Page 1 of 2

Engine change proposals

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:51 am
by Zaphod Beeblebrox
The most useful change I noticed in the entire PList shiplist was that there were uses for engines below tech ten.

I recommend that we make changes to the costs and fuel usages for engines in this repair of the standard ship list. This is one of the most damaged areas of the list, really.

In the standard list there are two engine types that are generally built: Tech one and tech ten. Tech one engines end up on Merlins and slot-filler ships, and anything else that doesn't need to move under its own power. Tech ten engines are the only engine that is usable on any ship that doesn't have a gravitonic accelerator or a HYP drive.

Tomorrow I will post my Engine list.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:10 am
by Rimstalker
You could also have a look at Pengerlist for some inspiration.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:03 pm
by Havok
Rimstalker wrote:You could also have a look at Pengerlist for some inspiration.


What's the Pendragon list. Never heard of it.

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:22 pm
by Rimstalker
its a shiplist made by some finnish guy iirc. http://vgaplanets.htk.fi/html/download.htm has it.

the ships are very expensive and rather small and the list is supposed to be played in extremely mineral poor universes.

engines:

Engines Tech Cost Dur Tri Mol
------------------- ---- ---- --- --- ---
StarDrive 1 1 1 1 5 0
HeavyNova Drive 6 2 53 3 3 15
Quantum Drive 7 3 170 3 3 15
Hyper Drive 8 5 200 13 3 25
Transwarp Drive 7 300 16 3 35
StarDrive A 8 500 13 2 28
StarDrive B 9 700 11 2 21
SuperTranswarp 10 950 8 2 12
Q-Warp 10 1900 1 1 4



Fuel Usage Warp 1 Warp 2 Warp 3 Warp 4 Warp 5 Warp 6 Warp 7 Warp 8 Warp 9
--------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
StarDrive 1 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00
HeavyNovaDrive 6 100.00 103.75 104.44 106.25 104.00 103.69 251.02 335.16 900.00
Quantum Drive 7 100.00 103.75 104.44 106.25 104.00 103.69 108.16 303.91 529.63
Hyper Drive 8 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 102.04 109.38 529.63
Transwarp Drive 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Star Drive A 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
Star Drive B 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 75.00
Supertranswarp 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
Q-Warp 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.50 20.00

Re: Engine change proposals

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:10 pm
by hennef
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:The most useful change I noticed in the entire PList shiplist was that there were uses for engines below tech ten.

I recommend that we make changes to the costs and fuel usages for engines in this repair of the standard ship list. This is one of the most damaged areas of the list, really.

In the standard list there are two engine types that are generally built: Tech one and tech ten. Tech one engines end up on Merlins and slot-filler ships, and anything else that doesn't need to move under its own power. Tech ten engines are the only engine that is usable on any ship that doesn't have a gravitonic accelerator or a HYP drive.

Tomorrow I will post my Engine list.


do you never use tech 7 engines for terraformers? never use 5/6 engines on merlins to fly to that close planet once in while and get the supplies so you do not need to spare a freighter? never use tech 8 on mdsf to support a remote base with low developement-status? s3 if you need to get slot-fillers that cost even less Tri? most battleships use the good engines, true. but i would never say, the rest is useless. i like them the way they are!

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2006 11:05 am
by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Engine Proposals

These are the graphs of the current engines in the Standard list, and what I propose we change them to in CMList. (Like the name?)

Image
Image
Image
Image

Sorry this has taken so long. I'm going to be moving 1200 miles in two days. We're a bit on the busy side at the moment. :wink:

I am not going to be able to post the actual numbers until after we get moved. I HATE moving!

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:15 am
by hennef
i kind of like what you did :)

yes, stupid old engines cost moret tri (the cheap steel).... makes sens. like american engines are lower tech, weigh more and are less efficient thatn european ones :P

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:34 pm
by Zaphod Beeblebrox
hennef wrote:i kind of like what you did :)

yes, stupid old engines cost moret tri (the cheap steel).... makes sens. like american engines are lower tech, weigh more and are less efficient thatn european ones :P


The biggest point was to make the tech six, seven and eight engines useful. And to smooth out the fuel usage curves.

I was considering adding a tech nine engine, also. It would look like the current (CMList) tech eight engine (possibly slightly better fuel efficiency) and the current tech eight would have reduced efficiency.

I'm not at all certain how this would work out in practice though.

Posted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:50 pm
by hennef
no. leave it that way. perhaps the 6,7 and 8 should cost just slightly more. reflecting they are now useful ;)

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:53 am
by AngryJohnny
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:Engine Proposals

These are the graphs of the current engines in the Standard list, and what I propose we change them to in CMList. (Like the name?)

Image
Image
Image
Image

Sorry this has taken so long. I'm going to be moving 1200 miles in two days. We're a bit on the busy side at the moment. :wink:

I am not going to be able to post the actual numbers until after we get moved. I HATE moving!


I think this is a good idea. I really like the 'power' curves you came up with, & think it would make other engines worth using.

Re: Engine change proposals

Posted: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:11 pm
by Silvestr Potash
hennef wrote:do you never use tech 7 engines for terraformers? never use 5/6 engines on merlins to fly to that close planet once in while and get the supplies so you do not need to spare a freighter? never use tech 8 on mdsf to support a remote base with low developement-status? s3 if you need to get slot-fillers that cost even less Tri? most battleships use the good engines, true. but i would never say, the rest is useless. i like them the way they are!
So, You did not use tech 2 engines and tech 4.
I ask for an engine slot, wich will cost more than transwarp for a better engine-shield bonus. Where is a speed is not matter. An heavy armored ship. Is not it?

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:44 am
by Tei
The Power Games use a modified engine ship list with more efficient Echo Drive 8 and Echo Drive 9 engines. It seems similar to Zaphod Beeblebrox's proposal.

Silvestr Potash mentions a Plist engine option which is also more interesting than the t-list engines :)

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:34 pm
by Hawkeye
Here's a few thoughts:

(a) Looking at the revised fuel consumption rates, and engine build costs, I really can't see any real difference between the tech 1 to 3 engines.

(b) I think the cost in MCs should be more logarithmic in nature, rather than what's proposed here

(c) The main aim here is to make more engines "attractive" to be built, so why not play around with adjusting the mineral requirements as well? You could make an engine tech 6, super-cheap to build, but it requires significantly more Tritanium to build for instance. Or why not make 3 tech 8 engines, one is heavy on cash, one is heavy on Dur and one is heavy on Tri etc etc

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:44 am
by Silvestr Potash
(c),(a) Becouse there is a Merlin alchemy. If you want to fly -it does not matter spend tritanium or duranium. If you want economy -you may build tech 1 engine or 3.
(b) i think the main reason the transwarp cost 300 becouse the HW produce 300$ at the start, with 8% tax=no grow happy

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:56 pm
by Akalabeth
Hawkeye wrote:Here's a few thoughts:

(a) Looking at the revised fuel consumption rates, and engine build costs, I really can't see any real difference between the tech 1 to 3 engines.

(b) I think the cost in MCs should be more logarithmic in nature, rather than what's proposed here

(c) The main aim here is to make more engines "attractive" to be built, so why not play around with adjusting the mineral requirements as well? You could make an engine tech 6, super-cheap to build, but it requires significantly more Tritanium to build for instance. Or why not make 3 tech 8 engines, one is heavy on cash, one is heavy on Dur and one is heavy on Tri etc etc

I've never really seen a point to most of the engines to be honest. It's true that yes, people don't always put Transwarp on a ship. Maybe if a freighter's supplying a tight cluster they'll use hyper drive 8s, or so mid-ranged engines on alchemy ships so they can get around.

But do we really need stardrives 1-4?
Do we need 5 AND 6?
Are 7 and 8 that much different?


To me there are maybe only 3-4 types of engines.
Station Keeping (1-4)
Slow Crap (5-6, maybe 7)
Not enough money for Top of the Line (8 and maybe 7)
Top of the Line (9)

Station Keeping - you don't intend to move the ship unless something else is towing it. You'd only use the engines in an emergency, or if it's a short planet hop and you've fuel to burn. Typically find these engines on warships that are towed (Virgos, Poppers), or Merlins, that sort of thing.

Slow Crap - Your ship will either be towed, or in planet orbit for most of its life. But if it has to move, it's not totally pathetic. People might put this on a warship when they want to tow it, but also want it to move if the tower gets taken out and this ship survives.

Not enough money - you want to build a ship, but can't afford transwarp, or the ship's intended operation can do okay without transwarp. So you throw crap engines on instead.

*Slow Crap and Not enough money can also be unregistered players. But, how many of these are still out there?

Top of the Line - Most all of your ships.

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

Point is, I don't think most of those engines are necessary. Really, we need maybe 1 station keeping and 1 Slow crap. That would free up 4 or so slots, so what's left?


What about engines that provide the SAME warp speed but at different efficiencies.

For example. What if there are two Transwarp drives (or two warp 9 drives), one is costly, requires more advanced minerals and is efficient. One is cheaper, requires less advanced minerals (and more crappy ones) but burns more fuel?

Same with Warp 8 drives. One is costlier, more efficient and go can Warp 9 with not too much waste. The other is cheaper, but going warp 9 burns absurd amount of fuels.

Can do the same with Warp 7 drives.
To make up for it, get rid of stardrives 2-4. Or maybe rather 2-3,5

Which would leave people with:

Stardrive 1
Super Stardrive 4
Heavy Nova Drive 6
Quantum Drive 7 (inefficient)
Quantum Drive 7 (efficient)
Hyper Drive 8 (inefficient)
Hyper Drive 8 (efficient)
Transwarp Drive (inefficient)
Transwarp Drive (efficient)

Inefficient ones as said earlier would be cheaper, and would require more "low tech" minerals (duranium and tritanium) while efficient ones would be require more money and more moly.

Obviously the engines would have different fancy names as well.


In summary, in my opinion if there is to be any changes in the engines to make some more appealing than others, the changes should be to make available more interesting choices at the higher end of the spectrum. The lower end drives are so similar in ability, if not cost as well to make them redundant. It doesn't matter that star drive 3 can go 8 more light years efficiently than star drive 1. They both move a pathetically small amount comparative to planetary distances so you'll be burning kilotons either way.

That's why I'd remove some of the lower end drives to make the gaps in the drives more significant and consistent. 16 light years is bigger than 1 light year, as is 36 over 16. Not by much of course, but it's better than 1,4,9,16,25,36. I've built star drive 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s and etcetera in different games at different times, but when I did so it was just for the hell of it not because I needed to.

Point being the lower drives are so similar and so ineffective (and similar in their ineffectiveness) that it doesn't matter how much the numbers are played around with, most people still won't build them.

As for tech levels, give the inefficient drives a bonus there too:
1. Star Drive 1
2.
3. Super Star Drive 4
4.
5. Heavy Nova 6
6. Quantum 7 (inefficient)
7. Quantum 7
8. Hyperdrive (inefficient)
9. Hyperdrive, Transwarp (inefficient)
10. Transwarp

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.

(So using Crap Warp 9 to go warp 9 should cost less fuel than using Good Warp 8 to go warp 9, but Good Warp 8 going warp 9 should still be viable when necessary, while Crap Warp 8 would have a very hard time going warp 9).

Or to illustrate this in number form, keeping in mind I don't know engine efficiencies:

----------------------Warp 7-----Warp 8------Warp 9
Crap Warp 8 -------- 1.18 -------- 1.2 -------- 3.0
Good Warp 8 -------- 1.0 -------- 1.0 -------- 1.8
Crap Warp 9 -------- 1.15 -------- 1.18 -------- 1.2
Good Warp 9 -------- 1.0 -------- 1.0 -------- 1.0

Like I say, these numbers have nothing to do with the actual numbers used in engine efficiency but are just to illustrate how they might be reflected in the scale of things. The numbers themselves would have to be balanced against both the cost of the engines and so forth to try and make each engine appealing in different circumstances

Alternatively, a person could even do away with the Crappy Quantum 7 and instead add another more efficient warp 9. An engine that might be super expensive, but could be put on ships that need that extra efficiency (ie cloaking infiltrators) or if you have more money than fuel.



Anyway this is long and maybe this has already been suggested before but this is my two bits.