better engine efficiency vs power & fuel considerations

[Jorgen_CAB]

@Haji: if you just care about roleplaying, there is no sense in discussing game mechanics. but then you shouldn't care either way. seeing how much thought Steve puts into mechanics, i do think it matters to him.

You can't discuss mechanics without considering "realistic" conditions in a game, otherwise if you end up changing them you might throw the real balance out the window. In realistic terms, size for example, IS a valid restriction for building or designing ships. You can't expand your yards indefinitely (population, wealth, resources are a few limitations), that is simply not a realistic proposition. Even if you did all possible designs should be able to utilize and be designed for that new size restriction and you just end up where you began.  

@Jorgen_CAB since design B is 10 % cheaper, we assume we have 10 % more of it. that means i can fire 10 % more missiles for the first 12 volleys. then i'll run out, while you still have 3 volleys with your design A. but your whole advantage of more volleys is gone, because you already lost at least 10 % more ships than i did, reducing your total number of missiles - if you lose just 10 % of your missile load you're at the same total number of missiles that i had. the higher damage per time is a big advantage that you did not consider at all.

It does not really matter because you just assume that there are no point-defences and point defences can easily have different capabilities to deal with either volley volume or total missile volume. So, taken out of context one is not necessarily better than the other in that regard. If you like volley volume you could just add more launchers to the Type-A instead of more missiles... simply, it does not matter, it was just an example to show a difference. Tactical application is completely different and heavily dependent on the context.

if you don't want to calculate 10 % more ships, you'd have to take into account the timing advantage. i destroy your planet while you still have 0.2 years left to build your fleet... that's not calculable of course, but the above example with higher ship number is.

Now your just being childish, and I'm pretty sure you know it. I'm not willing to sink to the level of playing I shot you, no you didn't, level.  

I only presented two ships that give you different options.

Type-A give you a higher volume of fire per BP. Or you can make Type-B that will give you a better economy over time with lower fuel usage and easier to retrofit the engines. In general I like option B, but not everyone take that option and it is a valid choice not to do so. If you are hard pressed to get ships out for an imminent war you might want Type-A because it give you a higher volume of fire in a shorter time, even if a single Type-B is built slightly faster.

Unlike you I do NOT put any direct emphasis on what is right or wrong, I only try to explain that you can choose either for different tactical/strategic reasons.

You also missed the part about future retrofit of these ships. As you research better fuel economy Type-A will just be able to increase its volume of fire more and more in relation to Type-B as the fuel carried will be reduced. That might also be a reason to go for Type-A if that is important to you.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'm willing to agree that when you look at a ships mission range/speed/fuel economy/production cost you can sometimes find an optimum engine power settings for warships.

Basically, if you give a warship a certain speed/range as a mission critical constant you can find an optimum engine type with the best optimum weight/cost/fuel for that speed/range. That basically mean that if you want ships to have a long mission deployment range you are better of with low powered engines since they give you better speed/cost/fuel economy. But as you decrease the mission range and/or increase speed on ships and use much smaller percentage of the ship for fuel this advantage will disappear and eventually be less useful and in advantage of more higher powered engines, but of course at the cost of worse fuel efficiency, which often are not a problem for ships that rarely move and are intent to combat over small distances.

[letsdance (OP)]

It does not really matter because you just assume that there are no point-defences and point defences can easily have different capabilities to deal with either volley volume or total missile volume.

any type of point defense will move the equation to my favor, because 10 % more ships means exactly the same number and volleys of missiles, and then another 10 % on top of that.

But as you decrease the mission range and/or increase speed on ships and use much smaller percentage of the ship for fuel this advantage will disappear and eventually be less useful and in advantage of more higher powered engines

yes and i would prefer if this advantage would be more significant. the examples we used so far had a mission range of 10-15b km. that's not very short, but also not long (just enough to jump out of the system and maybe move around a bit, then you have to go refuelling) and i never saw a real benefit when using a higher power engine.

it would make more sense if you needed a higher power engine to achieve a higher speed with your ship. even when you want a long mission range.

[Jorgen_CAB]

any type of point defense will move the equation to my favor, because 10 % more ships means exactly the same number and volleys of missiles, and then another 10 % on top of that.

Why do you keep arguing over pointless details?

If you have more tonnage to add stuff per BP you just have, no point in arguing what it is, however you like to distribute it does not matter. You can fit more launchers on the Type-A versus Type-B if you feel that is important. In this particular instance you probably could have mounted two more launchers on Type-A and still have a few more missiles on board.

Not that you are right about volume of fire... higher volley volume is not always better, sometimes PD is so strong that you have to just out shoot it with total volume, so it does not matter. Unless you know for sure how big volleys you need it is always a gamble.

yes and i would prefer if this advantage would be more significant. the examples we used so far had a mission range of 10-15b km. that's not very short, but also not long (just enough to jump out of the system and maybe move around a bit, then you have to go refuelling) and i never saw a real benefit when using a higher power engine.

it would make more sense if you needed a higher power engine to achieve a higher speed with your ship. even when you want a long mission range.

Most fleets will obviously have a support fleet trail it on missions with tankers, colliers and supply ships. You only put enough fuel to keep your support ships at a safe distance from the fighting. In my experience I rarely need more than 10-15b km on a ship for actual combat manoeuvres. On some ships even less than that. In the beginning I keep my ship ranges even shorter and as my fuel technology progress I usually add some range even though I reduce the total fuel carried. Though, most of my campaigns have so many different constraints that it is nigh impossible to build optimised ships.

Ships designed for scouting is an entirely different matter, here you will need more fuel and so a better engine design would be desired. Although, in reality, you are limited in how many engine designs you can have and sometimes you have to have an engine that can do both, so you end up with an engine doing nothing well.

If you cranked up the fuel technology to *0.5 and at the same time reduced the range to 10-12 billion km the Type-A would get much more tonnage to play with mission type stuff. If you then put in a say *1.25 powered engine you will get even more. Even if the ship get more expensive overall you pay less cost per ton of mission critical tonnage. You will get a very fuel hungry ship, but if your empire have the fuel reserves when you need it it is fine to do so.

If you want to build a larger long range cruiser, meant to cruise alone and at long ranges. You perhaps want it to have a range of 35 billion km but you are constrained at 25000t. You might want to design an engine that let you have a decent speed and fuel economy, but you also must have room to put in all the mission critical stuff that you need. Designing such a ship will probably be a challenge since you might need to decide on something you will have to cut back on, such as speed, range or mission tonnage. You might even decide that cost is not important, utility trump cost in this instance. You also might be constrained in how much research you can divert to designing components that you don't have, such as a new engine.
All these are real consideration during play role-play or no role-play... the only time there are no real limits is if there are no threats and you have all the time in the world to do as you please. But then you really don't need to build that many warship anyway, so why bother.

So... while I agree that there are some optimised designs that you can build with range being a major factor in engine design it might not always be practical. If you have an 8000t destroyer that has a range of 9 billion km who uses a standard *1 engine and you like to build an 8000t scout ship with a range of 40b km you might not have the time or wish to develop a new engine. You just use the one you have and give the ship an unreasonable amount of fuel. It is a suboptimal build but a trade-off you sometimes have to do.

I'm NOT saying one strategy is better than the other, as before, I'm just saying there are different strategic advantages for different objectives in the game.

[letsdance (OP)]

Why do you keep arguing over pointless details?

*lol* YOU started arguing this detail.

[linkxsc]

So... 10% more ships... that fire 20% fewer missiles...

Seems like a losing situation in the long run when massing the 2, although, if theyre gonna be heading on a long range patrol, version B might be a tad better for the efficiency. Against a strong amm defense, type a pulls ahead simply due to 3 extra volleys. While the "10%" more type b would pull ahead in a heavy gun pd setup.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... the thing I "argued" is that one type is better for one thing and the other in something else.

Why I felt letsdance argued over "pointless" details was because it seemed to be contest and that my example could be compared in an isolated very restricted such contest without considering that Type A could as well have used more launchers per BP so the very argument would be reversed for the exact same reason type B would be "better". You could essentially choose between deeper magazines or more launchers.

The thing is that there are no "perfect" ship configuration for all types of ships, no single solutions for all the different mission types. If you want a short range fast ship you build a high powered engine that is fuel hungry, if you want a longer ranged ship you use a more fuel efficient engine, this is quite logical and valid points. But this is only practically true if you can afford to research all the techs needed for all the different ships that you use. It is practically impossible to optimise all components on all your ships without some compromises at some point. Unless you have unlimited time to research and no real opposition to speak off.

[linkxsc]

Well its 1 thing I've learned from years of 4Xs, especially the good ole "Space Empires 3" (too bad it don't run on modern computers)
theres no such thing as the perfect ship. Just the 1 thats good for this situation.
Though it really only seems to matter in the 5000-10000t range. Above 10kt, you're better off just going with 50HS engines, and cranking the power factor to get faster ships. And sub 5000t... stuff gets a little crazy because of size limitations. (though my 3500-4000t corvettes run off of a 1.5x-2x 50HS engine, 25HTK keeps them flying well after a couple good hits) And cause most smaller ships need to squeeze as much power out of their engineHS/TotalHS as they can.
Of course this whole thread is about efficiency... But I can't warrant just throwing more and more engines onto my freighters. Even though its cheap to expand your shipyard, after the first couple freighters are out, and colony ship to get the civilian contractors rolling (unless someone can tell me how to get them to start building ships without me already doing a ship of the same role, they seem to do nothing, until I build at least 1 cargo ship/colonyship)
After that, the only civilian ships that get turned out are geosurvey ships (kept as small as possible, and often end up being military designs due to passive sensors/CIWS, also often identical to my gravsurvey ships) And mining ships... which are also often military designs, and fuel transports... which are also milspec... and. Yeah I usually don't bother building more than 2 Civilian Shipyards. Only reason I have 6 of them total right now is because I stole 4 of them from NPRs with tugs. After the first handful of freighters and such I build, I either build all my stuff as a milspec design, or let the civilian shipping handle it. And expanding military shipyards is expensive and SLOW.

[Jorgen_CAB]

This is also why speaking of optimization is so hard because it always comes down to WHAT it is you are trying to optimise. Large engines for example are not good for research optimization because they are very expensive to research for a small benefit in fuel economy. Larger engines instead of smaller engines with the same power setting also need more engineering sections for the same maintenance clock and more MSP to fix maintenance problems and battle damage in relation. That is why it's never crystal clear one option is better that the other, unless the only optimization criteria you are interested in are fuel economy.

If you, for example, are going to build... as you suggested... one 2x 50HS engine for a corvette at 4000t and then another say a 1x 50HS engine for your 10000t ships, perhaps a 1x 30HS for your frigates to optimise fuel economy you spend 11000RP at Ion engine tech, while you could reduce that to two engine types with say one small powerful 10HS and one slightly bigger say 25HS and only use about 2700RP. You loose some fuel efficiency and that is about it.

Personally I try to strike a balance on the cost of RP research, fuel economy, ship performance and production capacity. Usually this mean that I keep a two or three different 1HS engines, perhaps one or two 10-15HS engines with different power/stealth settings and then a bigger less powerful engine for ships in the 10000t+ region. If I have any really big ships I might go with a HS50 engine, but only if research is plenty enough and I'm not behind in technology from other factions.
I practically use the same logic for all types of ship components from weapons, sensors, fire-controls etc...

Again, I don't mean either choice is better... but I really think that all discussion need to bring forth all the benefit AND drawbacks of each of these optimization strategies, not just present them as the "only" true option for perfect performance.  

I also actually agree with letsdance overall mentality that low powered engines is a good choice for ship engines based on them having a huge industrial, research and logistical advantage over the more expensive engines. As long as you understand the drawbacks and then learn how you might overcome them to hopefully make you stronger than the opponent is important.

[Jorgen_CAB]

unless someone can tell me how to get them to start building ships without me already doing a ship of the same role, they seem to do nothing, until I build at least 1 cargo ship/colonyship

The critera is that you need to have Nuclear Thermal Engine research and send some infrastructure to a colony. You now only need to wait for your cvilians to spawn a colonyship and start colonizing. Obviously you need cryo transport researched as well. So you will need at least one cargo ship with a 5000t cargo hold at the minimum. Small freighters is also good for mineral transportation since mass drivers cant transport minerals through jump points. You might also want them to get minerals from asteroids where you don't care to place any mass-drivers.

[linkxsc]

^ Like I need to ship some to another colony myself? Or jsut setup teh civilian contract? Cause I've had a contract set for years after NT engines, with no change.

Also if you know, whats accomplished by "subsidizing" the shipping line?

[Jorgen_CAB]

^ Like I need to ship some to another colony myself? Or jsut setup teh civilian contract? Cause I've had a contract set for years after NT engines, with no change.

Also if you know, whats accomplished by "subsidizing" the shipping line?

Shipping lines use wealth to build ships, if you give them wealth they will simply build more ships. And as I said, in order to get a shipping line to build ships you need a colony with at least some infrastructure. After this they will build ships, once they build at least one colony ship (random which ship they build) they will start transporting population to this colony and things will take off from there.

[linkxsc]

That info would be really nice on the wiki.

[Sagal]

Try subsiding your company with 100k or so, you will see couple ships after that

[Zincat]

I do agree that there is something that feels a bit wonky sometimes in the tonnage/power/fuel consumption equation. But let us approach this systematically by breaking down what common ship types you're going to build:

Military ships (warships):
Not a problem, usually military ship need to be FAST, and size is important. You will almost never want a slow military ship for a variety of reasons (range of engagement, actually catching up enemies, deploying the ships where you need them to be). To be honest, I often use engine multiplier higher than one. Speed is king, and let's not forget that as said before, increasing the shipyard size IS a problem, not to mention retooling times etc. Also, if you need more range you use a fuel transport.

The only issues when you do not want a fast warships are either when you're roleplaying (and then you cannot complain about mechanics, because you're purposefully building a NOT optimized ship), or when speed is not important at ALL. And in those cases you're much better off NOT putting engines on a ship. Just build an immovable weapon/fighter platform, and tug it where you need it with a civilian tug. This has a number of advantages, namely: You can build fuel efficient tugs and so save fuel, the tugs (and thus the speed) can be upgraded without the need of touching the military part of the ship, you have a LOT more space for weapons/ammo/systems, you spend less to build and research the military ships etc.

Military ships (other):
This includes ships that are not warships, but are classified as military ships. Grav surveys, scout/sensor ships, colliers and the like. All these ships needs either a decent speed, or a good speed (if they need to move with/behind the main war fleet). As such if they need to move with the fleet, or move fast for another reason (a fast scout to find enemies) they will have engines similar to a warship, and so with a high multiplier. If they don't, then I usually stick to 50% commercial engines to save fuel and have a good range while still having an acceptable speed. Even before ion engine tech, this is usually good enough range/speed for grav surveys and the like, because you generally scout ahead of time and such.

Civilian ships:
The only general thing is that you need to have the necessary range for your mission. So, at very low tech levels this might mean you change something in order to gain more range. But even just from ion engine, this is no longer a problem usually. Let's see case by case.

Tugs: one of my favorite ship designs. Tugs generally are 90% engine, 10% fuel space or something, so nothing wrong with the current model. Just build the most fuel efficient engine you can, and add as many as you need to obtain your ideal tug. No other considerations are required, you generally do not care how long it takes to move the tugged ship. If for some reason you need a fast tug instead, just make a tug with all 50% commercial engines on it, and you're done.

Terraformers, sorium harvesters, gate builders: if you're putting engines on these ships, you are doing it wrong. These ships needs to move rarely. Actually, terraformers and sorium harvesters need to move once every few years at most. You do not want to put engines on these. In order to put engines on these ships you need to increase their size immensely, which in turn means more cost, more fuel used/immobilized, bigger shipyard needed etc. Just build them as immobile, engine-less platforms. Cheap, faster to build. Apply tugs as needed to move them around

Cargo ships and colony ships: if you're doing it right, you will need FEW of these. And often, 0 colony ships alltogether. Unless you purposefully killed the civilian sector, what's the point? The civilians can and will move all of these for you at basically no costs. You may need a few, in order to move minerals or installations at critical times. In that case speed is generally important, so you stick to 50% commercial engines anyway

Geological survey ships, team transport ships: speed generally matters, so use 50% commercial engines. If it does not (example, far away system you want to geosurvey for the next decade expansion plan), then you use the most fuel efficient engine you can build. Let me point out in these cases I'd never add more engines to "optimize costs etc" as the opener posted. Why would I? If I do not plan to move into a system for at LEAST 10 year, it makes no difference to me if I take one or three years to  survey it. Oh and about the team transport ships.... You use them right? You're not "cheaters" that magically teleport teams around, right?

That covers the most common ships types I think. So after looking this through, I'd say that the current system, while not perfect, is not problematic  because you generally do not want to optimize fuel cost/speed by adding more engines and thus increasing size. Of course, if you do not like to use tugs/weapon platforms, or if you do not like to use civilian shipping lines for your needs, then it becomes more problematic. But in those cases you're not really "optimizing" the game anyway, so I do not see the problem there...