Suggestions for 3.3

[Erik L]

Think of it this way...

Here are two designs, built with 250k rp given via SM mode.

Code: [Select]

Power Output: 120     Explosion Chance: 1     Efficiency: 0.125    Thermal Signature: 120
Engine Size: 5    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 0
Cost: 60    Crew: 25
Materials Required: 15x Duranium  0x Neutronium  45x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 600RP


Code: [Select]

Power Output: 160     Explosion Chance: 5     Efficiency: 0.25    Thermal Signature: 160
Engine Size: 5    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 0
Cost: 80    Crew: 25
Materials Required: 20x Duranium  0x Neutronium  60x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 800RP
The first is using a power vs. efficiency of 50%, and as you can see, would require more engines to output the same as the "stock vanilla" engine (#2). For those wanting to live on the edge, there is this alternative too.

Code: [Select]

Power Output: 240     Explosion Chance: 35     Efficiency: 0.5    Thermal Signature: 240
Engine Size: 5    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 0
Cost: 120    Crew: 25
Materials Required: 30x Duranium  0x Neutronium  90x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 1200RP

As you can see, it has twice the power of the first "commercial" engine. It also is subject to instability in combat from damage. In all honesty, if I were to use such a design, I'd throw some internal armor on it also.
This is how I'd use the third engine.

Code: [Select]

Power Output: 240     Explosion Chance: 35     Efficiency: 0.5    Thermal Signature: 14.4
Engine Size: 10    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 6
Cost: 465    Crew: 25
Armour Type: Crystalline Composite Armour
Materials Required: 176.25x Duranium  45x Neutronium  348.75x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 4650RP

Couple designs based on the above engines.

Code: [Select]

Fletcher class Freighter    6000 tons     234 Crew     949.4 BP      TCS 120  TH 600  EM 0
5000 km/s     Armour 1-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/32/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 288%    IFR: 4%    Maintenance Capacity 99 MSP    Max Repair 100 MSP
Cargo 40000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 120    

Commercial Engine (5)    Power 120    Efficiency 0.13    Signature 120    Armour 0    Exp 1%
Fuel Capacity 130,000 Litres    Range 312.0 billion km   (722 days at full power)

Thermal Sensor TH1-32/15 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-32/15 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km

This design is classed as a freighter for maintenance purposesTop speed in 5000km/s with 5 engines.

Code: [Select]

Coontz class Cruiser    9800 tons     827 Crew     15259.9 BP      TCS 196  TH 72  EM 900
6122 km/s     Armour 1-40     Shields 30-300     Sensors 32/32/0/0     Damage Control Rating 35     PPV 54
Annual Failure Rate: 153%    IFR: 2.1%    Maintenance Capacity 4866 MSP    Max Repair 3960 MSP

Military Engine (5)    Power 240    Efficiency 0.50    Signature 14.4    Armour 6    Exp 35%
Fuel Capacity 260,000 Litres    Range 95.5 billion km   (180 days at full power)
Omicron R300/15 Shields (5)   Total Fuel Cost  75 Litres per day

Quad 12cm C4 Far X-Ray Laser Turret (1x4)    Range 320,000km     TS: 32000 km/s     Power 16-16     RM 8    ROF 5        4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
Quad Gauss Cannon R5-100 Turret (1x20)    Range 50,000km     TS: 32000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S16 300-32000 H15 (2)    Max Range: 600,000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     98 97 95 93 92 90 88 87 85 83
Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 AR-6 (1)     Total Power Output 80    Armour 6    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor S300-R40/15 (1)     GPS 12000     Range 120.0m km    Resolution 40
PD Radar (1)     GPS 900     Range 9.0m km    Resolution 1
Thermal Sensor TH1-32/15 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-32/15 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km

Compact ECCM-5 (1)         ECM 50

Top speed is 6122km/s. As you can see, the Coontz is nearly twice the size, same number of engines, and still has 1100km/s on the freighter design. Both of these designs were off-the cuff designs created while writing this post. I cannot vouch for the effectiveness of the Coontz in battle. Also note the operation length as determined by fuel. The freighter has 722 days, while the cruiser has 180 days (plus shields) on twice the fuel capacity. Of course, some of that is based on the size of the ships too.

For comparison, here is a similar tonnage ship to the freighter.

Code: [Select]

North Carolina class Cruiser    6000 tons     517 Crew     8751.6 BP      TCS 120  TH 72  EM 540
10000 km/s     Armour 4-29     Shields 18-300     Sensors 32/32/0/0     Damage Control Rating 35     PPV 12
Annual Failure Rate: 57%    IFR: 0.8%    Maintenance Capacity 4558 MSP    Max Repair 3960 MSP

Military Engine (5)    Power 240    Efficiency 0.50    Signature 14.4    Armour 6    Exp 35%
Fuel Capacity 120,000 Litres    Range 72.0 billion km   (83 days at full power)
Omicron R300/15 Shields (3)   Total Fuel Cost  45 Litres per day

40cm C10 Far X-Ray Laser (1)    Range 600,000km     TS: 10000 km/s     Power 40-10     RM 8    ROF 20        40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 35 32
Fire Control S16 300-32000 H15 (1)    Max Range: 600,000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     98 97 95 93 92 90 88 87 85 83
Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 AR-6 (1)     Total Power Output 80    Armour 6    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor S300-R40/15 (1)     GPS 12000     Range 120.0m km    Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH1-32/15 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km
EM Detection Sensor EM1-32/15 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km

Compact ECCM-5 (1)         ECM 50
Note the range envelope differences. 10,000 less litres on the North Carolina, and just over 10% of the endurance. But twice the speed.

[Bellerophon06]

These are all very valid points.  I suppose that I should start playing around with engine design a little more to get exactly what I want out of it.  I also haven't paid enough attention to the amount of maintenance points placed onboard the warships versus the freighters.  The warships have to carry a lot more spare parts to lower their intermittent failure rate to a level below that of the freighter.  More in game experience will probably help both of those.  

[Erik L]

These are all very valid points.  I suppose that I should start playing around with engine design a little more to get exactly what I want out of it.  I also haven't paid enough attention to the amount of maintenance points placed onboard the warships versus the freighters.  The warships have to carry a lot more spare parts to lower their intermittent failure rate to a level below that of the freighter.  More in game experience will probably help both of those.  

Just remember, the freighters in my example could easily mount the "military" engines and still be classed as freighters. I think the only restrictions are weapons, defenses and scanners. There is a post somewhere detailing what a freighter can have and still be a freighter.

[cjblack]

Code: [Select]

Power Output: 240     Explosion Chance: 35     Efficiency: 0.5    Thermal Signature: 240
Engine Size: 5    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 0
Cost: 120    Crew: 25
Materials Required: 30x Duranium  0x Neutronium  90x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 1200RP


Code: [Select]

Power Output: 240     Explosion Chance: 35     Efficiency: 0.5    Thermal Signature: 14.4
Engine Size: 10    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 6
Cost: 465    Crew: 25
Armour Type: Crystalline Composite Armour
Materials Required: 176.25x Duranium  45x Neutronium  348.75x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 4650RP


That's quite a Thermal Signature reduction for the armoring.

[Erik L]

Code: [Select]

Power Output: 240     Explosion Chance: 35     Efficiency: 0.5    Thermal Signature: 240
Engine Size: 5    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 0
Cost: 120    Crew: 25
Materials Required: 30x Duranium  0x Neutronium  90x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 1200RP


Code: [Select]

Power Output: 240     Explosion Chance: 35     Efficiency: 0.5    Thermal Signature: 14.4
Engine Size: 10    Engine HTK: 2     Internal Armour: 6
Cost: 465    Crew: 25
Armour Type: Crystalline Composite Armour
Materials Required: 176.25x Duranium  45x Neutronium  348.75x Gallicite

Development Cost for Project: 4650RP


That's quite a Thermal Signature reduction for the armoring.

The second one I added Thermal Reduction to, in addition to the armor. Armor alone won't do that.

I was thinking a government, or military would not want its civilians to be stealthy.

[jfelten]

Just looking at this, the armored engine is twice as powerful than the "commercial" engine but is also twice as large AND costs more than 10x as much to build.  Why wouldn't I just put twice as many "commercial" engines on my warship?  They would take the same amount of space yet generate the same total "thrust".  The armored engines are certainly tougher, but that is out balanced by them being much more expensive, much less fuel efficient, plus they still have the chance of blowing up.  Or am I missing something?  I'm not really sure how engine armor works in combat.

[Charlie Beeler]

Just looking at this, the armored engine is twice as powerful than the "commercial" engine but is also twice as large AND costs more than 10x as much to build.  Why wouldn't I just put twice as many "commercial" engines on my warship?  They would take the same amount of space yet generate the same total "thrust".  The armored engines are certainly tougher, but that is out balanced by them being much more expensive, much less fuel efficient, plus they still have the chance of blowing up.  Or am I missing something?  I'm not really sure how engine armor works in combat.

If you look at the non-armored power 240 engine you'll see that it is the same size as the "commercial" power 120 engine.  Armor takes mass/hull space.  While you can equal the up-powered/armored engine your also segnificantly more vulnerable to combat damage disabling you.  It's a matter of choice.

[jfelten]

Just looking at this, the armored engine is twice as powerful than the "commercial" engine but is also twice as large AND costs more than 10x as much to build.  Why wouldn't I just put twice as many "commercial" engines on my warship?  They would take the same amount of space yet generate the same total "thrust".  The armored engines are certainly tougher, but that is out balanced by them being much more expensive, much less fuel efficient, plus they still have the chance of blowing up.  Or am I missing something?  I'm not really sure how engine armor works in combat.

If you look at the non-armored power 240 engine you'll see that it is the same size as the "commercial" power 120 engine.  Armor takes mass/hull space.  While you can equal the up-powered/armored engine your also segnificantly more vulnerable to combat damage disabling you.  It's a matter of choice.

I understand that but some amount of armor is necessary IMO if you crank up the explosion chance.  I wouldn't really consider a regular engine "commercial" if the "military" version had a 35 times greater chance of exploding when it takes damage.  Military systems should be better suited to taking damage than commercial systems, not worse.  If anything it should be the other way around with the commercial engine not being as robust with regard to damage.  There would be some good military potential uses for fragile/dangerous engines "running hot" but not on mainline warships.  At least not for most empires.  It might be an interesting option for some races to go for maximum speed regardless of risk.  I could also see them used on fighters, but not the carriers.

[Erik L]

The explosion chance only comes into effect if the engine takes damage, not during regular operations. With the 6 points of armor, you'll need to do at least 7 points of damage for a 35% chance to cause an explosion.

[jfelten]

The explosion chance only comes into effect if the engine takes damage, not during regular operations. With the 6 points of armor, you'll need to do at least 7 points of damage for a 35% chance to cause an explosion.

Exactly.  A warship is much more likely to take damage than a freighter.

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve, with the additional automation, what you going to do with trade routes? Will the trade ships become legitimate contacts and targets?

I think trade ships can already be detected and destroyed.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

I'm not sure that a knew line of tech for a commercial engine is the right answer.  They would still have the ability to run faster than a warship as long as there are not restrictions in the number of engines used.  Maybe the right answer is an additional tech in the mode of some sort of booster.  I guess it would work the same as afterburners for today's fighters.  They would provide a short term boost of speed to quickly close the range with an enemy, but at the same time increase the possibility of engine damage exponentially with regard to time in service and the consumption of fuel goes up by a factor of maybe four or more.  I'm not exactly sure where this would correlate in SF, but I think the closest was detuning engines.  Maybe the engine booster tech line would allow for longer periods of use before catastrophic effects took place as well as slightly smaller percentage (1-2%) of fuel consumption with each tech level.  As with everything, a smaller version could be created for gunboats and fighters.  

This is something I have been considering. Either a seperate booster or more likely some type of boost mode for engines that would substantially increase fuel consumption and add a failure chance to an engine. The only thing that had stopped me so far is that there are a lot of places in the code where speed is checked and I would have to go through all of them to ensure they took 'boost mode' into consideration. If I did add a boost mode it would be a seperate tech line and would be part of the engine design, making the engine more expensive but probably not any larger.

Steve

[Charlie Beeler]

I'm not sure that a knew line of tech for a commercial engine is the right answer.  They would still have the ability to run faster than a warship as long as there are not restrictions in the number of engines used.  Maybe the right answer is an additional tech in the mode of some sort of booster.  I guess it would work the same as afterburners for today's fighters.  They would provide a short term boost of speed to quickly close the range with an enemy, but at the same time increase the possibility of engine damage exponentially with regard to time in service and the consumption of fuel goes up by a factor of maybe four or more.  I'm not exactly sure where this would correlate in SF, but I think the closest was detuning engines.  Maybe the engine booster tech line would allow for longer periods of use before catastrophic effects took place as well as slightly smaller percentage (1-2%) of fuel consumption with each tech level.  As with everything, a smaller version could be created for gunboats and fighters.  

This is something I have been considering. Either a seperate booster or more likely some type of boost mode for engines that would substantially increase fuel consumption and add a failure chance to an engine. The only thing that had stopped me so far is that there are a lot of places in the code where speed is checked and I would have to go through all of them to ensure they took 'boost mode' into consideration. If I did add a boost mode it would be a seperate tech line and would be part of the engine design, making the engine more expensive but probably not any larger.

Steve

Thre is already the power boost tech.  Perhaps a change in the way it is used.  Something like a standard mode for base output and a military mode for boosted output?

[Steve Walmsley]

I'm not sure that a knew line of tech for a commercial engine is the right answer.  They would still have the ability to run faster than a warship as long as there are not restrictions in the number of engines used.  Maybe the right answer is an additional tech in the mode of some sort of booster.  I guess it would work the same as afterburners for today's fighters.  They would provide a short term boost of speed to quickly close the range with an enemy, but at the same time increase the possibility of engine damage exponentially with regard to time in service and the consumption of fuel goes up by a factor of maybe four or more.  I'm not exactly sure where this would correlate in SF, but I think the closest was detuning engines.  Maybe the engine booster tech line would allow for longer periods of use before catastrophic effects took place as well as slightly smaller percentage (1-2%) of fuel consumption with each tech level.  As with everything, a smaller version could be created for gunboats and fighters.  

This is something I have been considering. Either a seperate booster or more likely some type of boost mode for engines that would substantially increase fuel consumption and add a failure chance to an engine. The only thing that had stopped me so far is that there are a lot of places in the code where speed is checked and I would have to go through all of them to ensure they took 'boost mode' into consideration. If I did add a boost mode it would be a seperate tech line and would be part of the engine design, making the engine more expensive but probably not any larger.

Thre is already the power boost tech.  Perhaps a change in the way it is used.  Something like a standard mode for base output and a military mode for boosted output?

Yes, that a good idea. Modifying the use of the existing tech would be more sensible than a seperate new tech.

Steve

[backstab]

Any Chance of Orbital colonies and marine boarding parties ?