Why would you need more than one fuel cell at an immobile base?

[Kantay]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Spacecadet

ORIGINAL: Resan




Does that take from fuel tanks of the bases? I thought you need fuel in cargo holds to be able to transfer it to another ship

Should be only from Cargo.

Ah so fuel cells do not refuel ships cargo bays do? Then I still ask the question why do you need fuel cells other than to increase ship distance? What do they do on a base?

Bases need ENERGY for all sort of thing. ENERGY is produced in two ways, one is from a REACTOR, which needs FUEL to produce energy. It is one of the reactor statistics, that says like "2.56 fuel for 1000 energy". So if you want to supply your base with energy from reactors, you should have some fuel cells there. If you instead power your base with collectors only, then you need one fuel cell and one reactor anyway because the game forces you to.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

Fuel cell - holds the fuel that powers the reactor of whatever the fuel cell is in, either ship or base.
Cargo bay - holds fuel that is being taken elsewhere, or being stored to be taken elsewhere (e.g. a gas mine where the mining engines will put the fuel into the cargo bays ready to be collected).

From memory you will also need a cargo bay in a base which is receiving fuel as it is staged through there to before ending up in fuel cells. So fuel arriving at a base in a freighter will effectively go docking bay > cargo bay > fuel cell, but others can confirm/refute that.

Yes but Ive read elsewhere that bases over planets do not need cargo bays because the planet holds everything? Is this true?

[Tehlongone]

Basically true but I think they sort of pick up the resources from the planet so it needs enough cargo to handle all the incoming contracts as contracts reserve the purchased products while having them still stashed on the station, if you have too little cargo space it would harm your ability to trade efficiently. That said, you don't need much cargo.

As for fuel if you have plenty of energy collectors you only need enough for weapons and the station can refuel itself from the planet so 1-2 works fine. If it's in space you might want a few more depending how long you want it to be able to defend itself.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
That is why I stress that both collectors and fuel cells (and multiple reactors) are a must.

I couldn't agree more, take note new players, this is very sound advice.

Always try and design your bases with excess energy capacity. Remember some weapons bypass shields and if you’ve streamlined your energy requirements so tightly that you only have the bare minimum needed, a single knocked out reactor can see your base go down ASAP. So design your bases with enough reserve power that a lucky hit or two won’t take it out of commission or reduce its firing rate so much it can’t adequately defend itself.

Jim

[Tehlongone]

I don't know, in my experience once the base's weapons are truly required it's usually too late anyhow. Better to have powerful shields to allow a fleet to rescue it, it should just have enough weapons to counter a casual fleet attack.

[moonraker65]

A lot depends on how you play the game. I find that to expand further in to a Galaxy you will certainly need some refueling facilities for Explorers and for Fleets especially if you're going after Independent Colonies that are just out of reach early game

[Draakon]

Do note that Energy Collectors are also useful on ships that stay static for long periods of time. That way, their static energy consumption doesn't waste all their fuel on life support and sensors and such.

[Mansen]

Is surplus energy converted into fuel or does it have to be spent at the spot?

[Spidey]

Surplus energy isn't actually spent, as far as I know. If a ship isn't doing anything then the only power drain is the static energy and then that's all the reactor is producing. If it is doing something then what it's doing is added to the static energy drain.

[Kizucha]

I have a little question to energy collectors and the static energy. The static energy is the energy ships&bases use even if they sit still? Is it possible to cover that with energy collectors? I also always use enough energy collectors to cover the static energy but i think i'm doing anything wrong, because they burn fuel.[:(]

Is this only working with a few more collectors than needed? I only use as many collectors that the static energy is coverd and not more.[:)]

Thank you for anwers.^^

[Bingeling]

It should work just fine as long as you are in a gas cloud or in a star system. Have energy collection exceed static energy use, and off you go. Keep in mind you may want more on bases if you plan to power weapons with them, reasons to not do it this way (to the extreme) is given above.

Ships in "dead space" should not have any gain from their energy collectors, which makes parking there for a long time kind of "bad".

[Kizucha]

Thank you Blingeling. ^^ I think in that case i have to put a few more collectors on maybe that fix it, otherwise i dont know why my ships are lose fuel, maybe they making a huge dinner in the kitchen.[:D]

[Spidey]

I believe energy collectors have reduced efficiency based on their distance to a star, which means you'll potentially burn fuel unless you have an overcapacity of collectors. It's not something I've tested, though.

[Bingeling]

I believe that all stars and clouds give full energy collection, but I could be wrong.

They used to some versions ago at least, and not doing so would annoy the players and be a pain for the AI.

[Spidey]

Another thing that will have to be tested at some point, I guess. [:)]