About engines

[rotor911]

Do somebody use purposely older engines classes (say fusion rather than antimatter) on his/her warships because of their better structural integrity? On 1 side, you have strategic movement and maneuverability, on the other survivability. I go myself for the newest engines: my reasoning is that you can have the same thrust with half the engines, hence more room for armor and shields, which should more than compensate the integrity loss. But I still find it an intriguing trade-off and I'm curious of other people opinions. Thanks for your 2 cents.

[TErnest]

Do somebody use purposely older engines classes (say fusion rather than antimatter) on his/her warships because of their better structural integrity? On 1 side, you have strategic movement and maneuverability, on the other survivability. I go myself for the newest engines: my reasoning is that you can have the same thrust with half the engines, hence more room for armor and shields, which should more than compensate the integrity loss. But I still find it an intriguing trade-off and I'm curious of other people opinions. Thanks for your 2 cents.

 

The bottom line, as you point out, is that the reduction in ship's mass devoted to engines very quickly outweighs the loss if integrity, especially when you put that extra mass into armor or shields. (Assuming, of course, that your defensive techs are at least keeping up with your engine techs.) And also that high integrity engine tech lines top out way too early.

 

Playing into this calculation, of course, is the assumption that typically, warships need not be nearly as mobile as cargo based designs. (But who cares if a fuel tanker can go toe to toe with a Battleship for ten rounds?)

 

I run three positions. One of them opted for the Nuclear Engine line, thinking that the integrity difference might be important. I now believe that this move was an error on my part. In my defense, at the time, I did not understand that the Nuclear path dead-ended at 6th generation. Or even that 6th generation would some day seem anemic for engine strength.

 

I am pleased to report that my other two positions are not so aflicted.

 

TErnest

[Lord Xaar]

Do somebody use purposely older engines classes (say fusion rather than antimatter) on his/her warships because of their better structural integrity? On 1 side, you have strategic movement and maneuverability, on the other survivability. I go myself for the newest engines: my reasoning is that you can have the same thrust with half the engines, hence more room for armor and shields, which should more than compensate the integrity loss. But I still find it an intriguing trade-off and I'm curious of other people opinions. Thanks for your 2 cents.

 

 

The better thrust on higher tech engines quickly becomes more beneficial if you have decent armor. If you can put 1000 engines on a ship with high thrust versus, say 4000, to get the same AP rating, that's 300,000 tons of extra armor. You don't need T'ckon to make that worthwhile...

 

-LX

[SargonKingOfSlith]

The only other point to make is if your strategic situation allows you to get by with a 2 Action Point fleet. Or if you haven't researched up to the Amazing level of engine technology.

 

You can save even more tonnage by using a single Mk I Nuclear Engine. A 9,000,000,000,000,000 ton ship will STILL get 2AP.

 

In my humble opinion, you have to research at least up to Antimatter engines before the extra action points are worth the extra tonnage on a war ship. Unless you really need to get to the battle field more quickly.

 

And I agree with TErnest. Cargo ships need the extra AP enough to make even the Mk III Fusion Engine worthwhile.

[TErnest]

The only other point to make is if your strategic situation allows you to get by with a 2 Action Point fleet. Or if you haven't researched up to the Amazing level of engine technology.

 

You can save even more tonnage by using a single Mk I Nuclear Engine. A 9,000,000,000,000,000 ton ship will STILL get 2AP.

 

In my humble opinion, you have to research at least up to Antimatter engines before the extra action points are worth the extra tonnage on a war ship. Unless you really need to get to the battle field more quickly.

 

And I agree with TErnest. Cargo ships need the extra AP enough to make even the Mk III Fusion Engine worthwhile.

 

Well stated, Sargon.

 

Just two very minor quibbles. (Can't help it... "irresistable urge to quibble" is in my racial design. Sometimes plays havoc with diplomatic missions. )

 

1) War ships with at least some mobility are very useful if your opponent has drones/fighters/missiles/torpedos. Depending upon whether or not you are at war with an empire that makes heavy use of these, it is possible that you could want significant engine power even a little before 6th generation (Mk I Antimatter) engines. Extra APs are not the only possible consideration.

 

2) The math says that Mk II Fusion Engines (or Mk IV Nuclear Engines) rather than Mk III, is the technology break-point at which you should consider higher AP cargo ships.

 

Of course, in the case of both quibbles... the higher the engine tech you can manage, the better.

 

TErnest

[ShadowKitsune]

While I am in agreement with most of those who have posted before, I would like to add that I have yet to see anything that has acted like a "lucky" shot where an Engine "hit" on the higher order engines has caused secondary explosions or a similar type of collateral damage. Basically, they have a lower structural integrity, which can be easily compensated for by the addition of high integrity components, such as armor.

 

M2CW,

-SK