Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fusion vs fission reactors.

 
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 >> Fusion vs fission reactors. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 4:49:00 PM   
Osito


Posts: 875
Joined: 5/9/2013
Status: offline 		As far as I can see, you initially get more power output and storage from fission, but better fuel usage from fusion (and, of course, fusion uses hydrogen instead of caslon). I guess the improved fuel usage would give better range for fusion, but I've not found range to be that much of a problem.

This holds good up to and including the tier 5 Advanced Fusion Physics/Quantum MicroUtilization.

Then you get Fusion Balance at tier 6, giving the hyper fusion reactor and at that stage it seems there's no point in ever going fission again.

So leaving aside any issue with the relative availability of caslon and hydrogen (which has never been an issue for me), it seems you go fission reactor then quantum fission reactor up to Fusion Balance, then switch to hyperfusion. Fusion itself, wouldn't be used at all. Is this what others do, or am I missing something?

Also, what's the point of Fusion Cycle Secrets and Quantum Mastery? They seem to be improving reactors which are already redundant. Or is it just to provide an improvement for those who don't want to retrofit all their fusion/quantum reactors? Again, I don't see why you wouldn't just retrofit, but then I am still pretty new to this game.

Osito


Post #: 1
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 4:59:14 PM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		Splitting the military/rest on hydrogen/caslon can help in having enough fuel in "challenge" areas. Gas mines often collect both, anyways.

(in reply to Osito)
Post #: 2
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 5:01:44 PM   
Mansen


Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Splitting the military/rest on hydrogen/caslon can help in having enough fuel in "challenge" areas. Gas mines often collect both, anyways.


How does the design AI handle the options in your opinion? I can imagine that even civilian ships will move on to the Hydrogen based reactors as well.

_____________________________

Currently Working On:
X-Universe Conversion (Hiatus)

(in reply to Bingeling)
Post #: 3
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 6:14:24 PM   
Kadrush

 

Posts: 82
Joined: 11/11/2010
Status: offline 		Quantum reactors are great, but you ended up becoming to addicted on caslon making it harder to move to hydrogen on tier 6.

I tend to analyse the galactic demand and change as it fits, but i dont like fusion reactors as i need so many to make my ships move, wasting precious space.

Personally i make so many caslon stations that i dont have any shortages to justify such change.

(in reply to Mansen)
Post #: 4
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 6:36:04 PM   
BigWolfChris


Posts: 634
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline 		I think one reason was to give you multiple options in the event of you missing resources (can't remember off top of my head, but IIRC, each weapon uses a different gas as an example)
Also, they should have different costs based on which resources they use
Problem however, after the initial sorting out your economy you'll often have plenty of resources going and can ignore this aspect and go based purely on stats

_____________________________

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 Core @3.7GHz
2x16 GB Vengeance LPX 2666MHz RAM
MSI RTX 2070 Armor 8G
SSD Drive

(in reply to Mansen)
Post #: 5
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 6:50:36 PM   
Larsenex


Posts: 445
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline 		If you look at efficiency it appears the Fusion are better. I always try to find the frogs and woo them into giving me their Nova Core reactor tech. That engine is the best in the game hands down!
Energy per fuel unit is great as is output and space used.

If I have a rare resource Ill trade it with them to get on their good side.

_____________________________

Go for the Eyes Boo!

Intel 8700K Oc'd to 4.8ghz
32 gigs ram
GTX 1070 w/ 6gigs ram.
Using a cache drive from intel with a 60gig flash & 1 terrabyt hd accelerated.

(in reply to BigWolfChris)
Post #: 6
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 7:48:49 PM   
BigWolfChris


Posts: 634
Joined: 3/31/2010
Status: offline 		Quick math

First number is Energy Output per unit of space taken
Second number is Energy Storage per unit of space taken

Hyperfusion Reactor: 16.25 / 33.75
Quantum Reactor: 9.72 / 18.33
NovaCore Reactor: 9.6 / 18.75
Fusion Reactor: 8 / 17.33 /
Fission Reactor: 3.91 / 6.81
Basic Space Reactor: 2.55 / 5

By this math (if done right)
Ignoring the hyperfusion reactor, which is supposed to be superior in every way since it's end-game tech, you should use the Quantum Reactor for your military ships unless you have access to the Novacore Reactor (close enough together to be worth taking advantage of the lower fuel usage)
Afterall, the less reactor space you're using up the more that goes towards other modules you might want while keeping similar speeds

If you feel you need to split the gas types for the private sector, use the Fusion Reactor on them, but simply change them over to the Quantum Reactor once you put your military with Hyperfusion


_____________________________

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X 8 Core @3.7GHz
2x16 GB Vengeance LPX 2666MHz RAM
MSI RTX 2070 Armor 8G
SSD Drive

(in reply to Larsenex)
Post #: 7
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 8:03:53 PM   
Strat_84

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 12/8/2011
Status: offline 		Well, I have to admit that I indeed often favor Quantum reactors over Fusion ones, especially on small ships where space is scarce.

However Fusion reactors are actually a good choice for ships of a respectable size and/or equipped with power hungry weapons. In that case you may save some space with Quantum reactors, but you end up with a ship that sucks gas at such a rate that it needs to refuel all the time.

(in reply to BigWolfChris)
Post #: 8
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/29/2013 10:28:51 PM   
Mesthione

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/30/2013
Status: offline 		I like to stick with the fusion set once you get past the first few fission reactors because of the efficiency and also because making the economic transition to hydrogen earlier is easier. I like playing with the Quameno; their novacore is the bomb and holds you until late-game until you decide to move to the hyperfusion reactors.

I've never really had problems with fuel supplies in my empire that wasn't fixed within a reasonable time frame by my private economy or pirate smugglers.

(in reply to Strat_84)
Post #: 9
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/30/2013 3:43:24 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mansen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Splitting the military/rest on hydrogen/caslon can help in having enough fuel in "challenge" areas. Gas mines often collect both, anyways.


How does the design AI handle the options in your opinion? I can imagine that even civilian ships will move on to the Hydrogen based reactors as well.


The AI can't do that, only the player can.

So if you want to keep the game more challenging for yourself (or just like logistic headaches) don't split the designs.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Mansen)
Post #: 10
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/30/2013 8:47:57 AM   
Mansen


Posts: 352
Joined: 5/3/2013
Status: offline 		Ah right - because the ship design won't change the reactor type, only upgrade the existing ones right? (Caslon to Caslon 2, Hydro to Hydro 2 et cetera)

_____________________________

Currently Working On:
X-Universe Conversion (Hiatus)

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 11
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/30/2013 10:42:34 AM   
Bingeling

 

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline 		No, because there are no setting for what reactor to use in the templates the AI designs from. The AI will pick the same reactor for all designs.

(in reply to Mansen)
Post #: 12
RE: Fusion vs fission reactors. - 5/30/2013 10:55:21 AM   
adecoy95


Posts: 420
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mansen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bingeling

Splitting the military/rest on hydrogen/caslon can help in having enough fuel in "challenge" areas. Gas mines often collect both, anyways.


How does the design AI handle the options in your opinion? I can imagine that even civilian ships will move on to the Hydrogen based reactors as well.


it kinda makes ai design messy, but you just have to deal with manually adjusting your designs each time you upgrade. i find its worth the extra effort tho, mid-early game its a nice way to keep your military ships zooming around and allows you to enforce your empire borders with custom fleets much more easily

(in reply to Mansen)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Fusion vs fission reactors. Page: [1]
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

0.738