Author Topic: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship  (Read 6162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xenoscepter (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« on: March 06, 2022, 02:00:59 AM »
 --- As the name implies, this survey ship is awful. It's very speedy for Ion Tech though, being 80% engine... the extra 1,000 litres of fuel gives it 24 hours of wiggle room. Good overall fuel economy too, she'll do basically the entire solar system.

Code: [Select]
Galileo Class Survey Ship (P)      7,500 tons       123 Crew       564.9 BP       TCS 150    TH 750    EM 0
5000 km/s      Armour 1-34       Shields 0-0       HTK 32      Sensors 0/0/1/1      DCR 7      PPV 0
Maint Life 3.29 Years     MSP 358    AFR 60%    IFR 0.8%    1YR 50    5YR 748    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 4.8 months    Morale Check Required   

Baca Marine T3000-100T Ion Drive, Class 375/050C (2)    Power 750.0    Fuel Use 5.77%    Signature 375.00    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 151,000 Litres    Range 62.8 billion km (145 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Survey Ship for auto-assignment purposes
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2022, 11:44:52 AM »
I always use commercial drives on my survey ships. They're intended to be deployed for extreme duration anyway, and so commercial makes fuel consumption extremely small. Yes, they're slow, but they can run for *years*. Also, these are jump drive equipped.

Code: [Select]
SC Karen Jean Meech class Survey Craft      9,000 tons       116 Crew       584.3 BP       TCS 180    TH 500    EM 0
2777 km/s    JR 1-25(C)      Armour 1-38       Shields 0-0       HTK 35      Sensors 6/0/1/1      DCR 6      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.08 Years     MSP 743    AFR 108%    IFR 1.5%    1YR 71    5YR 1,069    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   SCI   
Intended Deployment Time: 42 months    Morale Check Required   

JC9K Commercial Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9000 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 1

Commercial Ion Drive  EP500.00 (1)    Power 500    Fuel Use 1.92%    Signature 500    Explosion 4%
Fuel Capacity 304,000 Litres    Range 316.6 billion km (1319 days at full power)

Thermal Sensor TH1.0-6.0 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline misanthropope

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • m
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2022, 12:11:18 PM »
well, what do you consider an excellent design, XS?  the second engine is a lot of expense for little-to-no gain, but IMO that one change is ~75% of fully optimizing the design.
 

Offline ArcWolf

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 160
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2022, 05:51:51 PM »
I usually use an engine with 55% efficiency so i can use a smaller military JD to try and compact my design as much as possible
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2022, 08:06:37 PM »
I usually use an engine with 55% efficiency so i can use a smaller military JD to try and compact my design as much as possible

The advantage of the commercial jump drives is that they are dirt cheap. Usually for a survey ship the cost will be 10 BP which is the absolute minimum for a jump drive, usually this is very much worth the extra tonnage from the only 75% efficiency of the commercial jump drive.
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline Migi

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 465
  • Thanked: 172 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2022, 10:45:57 PM »
I like the "cram it full of engines to make it fast" take, but I doubt I'd use it myself.
I'd prefer to start with a more future proof design with lower engine tech.
Ion tech is 16k RP (reactor + engine). Jump point theory, Grav sensors, and the initial trio of jump drive techs costs 12k.
Unless I'm doing a Conventional start in which case I start with nothing.

I usually use an engine with 55% efficiency so i can use a smaller military JD to try and compact my design as much as possible

The advantage of the commercial jump drives is that they are dirt cheap. Usually for a survey ship the cost will be 10 BP which is the absolute minimum for a jump drive, usually this is very much worth the extra tonnage from the only 75% efficiency of the commercial jump drive.

The jump drive efficiency sets a hard limit on how much of your ship can be dedicated to engine, and commercial jump drives are less efficient. The way I see it, low engine power modifier compounds with low efficiency jump drive to make very low speed.
 

Offline ArcWolf

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 160
  • Thanked: 80 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2022, 12:31:25 AM »
I usually use an engine with 55% efficiency so i can use a smaller military JD to try and compact my design as much as possible

The advantage of the commercial jump drives is that they are dirt cheap. Usually for a survey ship the cost will be 10 BP which is the absolute minimum for a jump drive, usually this is very much worth the extra tonnage from the only 75% efficiency of the commercial jump drive.

the way i see it, if my economy is in such dire straits that i need to worry amount the cost difference between a C-JD to support an 12-14k Commercial Exploration ship Vs a M-DJ to support a Sub-10k Military Exploration ship, i've got bigger problems, and would probably just start a new campaign.
 

Offline Platys51

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 69
  • Thanked: 40 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2022, 09:46:29 AM »
I personally like to play around with my survey ships.
Heres day 1 ship from my last longer game:

Quote
Seeker class Geological Survey Vessel      2 000 tons       47 Crew       243.7 BP       TCS 40    TH 41    EM 0
1020 km/s    JR 1-50      Armour 1-14       Shields 0-0       HTK 14      Sensors 0/0/0/1      DCR 1      PPV 1.99
Maint Life 8.11 Years     MSP 201    AFR 32%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 5    5YR 82    Max Repair 100 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 50 tons     Magazine 33   
Trierarch    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months    Flight Crew Berths 1    Morale Check Required   

J2000(1-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 2000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1

Nuclear Pulse Engine  EP40.80 (1)    Power 40.8    Fuel Use 21.17%    Signature 40.8    Explosion 6%
Fuel Capacity 254 000 Litres    Range 108 billion km (1225 days at full power)

Asteroid Defense System (1x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 2000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R32-TS2000 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 32 000 km   TS: 2 000 km/s     34 19 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Size 3.0 Missile Launcher (30.0% Reduction) (1)     Missile Size: 3    Rate of Fire 5200
Remote Control Probe (AT) (7)    Speed: 2 133 km/s    End: 109d     Range: 20 091.4m km    WH: 0    Size: 3    TH: 7/4/2
Security Buoy (4)    Speed: 0 km/s    End: 0m     Range: 0m km    WH: 0    Size: 3    TH: 0/0/0

Active Search Sensor AS7-R100 (1)     GPS 120     Range 7m km    Resolution 100
Thermal Sensor TH0.1-0.5 (1)     Sensitivity 0.5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  5.6m km
EM Sensor EM0.1-0.6 (1)     Sensitivity 0.6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  6.1m km
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

Strike Group
1x Explorer Scout Fighter   Speed: 2019 km/s    Size: 0.99

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a Survey Ship for auto-assignment purposes
 

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 764
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2022, 10:49:50 AM »
I always use commercial drives on my survey ships. They're intended to be deployed for extreme duration anyway, and so commercial makes fuel consumption extremely small. Yes, they're slow, but they can run for *years*.

Because any ship with a survey sensor is a military ship, you must pay for ship maintenance.
The average annual MSP cost for overhauling a ship that is always either deployed or in overhaul is 20% of the ship's BP (four years at 0 MSP/YR plus 1 year at MSP/YR = BP).
Therefore using large commercial drives ends up costing more in the long run than cheaper, smaller military drives that achieve the same ship speed.
Of course, a large commercial drive uses a LOT less fuel than the smaller military drive that achieves the same ship speed.
But I find that my survey fleet is rather a small fraction of my total fuel usage (at least, after I've colonized a few systems).


I usually use an engine with 55% efficiency so i can use a smaller military JD to try and compact my design as much as possible

You could just make your engine smaller. Anything under 25HS is a military engine.
Use multiples if you like, but this way you can keep your power rating down to conserve fuel, and still enjoy the benefit of the compact military JD.

In fact, I go really small for surveyors.
At Improved Nuclear Thermal tech, I make 500t surveyors.
Each has a 110t engine @65% power.
They travel 916km/s.
Slow, sure, but they spend more time surveying than moving. (I play with Survey Speed at 10%.)

For transiting between systems, I research a 1kt mil JD and slap it on a tiny station (298t, with a 5-ton active sensor and 12.5t of eng spaces included).

I drag the stations into place with a 1kt tug that uses two of the same 110t@65% engines. (I could research a separate (more optimal) engine for this ship if I really wanted to).
It travels 915km/s (705 while tugging the jump station).
Slow, but who cares? The surveyors don't need the gate in place until they are done in the current system anyway.
It can tug a jump station 13.36Bkm and still have enough fuel for the return trip.
Since I can build the jump station with fighter factories (3 ffacts can make one jump station in just over 6 months), my tugs usually don't have to travel very far between trips. (I tend to have forward operating colonies one system behind the survey fleet.)

And since a mil JD is a commercial component, those jump stations don't need any maintenance.
Drop 'em off and forget about 'em.
The tug needs maintenance, but it has plenty of time for overhauling between runs.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2022, 11:06:49 AM »
Because any ship with a survey sensor is a military ship, you must pay for ship maintenance.
The average annual MSP cost for overhauling a ship that is always either deployed or in overhaul is 20% of the ship's BP (four years at 0 MSP/YR plus 1 year at MSP/YR = BP).
Therefore using large commercial drives ends up costing more in the long run than cheaper, smaller military drives that achieve the same ship speed.

Commercial jump drives cost 10% the cost of a military jump drive of the same size, which since commercial jump drives are only 75% as efficient means the cost will be some 15-20% once you account for the increased ship size. Even if, for the sake of argument, your commercial ship is about double the size (comparing 50% boost commercial engines to 100% boost military engines), the jump drive of the commercial-engine ship is still only ~50-70% the cost of the military jump drive (accounting for Size^1.8 cost scaling). Probably once you account for extra armor size the cost will be pretty close to equal or modestly in favor of the commercial-engine ship, which also saves on fuel. If we compare a 55% boost military-engine ship instead, then the commercial-engine ship will be even cheaper by comparison since the size difference is less.

Quote
In fact, I go really small for surveyors.
At Improved Nuclear Thermal tech, I make 500t surveyors.
Each has a 110t engine @65% power.
They travel 916km/s.
Slow, sure, but they spend more time surveying than moving. (I play with Survey Speed at 10%.)

Even with survey speed at default, speed isn't a terribly important factor for gravsurveys, it actually matters more for geosurveys since asteroids and comets have such small requirements to survey. In practice, I also find that my survey fleets tend to outpace my colonization ability pretty easily, so I'm not terribly worried about finishing surveys quickly, rather cheaply and with minimal micro-management.

For me, this means I always use a size-25 engine for surveyors, and don't worry about trying to match some equivalent speed from a military engine ship after that.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 11:19:46 AM by nuclearslurpee »
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2022, 11:15:54 AM »
Because any ship with a survey sensor is a military ship, you must pay for ship maintenance.
The average annual MSP cost for overhauling a ship that is always either deployed or in overhaul is 20% of the ship's BP (four years at 0 MSP/YR plus 1 year at MSP/YR = BP).
Therefore using large commercial drives ends up costing more in the long run than cheaper, smaller military drives that achieve the same ship speed.
Of course, a large commercial drive uses a LOT less fuel than the smaller military drive that achieves the same ship speed.
But I find that my survey fleet is rather a small fraction of my total fuel usage (at least, after I've colonized a few systems).
This doesn't work out the way you are thinking. As a test, I prototyped a couple military ion engines with the similar power as my commercial.

Military drive (40 HS 100% power -- No jump drive):
Code: [Select]
Agamemnon class Survey Craft (P)      8,823 tons       125 Crew       770 BP       TCS 176    TH 500    EM 0
2833 km/s      Armour 1-38       Shields 0-0       HTK 29      Sensors 0/0/1/1      DCR 10      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.19 Years     MSP 545    AFR 62%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 50    5YR 745    Max Repair 250.00 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   SCI   
Intended Deployment Time: 42 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP500.00 (1)    Power 500.0    Fuel Use 30.00%    Signature 500.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 5,000,000 Litres    Range 340 billion km (1388 days at full power)

Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

Military drive (73 HS 55% power -- shorter range -- could be *at best* equal BP and range if engine size is reduced to match similar speed):
Code: [Select]
Agamemnon class Survey Craft (P)      7,178 tons       163 Crew       721.5 BP       TCS 144    TH 502    EM 0
3496 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 1-33       Shields 0-0       HTK 37      Sensors 0/0/1/1      DCR 8      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.07 Years     MSP 502    AFR 52%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 48    5YR 727    Max Repair 138.0170 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   SCI   
Intended Deployment Time: 42 months    Morale Check Required   

J7200(3-50) Military Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 7200 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Ion Drive  EP501.88 (1)    Power 501.9    Fuel Use 4.98%    Signature 501.88    Explosion 5%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres    Range 251.7 billion km (833 days at full power)

Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

Commercial drive (100 HS 40% power):
Code: [Select]
SC Karen Jean Meech class Survey Craft      9,000 tons       116 Crew       584.3 BP       TCS 180    TH 500    EM 0
2777 km/s    JR 1-25(C)      Armour 1-38       Shields 0-0       HTK 35      Sensors 6/0/1/1      DCR 6      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.08 Years     MSP 743    AFR 108%    IFR 1.5%    1YR 71    5YR 1,069    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   SCI   
Intended Deployment Time: 42 months    Morale Check Required   

JC9K Commercial Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 9000 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 1

Commercial Ion Drive  EP500.00 (1)    Power 500    Fuel Use 1.92%    Signature 500    Explosion 4%
Fuel Capacity 304,000 Litres    Range 316.6 billion km (1319 days at full power)

Thermal Sensor TH1.0-6.0 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

As you can see, the commercial drive based ship is a smaller quantity of BP for each of the potential engines. Commercial drives are simply cheaper over all.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 11:54:10 AM by Aloriel »
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 764
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2022, 01:28:33 PM »
Because any ship with a survey sensor is a military ship, you must pay for ship maintenance.
The average annual MSP cost for overhauling a ship that is always either deployed or in overhaul is 20% of the ship's BP (four years at 0 MSP/YR plus 1 year at MSP/YR = BP).
Therefore using large commercial drives ends up costing more in the long run than cheaper, smaller military drives that achieve the same ship speed.
Of course, a large commercial drive uses a LOT less fuel than the smaller military drive that achieves the same ship speed.
But I find that my survey fleet is rather a small fraction of my total fuel usage (at least, after I've colonized a few systems).
This doesn't work out the way you are thinking. As a test, I prototyped a couple military ion engines with the similar power as my commercial.

...

As you can see, the commercial drive based ship is a smaller quantity of BP for each of the potential engines. Commercial drives are simply cheaper over all.

There are a few reasons for the difference between our observations.

First, your starting ship (with the large commercial drive) has an engine mass fraction of 61%.
By comparison, mine has an engine mass fraction of 75%.
(Your is a very deluxe design compared to mine. Dual sensors, 42 month deployment (vs 24), and of course the on-board jump drive.)
Because my ship is significantly more engine by mass, I can reduce the engine size far more significantly for any given power increase.
If I double my engine power rating, I can reduce my engine mass by ~77%, add fuel to keep the same range, and end up with the same ship speed.
In other words, it's easier to save money by cutting engine size on my starting ship than it is on yours.

Second, you increase engine power from 40% to 100%, whereas I go from 40% to 80%.
That difference in engine power has two consequences that are working against you:
1) The loss in fuel efficiency for you is so bad that you have to add an incredible amount of mass in fuel, which means you need a much bigger engine to keep the same speed.
It seems like your ship with the 100% engines is more than half fuel by mass.
(In fact: to minimize the total size of engine plus fuel while keeping speed, range, and ship size constant, use an engine:fuel mass ratio of 3:1.)
2) The marginal cost of engine power increases as power increases. The cost increase from 80% to 100% is 4/5 of the cost increase from 40% to 80%. So you are paying 80% more to get 25% more power.

Another minor thing: You aren't keeping your eng spaces per kt constant.
Your commercial engine ship has an AFR%/kt of 12.
The value for your first military ship is ~7.03.
Your second military ship is 7.24.
So you are paying more per kt for eng spaces on the mil ships.

One final, minor thing: I managed to reduce my surveyor size below 1kt, which meant I also got to take off the bridge, saving me another 50kt and 20BP.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 02:06:53 PM by skoormit »
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2022, 04:19:09 PM »
There are a few reasons for the difference between our observations.

First, your starting ship (with the large commercial drive) has an engine mass fraction of 61%.
By comparison, mine has an engine mass fraction of 75%.
(Your is a very deluxe design compared to mine. Dual sensors, 42 month deployment (vs 24), and of course the on-board jump drive.)
Because my ship is significantly more engine by mass, I can reduce the engine size far more significantly for any given power increase.
If I double my engine power rating, I can reduce my engine mass by ~77%, add fuel to keep the same range, and end up with the same ship speed.
In other words, it's easier to save money by cutting engine size on my starting ship than it is on yours.

Second, you increase engine power from 40% to 100%, whereas I go from 40% to 80%.
That difference in engine power has two consequences that are working against you:
1) The loss in fuel efficiency for you is so bad that you have to add an incredible amount of mass in fuel, which means you need a much bigger engine to keep the same speed.
It seems like your ship with the 100% engines is more than half fuel by mass.
(In fact: to minimize the total size of engine plus fuel while keeping speed, range, and ship size constant, use an engine:fuel mass ratio of 3:1.)
2) The marginal cost of engine power increases as power increases. The cost increase from 80% to 100% is 4/5 of the cost increase from 40% to 80%. So you are paying 80% more to get 25% more power.

Another minor thing: You aren't keeping your eng spaces per kt constant.
Your commercial engine ship has an AFR%/kt of 12.
The value for your first military ship is ~7.03.
Your second military ship is 7.24.
So you are paying more per kt for eng spaces on the mil ships.

One final, minor thing: I managed to reduce my surveyor size below 1kt, which meant I also got to take off the bridge, saving me another 50kt and 20BP.

Interesting points. The AFR is not the stat I was paying attention to. Estimated maintenance life is. If the ship can't make 4 years, then its 42 month deployment isn't going to happen. That being said, I think I see where you are coming from. I made this weird ship...

Code: [Select]
Africa class Survey Craft (P)      996 tons       20 Crew       140.9 BP       TCS 20    TH 50    EM 0
2511 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 7      Sensors 0/0/0/1      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 4.60 Years     MSP 53    AFR 13%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 4    5YR 61    Max Repair 100 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50.0    Fuel Use 6.07%    Signature 50.00    Explosion 4%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 297.8 billion km (1372 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
BTW, that's a 40% power 10 HS engine, which is about 50% of the size of the ship.

It's a little slower, slightly shorter range, and only has half the deployment time.  However, I see one major flaw in the design. It has 53 MSP, but a max repair of 100. If that 100 component goes out, it has to RTB to fix it. Still, it only has a 13% chance of failure on a given year, and only a 2 year deployment. That 100 MSP component is the main sensor. Everything else it could repair no less than 5 times.

This ship uses a lot more fuel than mine, by far! But I do see the size benefit of such a tiny ship. That said, there is the issue that I usually end up in a fuel crunch in my first war.

It occurs to me that you have said a lot about what you don't like about other people's designs, but you have not posted one yourself. Perhaps you should post your tiny survey craft?



« Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 04:26:36 PM by Aloriel »
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5
 

Offline skoormit

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 764
  • Thanked: 310 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2022, 04:40:29 PM »
...

It occurs to me that you have said a lot about what you don't like about other people's designs, but you have not posted one yourself. Perhaps you should post your tiny survey craft?

I'm not pointing out what I don't like in other designs. I'm discussing some of the interesting design tradeoffs that players often overlook.

Here's a surveyor in my current game:

Code: [Select]
QuarkMiniD class Gravsurvey Ship      500 tons       13 Crew       125.8 BP       TCS 10    TH 9    EM 0
916 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/1/0      DCR 0      PPV 0
Maint Life 8.16 Years     MSP 104    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 3    5YR 42    Max Repair 100 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

M-INT 110t@65%  EP9.15 0.73LEPH (1)    Power 9.2    Fuel Use 72.62%    Signature 9.15    Explosion 6%
Fuel Capacity 40,000 Litres    Range 19.9 billion km (250 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 1     Range 1.3m km    MCR 113.5k km    Resolution 1
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a Survey Ship for auto-assignment purposes

Engine tech is Internal Nuclear Thermal.
Same design with Ion engines would be just under twice the speed.
With lighter armor it gets either faster (because lighter ship) or has more range (because more room for fuel tanks).

By size, this design is 22% engine and 8% fuel.
Very close to the optimal 3:1 ratio, even though I wasn't paying attention to that ratio during the design process.

The relatively short range is not a problem for my empire. I park cheap tankers at JPs. Fleets use those to refuel when needed.
 

Offline Aloriel

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 90 times
Re: A terrible, awful, not very good Survey Ship
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2022, 04:45:58 PM »
Sorry, that came out more snarky than I intended. I appreciate the dialog.

I worked out the maintenance supply issue, but the range is far too short for my taste. This is about half the range of my commercial drive ship:
Code: [Select]
Africa class Survey Craft (P)      1,000 tons       25 Crew       149.7 BP       TCS 20    TH 50    EM 0
2500 km/s      Armour 1-8       Shields 0-0       HTK 6      Sensors 0/0/0/1      DCR 1      PPV 0
Maint Life 11.33 Years     MSP 121    AFR 6%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 26    Max Repair 100 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50.0    Fuel Use 6.07%    Signature 50.00    Explosion 4%
Fuel Capacity 54,000 Litres    Range 160.1 billion km (741 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
As it stands, my Meech class survey craft weren't even long enough range to survey one system. I could only hit about 4% of the system until I designed a ship with literally trillions of km in range. With your tanker scenario, I would have to have one of these followed by a tanker to reach a lot of planets.

EDIT:
I realized I should post that insane range ship:
Code: [Select]
SC Virginia Trimble class Survey Craft      8,330 tons       158 Crew       758.3 BP       TCS 167    TH 250    EM 0
1500 km/s      Armour 1-36       Shields 0-0       HTK 59      Sensors 6/0/1/1      DCR 20      PPV 0
Maint Life 21.46 Years     MSP 1,637    AFR 28%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 7    5YR 102    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 2   BRG   SCI   
Intended Deployment Time: 240 months    Morale Check Required   

Commercial Ion Drive  EP250.00 (1)    Power 250    Fuel Use 0.34%    Signature 250    Explosion 2%
Fuel Capacity 366,000 Litres    Range 2,329.2 billion km (17972 days at full power)

Thermal Sensor TH1.0-6.0 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
Geological Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
Gravitational Survey Sensors (1)   1 Survey Points Per Hour
100 HS, 20% engine power, no jump drive. It's almost the same size and fuel capacity as my Meech class, but 4+ times the range. Because it is so slow, I made it last 20 years, so that it can *finish* that annoying system...
« Last Edit: March 07, 2022, 04:50:15 PM by Aloriel »
Sarah
Game Developer in Unity and UE4 and 5