Print

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

[Girlinhat]

what is a good rule of thumb for number of engines for front line ships and fighters?

It's less about number, and more about percentage of weight.  In ye olden days with only one engine type, it was standard to build 10% of your weight as engine.  Now you might get better effect out of something like 20% for speedy ships.  But then it depends on what thrust/efficiency ratio you want.  There's not a good answer.  It depends on your tech level and your comfortable speed.  My advice is to start a new game, explore the neighboring system to Sol, use spacemaster to add an NPR, and then fight.  You'll learn balance way quicker than any explanation.

[Dramegno]

I was talking more for redundancy in battle than thrust to weight since I did a test comparing stats of 8000 75 EP engines to 4000 150 EP engines of the same tech level and saw no difference in weight or speed, but their was a difference in range since the 75 EP engines are slightly less fuel efficient than the larger ones.

[Rolepgeek]

Biggest engines you can. The way HTM works means larger engines can take hits that would obliterate smaller engines without talking a scratch.

[Dramegno]

here is my Pd Destroyer that this generation will mainly be for show and planet defense

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Armpunsher class Destroyer    10 500 tons     339 Crew     1771.1 BP      TCS 210  TH 615  EM 0
2928 km/s     Armour 1-42     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 37     PPV 12
Maint Life 5.77 Years     MSP 1792    AFR 51%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 91    5YR 1369    Max Repair 735 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 492   

Slammer 307.5 EP NT Engine (2)    Power 307.5    Fuel Use 130.07%    Signature 307.5    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 300 000 Litres    Range 4.0 billion km   (15 days at full power)

Snap Dragon Size 1 Missile Launcher (12)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 15
Snap Dragon 1 Controll (1)     Range 242.6m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

here is my AMM design as well

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 7500 km/s    Engine Endurance: 59 minutes   Range: 26.7m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.3688
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 82.5%   3k km/s 22%   5k km/s 16.5%   10k km/s 8.2%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.1188x Gallicite   Fuel x100

Development Cost for Project: 37RP

[Dorsidwarf]

here is my Pd Destroyer that this generation will mainly be for show and planet defense

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Armpunsher class Destroyer    10 500 tons     339 Crew     1771.1 BP      TCS 210  TH 615  EM 0
2928 km/s     Armour 1-42     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 37     PPV 12
Maint Life 5.77 Years     MSP 1792    AFR 51%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 91    5YR 1369    Max Repair 735 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 492   

Slammer 307.5 EP NT Engine (2)    Power 307.5    Fuel Use 130.07%    Signature 307.5    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 300 000 Litres    Range 4.0 billion km   (15 days at full power)

Snap Dragon Size 1 Missile Launcher (12)    Missile Size 1    Rate of Fire 15
Snap Dragon 1 Controll (1)     Range 242.6m km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

here is my AMM design as well

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Missile Size: 1 MSP  (0.05 HS)     Warhead: 1    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 11
Speed: 7500 km/s    Engine Endurance: 59 minutes   Range: 26.7m km
Cost Per Missile: 0.3688
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 82.5%   3k km/s 22%   5k km/s 16.5%   10k km/s 8.2%
Materials Required:    0.25x Tritanium   0.1188x Gallicite   Fuel x100

Development Cost for Project: 37RP

That missile probbably ought to be faster - see the % to hit? Most ASM are >10km/s , so you'll be firing eleven AMM per ASM or AMM inbound.

[Rince Wind]

You can probably cut down the range to get more room for the engine. You don't need 26m km on an AMM. Look at what range you sensor can pick up size 6 and smaller missiles and use a little bit less for your missiles.

I wouldn't even deploy ASMs with that speed, as too many would miss, it is just a gigantic waste of ressources.

[Dramegno]

okay I will play with my missile design but I might have to research something better than Nuclear thermal engines to get them fast enough

here is my Snap Dragon Controll for review

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Active Sensor Strength: 735   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Sensor Size: 35 HS    Sensor HTK: 1
Resolution: 1    Maximum Range vs 50 ton object (or larger): 242 550 000 km
Range vs Size 6 Missile (or smaller): 26 413 695 km
Range vs Size 8 Missile: 38 808 000 km
Range vs Size 12 Missile: 87 318 000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 735    Crew: 70
Materials Required: 735x Uridium

Development Cost for Project: 7350RP

[Lord Shonus]

35 Hull spaces for an anti-missile fire control is not a good idea even for a dedicated anti-missile ship, particularly since you'd need a size 70 search sensor to see the missiles in the first place. That works out to (105*50) 5250 tons just in sensors - I build workable warships for less tonnage than that. You are much better off setting your AMM range to 1-3 million KM, which will generate far better missiles (I find it best to dedicate 50-75% of an AMM to engine) and allow sensor sizes that are actually usable. You may want to build dedicated anti-missile ships with longer ranges (around 10 million), and use two-stage missiles to get the engagement range, but what you have is not merely suboptimal but objectively awful.

[Dramegno]

note noted. For some reason I was thinking that the fire controls were larger than the search sensors...  my plan was to have either a separate sensor ship or put the sensors on a pdc. After I develop new rocket engines and play around with some designs I will be back.

[Flying Dice]

Biggest engines you can. The way HTM works means larger engines can take hits that would obliterate smaller engines without talking a scratch.

What sort of scale are you working with? If my ships get to the point of taking internal damage directly, I don't notice much difference between a 5000t drive and ten 500t drives, except that it's less likely that I'll lose all of the latter as quickly as the former.

[Rolepgeek]

Eh. Basically the way it works is it allocates damage, I think the totals of damage for that round are added up, and all of them are applied to a single location 'type' (like crew quarters, or engines, or cargo holds, and so on), and applies as much as it can there. If it's lower than the HTK for the module there, the damage does nothing. More useful for preventing knockouts here and there than utter destruction, or for slowing down engine death. I might be missing something here, but I don't believe so. *shrug*

By the way, has anyone figured out how much peak damage a 120cm Spinal Laser can do? I'm guessing in the range of 250?

[Alastar]

While you can't build a 105 HS to match that fire control, there is something to be said for huge R1 sensors powerful enoug to detect ships at the ranges you care about:

1) More time to react to missiles: long-range AMMs, forward-deployed escorts, simply reversing course and hoping to run them out of fuel (assuming you're otherwise not using out-of-universe knowledge about being shot at - the interrupt pattern often gives it away).
2) No worries about small/cloaked ships avoiding detection.
3) Low EM footprint for the range. At equal tech, the enemy needs size-10 EM sensors to pick them up at your true maximum range. A R100 sensor at 1/10 of the size has 10 times the EM footprint at the same nominal range. Being useless against small craft further reduces its utility if your goal is to see the enemy before they see you.

That said, oversized R1 sensors represent a significant investment, you can expect to double the size and cost of a comparable 3-tier package (missile, fighter/FAC, ships). I like them later in the game when fleets are larger and component R&D is cheap compared to general tech advances.

[Dramegno]

interesting..

what kind of thrust to weight would I need on a tug design to drag the following around at any appreciable rate?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Jörmungandr class Terraforming Base    5 172 550 tons     11310 Crew     67842 BP      TCS 103451  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-2664     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 8    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Spare Berths 0   
Habitation Capacity 500 000   
Recreational Facilities
Terraformer: 100 module(s) producing 0.12 atm per annum


This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposes

[Rolepgeek]

Divide by zero error.

You will get nothing going anywhere at an appreciable rate. You want your tugs to be as large as you can get them given current shipyard capabilities and made entirely of max power commercial engines. Which is to say 50 HS x.5 power multiplier.

[Dramegno]

can I have more than one tug pulling the same thing at a time?