Blog » X3TC » A bit of a Balancing Act

Posted by RandomTank on Thursday 11th July, 2013   ·   0 comments

I was throwing ideas against the wall the other day about X3TC and AP, and one that's been bugging me for a while now is how useless most of the M4 class is compared to the M3's, the M3's are simply better, and only a tad slower! So here'e my idea for a bit of an overhaul....

It should be changed so M4 = Workhorse civilian ship/defense fighter; M4+ = Interceptor; M3 = Fighter-Bomber; M3+ = Tank. I’ll explain how I would like this done, firstly with weapons:

The PAC, PRG and PBE should be dedicated Interceptor weapons, as they are all generally low damage per shot, high ROF and high bullet speed. The PAC should be the hard hitter of the 3; doing the highest hull damage (400 instead of 140), highest shield damage (1200 is good), lowest ROF (310rpm is good), slowest speed (700m/s is good), much less energy usage (-66% of what is now). The PRG should be in the middle; decent hull damage (200 instead of 70) decent shield damage (800 instead of 680), decent ROF (400 is good), high speed (1560 is good), much less energy usage (-66% of what is now). The PBE should be the fast, super anti shield but burst weapon; low hull damage (35 is good), low shield damage (800 instead of 950), highest ROF (1150 is good), highest speed (2500-3000m/s instead of 7000), use more energy (+100% the usage), but any ship that can take it has much increased energy regen, to allow it to do bursts.

The HEPT, EBC and FBL should be dedicated Fighter/Bomber weapons, they are generally high damage per shot, low to med ROF and low bullet speed. The FBL should be the hard hitter of the 3; doing the highest hull damage (800 instead of 470), highest shield damage (3000 instead of 2800), lowest ROF (220 instead of 190), lowest speed (400m/s instead of 370), less energy usage (same as HEPT). The HEPT should be in the middle; good hull damage (550 instead of 330), good shield damage (2000 is good), decent ROF (300 instead of 280), low speed (450m/s instead of 430), slight increase in energy usage (+20%). The EBC should be the fastest with no real energy usage; lowest hull damage (250 instead of 210), lowest shield damage (1500 instead of 1200), highest ROF (400 is good), fastest bullet speed (550m/s instead of 600), almost no energy usage, no change needed.
Now for the ships:

M3+: Have a general speed decrease but shield increase, maybe a bit of agility decrease too, make each one similar stats to their race’s bomber, maybe worse. Cargo space should stay about the same, but maybe Boron and Teladi ones can carry XL; Generators should be upped to about 10000J with 250j regen minimum. They should only have a rear turret if the Race’s basic M3 does, and the front turret should upped to 2 guns, but also should able to takes CIG’s, IPG’s or ISR’s depending on race (I know). This change would make them a bit sluggish, but also very powerful; making them a very good escort (especially a few mounted in a TM) for a convoy and also make them the deadliest ship that you can mount in a Carrier.

M3: Stats should be generally kept the same, maybe a few shield increase so no M3 has 1 25mJ. The main differences are that Argon, Boron, Teladi and Split use the HEPT; Argon, Teladi, Split and Paranid use the EBC; Paranid and Teladi use the FBL; Another big difference is that M3’s can’t mount PRG’s or PBE’s, as they are interceptor only weapons, though they can use the PAC. This is meant so that M3’s are great at killing each other, freighters and capitol ships in large numbers, but interceptors will wreck them as the M3’s struggle to hit them; they are designed for anti-capitol, not anti-fighter
M4+: Have a big speed increase (minimum of 200 m/s, the Asp heading towards 300), some shield increases (so that 25mj is the smallest shield health), round off the generators so that they are all between 3500J and 5000J, an agility increase, and a cargo bay decrease so that they can only carry their shields, weapons and a select few missiles; they’re fighters, not traders; they should also cost more, minimum 1.5 mill. Everyone uses the PAC; Argon, Boron and Teladi use the PRG; Split and Paranid use the PBE. M4+’s can’t mount HEPT’s, FBL’s or EBC’s. This makes it so they are very good at taking out M4’s, each other and M3’s, but really struggle against M6’s, as they are designed for anti-fighter, not anti-capitol.

M4: Not many changes, a shield increase so no M4 has 1 5mJ, have same weapons as interceptors, but most importantly they (in a lot of cases) have double the cargo space; I thought this because they have smaller shield and weapon generator, but similar sized engines and most are physically the same/similar size to their M3 brethren. This makes them a basic fighter, they guard the Fighter-Bombers from other fighters, and they have a similar speed to the M3’s, but have the anti-fighter weaponry to kill the enemy’s fighters as the M3’s can’t effectively; they can also be used as fast traders or civilian ships with the now larger cargo bays. The Vanguard versions of each type should have a considerably better combat ability, and should basically work as another type of Interceptor for each race.

All these changes would result in M3’s not being just simply better than an M4, that now they have different uses, and similar costs. You would now have to have a balance the amount of Interceptors, Fighters and Fighter-bombers stored in your Carriers; if you have too many M3’s they will get overwhelmed by your enemy’s Interceptors, and you lose your fighter cover = Death; or if you have too many M4’s, you’ll kill their fighters, but won’t be able to kill their Cruisers as the M4’s don’t do enough damage, which = Death. Just adds a bit more fleet co-ordinance, rather than just M3 spam. I spose you could do all this with a bit of fumbling around with the game code, could even make a 'Fake Patch' mod out of it, so then if you don't agree with it, don't use it; but I, at least, think this kinda needs doing.

Comments

To post comments you need to register and log-in.