Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hanzoku]

You want more then one for battle damage. A lucky strike breaking your only means of shooting would be... bad.

[Madman198237]

A lucky strike through 16 layers of armor and  120 shields would be....well, they'd probably deserve their victory. But please note, I've not yet produced this thing. Mostly because I've run into a game-stopping shortage of Gallicite. It's really slowing things down. So yeah, I'm going to add a reserve fire control. Other than that, increased speed. I mean, I don't plan to actually build this thing unless I end up facing a seriously powerful enemy who can destroy the ships I have.

[Sheb]

A lucky strike through 16 layers of armor and  120 shields would be....well, they'd probably deserve their victory. But please note, I've not yet produced this thing. Mostly because I've run into a game-stopping shortage of Gallicite. It's really slowing things down. So yeah, I'm going to add a reserve fire control. Other than that, increased speed. I mean, I don't plan to actually build this thing unless I end up facing a seriously powerful enemy who can destroy the ships I have.

Keep in mind that large enough explosions can cause internal damage through the armor.

[Rince Wind]

You can take damage through armor from hard hits now. Or you might meet someone who uses mesons.
So only one reactor instead of multiple smaller ones is risky as well. (Can't remember, but do you even need one for railguns?

Multiple fire controls also help if you use the guns as secondary AA guns as well. You might also get stranded unless you have stargates everywhere. (or did I just muss the jumpdrive?)

[Madman198237]

Yeah. Probably should add another reactor. However my discoveries recently have been that "Once your armor's holed, you're getting screwed more every 5 seconds".

Still, might be because of the continuous missile stream the Precursors used.

[Detros]

Also, yeah, this thing is literally meant to be deployed on its own. It is built to run somebody down, reach firing range, and chew them up.

Then also consider adding reserve active sensor (could be smaller) unless you have a fleet of sensor ships around.

[Madman198237]

It's not specifically in a battle on it's own, it's going to be its own task group charging towards the enemy. It's literally just for any NPRs that can resist my missile fire. Or, you know, the ones dead-set on annoying me with ultra-close-range or whatever. It will have missile ships (And their sensors) hanging out nearby. It already has two sensors (Missile search and regular active search), and if it loses BOTH it's probably in trouble. Or, you know, RNG hates me.

[Sirus]

You can take damage through armor from hard hits now. Or you might meet someone who uses mesons.
So only one reactor instead of multiple smaller ones is risky as well. (Can't remember, but do you even need one for railguns?

Multiple fire controls also help if you use the guns as secondary AA guns as well. You might also get stranded unless you have stargates everywhere. (or did I just muss the jumpdrive?)

Yes, someone remembers the mesons. They might only do like, 1 damage per hit, but no armor or shielding in the universe can stop them.

I think (think) the only non-missile weapon that does not use reactors is the gauss. It's been a while since I played far enough to start designing weapons though.

[Madman198237]

Yeah. GCs don't require reactors. Everything else does.

[Flying Dice]

Deffo not a fan of the single big honking reactor model. I try to get mine down to a 1:1 ratio when possible.

[Madman198237]

I probably should, even though big reactors (?) probably have slightly lesser crew requirements...if they work like other systems, which gain efficiency as they get bigger. Either way, I think it has enough HTK's that it doesn't matter. And again: Unless shock damage is powerful enough to kill it, which would be quite remarkable and terrible simultaneously, this thing is dead if it starts losing internals.

[Culise]

I did some quick searching and a tiny bit of experimentation with the tech designer in-game, and it appears there are no longer any efficiencies of scale that come from larger reactors; the only one that used to exist, internal armoring, no longer does.  For example, a Size 1 Stellerator Fusion Reactor with no power boost results in 2 crew requirement for a cost of 18 Boronide and internal Hits To Kill (HTK) of 1.  A Size 2 Stella-blah reactor requires 4 crew and costs 36 Boronide, but also has an HTK of 1 - twice the size, twice the cost, twice the fuel, twice the power output, but still just as durable.  A size 10 takes 20 crew, costs 180 boronide, and has an HTK of 5.  On the other hand, anything smaller than a Size 1 reactor (0.1-0.9 HS) will see everything else scale linearly, but the HTK drops to 0: if hit, the component is destroyed, but the shot keeps on going to hit something else as well. 

In other words, if I'm parsing this right, your ships actually become *easier* to kill if you use any power reactor size other than 1: Hits To Kill scales by half the reactor size in HS, rounded...kinda weirdly, actually (Size 3 has an HTK of 1; Size 4 an HTK of 2, but it's not a simple halve-and-truncate because Size 1 has an HTK of 1 rather than 0).  Smaller reactors are useful in order to provide granularity without devoting unnecessary space to power and larger reactors will keep your ship fully powered for longer if they are damaged but not destroyed (reactors continue to provide full power until destroyed), but otherwise, you're better off building an array of small reactors than a single massive reactor.  Reactor explosions for smaller reactors are also smaller as well, as the explosion size scales proportionately to power, but since explosion chance should be calculated on damage rather than destruction, there's no difference between having a large reactor damaged multiple times or several small reactors destroyed in succession save for the fact that the single large reactor won't absorb as much damage as the several smaller ones and thus won't roll the odds as many times.  Arrays of small reactors will also save on research time, since the research cost of larger reactors also scales linearly.

[Detros]

I did some quick searching and a tiny bit of experimentation with the tech designer in-game, and it appears there are no longer any efficiencies of scale that come from larger reactors; the only one that used to exist, internal armoring, no longer does.  For example, a Size 1 Stellerator Fusion Reactor with no power boost results in 2 crew requirement for a cost of 18 Boronide and internal Hits To Kill (HTK) of 1.  A Size 2 Stella-blah reactor requires 4 crew and costs 36 Boronide, but also has an HTK of 1 - twice the size, twice the cost, twice the fuel, twice the power output, but still just as durable.  A size 10 takes 20 crew, costs 180 boronide, and has an HTK of 5.  On the other hand, anything smaller than a Size 1 reactor (0.1-0.9 HS) will see everything else scale linearly, but the HTK drops to 0: if hit, the component is destroyed, but the shot keeps on going to hit something else as well. 

In other words, if I'm parsing this right, your ships actually become *easier* to kill if you use any power reactor size other than 1: Hits To Kill scales by half the reactor size in HS, rounded...kinda weirdly, actually (Size 3 has an HTK of 1; Size 4 an HTK of 2, but it's not a simple halve-and-truncate because Size 1 has an HTK of 1 rather than 0).  Smaller reactors are useful in order to provide granularity without devoting unnecessary space to power and larger reactors will keep your ship fully powered for longer if they are damaged but not destroyed (reactors continue to provide full power until destroyed), but otherwise, you're better off building an array of small reactors than a single massive reactor.  Reactor explosions for smaller reactors are also smaller as well, as the explosion size scales proportionately to power, but since explosion chance should be calculated on damage rather than destruction, there's no difference between having a large reactor damaged multiple times or several small reactors destroyed in succession save for the fact that the single large reactor won't absorb as much damage as the several smaller ones and thus won't roll the odds as many times.  Arrays of small reactors will also save on research time, since the research cost of larger reactors also scales linearly.

Yes, currently size 1 power plants are the best. This will be changed in C# Aurora when they will no longer have linear power vs size.

[hostergaard]

You know what I would like to see? Better refit system. Right now its kinda arbitrary and nearly useless.

Really, there should be two different types of refitting; it should differentiate between hull and systems. You can easily replace systems but changing the hull is gonna be costly.

Say you got a new weapon of exact same size (and energy requirements and the like) as the old one on the ship. Well, then the game should recognize you got a weapon mount of that exact size and replacing the weapon should not incur no additional cost. Just swap it out! If the weapon is smaller? Still fits, maybe a tiny cost to reflect making fittings for the smaller size. Larger? Ho boy, nope, you gonna have to cut into the hull to do that so its gonna be costly.

That and a more expanded terraforming system.

[Sheb]

That's already taken into account, up to a point, with size changes being really costly. When swapping systems, you're mostly paying for the cost of the new system after all.