Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

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

Post Reply
X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by X4Starter » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54

In my previous post I tried to answer a question regarding Split and Argon Flak. The results can be seen here.
viewtopic.php?f=146&t=448498&p=5133923#p5133923

I decided also to test the other turret types under the same circumstance. Osaka with Argon Equipment (Mk2 shields and turrets) for all types of turrets.
While this may sound fairly exciting the results were not.

Against 21 Xenon M's NO OTHER PROJECTILE ENERGY-BASED TURRET TYPE was able to allow the Osaka to survive. Pulses, Bolts, Shards, all suffered complete weapon disability/disarmament before the offending forces were destroyed which would result in total loss of the ship. I did not bother to record the exact number of xenon ships destroyed, nor how long it took for total disability as that would vary depending on the pathing of the ships in question. When the end result is complete failure, the details are less important.


I did not bother to test M Beams, as the energy output is so low, I would not recommend them under any circumstance. Unless someone else has contrary experience it is not worth to test in my opinion.
UPDATE: At the interest of others I did decide to test the M Beams. Since the only difference between the different faction M turrets is largely rotation speed, I tested only the Argon Beams.

The platform was the same as above. Only M turrets were able to fire. The results were different. The effect was essentially a stalemate. After several minutes of SETA, the Osaka could not seem to kill any Xenon's but in turn the Beams did enough damage to keep the M's at bay (I suspect it did enough damage to force further 'retreats' after each attack run which reduced the overall DPS at a given moment so that no turrets went offline. This went on for several more minutes as I decided to give up the test. I did not think a stale mate was possible, but it would turn out to not be the only one...

So I have a difficult time comparing Beam turrets to all the other non-flak turrets. On the one hand the ship does technically survive. On the other hand ZERO enemy ships were destroyed. It is like they were shooting paintballs all day.


While this was boring. I did come up with some additional information which may be useful to some people. Please see the posts below.
Last edited by X4Starter on Fri, 1. Jul 22, 02:42, edited 4 times in total.

X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

COMPARING VARIOUS DESTROYERS w/ Argon FLAK TURRETS against M/S Class

Post by X4Starter » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54

The Osaka is fairly balanced in the turret layout with 3 L turrets and 10 M turrets evenly distributed top and bottom in a symmetrical pattern. This makes for a good test bed against AI as fighters typically make vertical attack runs. Therefore this is the standard by which I will judge the others. The Osaka would generally survive with only 0-2 M turret losses. Sometimes repair drones and crew would be able to get them online again as the battle waned.


The test was 21 Xenon M ships attacking simultaneously IN SECTOR. All tests will be done with Argon Mk2 Shields for universality, full crew complement of able crewmen. Only M turrets were allowed to fire. L turrets were disabled.


The Behemoth I did not bother testing. Previous experience tells me they are grossly inferior to nearly every other destroyer (for AA purposes) due to their limited number of M turrets (8 in total) or horrible spacing and layout. This allows many blind spots for ships to attack from and not enough DPS to handle the situation. (They are however great for cheap siege cannons).

The Phoenix is fairly tanky by design, and the symmetrical layout of the weapons makes for a decent AA platform if there are NOT overwhelming numbers. In the test, despite being able to engage multiple targets fairly well because of their turret distribution, that distribution actually works against them as they cannot concentrate firepower against single targets to destroy them quickly and drop enemy DPS. Also, being a round design allows the enemy to attack from any angle, rather than forcing them into the vertical approach giving them more openings to attack.
It was fairly quickly overwhelmed. (This does not mean they are useless, I use captured SCA phoenixes as sector patrol and gate guards as they can handle smaller waves quite easily)

Odysseus E. This is superior to the Osaka and probably the best generally available destroyer in the game. It has a somewhat asymmetrical distribution of turrets, however they are all paired, and well positioned to cover all approaches. The shape of the ship also has a clear top and bottom forcing the enemy into vertical approaches where firepower can be concentrated. The additional 2 M turrets provide a noticeable jump in DPS. It was able to destroy the targets much faster than the Osaka, and generally with 0-1 turret loss.

I did not test the non-E Odysseus variants, but one advantage they may have is that they are shorter, and thus all turrets are closer together allowing for a more compact distribution of firing arcs. Whether that makes a difference or not I don't know.
They also have some superior stats over the E variants, particularly in maneuverability and crew capacity in the Vanguards. This is particularly evident in the XL paranid ships (check them out yourself).


UPDATE: Rattlesnake was tested
The results here were very surprising. The layout of the M turrets is unique in that there are 2 at the rear and 4 in a line at the front running the length of the ship and this is symmetrical top and bottom. The ship has the same number of M turrets as the Odysseus (12), but I suspect the layout and the shape of the ship prevent it from being able to use them effectively.

Against the 21 Xenon M's it fought to a stalemate. Eventually the rattlesnake may have won, but it took so long under seta (longer than the other ships would have taken without SETA) that I ended the test as I did not want to wait any longer. This was similar to the Osaka Beam turret experiment above. I don't have conclusive evidence but I will try to explain my theory.

Part of it seemed to be that the turrets rarely fired directly horizontally to the plane of the ship and almost always stayed in a 'V' arc above and below the ship. I cannot explain this behaviour, as other ships would fire in the full horizontal. On the rattlesnake the positioning of the forward turrets should allow them to fire at an angle actually below the horizontal plane though I never observed this happening.



For cleanup of failed tests I used a SYN battleship with L Beams and Argon Flak for AA configuration which worked excellently. This gave me the idea for the next test parameters. Please see the post below.
Last edited by X4Starter on Fri, 1. Jul 22, 02:34, edited 4 times in total.

X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

TEST #2, 21 Xenon M + 6 Xenon P

Post by X4Starter » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55

Given how quickly the SYN battleship with L Beams and Argon Flak for AA configuration was able to clean up the fighters, I performed the previous test with the best results so far. No loss of turrets, and very fast annihilation of enemy forces.
(the Flak turrets seem to add a substantial boost in DPS for Close-in combat, and are basically the only effective M turret against Fighters based on previous testing)

To step up the difficulty I retained the 21 Xenon M, but added 6 Xenon P for their increased DPS and substantially higher HP which would absorb many more hits allowing for sustained Max DPS of the Xenon attack force for longer.
The results demonstrated the differences between L Beam turrets and their effect on DPS greater than the stats would leave one to believe.
For reference Argon L Beam has 2300hp, 5km range, 88mw, and 39' rotation.
Paranid L beam has 3400hp, 5km range, 88mw, and 19' rotation.
Terran L Beam has 3550hp, 4.6km range, 108mw, and 19' rotation.


Only successful ships from the previous test were included in this one. All tests will be done with Argon Mk2 Shields for universality, full crew complement of able crewmen.


The Osaka only using Flak Turrets was unable to survive.
Odysseus E with only flak turrets was not able to survive.

The Syn with Argon L beams, was able to survive, but at a loss of half the L Turrets and Flak turrets.

Switching to Paranid L beams, I thought the increased durability would make a substantial difference in L turret surviveability and thus maintain Max DPS for longer. What resulted may have been a bug. The Turrets with their 19' rotation are very slow to respond to enemies. Also they had the peculiar habit of each targeting different enemies. I ran the test a couple times and the results largely stayed the same, though sometimes they would focus fire better than others resulting in less turret loss. Where the Argon turrets from the previous test would generally focus fire down a target, which killed S fighters quickly and thus decreased enemy DPS, the Paranid turrets split that DPS and thus took MUCH LONGER to down enemy targets. It was rare to see all 4 focus firing until near the end of the test when most enemies had been destroyed. I do not have an explanation for this peculiarity, perhaps it is a bug, but this decreased in Combat Effectiveness essentially resulted in the same result to the Argon Beam turrets: half the L and M turrets lost, along with loss of engines, other components. The Flak turrets were not enough to compensate.

Switching to Terran L Beams, they did not exhibit the same peculiarity as the Paranid beams. Despite having the same rotation rate as the Paranid, they did not seem to experience the same sluggishness in getting on target. The Decreased Range was noticeable, as the SYN could not respond as the first shots from the Xenon came in. However, once they were in range the 4 turrets (top or bottom depending on enemy approach) would Focus Fire together. And the first fighter to approach would often not even get into Flak range before being destroyed. Xenon P's would be able to survive a full approach and then some from the Beam turret focus fire, but if both L beams and Flak turrets fired together, a P could be destroyed in a single approach/retreat cycle. But this did not always happen.
The end result was that all enemies were rapidly cleared with no significant damage to the SYN, and no turret losses. This was clearly the best configuration.

UPDATE: Tested Rattlesnake.
After putting the rattlesnake through the previous scenario, it was clear that M turrets by themselves would be unable to survive this second test. I tested Rattlesnake with the addition of Argon and then Terran Beam turrets. The results are as follows.
The 6 L beam turrets enable the Rattlesnake to survive the test, but it takes forever. Compared the the SYN, the Rattlesnake should have numerical superiority with the flak turrets by 6x at the loss of only 1 L turret per surface. However, because of what I presume to be the abysmal performance of the Flak turrets on the rattlesnake, it takes far longer to destroy the Xenon force than the SYN. I wish I had a better explanation as to why the Rattlesnake seems incapable of using its M turrets with projectile weapons.

Using M Beam turrets in the Rattlesnake however, was superior to the Flak turret layout in this configuration. It still managed to destroy all targets, but slightly faster than with Flak turrets, but still slower than a SYN with L Beams and Flak.

I conclude that it is clearly the work of the 6 L turrets causing the greatest DPS effect. But otherwise I would not recommend the Rattlesnake for an AA Role as there are better options available.


BONUS ROUND.
Osaka with Argon L Beams did not survive. With paranid Beams did survive but with substantial component loss, half M turrets and 1-2 L turrets. With Terran Beams, it survived much better, but still not as effective as SYN. The 8 L Beams of the SYN are superior to the 3 L beams and 10 Flak turrets of the Osaka. But it makes for a cheaper and still effective AA platform. (But at that point why dedicate an Osaka to an AA role, just have two Plasma Flak Osaka's in pair)

The Odysseus has an M dock. This is big as it allows you to dock an M ship with M turrets giving you substantial increase in DPS. I parked a Gorgon with 4 flak turrets and re-ran the test. The Odysseus was able to survive the test, but lost all engines and half the Flak turrets on the Odysseus.
Interestingly, the Gorgon was virtually untouched except by misses from the Xenon Forces. It is as if they ignore the ship as long as it is docked. This is significant in that the Gorgon can actually absorb some shots from the enemy slightly increasing the effective HP of the Odysseus over the top half of the ship, and its turrets basically never die, resulting in no loss of DPS unless the docked ship is destroyed. It does only provide additional coverage to the top of the ship, but a 30% increase in turrets was enough to make the difference in the test. Popping a JIAN on instead would increase the DPS even higher.



In conclusion, the SYN battleship with a full complement of Terran L Beams, and Flak M turrets makes a very effective AA platform at the expense of an otherwise very effective Anti-Capital ship platform.

Terran Beams are superior to every other Beam in the AA role thanks to their increased damage and their coordination of fire (which it appears to share with the Argon Beams).
Argon beams are also effective but will likely go offline when overwhelmed due to their substantially lower HP.
Paranid beams might also be effective if it wasn't for the weird habit of not focus-firing targets and thus spreading out the already low DPS to make them no more effective than Argon Beams, ensuring the total engagement time is longer than it should be.

I would add that adding Terran shields substantially increase the surviveability of any configuration mentioned. I know there was some argument of Recharge Rate vs Capacity. But in any situation where damage incurred substantially exceeds recharge rate, the Capacity will almost always triumph as it allows the turrets and components to survive longer which = longer time with Max DPS, AKA more time to reduce enemy DPS.
Last edited by X4Starter on Fri, 1. Jul 22, 03:08, edited 3 times in total.

X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

BONUS (until I can figure out another test)

Post by X4Starter » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55

An Argon Flak fitted Raptor can survive 106 Xenon M's and a smattering of P's attacking simultaneously.

It can also destroy a K if the Raptor is able to get into firing range before the K destroys its shields.
Last edited by X4Starter on Fri, 1. Jul 22, 02:34, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor34
Posts: 2475
Joined: Sat, 12. Jun 10, 04:43
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by Raptor34 » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 06:53

I don't see why you don't test beams when they are the only weapon which guarantees a hit.

Katorone
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 10:49
x4

Re: BONUS (until I can figure out another test)

Post by Katorone » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 08:32

X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
An Argon Flak fitted Raptor can survive 106 Xenon M's and a smattering of P's attacking simultaneously.
Yup. Bonus points for modded turrets.

GCU Grey Area
Posts: 7778
Joined: Sat, 14. Feb 04, 23:07
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by GCU Grey Area » Thu, 30. Jun 22, 09:11

X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
I did not bother to test M Beams, as the energy output is so low, I would not recommend them under any circumstance. Unless someone else has contrary experience it is not worth to test in my opinion.
Not a fan of flak turrets myself. Too damn noisy, particularly if I'm going to be flying the ship personally. Instead in my recent games have been using full M+L beam loadouts on my destroyers. They've been performing adequately for anti-fighter defences. Key difference to other turrets is exceptionally reliable accuracy - if an enemy ship's in range it'll be taking continual damage as long as it stays there. This balances out the low damage stats - if an M beam turret hits at least 3x more often than M pulse, or 4x more often than M bolt (etc) it's doing more damage overall. Not sure how they'd compare to flak (as I said I don't use them). However in my experience M beams are more effective than any of the other non-flak options on destroyers.

X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by X4Starter » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 02:45

Raptor34 wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 06:53
I don't see why you don't test beams when they are the only weapon which guarantees a hit.
At the interest I did test the beams so feel free to check out the update.

But to address the statement, in my experience they do not guarantee a hit, though at least the fast turning Argon turrets are very good at staying on target. Or put another way, any turret can guarantee a hit, it depends on how many shots you give them.
They can also miss which is evident when using them shown when the Beams 'go past' the intended target. The damage is abysmal, what 100% perfect hitting beam can do in 1 second, a flak turret can do if it hits around 15% of the time.

Unlike other turret types, they did allow the Osaka to survive virtually indefinitely but also killed ZERO enemies in the allotted time frame. But the limited scenario may benefit from additional testing if the interested parties are inclined.

For me, the answer is enough.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by Imperial Good » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 04:36

X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
Against 21 Xenon M's NO OTHER PROJECTILE ENERGY-BASED TURRET TYPE was able to allow the Osaka to survive. Pulses, Bolts, Shards, all suffered complete weapon disability/disarmament before the offending forces were destroyed which would result in total loss of the ship. I did not bother to record the exact number of xenon ships destroyed, nor how long it took for total disability as that would vary depending on the pathing of the ships in question. When the end result is complete failure, the details are less important.
This is to be expected. Argon Flak turrets deal considerably more damage than other anti-fighter M turrets due to double dipping of damage. If they score a direct hit the target takes twice the listed damage, once from the impact and again from the splash damage.

The issue here to me seems to be that 21 Xenon Ms should always win against a single Osaka with only M turrets active. This is pretty reasonable given the total construction value of 21 Xenon Ms and how much they outnumber the destroyer. Flak winning is an outlier showing that the turret is likely too powerful in high attention.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
The platform was the same as above. Only M turrets were able to fire. The results were different. The effect was essentially a stalemate. After several minutes of SETA, the Osaka could not seem to kill any Xenon's but in turn the Beams did enough damage to keep the M's at bay (I suspect it did enough damage to force further 'retreats' after each attack run which reduced the overall DPS at a given moment so that no turrets went offline. This went on for several more minutes as I decided to give up the test. I did not think a stale mate was possible, but it would turn out to not be the only one...
This is due to them supressing shield regeneration. Otherwise they usually can regenerate enough shield during combat by taking evasive action that retreat is not necessary while flak was strong enough to damage/kill the ships before they could retreat to regenerate shields.

Otherwise beam turrets are likely reasonable choices for missile defence. Since missiles have very low hull so accuracy is more important than damage.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
The test was 21 Xenon M ships attacking simultaneously IN SECTOR. All tests will be done with Argon Mk2 Shields for universality, full crew complement of able crewmen. Only M turrets were allowed to fire. L turrets were disabled.
This is not a fair way to compare destroyers. Many of the destroyers rely on L turrets to do some heavy lifting and others offer superior batteries meaning that L turrets can be assigned to assist against fighters. The Odysseus E and Rattlesnake have dedicated broadside turrets which should be used for anti-fighter roles. Like wise all TER destroyers can use their L turrets to assist against fighters as their main batteries are significantly better than other factions so are not needed for capital damage.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
The Behemoth I did not bother testing. Previous experience tells me they are grossly inferior to nearly every other destroyer (for AA purposes) due to their limited number of M turrets (8 in total) or horrible spacing and layout. This allows many blind spots for ships to attack from and not enough DPS to handle the situation. (They are however great for cheap siege cannons).
Behemoth turret placement is excellent. It may have blind spots when close by but the AI is not designed to exploit them (player problem only). The only thing bad about the Behemoth is the low turret count.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
The Phoenix is fairly tanky by design, and the symmetrical layout of the weapons makes for a decent AA platform if there are NOT overwhelming numbers. In the test, despite being able to engage multiple targets fairly well because of their turret distribution, that distribution actually works against them as they cannot concentrate firepower against single targets to destroy them quickly and drop enemy DPS. Also, being a round design allows the enemy to attack from any angle, rather than forcing them into the vertical approach giving them more openings to attack.
Phoenix is basically a worse Behemoth. Its turret coverage is worse due to the dome. It even has problems firing its L turrets forward pretty much limiting them to anti-fighter roles on a ship with already the worst main batteries.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
Odysseus E. This is superior to the Osaka and probably the best generally available destroyer in the game. It has a somewhat asymmetrical distribution of turrets, however they are all paired, and well positioned to cover all approaches. The shape of the ship also has a clear top and bottom forcing the enemy into vertical approaches where firepower can be concentrated. The additional 2 M turrets provide a noticeable jump in DPS. It was able to destroy the targets much faster than the Osaka, and generally with 0-1 turret loss.
The Osaka's main batteries are a lot stronger than the Odysseus's allowing it to use both L turrets as anti fighter, such as with the excellent TER L Pulse laser turret. For the Odysseys E to compare with damage it has to have some of the front L turrets set to PAR or SPL L Plasma which are as good as incapable of hitting fighters.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
They also have some superior stats over the E variants, particularly in maneuverability and crew capacity in the Vanguards. This is particularly evident in the XL paranid ships (check them out yourself).
Bigger crew capacity is technically a detrimental stat for operating a ship. The higher the crew capacity the more skilled crew you need for the ship to run optimally. Only time the player wants large crew capacity is with ships that store service crew.

Even with boarding you want lower crew capacity on the victim ship since that means less marines you need to deal with and overall other favourable boarding outcome behaviour.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:54
The results here were very surprising. The layout of the M turrets is unique in that there are 2 at the rear and 4 in a line at the front running the length of the ship and this is symmetrical top and bottom. The ship has the same number of M turrets as the Odysseus (12), but I suspect the layout and the shape of the ship prevent it from being able to use them effectively.
It has broadside L turrets which are meant to be anti fighter.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
The 6 L beam turrets enable the Rattlesnake to survive the test, but it takes forever. Compared the the SYN, the Rattlesnake should have numerical superiority with the flak turrets by 6x at the loss of only 1 L turret per surface. However, because of what I presume to be the abysmal performance of the Flak turrets on the rattlesnake, it takes far longer to destroy the Xenon force than the SYN. I wish I had a better explanation as to why the Rattlesnake seems incapable of using its M turrets with projectile weapons.
It is because the Syn has excellent L turret coverage. No matter where ships are they are likely to be able to be fired at by 4 L turrets. When attacking targets in front, all 8 L turrets can fire forward. As the turrets are physically close they also usually select the same targets in pars so usually 2 L turrets will fire on the same target.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
Osaka with Argon L Beams did not survive. With paranid Beams did survive but with substantial component loss, half M turrets and 1-2 L turrets. With Terran Beams, it survived much better, but still not as effective as SYN. The 8 L Beams of the SYN are superior to the 3 L beams and 10 Flak turrets of the Osaka. But it makes for a cheaper and still effective AA platform. (But at that point why dedicate an Osaka to an AA role, just have two Plasma Flak Osaka's in pair)
Anyone could tell you that 8>3 lol.

Osaka is pretty much a stepping stone for the Syn. Unlike both Behemoth and Phoenix it is powerful enough to be able to repel Xenon incursions when flown by the player with minimal effort. The Odysseus series can also do this but it has problems against Xenon capitals due to its considerably lower battery damage. Rattlesnake is superior to the Osaka for this job but can have availability issues and is basically a glass cannon so can easily get destroyed by a few unlucky hits from Ks or Is.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
Interestingly, the Gorgon was virtually untouched except by misses from the Xenon Forces. It is as if they ignore the ship as long as it is docked. This is significant in that the Gorgon can actually absorb some shots from the enemy slightly increasing the effective HP of the Odysseus over the top half of the ship, and its turrets basically never die, resulting in no loss of DPS unless the docked ship is destroyed. It does only provide additional coverage to the top of the ship, but a 30% increase in turrets was enough to make the difference in the test. Popping a JIAN on instead would increase the DPS even higher.
Splash damage from missiles will hit it and on such small ships will likely do so. Although the AI do not try to target docked ships, they will still damage them if they happen to hit them. This can mean a few unlucky Xenon Gravaton turret shots kills your docked ships.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
In conclusion, the SYN battleship with a full complement of Terran L Beams, and Flak M turrets makes a very effective AA platform at the expense of an otherwise very effective Anti-Capital ship platform.
It still is a very effective anti-capital ship platform. TER L batteries are significantly stronger than all other factions. Throw on anti-fighter L turrets with reasonable damage like TER L Pulse Laser and it is strong against both. Sure L Plasma will deal more anti-capital damage, but it can still trivially kill Ks and Is in player hands due to those powerful TER L batteries.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
Terran Beams are superior to every other Beam in the AA role thanks to their increased damage and their coordination of fire (which it appears to share with the Argon Beams).
Argon beams are also effective but will likely go offline when overwhelmed due to their substantially lower HP.
Paranid beams might also be effective if it wasn't for the weird habit of not focus-firing targets and thus spreading out the already low DPS to make them no more effective than Argon Beams, ensuring the total engagement time is longer than it should be.
This behaviour is likely due to test conditions or implicitly from stats. As far as I can tell from the data files there is nothing that explicitly makes the turrets behave differently.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
I would add that adding Terran shields substantially increase the surviveability of any configuration mentioned. I know there was some argument of Recharge Rate vs Capacity. But in any situation where damage incurred substantially exceeds recharge rate, the Capacity will almost always triumph as it allows the turrets and components to survive longer which = longer time with Max DPS, AKA more time to reduce enemy DPS.
TER M, L and XL shields have both superior capacity and recharge rate. They are literally best in slot due to having an additional mk available. The XL mk2 shield even beats the Erlking XL shield.
X4Starter wrote:
Thu, 30. Jun 22, 04:55
It can also destroy a K if the Raptor is able to get into firing range before the K destroys its shields.
If it could not destroy a K it would not really be worth mentioning lol.

Actually someone reported that they soloed Destroyer Is with all Argon Flak Raptors. I think they needed to micro but if you get the flak turrets to hit the middle of the L turret banks the splash damage, which applies to each surface element separately, quickly strips them. They did have to hull tank but apparently it worked.

For anyone wandering why I keep mentioning TER L Pulse Laser turrets for anti-fighter, below is a video showing my Asgard with slasher modified turrets swatting Xenon using them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4Kn_GvK6U

They are accurate, long range and when they do land they do a lot of damage. A lot of ships can be killed on approach before they even try to take evasive action. Such Asgards have been battle tested against even the VIG fighter swarms and with exception of the southern sector can solo them very reliably.

Nanook
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 27829
Joined: Thu, 15. May 03, 20:57
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by Nanook » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 08:10

Imperial Good wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 04:36
...
Bigger crew capacity is technically a detrimental stat for operating a ship. The higher the crew capacity the more skilled crew you need for the ship to run optimally. Only time the player wants large crew capacity is with ships that store service crew.
...
I get what you're saying here, but I think you're missing one pertinent point. The more crew you have, the more you can train in any given skill at one time. So for mining, it's always best to have the maximum crew on ships with a large crew complement since mining can train them all up at the same time. Same for marines and boarding ops, the more marines you can get on the target ship, the faster they will train up, since they only level up if they're on active duty. Yes, it's safer to send them against a minimal number of enemy, but at the same time, the longer they fight, the better the chance of them improving.

That's been my experience, anyway. :)
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.

X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.

MatthewK
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat, 28. May 16, 10:56
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by MatthewK » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 09:00

On the topic of projectile vs beams and the instant travel time of the latter, let me bring up an observation and maybe challenge you with a different test scenario.

So far all of your tests were having one thing in common, where there was a single ship fighting a swarm of fighters. Given that the fighter AI tend to do long attack runs in a straight line followed by retreat in a similar fashion, this actually gives your turrets a big advantage, as most of the time there's very little lateral movement from your destroyer's perspective.

I read some post on reddit where someone was testing a completely different approach - a fleet of Jians vs a lot of xenon S&Ms. The results were far different - TER M beams on Jians, despite their lackluster damage, were far more successful, as in the fleet combat scenario most of the time you're shooting at a target thats doing strafing runs at a different target, with a lot of lateral velocity. This resulted in a lot of missed shots with pulse, flak etc.

I was therefore wandering if you'd consider another round where you'd have say a battlegroup of destroyers (ex. Syn and two Osakas) and see if the results change. I for one would be very interested.

Food for thought

j.harshaw
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon, 23. Nov 15, 18:02

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by j.harshaw » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 14:31

In case useful, and if not averse to some scripting, I implemented md.Test_MD.CombatTest_Trigger a while back which is a configurable platform for quickly setting up a test involving various combinations of assets, and multiplies that same combination many times.

Warning with this: DO NOT use it in a session you intend to keep playing since it removes all assets in the game that are not involved in the test.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by Imperial Good » Fri, 1. Jul 22, 23:17

Nanook wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 08:10
I get what you're saying here, but I think you're missing one pertinent point. The more crew you have, the more you can train in any given skill at one time. So for mining, it's always best to have the maximum crew on ships with a large crew complement since mining can train them all up at the same time. Same for marines and boarding ops, the more marines you can get on the target ship, the faster they will train up, since they only level up if they're on active duty. Yes, it's safer to send them against a minimal number of enemy, but at the same time, the longer they fight, the better the chance of them improving.
Except if every ship only had 1 service crew you would only need 1 service crew to run them at 100% efficiency (full mining efficiency) and 1 marine to board them (little RNG involved). Yes you train fewer at a time but you need to train fewer because fewer are needed.

Mining is not good for levelling service crew. Usually construction ships are used for that as they level much faster and higher than mining. Late game marines are usually made from the martial arts school using high morale service crew such as from a construction ship, this allows hundreds of 4 star marines very easily (easy 15k+ boarding strength).

X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by X4Starter » Sat, 2. Jul 22, 00:56

I will mention a couple things in regard to the comments that have come up.

1. This is a limited test derived from the original question as to whether or not Split flak have explosion damage during In Sector combat. At the time of the test the answer is definitively no, but it is to be corrected in the next major update per the developers.

2. The main goal of the test was to evaluate the AA ability of various destroyers and M class turrets on said destroyers. Because of the limited nature of the test, the conclusions are equally limited.
a. The test had to ensure that there were sufficient fighters to ensure that the turret groups were always saturated (IE more targets than turret groups) without so many that the turrets would get destroyed immediately.
b. these only included Xenon's as they are my main enemy since for economic reasons I try to make good relations with all races, this is also why I did not consider different enemy weapon types.
c. Outside of those specific tests with L beam turrets, all tests were run as M turrets only without L turret support (this based on my preference for Plasma turrets which are virtually useless for fighters, as in my limited experience I have not been as successful with other turret types once plasma's are available).
d. while it may be more evident to some, having 8 L turrets and 2 M turrets being superior to 3 L turrets and 10 M turrets would not have been evident to me as the DPS numbers would say otherwise. I also don't consider the Osaka a stepping stone as it is a completely different platform, though both are certainly good ones.


3. I do consider this a very fair comparison of the destroyers as AA platforms specifically in regard to their turret layouts and the AI's ability to use the turrets effectively. This is most evident in the Osaka over a Rattlesnake despite the latter having 2 additional M class turrets. Therefore I do not believe this is a matter of Flak turrets being overpowered, but evidence of the very real nature of ship design and its effect on in sector combat. not unlike a real world scenario.
a. That is why I think the Behemoth design works against it real world combat against fighters. With the asymmetrical design, it can't utilize good coverage. In previous undocumented tests with smaller groups of enemies, the Behemoth would always get disabled before any of the other destroyer types against fighters.

3. I consider Flak 'double dipping' of damage to be as designed given the real world nature of Flak weaponry, same with blast mortars. Any target directly hit by a projectile that also explodes receives more damage than one only hit by the shrapnel.

4. I don't have any experience with modding turrets so I can't comment on that. But by watching my own ships with Pulse turrets in the early game attempting to deal with K's and xenon fighters, I have been generally underwhelmed with their performance. Perhaps modding changes that, but I personally find that they can't seem to either kill fighters adequately (M class would probably be different), and they don't do enough damage against K's fast enough before the K can get into their preferred assault position and destroy the vessel. Even an Asgard in sector was not able to successfully fend off a K once it was able to get into position. My SYN with pulse did not fair any better. Unless there is a human pilot on the bridge, the AI also never seems to use main batteries against another capital ship.
a. At some point I may have to test pulse as well, but my own experience in finding a good combination will likely delay that.

5. The odd paranid L beam turret behaviour I cannot explain, but it was consistent over multiple tests under different starting conditions. I chalk it up to unique oddity like the Rattlesnake M turrets where turret coverage alone cannot explain their poor performance. Both the Argon and Terran L turrets would consistently fire on the same target, even on the Rattlesnake.

6. The idea of the beam turrets doing enough damage to force a retreat, but not enough to completely drain shields permitting a boosted escape is interesting. Maybe a product of the specific number of fighters chosen. Less might be able to be destroyed and more would have destroyed the turrets.

7. Nanook answered most of my thoughts on crew capacity. I would also add that I find it easier to drive by boarding than taking the time to wear down a ship and deal with the political fall out. So for that reason The larger the crew capacity the easier I find it. Large crew capacity ships rarely have full crews, so it is almost always possible to gain numerical superiority over an Asgard or Large Freighter, over a maxed Osaka.
a. I imagine that based on the comments from Imperial Good, that crew capacity does nothing toward 'operating' a ship, and only percentage filled determines relative performance? Or put another way a Sentinel Variant will heal itself at the same rate of a Vanguard variant, provided they both had respectively max crew capacity?

7. As far as testing Beam weaponry on M class vessels, that is an entirely different concept and would require an entirely different test set up as nothing I have tested so far can be fairly accounted toward it. It is fairly easy to set a number of xenon's against a destroyer with consistent results. Setting up a fleet of M's with beam turrets against another fleet of M/S class, would require many more runs in my experience. Personally I don't use a lot of M class vessels I don't pilot personally or dock on Capitals with M class docks. But if they had a repeatable test set up with multiple runs in each scenario, then the answer is probably determined.

8. the bottom line is the find a set up that works and learn to work it.

Nanook
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 27829
Joined: Thu, 15. May 03, 20:57
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by Nanook » Sat, 2. Jul 22, 01:54

Imperial Good wrote:
Fri, 1. Jul 22, 23:17
...
Mining is not good for levelling service crew. Usually construction ships are used for that as they level much faster and higher than mining...
I'd continue to debate this, but I think we've strayed a bit from the OP's discussion. :wink:
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.

X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.

X4Starter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu, 30. Jun 22, 01:00

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by X4Starter » Sun, 3. Jul 22, 01:18

So I had short amount of time and decided to attempt some limited tests of Terran L Pulses on the SYN since from the comments and experience they may have the ideal platform for testing L turrets.
I did not have enough time to do multiple runs of each config so only a couple.
I did not have time to do more tests or devise a better algorithm for pulse weapon testing so we are reusing the same tests.

1. The Pulses did 'fine' with smaller numbers of enemies. 6 Xenon M's would be taken down in a short time. Longer than Beams naturally, but still effective. They DID generally coordinate fire which was good to see.

2. As was described earlier in the comments, depending on where the M's were placed they would sometimes trickle in, allowing the Pulse turrets to pick off 1 maybe 2 before the bulk arrived and the 'battle' began.

3. They Performed very good against 6 Xenon P's alone and by extension I might assume other M class due to slower speeds, and slower approaches. Hit probability was higher than S class naturally, though I did not have time to get an estimate. Time to eradicate was actually close to L Beams, I was hoping it would be noticeably better.

4. Against 21 Xenon M's, again 1-2 might be taken down by the time the rest of the force got there, but once the main force arrived it turned into a NEAR stalemate. Fortunately Pulses do enough damage when they do hit,
a. I did not have enough time to study the movement/damage patterns but I suspect that when there are overwhelming numbers the Pulses have too many targets. Combined with the relatively low hit probability the DPS is too low to end the battle quickly. In nearly the amount of time it would take a SYN w/ L Beams to take out the 21 M's, the Pulse SYN was still fighting them IN SETA, but evidently making headway. Once the critical mass of fighters drops off, the rest die fairly quickly.
b. There was virtually no notable component damage to the SYN throughout the encounter.
c. Interestingly in the few runs I did, utilizing the M Flak turrets DID NOT make any substantial difference in effectiveness overall. This needs more testing. This is in contrast to the L Beam set up where the 2 Flak batteries did seem to add a noticeable amount of DPS. particularly against the slower P's.

5. I did not yet have time to run 21 M's and the 6 P's of the latter test, but at this time with the additional Enemy DPS and the amount of time it takes to disable the enemy forces, I am concerned the outcome will not be good.

sh1pman
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed, 10. Aug 16, 13:28
x4

Re: Additional Tests Comparing Turret Types and Ship Configurations

Post by sh1pman » Sun, 3. Jul 22, 23:14

I don’t think using SETA is a good idea during combat tests.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”