Change Log for 6.00 discussion

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The reason is the RP cost of designing custom engines for every missile. 

I do get the impression that the fuel cost impact will be high enough to justify that RP cost for every viable missile design though.

[sloanjh (OP)]

Actually, the multiple smaller engines have a significantly higher fuel consumption rate not lower for the same propulsion output.  What I'm after is a benefit to using multiple engines where a larger single produces the same power for the same use of hull spaces.

If what you're saying is "I want 10x size-1 engines of a given power boost level to have the same fuel consumption rate as 1x size-10 engine" (i.e the old behavior where fuel consumption was proportional to power output and independent of engine size), then I think this is an intentional trade-off that Steve is putting in the game.  With the new mechanics, you have a choice between creating a 1-off engine design (spending RP and introducing a single-point-of-failure) for each total power output level you want or using multiple instances of a standard design (which will suck more fuel).

If this is not what you're saying then I'm confused as to what it is that you are asking for

John

[Charlie Beeler]

If what you're saying is "I want 10x size-1 engines of a given power boost level to have the same fuel consumption rate as 1x size-10 engine" (i.e the old behavior where fuel consumption was proportional to power output and independent of engine size), then I think this is an intentional trade-off that Steve is putting in the game.  With the new mechanics, you have a choice between creating a 1-off engine design (spending RP and introducing a single-point-of-failure) for each total power output level you want or using multiple instances of a standard design (which will suck more fuel).

If this is not what you're saying then I'm confused as to what it is that you are asking for

John

Not a change to the fuel consumption, a boost to the propulsion power for multi engine installations.  Maybe something along the lines of 5% boost per additional engine.  That would be a possible benefit for using the multiple smaller engines that have a segnificantly increased fuel rate.

[xeryon]

One benefit of the multiple smaller engines on a warship is redundancy.  With one big engine and a lucky hit you would be completely dead in the water.  Similar issue with maintenance.  One big engine requires a huge amount of supplies be on board to keep the engine running.  If you have 10 small engines with the same power your maximum maintenance supply requirement would be way less.

[Charlie Beeler]

I haven't been real clear on the engine suggestion, mainly because I really hadn't worked it through on my own before posting. 

This is for missiles only.  As things stand(v6.0) size 1 missile with 1 .7msp engine or one with 7 .1msp engines are the same speed and cost but the one with the 7 engines has roughly 26% the range of single engine missile with no other difference. 

What I'm proposing is to add a new techline for missile bodies.  Call it whatever, advanced missile bus maybe, but as each tech level is reached a new speed bonus is added per engine.  Start with 1% per engine above the first. 

Example using Steve's Dagger AMM since the stat's are handy:
Currently the tech is Ion engines for a base of .6 per msp, fuel consumption rate .6(x5 for missiles), max power modifier of 350%/fuel multiplier 22.92(or 2292%)  Engine size is .7 for a fuel multiplier of 3.83 and a fuel use per hour of 387.08 and speed 29,400kps.  Added agility of .09msp for 2.88 which rounds the maneuver rating to 13 (10+ added agility) and .01msp to fuel for 25 liters giving a range of around 6.8m km. (numbers from my missile design sheet and differ from what the program calc’s slightly) 

If we only replace the single .7msp engine with 7 .1 msp engines we get exactly the same speed but only have a range of a little over 1.8m km, fuel use per hour of 208.88, for no gain. 

Now if we have a missile that can harmonize/tune/whatever those same 7 engines for a better speed for the same fuel cost the numbers could look like this:

Boost           speed       vs 1,000      3,000      5,000     10,000
1% bonus – 31,164kps       405.1%    135%       81%       40.5%
2% bonus – 32,928kps       428.1%    142.7%    85.6%     42.8%
3% bonus – 34,692kps       451%       150.3%    90.2%     45.1%
etc etc etc

To keep this restricted to missiles could be explained in any number of ways.  Or Steve could add this bonus to ship design as well, though that was not my intention.

Steve,  one last thing…please take a look the calc that is used for the missile design screen for the 3k km/s to hit %,  I’m getting  127.4% and your screenshot is showing 117%.  For the other 3 ranges I’m getting exactly the same values as the screenshot for the Dagger AMM.

Something to think about.

Charlie

[symon]

I was told that IRL, there were two reasons for multiple engines which _might_ apply.

1. Redundancy. Effective protection from maintenance issues, but when it comes to taking damage, many times, you'll lose them all.

2, You just cannot build one big one or smaller ones are more convenient for maintenance/access.

[Steve Walmsley]

I think this is an intentional trade-off that Steve is putting in the game.  With the new mechanics, you have a choice between creating a 1-off engine design (spending RP and introducing a single-point-of-failure) for each total power output level you want or using multiple instances of a standard design (which will suck more fuel).

Yes, that was my intention.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

If we only replace the single .7msp engine with 7 .1 msp engines we get exactly the same speed but only have a range of a little over 1.8m km, fuel use per hour of 208.88, for no gain. 

What I was aiming for with the different fuel consumption rates for different engine sizes was to avoid someone simply designing a cheap 0.1 MSP engine and using whatever number they need in every design without penalty. Players need to decide whether to go for a small cheap (in RP terms) engine that could be used on all missiles without any prior design considerations, or spend the time and money to design more effective engines for each missile. This should add more variety to missile design.

Steve

[Charlie Beeler]

Understood.

Can we at least get 4 decimal point missile engine sizes back?  It makes design fine adjustments between the various components easier if all component sizes go the the same decimal precision.

[bean]

One thing that might be very helpful in 6.0 with the increase in fuel usage is cruising speeds.  This would make the power required for a given speed be something other than linear.  This is the way real ships work.  Above a certain point, power requirements go way up.  This has the advantage of giving the ships longer range at low speeds.  I haven't really worked this out, and I don't want to see it in 6.0.  Maybe 6.1. 

[sloanjh (OP)]

Understood.

Can we at least get 4 decimal point missile engine sizes back?  It makes design fine adjustments between the various components easier if all component sizes go the the same decimal precision.

Seconded.  Down with artificial discretization!!  Up with fine-grain control!!

John

[Hazard]

Given the general size of Commercial class vessels, especially the government owned cargovessels, researching a single humongous Civilian engine per tech level and just use that single thing for every freighter, colony, construction and troop ship you've got works, even if it's a 5000 ton monstrosity. Okay, hullsize 100 is rather expensive in research, but if you can handle it, the extra efficiency should allow you to get away with otherwise laughably small fuel cells. This is especially handy given that Shipping Lines are nowadays handling their own research and development of ship classes, so no need to worry about keeping ships small enough that they can keep buying.

For Military ships, the redundancy a smaller engine allows is however still rather needed, especially given how often they are going to be shot at. Large engines IIRC are more resilient to damage, but they would also go up in much more spectacular explosions when they blow, while a smaller engine is easier to destroy once you get past the armour belt, but the (chain) explosion would be a lot easier to keep confined.

[Charlie Beeler]

Given the general size of Commercial class vessels, especially the government owned cargovessels, researching a single humongous Civilian engine per tech level and just use that single thing for every freighter, colony, construction and troop ship you've got works, even if it's a 5000 ton monstrosity. Okay, hullsize 100 is rather expensive in research, but if you can handle it, the extra efficiency should allow you to get away with otherwise laughably small fuel cells. This is especially handy given that Shipping Lines are nowadays handling their own research and development of ship classes, so no need to worry about keeping ships small enough that they can keep buying.

For Military ships, the redundancy a smaller engine allows is however still rather needed, especially given how often they are going to be shot at. Large engines IIRC are more resilient to damage, but they would also go up in much more spectacular explosions when they blow, while a smaller engine is easier to destroy once you get past the armour belt, but the (chain) explosion would be a lot easier to keep confined.

Just a point of order.  Per Steve's posts related to the new Engine Design specification,  the largest engine that can be designed and built is 50hs not 100hs.  That's still twice the size of current civilian engines.

[Charlie Beeler]

Steve another query,  what are the cost modifiers for thermal reduction and hyper drives?

[Bremen]

Just a point of order.  Per Steve's posts related to the new Engine Design specification,  the largest engine that can be designed and built is 50hs not 100hs.  That's still twice the size of current civilian engines.

At least given my playstyle, I'll probably be using 2500 ton engines on everything except parasite craft and possibly my smallest escort/scout craft; I usually go for about 1/3rd engine by weight, and that means 7500 tons (a destroyer by my standards) for a single engine craft or 15000 tons (heavy cruiser) for double engines. It does mean that losing an engine is a massive blow, but I think it's worth it for the 50% fuel reduction. It'll be interesting to see how much a 2500 ton engine costs to research, though. It also means that I might end up classifying ships by number of engines (IE 1 engine is a destroyer, 2 engines is a cruiser, 3 engines is a heavy cruiser, etc). Which actually sounds kind of fun.