Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships  (Read 12592 times)

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« on: January 10, 2019, 04:28:10 AM »

Well, we have few "dedicated" ships, purely civilian, with only one real goal - providing cargo\fuel capacity.
In case of fuel capacity, fuel consumption is significant factor, not as significant as move speed, still.

Drum carry 300 fuel with max burn of 9 and 1 fuel per ly, this is 300eff
Phaeton carry 600 fuel, with same burn, and 2 fuel per ly, this is same 300eff
Prometheus carry 2500 fuel, with miserable burn of 6 and 10 fuel per ly, this is 250eff (2500\10)
IRL this works in absolute reverse, giant freightliner is much more effective compared to smaller vehicles, and carry a lot more cargo for it's own mass compared to smaller trucks and civilian cars.
Also it's not that slow compared to smaller cars and perfectly keep 110kmh on freeway, just like everyone else.

Basically, only phaeton worth anything as long as you not hit maximum number of ships, as it get 100 bonus from HRS and completely equal to drum in eff.

For cargo, main factor is supply consumption (fuel consumption also important, but in such case on Colossus worth it):
Buffalo 300 cargo and 3 supply 100 eff
Tarsus 300 cargo and 3 supply and 80 crew 100eff
Colossus 900 cargo and 6 supply and 200 crew 150eff
Atlas 2000 cargo and 10 supply and miserable burn level 50eff

As result, best ship colossus, as it provide 50% more cargo capacity per supply cost and additional 200 crew.


As result, getting largest and most costly ship in line, is not upgrade, not ever close, in case of atlas it's major significant jump backward.

Is this by design? or probably have some logic behind? probably this is reason of domain downfall?
Logged

ErrantSingularity

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2019, 06:14:21 AM »

So, Colossus and Phaetons it is... And here I was poaching caravans for any Atlas I could get my hands on.
Logged

Euphytose

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2019, 06:24:47 AM »

By the time you're using an Atlas you're also using other capitals, so your burn speed is limited. At this point, only the supplies consumed matter, and for both fuel and cargo, the biggest ships can transport the most per supplies used.

Also, on civilian ships, not sure about you, but I always install augmented drive field, and efficiency overhaul.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 06:38:40 AM by Euphytose »
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2019, 06:35:24 AM »

Sometimes, Augmented Engines or even Militarized Subsystems are not always necessary on smaller ships.

I try to put Efficiency Overhaul on everything, though.
Logged

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2019, 06:45:45 AM »

biggest ships carry most per ship slot, but not ever close per supply and fuel point.

they need atleast double buff to cargo to be competitive with lesser ships.
Logged

DaLagga

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2019, 06:56:16 AM »

I don't really see the problem here.  First off, tankers and supply ships all have extremely high efficiency and so one being a bit less efficient than another doesn't really matter since their own fuel/supply consumption is largely irrelevant when compared to that of the rest of the fleet.  Second, for smaller fleets you're absolutely right.  You do want Drams, Phaetons and Buffalos but not because of the efficiency - because of the speed.  A small fleet needs to be able to run from larger engagements and you simply aren't going to be able to do that very well with a Prometheus or Atlas.  Once your fleet grows in size though and the ship limit becomes a concern, you need more dense forms of fuel/cargo storage which is where the larger freighters really shine.  I don't think it was ever meant to be a case of linear upgrades but rather about trade-offs that encourage experimentation.  
Logged

Euphytose

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2019, 06:59:27 AM »

I might as well ask this on this thread:

Do you ever use civilian ships for bonuses like ECM rating and such? Like deploying them in a corner and leaving them here just for the bonus? I absolutely never deploy them but maybe there's a niche strat making use of that.
Logged

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2019, 07:08:14 AM »

I don't really see the problem here.  First off, tankers and supply ships all have extremely high efficiency and so one being a bit less efficient than another doesn't really matter since their own fuel/supply consumption is largely irrelevant when compared to that of the rest of the fleet.  Second, for smaller fleets you're absolutely right.  You do want Drams, Phaetons and Buffalos but not because of the efficiency - because of the speed.  A small fleet needs to be able to run from larger engagements and you simply aren't going to be able to do that very well with a Prometheus or Atlas.  Once your fleet grows in size though and the ship limit becomes a concern, you need more dense forms of fuel/cargo storage which is where the larger freighters really shine.  I don't think it was ever meant to be a case of linear upgrades but rather about trade-offs that encourage experimentation.  

you missed entire point of thread.

when you have access to all ships at same time, there are NO REASONS to pick inferior ships at all.
there are absolutely no reasons to use drums when you can have phaetons.
no reasons to use buffalo when you have tarsus
no reason to use prometheus or atlast as long as you not hit fleet size limit, because there are no tradeoffs, they strictly inferior compared to smaller ships.
Logged

DatonKallandor

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2019, 07:19:43 AM »

This isn't actually true. There is a reason to use the Atlas and Prometheus - ship slots. They are both more slot efficient, for slightly less cargo/fuel efficiency.

The Tarsus and the Buffalo are perfectly balanced, possibly the most tightly balanced of any two ships of the same size and type. The Tarsus is better at running away, the Buffalo (red) comes with shielded cargo holds. They are otherwise interchangeable - it's purely which side-grade you prefer.

The Dram vs the Phaeton comes down to stealthyness. The Dram can be made stealthier than the Phaeton but are less slot efficient. Although the Phaeton could stand to be a burn level slower or the Dram a burn faster, because going a ship size up and not losing burn, on a ship of the exact same type and role, is kinda weird.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2019, 07:24:17 AM by DatonKallandor »
Logged

Lucky33

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2019, 08:00:30 AM »

Quote
Atlas 2000 cargo and 10 supply and miserable burn level 50eff

2000/10=200 not 50

Also fuel is anti-matter. For the most part its about containment package. "Tankers" = "specialized cargo ships".
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2019, 08:02:57 AM »

Do you ever use civilian ships for bonuses like ECM rating and such? Like deploying them in a corner and leaving them here just for the bonus? I absolutely never deploy them but maybe there's a niche strat making use of that.
You are not allowed to set rally points deep in the corner like in previous releases.  Attempts to do so are forced at least one big square away from the border.  That puts a damper on hiding ships far from the action and easy retreat, at least in normal fleet battles.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2019, 08:11:13 AM »

I don't think biggest freighters and tankers having best efficiency would be an issue at all. They also come with big speed and visibility issues, which are major factors until the very late game, so even if they were better at everything bar those two stats, they still wouldn't be universally the best choice. I am not sure if colossus having better fuel efficiency and atlas having better supply efficiency was unintentional.
That said, fuel inefficiency is relatively unimportant. If you're exploring, you're going to have an issue not getting more fuel than you can hold. If you're fighting, then you're most likely near a fuel source anyway, so high fuel usage shouldn't be that limiting.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7173
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2019, 08:28:29 AM »

You calculated efficiency on the Atlas wrong.

At different stages of the game different things matter. Early game freighters need to run away and be fast. Late game freighters want efficiency.
Logged

Retry

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2019, 10:16:21 AM »

I don't really see the problem here.  First off, tankers and supply ships all have extremely high efficiency and so one being a bit less efficient than another doesn't really matter since their own fuel/supply consumption is largely irrelevant when compared to that of the rest of the fleet.  Second, for smaller fleets you're absolutely right.  You do want Drams, Phaetons and Buffalos but not because of the efficiency - because of the speed.  A small fleet needs to be able to run from larger engagements and you simply aren't going to be able to do that very well with a Prometheus or Atlas.  Once your fleet grows in size though and the ship limit becomes a concern, you need more dense forms of fuel/cargo storage which is where the larger freighters really shine.  I don't think it was ever meant to be a case of linear upgrades but rather about trade-offs that encourage experimentation.  

you missed entire point of thread.

when you have access to all ships at same time, there are NO REASONS to pick inferior ships at all.
there are absolutely no reasons to use drums when you can have phaetons.
no reasons to use buffalo when you have tarsus
no reason to use prometheus or atlast as long as you not hit fleet size limit, because there are no tradeoffs, they strictly inferior compared to smaller ships.
1.You can always quite easily hit that low fleet limit of 30 by the mid-game so it's an issue.
2.As mentioned, your Atlas efficiency is incorrect.  Should be 200.
Logged

DeltaV_11.2

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Relative balance of cargo\fuel ships
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2019, 11:25:02 AM »

I kind of think that there should be a bit more tiering in terms of how far out you can venture without resupply, so personally dropping the fuel efficiency of the tankers and the supply efficiency of the freighters would make me happy. Going all the way out to the edge of the sector should require investment in specialized exploration ships or a fleet that is weak in combat, it shouldn't be something that a dram with a couple of militarized freighters can manage.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2