Silvestr Potash wrote:
1. Star Drive 1
3. Super Star Drive 4
5. Heavy Nova 6
6. Quantum 7 (inefficient)
7. Quantum 7
8. Hyperdrive (inefficient)
9. Hyperdrive, Transwarp (inefficient)
The problem of course would be balancing to make most of the optionals as viable alternatives. As general rules I would say:
Inefficient drives - Burn more fuel, and are only really viable up to their established limits.
Efficient drives - Burn less fuel, and can be overburned but when they do, they should burn more fuel than the inefficient drives of the next higher engine.
How much this engines must cost?10 -transwarp 300, 9-trnawarp uneffective = 200Mc? The only reason to buy the engine is the fuel-consumption at the warp 9.(at all,one number).
Well I don't know the specifics, it's just an idea. Obviouslly I'd have to look at it in more detail.
But ideally the engine costs should be such that each should be a viable purchase option. Remember fuel consumption isn't just about neutronium, it's also about ship operating range. That and if you've got 10 Battleships each burning an extra 20% fuel or what not it's going to add up. Especially when you consider that some people use programs that take advantage of gravity wells to save some measly 5 kt of fuel.
But if your ship has an extra 20% fuel consumption it also means that it can only travel 83% or so of it's normal range. That and the lower engine cost will affect the E/S bonus in combat of smaller ships. The Tech 10 engine should be the ideal choice, but the Tech 9 should be a viable alternative.