Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Tanaka -> Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 3:33:44 AM)

Since increasing fuel cells on ships make them go farther but what good is it for immobile? Is it for more fuel storage? Is fuel stored in fuel cells or cargo holds?



Castinar -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 4:17:14 AM)

You need fuel to power your reactor (Caslon for fision reactor, for instance). The more reactors you have, and the higher the energy output requirement of those reactors, the more fuel you need. It isn't *just* used for movement.



towerbooks3192 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 4:42:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Galen

You need fuel to power your reactor (Caslon for fision reactor, for instance). The more reactors you have, and the higher the energy output requirement of those reactors, the more fuel you need. It isn't *just* used for movement.


Now I learned something new. Thanks!

So its basically like saying you need fuel for cars and fuel for something like heating homes and for cooking.



Shark7 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 5:51:27 AM)

Also, you can use energy collectors to reduce fuel consumption. But you still need fuel on the stations, IIRC, the reactors will use fuel when in combat, even if you have more than the number of energy collectors needed.



Tanaka -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 6:50:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Galen

You need fuel to power your reactor (Caslon for fision reactor, for instance). The more reactors you have, and the higher the energy output requirement of those reactors, the more fuel you need. It isn't *just* used for movement.


So you need as much fuel capacity as reactor power output?



arkhometha -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 6:54:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Also, you can use energy collectors to reduce fuel consumption. But you still need fuel on the stations, IIRC, the reactors will use fuel when in combat, even if you have more than the number of energy collectors needed.



If bases run out of fuel, they stop shooting? You could crippled then economically, in theory?



Canute0 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 7:00:25 AM)

If they don't got fuel and no energy collector they don't got Energy, then they can't shoot.
If they got energy collectors and some surplus energy, they still can shoot but far behind that what they can do with full energy.



arkhometha -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 7:02:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canute

If they don't got fuel and no energy collector they don't got Energy, then they can't shoot.
If they got energy collectors and some surplus energy, they still can shoot but far behind that what they can do with full energy.


Got it, will remember it next times I design a Defense base. Thank you very much!



Shark7 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 8:46:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: arkhometha


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Also, you can use energy collectors to reduce fuel consumption. But you still need fuel on the stations, IIRC, the reactors will use fuel when in combat, even if you have more than the number of energy collectors needed.



If bases run out of fuel, they stop shooting? You could crippled then economically, in theory?


It doesn't stop the firing, but it will slow it down. If you are running at a deficit via collectors and run out of fuel, it might be a problem (I've never let this happen, I always put on extra collectors). The base designs should have enough collectors to cover the bases static needs with some to spare.



Sithuk -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 10:10:38 AM)

Why do you believe that energy collectors do not power weapons? I'll have to have a playtest with a zero reactor station.

Energy collectors are expensive and resource intensive if I recall, thats why I have designed stations with energy collectors for the station baseload energy requirements, and a reactor to cover the weapons as weapons will be used infrequently.



Shark7 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 11:00:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sithuk

Why do you believe that energy collectors do not power weapons? I'll have to have a playtest with a zero reactor station.

Energy collectors are expensive and resource intensive if I recall, thats why I have designed stations with energy collectors for the station baseload energy requirements, and a reactor to cover the weapons as weapons will be used infrequently.


You can't build a zero reactor station, the game will not let you. All ships and bases must have a reactor.

I don't believe that they don't power weapons, what I said was if you do not have enough of them it will have an effect if the fuel cells run dry. It is always a bad idea to run out of reactor fuel. It is also a bad idea to leave off the energy collectors. You should always design with more energy collectors than is necessary.



Raap -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 1:50:15 PM)

Energy collectors definitely power weapons; I try to keep my number of reactors down and fill up with those instead. That said, the reactors provide more energy per size, and energy collectors only work with suns around( though that's not a big deterrent). Generally, you'll want to have your 'collected' power and your 'surplus' power, when combined, match that of your total weapons usage.



Spacecadet -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 5:21:39 PM)

Your Reactors are basically like giant storage Batteries (Energy on the display).

Everything connects to the Reactor (ex):
- Collector output charges the Reactor (Energy display)
- Shield charge from the Reactor
- Weapon draw power from the Reactor

A good example would be if you have too many weapons, when they fire you will see your Energy level drop briefly and then start charging again.
I've even seen some designs that total drain the Energy and they never fully recharge while in combat.




Shark7 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 7:19:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet

Your Reactors are basically like giant storage Batteries (Energy on the display).

Everything connects to the Reactor (ex):
- Collector output charges the Reactor (Energy display)
- Shield charge from the Reactor
- Weapon draw power from the Reactor

A good example would be if you have too many weapons, when they fire you will see your Energy level drop briefly and then start charging again.
I've even seen some designs that total drain the Energy and they never fully recharge while in combat.




And those designs are the ones that actually can quit firing...no energy means no laser beams.

That is why I stress that both collectors and fuel cells (and multiple reactors) are a must.



moonraker65 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 7:50:12 PM)

I also find it handy to have fuel on some bases to top up a ship or 2 if they happen to be naer by or patrolling in a system close by. Saves them having to go back to a Space Station every time



Resan -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 7:56:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moonraker

I also find it handy to have fuel on some bases to top up a ship or 2 if they happen to be naer by or patrolling in a system close by. Saves them having to go back to a Space Station every time


Does that take from fuel tanks of the bases? I thought you need fuel in cargo holds to be able to transfer it to another ship



Spacecadet -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/25/2013 8:16:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Resan


quote:

ORIGINAL: moonraker

I also find it handy to have fuel on some bases to top up a ship or 2 if they happen to be naer by or patrolling in a system close by. Saves them having to go back to a Space Station every time


Does that take from fuel tanks of the bases? I thought you need fuel in cargo holds to be able to transfer it to another ship


Should be only from Cargo.




Tanaka -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 9:07:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet


quote:

ORIGINAL: Resan


quote:

ORIGINAL: moonraker

I also find it handy to have fuel on some bases to top up a ship or 2 if they happen to be naer by or patrolling in a system close by. Saves them having to go back to a Space Station every time


Does that take from fuel tanks of the bases? I thought you need fuel in cargo holds to be able to transfer it to another ship


Should be only from Cargo.




Ah so fuel cells do not refuel ships cargo bays do? Then I still ask the question why do you need fuel cells other than to increase ship distance? What do they do on a base?



Spidey -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 10:35:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Ah so fuel cells do not refuel ships cargo bays do? Then I still ask the question why do you need fuel cells other than to increase ship distance? What do they do on a base?

Putting enough energy collectors onto a base to power all its weapons is a bit of a pain in the ass in terms of upkeep. The more efficient thing, in my opinion, is to have enough energy collectors to power the static needs and then rely on reactor capacity if weapons are needed.

If you look at the included screenshot, you'll see that it's an early LSP design. The upper right corner reveals that it collects 96 energy, its reactors can put out 240 energy, the static energy drain is 74, and that leaves 166 reactor energy to be spent on other purposes. You'll also notice that it has a fuel capacity of 390, an energy storage of 480, and that it uses a mere 2 fuel units per 1000 energy thanks to the very nice Quameno NovaCore reactors. Finally, if you look at the weapons section, you'll see that its weapons, a bunch of velocity shard torpedo launchers, have a maximum drain of 133 energy per second.

The way to make sense of these numbers goes like this. The reactor is feeding up to 240 energy per second into a battery with a capacity of 480. This costs 2 units of fuel per 1000 energy produced. The energy collectors can potentially feed 96 energy to the battery. The battery has a static charge loss of 74. When the weapons are firing, the charge loss can increase to (74+133 = ) 207 energy, which would drain the battery fairly quickly, even with the collectors. The reactors, however, can easily produce this much energy, at the cost of burning through fuel.

And that's where the fuel tanks come in. This design has 390 units of fuel stored away and at the cost of 2 units of fuel per 1000 energy, this translates into a reactor output of 195,000 energy, which is enough to cover a weapon-based power drain of 133 for (195k/133 = ) 1466 seconds, or close to 25 minutes.

In practice, I have an untested gut feeling that the fuel is drained a bit faster than this. I might be sensing ghosts or it might indicate that the reactors are being charged with the full 207 energy drain regardless of the collectors, which would bring down the running time to a mere 975 seconds or about 16 minutes.

You might ask why I'm not just covering the weapon drain by collectors. The answer is that collectors are sort of expensive and I'd honestly rather pay for the upkeep of some fuel cells and some fuel consumption than for having the energy collection potential necessary to keep my weapons powered up.

Final thing, keep in mind that fuel cells are relatively cheap and that pirates some times really don't know when to give it a rest and call it a day. And it would suck if a disruption in fuel deliveries caused your base to stop shooting and get shot to pieces, wouldn't it?

[image]local://upfiles/47067/BB23A3C71FB64BD299E382BCEC9D36F3.jpg[/image]



Ralzakark -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 10:43:34 AM)

Fuel cell - holds the fuel that powers the reactor of whatever the fuel cell is in, either ship or base.
Cargo bay - holds fuel that is being taken elsewhere, or being stored to be taken elsewhere (e.g. a gas mine where the mining engines will put the fuel into the cargo bays ready to be collected).

From memory you will also need a cargo bay in a base which is receiving fuel as it is staged through there to before ending up in fuel cells. So fuel arriving at a base in a freighter will effectively go docking bay > cargo bay > fuel cell, but others can confirm/refute that.



Kantay -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 10:46:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet


quote:

ORIGINAL: Resan


quote:

ORIGINAL: moonraker

I also find it handy to have fuel on some bases to top up a ship or 2 if they happen to be naer by or patrolling in a system close by. Saves them having to go back to a Space Station every time


Does that take from fuel tanks of the bases? I thought you need fuel in cargo holds to be able to transfer it to another ship


Should be only from Cargo.




Ah so fuel cells do not refuel ships cargo bays do? Then I still ask the question why do you need fuel cells other than to increase ship distance? What do they do on a base?

Bases need ENERGY for all sort of thing. ENERGY is produced in two ways, one is from a REACTOR, which needs FUEL to produce energy. It is one of the reactor statistics, that says like "2.56 fuel for 1000 energy". So if you want to supply your base with energy from reactors, you should have some fuel cells there. If you instead power your base with collectors only, then you need one fuel cell and one reactor anyway because the game forces you to.



Tanaka -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 6:14:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

Fuel cell - holds the fuel that powers the reactor of whatever the fuel cell is in, either ship or base.
Cargo bay - holds fuel that is being taken elsewhere, or being stored to be taken elsewhere (e.g. a gas mine where the mining engines will put the fuel into the cargo bays ready to be collected).

From memory you will also need a cargo bay in a base which is receiving fuel as it is staged through there to before ending up in fuel cells. So fuel arriving at a base in a freighter will effectively go docking bay > cargo bay > fuel cell, but others can confirm/refute that.


Yes but Ive read elsewhere that bases over planets do not need cargo bays because the planet holds everything? Is this true?



Tehlongone -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 9:31:24 PM)

Basically true but I think they sort of pick up the resources from the planet so it needs enough cargo to handle all the incoming contracts as contracts reserve the purchased products while having them still stashed on the station, if you have too little cargo space it would harm your ability to trade efficiently. That said, you don't need much cargo.

As for fuel if you have plenty of energy collectors you only need enough for weapons and the station can refuel itself from the planet so 1-2 works fine. If it's in space you might want a few more depending how long you want it to be able to defend itself.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 10:01:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
That is why I stress that both collectors and fuel cells (and multiple reactors) are a must.


I couldn't agree more, take note new players, this is very sound advice.

Always try and design your bases with excess energy capacity. Remember some weapons bypass shields and if you’ve streamlined your energy requirements so tightly that you only have the bare minimum needed, a single knocked out reactor can see your base go down ASAP. So design your bases with enough reserve power that a lucky hit or two won’t take it out of commission or reduce its firing rate so much it can’t adequately defend itself.

Jim




Tehlongone -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (5/31/2014 10:57:21 PM)

I don't know, in my experience once the base's weapons are truly required it's usually too late anyhow. Better to have powerful shields to allow a fleet to rescue it, it should just have enough weapons to counter a casual fleet attack.



moonraker65 -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (6/1/2014 9:03:15 AM)

A lot depends on how you play the game. I find that to expand further in to a Galaxy you will certainly need some refueling facilities for Explorers and for Fleets especially if you're going after Independent Colonies that are just out of reach early game



Draakon -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (6/1/2014 10:48:18 AM)

Do note that Energy Collectors are also useful on ships that stay static for long periods of time. That way, their static energy consumption doesn't waste all their fuel on life support and sensors and such.



Mansen -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (6/1/2014 12:48:16 PM)

Is surplus energy converted into fuel or does it have to be spent at the spot?



Spidey -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (6/1/2014 11:43:58 PM)

Surplus energy isn't actually spent, as far as I know. If a ship isn't doing anything then the only power drain is the static energy and then that's all the reactor is producing. If it is doing something then what it's doing is added to the static energy drain.



Kizucha -> RE: Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base? (6/2/2014 7:10:34 AM)

I have a little question to energy collectors and the static energy. The static energy is the energy ships&bases use even if they sit still? Is it possible to cover that with energy collectors? I also always use enough energy collectors to cover the static energy but i think i'm doing anything wrong, because they burn fuel.[:(]

Is this only working with a few more collectors than needed? I only use as many collectors that the static energy is coverd and not more.[:)]

Thank you for anwers.^^



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.171875