Multiple engine types on ship

Suggestions
1

I have an idea, and I want to know your opinion.

------------

When using multiple types of engines, fuel consumption is calculated from the required ship speed. The engines with the highest efficiency are used first.

In the example below, when the ship’s speed is 3840 km/s or less, less economical engines are not used at all. As the ship’s speed increases, the overall efficiency will decrease as the contribution of the second type of engines to the overall EP increases.

Also, for comparison with combined engines, two other types of engines are given, giving better result in range at maximum speed.

(Reminder: The cost of the >=100% boost engine is proportional to its EP; the <100% boost engine is cheaper per EP.)

------------

Engine 1 - 60%, 1920 EP, 0.017428 fuel/EPH, Cost 576

Engine 2 - 175%, 5600 EP, 0.253207 fuel/EPH, Cost 2800

Fuel - 250 000 litres

5 Engines (40 HS / 2000 ton each).

Total mass - 1000 HS / 50000 ton (Speed = EP).

------------

5x Engine 1: 9600 km/s Speed, Range 51.64b km ( 62.25 days ), Cost 2880

5x Engine 2: 28000 km/s Speed, Range 3.35b km ( 35.26 hours), Cost 14000

Combined:

• maximum efficiency:

2x Engine 1: 3840 km/s Speed, Range 51.64b km (155.66 days)

• maximum speed:

2x[1]+3x[2]: 21920 km/s Speed, Range 5.66b km ( 71.78 hours), Cost 9552

0.158895 fuel/EPH

------------

Engine 3 - 135%, 4320 EP, 0.132347 fuel/EPH, Cost 2160

5x Engine 3: 21600 km/s Speed, Range 6.80b km ( 87.45 hours), Cost 10800

98.54% Speed, 120.14% Range, 121.83% hours, 113.07% Cost

Engine 4 - 140%, 4480 EP, 0.144944 fuel/EPH, Cost 2240

5x Engine 4: 22400 km/s Speed, Range 6.21b km ( 77.00 hours), Cost 11200

102.19% Speed, 109.72% Range, 107.27% hours, 117.25% Cost

------------

This could have added more versatility to the ships, allowing them to choose between maximum range or speed, not only in the design window. Obviously, a ship with one type of engine will be more efficient than a ship using different engines in one of these areas.

In terms of balance, I believe most commercial ships will use one type of engine, as they already have good fuel efficiency.

Military ships can become more efficient by having one engine to fly as part of a tanker fleet and another type to increase speed during combat. If you use carriers/tugs, the first type of engine is not needed.

Fighters are transported in carriers, so they don’t need to have two different engines.

Stealth ships will benefit greatly because they will be able to travel on a slow stealth engine and will be able to try to escape using the boosted engine.

------------

In general, this could change the behavior of military fleets and would also allow them to use Termal Reduction with greater efficiency, allowing them to create ships that fly far, stealthily and quickly. Also, flying at a speed below the maximum will make more sense.

It will also require changing the speed and range display from the [Value] format to [Value at maximum efficiency]/[Value at maximum speed].

2 Likes
2

Another use: You are using 1 engine with Termal Reduction and 2 engines without Termal Reduction. You can move with a significantly smaller signature at low speed without significant cost increase.

TH will be the second priority when using engines.

1 Like
3

I like the idea of moving slowly and consuming less fuel, then using faster engines only when needed for attack or interception. It makes more sense to deploy ships at low speed when there is no immediate threat, and then increase speed only to intercept or engage. It is also more logical that lower speed should consume less fuel, and vice versa. Maybe we can have it really simple with two choise “on”, “off”, economy engine or military engine.

I also like the idea of having one slow stealth engine. This should be only a Military Engine aspect. Let’s see what our Spacemaster Steve thinks. It is probably not an easy thing to implement. Maybe it will be a problem of micromanaging the speed every time…

4

Not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze.

A key tenet of the game philosophy is to make choices, and those choices matter. To have something or a combination of things to “always be the best choice” goes counter to this tenet.

3 Likes
5

I agree with Pedroig and I do worry that something like this would create an optimum with added micromanagement for very little decision-making added.

Consider two ship designs: one with 2x identical engines at 100% boost and another with two different engines of the same size, one at 50% and one at 150%. The latter has the same combat speed as the former but much more efficient cruising range in return for a lower cruising speed. The second ship also has a cheaper build cost (since the cost of <100% engines is less per EP). The second ship can fly around at the same full speed as the first ship for only 47% higher fuel consumption, which is usually going to be a fair price for the strategic flexibility gained.

Adding to this, getting the desired fuel efficiency out of multi-engine-type ships will add micromanagemnt as the ship speed will have to be added whenever issuing new orders (at least whenever fleets are formed or split up).

Finally, it’s worth noting that currently fuel logistics are an important part of the game, and adding a very strong option to mitigate or even largely bypass these logistics would likely make the game less interesting overall even if ship design becomes slightly more intensive.

3 Likes
6

Not sure if it is worth the added complication although it sounds really cool. But one way to make the strategy have additional cost would be to increase maintenance usage or failure rate when using multiple engine types at once.

7

Perhaps a line of tech that allows you to order a ship to lower its engines power modifier based on the level of technology?

So your ship has engines with a modifier of 1.00, and you have two levels of the tech so you can tell it to lower the modifier to 0.80, with the thrust, fuel useage, and thermal emissions being lowered as if the engine has a modifier of 0.80.

8

I feel like this makes more sense in reverse - temporarily overclocking engines to gain a boost in speed at the cost of vastly increased fuel consumption and increased chance of maintenance failure. I think I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere in the past. Could use existing UI of setting ship/fleet speed, with perhaps an added checkbox of “overclock” allowing for higher than 100% speed, proportionally increasing fuel x2 or x3 on top of what an engine with an equivalent final power modifier would cost. You could also hard cap the mechanic at 600% speed to match missiles and gate the feature behind a tech line so that players could opt in or out of using the featuew. The AI might have some difficulty factoring in this capability, but I’m always on the side of providing players with more options, even if the AI doesn’t necessarily get to share or mirror the exact same mechanics every time.

9

The “overclocking” does make more sense. For most Navies in the world, there is “Cruise/Full” power and then “Flank”, typically a ship is not allowed to go above 80% Max Power unless emergency circumstances or combat is involved. An oldie but a goodie illustrating the inverse relationship between speed and endurance:

image
image1200×953 280 KB

Yes, that’s right at “full speed” of 33 knots these destroyers would have about 1.4 days of fuel, at a leisurely 18 knots 10.9 days, and at “flight operation minimum” of 25 knots, 4.4 days.

10

Starfire had something called engine tuners, which I have considered adding to Aurora for some time. Essentially, they boosted the engine output with a chance of engine failure. There was a second type that inflicted crew casualties due to radiation.

That was a turn-based game, so the trick is finding some mechanics that work for the much more varied timeframes in Aurora, without making them an automatic choice.

2 Likes
11

Have current engine speed be 80% of max, and some “flank option” that when clicked/checked/ordered give the 20% “boost” at a 300% increase in fuel usage and either increased part failure, or increased “effective MSP cost”, or just have going to “flank” use up 10% of the engine’s cost in MSP, per engine.

12

Perhaps a terrible idea, but maybe have it as stacking chance based on how long they’ve used the boost feature within a certain time frame? So say 1% chance of engine failure up to 6 hours use within the last week in game, 2% after 12 hours, and so on. That way its an option that could be the difference between life and death, but using it too frequently might lead to catastrophes, especially if its on a big ship where losing an engine might effectively seal its doom.

13

It seems to me that the addition of the ability to have multiple engines/modes would be perceived as a “best choice”. It seems like you just won’t have a reason not to use it.

But you still have a choice of which engines you want to use.

In my example, a ship with two economical engines will move at a speed of 3840 km/s. This is very slow (40% of 5 economical, x2.5 longer), unacceptably slow, when you need to quickly respond to enemy actions by sending reinforcements, for example. Time is also a resource.

On the other hand, if you use more fuel-efficient engines, you will be able to move faster in fuel-efficient mode, but the maximum combat speed of the ship will be lower.

You could also use only 50% of the uneconomical engines’ power to get to the battleground. Or use engines with higher boost to get better result at the same speed. The greater the distance, the greater the difference.

Using <100% boost engines to reduce the overall cost at the same speed will result in higher fuel costs. If you have enough fuel, what’s to stop you from doing that?

In my experience, I use <100% boost engines even on warships, and I need a tanker only to free up some space on the ships (and bring more MSP). If they had used two types of engines, they would have reached the enemy NPR not in a month, but in about three or six months. The saved fuel would be quickly spent in enemy systems to catch up with enemy ships. If different engines were used to reduce cost, they would rely much more on the tanker, which would make the issue of fuel logistics much more important.

I also thought about changing the fuel consumption based only on the speed of the ship. This would make engines with less boost useful only in terms of cost. Similarly, being able to increase the thrust of an existing engine will give you more reasons to use engines with less boost for the same combat speed. It will also increase the maximum possible speed of the ships, which will require changes in the speed of the missiles to compensate for this.

The ability to use different engines does not increase the maximum possible speed of ships. It also does not give you the opportunity to get more from the standard 100% boost engine. You still have to choose and sacrifice something - the maximum speed or the flight time for the maximum range.

It’s pretty similar to choosing the %boost of your engine type. Speed and time, or range and fuel. But this way you will choose the range in which you can change these values - with less efficiently than with a single engine.

It will also require some micromanagement, but you don’t have to use different engines on all your ships. Using tugs to move combat stations also requires micromanagement, but you don’t have to use combat stations. So if you still use one type of engine, you’ll lose some versatility in favor of simplicity and efficiency.

14

Which is the point, that means there is no choice BUT to use a combo of engines.

The entire rest of the “argument” is then the EXACT choices we have now for singular engine type per ship, with the difference being we can’t “shore up” the weaknesses with an alternative.

The design simply becomes “how fast does one want the ship to go in combat?” coupled with “how slow am I willing to go out of combat?” that’s it. The added HS by doing both get factored into that design, but there isn’t really any choice of actual tradeoffs.

15

You can use tugs or carriers to move your ships. In fact, this is already using different engines - but not at the same time. You get the benefits of both.

But does your fleet consist of tugs/carriers and cruisers with 300% boost engines?

You can use it easier. Or don’t use it. One type is more effective in its task.

16

Although it seems to me that I am now slightly underestimating the ability to change the speed at any time to something between “fast” and “fuel-effective”. It’s worth thinking about it.

17

At the moment, fuel efficiency vs speed is part of engine design. It’s a strategic decision and you need to create a variety of different engine designs for different roles and situation.

Allowing a range of fuel efficiency options within a single design removes that strategic consideration element, so I won’t go down that route.

The option I am considering is an engine modification that has extra cost/weight and provides a limited ‘tactical’ benefit in specific situations, with the added possibility of a negative tactical impact. That would still allow a strategic decision as part of engine design and add some tactical decisions under certain circumstances.

3 Likes
Damage Control Expansion - Attack Ships on Fire
18

In what the use of multiple engines can it be more helpful repect the ability we already have to change the speed of a ship, every time we want, from 0 to the maximum allowed by its engine(s)?
Then, sorry, but it seems to me that you are talking of a single ship at time. But in a fleet, there are often even tens of ships… and with this mechanics, maybe we could have ships with one type or with multiple types of engines in the same fleet… how should we manage the use of different engines without too much micromanagement of selecting one by one each ship in the fleet to set the engine(s) we need?

19

I’m not a fan of this idea at all.

2 Likes