Carriers. The final solution

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

I don't think carriers in a space game should work like air-craft-carriers today.

Yes and no - I think some are hung up too much on particular role-fits for particular role-designations to see anything else. Where carriers in the X-series are concerned - they have always been a form of warship and not really along the lines of current generation real world fleet carriers that some seem to want them to be,

The current (2.2x and prior) role fit for carriers is not what some would like them to be and I respect that even if I disagree with it. What Egosoft are apparently adding in 2.50 is a resupply feature - not tried the Beta so not sure how it works but from the sounds of things the dedicated supply ships will notionally do a better job of resupplying ships. While I do not feel such a feature is necessary and would rather ES had concentrated on other things what is done is done.

Removing the high-way ring would achieve little or nothing and may in fact make matters worse, the fundamental issue is not the highway ring but rather the trans-sector routing algorithms for all ships. It is not an insurmountable issue either.

I believe it is almost universally agreed - other minutia aside - that the AI aspects are still in need of work, whether any AI changes introduced in 2.50 are going to be enouver to address that is questionable.

[Aven Valkyr]

Any space faring civilaztion in the universe would make use of carriers in such a way. A carrier is just a very large, well armoured ship that carries compliments of fighters. In X, you don't have to worry so much about them because fighters can get around just as easily as anything else. So the big question is how are carriers useful, and why should I use them? Well most people in the game just think they are useless. So adding AI to those ships, allowing them to automatically deploy and manage fighters groups, is the way to go, IMO. Otherwise, really what IS the point of having them?

The new auto-repair feature is nice but it still doesn't make them awesome. I would rather say to hell with the fighters and just run around with a fleet of destroyers. I don't want to have to manage hundreds of fighters at a time. Why not just go with destroyers.

As far as adding AI to carriers and not to everything else goes, well you should read my other posts about improving the pilot rating system and other AI improvements to the game. I have several ideas for X4 that when combined would make this game insanely awesome

[Tomonor]

Otherwise, really what IS the point of having them?

Fuel and maintenance. What these carriers are supposed to do is carry ships around effectively without them losing fuel and being combat ready.

However X4 still lacks the fuel functionality. If that ever gets introduced, that's when carriers become proper tools.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Otherwise, really what IS the point of having them?

Fuel and maintenance. What these carriers are supposed to do is carry ships around effectively without them losing fuel and being combat ready.

However X4 still lacks the fuel functionality. If that ever gets introduced, that's when carriers become proper tools.

That is a bit of a short sighted view point, and has little relevance to the X-Series games overall. Fuel for general flight has never been a consideration in the X-series and there is no legitimate reason for such a mechanic to ever be introduced either.

Carriers are already "proper tools", they already have the fastest launch times for wings of 10+ internalised fighters when compared with any other ship and have the most surface docks for S/M ship recovery. The Condor is a bit hobbled in this regard when compared with the Colossus/Zeus but that is another matter entirely. They also have other advantages when compared with other vessels but this has already been done to a death in other threads.

[Tomonor]

Otherwise, really what IS the point of having them?

Fuel and maintenance. What these carriers are supposed to do is carry ships around effectively without them losing fuel and being combat ready.

However X4 still lacks the fuel functionality. If that ever gets introduced, that's when carriers become proper tools.

That is a bit of a short sighted view point, and has little relevance to the X-Series games overall. Fuel for general flight has never been a consideration in the X-series and there is no legitimate reason for such a mechanic to ever be introduced either.

Carriers are already "proper tools", they already have the fastest launch times for wings of 10+ internalised fighters when compared with any other ship and have the most surface docks for S/M ship recovery. The Condor is a bit hobbled in this regard when compared with the Colossus/Zeus but that is another matter entirely. They also have other advantages when compared with other vessels but this has already been done to a death in other threads.

Jump fuel for Jump Tunneling Devices was a thing in X-Rebirth. Although it didn't touch upon direct flight, but it was a fuel system alright with complete refueling stations, fuel type cargo, and fuel related commands.

Since Jumpdrives were removed from the lore for balancing reasons without a proper in-universe explanation, the fuel system went along with it (plus this potential gameplay aspect for carriers - that carriers could pop-up in space fully loaded with fighters). What's worse is that the ring highway system acts like a carrier vessel anyway - your ships can't get hurt inside, can't get disrupted from the outside, can enter it any time without clearance delay, and it carries the ships faster than a carrier ever could (reducing the exact strategic element Egosoft wished to fix with the removal of jumpdrives). I can send my entire fleet of heavy fighters via the highway safe and sound without ever having the need for a carrier type ship.

So no, in my strict way of seeing things my opinion is valid and does matter (regardless if fuel-based flight was never considered). I think a fuel system could somewhat fix this "problem".
Having carriers being able to maintain ships is a step in the right direction though. The question is, will it be enough?

[MakerLinux]

Can be don much easier. It only needs 3 steps/Changes

1. Remove the highway and let L/XL Ships fly into to the middle of gates

Why do you people keep asking this? Highways are one of the best mechanics in the game. They are a very useful and well implemented idea.
Do what you want with your tainted^H^H^H^H^H^H^H modified games, but let the main game alone! I for one am happy I'll never see your Ventures ship flying in my universe!

The highway loop. When people complain about the universe being too small, that's what they've got in mind. Any S/M ship can hop on the highway and whoosh to the other side of the map within a minute. Take them away and the map becomes bigger, your local region becomes much more important, and parking fighters on a carrier to benefit from its faster drive has positive utility.

"becomes bigger" seems like a really subjective impression. The game is already long - hundreds of hours worth - and you and others want to make it longer, more boring and less anchored by removing the highways?

Hopefully I trust Egosoft to never give you guys any credence on it. I liked highways even better in X: Rebirth, but X4's highways are ok and MUST exist because they are part of the scenery, they are a anchor to structures and trade routes, they are a tactical advantage at battle if you know how to use them, they add color and sense of continuity and direction to the universe, and they enable fast delivery of goods. They are so important that I would rather have portals removed than highways - I don't really like the lack of continuity when you pass through a portal.

[waynetarlton]

Good intent. I don't like such low numbers of ships on the carriers, why? In today's terms carriers hold 60 planes. For this game I'd like to see carrier capacity at about 40 min.

[MakerLinux]

Jump fuel for Jump Tunneling Devices was a thing in X-Rebirth. Although it didn't touch upon direct flight, but it was a fuel system alright with complete refueling stations, fuel type cargo, and fuel related commands.

That's a reaaally bad example, because the fuel system for jump drives was really bad. Unless you micromanaged all your capital ships, every now and then one of them would not have enough fuel to escape an ambush with the jump drive and would be destroyed - or would be wandering around at really low pace around the universe. It was a chore, not an interesting example.

Since Jumpdrives were removed from the lore for balancing reasons without a proper in-universe explanation, the fuel system went along with it (plus this potential gameplay aspect for carriers - that carriers could pop-up in space fully loaded with fighters). What's worse is that the ring highway system acts like a carrier vessel anyway - your ships can't get hurt inside, can't get disrupted from the outside, can enter it any time without clearance delay, and it carries the ships faster than a carrier ever could (reducing the exact strategic element Egosoft wished to fix with the removal of jumpdrives). I can send my entire fleet of heavy fighters via the highway safe and sound without ever having the need for a carrier type ship.

So no, in my strict way of seeing things my opinion is valid and does matter (regardless if fuel-based flight was never considered). I think a fuel system could somewhat fix this "problem".
Having carriers being able to maintain ships is a step in the right direction though. The question is, will it be enough?

Game designer theory: you should buff rather than nerf. What about allowing Jump Drives ONLY on carrier ships? Much simpler, not game-breaking, and gives a HUGE utility and advantage to what is otherwise a cumbersome and slow ship. And best of all, my precious highways stay intact and remain in the game...

[Tomonor]

Game designer theory: you should buff rather than nerf. What about allowing Jump Drives ONLY on carrier ships? Much simpler, not game-breaking, and gives a HUGE utility and advantage to what is otherwise a cumbersome and slow ship. And best of all, my precious highways stay intact and remain in the game...

Yeah. I can see you are really attached to your highway system and I don't necessarily have a problem with that (I'm rather neutral about it). I was just trying to reflect on how they weaken the potential importance of a certain class of ships. And don't forget that we are just brain-storming here and Egosoft will most likely not consider these ideas for they usually have a rather strict roadplan set for a game, and any important change only get introduced in the next installment(s). So you don't have to act defensive on behalf of the highways because there's no chance they get removed from X4 by the devs. Reworked maybe (as per Rebirth), but not removed.

I too thought about Jumpdrives limited to XL ships, but I've come to the conclusion that how would that make sense. I mean, L ships are big enough too to support the structure of such device, so why would they be limited to XL/Carrier ships? But then comes the problem that certainly arose quite a few time when Egosoft was developing the game: how to keep the balance if any ship can appear out of thin air?

It's a rather complicated problem indeed and never would have I thought that carriers, highways, and jumpdrive would have such a connection.

[RodentofDoom]

The real problem ….

When an L-Class mining vessel can 'host' more S class ships than a carrier can.

[burger1]

The real problem ….

When an L-Class mining vessel can 'host' more S class ships than a carrier can.

Number of docking ports and launching ports makes a big difference. The Osprey frigate can carry 17 drones and 11 fighters but they make terrible carriers due to 1 docking port (11 fighters may make it so you can't launch drones ?). Carriers also have way more hit points and the ability to dock M class class ships is very useful for storing supplies on ships and increasing the ships firepower. Carriers require a lot of attention to run well. In the next patch they will be able to re arm and repair ships. Other than station attacks (destroyers are better and more cost effective) a full carrier is more powerful than any ship in the game including xenon I.

[ei8htx]

That is a bit of a short sighted view point

Conflict with the idea, not the person, Roger. No need to be a dick because you disagree with someone's point of view. Your hostile attitude is unwelcome, and makes reading the forums worse,not better. You can voice your criticisms and suggestions in a positive way.

Repatomonor is right about the jump drive fuel thing in X3. You could keep all your fighters on a carrier and jump the carrier. You didn't have to manage fuel cells or equip every ship with a jump drive; you just jumped the carrier (admittedly, jump drives were way too cheap in X3).

That said, I agree with MakerLinux that it isn't a great idea to nerf/remove features to give something purpose.

Problem is its much faster to field a bunch of individual fighters by sending them through the ring, than putting them on a carrier. I like the ring, but don't like that you basically become invincible when on it. In theory, an entire Xenon fighter fleet could land in Argon Prime with 0 resistance the whole way; this never could happen in X3 or earlier. There needs to be some type of control to knock out/blow up ships traveling into enemy territory.

Back to carriers, you could add jump drives, but that's a slippery slope that a lot of veteran X players don't like (the teleporter is a great compromise here, I wouldn't change it).

I'd suggest making every carrier a floating equipment dock. Rearming and repairing fighters would give them serious purpose. Give them a crazy fast travel drive and the ability to fly through the front of gates, combined with better fleet management overall (carrier or all), and it starts to make a lot more sense to combine fighter fleets with a carrier for easy sector control and battle strategy.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Jump fuel for Jump Tunneling Devices was a thing in X-Rebirth. Although it didn't touch upon direct flight, but it was a fuel system alright with complete refueling stations, fuel type cargo, and fuel related commands.

Jump Fuel (Fuel Cells in X-Rebirth) does not count - that is a very specific case which if you were truely paying attention in X-Rebirth ONLY applied to L/XL craft and ONLY for direct sector to sector travel via the Jump Beacons. In addition, none of the "fuel mechanics" had any relevance to the carrier mechanics either.

Even in X2/X3 the Jump Drive was an entirely optional mechanic and not actually required for general operations. It just allowed near instant travel with a fuel cost, not required for nominal flight.

The jump drive is not a thing in X4 (yet), maybe it will make a return in Vanilla (I suspect not) but if it does I suspect it will be deliberately limited in application/availability and probably implemented more along the lines of X1-X3 then X-Rebirth (i.e. probably based around standard cargo). Even if it is not limited in application/availability (i.e. available to fit to all ships or all ships of a given size and above) it still would not apply to nominal flight/cruise thus would be moot in the context of "refueling mechanics" where subordinates of carriers are concerned.

Overall, the context of nominal "flight fuel" has never been a thing in the X-series. Elite has a true fully fledged fuel mechanic but the X-series really has not - at least in terms of general flight and operations, and personally I do not think it should be added either.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

...

Calling a point of view short sighted is NOT attacking the individual, it is pointing out the point of view is flawed.

Overall, though the kind of game some want to turn X4 into is not what I bought. Basic flight fuel mechanics is not justifiable nor reasonable for the X-series games (at least in the form some seem to want).

[ei8htx]

...

Calling a point of view short sighted is NOT attacking the individual, it is pointing out the point of view is flawed.

It is. So is the eye roll. Your attitude is generally hostile and makes this forum a worse place.

[ei8htx]

Jump fuel for Jump Tunneling Devices was a thing in X-Rebirth. Although it didn't touch upon direct flight, but it was a fuel system alright with complete refueling stations, ...

that is a very specific case which if you were truely paying attention

More of the same. Stop being a dick.

[euclid]

Please keep it civilized ! In particular @ei8htx please refrain form any personal attacks; consider this as a warning.

Cheers Euclid

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

The Osprey frigate can carry 17 drones and 11 fighters but they make terrible carriers due to 1 docking port (11 fighters may make it so you can't launch drones ?).

That is a change that slipped me by unnoticed. I thought ALL Frigates used to be able to only dock a single fighter in addition to being able to carry drones. Not sure when the internal ship count changed to 11 across the board for Frigates.

As for internally docked ships preventing drone launches - providing the surface dock is available, all drones should be able to be at least launchable - recovery may require internal dock space now, but it did not used to. I rarely have a ship fully populated with internalised ships - I have never found there to be a need to do so.

However, you are completely correct - the main advantages of the XL Carriers are launch/recovery times and shield/hit points - in addition to higher drone, missile, and service crew (for own ship repairs)/marine capacity. Further more, bar the Odysseus - Carriers are currently the only ships able to carry M size vessels too.

The Argon L mining vessels may be able to carry 80 fighters but the restricted number of surface docks and shield/hull strength makes it's use as a carrier limited. The Paranid L mining vessels have 4 internal S launch bays (Condor has 6, and the Zeus/Colossus have 10) meaning that while it only has a similar internal S sized fighter capacity to Carriers it still is slower at deploying/recovering fighters on-site and lacks the shield/hull strength.

Even though smaller ships may have similar or greater ship capacities, their launch/recovery times are far slower overall.

[graphicboy]

I don't get the reasoning when all models of all race's carriers have different designs, different weapons layout but all hold exactly 50 fighters. And a Mining vessel can hold 80??? The M1s in X3 had unique hanger capacities that certainly went into deciding which M1 to purchase/build/capture.

I popped in game because I didn't believe the "80" number ... I'd never noticed. WTF is that about.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

I don't get the reasoning when all models of all race's carriers have different designs, different weapons layout but all hold exactly 50 fighters. And a Mining vessel can hold 80??? The M1s in X3 had unique hanger capacities that certainly went into deciding which M1 to purchase/build/capture.

I popped in game because I didn't believe the "80" number ... I'd never noticed. WTF is that about.

I believe it has it's lore based roots in the original name-sake ship design being a low-end drone/fighter carrier in X3:TC/X3:AP.

I think at some point the 40 internal S-ship count got increased to at least 50 for all Freighters, Destroyers, Carriers, and L Miners (possibly?) because of changes to drone recovery mechanics. The Argon Miners did not get an increase from the V1.0 internal S-ship count of 80.

[EDIT]The extra 10 internal S-ship slots indicated in the in-game Wiki do not show in ship-yard statistics thus they may be purely for drone recovery.[/EDIT]