Speed Carrier (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> The War Room



Message


Cruis.In -> Speed Carrier (6/4/2015 1:39:07 AM)

Loving the long distance uses of carriers with their fighters, so wondering about the possibility of using a high speed carrier, something which nothing else can catch! :)




Bingeling -> RE: Speed Carrier (6/4/2015 3:30:10 PM)

Feel free to try, but I believe you will discover that making a giant carrier that is fast can be easier said than done :)




Aeson -> RE: Speed Carrier (6/4/2015 5:06:06 PM)

The big problem that carriers face when attempting to be fast is that despite being up to 50% larger, they really have 10% less space available for components other than the required fighter bays (and possibly less, depending on how well the fighter bays you have fit into the required space). On top of that, the demands upon this space are higher, as a ship's speed is linearly dependent upon the fraction of its size dedicated to its thrusters and so a ship which is 50% larger must dedicate 50% more total size to thrusters, and there is also the issue of requiring 50% more space for its life support and habitation modules. Obviously, a carrier can save some space by cutting the armament (which furthermore frees up reactor output to power the additional engines, which can mean that the carrier will not need more reactors and may need less reactors than the regular ship).

An example to demonstrate the issues of making a carrier fast:
A size-600 carrier must dedicate 240 or more size units to fighter bays. 240 size units translates to 4.8 standard or 5.3 advanced fighter bays; as I obviously cannot use fractional components to fill out the required space, I must dedicate 250 size to standard fighter bays or 270 size to advanced fighter bays on the size-600 carrier, leaving me with 350 size instead of 360 if using standard fighter bays, or 330 size instead of 360 if using advanced fighter bays. Alternatively, I can settle for a size-500 carrier which has 300 space available using standard fighter bays (4 fighter bays required), or I can settle for a size-562 carrier which has 337 space available using advanced fighter bays (5 fighter bays required).

Let's assume that I'm using Ion Thrusters (600 max/520 cruise thrust, 4 max/2 cruise power), have habitation and life support modules with support size 85, chose to go with 5 standard fighter bays on a size-600 carrier (350 space available for non-fighter bay components), and want to achieve a cruise speed of 30. A ship's speed may be computed as
     [speed] = ([total thrust] / [total size]) * min(1, [reactor output] / [speed level power requirement])

I will therefore require 18000 total cruise thrust for the size-600 carrier (600 size * 30 cruise speed), meaning that I require 34.6 ion thrusters (this will obviously need to be rounded; 34 ion thrusters gives 29.5 cruise speed for 204 size while 35 gives 30.3 cruise speed for 210 size on a size-600 ship). Let's assume that I settled for 34 ion thrusters (29.5 cruise speed for 204 size). I require 7 life support and habitation modules for the size-600 carrier, which costs a further 21 size units. I therefore need to fit my reactor(s), hyperdrive, maneuvering thrusters, and any other components I wish to add into the 125 remaining space (204 + 7*3 = 225, 350 - 225 = 125).

If we were to strip off the fighter bays and convert this design into a destroyer of equivalent size relative to maximum build size (i.e. a size-400 destroyer), those 34 ion thrusters would propel the destroyer at a cruise speed of 44.2 and we'd require only 5 life support and habitation modules (15 size units), which would leave our destroyer with 181 size units for reactors, a hyperdrive, maneuvering thrusters, weapons, and any other components I wish to add. We could strip off as many as 11 of the ion thrusters and still have a speed greater than that of the carrier (23 ion thrusters on a size-400 ship gives 29.9 cruise speed) while freeing up an additional 66 size units for non-drive components.

It's true that you can switch out the ion thrusters for better thrusters to improve the carrier's speed, but this helps the smaller ship in a similar manner and can increase the absolute speed difference (though not the relative speed difference) between ships of differing sizes which carry the same number of the same quality drive thrusters. (Why can rather than does? Because I'm not sure exactly what you'll consider a 'better' thruster - switching out the ion thrusters for the same size in proton thrusters, for example, will reduce the cruise speeds of the ships but increase the sprint speeds.)




Testmann -> RE: Speed Carrier (7/2/2015 9:29:09 PM)

I'd recommend you playing Ackdarians then.
They have the fastest engines ingame, and their ship-size in increased by 20%.

Nothing can beat an armada of super carriers. [8D]
The only thing stopping you will be your framerate..




Aeson -> RE: Speed Carrier (7/3/2015 12:16:10 AM)

quote:

I'd recommend you playing Ackdarians then.
They have the fastest engines ingame, and their ship-size in increased by 20%.

Actually, the Sluken have the fastest engines in the game: Starburners, which provide more thrust at standard power when first introduced than any other drive except the final upgrades of the Turbo Thruster and Vortex Engine and more thrust at maximum power when first introduced than any drive except the first and second upgrades of the Vortex Engine and the final upgrade of the Turbo Thurster. Ackdarians have the second-fastest engines in the game, the Turbo Thruster, which is also by far the most energy-efficient. Turbo Thrusters are not energy-efficient enough to claim the title of 'fastest drive' in a practical situation; Turbo Thrusters offer up to ~107.4 thrust per size unit with Fission Reactor IIs and Turbo Thruster Is, ~139.5 thrust per size unit with Fusion Reactor IIs and Turbo Thruster IIs, ~141.3 thrust per size unit with Quantum Reactor IIs and Turbo Thruster IIs, and ~179.7 thrust per size unit with HyperFusion Reactor IIs and Turbo Thruster IIIs. Sluken Starburners offer up to ~128.3, ~176.4, ~181.5, and ~234.6 thrust per size unit for the same pairings.

To put it another way, if you include the reactor, assume that each thruster must be powered entirely by one reactor (so if a reactor output is 72 and drive power requirement is 7, you get 10 thrusters per reactor rather than 10.2), and assume that you will have a dedicated reactor for the thrusters, Starburners offer 18800 maximum and 11800 standard thrust for 92 size units to the Turbo Thruster's 33120 maximum and 20400 thrust for 190 size units with Fission Reactor IIs and first-generation Starburners and Turbo Thrusters. You can comfortably fit a complete second set of Starburners into the additional space taken up by the Turbo Thrusters, resulting in 37600 maximum and 23600 standard thrust from Starburners for 184 size units. This pattern is repeated for second- and third-generation Turbo Thrusters and Starburners paired with equivalently advanced reactors (so second-generation Fusion/Quantum Reactors for second-generation Turbo Thrusters and Starburners and second-generation HyperFusion Reactors for third-generation Turbo Thrusters and Starburners). In the vast majority of practical situations, Starburners result in higher ship speeds than Turbo Thrusters do.




liveware -> RE: Speed Carrier (3/22/2019 1:55:15 PM)

I have had moderate success in the early-mid game using fast escort carriers. Typically I arm these with a single fighter bay and as many engines as my ship size tech permits. Alone the escorts aren't all that strong but when I get a group of them (6+) they are reasonably effective against comparable sized fleets.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.757813E-02