Posted by: 83athom
« on: November 20, 2015, 11:57:24 AM »I use CIWS almost religiously. It is affected by crew grade and moral, even on commercial ships.
Edit: in reference to the discussion of fuel consumption , the crippling fuel shortages I've been running has made me consider efficiency a little more than I usually would.Like here:
Ignoring power multiplier for a moment, if my commercial fleet is all 30% power level then Fuel consumption for a ship is based entirely on power level, no matter how many engines I pile into a ship the increased speed just means higher consumption, or vice versa. So in theory when the ship arrives at the destination Fuel use is the same right?
But taking into consideration the actual payload capacity of the ship can give greater efficiency.
When engine and design efficiency is eliminated as a factor (because engines are of same power+size+tech, and the designs use same engine percentage), then fuel cost is determined by how much tonnage of ships in total you have to move around, not the size of any individual unit.
Zippo - A class Tanker 1,000 tons 8 Crew 132 BP TCS 20 TH 30 EM 0
1500 km/s Armour 1-8 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 12.04 Years MSP 41 AFR 16% IFR 0.2% 1YR 1 5YR 8 Max Repair 6 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 0
6 EP Ion Drive (5) Power 6 Fuel Use 15.75% Signature 6 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 630,000 Litres Range 720.0 billion km (5555 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Removing 3 of the engines gives this:Zippo - B class Tanker 1,000 tons 5 Crew 146 BP TCS 20 TH 12 EM 0
600 km/s Armour 1-8 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0
Maint Life 14.35 Years MSP 46 AFR 16% IFR 0.2% 1YR 0 5YR 6 Max Repair 6 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months Spare Berths 1
6 EP Ion Drive (2) Power 6 Fuel Use 15.75% Signature 6 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 780,000 Litres Range 891.4 billion km (17195 days at full power)
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
Now, Zippo B takes 2.5 times as long to get anywhere, but uses only 40% as much fuel. .4 fuel consumption times 2.5 times as long = 100% As a general rule I don't make platforms that take more than a few years to build, I'll probably make ones that cost 10k build points and use a bit over 30 % of industry for 3-4 years each.What kind of ship would that be, other than factory produced orbital habitats maybe? But since you speak of relatively small range still, it sounds like the old persistent misjudgement that large ships are slower to build.
Planned 10k BP platform should make 5 million litres a year, move 300km/s (that'll get it to Barnards star in one year) , hold 2 years production and have 18 CIWS and 4 armour levels.Yeah, the armor is actually just vanity. Well, I guess if you really can overcome a missile ship's magazine by tanking, then it is a win in the book. But a single beam weapon on any attacking ship will make you lose that station, because you cannot possibly get guards there fast enough to stop them. So unless you really bother to make a protective base close to it, these stations cannot really be protected under fire, so the armor is quite useless and wasteful.
Yeah it's nowhere near as well protected as yours but it's significantly cheaper, also a major FAC base will be installed at a moon of each location one of these will be placed at. Even so those extra 3 layers of armour cost 2000 duranium, It'll be more affordable with composite armour.
Well, I find it hard to cause fuel shortage late-game. Engines tend to be extremely effective at this time, and since I don't use big designs (there's time you realize 30kton isn't big anymore), my ships' fuel consumption is very, very small.What has bigness to do with fuel consumption though?(after the 50 HS engines are already used I mean)