Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

AquilaRossa
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu, 8. Aug 19, 23:54
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by AquilaRossa » Fri, 13. Sep 19, 04:57

Destroyer is the right name. “Fast, maneuverable, long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against powerful short range attackers”. So its role is to serve as a medium class escort for carriers, (non-existent) cruisers and battleships. They just need to add those big ships.
He is correct. I spent many 1000s of days working at sea in the Southern Ocean plundering it while believing how we were told it was sustainable, so yeah, ships are my thing, i.e., a bit of a ship geek. The Destroyer, Frigate, Corvette, and Carrier classes in X are derived from IRL naval classes. Therefore their roles should probably reflect this. A naval destroyer is a smaller torpedo armed vessel designed to screen fleets from other vessels and aircraft, escort, and engage submarines. The difference with X though and what I think causes the confusion is that they are classed as capital ships, whereas in naval terms only a Battle Cruiser, Battleship, and Carrier are those (or that whopping Soviet sub the Typhoon/Akula. That surely must be a capital ship because it weighs more than a WWI Dreadnought).

Corvettes and Frigates are bit off in X4 I think. A Frigate has more amour and turrets usually, but only two M weapons slots. It means the far lighter Corvette has more main weapons firepower (2.5x in the case of the Nemesis). I think the Frigate should be a M class vessel with a single L class main weapon. That would give me a reason to use one as a player ship, because at the moment the Nemesis is my choice every time (I enjoy the Pulsar too).

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Fri, 13. Sep 19, 08:22

yeah L size trade ships are bad in a lot of ways. And they suffer so much travel wise going through gates... I am not sure its fixable. About the only advantage they have is stronger defenses.
AquilaRossa wrote:
Fri, 13. Sep 19, 04:57
He is correct. I spent many 1000s of days working at sea in the Southern Ocean plundering it while believing how we were told it was sustainable, so yeah, ships are my thing, i.e., a bit of a ship geek. The Destroyer, Frigate, Corvette, and Carrier classes in X are derived from IRL naval classes. Therefore their roles should probably reflect this. A naval destroyer is a smaller torpedo armed vessel designed to screen fleets from other vessels and aircraft, escort, and engage submarines. The difference with X though and what I think causes the confusion is that they are classed as capital ships, whereas in naval terms only a Battle Cruiser, Battleship, and Carrier are those (or that whopping Soviet sub the Typhoon/Akula. That surely must be a capital ship because it weighs more than a WWI Dreadnought).

Corvettes and Frigates are bit off in X4 I think. A Frigate has more amour and turrets usually, but only two M weapons slots. It means the far lighter Corvette has more main weapons firepower (2.5x in the case of the Nemesis). I think the Frigate should be a M class vessel with a single L class main weapon. That would give me a reason to use one as a player ship, because at the moment the Nemesis is my choice every time (I enjoy the Pulsar too).
An IRL destroyer is the mainline battle-ship of modern navies. Class names are arbitrary. Ships have always been divided into 'ship that is best at fighting' and specialists.

Class names are, as always, completely arbitrary. The only general trend that really seems to stick is a division between 'the ship that is best at fighting' - the battleship - and various specialists that are better or more efficient at a specific role that is not ship to ship warfare.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Wed, 18. Sep 19, 05:25

Sandalpocalypse wrote:
Fri, 13. Sep 19, 08:22

An IRL destroyer is the mainline battle-ship of modern navies. Class names are arbitrary. Ships have always been divided into 'ship that is best at fighting' and specialists.

Class names are, as always, completely arbitrary. The only general trend that really seems to stick is a division between 'the ship that is best at fighting' - the battleship - and various specialists that are better or more efficient at a specific role that is not ship to ship warfare.
That's not quite accurate. Destroyers are anti-sub warfare specialized ships, cruisers anti-air, frigates were made obsolete decades ago, battle ships obsolete as well but were specialized in anti-surface. Naval warfare has shifted drastically over the years due to modularity of missile systems that can house anti-sub, anti-air, and anti-surface weapons all at once. The US Navy has also invested billions in littoral combat vessels that can be equipped and reequipped to specialize various types of warfare depending on mission needs.

But for a game like this, there's no equivalency to a modern navy. Things are a bit backwards in space combat games usually, when compared to a modern navy. You wouldn't think it to look at it, but an air craft carrier can haul ass compared to their escorts. Cruisers and destroyers have a top speed of about 32 knots, carriers top out closer to 40. It's always been the case for Navy ships where the bigger ones can move faster, because they have more props and more and/or bigger engines.

When I see something like a destroyer in X4 that's painfully slow moving, it makes me scream, internally =p I look at these massive engines on their butts and I'm like... you should be leaving me in the dust. Slow to turn, sure, but in a straight line, they should be super fast. Now, flip over to X Rebirth, and I feel like they did a great job with the cap ships ability to move about. It all felt very natural to me.

just my 2 cents.
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Derp
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu, 9. Jul 15, 02:42

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by Derp » Wed, 18. Sep 19, 17:48

There's also the naming precedent set in the Homeworld series of space games, in which fighters are fighters and corvettes are corvettes, but destroyers are "frigates," cruisers are "destroyers," and battleships are "heavy cruisers" or "battlecruisers," depending on the game.

Anyway, yes, vanilla capships are bad (because they're not really capships), but a couple of mods add better ones. I like VRO's. The game really needs better fleet management before bigger ships are added, Combat gets frustrating quickly at the capship level. I'd prefer the devs focus on that.

Also mentioned, and I'd like to second, destroyer main guns need to feel a lot punchier. They do a lot of damage (IF they hit - separate issue), but they don't look like it.

AquilaRossa
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu, 8. Aug 19, 23:54
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by AquilaRossa » Thu, 19. Sep 19, 06:36

Derp wrote:
Wed, 18. Sep 19, 17:48
There's also the naming precedent set in the Homeworld series of space games, in which fighters are fighters and corvettes are corvettes, but destroyers are "frigates," cruisers are "destroyers," and battleships are "heavy cruisers" or "battlecruisers," depending on the game.
Classes of both games are using naval terms, but this is a space game and can have artistic license, because nobody know what battle in space would look like for sure.

Somebody said naval classes are arbitrary and modern destroyers are capital ships. Not correct at all. Class names are derived from the role performed. The modern capital ship is no longer the battleship, it's the fleet carrier. Destroyers protect and screen the carrier among other duties. A cruiser is a fast ship with range that was intended to be used for commerce raiding, but they began to be used in the fleet for screening too. A capital ship was the ship of the [battle] line in the days of sail. Battleships took over that role until aircraft carriers made them obsolete.

In space Sci-Fi though a destroyer seemed like a capital ship. In Star Wars especially, which did a lot to define how we see these things. But then we saw their true capital ships and the imperial destroyers were small in comparison. I am not sure how X should be. I think it is a case of being like the first Star Wars in that the big XR true capital ships are missing, so we think these little destroyers are one. Current destroyers would fit that screening role if the big ships were in the game. Carriers in X4 would not be capital ships either if true fleet carriers were around, because they would become like a light carrier which in navies is not a capital ship.

p.s. I think the capacity of non carrier L ships should be reduced a lot, because 40 fighters blurs the line between them and XL carriers too much.

Lord Crc
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun, 29. Jan 12, 13:28
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by Lord Crc » Thu, 19. Sep 19, 12:24

AquilaRossa wrote:
Thu, 19. Sep 19, 06:36
nobody know what battle in space would look like for sure
We can be quite sure it would be nothing like X4 :lol:

That shouldn't stop us from having a good time though.

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by Vertigo 7 » Thu, 19. Sep 19, 14:51

Lord Crc wrote:
Thu, 19. Sep 19, 12:24
AquilaRossa wrote:
Thu, 19. Sep 19, 06:36
nobody know what battle in space would look like for sure
We can be quite sure it would be nothing like X4 :lol:

That shouldn't stop us from having a good time though.
This guy has the right idea lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLpgxry542M
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

marble_emperor
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon, 3. Dec 18, 01:57
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by marble_emperor » Thu, 19. Sep 19, 23:38

grapedog wrote:
Mon, 9. Sep 19, 11:18
I just want to put a small note here.... if you have never actually served in a navy, for any country.... I'd avoid trying to compare what is possible or what should be possible between an ACTUAL real life navy and a fictional futuristic space navy.

the OP post i'm actually commenting on has since been edited, but really, just.... if you never actually served, don't pretend to have any idea what it's like, or what "it's defenses should be like".... because I can assure you of you of one thing absolutely..... the last thing you want your ship relying on.... the absolute last ****** thing, is it's own self defense systems. frigate, destroyer, cruiser, carrier.... it doesn't matter. if it is in a fight alone, that's a bad ****** day...

please pardon my language.... but people comparing actual military life/performance to fictional military life/performance is on a VERY short list of things that actually bother me.... and should have no place in a conversation about a game.
I've never served in a military, and I wouldn't presume to be a military expert. I do however have basic reading skills and have poured through all the wiki articles on what a modern naval carrier group might be comprised of and the roles of the individual ships.

Here's probably an unpopular opinion: I think what they're going for with the current assortment of fighters, carriers and destroyers works, as it is actually reminiscent of what I understand to be a modern naval carrier fleet. The problem holding back combat is not the available ship types, but the capital ship movement and combat AI.

So hear me out. Here's my dumbed down understanding of a modern carrier group:
  • Aircraft Carrier: Gigantic mobile fighter platform. Not meant to ever engage or be engaged in direct combat with another vessel. Meant to project power over large distances and act as a mobile base of operations for aircraft squadrons
  • Missile Destroyer/Cruiser: Low tonnage vessel armed with cruise missiles meant to ram those missiles up the ass of other vessels or land targets. This is basically the large DPS of the fleet.
  • Escort Destroyer: Low tonnage vessel equipped with flak/other close range weaponry meant to protect the fleet from aircraft, submarines and other low-tonnage vessels that may approach
  • Aircraft: Shoot/bomb the shit out of everything
From everything I've read high tonnage Battleships/Cruisers have been mostly phased out of the modern naval fleet, with some exceptions, because of their poor cost-to-performance ratio. The role of ship-killer has mostly been filled by the smaller, cheaper missile destroyers, armed with cruise missiles.

To be honest, if you take the current ship classes in X4 and crudely try to fit them into the roles of a modern navy, it kind of works. None of the XL or L ships are really meant to act alone, like in previous X games where XL battleships were basically WMDs capable of annihilating an entire sector by themselves. They're all clearly designed to fit into a combined arms fleet, along with fighters, where they make up for eachother's weaknesses. I really really like this format. The only thing holding it back IMO is just the combat/movement AI for cap ships acting wonky, having them fly in weird patterns, never allowing their weaponry to focus on targets. Also cap ship turret range just needs to be longer, it has to be, the AI can't deal with it. The AI for destroyers seems to obsessively keep them outside of turret range, making it hard to convince them to actually attack anything.

AquilaRossa
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu, 8. Aug 19, 23:54
x4

Re: Am I the only one, who think, that current capships are bad?

Post by AquilaRossa » Sat, 21. Sep 19, 09:10

None of the XL or L ships are really meant to act alone, like in previous X games where XL battleships were basically WMDs capable of annihilating an entire sector by themselves. They're all clearly designed to fit into a combined arms fleet, along with fighters, where they make up for each other's weaknesses. I really really like this format.
I agree. I use all the classes in one fleet now including scouts to chase down and prevent travel drive escapes. A well equipped mixed fleet makes mincemeat of everything the Xenon throw at it. In X3R I just sailed thru those sectors letting flak leave a trail of destruction and abandoned ships for me to claim. Once you got that destroyer nothing could stop it. I got a fright when i first tried that in X4. My engines were shot out and i was a sitting duck with nobody around to help me out.

I only have one Destroyer or Carrier per fleet and sometimes keep the destroyer with the carrier, or detach it and its own subs if I need to. I give them 10 M and 40+10 S class escorts each. I assign a fully escorted Auxiliary to the destroyer. That's 2 XL, 1 L, 30 M, and 150 S for my full fleet. It is far more effective than just using a flock of destroyers. I build at least the first part of a fleet like that before I even think about trying to block the Xenon gates and then move into their space. There is four gates like that, so that is a good few weeks of preparing for war and getting financial enough to pay for it. I do all the game's odd jobs and get my own combat rank up in the meantime.

Full storage capacity for a destroyer is the same as the carrier that only has the advantage of supply and faster launching. I think a carrier should be higher fighter storage capacity and a destroyer much less (or is a destroyer like the Tardis inside?). I am not sure about wings with Carriers though. I can't get them to work with a NPC carrier pilot. The wing leader tends to stay docked and the rest follow the carrier.

Frigates are fast, so I usually only give them escort fighters that can keep up. That is where the scouts are used in the fleet. Frigates are best in a bunch like bananas. 10 Cerberus with 10 Discover is quite potent and can intercept a threat to the Carrier long before a Nova etc can.

Mixed loadouts seem to be good for fighters too. Ion Blaster with your preferred hull wrecking weapon. For the 10 M class escorts, I fit them with mostly shard turrets set to attack all enemies and keep them close together. That barrage obliterates any M or S that dares to approach. I am not very good at getting them to use missiles and auto resupply yet. I do not know if it even works.

I found a downside of adding forward thrust mod parts to a Odysseus. Most fighters can't keep up, so i have to use the weaker Perseus fighters with that one. Gorgon and Nemesis can keep up, but a stock Perseus can't keep up with a Gorgon, so the Gorgon only gets a Pegasus scout for its dock.

I also give a full capacity escort to my Albatross construction vessel so it can build in hostile space.

I have a special tasks fleet of 40 Nemesis in wings. They are armed with Plasma for the main weapons and shard for the turrets. They can eat up a Xenon platform in minutes, but it is dicey at first because they take some hits. I have not risked them against a Xenon shipyard yet, but my thinking is that the concentration of shard will take out those unshielded defence drones.

Setting turret commands for lots of M class is a time consumer. I would like to be able to set my choice in the build template.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”