Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

1 vs 2 reactors on ships

 
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 >> 1 vs 2 reactors on ships Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 3:47:38 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 558
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline 		What are the pros and cons of having 1 reactor vs 2 on your ships? Which do you prefer?

I put 2 on everything beacuse it boosts hyperspace speed. And there is not a single ship civilian or military that doesnt need more speed. I also paint them red because that also makes them go faster.
Post #: 1
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 3:52:15 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		as your tech increase the better versions of the fission reactor got enough power for max hyper speed. But the number of reactors depends for me on max. energy usage of the shipdesign. My Capital Ship has 3 or 4 reactors.

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 2
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 4:15:42 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 558
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline 		Of course. I should emphasize this is in regards to early game strategy. Although I would be interested to know more about getting max hyerspace speed out of one reactor. I have yet to do it.

(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 3
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 4:21:49 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		For private ships it is not a wise idea to put 2 reactors on them, because of the fuel consumption. I would strongly suggest to research the first fission upgrade, it doesn´t cost much and it will be immedeatly applied to all existing ships.

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 4
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 4:35:55 AM   
jpwrunyan


Posts: 558
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Uranus
Status: offline 		Thanks. That is the kind of advice I am looking for. If the two-reactor design were such a no-brainer then why wouldnt the default designs start with them? That is what I am thinking. But what about explorers? Colony ships? Faster is better right?

(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 5
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 4:42:44 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline 		I designed my first honest-to-god ship that I intended to use in Combat, today.. after having played DW for over a year, and never really jumping into ship design.

I never got to use it for its intended purpose, so I never got to see if it was any good.. but I did put two reactors on it!



< Message edited by Gelatinous Cube -- 12/12/2011 4:52:32 AM >

(in reply to jpwrunyan)
Post #: 6
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 5:31:51 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		My DD's have 2 of the first reactors and then get 3 once they can go to size 300. They all start with 6 thrust, then go to 8-10 as size allows. Once I get the Quantum reactor and accerleros engines, my DD's run along at about 8.7 speed. My escorts are speed 13 and frigates at around 10. Set to stand off, with some missle weapons they are awesome ships.

My cruisers get 4-5 reactors, and sometimes more.


GC, that ships looks like a Silvermist killer. I never have more than 2-3 vectors, but I like that turn rate. Might have to check that out.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 12/12/2011 5:33:14 AM >

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 7
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 5:42:18 AM   
Warspite3

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline 		This is great because I never even realized that adding reactors increases hyper speed. I thought that hyper speed was only increased through research so all of my designs had only 1 reactor. I just built two reactors on a troop transport design and it nearly doubled it's hyper speed!

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 8
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 5:51:47 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Warspite3

This is great because I never even realized that adding reactors increases hyper speed. I thought that hyper speed was only increased through research so all of my designs had only 1 reactor. I just built two reactors on a troop transport design and it nearly doubled it's hyper speed!


It doesn't, actually. Just that the default designs (at least at the beginning of the game.. AI Designs improve somewhat with tech) don't have enough reactors to fully exploit the hyperdrive--meaning you run around at like 7k Speed instead of closer to 12k.

(in reply to Warspite3)
Post #: 9
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 5:53:01 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Here is my silvermist destroyer design from the year 2785

As you can see, i looked energy wise for a coverage of sprint energy use + weapon energy use, but it was too much.
But 8 of them + a 683 size carrier did the trick. ;)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gray Carlyle -- 12/12/2011 5:54:41 AM >

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 10
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 5:56:15 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline 		Why do you have shields on a Silvermist killer? Just because you can spare the goods, and might get attacked by someone else on the way?

Also, why does your energy curve turn down at Hyperdrive, where mine stays flat?

I must know! I'll likely always use auto designs for most of my fleet, but having the freedom to build a few custom fleets for what I want would be nice.

(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 11
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:04:17 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		The silvermister is an extreme design, i post a destroyer to compare.

Also, the curve scales to energy usage, so at sprint it tooks 352 energy, at hyperspeed 64, so it turns down.

And with shields, yeah, thats also the reason why it has one phaser cannon. I had some trouble with silvermist ships if pirates show up in the system. Ive got around 30 colonies and so much is happening that i cant babysit those silvermist fighters. ;)

Here is my destroyer:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 12
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:10:58 AM   
Texashawk

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline 		Wow. You learn something new every day. Played for a year and never knew adding more reactors increased hyperspace speed. Counterintuitive, but helpful!

_____________________________

Lifetime "You Magnificent Bastard!" callouts: 5
Lifetime slaps across the face by a female: 2
Lifetime games that hold my attention longer than a month: 3

(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 13
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:13:30 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		It only increase the hyperspeed if one reactor hasn´t enough power for maximum hyperspeed, the max speed of the hyper tech is untouched.

(in reply to Texashawk)
Post #: 14
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:14:47 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline 		That's pretty rockin', man. I think I'm getting the hang of this ship design thing. Now if only I had a good way to implement custom designs on a small scale, with a mostly automated fleet. Currently feasible (and I'm overlooking something?) or not quite possible without lots of wonkyness?

(in reply to Texashawk)
Post #: 15
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:22:06 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I don´t see what is hindering you to use custom designs in automated fleets...?

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 16
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:26:55 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gray Carlyle

I don´t see what is hindering you to use custom designs in automated fleets...?


Mostly a lack of understanding on how the AI deals with ship design and retrofitting. I know it works--because my silvermist destroyers never got redesigned or retrofitted--but I'm not sure why. Was it purely because I never put them on auto?

(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 17
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 6:35:37 AM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Ah, ok. I control retrofit the ships myself, because I have bad memories about the ai letting do this on the smallest spaceport it can find ;)

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 18
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 7:25:34 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gray Carlyle

Ah, ok. I control retrofit the ships myself, because I have bad memories about the ai letting do this on the smallest spaceport it can find ;)


Its much better in legends. If you put a small spaceport at every world, and pepper bigger ones at good intervals (near where your fleets are massed, obviously) then it will retrofit intelligently. It still takes time, but so does everything else.


(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 19
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 1:51:24 PM   
Warspite3

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline 		The speed is insane on that Silvermist Destroyer, everything across the board except impulse! I also see weapons and components on that ship which I never even seen before since I end up losing the game before I ever get that advanced. If I had a fleet of those, I could quickly hop to any world which is under attack unlike my slow ships now where by the time I get there, the colony has already been destroyed and even the enemy fleet is long gone I am finding out at least one good fast fleet is important to quickly defend certain areas for this very reason and to keep from having to put strong fleets at every important colony.

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 20
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/12/2011 7:31:30 PM   
Gray Death


Posts: 59
Joined: 5/4/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Here is a look of the proud of my fleet, the Agamemnon class






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Warspite3)
Post #: 21
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 3:27:43 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Gray, your Silvermist Destroyer needs another reactor. Your weapons plus Sprint is 534, you only have Excess of 450. If you factor in the Energy you need for Shields you really are unpowered. As you know, this causes your weapons to not only firing at way less that their optimum, you also only have a little fuel (420). You will burn out real quick while shooting very ineffectively. Take some of the engines off, tack on more fuel (at least 1000) and a reactor and you will be good to go.



G Cube, I am thinking you are design level 300, always go to the max design size. You also have 8 Ion which is 640 Energy (8 x 80 each), you only have Excess Energy of 134. So to say you are unpowered is a massive underestimate. If you are staying at size 300 and you want a ship with an Ion Weapon (for th Silvermist), just put on one Ion

Fuel of 400 is not enough. Get your fuel up to at least a 1000 so they can stay on station longer. You also should always have at least one shield (pirates), ten fuel tanks, and ditch the other 7 Ion Cannons. With the extra space you will now have from removing the Ions, you will now have about 80 more space, less the 30 for the extra fuel, and you have now have about 50 extra space. That 50 space you can fill up with one more Reactor (size 22) which now gets your extra energy up to about 206 (134+72). So you now have 28 space with 206 extra energy.., that sounds like two more Ion Cannons!!

Therefore you end up with 3 Ions and 3 reactors, I shield, and 10 fuel tanks. Now you have a max size of 300 and your total space right now is about 295. So you have 5 size to spare. Remove a Vector (29% is too good) which now gives you space for another engine. HOW IS THAT!!!!

3 Ions, 3 Reactors, 1 Shield, 10 fuel tanks, and one more engine. BTW, this will be crushed by a Silvermist. You need about 6 of these to take a small Silvermist down. About 12 for a bigger one.



< Message edited by balto -- 12/13/2011 3:28:43 AM >

(in reply to Gray Death)
Post #: 22
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 3:34:04 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline 		I always thought excess energy (the green number?) was showing you how much you had AFTER everything else was accounted for? If not, yeah.. I'm way underpowered!

_____________________________

Can Poland Into Space?

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 23
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 3:47:28 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Gray, I also see on your Agamemnon that you have multiple Repair Bots and Ion Defenses. I was under the impression that more than one of these is a waste.

I also was curious why you have all those Point Defense Cannons and such little Armor.

I am not saying you are wrong, I just want to know.

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 24
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 3:48:42 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Hi G Cube. No, the Green number is simply the Reactor Energy minus the Static Energy.

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 25
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 3:50:34 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		The Green Number is what you have to cover either your Hyperdrive OR when not in Hyperdrive, your Sprint plus Weapons, plus shields.

Please ask away if you have any questions you have on this. I am a chronic and obsessive designer and you have helped me in many many many areas. Maybe this is pay back time for me.

< Message edited by balto -- 12/13/2011 3:51:18 AM >

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 26
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 3:51:55 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline 		Oh, wow. Thank you, I would never have figured that out on my own. That one little fact changes my whole approach!

< Message edited by Gelatinous Cube -- 12/13/2011 4:06:48 AM >

_____________________________

Can Poland Into Space?

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 27
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 4:02:34 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Yeah, as you can see, you really need to research the Construction Size. And you if you are going to start designing your own ships, trust me, just have only one or two designs. Anymore and you will go insane. I have two types that I keep at the max size. I could really have just one. Clearly, this one (or two) military designs are updated frequently and thus are the bad asses of the universe.

Also, once you do one manual design .., EVERYTHING is now on manual design. So that means time to design your own Spaceports (you only 1 or 2 designs of these), your own Constructors, and Mining Stations, and Explorers.., yeah, it can be a mucho pain in the butt.., that is why you need the number of designs very limited.., like I said, I go with two military designs.

Once you go down this road of manual, you can NEVER go back. You are now entering the SUPER COOL zone of Legends.., you also will not get a lot of sleep.

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 28
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 4:05:48 AM   
Gelatinous Cube


Posts: 696
Joined: 10/26/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

Yeah, as you can see, you really need to research the Construction Size. And you if you are going to start designing your own ships, trust me, just have only one or two designs. Anymore and you will go insane. I have two types that I keep at the max size. I could really have just one. Clearly, this one (or two) military designs are updated frequently and thus are the bad asses of the universe.

Also, once you do one manual design .., EVERYTHING is now on manual design. So that means time to design your own Spaceports (you only 1 or 2 designs of these), your own Constructors, and Mining Stations, and Explorers.., yeah, it can be a mucho pain in the butt.., that is why you need the number of designs very limited.., like I said, I go with two military designs.

Once you go down this road of manual, you can NEVER go back. You are now entering the SUPER COOL zone of Legends.., you also will not get a lot of sleep.



Indeed! Unfortunately, I really like having a very, very diverse variety of ships and bases. I am excited for the next official patch, however, since apparently we'll now be able to pick and choose which designs are manual or automated. That is more than enough incentive for me to start poking my nose in new places.

_____________________________

Can Poland Into Space?

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 29
RE: 1 vs 2 reactors on ships - 12/13/2011 4:08:55 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		My tip #1 was to research the Construction Size. Tip #2 is to add on Fuel tanks to EVERYTHING. They all need more Fuel and it does not take much space. That is all I got.., please play around with Design, I can tell you are super smart so it would be interesting to see what you come up with.

(in reply to Gelatinous Cube)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> 1 vs 2 reactors on ships Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.016