Will we have capital ships like battleships or dreadnoughts?

[razor202]

From the past 2 live streams, it seems that in X4 the carriers are XL class ships but the destroyers are only L class ships. At least, the destroyer Behemoth is much smaller than the carrier Colossus. However, in previous X games, the M2s are as large as the M1s. So I wonder whether we will have XL class ships which are mounted with numerous turrets or other weapons rather than using fighters to combat? Just like the battleships or dreadnoughts? Or the carriers themselves are powerful enough to be operated like battleships? Because I really miss this kind of ships.

[Morkonan]

I don't see why they wouldn't include XL "Battleships." I seem to recall specific mention of them in regards to the different sorts of ships the player will be able to pilot, so they'll surely be part of X4.

ie: I heard in a video, don't remember which, that the player will be "able to fly any ship, like fighters, battleships, anything in the game," so it's already been confirmed. (I hope. )

[mr.WHO]

Well, in XR both Taranis and Arawn are XL size, despite that Arawn is significantly more massive.

[Alith-Ahnar]

Dreadnoughts are Battleships just slower and with inferior armament.

So why have both if you can have the better iteration of it?

Would rather see Cruisers and Battlecruisers but hey the old Destroyers did fit a Battleship Battlecruiser anyway compared to the old Carrier Hulls.

So should we not ask if there are any Ship class naming schemes comparable to Earth Navies that those ships do somewhat fit the role that is associated to the name?

In the last live stream i think Owen did mention they want to make Ships to closer fit their role so hopes are high.

[ero_sk]

(...)
So why have both if you can have the better iteration of it?
(...)

This actually raises important issue- balance is everything. Each ship should have its strengths and weaknesses.

[RAVEN.myst]

(...)
So why have both if you can have the better iteration of it?
(...)

This actually raises important issue- balance is everything. Each ship should have its strengths and weaknesses.

I agree. I think it is imperative to have both the "weaker" AND the "better" versions.

- Firstly, there is the aspect of cost - the player must make do with what's attainable, until such time as can afford the top-of-the-line. So, progressive up-scaling of capabilities and resources.
- Secondly, there's the aspect of "historical/technological progression" - perhaps early in the game only the "weaker" (read 'older') versions are available, but more advanced versions become available later, or the player is making do with an obsolete model salvaged from some ship graveyard and restored to function, or perhaps as results of research (whether player or NPC-conducted), or as a consequence of exploring new regions (as in Omicron Lyrae's ships in Rebirth)
- Thirdly, there's the aspect of game balance: the "weaker" one isn't always necessarily actually weaker, at least not in all dimensions - it may be squishier but faster, it could be not as hard-hitting but stealthier - any number of trade-offs. And as a result, it could/would be better for some tasks than the supposedly "superior" vessel. (This, in a sense, is really a special case of the first point, as the advantage of the "weaker" ship can be the simple fact that it is cheaper, and therefore either more accessible, or more disposable. I sure as hell don't want to be using my most advanced and expensive prototypes as cannon fodder, should the need arise!)
- Fourthly, there's the aspect of role-playing, and this *requires* diversity and options. As an example, when I play X3 I role-play whichever race's start scenario I've chosen, which includes self-restriction to that race's ships and stations - so if I'm playing as Teladi, I use their slow-ass ships and learn to adapt my play-style to that handicap (which also adds: 4.5 - Challenge, for those of us who don't like things too easy.)
- Fifthly, there's the aspect of simple fun, and its different definitions for different players: for some people, just getting "the best of everything and ubering their way across the universe" is fun - but for many of us that is the very EPITOME of dull! As soon as I start massing the "best" assets (be they ships, armour sets, or whatever is applicable to the particular game) I also start thinking about what I'll be playing next, because at that point I'm already about done with whatever I'm playing. (Some games restrict one's access to higher tech through skill requirements - many veterans of a certain well-known space MMO will argue that it was the introduction of a way to shortcut training those skills that has been the primary cause of that game's abrupt recent decline.)

And I'm sure there are reasons I haven't even thought of (some likely very obvious ones, even) for keeping "both iterations" instead of only the "better" one.

[Alith-Ahnar]

(...)
So why have both if you can have the better iteration of it?
(...)

...
- Thirdly, there's the aspect of game balance: the "weaker" one isn't always necessarily actually weaker, at least not in all dimensions - it may be squishier but faster, it could be not as hard-hitting but stealthier - any number of trade-offs. And as a result, it could/would be better for some tasks than the supposedly "superior" vessel. (This, in a sense, is really a special case of the first point, as the advantage of the "weaker" ship can be the simple fact that it is cheaper, and therefore either more accessible, or more disposable. I sure as hell don't want to be using my most advanced and expensive prototypes as cannon fodder, should the need arise!)
...

The Part with RP and variation does strike home still does not constitute a whole lineup of those ship maybe just a handfull unique trophy ships instead a full shipline.

As the OP Question was straight for Dreadnoughts those tended to be slower, had inferior Armament none or none to speak air defence and ontop of it worse armor then Battleship.

Ontop of that not every Earth Navy adopted the Term Dreadnought for it's Battleships either they just continued to use the term Battleship.

On that note we might ask could it happen that factions call a ship class (role) by a different designation for example Teladi use the Term Dreadnought but Paranids use the Battleship instead?

[Killjaeden]

could it happen that factions call a ship class (role) by a different designation for example Teladi use the Term Dreadnought but Paranids use the Battleship instead?

It would be confusing to the player to have different (english) names for the same shipclass.

having older ships remain in the lineup is easily justified - just like some military hardware that originated from the 60s/70s is still in use: It's still effective enough to do a job and is usually cheaper than the most modern thing. Having a second rate destroyer would be usefull to patrol backwater places.

However: Races should both have comparable ships that are not "no-brainer" better than some other race. And with this, to have older ships as well as newer ships you need a huge lineup of models - which is unreasonable to expect. Even X3 amount of ships would not allow that. Even with addition of XTM and XTC ships, there where barely any instances of "alternate" (older/newer) ships version.

[Alith-Ahnar]

could it happen that factions call a ship class (role) by a different designation for example Teladi use the Term Dreadnought but Paranids use the Battleship instead?

It would be confusing to the player to have different (english) names for the same shipclass.

having older ships remain in the lineup is easy - just like some military hardware that originated from the 60s/70s is still in use: It's still effective enough to do a job and is usually cheaper than the most modern thing. Having a second rate destroyer would be usefull to patrol backwater places.

However: Races should both have comparable ships that are not "no-brainer" better than some other race. And with this, to have older ships as well as newer ships you need a huge lineup of models - which is unreasonable to expect.

Having a Clipper as a training Ship is not the same as Radar/satellite guided missile Destroyer.

The improvement in naval warfare that concluded to droping the Navies term Dreadnought and pickup the older more generic Battleship again was more then just older hardware.
Those Ships from the 60s are still in Service as they are still in there expected Service time (after Retrofits) and those designs still fill the role they are supposed to do.

Yet Retrofitting has it's limits you can only slap so much new hardware unto a hull until the boat sinks.
Think about it that way how much retrofitting would be necessary to make the HMS Dreadnought an equal to either the U.S.S. Zumwalt, U.S.S. Enterprise or an allready out of service U.S.S. Iowa.

You have to admit at some point no matter what an old hull is out matched by anything else new and also all ready considered old.

[RAVEN.myst]

You have to admit at some point no matter what an old hull is out matched by anything else new and also all ready considered old.

Granted - but you are overlooking an entire context: backwaters. Since you're using contemporary examples, consider Third World countries, particularly those that were supplied by the USA and the USSR during the Cold War. Those countries are still using a whole lot of antiquated hardware as is - no (or little) attempts at retrofitting or bolting on newer hardware - machineguns and FFAR rockets are plenty good enough to exert influence in primitive (I use the term without apology - I LIVE in pretty much such a locale!) areas. This hardware is everything from AK-47s and Stinger missiles, to Hind helicopters, and a variety of tanks, armoured vehicles, mobile artillery, patrol boats, torpedo boats, and other hardware, some of which was already surplus from World War II when it was originally sold to these countries. Yet, with a little proper maintenance (or even without, in the case of AK-47s ), these items are still effective in wielding power - so long as not challenging the superpowers (which was exactly the point of selling these in the first place - the US won't sell hardware that can effectively be turned back on it without easy counter, as a rule - but I digress), so yes, of course the newer hardware outmatches the old, as a rule. Doesn't mean that the older stuff doesn't still get used where it is still effective. [Incidentally, rifles from back in the Boer War can still kill you - so can a well-maintained musket, or a gladius, or a crossbow - but none of these weapons would be used by anyone sane to take on a modern army.]

My point is that drawing examples solely from the arsenals of superpowers is problematic - at the very least it's logically incomplete, at worst it's downright fallacious. More and less advanced cultures have always co-existed (not saying it's necessarily "happily"), and there's no reason to expect that would not be the case in a milieu such as the X universe. If we can have 40- to 70-year-old military hardware still in active service somewhere (read "mostly Africa"), then what's to stop pirates, small states, modest corporations, terrorist/dissident organisations, and wealthy individuals in a space-faring universe from making use of similarly "obsolete" ships?


EDIT: Incidentally, it isn't even a universal truth that fighting a more modern force using old weapons is never done and never effective: consider various examples of guerrilla war successfully waged against established states, even against the superpowers. For example, the US significantly "out-teched" its enemy in Vietnam, and yet... USSR faced similar difficulties in Cold War-era Afghanistan. A motivated force wielding nothing but blades, old guns, and local knowledge can give a "modern" and "advanced" army serious headaches... Once again, I can see similar situations applying in the X universe, too, in some form and to some extent.

[razor202]

After reading the posts above, it seems that some friends misunderstood this topic. Sorry for my poor expressions. In fact, my question is that whether we will have capital ships which are as large as the carriers but fight mainly with its own turrets and other weapons in X4. And it isn't important what we call this kind of ships like battleships, dreadnoughts, or even heavy destroyers.

[Alith-Ahnar]

You have to admit at some point no matter what an old hull is out matched by anything else new and also all ready considered old.

...

My point is that drawing examples solely from the arsenals of superpowers is problematic - at the very least it's logically incomplete, at worst it's downright fallacious. More and less advanced cultures have always co-existed (not saying it's necessarily "happily"), and there's no reason to expect that would not be the case in a milieu such as the X universe. If we can have 40- to 70-year-old military hardware still in active service somewhere (read "mostly Africa"), then what's to stop pirates, small states, modest corporations, terrorist/dissident organisations, and wealthy individuals in a space-faring universe from making use of similarly "obsolete" ships?


EDIT: Incidentally, it isn't even a universal truth that fighting a more modern force using old weapons is never done and never effective: consider various examples of guerrilla war successfully waged against established states, even against the superpowers. For example, the US significantly "out-teched" its enemy in Vietnam, and yet... USSR faced similar difficulties in Cold War-era Afghanistan. A motivated force wielding nothing but blades, old guns, and local knowledge can give a "modern" and "advanced" army serious headaches... Once again, I can see similar situations applying in the X universe, too, in some form and to some extent.

Your arguments are sound and valid still do not cover the leap in development.

What we consider advancements in personal weapons now a days is no where near what the gap between a dreadnought class Battleship and a later Battleship used to be.

While i do agree your example in regards to personal weapons does fit and i would go even further into the past and pick a rifle from the 19th Century the K98 that is still today considered a great bolt action rifle and still would serve adequate a use case in any todays military.

So you have an example of something that is even older then HMS Dreadnought and is still 100% perfect and usable even today.
But to compare a Dreadnought Class with any modern Battleship and those are at least 70 Years Old now is like to have a fight between a Red Coat with Flintlock and a Space Marine in Power Armor and a lasgun.

Some fields did make improvements large and others small.

But to to come back to my first post that got put somewhat out of context, my point was about using the proper role designation for ships.
In addition followed up that having unique token Ships of outdated inferior designs, and that would fit with your example of 3rd World Nations in X Universe Terms maybe Pirates.

To boil it down for me it is more about having a Ship called Carrier be a ACV not a Airplane transportation Unit so to speak or a Destroyer a specialist Weapons Platform and not a Jack of all Trades combat platform the role that is reserved for a Cruiser, etc.

Maybe i am thinking to much in Navel Terms and the rest more in line with what we had from X-BTF up to X:R anyway i rather would love to have the biggest baddest none carrier be called Battleship instead of that obsolete steam tugboat name "Dreadnought".

[RAVEN.myst]

After reading the posts above, it seems that some friends misunderstood this topic. Sorry for my poor expressions. In fact, my question is that whether we will have capital ships which are as large as the carriers but fight mainly with its own turrets and other weapons in X4. And it isn't important what we call this kind of ships like battleships, dreadnoughts, or even heavy destroyers.

Actually, the fault lies not with you, but with those of us who digressed and got hung up on details, and ended up derailing the thread - for my part in this I apologize!

But to to come back to my first post that got put somewhat out of context, my point was about using the proper role designation for ships.

Ah OK, it seems I got distracted along the way I agree here: a good system of designations that depends on role/function is, to me, highly desirable. However, it need not *necessarily* follow real-world conventions - but I think that the advantages of it doing so outweigh any disadvantages (in fact, I can't really think of any of the latter.) So, while there's no hard-and-fast reason to follow naval naming conventions, it makes no difference either way to those unfamiliar with those designations, but to those of us who are familiar with them (and I suspect that's a rather high proportion of the X community), it instantly gives us context and an idea of how a particular ship is intended to be used, so it's quite useful.

To boil it down for me it is more about having a Ship called Carrier be a ACV not a Airplane transportation Unit so to speak or a Destroyer a specialist Weapons Platform and not a Jack of all Trades combat platform the role that is reserved for a Cruiser, etc.

Yes, for example destroyers in modern navies are usually specialised against submarines - they carry advanced sonar (both passive and active), and depth charges and/or (more currently) torpedoes and surface-to-subsurface missiles, and usually a helicopter or two for aerial sub-spotting, while boasting good speed and nimbleness, suitable for their hunting role. By this "definition", a destroyer is essentially a heavier frigate (more or less), and is never a truly HUGE boat. In Rebirth terms, the Taranis strikes me as being spot-on as a destroyer, but even the Olmekron (and never mind the Fulmekron!) is already too heavy, in my own arbitrary opinion, for that designation - I might call the Ollie a cruiser, and the Fullie a battleship, were I to be backed into a corner and forced to classify them.

Incidentally, speaking of submarines... there have been no U-boat equivalents in X to date - I think it's time that changed.


Anyhow, pardon my sleep-deprived semi(or downright "in-")coherence - I'll now stop waffling and helping to derail the thread.

[pjknibbs]

We don't know at this stage how carriers will be armed, though. For all we know, they *are* the battleships of X4, with enormous firepower and the ability to carry fighters.

[RAVEN.myst]

We don't know at this stage how carriers will be armed, though. For all we know, they *are* the battleships of X4, with enormous firepower and the ability to carry fighters.

I very much hope that won't be the case, though.

[birdtable]

Only Ego know what the classes of ships will be,, I do know that I can park up my multi coloured (hopefully) lorries and gaze over them when I have my virtual morning coffee before I set forth....

[spankahontis]

Where would they fit in a Rock, Paper, Scissors sense?

Battleships are big, heavily armed brutes, can take on pretty much most ships.. But their drawbacks are they are slow, poor manoeuvrability and vulnerable to missile/torpedo's and of course better designed
Battleships?

So Medium/Heavy Missile Cruisers and M/H Bombers or even Drone Command Ships like The Griffion in Terran Conflict would be the ideal ships to take down these bad boys (If their specific A.I works properly?).

Missile Frigates A.I in X:Rebirth was horrible, they were a waste of money, flying coffins.

[razor202]

We don't know at this stage how carriers will be armed, though. For all we know, they *are* the battleships of X4, with enormous firepower and the ability to carry fighters.

Personally, I like the idea that the XL class combat ships are combination of battleships and carriers. In most science fiction films, the stand-alone carriers are quite rare, but the other capital ships can usually carry small space fighters like the star destroyers in SW or the battlestars in BSG.

By the way, you are in Egosoft, aren't you?

[Sandalpocalypse]

The role of a battleship is to have the biggest guns and the strongest armor so that it can defeat any other ship. IRL, the dominance of battleships was first threatened by torpedo boats, then by the destroyers that stopped the torpedo boats, and then overturned completely by planes & missiles. Space games typically arrive at some strange hybrid of ideas lifted from history and the popular imagination that blends these ideas into a melange that either works or doesnt dependent on the game. The games where it does work typically have a pretty controlled experience, such as Freespace or Starlancer. Games that are more freeform have difficulty making it work for numerous reasons, some of which are intractable. In the end it mostly works out about the same as XR has, where every warship is essentially a fight ship that is either stronger or weaker than another ship, and no real conception of role other than cost.

'Escort' ship cant really do their jobs anyway - the play area in most games tends to be pretty congested. There's not usually much concept of maneuvering and little capability for a ship to actually interpose itself between a larger vessel and an incoming threat. Nor is there much point to doing so. They typically have little capability of actually breaking up an incoming strike- they'd be too deadly if they could. And losing an escort ship is for the most part worse than taking hits on a larger ship, in terms of financial impact and player effort expended.

[razor202]

So, over 1 year has passed, and we still have no answers whether there would be XL class non-carrier warships in X4. Maybe only after 30th November can we get the answer.