1 vs 2 reactors on ships

[jpwrunyan]

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller

I generally use two reactors on everything at the start. I'll use one only if I can get max hyperspeed + other requirements. I don't get the comments about increased fuel usage. If it is for weapons I want them firing. For travel you use the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance - you just do it faster. I want my ships traveling (hyperspace) fast - military to engage targets, civilians to deliver their payloads. Greater per time fuel usage but greater amount of resources delivered. The only ships I ever think about using a single reactor for are escorts assigned to single system duty, but even here in most systems they will hyperspace to different locations. I've yet to encounter a situation with early tech reactors where I have actually designed a ship with only one. [8|]

Sounds like you and I are on the exact same page, paragraph, and word.
The only cost I can see so far is the idle fuel cost. Also build cost.
But still why did the designers and so many others opt for 1 reactor for the starting builds? I still feel like I am missing something.

[Keston]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan
The only cost I can see so far is the idle fuel cost. Also build cost.
But still why did the designers and so many others opt for 1 reactor for the starting builds? I still feel like I am missing something.

How much is the idle fuel cost?

Reactors also add mass which requires more fuel to push, and more engines to achieve the same speed. If, for a ship of the same size, having more reactors does not cost significantly more fuel for the same distance traveled, I'd be more inclined to design differently frigates that may need that extra speed.

[dejagore]

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller

I generally use two reactors on everything at the start. I'll use one only if I can get max hyperspeed + other requirements. I don't get the comments about increased fuel usage. If it is for weapons I want them firing. For travel you use the same amount of fuel to travel the same distance - you just do it faster. I want my ships traveling (hyperspace) fast - military to engage targets, civilians to deliver their payloads. Greater per time fuel usage but greater amount of resources delivered. The only ships I ever think about using a single reactor for are escorts assigned to single system duty, but even here in most systems they will hyperspace to different locations. I've yet to encounter a situation with early tech reactors where I have actually designed a ship with only one. [8|]

Sounds like you and I are on the exact same page, paragraph, and word.
The only cost I can see so far is the idle fuel cost. Also build cost.
But still why did the designers and so many others opt for 1 reactor for the starting builds? I still feel like I am missing something.

Same here. First thing I have done in my new game I started yesterday, was edit all the ship designs to reach full Hyperspeed (basically add one more reactor). Even if the fuel usage is slightly larger - it pays off ! Especially for the civilian ships.

[MisterBenn]

I've been manually designing ships and coming to very similar conclusions. The Energy panel in the design screen should have a new item as Excess Energy alone doesn't seem to be enough. I would like another figure called something like "Time at peak output" which would be the amount of time your ship is able to activate all its systems (i.e. fire all weapons and use all other systems at the same time) before its full energy store drains down to nothing. This would be in seconds or would be "Indefinite" if the ships reactor output is more than enough when all energy consumers are in use at once. If like I did you put too way many guns on an early ship design then you will see the ship fire all weapons for perhaps 10 seconds and once the energy store is drained, the ship can only continue to fire at perhaps 10% speed until a break from combat gives it time to recharge. It's important to keep the peak energy output and reactor output in balance - a calculation I find myself working out mentally for all combat ships. It would be great to have that presented on the design screen.

[Sylian]

ORIGINAL: Keston

ORIGINAL: jpwrunyan
The only cost I can see so far is the idle fuel cost. Also build cost.
But still why did the designers and so many others opt for 1 reactor for the starting builds? I still feel like I am missing something.

How much is the idle fuel cost?

Reactors also add mass which requires more fuel to push, and more engines to achieve the same speed. If, for a ship of the same size, having more reactors does not cost significantly more fuel for the same distance traveled, I'd be more inclined to design differently frigates that may need that extra speed.

Idle fuel cost depends on static energy useage. Reactors do not use static energy. So the idle fuel cost is not increased when adding reactors. Fuel consumtion per distance travelled in hyperspace is the same no matter if you use 1 or 2 reactors, as already was stated above. The bigger ship size for adding a reactor may require you to use more thrusters, which then will actually use up more energy / fuel. But the situation is the same if you fill up the space of one reactor with weapons / shields etc.
So the only reason to use only 1 reactor i can think of is to save resources and maintainance cost by keeping the ship small. On the other hand faster freighters may help with resource shortages early on. That is why i always add 2 reactors to all my ships at the beginning, even the civilian ones. (i design all ships and bases my self - i dont like AI designs)
On ship-roles: (this is purely my impression, not backed by solid evidence) i think the AI uses the ship role as a guideline on how to use that ship, if you automate them. Escorts will... well escort, frigates are on system patrol, and everything upwards is used for strike forces and fleets.

[Sithuk]

+1 to having a left over energy summary after full sprint mode +shield recharge +full weapons firing are taken off reactor energy. Although my mental arithmetic has significantly improved since starting to use the DW ship design so there are benefits to the current system.

Elliot is re-designing the ship design screen for the next patch. I read it is due at the end of the month. I'm hoping he can get a beta out before Christmas.

ORIGINAL: MisterBenn

I've been manually designing ships and coming to very similar conclusions. The Energy panel in the design screen should have a new item as Excess Energy alone doesn't seem to be enough. I would like another figure called something like "Time at peak output" which would be the amount of time your ship is able to activate all its systems (i.e. fire all weapons and use all other systems at the same time) before its full energy store drains down to nothing. This would be in seconds or would be "Indefinite" if the ships reactor output is more than enough when all energy consumers are in use at once. If like I did you put too way many guns on an early ship design then you will see the ship fire all weapons for perhaps 10 seconds and once the energy store is drained, the ship can only continue to fire at perhaps 10% speed until a break from combat gives it time to recharge. It's important to keep the peak energy output and reactor output in balance - a calculation I find myself working out mentally for all combat ships. It would be great to have that presented on the design screen.

[Keston]

That sounds like a good case for using a single reactors only for the smaller ships such as escorts. It sounds like the basic AI designs are being upgraded, so being smart doesn't seem like an exploit.

ORIGINAL: Sylian
On ship-roles: (this is purely my impression, not backed by solid evidence) i think the AI uses the ship role as a guideline on how to use that ship, if you automate them. Escorts will... well escort, frigates are on system patrol, and everything upwards is used for strike forces and fleets.

That was my assumption and unstudied impression. I hope a dev can confirm the general concepts of these roles.

I'd like a toggle to have the AI assign escorts to colony ships even if it's not all on Full Auto.

[jpwrunyan]

Sylian, thanks for the clarification. I am also now going double-reactor on everything. Sounds like the initial designs are just not that great. It's too bad because redesigning for each race is a pita. (I do this because loading a design loads the artwork as well and I want the artwork for each race)

[balto]

Webbco, you can do the Retrofits for everything really quick in the "Open Ships and Bases" window. When in this window, click on Military ships and click on their Subrole. Then use the SHIFT CLICK to highlight all of the ships you want retrofitted, and click on Retrofit.., boom, Done. Same thing for your SpacePorts and Constructors and Explorers, click on them in the "Open Ships and Bases," highlight using SHIFT CLICK, click RETROFIT, and bah-boom, they are done.

Also, I want to be clear that I have no Military Ships on AI as you do. I just have a Frigate and Destroyer. The rest I clck on Obsolete and never let them in the playing field. So I really do only have TWO Military ships.., well, and the Troop ships. I remove Troop Compartments from my two Military ships.

I am not saying this is a good thing, I am just saying what I do to un-clutter the field. My brain is not that good, so I need to dumb things down for myself.

Also (I doubt anyone cares), my two ships (which I always keep at the MAX SHIP SIZE) are identical except for one thing.., the Destroyers I stick in Fleets, and the Frigates are independents. For me, this allows me to decide how much to build to keep up my fleets and how many independents I want. I am not explaining this well, but like I siad, I am sure no one cares.., everyone has their own way and I am sure most are great.

[Webbco]

Thanks balto, forgot that I could use that method to retrofit to custom designs from the drop down menu [8D]