better engine efficiency vs size

[letsdance (OP)]

For example using 0.4 instead lowers size impact and gives a HS 50 engine 52% consumption instead.
Or 0.6 raises size impact and gives a HS 50 engine 38% consumption.

0.3 might work. we already have the problem that larger engines are too efficient, 0.4 is about the same as the current implementation for HS 50 and 25. with 0.3 it scales faster than i suggested, but it slows down very quickly. after HS 200 there is very little return. my suggestion in the first post has a better scaling for bigger engines (but worse for very small ones). i used Fuel Modifier (HS) = 1 / (1 + root(HS-1) x 7)

i tried tinkering with your formula to get a better scaling for larger engines, but it doesn't seem to work. your curve is too much focused on small engine sizes.

i'd really like to have more reasons for building larger ships. that would also speed up the game though lately i wonder if it would be best to simply remove the size advantage of commercial designs (reduce all commercial components except engines to 1/10th size) and make them the same as military ships. that would solve the problem and make more sense, too.

[alex_brunius]

0.3 might work. we already have the problem that larger engines are too efficient, 0.4 is about the same as the current implementation for HS 50 and 25. with 0.3 it scales faster than i suggested, but it slows down very quickly. after HS 200 there is very little return.

Nah, it "slows down" at exactly the same speed throughout the entire formula since each time you double the engine size you get the same gain in efficiency.

my suggestion in the first post has a better scaling for bigger engines (but worse for very small ones). i used Fuel Modifier (HS) = 1 / (1 + root(HS-1) x 7)

i'd really like to have more reasons for building larger ships. that would also speed up the game

More fuel efficient large engines then today would give you more reasons to build large ships...  

Less fuel efficient ones using say 0.3 exponent would give you less reasons to build larger ships with 50 HS engines that consume 61% fuel ( you would need to go up to 100 HS engines to get 50% fuel consumption ).

i tried tinkering with your formula to get a better scaling for larger engines, but it doesn't seem to work. your curve is too much focused on small engine sizes.

The curve is not "focused" anywhere, as I wrote it gives the same gains each time you double engine size throughout the entire curve from 0.1 MSP engines to huge 50 HS engines

The result is that if you reduce the impact of size on efficiency for big engines you also impact small engines to be more efficient. So for example 0.3 exponent actually would make most missile engines more fuel efficient then today.



I think it is doable, fair and good for consistency to apply the same rule regardless of engine sizes. Another cool effect of this is that you can in theory allow fighter sized 2HS ( 40MSP ) missile engines ( for example for a big cross system bus to deliver large sensor bouys ). Or the other way around a missile engine sized engine of 4 MSP ( 0.2 HS ) could be used in very small fighters if you want to.

[Jorgen_CAB]

One thing that also has to be considered would be how a higher power settings on engines also would need to be reconsidered in terms of cost.

If the cost on an engine scales linear with the power increase while you easily can offset the fuel efficiency by making the engine larger will make big ships by definition faster than smaller ships as well as much cheaper in terms of range.

I really think that engine cost should scale much the same way on the upside for power increase as it does on the down scale. That would prevent you from making super fast long range large ships.

Depending on how the physics of the engine work, larger ships should perhaps rather be slower than smaller ships. If engines can be considered using more conventional thrust then larger mass means heavier strain on the hull than on a less massive ship. This means that even if it were possible for a large ship to theoretically have the same thrust its not possible because material fatigue is greater on a more massive hull. Now... we do not have to say that ship use thrust in the normal sense, they can use folding space for example which seem more in line with how ships actually move in Aurora.

In any way, I would really like to avoid bigger ships having a huge advantage in being both fast and with good range... as much as possible. I would hate to see 10.000 ton fighters with 6b km range.

One answer could perhaps be that the larger you make the engine the less power multiplier is possible and in the extreme you end up below 1x. So when you research lower multiplier you get to build bigger and bigger engines and when you research high multiplier you can build smaller and smaller engines.

For example if you have *0.1 power multiplier researched you can now build an engine at size 100 that has that multiplier, but its not possible to increase if further on this engine. If you have a *0.5 power multiplier researched you can build a size 50 engine with a *0.5 multiplier (or lower when that is available). So a size 1-10 engine would have a possible *1 power setting or lower, while engines smaller than 1 is the only ones where you can increase it.
There could also be a limit on how many engines you may fit on any one ship (say 10). Which directly also limit the size of the ships you can potentially build and what speed they will have.

In any way my suggestion is not really thought through and very controversial and different and would need some huge balancing.

[alex_brunius]

In any way, I would really like to avoid bigger ships having a huge advantage in being both fast and with good range... as much as possible. I would hate to see 10.000 ton fighters with 6b km range.

Isn't that the case currently too though?

A larger ship with 50HS engine will have twice the range at same speed as a fighter.

But there are lots of reasons not to pursuit it, for example you can't build in FTR factories, you can't equip with FTR beam FCs, it will be spotted from far far away due to it's size, can't be repaired in carrier hangars, the engine research cost is prohibitive and the list goes on.


Overall I'm not very worried that fighters would suddenly suck because they are made to consume 1.5 - 3.0 times more fuel since many current FTR designs get away with 10 ton ( 0.2HS ) fuel tanks ( that would need to be replaced with 20-30 ton fuel tanks or maximum 4% of 500 ton weight ).

Range of fighters is often enough as long as it's high enough to get off 2-3 strikes before any enemy can close distance and you don't really need many billions of km or days of range for that.



If it should be a problem I would prefer mechanics that make bigger ships easier to hit to balance it, but I guess restricting large engines to a bit lower power mods could make sense seeing how it's already the case with smaller missile engines getting 2x the maximum amount.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I could see a sliding scale of how you can set the power modifier on engines so let's say it starts with maximum 0.5 at 100HS size and goes to 6x for the smallest missiles.

I do understand it is prohibitive to build large extremely fast big ships for all the reason you gave. But if fuel efficiency is increased alot each time you double the size you don't have to get far up in size to start mitigate the fuel usage of high powered engines. I think that even 2-3000t ships could potentially become very good "fighters", especially with cloaking devices later on.

I still would like to see some mechanic that make really big ships more prohibitive to have good speed on. Mainly from a realistic point of view, unless of course if there are no real motion involved with propulsion.

[letsdance (OP)]

Nah, it "slows down" at exactly the same speed throughout the entire formula

that depends on your point of view (if i look at every 10 HS increment it does not slow down at the same speed). but - like i said - it does not slow down the same speed as my suggestion. altough it actually should, since we both used a root function... i'm looking again, using excel this time =) still can't explain it. still like my scaling better, but i can't explain it. just a feeling.

looking at the numbers from an abstract point of view, i like your curve better with -0.3 as the exponent. that produces nice results also for larger engines. -0.5 makes really large ships too fuel efficient. at -0.4 you need only 16 % fuel for HS 1,000 engines (typical freighter increased to 500,000 tons storage), that's too low in my oppinion.

The curve is not "focused" anywhere

you focused it around HS 10, that was actually your declared intention but yes, from a mathematical point of view, that's not relevant.

[alex_brunius]

Since civilian shipping lines already are shipping stuff for zero fuel why is it so bad if we can save a few extra percent fuel on our own mega freighter designs?

[letsdance (OP)]

civilian shipping lines cost money and they are slow. if they are overpowered compared to freighters, that is another topic, but it should not be solved my unbalancing freighters.

anyways, the longer i think about it, i think the best solution would be to remove commercial shipyards. it's not realistic anyways and it would be sufficient to scale engines up to 100, which makes it much easier to produce good results for warships. but that should be another thread.

[alex_brunius]

anyways, the longer i think about it, i think the best solution would be to remove commercial shipyards. it's not realistic anyways and it would be sufficient to scale engines up to 100, which makes it much easier to produce good results for warships. but that should be another thread.

I think the model with shipyards is quite realistic. Looking at real examples during WW2 USA built 1000+ of the 20000 ton Liberty freight ships, but only a few dozen military ships the same size. If you go down to 2000 ton military ships though like subs and destroyers these were possible to crank out in many hundreds...


Or for today compare the cost and shipyard needs of super tanker/container shipping to military ships of same size ( super carriers ).

[Jorgen_CAB]

I would agree that there are big differences in building a military ship and a civilian ship. You can't just expect more "simple" yards to build more complex ships just because they have the size to do so. In reality there are many things other than the size of the dry-dock that decides what you can and can't build.

There are no reason to think it would be much of a difference in a space dockyard if that is the logic you want mimic.

[letsdance (OP)]

Looking at real examples during WW2 USA built 1000+ of the 20000 ton Liberty freight ships, but only a few dozen military ships the same size.

maybe they had more shipyards working on the freight ships... but  this is about size, not about the time or resources needed needed. did USA build "civilian" ships 10 times the size of their battleships in "civilian" shipyards 10 times the size? time is tied to build resource costs in Aurora. civilian ships could be cheaper, which makes them faster to build, even if they are built in the same shipyard.

i'm not saying warships should have the same build cost or time than freighters. but they are not 10 times smaller, and the same ship does not need a 10 times more expensive shipyard just because it's engines cross the magic x0.5 power line, or because i add a military sensor. the shipyard that builds a big warship should be equally able to build a big civilian ship.

also, in reality warships are more reliable (comparing the same component types) and capable of repairs on sea, while commercial ships are built and used cost efficiently. in aurora it's exactly the other way round: while the maintenance system for military ships is good, commercial ships don't have any component failures at all and never need repairs. that could at least be abstracted by some sort of upkeep for commercial ships to simulate maintenance costs.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I would tent to agree with you in overall. When it comes to shipyard and dry docks it current mechanic is just that a mechanic to differentiate them. In reality it does not really work like it since you can pretty much build both in the same place. Sure, there are a few purely dedicated military shipyards... but many "commercial" shipyards can build both in the real words.

Anyway... I would like for Commercial ships to at least have a wealth cost associated with them to represent the cost to maintain them and a cost you pay your civilian industry to handle. I would also like if Civilian ships was required to at least have as many MSP in storage as the biggest component they need to repair. Sure... ships today can't really fix everything by themselves, but I really think that spaceships exist in a much more inhospitable environment and would require more rigorous security measures to function properly. At least they should not be free once you built them.

[83athom]

also, in reality warships are more reliable (comparing the same component types) and capable of repairs on sea, while commercial ships are built and used cost efficiently.  in aurora it's exactly the other way round: while the maintenance system for military ships is good, commercial ships don't have any component failures at all and never need repairs.  that could at least be abstracted by some sort of upkeep for commercial ships to simulate maintenance costs.

generally commercial ships are taken care of by their owners not the government.  Also civilian models usually have cheap parts that have breaking points built in for easy repair like just turning a crank, hitting it with a hammer, and adding oil.  RP man