Reactor Power Output

[Shinanygnz (OP)]

From welchbloke's "Designs from my latest game" thread:

<snip>
I know the reactor is far more than is required but it is 1HS in size and I've kept a common reactor design for all my warships.

which reminds me of something mentioned time ago... Steve, are you going to look at reactor power outputs based on hull size?
At the moment, you get a linear rate (e.g. 1HS = 1pwr, 2HS=2pwr, etc) and the HTK of the reactor doesn't follow the same progression, which means all my warships just have loads of 1HS reactors as that's better from a damage absorption position.  Same power, more HTK and won't lose all my power to a lucky hit.  If there was some benefit to having bigger reactors, it'd be a more challenging design choice.

Stephen

[ZimRathbone]

Quote Shinanygnz Reactor Power Output
 by Shinanygnz » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:53 am

From welchbloke's "Designs from my latest game" thread:
welchbloke wrote:

<snip>
I know the reactor is far more than is required but it is 1HS in size and I've kept a common reactor design for all my warships.

which reminds me of something mentioned time ago... Steve, are you going to look at reactor power outputs based on hull size?
At the moment, you get a linear rate (e.g. 1HS = 1pwr, 2HS=2pwr, etc) and the HTK of the reactor doesn't follow the same progression, which means all my warships just have loads of 1HS reactors as that's better from a damage absorption position. Same power, more HTK and won't lose all my power to a lucky hit. If there was some benefit to having bigger reactors, it'd be a more challenging design choice.

There is a similar problem with Magazines - I now only design a 1HS magazine as its less likely to lose all my ammo to one hit - of course its slightly more likely to end up having an explosion, but as UberAdmiral thats a risk I'm willing to take   (whether the crews feel the same way is another matter)

[Kurt]

Quote Shinanygnz Reactor Power Output
 by Shinanygnz » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:53 am

From welchbloke's "Designs from my latest game" thread:
welchbloke wrote:

<snip>
I know the reactor is far more than is required but it is 1HS in size and I've kept a common reactor design for all my warships.

which reminds me of something mentioned time ago... Steve, are you going to look at reactor power outputs based on hull size?
At the moment, you get a linear rate (e.g. 1HS = 1pwr, 2HS=2pwr, etc) and the HTK of the reactor doesn't follow the same progression, which means all my warships just have loads of 1HS reactors as that's better from a damage absorption position. Same power, more HTK and won't lose all my power to a lucky hit. If there was some benefit to having bigger reactors, it'd be a more challenging design choice.

There is a similar problem with Magazines - I now only design a 1HS magazine as its less likely to lose all my ammo to one hit - of course its slightly more likely to end up having an explosion, but as UberAdmiral thats a risk I'm willing to take   (whether the crews feel the same way is another matter)

Steve, these are good points.  Particularly with power plants, there should be economies of scale.  I find myself doing the same as above, designing 1 space generators and then installing multiple generators to cover the power needs.  While this is a valid design strategy, there is no real incentive not to do that every time.  After all, there is no greater efficiency to larger reactors, and it makes designing ships easier.  I believe that in real life larger generators achieve economies of scale, if only in reducing the power transmission requirements of multiple small generators.  

Kurt

[Steve Walmsley]

There is a similar problem with Magazines - I now only design a 1HS magazine as its less likely to lose all my ammo to one hit - of course its slightly more likely to end up having an explosion, but as UberAdmiral thats a risk I'm willing to take   (whether the crews feel the same way is another matter)

Magazines are different to reactors because of the way internal armour works for magazines. During magazine design, you can increase the HTK for the magazine by decreasing the storage capability. For larger magazines, the percentage reduction is less for the same HTK so you are probably better having one well protected large magazine then several unprotected smaller ones. I could add something similar for reactors.

Steve

[ZimRathbone]

There is a similar problem with Magazines - I now only design a 1HS magazine as its less likely to lose all my ammo to one hit - of course its slightly more likely to end up having an explosion, but as UberAdmiral thats a risk I'm willing to take   (whether the crews feel the same way is another matter)

Magazines are different to reactors because of the way internal armour works for magazines. During magazine design, you can increase the HTK for the magazine by decreasing the storage capability. For larger magazines, the percentage reduction is less for the same HTK so you are probably better having one well protected large magazine then several unprotected smaller ones. I could add something similar for reactors.

Steve

Fair enough Steve, I must admit I haven't used internal armour for quite a few versions as it seemed to be much less effective for the space it took up on the engine/reactors (this was well before the new Magazines were developed) - I'll probably have another look in the new version

[Steve Walmsley]

There is a similar problem with Magazines - I now only design a 1HS magazine as its less likely to lose all my ammo to one hit - of course its slightly more likely to end up having an explosion, but as UberAdmiral thats a risk I'm willing to take   (whether the crews feel the same way is another matter)

Magazines are different to reactors because of the way internal armour works for magazines. During magazine design, you can increase the HTK for the magazine by decreasing the storage capability. For larger magazines, the percentage reduction is less for the same HTK so you are probably better having one well protected large magazine then several unprotected smaller ones. I could add something similar for reactors.

Steve

Fair enough Steve, I must admit I haven't used internal armour for quite a few versions as it seemed to be much less effective for the space it took up on the engine/reactors (this was well before the new Magazines were developed) - I'll probably have another look in the new version

The new armour model for magazines uses the same model as for ships rather than the arbitrary internal armour 1, internal armour 2, etc. I calculate the actual armour required based on a spherical volume so you get more efficient use of armour for larger magazines. I don't use the term internal armour though for magazines -  you just get a higher HTK - but it does work much better and it's become a real design decision. As you develop better armour, you can get better protected magazines with the same internal volume.

Steve

[Paul M]

Most military reactors are small modular units as opposed to single larger ones.  In a warship especially it would be better to have redundancy against power loss.  Still on the other hand the efficiency of the reactor should increase with size.  This is reasonable as there are fixed elements that you need regardless of the size (cooling, controls, support services) and though the do scale with the power output they aren't linear.

So the power per hull space should increase per hull space of the reactor since there is what amounts to a fixed overhead cost plus one that rises far less quickly then the power output.

The question is how to model this mathematically.  (1-(Fixed Cost - Efficiency Reduction per HS * (Reactor HS-1)))*Total Power Out Put  I think works.

If you say set the Fixed Cost at 30% and Efficiency Reduction per HS at 0.5% for a reactor tech with 3 Power/HS you have:

1 HS reactor:  (1-(.3))*3 = 2.1 Power
5 HS reactor: (1-.28)*15=10.8 Power compared to 10.5 Power of 5x1 HS reactor.

This produces non-integer power outputs though and that is not so easy for the player.

Three things seem easier to do to make things interesting.

1.  The first is to say fix the crew at a per reactor basis with only a small increase for size.  So a 1 HS reactor takes 5 crew, and a 5 HS reactor takes 7 crew.  So you need 25 crew to support 5x1 HS reactors compared to 7 crew for a 5 HS reactor.  This is reasonable since the reactor isn't more complex to run or repair.

2.  The second is to give larger reactors a bonus in power.  +1 Power per 2 or 3 HS.  So a 1 HS reactor would produce 3 Power, but a 3 HS reactor would produce 10.

3.  The third is to increase the HTK of the larger reactors in a similar way as the power so larger reactors are intrinsically a bit tougher.

So larger reactors are more crew efficient and produce slightly more power per HS but still end up with integer numbers of power but are less redundant though slightly more difficult to kill then a comparable number of smaller units.

This gives the player choice I think.  For some tasks larger reactors become more appealing but you have to balance that against serious energy losses.  My feeling is that military vessels always will have multiple reactors but at least in this case they won't always use just large numbers of 1 HS reactors.