Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition

[Borealis4x]

Is it a bug or a feature that adding engineering spaces actually decreases build time for ships?

[nuclearslurpee]

Is it a bug or a feature that adding engineering spaces actually decreases build time for ships?

It shouldn't in a vacuum. Can you paste some examples?

[Borealis4x]

Is it a bug or a feature that adding engineering spaces actually decreases build time for ships?

It shouldn't in a vacuum. Can you paste some examples?

When I add 100 engineering spaces to this Jump Tender design it decreases the build time from 5.35 years to 5.01 years

Code: [Select]

JTS-1 class Jump Tender Station      59,784 tons       2,349 Crew       45,071.5 BP       TCS 1,196    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s    JR 6-50      Armour 6-136       Shields 0-0       HTK 447      Sensors 18/18/0/0      DCR 150      PPV 90
Maint Life 1.01 Years     MSP 66,542    AFR 238%    IFR 3.3%    1YR 65,312    5YR 979,682    Max Repair 40152.3 MSP
Line Captain    Control Rating 3   BRG   AUX   ENG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

300M Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 300000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 6


Quad Gauss Cannon 25.00 Turret (12x20)    Range 50,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 50,000 km    ROF 5       
Gauss PD Fire Control (3)     Max Range: 57,600 km   TS: 25,000 km/s     83 65 48 31 13 0 0 0 0 0

Medium Point-Defense Active Sensor Suite (1)     GPS 180     Range 32.1m km    MCR 2.9m km    Resolution 1
Milspec Thermal Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33.5m km
Milspec EM Sensor Suite (1)     Sensitivity 18     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33.5m km

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


[nuclearslurpee]

Ah okay. I'm not 100% sure, but I think this is a display quirk. Basically the build time in the class design window is not exact because the actual build time depends on the shipyard, for example a 10,000-ton yard has a 50% faster build rate than a 5,000-ton yard, if I remember shipyard mechanics correctly. So if you built a 5,000-ton ship in a 10,000-ton yard it would build more quickly.

So the build time in the class design window should be giving you the build time out of a shipyard which is the same size as the ship, that's the only sensible way to calculate that value. Most likely what is happening is that adding engineering spaces increases the ship size more rapidly than the BP cost, since engineering spaces only cost 10 BP per 50 tons, IIRC, and you've got a ship that costs 45k BP per 60k tons.

As long as the actual BP cost is going up correctly, there is no bug, it's just a display quirk.

[Froggiest1982]

An NPR in my game seems to have a hard-on for a specific moon... as do I.  The moon in question has a multi-10-millions gallacite deposit at good accessibility.

The problem is, while they only have like 2 automines harvesting from it and no civilian population, they are defending it with a ground force that my sensors are telling me is about 700K tons.


If I want to... uh, soften up these defenses with some REALLY BIG missiles, is there any reason to use (or not to use) the Enhanced Radiation tech?  (I don't plan on colonizing the moon with civvies, just either letting a CMC have it or use Automines myself)

Basically no, as you dont want to live there and currently the NPR doesnt as well. Radiations are effective only against population and could be a good alternative for larger world that would take long to be assimilated otherwise.

Gless the poor moon and whatever dust you'll get it won't matter. Wouldn't add enanched radiotions as it is pretty much useless for your purpose.

[Borealis4x]

Is it very fuel inefficient to pair military engines with commercial engines?

I want my battle fleets to travel with a group of civilian support ships (colliers, tankers, etc.) while redeploying to contested systems. They'd shed the support squadron at the last friendly system then rejoin the fleet once they system is secured.

[nuclearslurpee]

Is it very fuel inefficient to pair military engines with commercial engines?

Materially, no. Fuel consumption works out to be the same for a distance traveled regardless of the speed used, so your military ships will consume no more and no less fuel.

However, the auxiliaries will slow the combat ships which is important if rapid response is needed, and there is added annoying micromanagement when jumping through non-gated JPs as you have to split the fleet and use separate military and commercial jumps (including jumping in the right order if your military jump drive is on a commercial tender).

[TMaekler]

Is there any way to transfer MSP back to a Supply Ship or Station/Planet?

[nuclearslurpee]

Is there any way to transfer MSP back to a Supply Ship or Station/Planet?

If you (temporarily) check the corresponding box in the class design window, it should at least be possible to transfer MSP to a planet with a cargo handling system/spaceport, which should be "good enough". I think to transfer it back to the supply ship you would need to have a cargo shuttle bay and temporarily change the MSP minimum to it would accept the supplies.

I'm not really sure why you would need to do this though, since scrapping or refitting a ship should return any MSPs and otherwise you would want a ship to have all of its MSPs if it is active, since we do not have a mothball function like in Starfire.

[Agraelgrimm]

For RP purposes, i want to know if it is possible to use PD without Railguns and gauss cannons, just energy weapons. Im trying to go Star Wars on one game, just for taste, but idk if the mechanics would allow me to just go energy weapons and missiles.
So, does anyone knows this? And if so at wich extent?

[DeMatt]

For RP purposes, i want to know if it is possible to use PD without Railguns and gauss cannons, just energy weapons. Im trying to go Star Wars on one game, just for taste, but idk if the mechanics would allow me to just go energy weapons and missiles.
So, does anyone knows this? And if so at wich extent?

Any weapon can be fired at a missile.  ANY.  Other than possibly microwaves (which miiiight not actually do anything to a missile), any weapon can destroy a missile.  You can use 50 MSP missiles to shoot down 1 MSP missiles, if you really want.

Railguns and gauss cannons are just "the best" at shooting down missiles.  Lasers and mesons can be turreted, like gauss cannons;  lasers additionally have impressive range, so where a railgun gets one burst once the missile tries to hit, the laser can take several shots while the missile is still closing.

So if you understand the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen weapons, you can design your ships to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  A particle-beam escort is going to be designed and operated differently from a railgun escort, even if they both have the objective of "shoot down missiles".

[Andrew]

Turretted Lasers in large numbers work well against missiles, it is just easier to saturate the fleets defenses than with Gauss. 10cm lasers work best as they are the smallest but I stil set my heavier lasers to shoot at missiles as every bit helps.
You CAN try and set lasers in Area defense mode, in my experience this achieves nothing as they sometimes get a long range shot in but more often do not and then without final defensive fire let missiles hit your ships without getting in a final shot. May work with the heavy lasers but there are less of them and I usuually put them in lower tracking turrets so it does not do much for me, could do for someone else.

[nuclearslurpee]

In general, while any weapon can work the big challenge for point defense is always sufficient volume of fire, although against NPRs this is usually more of a problem against AMM spam than ASMs due to how weak full-size ASM launchers are. This is the main reason why Gauss and railguns are usually preferred for PD, with turreted lasers being usually the 3rd-best option since the lack of volume compared to railguns can be made up for with high tracking speed.

Additionally a proper anti-missile defense has several layers besides beam PD. Of course you have AMMs which in a Star Wars RP setting would be concussion missiles with a dual purpose against fighters. Beyond this, with lasers in particular you have an option for fast 10cm laser fighters that can range ahead of the fleet and get good results from area defensive fire as the area which can be defended is effectively doubled since the fighters themselves are not targeted at such long range. Of course ECM will also be a huge help as even if the enemy missiles mount ECCM this will take away MSP that would otherwise be used for speed - reducing CTH and also reducing ability to evade your own PD. Finally, a long-range anti-missile sensor net will allow you to stack a very large missile tracking bonus further amplifying the effects of your beam PD.

[El Pip]

While on this subject I'm still grappling with the new rules for Beam PD, so can I just check that from a purely game mechanics perspective you only actually need one BFC no matter how many turrets you have doing Point Defence? (any above that are just backup in case of damage or for RP or because you are doing clever things with BFCs servicing main guns and turrets or whatever)

[nuclearslurpee]

While on this subject I'm still grappling with the new rules for Beam PD, so can I just check that from a purely game mechanics perspective you only actually need one BFC no matter how many turrets you have doing Point Defence? (any above that are just backup in case of damage or for RP or because you are doing clever things with BFCs servicing main guns and turrets or whatever)

Yes. One BFC can target multiple missile salvos, although each individual weapon is limited to targeting only one salvo.

Of course depending on how you are doing PD it may be worth using single-weapon BFCs which only control one weapon at a time but are half the size and cost (and cheaper to research).