Aurora 4x
New Players => The Academy => Topic started by: madmarcus on August 17, 2012, 10:56:54 AM
-
What is the thermal signature of a missile or drone?
Its probably too much of an exploit but it looks like some aliens do not use active sensors unless they detect your active sensors. Which makes me wonder how close I can send a missile or drone before it launches sub munitions? I'm trying for a cruise missile type strategy where the first strike does its damage due to escaping detection not due to just saturation of the defenses.
-
Well, from my own experience, they don't activate their actives until they either see yours (in which case they're expecting missiles) or they've detected something inside their active range (in which case they're refining data and going for a target lock). Typically you'll want to release submunitions just outside the range of AM fire to maximize performance.
-
Thermal signatures for missiles are generally really really small. Example: Ion missile that is using a full msp for engines has a thermal signature of 3. Missiles do not use thermal reduction nor fuel efficiency tech's.
-
Thermal signatures for missiles are generally really really small. Example: Ion missile that is using a full msp for engines has a thermal signature of 3. Missiles do not use thermal reduction nor fuel efficiency tech's.
Um, fuel efficiency sure seems to improve the range of my missiles with a given amount of fuel. It even shows on the missile design window.
-
Thermal signatures for missiles are generally really really small. Example: Ion missile that is using a full msp for engines has a thermal signature of 3. Missiles do not use thermal reduction nor fuel efficiency tech's.
Thanks. Even if its just an estimate its a good starting point. So you could fire a missile at a way point near the enemy where upon it engages with an onboard passive thermal sensor. Not quite as good as a full on passive strike since you have to aim for the way point but at least some ability to conduct first strikes without a massive alpha wave.
Not that I really have a need right now. The last two enemies I've fought were a spoiler that didn't need such tactics and a single large thermal contact that took a tremendous beating (at least 130-140 WH4 missiles impacted before it died even though it was only armor 2) but never fought back
-
Well you dont need active sensors to target the way point, so its perfectly passive in that way.
-
I had considered just such a plan as an alternative to a billion km range firecontrol. Turns out missile sensors are myopic and you're better off with a billion km range ship mounted sensor anyway.
-
Well you dont need active sensors to target the way point, so its perfectly passive in that way.
True but to get a hit on a ship moving at speed (even just orbiting with a planet) you need a fair amount of calculations out of game unless you are going to fire from really close. I could just write a fire control program to calculate where to put the waypoint but it still feels clunky.
-
Um, fuel efficiency sure seems to improve the range of my missiles with a given amount of fuel. It even shows on the missile design window.
I used to think that as well. When I built my missile design sheet reverse engineering of the various missiles in the existing tables demonstrated to me that Steve does not in fact use fuel efficiency. At least not in v5.5 which is the database I was using for baseline. I double checked that the various races had improved efficiency levels and the missle ranges of the designed missiles did not reflect anything but baseline efficiency.
I have not since gone into v5.6 for a fresh validation analysis. If I recall correctly, missile range baseline is 80,000km per liter of fuel for 1 msp of missile.
-
I just compared my own campaign (fuel efficiency 0.5) and Steve´s Space Race (fuel efficiency 0.4)
In my campaign, a size 2 missile with 0.5 fuel has a range of 90 mkm
In Steve´s capaign, the same missile has a range of 112.3 mkm
Now, if range is directely proportional(sp?) to fuel efficiency, 90 mkm at 0.5 means a base range of 45 mkm. Dividing this by 0.4 and we get 112.5 mkm which is close enough for me.
So I think I can be confident in saying that fuel efficiency indeed increases the range of missiles.
-
I just compared my own campaign (fuel efficiency 0.5) and Steve´s Space Race (fuel efficiency 0.4)
In my campaign, a size 2 missile with 0.5 fuel has a range of 90 mkm
In Steve´s capaign, the same missile has a range of 112.3 mkm
Now, if range is directely proportional(sp?) to fuel efficiency, 90 mkm at 0.5 means a base range of 45 mkm. Dividing this by 0.4 and we get 112.5 mkm which is close enough for me.
So I think I can be confident in saying that fuel efficiency indeed increases the range of missiles.
This has been my experience too. What is a little counter-intuitive is that increased engine power has no effect on range - the increased speed is counter-acted by an increased fuel consumption rate.
John
-
OK I stand corrected on missile use of fuel efficiency. Steve apparently fixed that for v5.6. It's been an issue for me since I'm still playing (when I can) v5.51. When I start my next game it will probably be V5.61 and I'll need to change my missile design worksheet to include efficiency tech.
Engine power has no effect on range prior to v5.7. It is based on HS/msp. Warship baseline is IIRC 1 liter of fuel providing 36,000,000km for 1HS modified by fuel efficiency and power modifier penalty/bonus.
To be specific, if a ship/missile has range X with Nuclear Thermal engine tech upgrading to an Ion engine without fuel efficiency or power modifier techs will still have range X. What changes is how fast you get there.
-
I can confirm that, increasing ship engine power does not increase fuel consumption.
-
I can confirm that, increasing ship engine power does not increase fuel consumption.
It does increase fuel consumption in terms of the litres per second consumed. However, it doesn't increase the amount of fuel required to reach a specified distance.
Steve
-
I suspect its a bug, but EP really doesn't effect fuel consumption in the latest:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/96058272.jpg/
The setup for that is 4 ships with 450 tons each, one with a NTE drive, one with an NPE drive, one with an ion drive, and one with a photonic drive, all baseline military, over one day they all consume 48 litres of fuel, except the ion drive which consumes double that for some reason.
likewise the testing I've done with commercial ,FAC, and fighter drives has them stay the same. I'd have reported this as a bug but 5.7 looks like its going to fix it.
-
I suspect its a bug, but EP really doesn't effect fuel consumption in the latest:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/96058272.jpg/
The setup for that is 4 ships with 450 tons each, one with a NTE drive, one with an NPE drive, one with an ion drive, and one with a photonic drive, all baseline military, over one day they all consume 48 litres of fuel, except the ion drive which consumes double that for some reason.
likewise the testing I've done with commercial ,FAC, and fighter drives has them stay the same. I'd have reported this as a bug but 5.7 looks like its going to fix it.
Where are you getting that from? Your screenshot shows that one will burn through it's 50,000 litre reserves in 520 days and the other will do it in 833 days. Am I missing something?
Edit: Unless you mean you've done a practical test of one day. In which case, it might be an idea to test how far they can actually go. If they both have the stated range, then they're using fuel correctly. If not then I'm sure it's a bug.
-
Where are you getting that from? Your screenshot shows that one will burn through it's 50,000 litre reserves in 520 days and the other will do it in 833 days. Am I missing something?
Edit: Unless you mean you've done a practical test of one day. In which case, it might be an idea to test how far they can actually go. If they both have the stated range, then they're using fuel correctly. If not then I'm sure it's a bug.
Well the "maintenance" tab seems to indicate that both ships are 48 litres short of their maximum, presumably having both run one day.
The Ark Royal however should use 96 litres a day at top speed and 37 litres at its current speed of 1722 km/s.
The Agincourt should use 60 litres a day at top speed and 54 litres at its current speed of 2500 km/s.
So if both ships ran at their current speeds for one day, starting with full fuel tanks, than they should not both be 48 litres short. Then again all sorts of funny things seem to be going on with the crew and casualties, so I would not know what "should" happen to fuel requirements in that case.
-
Ok, I tested it, and the two designs do have the correct (and same) range, so fuel consumption must be working properly on a macro level at least.
Edit: Is there a chance that something regarding fuel is calculated on the 5-day increment to "correct" the fuel usage? If he only advanced one day then it wouldn't have shown.
Edit:
Wait, wait, stupid question (but sometimes the stupid things are the ones you don't see), you weren't flying them in the same task group were you?
-
It's working correctly for me:
http://puu.sh/X4D7
http://puu.sh/X4DK
1 day increment.
-
I suspect its a bug, but EP really doesn't effect fuel consumption in the latest:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/96058272.jpg/
The setup for that is 4 ships with 450 tons each, one with a NTE drive, one with an NPE drive, one with an ion drive, and one with a photonic drive, all baseline military, over one day they all consume 48 litres of fuel, except the ion drive which consumes double that for some reason.
likewise the testing I've done with commercial ,FAC, and fighter drives has them stay the same. I'd have reported this as a bug but 5.7 looks like its going to fix it.
Take a look at the class design screen. I suspect that you will find a fraction hull space difference. The ship display screens show rounded integer values only.
-
Take a look at the class design screen. I suspect that you will find a fraction hull space difference. The ship display screens show rounded integer values only.
That shouldn't matter. If the engines had different fuel usages a one day increment should show a difference in fuel usage. Regardless of size.
My working theory is that perhaps he split off the slower ship and forgot to "max" the faster one's speed, thus they travelled at the same speed (decreasing fuel usage for the faster ship as compared to travelling full speed).
-
My working theory is that perhaps he split off the slower ship and forgot to "max" the faster one's speed, thus they travelled at the same speed (decreasing fuel usage for the faster ship as compared to travelling full speed).
Ah yes, thats it. My mistake everyone, and thanks for helping me clear that up.