Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

Post Reply
mordachai
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:55 pm

Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by mordachai »

I came across a discussion of ECs which basically boiled down to: Only put them on bases.

Reason: no ships stayed sitting around in-system enough to waste the resources & space on them.

I notice that most (all) mods I've seen keep them on all ships. Just wondering if anyone else knew one-way-or-the-other?
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Shark7 »

Very.

Without them, your ships burn fuel even when idle. And since the two fuel types (Caslon and Hydrogen) are also necessary for colony development...shortages are very, very bad. [;)]
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Aeson
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:36 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Aeson »

This page has formulas which seem to be reasonably accurate under the current patch for ship maintenance costs:
tm.asp?m=2717671

Energy collectors require 18 resources total; if all resources used in the energy collector are at base costs, then the energy collector will cost about 40 credits in maintenance per game year.

Fuel is consumed at a rate of (fuel per thousand energy)*(static energy requirement) per real-world second at normal game speed, so if we were looking at a ship using a Fission Reactor I (3.81 fuel per thousand energy) and a static energy requirement of 15, we would expect to see about 0.06 fuel burned per real-world second at normal game speed. If I am not mistaken, a game year is 600 real-world seconds at normal game speed, so the idle fuel requirement of this ship is about 34.3 fuel per year.

If Caslon costs 0.8 credits per unit, then the ship in the example above will consume about 27 credits worth of fuel per game year. One energy collector would be sufficient to cover the static energy requirements, and costs about 40 credits per year at base resource costs. The most simplistic analysis therefore says that energy collectors are not economically worth adding to the ship. However, the question isn't quite this clear cut. If each of your ships is consuming 34 fuel per year at idle, then you need to produce at least that much fuel and provide it to the ships per game year. If you do not have energy to fuel converters yet (and who prioritizes those?), then this means that your freighters are running off to mines to collect fuel and then ship it to various distribution points - colonies, spaceports, various space stations - and in doing so, they too are consuming fuel. Furthermore, ships leave idle mode when they go to refuel, which temporarily increases their fuel consumption (how much additional fuel this consumes varies). This increases overall demand for fuel, which can increase fuel prices, and which may lead to or exacerbate fuel shortages (shortages may be local, as at a new frontier colony far from existing fuel sources, or empire-wide, or rarely even galaxy-wide).

Additionally, there are non-economic factors to consider. A ship which does not burn fuel while idling has more potential time on station than a ship which does burn fuel while idling; this can be particularly problematic if the nearest refueling point is fairly distant and requires a relatively long jump to reach. A ship which does not burn fuel while idling is also more likely to be at approximately the same fuel level it had when you sent it to a station the next time you check on it, which prevents delays due to needing to refuel the fleet. A ship which does not burn fuel while idling places less stress on the local fuel supply.

Also bear in mind that most state ships, unless explicitly ordered to patrol, will spend a relatively significant amount of time idling if there are no enemies in system, and don't neglect to ask yourself what else you'd do with the whole 8 extra space that dropping an energy collector frees up. There's not a whole lot you can do with 8 space; that's maybe 1 or 2 weapons, or perhaps a shield generator if you have a couple extra space left over from something else, or it's ~40 credits less on the maintenance (~4% on a size 300 ship with early game technology).

In the end, only you can say whether or not energy collectors are worthwhile to you, but before you base your decision off of the most basic level of cost analysis, remember to consider the other factors. I probably haven't covered everything here, and certainly the numbers change a bit depending on what the static requirements of your ships are and how efficient a reactor you use, but the above should give you some idea of the kinds of things to keep in mind.

In my personal opinion, energy collectors are worthwhile.
mordachai
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:55 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by mordachai »

Wow, deep response, Aeson.

The FUD on this for me comes from: do civilian ships spend a lot of time idle & in a system (if so, then they should have them, otherwise they're draining resources to build those collectors that aren't being used enough to justify them).

And similarly for military vessels - If they're idling at a world, do they collect enough? Or do they need to sit right up smack next to the local star to get enough photons?

And what about bases? How can we tell if they're getting enough light in their orbit to generate enough energy to be self-sufficient on sunlight? I assume that just existing is "idle" for all non-ships (bases)?

Related: What good are energy converters? They're huge, so obviously intended for bases... but do they need a lot of collectors? Any collectors? Do they generate casalon? hydrogen? or "stored fuel" only usable by that base?

Thanks for any answers!
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Shark7 »

Civilian ships may not need an energy collector. While they all have some down time, the freighters usually stay pretty busy hauling cargo from here to there. I would definitely be more convinced to leave the EC off of a freighter.

Military ships do spend a lot of time sitting in one place, and the EC will collect so long as the ship is in a system (no matter what type of star or how far away from it).

Energy converters literally make fuel from the energy the ship collects. It's like a free fuel source, and very useful on bases and on resupply ships. The best way to describe it would be if I could convert solar energy into gasoline. [;)]

I've always found that the cost is such a small investment its worth it. And if you play on extreme difficulty, you will soon learn that you never have enough fuel. And as you have shortages, the cost goes up. So you really need to consider that the price will fluctuate on the fuel costs. And by shortages, I mean there are times that I don't even have enough fuel on hand to refuel a 12 ship fleet; it makes the game interesting until you get the economy established.

For example, in my current game, Caslon is costing 1.8 per unit since I have a shortage (a very persistent shortage). And that times the 34.3 units burned per game year would cost me 61.74. So in my case the energy collector is 2/3 the cost of burning the fuel.

I'm posting a little screenshot of my Caslon so you can confirm it yourself. The base price will change depending on circumstances.

Image
Attachments
res_sample.jpg
res_sample.jpg (13.41 KiB) Viewed 443 times
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Aeson
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:36 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Aeson »

Personally, I feel that even civilian ships have enough down time that it's worth putting energy collectors on them. The extra burden it places on your strategic resources isn't that great, it helps a bit with the fuel situation when the civilian ships do take time off, you don't pay their maintenance anyways, and the extra cost is negligible for the private sector unless they're really struggling. If the state can afford it, the private sector can probably afford it far more easily.
Energy converters literally make fuel from the energy the ship collects. It's like a free fuel source, and very useful on bases and on resupply ships.
I'm not positive, but I don't think that energy to fuel converters place a demand on the power generation of the ship or station. I think they're more like energy collectors that output fuel rather than power.

At the very least, I'd like for that to be the case, because otherwise the EtFC probably violates Conservation of Energy (and yes, I understand that this is a game and not the real world). From what I've found on it on the forums, the EtFC generates 50 hydrogen and 50 caslon per "tick," which I think is 6 game days (10 seconds of real time at normal speed). The most efficient hydrogen reactor (any version of the NovaCore) provides 500 energy per unit of fuel, the most efficient caslon reactor (Quantum I or III) provides about 288 energy per fuel. This means that the EtFC effectively generates ~4000 energy per second, which means that at least that much energy must be put into the EtFC.

Two threads touching on the EtFC:
tm.asp?m=3621814
tm.asp?m=3637062
And similarly for military vessels - If they're idling at a world, do they collect enough? Or do they need to sit right up smack next to the local star to get enough photons?

And what about bases? How can we tell if they're getting enough light in their orbit to generate enough energy to be self-sufficient on sunlight? I assume that just existing is "idle" for all non-ships (bases)?
Based on the chart in A Guide to Energy (linked in A Guide to Guides Mk II), an energy collector will generate an amount of power equal to its rated energy collection per second at roughly 90% of a system radius in most system types, with power output increasing as you get closer to the center of the system and decreasing as you get further away (to approximately 0 energy per second at 1 system radius; for black holes and oxygen clouds, the 0 point is an unknown distance greater than 1 system radius, according to the chart and comments in the thread). The system radius was defined in A Guide to Energy as being where the pink selection ring shows up when you zoom in on the system with the system selected.

This means that an energy collection which is double your static energy requirement will cover the static energy out to ~95% of the system radius; an energy collection which is triple your static requirement will cover the static requirement out to ~97% of the system radius, and so on. Planets are typically within about half to two thirds of a system radius of the star, if I'm not mistaken.
mordachai
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:55 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by mordachai »

Thanks Shark7, Aeson, much appreciated. I'm a check out those links now :)
NephilimNexus
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:25 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by NephilimNexus »

Both Construction ships and Resupply ships spend most of their lives sitting in one place & not moving.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: NephilimNexus

Both Construction ships and Resupply ships spend most of their lives sitting in one place & not moving.

And both of them are prime candidates for the energy to fuel converter. I'd also put a few extra fuel tanks on anything with a converter to take full advantage of it.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Aeson
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:36 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Aeson »

The two civilian mining ship types also spend a lot of time sitting in one place. Colony ships, on the other hand, might not be worth putting energy collectors on, if you build them as needed rather than building up a stock of them and sending them off as you find viable worlds.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Aeson

The two civilian mining ship types also spend a lot of time sitting in one place. Colony ships, on the other hand, might not be worth putting energy collectors on, if you build them as needed rather than building up a stock of them and sending them off as you find viable worlds.

Agreed on both points.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
CyclopsSlayer
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:49 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by CyclopsSlayer »

These are the guidelines I use.

Explorers and Colony never get Collectors as they spend little if any time idle.
Civilian ships should spend little time idle and aren't worth the costs.
Any Mining Ships and Constructors always get Collectors as they spend frequent periods stationary
Bases and Military always get collectors. Even resorts that sometimes are placed where the collectors do not function.
mordachai
Posts: 684
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:55 pm

RE: Are Energy Collectors worth it?

Post by mordachai »

Sounds like a good summary. :)
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”