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.
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: November 20, 2015, 11:50:33 AM »I never use CIWS, personally, although I always intend to get around to it. Some snooping on the forums indicates that CIWS does take crew grade into account (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7832.msg79670#msg79670) which would mean CIWS fire is affected by morale (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=4835.msg49967#msg49967).
Jump blindness duration would also be affected by morale since it it also dependent on crew grade (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=2480.msg24501#msg24501). Not that I would expect it to come up often for a commercial fuel harvester.
Jump blindness duration would also be affected by morale since it it also dependent on crew grade (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=2480.msg24501#msg24501). Not that I would expect it to come up often for a commercial fuel harvester.
Posted by: AL
« on: November 19, 2015, 03:02:45 PM »I thought it would affect CIWS too since that's more of a combat oriented module, and possibly other stuff that never makes a difference like jump recovery time for sensors.
Posted by: Rich.h
« on: November 19, 2015, 02:55:29 PM »I was under the impression that the only thing effected by moral with regards to commercial vessels is surveying speed?
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: November 19, 2015, 06:15:08 AM »It doesn't matter, looking at my harvesters they have an intended deployment time of 6 months, the first 2 are upto 56 months. I might send them for some recreation soon :s.
Morale is down to 25%.
Looking a bit deeper, it seems after 6 months morale drops from 100%, it's down to 50% by 12 months, and 25% by 18 months, then perpetually stuck at 25%.
There's one other thing I've noticed, the morale is only properly visible from the task group window, on the individual unit details window every ship with less than a year deployed shows 100% morale, every one with more than a year is showing 0%.
And as evidence that morale isn't affecting harvesting rate, every ship in the Barnards star swarm has 7% fuel load, surely those with double morale would be harvesting faster if it made a difference.
But to be honest I usually put long deployment times on my harvesters and send them for R&R every few years.
I just didn't bother here because I was in such a pinch :p
Morale is down to 25%.
Looking a bit deeper, it seems after 6 months morale drops from 100%, it's down to 50% by 12 months, and 25% by 18 months, then perpetually stuck at 25%.
There's one other thing I've noticed, the morale is only properly visible from the task group window, on the individual unit details window every ship with less than a year deployed shows 100% morale, every one with more than a year is showing 0%.
And as evidence that morale isn't affecting harvesting rate, every ship in the Barnards star swarm has 7% fuel load, surely those with double morale would be harvesting faster if it made a difference.
But to be honest I usually put long deployment times on my harvesters and send them for R&R every few years.
I just didn't bother here because I was in such a pinch :p
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: November 19, 2015, 05:18:20 AM »I cannot say I am absolutely sure, but I think there is no influence from morale at all here. I just have these recreation modules, so the station can qualify as a gas stop. However, I also never really tested them without any... . Not because of fear it wouldn't work so well though, just because, you know, I could, because stuff is big already.
Someone else will have to answer this clearly.
Someone else will have to answer this clearly.
Posted by: AL
« on: November 19, 2015, 03:40:46 AM »So the one main question I still have is does crew morale affect fuel harvesting rate? Based on Vandermeer mentioning he used a recreational base with his harvester platforms I would assume that would be the case, but it would be good if someone could mention it explicitly (if only for future reference).
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: November 18, 2015, 06:09:14 PM »The fuel tanks on the designs may seem large, but in comparison to the gargantuan harvester components, it still comes down to a tiny percentage of the designs, so it is not bad to have a year ration or so on board.
Normally I just use the default fuel deposit order and have the nearest moon at the gas giant made into a colony for that purpose only. This means that the trips are really short, and it avoids having any harvester fly to random colonies from system spin or civil mining site opening etc., which annoyed me in the past. From that colony I can abduct fuel after my own calendar - whenever it is needed or I think of it.
However, I also had the situation where my first found good gas giant didn't have any moons, and neither was there a close enough body in the system that could have served as substitute. In such case, it is good that you don't have to change the design for more fuel storage, because you can still let it work for a year, then send a tanker with saved order template once the log starts complaining.
You can analyze it as this:
1. The more engine percentage you use, the less is there for actual "mission" tonnage.(can also be shipping I guess)
2. You thus need a larger ship to ferry around the same amount of cargo holds(/or whatever equipment).
3. A larger ship means more tonnage in total to propel around, and thus steeper fuel cost despite same amount of holds.
E.g.: A 20 holds freighter with 40% engine dedication is pretty much exactly 1 megaton large (400kt being engines). With 50% engines, it grows to 1.2mt (600kt engines), so you pay 20% more fuel for the same accomplishment of 20 holds material shipment.
..But wait, it is also 25% faster, so given you have an open ended order and the freighter constantly flying, you actually end up paying 1.25*1.2= 50% more fuel on the same time scale, and that for just 25% more speed/availability.
Large engine dedication is hugely costly. You really have to think if it is worth it.
If you are interested, I once researched the rule that lays behind this, which is this:
e2 an e1 being the engine dedication factors, like 0.4 for 40%. t2 and t1 are then tonnages of course.
Calculation example: You want to upgrade your 6kt and 33% engine percentage destroyer towards using whooping 50% as it is your only way to match a new enemies' speed. This fills into the equation as (1-1/3 / 1-1/2)= 4/3, so 33% more mass (8kt) if you want to keep the equipment constant.
You can then get fuel efficiency difference by calculating t2/t1 * e2/e1, which in this case would mean exactly double the fuel cost despite only bringing the same amount of weapons into the fight.(a little more armor though)
Normally I just use the default fuel deposit order and have the nearest moon at the gas giant made into a colony for that purpose only. This means that the trips are really short, and it avoids having any harvester fly to random colonies from system spin or civil mining site opening etc., which annoyed me in the past. From that colony I can abduct fuel after my own calendar - whenever it is needed or I think of it.
However, I also had the situation where my first found good gas giant didn't have any moons, and neither was there a close enough body in the system that could have served as substitute. In such case, it is good that you don't have to change the design for more fuel storage, because you can still let it work for a year, then send a tanker with saved order template once the log starts complaining.
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.
You can analyze it as this:
1. The more engine percentage you use, the less is there for actual "mission" tonnage.(can also be shipping I guess)
2. You thus need a larger ship to ferry around the same amount of cargo holds(/or whatever equipment).
3. A larger ship means more tonnage in total to propel around, and thus steeper fuel cost despite same amount of holds.
E.g.: A 20 holds freighter with 40% engine dedication is pretty much exactly 1 megaton large (400kt being engines). With 50% engines, it grows to 1.2mt (600kt engines), so you pay 20% more fuel for the same accomplishment of 20 holds material shipment.
..But wait, it is also 25% faster, so given you have an open ended order and the freighter constantly flying, you actually end up paying 1.25*1.2= 50% more fuel on the same time scale, and that for just 25% more speed/availability.
Large engine dedication is hugely costly. You really have to think if it is worth it.
If you are interested, I once researched the rule that lays behind this, which is this:
e2 an e1 being the engine dedication factors, like 0.4 for 40%. t2 and t1 are then tonnages of course.
Calculation example: You want to upgrade your 6kt and 33% engine percentage destroyer towards using whooping 50% as it is your only way to match a new enemies' speed. This fills into the equation as (1-1/3 / 1-1/2)= 4/3, so 33% more mass (8kt) if you want to keep the equipment constant.
You can then get fuel efficiency difference by calculating t2/t1 * e2/e1, which in this case would mean exactly double the fuel cost despite only bringing the same amount of weapons into the fight.(a little more armor though)
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: November 18, 2015, 05:54:31 AM »I usually collect fuel by sending a small low powered tanker to collect from the group then dump it to nearest minor colony.
I'll set the tankers speed even lower than it's capable to give the harvesters time to build up a stockpile. On occasion I'll check if the harvesters are starting to build up a lot, then I'll raise the speed somewhat.
Large tankers I generally use for collecting from minor colonies to take to fleet bases or anywhere needing a significant quantity. Or for shipping large amounts between systems, or I'll send the ship to support fleet operations .
I'll set the tankers speed even lower than it's capable to give the harvesters time to build up a stockpile. On occasion I'll check if the harvesters are starting to build up a lot, then I'll raise the speed somewhat.
Large tankers I generally use for collecting from minor colonies to take to fleet bases or anywhere needing a significant quantity. Or for shipping large amounts between systems, or I'll send the ship to support fleet operations .
Posted by: Rich.h
« on: November 18, 2015, 05:11:21 AM »Something I noticed with these designs is that they tend to have reasonably large fuel tanks on board. I am guessing they are being used as refueling points as well as collectors. For my games I always work on the idea that the fuel needs some "refinement" and this is always done at a colony. So I find my gas giant to harvest then pick the closest other body to act as a fuel depot, my harvesters slowly grow in size jumps of 50kt as my other ships grow in size/numbers. The harvester design is usually set with the most efficient engines I can manage at the time, enough fuel to travel 20b km or so and then stocked up with as many harvesters as possible. This creates a constant flow of fuel to the depot and allows my reserves to grow at a happy rate where I never have any issues. It also lets me forget about things like fuel tankers to transport the stuff around as almost every system will have a depot somewhere on hand.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: November 17, 2015, 03:06:02 PM »I did mention I was using industry to make the platforms, but I should have specified factories rather than shipyards.
As a reference at my current production levels 12 years in, warships are 8k tons costing 1200 BP , commercial 90k tons costing 1-4k BP (damn expensive colony ships), shipyards have build rate of 600 and my total factory production on earth is 7500 with a 30% bonus governer.
So the 780,000 ton 11k build point harvesting platforms are a major investment, but keep in mind the 160 ground based refineries that would produce the same fuel quantity would cost 19k duranium which I'm in seriously short supply of.
The platform however costs 5700 duranium which is half armour, 4000 boronide, 600 mercassium, 200 vendarite, 240 uridium and 625 gallicite. I have enough boronide for 3 platforms, but I'm still running short of duranium even now with manned mines making 3000 a year on Europa.
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.
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.
I'll post an example.
Heres my current small tanker with the engine replaced with a stack of size 1's for consistency:
So fuel consumption is the same no matter how fast the ship is.
But design B holds 24 % more fuel giving greater fuel efficiency.
As a reference at my current production levels 12 years in, warships are 8k tons costing 1200 BP , commercial 90k tons costing 1-4k BP (damn expensive colony ships), shipyards have build rate of 600 and my total factory production on earth is 7500 with a 30% bonus governer.
So the 780,000 ton 11k build point harvesting platforms are a major investment, but keep in mind the 160 ground based refineries that would produce the same fuel quantity would cost 19k duranium which I'm in seriously short supply of.
The platform however costs 5700 duranium which is half armour, 4000 boronide, 600 mercassium, 200 vendarite, 240 uridium and 625 gallicite. I have enough boronide for 3 platforms, but I'm still running short of duranium even now with manned mines making 3000 a year on Europa.
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.
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.
I'll post an example.
Heres my current small tanker with the engine replaced with a stack of size 1's for consistency:
Code: [Select]
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 purposesRemoving 3 of the engines gives this:Code: [Select]
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 purposesNow, 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% So fuel consumption is the same no matter how fast the ship is.
But design B holds 24 % more fuel giving greater fuel efficiency.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: November 17, 2015, 02:18:59 PM »B-but smaller ship uses less fuel when it flies, because it needs less engine power to maintain the same speed as larger ship (assuming they have equal speed) and move around.
As for shipping, I usecommercial civilian, duh freighters for that. They don't consume fuel, they consume money, and I've got that covered.
Besides, I already said that I use small fleets, didn't I? Okay, I didn't, but you could figure it out. And my fuel production goes beyond consumption, and if I need even more, I can make more harvesters. I am close to gallicite shortage though, all that engines are really eating my stockpile. But fuel, no shortage, I have 1 billion units and that's enough for me.
As for shipping, I use
Besides, I already said that I use small fleets, didn't I? Okay, I didn't, but you could figure it out. And my fuel production goes beyond consumption, and if I need even more, I can make more harvesters. I am close to gallicite shortage though, all that engines are really eating my stockpile. But fuel, no shortage, I have 1 billion units and that's enough for me.
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: November 17, 2015, 02:07:46 PM »But say you want to ship 200 auto mines to a distant outpost, so that is a 200 cargo hold order basically. -> It does not matter whether you ship that with 100 size 2 freighters, or just 10 size 20. 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.
Or if you say that you simply don't have these 200 cargo holds ready in your fleet, but maybe just 50 in total, so shipping takes longer, and the fuel production can keep up... ; Well, that is just saying that the fleet as a whole is smaller and uses thus less fuel, and has again nothing to do with individual ship size and their consumption.
Otherwise, 100 size 2 freighters consume exactly as much as 10 size 20 ones when all in flight.
Or if you say that you simply don't have these 200 cargo holds ready in your fleet, but maybe just 50 in total, so shipping takes longer, and the fuel production can keep up... ; Well, that is just saying that the fleet as a whole is smaller and uses thus less fuel, and has again nothing to do with individual ship size and their consumption.
Otherwise, 100 size 2 freighters consume exactly as much as 10 size 20 ones when all in flight.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: November 17, 2015, 11:11:27 AM »Bigger ships eat more fuel, duh.
I use smaller ships = I use less fuel. Simple yet insane logic!
Okay, I use few smaller ships, move them around only when needed and generally don't use 2mt+ fuel guzzlers. Thus, low fuel consumption (and no fuel shortages).
I use smaller ships = I use less fuel. Simple yet insane logic!
Okay, I use few smaller ships, move them around only when needed and generally don't use 2mt+ fuel guzzlers. Thus, low fuel consumption (and no fuel shortages).
Posted by: Vandermeer
« on: November 17, 2015, 08:18:35 AM »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.
They are not however, at least when still built in shipyards. In fact, depending on the complexity of components used, you will find that build time even goes down the larger the ship, which is especially noticeable with civil designs. The reason is that the build points per interval increase with shipyard size, and though the official formula I had seen on the wiki would indicate that build time steadily rises (at exponentially slower rates albeit), in praxis it does not happen for some reason I also don't quite understand.
(here some visual proof from the latest Astral game save)
Off-Topic: show
(that would be 7 months and 17 days at uniform researched TL7, ~ but it was always like that)
(I always like to mention at this point: These 150mt civil modules of my fortresses? Built in 3-6 months each. :-P)
So the point is: In Aurora you cannot possibly create a fuel platform that takes multiple years to built, except maybe if you use some TL 12 engine without ever having leveled shipyard speed or something unlikely like that.
The ships with the longest build time are in my experience ironically the small facs and those towards 7k (..but maybe just because I can't keep my hands of the largest possible singular engines that I can fit in
...)Quote
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.
The real way of protecting distant infrastructure is a good further out laying information grid, so jump point warning buoys or sensor outposts etc. . This way you don't have to divide your forces and make them weak, but they simply wait at their central haven and move or detach when danger encroaches, and before it can reach some place where damage might be done.
That is at least my approach if I wouldn't RP it.
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)
Fleet tonnage is fleet tonnage, and shipping tonnage is shipping tonnage, no matter the "dosage" or increment, right?
