Issues with Large and XLarge Ships

[OzgurAtlas]

In my opinion using a large ship is so uncomfortable. Its hard to give commands to your wings, lack of turret damage (and everyone knows turrets sucks!), lack of main weapons that we use. This is my opinions that fixes this issues.

-There should be a custom hud that we can set our wings and command them from there like turrets.
-We need to control our turret groups in large ships to. I was attacking an enemy which is not shoting me and turrets was just waiting for a hostile activity for activation.
-We need to use our missile weapons manually. Because missile turrets spamming all the missile till the enemy is dead. Its just takes 1 min to all missiles waste away and all this efforts for a small xenon fighter
-Maybe i just cant find it but there should be a access to fighters that in the internal storage. I was giving them to "fly to" command so they can come out .
-Personally i want to use my destroyer as a missile platform ,but since the turrets are broken and wasting all the missiles, i dont know what is the solution. More weapon slots? Or different types of destroyer and carrier guns?

BONUS:
-This one isnt an issue.But there must be a difference between a carrier's(military ship) bridge and a freighter(civillian ship) bridge. All large ships have 1 bridge model and i think it is easy to change it? I mean a carriers bridge must be bigger and different than a destroyer bridge. Looks like they made the bridge models in Space Engineers . They looks so "simple". This is how a carrier's bridge looks like https://bit.ly/2PDD33w


Please share your opinions on this. I hope this thread is not gonna fade away

[Nafensoriel]

That bridge you linked would get a ship killed. The captain cannot identify stations and would rely entirely on callouts. Let alone that there is far to much "grand" information which would distract and frankly be annoying.

A "real" bridge is tight, small, and designed so every station can support their required roles. This is a 10s google exampleBridge Example. Military and civilian ships all have similar roles for most stations as well. They are similar in design because it's efficient. This has been true for well.. all of recorded history from wood to steel.

Also in the nature of a captains simulation, a captain doesn't command the battle they command the ship. They order people to do a task and those people decide how to execute that task. Technically you can already do this through its about as cumbersome as it would be in real life. Can you picture trying to command an IOWA in combat commanding ALL the guns? I'd much rather have target selection control over the decisive guns and let my crew handle keeping the ship alive long enough to use them. The trouble with X4 at the moment is our big guns throw spitballs.

[Miravlix]

Your not supposed to fly the ships yourself.

Some features doesn't even work at the moment when you fly big ships yourself, this will hopefully be addressed, but even when it is, it doesn't change that your the battlefield admiral and you shouldn't be flying ships, but instead giving commands to the fleet that they execute.

[Kryptos901]

That bridge you linked would get a ship killed. The captain cannot identify stations and would rely entirely on callouts. Let alone that there is far to much "grand" information which would distract and frankly be annoying.

A "real" bridge is tight, small, and designed so every station can support their required roles. This is a 10s google exampleBridge Example. Military and civilian ships all have similar roles for most stations as well. They are similar in design because it's efficient. This has been true for well.. all of recorded history from wood to steel.

Also in the nature of a captains simulation, a captain doesn't command the battle they command the ship. They order people to do a task and those people decide how to execute that task. Technically you can already do this through its about as cumbersome as it would be in real life. Can you picture trying to command an IOWA in combat commanding ALL the guns? I'd much rather have target selection control over the decisive guns and let my crew handle keeping the ship alive long enough to use them. The trouble with X4 at the moment is our big guns throw spitballs.

I think the bridge he linked has one *great* advantage over a modern (sea based) battleship bridge: no windows.

Losing a window at sea isn't that big a deal. Losing a window in space means your bridge crew just got vented. Honestly, I think anything bigger than S class should have an enclosed bridge with viewscreens. Maybe let the M classes have windows, but there is absolutely no reason for a capital ship to expose the commander to the risk of explosive decompression from a lucky shot. Heck, considering the ship has individually target-able elements with their own sub-shields, the ship *should* be able to function to some extent with a good chunk gone. This would require the bridge to be in a central location deep in the ship, allowing the decks of the ship to act as additional protection. As of right now, I'm half expecting that scene out of the first act in Star Wars 8 to play out with my 4 star pilot every time I fly into combat.

This also makes sense from a boarding standpoint. On a sea ship, boarding happens from the sides. Putting the bridge in the middle with a high vantage point makes sense, as it is far from the potential boarding zones and has clear fields for defensive fire. On a space ship, boarding can come from any direction, and with an exposed bridge like that, if I was a marine pilot, I'd slam my boarding pod right into the pilot's face instead of fighting my way from the airlock. The bridge would have to be toward the center to be able to mount an effective defense to any boarding attack.

I'm thinking it should look more like the CiC did in 2004 Battlestar Galactica. Have the pilot stand around a system map in the middle, maybe with turret cameras around the side, and have the crew arranged in a circle facing inward.

[Nafensoriel]

/snipsnip

Well, there are some allowances to be considered for video games. If you wanted to consider realistic space combat it would most likely(thanks to physics being an ass) play out like an extremely long ranged sub duel on steroids. I'd actually kill to play a game like that honestly. For the purpose of a bridge through the Hollywood sci-fi bridges are often just terrible. We design military to be functional and direct of purpose. Even a tool that you label "multirole" is still built around doing a generalized job. A giant map is actually a terrible way to transfer information. A 3D map can rapidly overload your brain and missing that one little dot means you lose and a bunch of people die.

In reality optics and targeting something an AU away would be a challenge since even with modern optics you'd be shooting at a blur. Toss in time lagged radar/lidar/etc and you've got the greatest game of entrapment mixed with battleship ever invented.

[M4dSc13nc3]

I second that we really need turret control for the L/XL ships, if it works on medium ships it shouldn't be that hard to give the same to capital ships. The fleet admiral does have a flagship and usually is in direct command of that particular ship, usually a carrier nowadays, but could have been a battleship in the last century. But it's also a matter of how combat feels and feeling rewarded for getting the money together to build a big capital ship and fly it around and control it completely. Personally my biggest complaint about the game right now is the lack of turret control on the capital ships. I like the ships that are in the game now, but the lack of battlecruiser and battleship class ships kinda sucks. I also feel like the frigates could use a bit more variation. A lot of the frigates feel kind of odd because of the giant landing pad that dominates most of the models. I would suggest maybe another class of ships, like a ML that is bigger than the medium ships but like half the size of the destroyers, built at the shipyard as escort vessels. The current medium ships feel like a heavy fighter/bomber would be. I know there is plenty more to come with this game so I am patient. Keep up the good work Egosoft!

[OzgurAtlas]

That bridge you linked would get a ship killed. The captain cannot identify stations and would rely entirely on callouts. Let alone that there is far to much "grand" information which would distract and frankly be annoying.

A "real" bridge is tight, small, and designed so every station can support their required roles. This is a 10s google exampleBridge Example. Military and civilian ships all have similar roles for most stations as well. They are similar in design because it's efficient. This has been true for well.. all of recorded history from wood to steel.

Also in the nature of a captains simulation, a captain doesn't command the battle they command the ship. They order people to do a task and those people decide how to execute that task. Technically you can already do this through its about as cumbersome as it would be in real life. Can you picture trying to command an IOWA in combat commanding ALL the guns? I'd much rather have target selection control over the decisive guns and let my crew handle keeping the ship alive long enough to use them. The trouble with X4 at the moment is our big guns throw spitballs.

Sorry for my english. I was mean is give "orders" to fighter squadrons. Think like turret commands on medium ships. You have squadron icons on the top of the screen and giving "attack", "defend", "recall" orders. So it will be less complicated and more fun gameplay for carriers i think. And i forget the mention carriers need to do repair works and reload to fighters.

[Nafensoriel]

I second that we really need turret control for the L/XL ships, if it works on medium ships it shouldn't be that hard to give the same to capital ships. The fleet admiral does have a flagship and usually is in direct command of that particular ship, usually a carrier nowadays, but could have been a battleship in the last century. But it's also a matter of how combat feels and feeling rewarded for getting the money together to build a big capital ship and fly it around and control it completely. Personally my biggest complaint about the game right now is the lack of turret control on the capital ships. I like the ships that are in the game now, but the lack of battlecruiser and battleship class ships kinda sucks. I also feel like the frigates could use a bit more variation. A lot of the frigates feel kind of odd because of the giant landing pad that dominates most of the models. I would suggest maybe another class of ships, like a ML that is bigger than the medium ships but like half the size of the destroyers, built at the shipyard as escort vessels. The current medium ships feel like a heavy fighter/bomber would be. I know there is plenty more to come with this game so I am patient. Keep up the good work Egosoft!

An admiral is never in direct command. An admiral fights a fleet. A captain fights the ship. An admiral who micromanages his captains is going to be very unpopular very quickly. Aircraft carriers today have captains and an admiral can command the fleet from their decks. Admirals DO NOT command the operation of the carrier.

Sorry for my english. I was mean is give "orders" to fighter squadrons. Think like turret commands on medium ships. You have squadron icons on the top of the screen and giving "attack", "defend", "recall" orders. So it will be less complicated and more fun gameplay for carriers i think. And i forget the mention carriers need to do repair works and reload to fighters.

It's still unrealistic to expect to command the entire ship(and trust me it would be unfun). If egosoft wanted to emulate a great mechanic they could take a page from Rebel Galaxy by Double Damage. The games are entirely different from each other but the large ship combat is a nice blend of fun and sanity. You command the steering but can quickly switch to ordering your main guns. Secondary turrets are wisely left on automatic.

If you want a true "carrier" experience I suggest you only command the carrier from the map since that is hands down the most realistic carrier experience you could ever possibly have in X4. The only thing missing is the target priorities and global sector commands.

[Kryptos901]

/snipsnip

Well, there are some allowances to be considered for video games. If you wanted to consider realistic space combat it would most likely(thanks to physics being an ass) play out like an extremely long ranged sub duel on steroids. I'd actually kill to play a game like that honestly. For the purpose of a bridge through the Hollywood sci-fi bridges are often just terrible. We design military to be functional and direct of purpose. Even a tool that you label "multirole" is still built around doing a generalized job. A giant map is actually a terrible way to transfer information. A 3D map can rapidly overload your brain and missing that one little dot means you lose and a bunch of people die.

In reality optics and targeting something an AU away would be a challenge since even with modern optics you'd be shooting at a blur. Toss in time lagged radar/lidar/etc and you've got the greatest game of entrapment mixed with battleship ever invented.

True. Real life space battles will be fought by doing a bunch of math and pushing a button, and the only evidence that you have of "winning" will be your continued existence.

I think there should be a mix. Imagine a control room, that looks sorta like the paranid one, mixed with any generic long thin platform over a big sphere stereotype, which has panels that all show a certain view from the ship. Roughly coincidental to the angle at which you are looking out. Then a 3d map in the middle on a table, as an option. This opens up a bunch of "damaged module" possibilities, because you could, for example, lose your turret's gun camera when the turret goes down. Or if you're taking heavy hits to one side, those screen start to fuzz out as a damage indicator.

OOO, and with the teleportation mechanic, you could have the bridge be a survival capsule, where if the ship explodes, you survive for a few seconds so you can teleport out, vaguely mimicking lifepods. It is a capital ship, after all. That could make aircrash a viable tactic for heavily damaged capitals in your hands (which seems like it would be reasonable, if a space battle was happening on the scale seen here).

battlecruiser and battleship class ships

Define "battlecruiser" class and "battleship" class.

I'm not being flippant, I'm serious. In terms of ship balance, weaknesses, strengths, what is a battlecruiser and what is a battleship, and how are those roles different from the ingame destroyer?

As of right now, the destroyer fills the battleship role because it is designed to engage large targets at (relative) range. A battlecruiser, which historically is a lighter and faster battleship of similar size and armament, is filled by various frigates and corvettes (especially vanguards) reliably, though this might be a function of weapon damage. If weapon damage and shielding was reworked to the point where there was orders of magnitude differences in power between an S ship and an L ship weapons, then the addition of these additional classes would make sense. We'd need an XL battleship, probably an L battlecruiser that sacrifices turrets and shields for more and bigger main guns, capable of matching XL guns from a battleship. Frigates would need to be reworked a little as well, to specialize as in X3AP.

[M4dSc13nc3]

By battleship I mean ships the size of the carriers, so XL, but like the destroyer in function. A battle cruiser would be halfway in between the destroyer and carrier in terms of size. The medium ships just feel way to small to me both in actual model size and their speed, to feel like what I would call a frigate. They feel like pt boats, or heavy fighter/bombers to me. That is fine as I like that class as a bomber or heavy fighter, but it definitely doesn't feel like a frigate. A frigate is something that should be built at the shipyard and be about half the size of a destroyer, not 1/3 to 1/5 the size. I realize that the actual function of these would be redundant in terms of basic needs for ship classes, but it would feel much better in terms of ship selection imo.

[Kryptos901]

Thing is, I don't think there is a point in adding ships for ship's sake. If the only purpose is "it looks pretty next to the other ship" or "It's the exact same thing, but a little bigger", then it doesn't need to be added, because it's already in the game. Sure, Egosoft can crank out 300 different ships, but that isn't going to change my gameplay experience much. What it will do, however, is force me to read through a stat listing for more ships before I decide the one I want and order a dozen.

XRM did this in X3AP. In my opinion, XRM's oodles of nearly useless ships were mostly just annoying, because none of the ships felt unique or good. I still flew a spitfyre and a panther. I just had to look through the stats of three dozen M7s before picking the panther instead of a dozen.

If Egosoft wants to go down this route, I think they would be better served doing a freebuild system like Avorion. Otherwise, there needs to be a distinction between the added ship classes so as to not just have a slightly bigger destroyer or a slightly smaller destroyer. Because what idiot is gonna pick anything *but* the slightly bigger destroyer? There needs to be a distinct trade in strengths and weaknesses for different ship classes, or else you get the gear grinder game issue of "well, this sword is level 17 and mine is level 13 so this is better". Mindless upgrades because this is better, not because this is my preferred playstyle.

[Nafensoriel]

By battleship I mean ships the size of the carriers, so XL, but like the destroyer in function. A battle cruiser would be halfway in between the destroyer and carrier in terms of size. The medium ships just feel way to small to me both in actual model size and their speed, to feel like what I would call a frigate. They feel like pt boats, or heavy fighter/bombers to me. That is fine as I like that class as a bomber or heavy fighter, but it definitely doesn't feel like a frigate. A frigate is something that should be built at the shipyard and be about half the size of a destroyer, not 1/3 to 1/5 the size. I realize that the actual function of these would be redundant in terms of basic needs for ship classes, but it would feel much better in terms of ship selection imo.

Size does not denote role. A modern Arleigh Burke is the size of most navies cruisers. In fact, it is the identical hull to US Navy Ticonderoga(cruiser). Weapons and purpose indicate the role of any branch of the military.
For the purpose of "ships".. ::
Frigate: No real definition. Interchangeable with Corvette, Destroyer, or Cruiser. Also can be considered littoral.
Corvette: Small vessels suited for shore defence or small channels.
Destroyer: Smallest deep-water combat vessel. Typically heavily armed for tonnage and weighted for general purpose combat. Can be built for escort, attack, or littoral duties. Hell Japan has a destroyer "carrier".(yes its weird)
Cruiser: Specialized combat. Expensive and rare but ton for ton built to do a single job extremely well. Typically missile combat related in today's navy. Only generally exist in the combat role which is why they are dying out. There is no purpose to a pure warship in the generalized asymmetrical combat world we live in now.
Battleships: Shipkillers and mobile artillery. Even today an IOWA with upgrades is terrifying. When I say a Burke could kill one I don't mean easily. We don't build battleships anymore because combat changed. Sensing ability and speed generally mean you can just go around a battleship or engage where it cannot. Even considering its bombardment role it's outdated because aircraft are more accurate and can strike deeper than any cannon currently can.

So either by intention or mistake having destroyers and carriers only is actually a very modern take on combat for Egosoft. A destroyer and a carrier fill almost every conceivable combat roll imaginable better than any alternative even in space. A case could be made for battleships but cruisers, in general, would just end up outdated or underutilized just like in today's navy.

What really needs to be done is to diversity small ships. Right now there is little difference between a scout, an escort, and a fighter. Hell, a Corvette is on par with some fighters! Are you telling me no one in the X universe thought a person buying a "scout" didn't scratch their head at the giant gun on the front? Especially considering the radar is pretty darn identical too. Id love to have mixed patrol fleets anchored on a true Corvette.

[kitsunee77]

dunno if someone proposed already.
would be nice if carriers would give assigned fighters some buff, eg more shield strength, higher evasion and accuracy... intelligent pilots?
this way carriers would become useful.

[Phoynix]

Thing is thats exactly what X3 did and why it was so fantastic... you had multiple large capital ships and that felt and had different enough stats that using them or engaging them required some change in tactics, further each race felt actually alive.

The fact you only have a single large ship class... if we took your logic all the way we should have have 1 ship in game for all races and thats that... perfect game.

The destroyer isnt large... it doesn't really feel large and it doesn't really feel like a capital ship. Hell currently they are less effective then a heavy fighter for combat purposes and easy as to destroy.

Thing is, I don't think there is a point in adding ships for ship's sake. If the only purpose is "it looks pretty next to the other ship" or "It's the exact same thing, but a little bigger", then it doesn't need to be added, because it's already in the game. Sure, Egosoft can crank out 300 different ships, but that isn't going to change my gameplay experience much. What it will do, however, is force me to read through a stat listing for more ships before I decide the one I want and order a dozen.

XRM did this in X3AP. In my opinion, XRM's oodles of nearly useless ships were mostly just annoying, because none of the ships felt unique or good. I still flew a spitfyre and a panther. I just had to look through the stats of three dozen M7s before picking the panther instead of a dozen.

If Egosoft wants to go down this route, I think they would be better served doing a freebuild system like Avorion. Otherwise, there needs to be a distinction between the added ship classes so as to not just have a slightly bigger destroyer or a slightly smaller destroyer. Because what idiot is gonna pick anything *but* the slightly bigger destroyer? There needs to be a distinct trade in strengths and weaknesses for different ship classes, or else you get the gear grinder game issue of "well, this sword is level 17 and mine is level 13 so this is better". Mindless upgrades because this is better, not because this is my preferred playstyle.

[mr.WHO]

I do like that X4 made the classification soemhow correct:
Corvette<Frigate<Destroyer<Carrier

However I feel like there is still space for XL size battleship (around the size of the Carrier) that would be on par with X-Rebirth Arawn or Fulmekron.

[Jaswolf]

I think we should stop bitching about those big ships else Egosoft could take them out of the game and rename it "X4: Very Dangerous"

[ADMNtek]

I do like that X4 made the classification soemhow correct:
Corvette<Frigate<Destroyer<Carrier

However I feel like there is still space for XL size battleship (around the size of the Carrier) that would be on par with X-Rebirth Arawn or Fulmekron.

basically a Dreadnought. big slow but if you get into its line of fire god help you.

[DogyAUT]

Well if you compare the sizes of some X3 ships to X4 size:

- X4 Xenon I is a bit smaller than a X3 Phoenix
- X4 destroyers are literally smaller X3 M7 size
- X4 carriers stayed similar in size compared to X3

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... height=911
(Picture is from X4 Script and Modding section)

[Nafensoriel]

I would trade size for some big honking spinal gunmounts. I know the AI would never hit anything with them but it would atleast LOOK pretty.

[Kryptos901]

Thing is thats exactly what X3 did and why it was so fantastic... you had multiple large capital ships and that felt and had different enough stats that using them or engaging them required some change in tactics, further each race felt actually alive.

The fact you only have a single large ship class... if we took your logic all the way we should have have 1 ship in game for all races and thats that... perfect game.

The destroyer isnt large... it doesn't really feel large and it doesn't really feel like a capital ship. Hell currently they are less effective then a heavy fighter for combat purposes and easy as to destroy.

Snip

Exactly-the ships need very different stats for them to make sense. They need to *feel* different. Right now, Flying my Odysseus Sentinel feels like flying a slower Peregrine Vanguard, which is just a slower pulsar.

This is why I'm against blindly adding an "XL Battleship", because I fear it's just gonna be a slower Odysseus. There needs to be some specialization, like X3 did with M7s. Have clear strengths and weaknesses not just by race, but by class as well.

Poster above explained this better than I, but there just isn't really an in game niche equivalent to where a battleship or a battlecruiser or heck, even a cruiser fits right now. There's no missile boat cruiser, like M7Ms. There's no big spinal gun battleship where if you get within the firing arc you cease to exist. There is no light ship that has one giant cannon specifically for hit and run attacks against destroyers and up. As a result, I would prefer it if Egosoft went through and fixed/spaecialized the current ships to an extent before adding new ones.