Fuel management.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Fuel management.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> The War Room >> Fuel management.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Fuel management. - 9/10/2010 12:27:20 AM

Foraven

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

One thing that bugs me lately is how to keep my fleets fueled up. If i leave the ships on auto, they will find some place to fuel up, but if i do it manually it takes forever... It's very likely i did not build the right stuff or don't have enough fuel to spare where i need it, seem it's one part of the game i don't fully understand (i know not all engines use the same fuel, but that's about it).

I need some tips on how to manage that.

Post #: 1

RE: Fuel management. - 9/10/2010 1:13:01 AM

torrenal

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/12/2010
Status: offline

Fleets spend lots of time idle.

Give them solar panels, and then they will only need refueling when movement or fighting are on their agenda.
//Torrenal

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 2

RE: Fuel management. - 9/10/2010 1:21:11 AM

Foraven

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: torrenal

Fleets spend lots of time idle.

Give them solar panels, and then they will only need refueling when movement or fighting are on their agenda.
//Torrenal

I knew that. The problem comes when they are low on fuel (after a fight for example) and i have 10+ ships to get fueled up at once...

On other hand, i spent some time today fine tuning my ships with the best stuff i had. Like you, i notice what my ships get upgraded to isn't always the best, especially for generators and engines. Grrr, i really hope they will fix the autodesign/auto-update feature, what we get is so inefficient...

(in reply to torrenal)

Post #: 3

RE: Fuel management. - 9/11/2010 2:49:09 AM

torrenal

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/12/2010
Status: offline

Then all I can suggeest is improve their movement, and favor refueling at ports, instead of gas mining stations or port-less planets. The 2 time factors in refueling are how fast the ship can dock, and how many can dock at once. Usually not a problem for me, unless I'm in a long, protracted fight. As I've gone to favoring invasion fleets, protracted fights are not common.
//Torrenal

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 4

RE: Fuel management. - 9/15/2010 1:43:10 AM

Darkshado

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

You could probably tweak your gas mining station design as well.

Another factor: fuel type. Using Caslon or Hydrogen often means different fueling stations. You may have a station that extracts hydrogen and is supplied in caslon by cargo ships. The caslon supply may have been depleted and will have to wait for the next delivery.

(in reply to torrenal)

Post #: 5

RE: Fuel management. - 9/15/2010 8:59:33 PM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Foraven

quote:

ORIGINAL: torrenal

Fleets spend lots of time idle.

Give them solar panels, and then they will only need refueling when movement or fighting are on their agenda.
//Torrenal

I knew that. The problem comes when they are low on fuel (after a fight for example) and i have 10+ ships to get fueled up at once...

On other hand, i spent some time today fine tuning my ships with the best stuff i had. Like you, i notice what my ships get upgraded to isn't always the best, especially for generators and engines. Grrr, i really hope they will fix the autodesign/auto-update feature, what we get is so inefficient...

I also have the problem that the auto-AI isnt even putting one point of armor on my warships. I am playing a Boskaran Military Dictatorship...

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 6

RE: Fuel management. - 9/16/2010 12:14:41 AM

Foraven

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean
I also have the problem that the auto-AI isnt even putting one point of armor on my warships. I am playing a Boskaran Military Dictatorship...

The AI and the auto-update don't work the same way. The AI design ships with roleplay in mind : stupid races have weak designs, smarter races makes much better ones. The auto update on other hand just upgrade everything in the design with the latest tech additions, but don't optimize the design at all and can replace certain components with worst ones because you got them later. Racial techs are great at the start of the game but sucks late game, but the update feature keep considering them better.

(in reply to the1sean)

Post #: 7

RE: Fuel management. - 9/16/2010 4:24:30 PM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Foraven

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean
I also have the problem that the auto-AI isnt even putting one point of armor on my warships. I am playing a Boskaran Military Dictatorship...

The AI and the auto-update don't work the same way. The AI design ships with roleplay in mind : stupid races have weak designs, smarter races makes much better ones.

Yeah, I usually design all my ships myself, so I am very familiar with the differences between the update button and the auto-design game option. I just started a new game and, to even the playing field, have tried to use ONLY auto-designed ships. I was under the impression that Race Intelligence, and Faction Government had an effect on the ships that would be auto-designed. Playing Boskaran (average intelligence) Military Dictatorship (obvious warmonger) I thought I would get well armed and armored space stations and ships (as opposed to under-armed stations for penny-pinching capitalist governments). However, what I got was warships with NO ARMOR, and Mining Stations with NEITHER WEAPONS NOR ARMOR.

I wish we could edit/mod the default designs to give the AI more of a fighting chance...

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 8

RE: Fuel management. - 9/16/2010 6:43:22 PM

Foraven

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean
Yeah, I usually design all my ships myself, so I am very familiar with the differences between the update button and the auto-design game option. I just started a new game and, to even the playing field, have tried to use ONLY auto-designed ships. I was under the impression that Race Intelligence, and Faction Government had an effect on the ships that would be auto-designed. Playing Boskaran (average intelligence) Military Dictatorship (obvious warmonger) I thought I would get well armed and armored space stations and ships (as opposed to under-armed stations for penny-pinching capitalist governments). However, what I got was warships with NO ARMOR, and Mining Stations with NEITHER WEAPONS NOR ARMOR.

I wish we could edit/mod the default designs to give the AI more of a fighting chance...

Armor isn't a must for most designs, shields provide a lot more defense (hp wise) and don't slow you down. As for arming/armoring mining station and the like, i believe the AI normally don't bother to do so (but like you i prefer them well defended). You don't need every ships to be able to stand on their own, a swarm of cheap ships have a quality of their own.

(in reply to the1sean)

Post #: 9

RE: Fuel management. - 9/17/2010 8:10:20 PM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

armor is ESSENTIAL for fighting space creatures (because they ignore shields), and powerful armor can completely ignore minor weapon damage from ships that are a little behind technologically, and give your ships the durability they need to survive those last few shots that get through shields as you warp out.

Also, shields slow you down per mass point as much as armor or anything does, and they require fuel and reactor power to function. One or two points of armor is a great insurance policy. You wouldnt believe how many of my custom ships I have seen jump out of combat for repairs with low fuel and their armor destroyed!

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 10

RE: Fuel management. - 9/18/2010 4:11:09 AM

Foraven

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

armor is ESSENTIAL for fighting space creatures (because they ignore shields), and powerful armor can completely ignore minor weapon damage from ships that are a little behind technologically, and give your ships the durability they need to survive those last few shots that get through shields as you warp out.

You forgot another essential device on your ships : Damage control. Reduce damage by 40%, combined with armor damage absorbtion, ships can last a while, even against Kaltors. Still, staying out of range of space monsters is a much more effective way to kill them, the larger giant Kaltors can chew through the best armors if not quickly dispatched.

quote:

Also, shields slow you down per mass point as much as armor or anything does, and they require fuel and reactor power to function. One or two points of armor is a great insurance policy. You wouldnt believe how many of my custom ships I have seen jump out of combat for repairs with low fuel and their armor destroyed!

Hit point wise, shields offer more bang for the bucks, and recharge during combat. One of my capital ship did hold it's own against a fleet of more than 20 enemies ships for a long time due to it's massive shields; could not win, but did disable quite a few ships before warping out.

(in reply to the1sean)

Post #: 11

RE: Fuel management. - 9/19/2010 12:29:46 PM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

I didnt say not to take shields. Far from it. And I was not making a list of every part to put on your ship. I am just trying to explain why armor is an essential component for warships. My original point that the AI should put at least ONE POINT OF ARMOR on warships is quite valid.

(FYI: Damage reduction doesnt reduce damage to armor, only damage done to components once both armor and shields are gone.)

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 12

RE: Fuel management. - 9/19/2010 12:32:05 PM

Cosian

Posts: 54
Joined: 9/22/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

Also, shields........require fuel and reactor power to function.

Where do you see this? It seems I can add shields without effecting the energy budget at all. They don't appear to have a static energy use, and the amount of energy they use when recharging is not clear? It is certainly logical that they would require power ..... but how much and how do you factor the energy they use into your ship design.

< Message edited by Cosian -- 9/19/2010 1:45:18 PM >

(in reply to the1sean)

Post #: 13

RE: Fuel management. - 9/19/2010 12:49:01 PM

Foraven

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

I didnt say not to take shields. Far from it. And I was not making a list of every part to put on your ship. I am just trying to explain why armor is an essential component for warships. My original point that the AI should put at least ONE POINT OF ARMOR on warships is quite valid.

You should look at the amount of hit points one armor plate add to the ship; it's not much. If you really want armor to be useful, put a dozen plates or more.

quote:

(FYI: Damage reduction doesnt reduce damage to armor, only damage done to components once both armor and shields are gone.)

Maybe, maybe not. It seemed to make my ships last much longer in combat, and not just after they starts taking holes in the hull. I may be mistaken though.

(in reply to the1sean)

Post #: 14

RE: Fuel management. - 9/20/2010 5:37:40 AM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

You should look at the amount of hit points one armor plate add to the ship; it's not much. If you really want armor to be useful, put a dozen plates or more.

You should look at the points and do a little math. When you take 8 to ten points of armor (same mass as one shield generator), it has comparable or more absorption power than shields (depending on your exact tech level, of course). Therefor armor is just as "useful" as shields, and an integral part of a balanced defense.

quote:

Maybe, maybe not. It seemed to make my ships last much longer in combat, and not just after they starts taking holes in the hull. I may be mistaken though.

Damage reduction components only reduce damage after armor is destroyed per the Galactopedia.

Regardless, a point or two in armor is worthwhile (again, especially in the early game against space monsters before my ships are more agile and can outmaneuver them). You can almost always squeeze a point or two of armor into a ship design. Again, there is no reason the AI shouldnt put at least one point of armor on every warship, for the "reactive rating" alone.

< Message edited by the1sean -- 9/20/2010 6:29:55 AM >

(in reply to Foraven)

Post #: 15

RE: Fuel management. - 9/22/2010 2:34:53 PM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cosian

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

Also, shields........require fuel and reactor power to function.

Where do you see this? It seems I can add shields without effecting the energy budget at all. They don't appear to have a static energy use, and the amount of energy they use when recharging is not clear? It is certainly logical that they would require power ..... but how much and how do you factor the energy they use into your ship design.

You are right, as far as I can tell they dont require static power (probably should require a tiny bit), and they do use power when recharging but the amount is unclear. I try and leave a little leeway between excess power production, and the total of weapons fire and sprint power usage...

(in reply to Cosian)

Post #: 16

RE: Fuel management. - 9/22/2010 5:52:38 PM

Carewolf

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/20/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cosian

quote:

ORIGINAL: the1sean

Also, shields........require fuel and reactor power to function.

Where do you see this? It seems I can add shields without effecting the energy budget at all. They don't appear to have a static energy use, and the amount of energy they use when recharging is not clear? It is certainly logical that they would require power ..... but how much and how do you factor the energy they use into your ship design.

You are right, as far as I can tell they dont require static power (probably should require a tiny bit), and they do use power when recharging but the amount is unclear. I try and leave a little leeway between excess power production, and the total of weapons fire and sprint power usage...

Yeah, it is quite unclear, but I've also found that if I get maximum weapon power too close to excess power, then the ship cannot use full firepower when under fire. I assume this is because the shields are draining power, leaving the weapons without the necessary power to fire.

(in reply to the1sean)

Post #: 17

RE: Fuel management. - 9/24/2010 9:53:37 PM

Cosian

Posts: 54
Joined: 9/22/2006
Status: offline

Ya, I guess until there is further detail I am going with the following for energy budgeting for a ship assumed to be moving and cannot use it solar panels....

Max Energy Input

Whatever your reactors are producing ...

Max Energy Need

Engines at Sprint + (Defined on ship design layout)
Static Energy + (Defined on ship design layout)
Weapon Energy Use per second + (Defined on ship design layout)
Shields Recharging where energy used per second is equal to recharge rate + (Assumed)
Thrusters at 1 energy per thruster (Assumed)

Now for smaller ships with 1 reactor, this is going to mean fewer weapons if you include all this. As such, you will generally have to make some sacrifices to get enough weapons on these ships. However, note that it appears to me that the system will divert energy to recharging shields before using it to fire weapons. As such, you could underbudget energy for say a frig design and assume that generally most of your frigs when operating together WILL NOT be recharging shields and will be firing all weapons while a fewer number of frigs will only be firing a portion of their weapons because they are being targeted and recharging shields.

Ahhh the tradeoffs....

< Message edited by Cosian -- 9/24/2010 9:54:24 PM >

(in reply to Carewolf)

Post #: 18

RE: Fuel management. - 9/27/2010 3:34:20 AM

Aures

Posts: 343
Joined: 9/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cosian
Shields Recharging where energy used per second is equal to recharge rate + (Assumed)

That is what I assume as well. But now that the question has been raised it would be nice to get some confirmation of how much energy shields (and thrusters) consume. While we are at it, people have been wondering about how reactors work when you have nearly full energy and/or solar panels.

(in reply to Cosian)

Post #: 19

RE: Fuel management. - 9/27/2010 4:30:03 AM

Cosian

Posts: 54
Joined: 9/22/2006
Status: offline

I don't think the reactors fire a cycle unless max energy store - projected level of the energy store after all other projected inputs and outputs in the upcoming cycle is greater than the amount of energy the reactors will yield in 1 cycle.

Assume...

Reactor Input if fired - 59
Max Energy Store -120

Potential Energy Panel Input - 24 (I guess this is something between 0-24 depending on how far away from the star. If you are moving you get zero)
Static Energy Use -12
Shields Energy Use if recharging - Assume 4
All Weapons Firing - 19
Engines At Sprint - 30
Using Thrusters - Assume 3

If the ship is in combat ....trying to sprint, turn, fire weapons, and recharge shields.....projected energy use is 68 and there is no input from the solar panel because the ship is moving.... 120-68 = 52. The projected level of the energy store is 52. 120-52=68. The reactors fire and recharge the energy store to 52+59 = 111, using fuel in the process. The energy store will deplete at this rate and eventually some weapons will not fire every cycle. So thats what I think happens....errr hope happens. If the reactors fired any sooner, they would be wasting fuel because their output would be more than the energy store could hold...

If the ship is just sitting there, it will only be using 12 energy per cycle which the single solar panel will likely cover. Thus the reactors will not fire and no fuel will be used. You could test this with a similar configured ship by continuing to move it further and further from a star....stop and watch fuel consumption. Once you get far enough away from the star where the input from solar panel does not cover the static energy, the energy should deplete and then the reactors should fire. I have not tested this in detail, but it seems like what is happening.

I try to have enough solar panels to cover static energy use on military ships so fuel is conserved....2x static energy use if i can budget it. Also for fleets or ships I am controlling, I never just right click on a planet or base....this sets the ships to patrol and they tend to use more fuel. I always just MOVE them to object as opposed to have them patrol the object. There is no difference in response time to a threat that I can see.

(in reply to Aures)

Post #: 20

RE: Fuel management. - 10/4/2010 4:22:11 PM

the1sean

Posts: 854
Joined: 5/11/2010
From: Texas, USA
Status: offline

From observation, it appears that shield generators use about one point of power per generator.

(in reply to Cosian)

Post #: 21