(feature request) Destroyers repair fighters

[cybergrim]

Please consider fighters being repair at destroyer. (they dont have to re-arm, that can be left to carriers).
If you have 5 Behemoth's, thats 40 fighters to manually repair.

[vvvvvvvv]

Please consider fighters being repair at destroyer. (they dont have to re-arm, that can be left to carriers).
If you have 5 Behemoth's, thats 40 fighters to manually repair.

Assign AUX ship to the fleet, fighters should repair there.

[GCU Grey Area]

I consider a fleet of 5 destroyers & 40 fighters more than big enough to justify the inclusion of a carrier in the fleet. Never mind repair & rearm, it's highly beneficial simply for the sake of having Subordinate Control of the entire fleet's subordinates on a single screen, rather than having to adjust roles & docked/launched status of subordinates for several destroyers individually. In my games the only destroyers which get their own fighter wing are those which are intended to operate on their own (e.g. station defence ships or destroyers I fly personally). Rest of them are in fleets, invariably commanded by a carrier to simplify control over the fleet's S & M ships.

[Raptor34]

Semi-related but ever since the Ray came out I was thinking that the Behemoth specifically with it's 4 S pads should have carrier functionality.
Like the Ray is a crowd control destroyer, it's actual dps is much lower than other destroyers, but it has other special capabilities, slowing down enemies, long range precision and all that.
So the Behemoth could be something like that, as a hybrid carrier/destroyer.

[Falcrack]

Speaking of repair, I dislike how repairs are free when using your own carrier/aux ship/equipment dock/shipyard. In my opinion, they should cost wares, such as hull parts, or maybe a special consumable item called "repair kits" which can restore a certain amount of hp per kit.

So yes, allow destroyers to repair fighters, as long as they have enough on board repair kits to do so.

[jlehtone]

If you have 5 Behemoth's, thats 40 fighters to manually repair.

Why 40?

That is about 8 per Behemoth. Where does that number come from?
Behemoth has 4 pads. E had 8 internal bays, while the S and V have 40. IIRC, there can be at most 256 subordinates.
So, why 8, when 4, 8, 12, 40, 44, and 256 are all "valid excuses"?

An Aux is on about same price level as Destroyer, isn't it?

[blackphoenixx]

If destroyers could repair ships you may as well remove carriers from the game since they're now useless. Why spend credits on a carrier with no main guns and only 1 L turret when you can get a carrier-destroyer for half the money?

If you have 5 Behemoth's you could've afforded a Colossus or Nomad too, so having to repair your ships manually is entirely on you.

[S!rAssassin]

IMO, all docks and piers should boost ship's repair ability by crew comboskill.

[flywlyx]

If destroyers could repair ships you may as well remove carriers from the game since they're now useless. Why spend credits on a carrier with no main guns and only 1 L turret when you can get a carrier-destroyer for half the money?

If you have 5 Behemoth's you could've afforded a Colossus or Nomad too, so having to repair your ships manually is entirely on you.

I really wish they would categorize ships by design rather than restricting their functions. In WWII, it was common for battleships to have scout planes, and naturally, those battleships could repair their scout planes as well. What sets carriers apart is not their ability to repair planes but their capacity to carry a large number of fighters and resupply them.

However, in X4, certain functions, like reactive docking and fighter repair, are arbitrarily restricted to carriers, which doesn’t make much sense.

[Falcrack]

If destroyers could repair ships you may as well remove carriers from the game since they're now useless. Why spend credits on a carrier with no main guns and only 1 L turret when you can get a carrier-destroyer for half the money?

If you have 5 Behemoth's you could've afforded a Colossus or Nomad too, so having to repair your ships manually is entirely on you.

I really wish they would categorize ships by design rather than restricting their functions. In WWII, it was common for battleships to have scout planes, and naturally, those battleships could repair their scout planes as well. What sets carriers apart is not their ability to repair planes but their capacity to carry a large number of fighters and resupply them.

However, in X4, certain functions, like reactive docking and fighter repair, are arbitrarily restricted to carriers, which doesn’t make much sense.

Don't forget Position Defense being arbitrarily restricted to carriers.

Carriers exist today because fighters have limited range, limited ammunition, and need to land periodically. Fighters in X4 have none of these restrictions. So carriers in X4 are arbitrarily given special abilities to justify their existence.

If you want to make carriers truly worth having in X4, you need to nerf fighters. For example, removing travel drives for fighters is something I could get behind, so that moving large numbers of fighters quickly would require a carrier. Or if fighters required fuel for their travel drives. If repairs were not free but instead required wares, then a large storage space on carriers relative to destroyers in order to carry out repairs on large numbers of fighters would further justify the existence of carriers.

[Nanook]

...For example, removing travel drives for fighters is something I could get behind...

So, you'd remove the ability for the player to fly fighters early in the game?!! Not your best idea.

...so that moving large numbers of fighters quickly would require a carrier...

You mean the same as it is now? How many players are you aware of that move masses of fighters to a battle without using a carrier or two? It's the only efficient way to do it, not to mention the performance hit that would result if not.

[Falcrack]

...For example, removing travel drives for fighters is something I could get behind...

So, you'd remove the ability for the player to fly fighters early in the game?!! Not your best idea.

...so that moving large numbers of fighters quickly would require a carrier...

You mean the same as it is now? How many players are you aware of that move masses of fighters to a battle without using a carrier or two? It's the only efficient way to do it, not to mention the performance hit that would result if not.

I would remove the ability to use travel drive for heavy fighters. For one gun scouts, that ability would remain intact! That way, you could explore sectors early game using your scout, as the name scout implies, but to bring in the heavy firepower, you would need a carrier, or at least something with a travel drive, like a frigate with a launch pad.

As to moving large numbers of fighters without a carrier, it is trivial. Just select them all, and move them to a spot. They get there just fine without a carrier. Much faster, in fact.

[flywlyx]

If you want to make carriers truly worth having in X4, you need to nerf fighters. For example, removing travel drives for fighters is something I could get behind, so that moving large numbers of fighters quickly would require a carrier. Or if fighters required fuel for their travel drives. If repairs were not free but instead required wares, then a large storage space on carriers relative to destroyers in order to carry out repairs on large numbers of fighters would further justify the existence of carriers.

My preferred method is the hyper relay system, where each faction installs a hyper relay on their defense station. This relay would allow their own and allied capital ships to bypass jump gates, making capital ships significantly more effective. In the current state of the game, fighter swarms are simply much more cost-efficient than capital ships.

You mean the same as it is now? How many players are you aware of that move masses of fighters to a battle without using a carrier or two? It's the only efficient way to do it, not to mention the performance hit that would result if not.

The only reason I use carriers is that they look cool. When I actually need a fighter swarm, I deploy them separately—for example, during a crisis. Carriers are simply too slow; I send the swarm ahead, and by the time they finish the battle, the zeus E is probably just arriving, and I use it for repair.

[Nanook]

...
I would remove the ability to use travel drive for heavy fighters. For one gun scouts, that ability would remain intact! That way, you could explore sectors early game using your scout, as the name scout implies, but to bring in the heavy firepower, you would need a carrier, or at least something with a travel drive, like a frigate with a launch pad....

So, no playing with fighters as a player's main ship anymore. It seems you've either forgotten the joys of the early game in your rush to play X4 Empires, or you never knew it. Most of my game is spent in fighters of one sort or another, and I don't mean corvettes or frigates. Your vision of the game I would not like to play, and would probably never buy.

[Falcrack]

...
I would remove the ability to use travel drive for heavy fighters. For one gun scouts, that ability would remain intact! That way, you could explore sectors early game using your scout, as the name scout implies, but to bring in the heavy firepower, you would need a carrier, or at least something with a travel drive, like a frigate with a launch pad....

So, no playing with fighters as a player's main ship anymore. It seems you've either forgotten the joys of the early game in your rush to play X4 Empires, or you never knew it. Most of my game is spent in fighters of one sort or another, and I don't mean corvettes or frigates. Your vision of the game I would not like to play, and would probably never buy.

Part of the fun of games is having to make choices and deal with trade offs. In the case of scouts, they are just straight up worse in pretty much every way to a heavy fighter. But if scouts were weak like they currently are, but had travel drive ability, then that would encourage their use more. You wouldn't want to use them for combat if you could help it, but they would excel at the exploration function.

If you wanted to travel long distances and still have access to a heavy fighter early game, you could for example get a cerberus or something similar, load as many heavy fighters on that, and carry around more firepower on a ship that has a travel drive.

Heavy fighters would still have boost, and could move halfway across a sector or more just fine. They would just not be able to travel such long distances as efficiently as other types of shit's. For local fighting, they would excel.

[Raptor34]

...
I would remove the ability to use travel drive for heavy fighters. For one gun scouts, that ability would remain intact! That way, you could explore sectors early game using your scout, as the name scout implies, but to bring in the heavy firepower, you would need a carrier, or at least something with a travel drive, like a frigate with a launch pad....

So, no playing with fighters as a player's main ship anymore. It seems you've either forgotten the joys of the early game in your rush to play X4 Empires, or you never knew it. Most of my game is spent in fighters of one sort or another, and I don't mean corvettes or frigates. Your vision of the game I would not like to play, and would probably never buy.

Part of the fun of games is having to make choices and deal with trade offs. In the case of scouts, they are just straight up worse in pretty much every way to a heavy fighter. But if scouts were weak like they currently are, but had travel drive ability, then that would encourage their use more. You wouldn't want to use them for combat if you could help it, but they would excel at the exploration function.

If you wanted to travel long distances and still have access to a heavy fighter early game, you could for example get a cerberus or something similar, load as many heavy fighters on that, and carry around more firepower on a ship that has a travel drive.

Heavy fighters would still have boost, and could move halfway across a sector or more just fine. They would just not be able to travel such long distances as efficiently as other types of shit's. For local fighting, they would excel.

I don't disagree. I can think of some ideas to facilitate that. Like for example a booster ring like the ones in the SW prequels where the Jedi fighters which can't jump to hyperspace by themselves, but they dock to a ring which allows them to. You can attach TDs to those and they'll be much cheaper than an M frigate. Because just get a frigate isn't a good idea imo.
I just don't think the game, AI especially is good enough to handle that. Because it's not just you, what would be the impact on the rest of the AI factions.

[Thomas2052]

To combine ideas from two recent threads, I would remove travel drives from fighters by default, but maybe allow installation of one using Raptor34's idea of utility compartments:

viewtopic.php?t=469075

Falcrack is right to say the main function of carriers is traditionally range through fuel and armaments - which are not relevant in the current X4 set up, and the restriction of commands availible is somewhat arbitrary without any clear in-game logic.

A trade off made by the player to use a fighter as a personal ship may well be to give over that upgrade space that could have been used for other advantages to provide it with a travel drive.

It would massively and probably too much change the composition of the game though - fighter swarms would now all need a command vessel and, whilst I'd love to see that, the ai would probably struggle, and I know some prefer the fighter/swarm aspect, as Nanook rightly pointed out.

I would love the logistical challenge, however, and the excuse for more L carriers!

Regards

[Falcrack]

Part of the fun of games is having to make choices and deal with trade offs. In the case of scouts, they are just straight up worse in pretty much every way to a heavy fighter. But if scouts were weak like they currently are, but had travel drive ability, then that would encourage their use more. You wouldn't want to use them for combat if you could help it, but they would excel at the exploration function.

If you wanted to travel long distances and still have access to a heavy fighter early game, you could for example get a cerberus or something similar, load as many heavy fighters on that, and carry around more firepower on a ship that has a travel drive.

Heavy fighters would still have boost, and could move halfway across a sector or more just fine. They would just not be able to travel such long distances as efficiently as other types of shit's. For local fighting, they would excel.

I don't disagree. I can think of some ideas to facilitate that. Like for example a booster ring like the ones in the SW prequels where the Jedi fighters which can't jump to hyperspace by themselves, but they dock to a ring which allows them to. You can attach TDs to those and they'll be much cheaper than an M frigate. Because just get a frigate isn't a good idea imo.
I just don't think the game, AI especially is good enough to handle that. Because it's not just you, what would be the impact on the rest of the AI factions.

It would of course require adjustments to the game's AI. Any big change would. That's not a reason to not make changes if the changes improve the game.

We got on this subject by talking about how destroyers should be able to repair fighters, like carriers, then started to talk about what the point is for carriers to distinguish them from destroyers. I think having limitations and trade offs for each type of ships, so that each class of ship has both strengths and weaknesses, is a good thing. It adds variety to the game. When there is a single best ship that excels at everything and there are no tradeoffs, then that becomes boring, because that super ship suddenly becomes the only ship you would ever bother buying and flying.

[Raptor34]

Part of the fun of games is having to make choices and deal with trade offs. In the case of scouts, they are just straight up worse in pretty much every way to a heavy fighter. But if scouts were weak like they currently are, but had travel drive ability, then that would encourage their use more. You wouldn't want to use them for combat if you could help it, but they would excel at the exploration function.

If you wanted to travel long distances and still have access to a heavy fighter early game, you could for example get a cerberus or something similar, load as many heavy fighters on that, and carry around more firepower on a ship that has a travel drive.

Heavy fighters would still have boost, and could move halfway across a sector or more just fine. They would just not be able to travel such long distances as efficiently as other types of shit's. For local fighting, they would excel.

I don't disagree. I can think of some ideas to facilitate that. Like for example a booster ring like the ones in the SW prequels where the Jedi fighters which can't jump to hyperspace by themselves, but they dock to a ring which allows them to. You can attach TDs to those and they'll be much cheaper than an M frigate. Because just get a frigate isn't a good idea imo.
I just don't think the game, AI especially is good enough to handle that. Because it's not just you, what would be the impact on the rest of the AI factions.

It would of course require adjustments to the game's AI. Any big change would. That's not a reason to not make changes if the changes improve the game.

We got on this subject by talking about how destroyers should be able to repair fighters, like carriers, then started to talk about what the point is for carriers to distinguish them from destroyers. I think having limitations and trade offs for each type of ships, so that each class of ship has both strengths and weaknesses, is a good thing. It adds variety to the game. When there is a single best ship that excels at everything and there are no tradeoffs, then that becomes boring, because that super ship suddenly becomes the only ship you would ever bother buying and flying.

The AI can't even handle the current relatively simple systems. Bold of you to assume increased complexity would be feasible at this point. It's literally telling the devs to git gud.

To combine ideas from two recent threads, I would remove travel drives from fighters by default, but maybe allow installation of one using Raptor34's idea of utility compartments:

viewtopic.php?t=469075

Falcrack is right to say the main function of carriers is traditionally range through fuel and armaments - which are not relevant in the current X4 set up, and the restriction of commands availible is somewhat arbitrary without any clear in-game logic.

A trade off made by the player to use a fighter as a personal ship may well be to give over that upgrade space that could have been used for other advantages to provide it with a travel drive.

It would massively and probably too much change the composition of the game though - fighter swarms would now all need a command vessel and, whilst I'd love to see that, the ai would probably struggle, and I know some prefer the fighter/swarm aspect, as Nanook rightly pointed out.

I would love the logistical challenge, however, and the excuse for more L carriers!

Regards

If internal components customization is further expanded, or more like reworked completely, then this is a good idea.
Or let's go back to the old games, one of the issue with the jump drive is that there is no cost to it. It's basically space free, there is no good reason to not throw a JD and transporter device on all your ships. It costs less than a mil total iirc, basically nothing.
If otoh, JDs and for the current conversation, TDs has a cost to installation. Or at least an opportunity cost, then not every ship would have one. So say the space for the JD or TD could be used for stronger shield generators, power gens, heat sinks or whatever. Or to put it as the intended end result, ships without a TD can run stronger shields, less overheating weapons or faster speeds, though that might require a change to how TD works or the new flight model or whatever since using the TD can also give you faster speeds, then the choice could be between more flexible loadouts ala the current system, or carrier based loadouts where you strip off everything not focused on combat and use that space for combat related items instead.

This would of course lead to defender advantages too. The local defense forces would lack the strategic mobility of TDs and JDs, but in return they are significantly more combat capable. And if you want to match local fighter forces one on one, you'll need a carrier to carry your fighters over. Or if you want to do hit and run attacks on enemy logistics, then you bring TD equipped fighters over.
Not just for fighters of course, there is no reason you can't strip a TD from a destroyer and put better shields on it for instance.

Of course this would be predicated on a significantly deeper ship customization than currently exists, and in some ways would be more reminiscent of the old X3 style where everything is stored in your cargo bay, even the installed equipment. But of course without that system which tbh while in some ways more useful balance wise, also felt really dumb. The outfit system of Endless Sky is imo a better example. Though of course without the full complexity of that system, but the basic idea of there being a limited space to place your equipment would allow you to have more natural restrictions to exist. Or to put it another way, restricting heavy fighters from TD is just a different form of restricting carrier stuff to actual carriers. I don't see any difference between the two, both are artificial restrictions.

[Nanook]

Do none of you actually like to fly fighters? It seems you've all forgotten the roots of the X series. It was all about flying and fighting in a fighter. Now you're suggesting the player fly a basically defenseless scout until they can afford to buy a big, expensive frigate? Think about what you're suggesting.

It's the same old trope from X3 where a few thought it a good idea that fighters couldn't use jump drives. Egosoft didn't listen to them (but they did take away all the jumpdrives!!), and I certainly hope they don't listen to you. Can you imagine the game if they decided to do away with travel drive, too, for every ship? Those who wanted a longer game would sure get their wish.

Anyway, as I said previously, not a game I'd buy or play.