Fuel powered shields

[liveware (OP)]

Speaking of sensor blindness ... I think shields are a kind of electrostatic dissipative armor, not a sort of reflective magic sphere or something around the hull, so sensors (antennas, scan array, ...) could be external, unprotect but redundant and expendable

In this case they should be vulnerable to damage, even when shields are active.

I could see an argument for shields blinding EM sensors but leaving thermal sensors viable. Not sure how grav sensors should be effected. Might be an interesting way to differentiate sensor types.

[liveware (OP)]

Maintenance supplies are already critical for short engagements due to beam weapons drinking them like water.  Please don't add to that.

Perhaps the beam weapons are consuming MS a fuel? 

[Droll]

I think shields are cool as it is. The "tactical choice" of fuel usage doesn't actually exist because the amount of fuel they used was negligible anyways. You are always going to have them on in combat and as someone else mentioned armour tends to provide more protection per tonnage. The only difference is that you are "forced" to turn off shields between extended breaks in combat - that isn't a tactical choice since it is sub-optimal to do otherwise.

I think it would be interesting to have diplomatic implications for raising shields against neutral NPRs. I dont remember if EM signature size affects the threat level of a ship but IMO it should. There is a difference between a fleet of ships jumping into a system with shields raised and ready to take a beating versus a fleet that just blunders through with its pants down. Likewise all of a sudden raising shields should be a tell on intent no? It would add a layer to turning on shields without adding annoying logistics/button mashing.

[liveware (OP)]

I think shields are cool as it is. The "tactical choice" of fuel usage doesn't actually exist because the amount of fuel they used was negligible anyways. You are always going to have them on in combat and as someone else mentioned armour tends to provide more protection per tonnage. The only difference is that you are "forced" to turn off shields between extended breaks in combat - that isn't a tactical choice since it is sub-optimal to do otherwise.

I think it would be interesting to have diplomatic implications for raising shields against neutral NPRs. I dont remember if EM signature size affects the threat level of a ship but IMO it should. There is a difference between a fleet of ships jumping into a system with shields raised and ready to take a beating versus a fleet that just blunders through with its pants down. Likewise all of a sudden raising shields should be a tell on intent no? It would add a layer to turning on shields without adding annoying logistics/button mashing.

I suppose I did not play enough VB6 to learn the intricacies of shields. I always kept them off outside of combat and on when actively engaged. I liked this level of interaction. Perhaps if shields had a more significant fuel expense then it would become more important strategically? Just thinking out loud. However if one had a large number of ships and/or ships with large shields this could become a difficult balance objective.

I do like the concept of a diplomatic impact of raising shields. Very star-treky.

[Froggiest1982]

I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?

If that was the case you should need fuel to power also weapons, which is my point: why for the shield yes but for weapons not.

I find it obvious that the power of the reactor should come from a source depending on your tech, but I could be wrong easily.

IE a Nuclear Powered reactor it's getting energy from Uranium Bars. Different is when you have an engine that requires fuel to keep working or to generate constantly an impulse. Bear in mind, these are not physics concepts but game mechanics. The whole concept of fuel in space is unknown as fuel will depend on the engine you are building (could be dark matter, a magnetic field or a solar wind) and the gravitational forces that pull you around. KSP gives you a pretty good idea of how flight in space and fuel looks like with our current technology and Avorion simulates the inertia, vacuum of space and the energy as fuel quite well.

For obvious reasons this is not possible in games such as Aurora or Stellaris or they will become tedious and extremely hard.

Finally, in Aurora the fuel source is Sorium and it is universal, and I am more than fine with that.

[kenlon]

I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?

Well, given that they are fission/fusion/antimatter plants depending on tech level, that should be pretty obvious. I always assumed that sorium was the magic goo that made TN drives ignore the usual laws of physics, not an actual power source.

[liveware (OP)]

I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?

If that was the case you should need fuel to power also weapons, which is my point: why for the shield yes but for weapons not.

I find it obvious that the power of the reactor should come from a source depending on your tech, but I could be wrong easily.

IE a Nuclear Powered reactor it's getting energy from Uranium Bars. Different is when you have an engine that requires fuel to keep working or to generate constantly an impulse. Bear in mind, these are not physics concepts but game mechanics. The whole concept of fuel in space is unknown as fuel will depend on the engine you are building (could be dark matter, a magnetic field or a solar wind) and the gravitational forces that pull you around. KSP gives you a pretty good idea of how flight in space and fuel looks like with our current technology and Avorion simulates the inertia, vacuum of space and the energy as fuel quite well.

For obvious reasons this is not possible in games such as Aurora or Stellaris or they will become tedious and extremely hard.

Finally, in Aurora the fuel source is Sorium and it is universal, and I am more than fine with that.

This argument to a large extent summarizes my problems with Aurora's fuel/energy system. Fuel provides heat. Heat provides work via propellant. Propellant provides ship max velocity. In actuality propellant provides acceleration, not max velocity (arguably based on ship design). Two separate problems seemingly combined as one.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy Aurora and what it represents as a creative platform, but sometimes I struggle with the magic wand of TN physics. It occasionally breaks my RP flow.

[liveware (OP)]

I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?

Well, given that they are fission/fusion/antimatter plants depending on tech level, that should be pretty obvious. I always assumed that sorium was the magic goo that made TN drives ignore the usual laws of physics, not an actual power source.

Yes. Except your choice of reactors doesn't really impact your choice engines. You could theoretically run a conventional reactor with nuclear pulse engines. Might not be the best ship, but you could run this setup.

This bothers me because it breaks my understanding of Carnot efficiency laws. I am admittedly an engine nerd, though not infallible, though also I might quantify my statement by stating that I am not an amateur. By my reconning, Carnot efficiency = thermal_efficiency * T_hot / (T_hot + T_cold), where T_hot and T_cold are the maximum and minimum temperature theoretically achievable by a given heat engine. According to known physics, these laws are inviolable. So I allow for TN physics to break this rule, but it bothers my soul.

However (comma),

We are not talking strictly about heat engines. We are talking about motive power which is a somewhat different animal. In this case we wish to relate T_hot (or thermal_efficiency) to a max ship velocity rating. That is not so simple a problem and hence I am inclined to wave the TN wand to achieve this result.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Excellent, I see there is a dissent of opinion on this topic.

I disliked the fuel usage for shields for similar logistical reasons (forgetting them on, fuel use during the combat engagement negligible, etc.)
I did like that there was a reason to switch them off outside combat, and thus run the risk of being caught 'with your shields down'.

If a change is made, I would want to add a tactical decision.

An idea / suggestion. Not sure how well this would work in practice.
Shields interfere with / diver power from engines

The logistical challenge is exactly what I find appealing. It is a challenging balance which may provide a benefit or malus. I also like the concept of using reactor power output to power both shields and weapons, this seems more 'realistic'. Other games implement similar concepts.

Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it.  Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects.  From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.

I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?

There are two problems with power management that detailed: UI for the player would be fiddly, fussy, and micromanagy, and the AI would need to deal with it as well.  In an FPS where you only have to deal with managing power for one ship it can add to game-play, but when you are trying to manage fleets it becomes problematic.

I used to think so too, until some old-timers corrected me.  Early game reactors are nuclear powered but get replaced with more exotic alternatives such as anti-matter as technology progresses.  That is why beam weapons and sensor buoys require reactors but not Sorium.  Engines have built in reactors to power them, which is why they depend on reactor tech, and improvements only affect power density, not range.  Fuel efficiency and minimum/maximum power affect whatever gizmo combines that reactor output with Sorium to make it go.

Yes. Except your choice of reactors doesn't really impact your choice engines. You could theoretically run a conventional reactor with nuclear pulse engines. Might not be the best ship, but you could run this setup.

Except that the only difference between a nuclear pulse engine and any other engine type in Aurora is the built-in reactor.  Just like the difference between a nuclear powered ship and a fuel oil powered ship is in the fire-box.  The boiler, turbine, and propeller are the same.

[liveware (OP)]

I am fine with buoys requiring antimatter fuel, but reaction mass troubles me unless the source of such mass is approximately equivalent to the energy source of the buoy reactor energy source.

[liveware (OP)]

I used to think so too, until some old-timers corrected me.  Early game reactors are nuclear powered but get replaced with more exotic alternatives such as anti-matter as technology progresses.  That is why beam weapons and sensor buoys require reactors but not Sorium.  Engines have built in reactors to power them, which is why they depend on reactor tech, and improvements only affect power density, not range.  Fuel efficiency and minimum/maximum power affect whatever gizmo combines that reactor output with Sorium to make it go.

I am curious if you would be willing to elaborate on your knowledge of this topic. I might perhaps, also hail from the Shire and am interested in other perspectives.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Aside from sails and conventional rockets, reaction mass and power source generally aren't related.  Surface ships use sea water as reaction mass, independent of their power source.  Non-rocket aircraft use air as reaction mass, both for propulsion and lift.  Ion drives use inert gas that is ionized and repelled using a separate energy source.  Aurora ships are nuclear powered and use Sorium as reaction mass.

[liveware (OP)]

Except that the only difference between a nuclear pulse engine and any other engine type in Aurora is the built-in reactor.  Just like the difference between a nuclear powered ship and a fuel oil powered ship is in the fire-box.  The boiler, turbine, and propeller are the same.

Aside from sails and conventional rockets, reaction mass and power source generally aren't related.  Surface ships use sea water as reaction mass, independent of their power source.  Non-rocket aircraft use air as reaction mass, both for propulsion and lift.  Ion drives use inert gas that is ionized and repelled using a separate energy source.  Aurora ships are nuclear powered and use Sorium as reaction mass.

Yes. This is exactly what I am struggling with. Reactor power source and engine power source are intricately entwined by my way of evaluating the probelm. If one has created a reactor with a high T_hot why would one not use this T_hot in the engine design for a ship which equips the same engine and reactor? This maximizes thermal efficiency of the design. Aurora creates a distinction between these concepts which seems arbitrary to me.

 

[mergele]

I think shields in the current situatuion are perfectly fine at doing their thing and I dislike many of the suggestions here that suggest bigger impact changes.  What I could get behind would be a bit increased EM signature, readable strength through EM signature or maybe shields requiring power from power plants.  Pretty much changes that tweak the current situation a bit. 

Shields going down during jump isn't much of an issue except if you are ambushed and didn't expect that because siege breakers are already pure armor, shields disabling ASS sounds just horrible, shields slowing the ship hurts the design space, shields randomly breaking aside from the current maintenance failures would be a very very thight balance between "they never crash anyways" and "Every 20th shot they are down anyways, just use more armor".

[Jorgen_CAB]

There have been many discussions about more detailed power distribution on ships and Steve said that he did not want power to be something you need to micromanage in battle so it can't be too detailed in that regard. Using fuel to power reactor might be sound from a technical point of view but the general consensus or thought by Steve was that the amount of fuel used was too insignificant in the whole during any particular battle, that is also one of the reason why fuel usage for shields was removed too.

Whether Sorium provide the means for a ship to move or is the power source itself I think does not matter much. But in general Sorium or fuel probably is the kind of stuff that the ships engine need to move it from one spot to the next. As movement in Aurora don't use thrust it actually mean that the ship have the same actual velocity in the physical space all the time. Movement in aurora are basically manipulation of space itself through the use of the Eather dimension which is why Sorium is needed so the engine can react with it. Power is needed for that reaction to occur.

The smaller an engine is the harder it is to get the Sorium to react so you need more Sorium to get the same effect. There is also a relationship between the power used in conjunction of the engines design. So if you have a very large engine using a very low power setting you will get a much more efficient interaction between Sorium and the Eather... the reverse is also true... if you inject allot of power versus the size then the efficiency of Sorium decline.

The way the game is currently set up is that you only need to bother with reactor power for weapons as that is the most variable and interesting part of the energy distribution. Steve also want to avoid having to deal with power micromanagement during battles, that have been stated before.

Personally I'm in the camp that would like a more detailed power system, but it is what it is.