA!) then dont use them. Dont force the rest of us to go along though.

[DDM_Reaper20]

M2s should rely on M1 for fighter protection, whereas M1 need M2 to protect them against "big guns".

If an M2 were able to carry its own "fighter screen" (a term used in this thread), where would the M1 enter?

I'm fine with it as it is. Comparisons to wet destroyers are, IMO, misleading, 'cause those are helicopters, not fighter craft.

[rustamk]

Polls are not indicative of general consensus if the ratio is 6:4, but when it's 9:1, it's pretty obvious what people want.

Rustam

[Soulburner]

what about restricting destroyers to just a few m4-m5...

if u could have like 5 or so m5's i dont see them affecting a carriers spot at all

[Shadam]

My personal feeling on it are like this.

A destroyer/cruiser isn't supposed to be able to hold fighters. A carrier is going to be designed just for holding fighters while a destoryer or cruiser is going to be designed to pack as much firepower onto one chassis as possible.

At the most they might be able to hold 1 scout, but then you would have no cargo room. Would you rather have a limp and weak destroyer so it can carry a fighter? I wouldn''t.

Now if you want a dedicated front line warship able to carry fighter you should ask them inpliment M0s. Battleships are so going to be so huge and they would have a deck. Some battleships could also carry a few medium fighters and still have the capabilities of a destroyer in being frontline warship.

[rustamk]

A destroyer/cruiser isn't supposed to be able to hold fighters. A carrier is going to be designed just for holding fighters while a destoryer or cruiser is going to be designed to pack as much firepower onto one chassis as possible.

It's not fair. An M1 has hafl the firepower of the M2, but the M2 certainly does not have half the fighter capacity of the M1, indeed it has zero. And I am not asking for a half, but for just 5. That is 1/7 of the smallest M1 and 1/13 of the biggest.

Rustam

[Yonder]

M2s should rely on M1 for fighter protection, whereas M1 need M2 to protect them against "big guns".

If an M2 were able to carry its own "fighter screen" (a term used in this thread), where would the M1 enter?

I'm fine with it as it is. Comparisons to wet destroyers are, IMO, misleading, 'cause those are helicopters, not fighter craft.

3-5 fighters is hardly a screen. And helicopters are not necessarilly non-combat. A decade ago US navy vessels started keeping attack helicopters to protect Iranian oil tankers from the Iraqis, the tactical advantage of attack helicopters was noted and they are still used in shore patrols, and Anti-sub helicopters are very, very common compliments to a destroyer.

destroyer/cruiser isn't supposed to be able to hold fighters. A carrier is going to be designed just for holding fighters while a destoryer or cruiser is going to be designed to pack as much firepower onto one chassis as possible.

At the most they might be able to hold 1 scout, but then you would have no cargo room. Would you rather have a limp and weak destroyer so it can carry a fighter? I wouldn''t.

That's not necessarilly correct, it isn't out of the question at all to have a couple docking sleeves slipped into a large vessel. The amount of holding space an M5, or even an M3 takes up compared to an M2 is very small compared to a helicopter on a real life destroyer.

You say that 1 scout would take all the cargo room on a vessel, but M2s have like 10000 cargo space. There is no way an M5 would take up a significant amount of this space. You make it sound like 4/5s of the cargo hold would be set aside for 1 M5, when in reality 250 cargo units seems like a more fair allotment for an M5, much better than 8000 anyways.

[GrendelMk1]

I really don't understand people comparing 3-5 fighters to the 60 you can put in an M1.

Seems most of the yes camp doesn't want them for heavy combat. Ship to shore capability, and something nimble to drive around in sector. Also just nicely enough to intercept that annoying little group of 3-4 pirates. In person.

You seriously think 5 fighters competes with 60? Come on. And, as several people have said, it's a ship's boat, not a fighter wing. Also, as said elsewhere, if YOU don't like it, YOU don't have to dock a fighter. 9:1 of us would like our ship's boat back.

Egosoft took a lot of options out that made management easier. Hell, I'm NOT looking forward to having to babysit literally hundreds of TS when I set up my assorted factory complexes across the universe.

[Bane_v2]

You seriously think 5 fighters competes with 60? Come on. And, as several people have said, it's a ship's boat, not a fighter wing. Also, as said elsewhere, if YOU don't like it, YOU don't have to dock a fighter. 9:1 of us would like our ship's boat back.

Bingo.

[rustamk]

Well, an M5 isn't exactly a Mamooth so I don't see why it would take up 1000s of cargo units, but I don't really think that is necessary. Normal docking like in X2 would be fine. I also agree with the

You seriously think 5 fighters competes with 60? Come on. And, as several people have said, it's a ship's boat, not a fighter wing. Also, as said elsewhere, if YOU don't like it, YOU don't have to dock a fighter. 9:1 of us would like our ship's boat back.

I got a similar reply from someone when I complained about the Jumpdrive being too "convenient" (although that's irrelevant here). They said "you don't like it, don't use it", "you want it to charge up slow, wait for 5 minutes before engaging it". But they have a choice whether to engage it or not. We do not have a choice about whether we can do it or not. The 10% who would not like it can choose not to use M2 docking.

The 90% would be even happier.

Rustam

[rustamk]

Sorry mods, it's an old topic, I admit it, but it is better than starting a new one since there was a poll here that everyone can look at and some really good arguments.

I thought that with all the patches coming out, and already addressed a lot of the problems, this could get looked into too.

Rustam