RE: A guide to Energy

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: A guide to Energy

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 >> RE: A guide to Energy

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 12:07:01 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I think there is no way to build anything with no reactor. I could be wrong, though. And of course you should test yourself if you care, it is easy to make a stupid error. I had a crude eye measure, and I did check my designs quite a lot, but even if crude eye measure the difference between 84 energy and 500 energy used shooting should be quite obvious.

A related question to energy calculations.

Sprint speed. When is this used? I assume it is used in "escape". Is it used in other battle situations?
I was thinking of writing of ship design on the wiki, and I better try to get things correct.

The forum wisdom (which I wrote) seems to be "cruise, shoot, recharge, static" is the max drain (ignoring hyper space). But will the ship ever sprint and shoot? I must admit I have never noticed if escaping ships shoot or not.

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 61

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 12:18:30 PM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Ships routinely sprint when entering combat. They charge in full pelt and fire what weapons they can. Once they get to the range their design directs them to they will slow down usually only going cruise speeds or slower, although they may sprint again if necessary. So if you do not have enough reactor power ships will only fire some weapons as they close in combat. This is generally offset by them drawing on the energy reserves in the reactor. The 'cruise' rule is a good rule of thumb though and generally covers the energy needs.

Often (always?) ships will not sprint when fleeing. Used to hate it when explorers got devoured by Kaltors because they refused to sprint but they seem more wary now and escape but still do not sprint...

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 62

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 12:30:03 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Ah, thanks. So in general one wants cruise speed (and shields, guns), but running it real tight may hurt you a bit.

Also, the captains of those ships are not very good, they love to overshoot their targets...

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 63

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 12:37:50 PM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Yes, in general cruise + static + shields + weapons. Your reactor reserves are the amount of give in the system. They can drain down somewhat while sprinting and then recharge again once the ship slows.

Weapons are the last to be allocated energy so they will not fire, or only some of them fire if there is insufficient energy. I think shields stop recharging next, and then presumably drives.

(I had a funny moment when testing the need for reactors. The target ship I designed had 100 corvidian shields, base 60 generating fission reactor and 30 static needs. It had one Maxos blaster so that it could be a military ship. I hadn't anticipated it but this ship only ever fired one volley while its 10000 strength shields were pummeled into nothingness since 30 static + 30 shield recharge meant no energy to fire with!)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 64

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 12:41:46 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Btw, I have always had the impression that "leave a little bit for shield recharge" usually works out OK.

In my last game (apart from the short one mentioned on the main forum) my Zenox sported a LSP that had 64 shield recharge. That is a decent chunk of an extra reactor, and not "a little bit extra".

Apart from the fact that the LSP only needs one reactor. Maybe one extra is a good idea if you want it to function a bit longer after the shield is depleted and armor gone...

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 65

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 12:53:31 PM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Another thing to look for with ship design and energy needs is what will happen when components upgrade. Usually they draw more power but of course for reactors it is the other way around. I know that sometimes I will design ships on the basis of their power needs/performance once the component upgrades. So I may include excess power if weapons are about to upgrade or I may go with insufficient energy if an upcoming reactor upgrade will balance the books.

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 66

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/19/2012 1:03:21 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Design upgrades are a sad feature of this game. It is still a chore, but better than before. I so want the game to ask me about upgrades.

"Hello, slacker. Today we have quite a few new components since you are too lazy to upgrade your designs often. I suggest that we:

- Add damage control module
- Add target tracking
- Swap the Quantum reactors for Fission reactors
- Swap the current high power blasters with long range blasters
- Upgrade from standard to enhanced armor

I may have very different opinion on the choice of blasters. Range vs power. I may have a significant opinion on reactor choice, last game I stayed with Quantum and allowed the AI to use Fission on its designs (civilians mostly).

It is boring to swap armor, weapons and other items of quantity manually. It is also boring to ask the current auto to swap, because it swaps things you don't want to touch.

After any upgrade, it is time to review the energy balance of the design. Both because new components use different amounts of energy, and because new tech could make old items more efficient.

And at least... The early Fission and Quantum reactors are not near identical in power output. It is a bad idea to swap between them without paying attention.

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 67

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 1:51:39 AM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

I don't really have on opinion on automatic upgrades because I do it all manually.

But I was not thinking/talking of design upgrades but of component upgrades... wait, I see how that latter phrase is ambiguous... You know like when you get enhanced drives, so that the existing thrusters in your existing ships draw more energy and produce more thrust. Your existing ships using those components go faster but also draw more energy doing so. Or like when you get the first tech advance on the energy weapons tree if you start with basic tech, the component is still Maxos blasters - now they do more damage, and significantly for our discussion, draw more power energy.

Same design different energy needs.

Hope that's clearer. (And sorry at the vaguenesses of examples, can't have game and internet open at once.)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 68

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 8:33:39 AM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

It is a bit tricky to check all designs when you get a component upgrade. I think maybe the maxos thing is a bit special, so the best idea is to leave some free energy for that upgrade. Or not tricky, just work, and you have to notice the component upgrade.

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 69

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 11:36:16 AM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Most components have an upgrade on the next step of the tech tree and this often, if not always, increases energy usage. Weapons, drives, engines and reactors particularly. I find it generally pays to plan ahead. The energy requirements are listed in the tech trees. It does depend on when you expect to get the tech upgrade. But for instance I will often design ships for 72 energy per reactor rather than just 60 if I know I will have that research (whatever it is which improves the fission reactor) completed soonish. You certainly don't have to do this but it is a good point to include in a guide which covers energy in ship design.

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 70

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 12:10:38 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

Since bored, or rather, since I have something more useful I should do instead

.

Listing the lines, and energy for each version (left to right).

Weapons:

PulseWave Cannon 24 - 24 - 24
Maxos Blaster 12 - 12 - 10 y
Shatterforce Laser 20 - 20 - 20
Impact Assault Blaster 38 - 38 - 38
Titan Beam 28 - 28 - 28
Phaser Cannon 32 - 32 - 35
Phaser Lance 50 - 54 - 58
Ion Cannon 80 - 80
Intimidator Shockwave 54 - 54
Derasian Shockwave 90 - 90 - 90 (change on new item)
Shaktur Firestorm 52 - 52 - 52
Epsilon Torpedo 30 - 30 - 30
Velocity Shard 44 - 44 - 44
Shockwave Torpedo 60 - 60 - 60
Plasma Thunderbolt 64 - 64 - 64
Concussion Missile 18 - 18 - 18
Point Defense 4 - 4 - 4
Terminator AutoCannon 6 - 6 - 6
Assault Missile 18 - 18 - 18 (whole line the same)
Nuclear Devastator 15 - 15 - 15
Nuclear Exterminator 44 - 44 - 44
Rail Gun 6 - 6 - 6 - 6
Heavy Rail Gun 8 - 9 - 10
Massive Rail Gun 12 - 12

Shields have steady increase of recharge rate on improvements. Nothing too dramatic.

Velocity Drive 64 - 90 - 113
Gerax Hyperdrive 78 - 90- 103
Kaldos Hyperdrive 94 - 113
Equinox JumpDrive 88 - 105
Calista-Dal Warpdrive 60 - 69
Torrent Drive 83 - 95 - 105
HyperDeny (line) 2 - 3 - 2 - 3

Turbo Thruster 3 - 4 - 5
Proton Thruster 5 - 6 - 7
Quantum Engine 5 - 6 - 7
Acceleros Engine 8 - 10 - 11
StarBurner 7 - 9 - 11

Thrust Vector 6 - 8 - 10
Multi Vector 12 - 14 - 16
Swift Vector 1 - 1 - 1

High tech, no change apart from long range scanner that has huge energy bump when changing component to Deep Space Arrays.

Conclusion

A small increase in phasers and rail guns, and check when you get engine upgrades. You can probably drop a engine if you have enough that it matters, and gain some energy vs thrust on upgrade.

The most dramatic change is in hyper drives, but they work alone, and you may lose a bit top end speed if on the "line".

In general reactor boost by tech level seems more significant than anything else than hyper drive upgrades.

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 71

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 12:37:47 PM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Could have sworn that Maxos had increased energy needs on upgrade... but you are right. Teach me to go off memory... Glad you are on the ball with the exact figures.

You might want to check the vectors (thrust and multi) though, my admittedly fallible memory tells me that they always use one energy and the figures that you have included above are the thrust amount that they provide.

The engines can be significant for warships. Sure you can retrofit them out but that is a changed design. Until then they may well suck energy from the weapons if you are close to your energy requirements.

(There is also a small increase for shield regeneration rates usually. It can be quite insignificant, depending on how many shields you have. Just commenting for completeness.)

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 72

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 12:48:12 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I mentioned shields, I was just too lazy to point them out.

Usually you have maybe 4-5 shields, which get maybe a 0.2 bump on upgrades. That is a whole energy right there

For the massive spaceports it can be significant, though, but they could very well run on pure energy collection, and any excess should be covered by running the single reactor needed...

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 73

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 3:05:43 PM

feelotraveller

Posts: 1040
Joined: 9/12/2011
Status: offline

Yep, quite insignificant.

There is however an nasty consequence of not getting full hyperspace speed - your shields will not recharge during hyperspace jumps.

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 74

RE: A guide to Energy - 9/20/2012 3:16:12 PM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I have never thought about that problem.

I started my giant game as Boskara, and noticed they had two reactors on the frigates.

Good thing, since they started off researching continental and marshy swamp colonization, and had an unbuildable destroyer design.

All that juicy firepower from the racial torpedoes, and no ship to put them on. Also, few things to shoot them at (some wildlife).

(in reply to feelotraveller)

Post #: 75

Range, Weapon Fuel Consumption, Energy Red'd - 5/12/2013 11:46:18 PM

balto

Posts: 1123
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Because the Shadow is coming, I wanted to get back into this awesome and complicated game. This is a great thread started by Sylian. I have a comment and two questions I was hoping someone could help me with.

Comment: Here is an easier to understand version of the Range and Fuel Capacity formula. This assumes no weapons.

[HD Speed/(HD Energy Use+Static)/Reactor Efficiency] x Fuel Cap.

Then divide this by 2,000 to calculate how many sectors you can travel. This formula allows you to visualize how each of the 3 components (Reactor, HDrive, and Quantity of Fuel) affect your designs.

Question #1: Weapons drain on fuel. Is this about right; Weapons Energy Use per Second Reactor x Reactor Efficiency x .06 = Fuel Burned per minute of fire?

Question #2: Energy Requirements. After what I read today, I believe I was incorrect in calculating Energy Required as HDrive+Static+Shield+Weapons. I believe what I am now reading is that Energy required is the GREATER of either; (a) Sprint+Static+Shield+Weapons, or (b) HDrive+Shield+Static. Is this correct?

I ask because this is a HUGE difference in my prior calculations. To not have Weapons and HDrive together is a massive energy savings. Please let me know if this is correct.

Thank you in advance,

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 76

RE: Range, Weapon Fuel Consumption, Energy Red'd - 5/13/2013 9:04:26 AM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

I never looked at fuel consumption.

In two I would think you ought to use cruise and not sprint, but apart from that it seems OK. I don't think ships sprint and shoot, and that sprint is more in the style of "escape".

(in reply to balto)

Post #: 77

RE: Range, Weapon Fuel Consumption, Energy Red'd - 5/13/2013 6:16:25 PM

Plant

Posts: 418
Joined: 4/23/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

Question #2: Energy Requirements. After what I read today, I believe I was incorrect in calculating Energy Required as HDrive+Static+Shield+Weapons. I believe what I am now reading is that Energy required is the GREATER of either; (a) Sprint+Static+Shield+Weapons, or (b) HDrive+Shield+Static. Is this correct?

I ask because this is a HUGE difference in my prior calculations. To not have Weapons and HDrive together is a massive energy savings. Please let me know if this is correct.

Yes. At least that's how I have always designed my ships, and never had any energy problems. Afterall if you are using the hyperdrive, you aren't firing any weapons.

(in reply to balto)

Post #: 78

RE: A guide to Energy - 5/27/2013 11:40:29 PM

henri51

Posts: 1151
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

The units on the right in your formula for range don't seem to add up to a distance, unless R is not a pure number or power is measured in liters per hour.What am I missing? A useful post however.

Henri

PS Perhaps fuel consumption is a good measure of power: for example a 150 HP car would get about twice the mileage of a 300 HP car for the same weight (in other words, fuel consumption is inversely proportional to power).

< Message edited by henri51 -- 5/28/2013 7:14:49 PM >

(in reply to Sylian)

Post #: 79

RE: A guide to Energy - 5/28/2013 10:00:50 AM

Bingeling

Posts: 5186
Joined: 8/12/2010
Status: offline

In Shadows, range is listed on the design template. That helps quite a bit when it comes to estimating range :)

(in reply to henri51)

Post #: 80

RE: A guide to Energy - 6/16/2014 3:39:46 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylian
More interesting would be if compnonents that use static energy cease to function (like recreation centers and so on) Maybe i will have a look into that in the future.

It would seem that "semi-active" components (I've tested Construction Yards + Manufacturing Plants, Energy Labs, Gas Extractors) do not need energy to function. They seem, however, to still use energy if any is available (you can see fuel being burned).

It would seem that you can, for instance, design a gas mining station (with no shields, weapons or energy collectors) with the reactor and fuel cell components in the last order of being built, cancel the construction just before they are built, and the station will function without any problems (saving you fuel and some resources in the process). (There is, however a consequence if you cancel early : the construction ship will not drop the extra resources the station might need for retrofitting, so your freighters will have to waste some time bringing them in (or other freighters, where this might cost you some money).)

About the energy collectors :
Maybe the formula for energy collectors collection rate in systems (black hole and gas clouds excepted) is :

energy_collection_rate=energy_collector_potential_energy*(solar_energy+microwave_energy+xray_energy)*scaling_factor*(1-distance_from_star/system_radius)

where scaling_factor seems to be about 0.125(+/-0.025) considering that I saw several Red Giants have 90 total energy and several main sequence stars have 70 total energy?

(in reply to Bingeling)

Post #: 81

RE: A guide to Energy - 4/14/2016 8:24:29 PM

Hattori Hanzo

Posts: 734
Joined: 3/21/2011
From: Okinawa
Status: offline

very interesting Energy guide, but the pictures sadly are gone..

< Message edited by Hattori Hanzo -- 4/14/2016 8:25:59 PM >

(in reply to Sylian)

Post #: 82

RE: A guide to Energy - 4/14/2016 9:56:33 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

Yeah, it's a very bad idea to use Imageshack for Guide pictures, considering this kind of hosting is even less permanent than forums...

(in reply to Hattori Hanzo)

Post #: 83

RE: A guide to Energy - 4/14/2016 10:32:31 PM

Hattori Hanzo

Posts: 734
Joined: 3/21/2011
From: Okinawa
Status: offline

I agree with you, the pictures should always be added directly to the forum message

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 84

RE: A guide to Energy - 6/8/2019 12:33:26 PM

chaosegg

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/17/2012
From: The Bitter Hills
Status: offline

It might be useful to add to the main post the order in which systems will begin to fail as energy needs are not met;
in other words: which systems the ship will prioritize, in which order, when it has a limited amount of energy to spend.

P.S.
physics/astronomy rants aside, let's note that DW is mostly a 2D game in a [probably more than] 3d universe that it "simulates", so discussions of "realism" should keep this in mind.
Also it would seem to me that some of the information under debate back in 2011/2012, in this thread, is now out of date due to research using particle accelerators/colliders...
or am I mistaken?

< Message edited by chaosegg -- 6/8/2019 12:34:10 PM >

_____________________________

Modify, upgrade, build, or destroy;
in the end 'what' must follow 'why',
and if you have no answer for 'why',
then "to reduce suffering" is a good start.

(in reply to Hattori Hanzo)

Post #: 85

RE: A guide to Energy - 6/8/2019 7:22:23 PM

Aeson

Posts: 784
Joined: 8/30/2013
Status: offline

quote:

It might be useful to add to the main post the order in which systems will begin to fail as energy needs are not met;
in other words: which systems the ship will prioritize, in which order, when it has a limited amount of energy to spend.

I believe the order of priority, from highest to lowest, is Engines, Weapons, Shields, but I could be mistaken. As to updating the original post, I doubt if that will happen unless a moderator decides to do it; Sylian's profile indicates that he or she hasn't logged in since July or posted since January of 2012.

(in reply to chaosegg)

Post #: 86