[2.51] OOZ combat issues

[Zetoss]

This problem has been around for a while and it's probably hard to get OOZ combat to accurately represent what would happen if you were there but this time I've gotten a slightly worse result than usual; Arawns don't react to combat for a really long time unless I'm near them. Been spamming almost all of DeVries with capships to keep raiders away and every Taranis (provided for free by dear old Plutarch) I've got will shred anything in range immediately every single time no matter if I'm there or not, when set to attack. Arawns on the other hand seem to always idle unless I'm there and I even lost two of them without noticing, I've still got one sitting in Fell Afflicion but whenever a Titurel spawns near it while I'm elsewhere the Arawn will take a beating for quite some time before reacting. All my guardships are simply dumped from squad in strategic spots to act as turrets, I've treated them all the same way and to recap; Taranis will fire at anything every time, Arawns will only attack if I'm there or if someone shoots at them for a while. Anyone else see this issue, now or previously?

(I've deliberately not progressed the plot to open the next gate, that's why I'm still only toying with Taranis and Arawn ships.)

[Alan Phipps]

Moved to Universe forum to get more player input so that a proper Tech Sp report can be framed when the issue is better defined and documented with saves and situations etc.

[Sandalpocalypse]

Hmmm. I'm wrestling with a similar but not identical issue with Heavy Suls vs Taranis.

I'm curious about the following facts:

1.) Does the defense office show "Defending/Attacking Enemies", or "Defending/AttackingEnemies" and then "Standby" (or somesuch else) below it?

2.) Had you sent these Arawns to the shipyard to Modify Ship/Add Drones?

[Lander1979]

The thing is, AFAIK, the logic for a carrier is different for that of a destroyer.

The carrier should not try to close range on a target and engage with it's on-board weapons, It should only be using it's on board weaponry for defence. A carriers primary attack is with it's drones at a long range, as carrying them is it's purpose. This is carrier logic.

The Destroyer will close range and bring all of it's on board weaponry to bear as it's primary method of attack, this is destroyer logic, the two are different.

To use a carrier successfully, you should make sure it has a plentiful supply of varied attack drones, and also provide it with an escort that is capable of direct assault (fighters or destroyers preferrably). A carrier on it's own is a vulnerable target, it is a support unit, not a front line attack unit.

I'm not sure if this is the way it works ATM, but this is the way it should be working.

I don't think this is a question of being OOS as much as it's a question of people trying to use a support unit (carrier) for the purpose of a front line unit (destroyer). Fitness for purpose, really.

[Jaxartes]

It might be because the Taranis has much more range than the Arawn.

[Lander1979]

It might be because the Taranis has much more range than the Arawn.

The Arawn and Sul are carriers, they are merely a support unit, that attacks things by launching drones. The carrier itself is not fit for Assaulting targets directly.

The Taranis, and Titurel to a lesser extent, are destroyers, that are fit for attacking a target directly.

The AI/Logic for a Carrier is different to that of a Destroyer.

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

Actually, I think that AI is the same, it doesn't matter if the ship is a carrier or a destroyer.
But yes, Arawn's range is hilariously low, so that's why Taranis could have destroyed it. Also, Taranis is faster, it can shoot backwards while Arawn is chasing it, unable to fire.

[Jaxartes]

Does anyone know for sure that the AI's are different?
I am inclined to say that they are the same, even the balor which is clearly a missile boat witch shoud use its superior speed to kite while launching novadrones, has the dumb ai where it goes straight at the target and even blows itself up with the nevadrones.

[Lander1979]

I am attempting to ask people who might know the answer on the Devnet chat. I will update as soon as I find out.

Edit: (preliminary) I have yet to speak to a scripter, but from speaking to a L5 beta tester, it looks as though EUIV is correct. All Cap ships appear to be using the same AI Script file.

Further Updates to come.

[Snafu_X3]

from speaking to a L5 beta tester, it looks as though EUIV is correct. All Cap ships appear to be using the same AI Script file.

((((

At a guess this was hasty 'get product out the door quick!' thinking (prolly on the part of DS not ES): look at all the complaints in the X3 forums about dodgy scripts for capship combat

My speculation is: pressure is on to get the product out the door: it's already a year or so late (from the revised date of late 2011). A generic capship combat script was designed early on, but no priority/resourse was assigned to other (cap)ships to make it more intelligent (a thought occurs: do fighters use the same maneuvering, but much faster?) therefore it was assigned to every capship despite the newer (in dev terms) designs

As always we hope for official changes but often must rely on mods to make such things 'better', else the whole thing becomes a relatively easily 'winnable' situation.. resulting in boredom

[InDigital]

My problem is that my capital ships does not defend themselves while traveling with skunk inside...
There in DeVries are beacon where one of enemy Taranis always making damage to my Rahanas but rahanas does not defend while charging jumpdrive... i think it is a bug...

[Luke0086]

The thing is, AFAIK, the logic for a carrier is different for that of a destroyer.

The carrier should not try to close range on a target and engage with it's on-board weapons, It should only be using it's on board weaponry for defence. A carriers primary attack is with it's drones at a long range, as carrying them is it's purpose. This is carrier logic.

The Destroyer will close range and bring all of it's on board weaponry to bear as it's primary method of attack, this is destroyer logic, the two are different.

To use a carrier successfully, you should make sure it has a plentiful supply of varied attack drones, and also provide it with an escort that is capable of direct assault (fighters or destroyers preferrably). A carrier on it's own is a vulnerable target, it is a support unit, not a front line attack unit.

I'm not sure if this is the way it works ATM, but this is the way it should be working.

I don't think this is a question of being OOS as much as it's a question of people trying to use a support unit (carrier) for the purpose of a front line unit (destroyer). Fitness for purpose, really.

Wow, so much rubbish in one post.

You should probably check the weapon systems of both the ships - an Arrawn is actually FAR more equipped than a Taranis for close range combat.

It has increased Firepower, increased shielding, and stronger hull.

In most other games, yes, a carrier is a support unit to carry units into battle. But I think you need to pay attention to what's actually happening around you.

Here's a little exercise for you - get an Arrawn with NO drones, and pitch it against 2 Taranis destroyers. The Arrawn will win.

Also, a Taranis can carry drones. If i'm not mistaken, it can also carry the same number of drones as an Arrawn.

See where I'm going with this? There's no huge difference. Infact the main difference is that Taranis destroyers have several long range PLASMA/JET turrets. But in terms of firepower, the Arrawn has more than enough PLASMA/MA turrets to obliterate the Taranis before it would even lose shields.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The Arawn carries 300 drones and the Taranis only 150 drones the last time I checked. The Arawn also has 2+ drone launch bays to the Taranis's 1 launch bay and they are effectively internal.

The Arawn would probably rank as an M0 Mothership class vessel (or perhaps an M1+/M2+) if the Taranis was ranked as an M2 Destroyer.

The Arawn is described as a carrier and Lander1979 is correct in that a typical carrier role is stand-off and let the carried vessels or missiles do the dirty work.

Try putting the Arawn up against an OL destroyer (neither with drones nor missiles) and see how it turns out. I suspect the OL destroyers would give the Arawn a good pasting. Add drones and missiles to the mix and I suspect things would be a little different.

@OP: What is the DO setting on the Arawn(s)?

[Lander1979]

@Luke0086

Please don't make things personal here. Discuss the thread, not the people posting.

[Zetoss]

Wow this thread just about hit the ground running, seems Alan was pretty clever in moving it for input! I have little else to add right now but the only difference between my Arawns and Taranis ships were that I actually bought the Arawns at shipyards, all crew had identical orders and completely random stats - even had some Arawns with great Defence Officers and some Taranis with crappy ones. Stayed and watched the Arawns obliterate a couple of PMC Taranis (without even dropping below 20% shield) before I left them on guard duty so that's why I never bothered checking up on them until they had been defeated. Sold all Arawns shortly after my post so the above is about as much input as I've got for you guys, I've got roughly 20 station modules to finish before opening the next gate and then I'll probably get some other ships and see how they behave.

Friendly reminder; this is strictly an OOZ issue so whatever script is used for combat when you're watching might not apply at all.

[Luke0086]

The Arawn carries 300 drones and the Taranis only 150 drones the last time I checked. The Arawn also has 2+ drone launch bays to the Taranis's 1 launch bay and they are effectively internal.

The Arawn would probably rank as an M0 Mothership class vessel (or perhaps an M1+/M2+) if the Taranis was ranked as an M2 Destroyer.

The Arawn is described as a carrier and Lander1979 is correct is that a typical carrier role is stand-off and let the carried vessels or missiles do the dirty work.

Try putting the Arawn up against an OL destroyer (neither with drones nor missiles) and see how it turns out. I suspect the OL destroyers would give the Arawn a good pasting. Add drones and missiles to the mix and I suspect things would be a little different.

The Arrawn is "described" as a carrier. That is where the only truth lies.

The firepower of an Arrawn seriously outstrips that of a Taranis. In other games, a carrier has no firepower. I will say it once more for you.... An Arrawn is the most powerful ship in Albion.

You are correct that a Fulmikron will defeat an arrawn. It is also more expensive than an Arrawn, has stronger hull, and, surprise surprise, stronger firepower. You can see this by, and here's the words again "paying attention" to the stats, which you can even see in the universe encyclopedia or at the shipyards when purchasing the ships.

The smaller destroyer, an Olmikron I believe, I would be interested to see if that would be able to take on an Arrawn one on one.

I feel the need to iterate one more time, in real life and most games, yes, a carrier stands back, and has no weapons.

In this game, you need to "PAY attention" to ship behaviour, and it's stats.

An Arrawn WILL engage up close to any enemy it's fighting against, whether it has drones or not. The game USES the word "carrier", but this doesn't say what that means in this game. In this game, it means nothing (except perhaps it can carry more drones than a Taranis, apparently, and can yet still only launch a small portion at any given time).

An Arrawn DOES have more firepower than a ship that is referred to as a 'destroyer'. I just can't figure out any other way for me to explain it to you, that you can't just read or hear the word carrier, and start telling people they're intended for them to not use their weapon systems which is actually the most formidable weapons array in Albion.




Lander, please don't make things personal here and write threats against me just because I'm giving my knowledge about what's correct, which inadvertantly contradicts with what you're saying. I have as much right to post as you, so please don't threaten me as that's just not nice.

[Luke0086]

Wow this thread just about hit the ground running, seems Alan was pretty clever in moving it for input! I have little else to add right now but the only difference between my Arawns and Taranis ships were that I actually bought the Arawns at shipyards, all crew had identical orders and completely random stats - even had some Arawns with great Defence Officers and some Taranis with crappy ones. Stayed and watched the Arawns obliterate a couple of PMC Taranis (without even dropping below 20% shield) before I left them on guard duty so that's why I never bothered checking up on them until they had been defeated. Sold all Arawns shortly after my post so the above is about as much input as I've got for you guys, I've got roughly 20 station modules to finish before opening the next gate and then I'll probably get some other ships and see how they behave.

Friendly reminder; this is strictly an OOZ issue so whatever script is used for combat when you're watching might not apply at all.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

As the topic subject even states, and which is the basis of the point i'm also trying to make, the original problem is 100% the difference between the game handling of IS and OOS combat.

[Lander1979]

As a temporary workaround, I suggest thinking tactically about the positioning of the carriers and their vanguard escorts. Try to cordon off your carriers so that if an enemy tries to engage the carrier, they must first deal with some destroyers on the point and flank of the carriers. Basic naval warfare tactics with a 3D space twist. Also, as Roger L.S. Griffiths has pointed out, without drones and missiles aboard your carriers, they are no match for enemy destroyer assaults.

Edited: My apologies to Luke0086 and CBJ

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@ Luke0086: No, that is not where the only truth lies...

The Arawn is indeed a powerful vessel and yes it should be able to take out a Taranis on it's own with things as they stand but it is still a Carrier by it's own definition and specs. In fact, if it were a true "Advanced Carrier" in-game as the geometry (and description) seems to illicit it should be (docking bay geometry that appear to be unused for example) rather than just a Heavily armed Drone platform then I think it would be truly classified as overpowered.

But the classification of the Arawn is not really the point under discussion here (thus could be considered off-topic) but the AI is (specifically OOZ). It has been highlighted several times in other threads that the Balor and Succellus for example could do with better AI for their IZ attack logic thus it is probably generally true that the capital ship combat AI still needs some work.

I have heard that a pair of Arawns OOZ can deal with roving Xenon capitals in Twisted Faith with the Transendence mod installed so maybe there is a clue in there as to what the solution may be (either for the OP or Egosoft).

[Luke0086]

As a temporary workaround, I suggest thinking tactically about the positioning of the carriers and their vanguard escorts. Try to cordon off your carriers so that if an enemy tries to engage the carrier, they must first deal with some destroyers on the point and flank of the carriers. Basic naval warfare tactics with a 3D space twist. Also, as Roger L.S. Griffiths has pointed out, without drones and missiles aboard your carriers, they are no match for enemy destroyer assaults.

@Luke0086

People at this stage are more interested in the state of the AI scripting as opposed to what you might think is more powerful. If you really care to add to the subject on any meaningful level, you might try to get an answer on this as I am trying to. Otherwise, go post in the other thread re;most powerful ship in game, as I think you may have the two threads confused.

(1) The original poster talks about the effectiveness of Arrawn class ships when OOS

(2) You start talking about keeping Arrawns away from the enemy because the game refers to them as 'carriers' and therefore are not combat ships, despite the fact that (a) The Arrawn's close combat armaments (including shields, hull, and damage output) out class any other vessel in albion, including destroyers and, (b) You have little control over how the Arrawn engages in combat, and absolute zero input to an Arrawn's combat tactics when OOS and (c) this isn't even anything to do with what the original poster is talking about

(3) I correct you on the above miss-statements, and point out that even though Arrawns are referred to as carriers, you should pay attention to how the Arrawn fights, what it's stats are and where it's damage comes from. It's certainly not from drones.

(4) You carry on arguing that the Arrawn is a carrier and not for combat itself, and threaten to PM a moderator because telling you you're wrong is a personal insult

(5) I explain yet again to forget what you think you know about 'carriers', when it comes to X-Rebirth, as the arrawn WILL ALWAYS engage in close range combat, and it's weapon systems put out far higher damage than a destroyer such as the Taranis. I also re-iterate the point of this thread, which is clearly not the Arrawn's combat capabilities IS, but OOS

(6) You start saying you're talking about AI scripting and blame me for talking about which ship is more powerful, when it is you doing just that, even in your previous sentance when you state about making the enemy having to come through some destroyers, which really really really doesn't apply in OOS combat. A Taranis fully loaded with drones and missiles, is NO MATCH what so ever for an Arrawn carrier with no drones and no missiles. Please stop discussing which ship is more powerful and then saying you don't want to discuss the power of a vessel, when it is you who brought it up....... /facepalm



@Roger L.S. Griffiths

If by a carrier by it's own definition and specs you mean an even more powerful destroyer than the Taranis with added drone capacity, then you're right indeed the Arrawn is just a Carrier. The reason you're so wrong is because in other games, and in real life, a carrier has LESS weapons than a destroyer, and does indeed need destroyers as escorts. This is not the case in X-Rebirth.

Indeed discussing the strength of an Arrawn's combat when IS is off topic, when the topic is about OOS, however Lander1979 doesn't seem to realise this and when I let him know that he is miss-informed, I'm apparently the off topic one and making things personal.

The hypocrisy is amusing, but if you want to carry on thinking incorrectly that the Arrawn isn't a battle carrier, then it's you who are doing it wrong, and I'm fine with this I was just trying to help you learn correct information.

I also felt it my duty to correct the miss-information, before the original poster might believe it incorrectly.