Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Metalax]

I don't regularly use cloaked jumpships, but when I do, I use fixed tonnage for the final ship. This enables the jump drive and cloak to be designed and fitted then all other components are fitted into the remaining free tonnage. Once you get the efficiency tech up for both components, the actual size of the components stops being such a tight constraint.

As for your second question, I've never tried running a ship that exceeded it's components ratings, so I couldn't say. If it is working when the ship is over the components limit then it is a bug. It is possible that it's just not informing you that it is not working correctly however. Only way to tell would be to test by SMing in a sensor ship belonging to a temporary player controlled race and seeing what it reports as the size on sensors while the ship has it's cloak active. Do this on a backup of the database if you don't want to have the temporary race hanging around in contact data lists.

[QuakeIV]

Yeah, typically I have an 8000 ton destroyer in mind or whatever when I make cloaked jump ships.  Then I just jam as much functionality in as I can.

Highly stealthed size-50 box launched max enhanced radiation bombs are a popular one for me.

[Sheb]

Isn't that standard procedure for all ships? I always start from a tonnage when designing ships, generally due to the size of shipyards.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I wish you could just fiddle with all the components, putting them in the design before they're researched. Basically, create a placeholder component that can be altered at will within the class design window. That way, I could easily adjust jump drives and cloaks without having to make them super large or research them over and over again as the crew quarters and armour ruins all my attempts at calculations. I could also adjust weapons or whatever to fit everything else, like making a turret that is just that little bit smaller. The components necessary for the ship could even be researched automatically as part of the class locking step.

=========

Question: What power modifiers do you use on your ships? I have always assumed that the highest modifier gives the highest speed, but if you require the ships to have a given endurance (mine's 10b km or something), then the extremely large fuel tanks might slow it down so much that a smaller, slightly less powerful ship could be faster.

[Lord Shonus]

Checkmark "Keep excess crew quarters" and pad your ship to the desired size with crew quarters. When you add everything you want (removing a matching amount of crew accommodation), uncheck said box and add fuel to get up to your target size.

EDIT: The biggest and most fuel-inefficient modifier is more useful for short duration parasite craft. If you use it on your main ships, you blow through your fuel supply (not the ship's fuel, but your entire supply) very quickly. Speed is very important tactically and strategically, but a fast fleet you can't keep fueled is worse than a much bigger slower fleet that you can. Going ten to twenty percent above neutral is OK, but above that the extra speed isn't worth it.

[Rince Wind]

I build my ships around certain standards, so I don't usually have problems. Sure, it might be that it gets a bit heavy, well, then it either goes into the next bigger class and gets something else added, or I reduce something.
The standards are to only use multiples of a certain tonnage, so I know to have one engine per x kt, and the upper end is usually the size of my jumpship. Those often double as tenders or light carriers, to use up all the space up to the allowed and needed maximum.
If that means a small escort only gets a single quad turret, then I either roll with it or build a bigger ship. I would not use a turret that has less than maximum fire control speed to save weight. Though I might use a triple turret.

[Alastar]

Question: What power modifiers do you use on your ships? I have always assumed that the highest modifier gives the highest speed, but if you require the ships to have a given endurance (mine's 10b km or something), then the extremely large fuel tanks might slow it down so much that a smaller, slightly less powerful ship could be faster.

1) 40% of your engine tonnage in fuel is performance-optimal for fixed engine size, 32% if engine size is freely scaleable. Beyond this, you need so much fuel that using a higher power multiplier will cost you speed on set tonnage and range.
I prefer to err on the side of fuel efficiency for mainstream designs, 5% of engine tonnage is more likely unless I care very much about performance and compactness (carrier-bound craft, boarding vessels).

2) If I did the maths right, you re at your most fuel efficient if engines make up 60% of your mission tonnage (if we could ignore overhead like armour, bridge, engineering spaces). Below 1.0 power, you are at your most buildcost-efficient when engines make up 50% of our mission tonnage (above 1.0, the smaller and more stressed design is always cheaper to build).
50% engines of total tonnage is a reasonable simplification, personally I prefer a little more (1 size-50 engine for every 4500t, 0.9 as a standard power multiplier, e.g. 8000km/s at Magneto-Plasma).

*

1) is highly relevant, and many players ruin their designs by overstressing their engines for no performance gain while using 3x as much fuel as necessary.
2) can be ignored depending on preferred design practice. My ships are typically  a compromise between performance, cost and fuel efficiency... and I don't care they're weak for their size. Because of the limited mission tonnage, I often need to fiddle around and trim some fat. If you like to fit many optional but nice-to-have systems, want proper armour instead of expecting your oversized propulsion package to tank some hits, and figure naval ships can afford be either thirsty or slow... you may be happier with the 25% engine tonnage that's sometimes assumed as standard.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I just ran some calculations, and here's what I got:

Code: (ion tech and 0.6 fuel efficiency) [Select]

10 EP makes 500 tons go at 1000 km/s.

10 EP makes TEN HS go at 1000 km/s.

Each EP makes one HS go at 1000 km/s.

To make X HS go at 5000 km/s, you need 5*X EP. (200 for a 2000-ton frigate, for instance.)

Now, every ton of fuel storage can hold 1000 fuel.

It takes 556 hours to travel 10 billion kilometers at 5 thousand kilometers per second.

So with x0.35 / x0.07, you'd need 2400t engine and 2536 fuel = 3 tons of fuel. 2403 in total.
With x1.00 / x1.00, you'd need 850t engine and 57 tons of fuel. 907 in total.
With x1.75 / x4.05, you'd need 500t engine and 256 tons of fuel. 756 in total.
Did I mess up some equation? Because ignoring fuels supply, this means that the more powerful engines would always be more space-efficient. That's... counterintuitive. Why the hell would anyone use the lower powers for military ships then? For anything then?

50 thousand liters takes up one hull space, right? So one thousand liters takes up one ton.

=====

I did some more tests:

Code: [Select]

Normal: 900 tons available.

Somewhat powerful: 1050 tons available.

Superpower: 600 tons available.

Superefficient: Did not even fit.
So it seems that there is a sweet spot. (Gee, I wonder if it's at the 40% mark?)

=========

Yep, you were right. Calling 40% the optimum:

Code: [Select]

Tons of fuel = fuel use per hour * 556 / 1000

x1.00 / x1.00: Engine = 850t, Fuel = 57t, 16% of optimal. 907t total.

x1.50 / x2.76: Engine = 600t, Fuel = 174t, 72.5% of optimal. 774t total.

x1.75 / x4.05: Engine = 500t, Fuel = 256t, 128% of optimal. 756t total.

x1.60 / x3.24: Engine = 550t, Fuel = 202t, 91.8% of optimal. 752t total.

x1.65 / x3.50: Engine = 550t, Fuel = 226t, 102.7% of optimal. 776t total.
The last one may seem strange, but it's mainly due to the granularity of the engine: it has to be at least 200 EP, and the size is being adjusted to make that so. Both x1.60 and x1.65 produce the same size 200 EP engine, and one of them is more thirsty, so the x1.60 is better. With larger engines, this discrepency between the equations and the observed optimum would diminish.

And it is admittedly "closer to optimum", but in general, the closer an engine is to the 40% fuel mark, the more optimized it is.

======

A follow-up to that test, filling in some more details:

Code: [Select]

x1.55 / x2.99: Engine = 550t, Fuel = 181t, 82.7% of optimal. 731t total.
Hmm, interesting. Granularity at work again.

========

Now I can design optimal engines for any design, size, and intended speed/distance! The fact that the math was intriguing and the results satisfying indicates that I am a suitable player for this game, yes?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I have a question: why do people put both gravitational and geological sensors on the same ship? It obviously cannot use both at once.

[Lord Shonus]

So they can have one ship do both jobs.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

...but, but, but...

If you design them right, one shipyard can build both! And you can even have them start in the same TG and split up!

WHY

[Flying Dice]

Flavor and logic. I used to be a proponent of the 1k ton disposable survey ships, but that was nixed by a couple things, partially a greater concern with RP, partially the drive changes and addition of crew morale making tiny little survey ships less effective, since they can't stay out for decades at a time. A larger dual-role survey vessel has more room for maintenance space and extra crew quarters, and frankly makes more sense than FAC-sized survey ships.

Because honestly, it's really, really easy to munchkin everything in Aurora. Robo-logic hyperefficient play gets boring pretty fast. It's much more interesting to create and work with a theme for a given campaign, otherwise every single one is going to proceed pretty much the exact same way.

Did I mess up some equation? Because ignoring fuels supply, this means that the more powerful engines would always be more space-efficient. That's... counterintuitive. Why the hell would anyone use the lower powers for military ships then? For anything then?

Because the fuel costs become insane for anything more than a small civilization with a relative handful of ships, and Sorium is a fundamentally limited resource (like the rest of the T/N minerals). If you run all of your ships with super-inefficient drives, you run into one or several of three problems:

1. Your shipbuilding outpaces your fuel production. You can't afford to operate all, or perhaps even most of your ships.

2. You burn through your local Sorium deposits. So you need to go farther out to establish new mining colonies. Which costs fuel, and which brings you into contact with more enemies, which cost fuel to deal with. You have to use more fuel to get the fuel or Sorium back to your main colonies, or you have to take the time and expense to move shipyards and maintenance facilities out to remote locations. As your territory expands  in the search for more Sorium, you need more ships to properly protect and service it, which need more fuel.

This is a problem regardless, but with sane drive design it's a low-level one that takes a long time to manifest. If your fuel consumption is quadruple or quintuple the normal rate, it accelerates substantially.

3. You run out of fuel and can't get to any more Sorium deposits because you have no fuel. This is a risk even in normal games, but if you're jacking up your consumption there's a very real risk that you won't have enough fuel left to find, extract, and transport more Sorium once your local sources run out.


Sure, it sounds good on paper. But Aurora isn't just a game of theorycraft and paper designs, it's also a game of logistics and practice. A slight edge (and it is slight, especially at lower TLs where drive strength is low in general) in tactical combat isn't worth completely destroying your ability to field large fleets or forcing you to push beyond your reach trying to secure more Sorium. The only way I'd ever even consider using fuel-guzzling drives as standard issue would be if I were playing a cheat game where I added something like 100b tons of Sorium to Earth.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I tend to SM in some minerals every once in a while. I don't like Sol becoming barren. I do wait a few centuries before doing it, though. So exploration is always faster than waiting around.

Also, note that my "powerful = better" conclusion was based on a faulty assumption: that the space-efficiency of engine/fuel composite systems was always increased by increasing power and decreasing fuel efficiency. That isn't true: there's a sweet spot at fuelSpace = 0.40*engineSpace.

[RAM]

On a more casual level. I find that every engine has a range of speeds that it can more or less achieve practically. You can go quite fast on a very slow engine, if it is the whole of the ship, and a very swift engine can move decently while ferrying a lot of fuel and possessing a decent range, but pushing it out of its comfort speed will result in a lot of inefficiency, either in space and construction or fuel considerations. Consider building the ship that you want with the engine that you have, and then building a new engine with the same dimensions but with power multiplied up to the point that it will move at the speed that you need, with extra consideration given the the fact that you need more fuel, and respect given the the fact that maybe you just can't build something that is as fast as you want.

And if you absolutely need something that is massively fast, consider building something more efficient with which to ferry it around. It can be worth shipping around twice as much tonnage using engines that are twenty times as efficient...

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Heh, I actually find the "min-maxing" fun. It's engineering and mathematics! My real-life favorite fields of study!

And the "sweet spot" thing isn't true. The optimal (read "most fuel-efficient") engine (military, not commercial, as those are limited to x0.50 power or something, as well as 25 HS size) is one that, for the range that you want, takes up 40% of its weight in fuel. It doesn't matter whether that speed is 100 km/s or 10000 km/s, this will always hold.