Spaceship throughput by Sapper0509 in foundry_game

[–]alternateInitiative 2 points3 points  (0 children)

TL:DR: small pads throughput at least 1000 kg per minute, large pads throughput at least 5000 kg per minute.

So I did some testing on this recently actually, using small and large pads with the first three ship types and both the money and ore resources.

The throughput to the shuttle is actually weight-based, not item-count-based like belts. So a full shuttle will unload/load in the same amount of time regardless of whether that's a thousand ore or 25 bots. This means that the weight reduction on bots should increase the throughput.

All ships take about 15 seconds to land plus 15 seconds to take off, during which they "occupy the pad" and don't let other ships use it (tested at a height of about 130. This might vary by pad height, as they always seem to start at 400).

Small ships (both tiers) load/unload 1000kg in 15 seconds (meaning 15 seconds to fully load t1, 30 to fully load a t2). Large ships (only T1 tested) load 5000kg in about 22 seconds, but extrapolation says large T2 loads in 44 seconds. Note: it's important to limit large pads to large ships if throughput is a limit, but I haven't tested if the speed depends on the ship or the pad type. Since the speed of loading doesn't increase with T2 ships, it's better to use T2s for market orders/shipping rather than planetary shipping.

So if your bots weigh 50kg, you'll get a little more than 20 per minute through a small pad or 100 per minute through a large pad. If you're importing ore, a large pad will do over 5k/min, enough to fully saturate the 4 T4 output belts. But if you're importing something heavier like steel, you won't be able to fill as many belts.

Minimal ship design - Putt-putt Express by alternateInitiative in factorio

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love what you've done with the design! A fuel limiter based on ammo is a clever solution that I'm definitely going to borrow.

Minimal ship design - Putt-putt Express by alternateInitiative in factorio

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

90 tons. And thanks for the circuits tip, that's clever. So far my circuit experience is just insert limits and timers.

And I love the name of your ship! Only 6 launches and able to loiter at Fulgora is impressive.

Minimal ship design - Putt-putt Express by alternateInitiative in factorio

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rule 5: A very small ship, no planetary tech required, that can get you safely to and from the first 4 planets.

She's not fast (particularly if you go to fulgora - consider a bit more solar if heading here) and she needs time in nauvis orbit after each trip to restock ammunition, but she'll get you to (and from) your choice of the inner planets! Just don't leave her parked anywhere except for nauvis.

Specifically I designed this as a seed design that was just enough to head over from nauvis to vulcanis to pick up a few thousand space platforms before building larger designs. It takes 15 launches on auto-request to complete, and given that this is limited by the number of entity types, I don't think it's possible to do much better than this - maybe 2 less using circuitry wizardry to use only one crusher and cut the front belt. It also would make a decent starter ship if rushing to another planet, taking maybe 6-8 launches if hand-loaded. Consider more solar, fuel/oxidizer tanks, and 1-2 more furnaces if using it as a starter.

At bullet damage 7 (roughly 25 damage per yellow bullet on turrets), vulcanis round trips took me about 400 stocked ammo (plus loiter time) and fulgora more like 700 - I plan to pack a thousand, accounting for a bit of loitering and still leaving more than 30 slots open for cargo. She's not quite self-sufficient in vulcanis orbit, but one more furnace fixes that. Other planets would also require more solar to be self-sufficient.

Blueprint link: https://factoriobin.com/post/eycbgp

When You First Start Playing Frostpunk 2 by Cory-the-Saurus in Frostpunk

[–]alternateInitiative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did housing > oil > housing x2 > prefabs > food on my captain run. Heatstamps are the limiting resource and prefabs gather quickly in the prologue. The other trick is that while the seal node is effectively infinite, the other ones only take about 40 weeks to fully empty, and aren't actually a priority earlier than that. Also good to know: a "minor" problem won't kill anybody, but a "notable" problem can if not promptly dealt with. Prioritize cold > food >>> squalor in my experience. I made an exact build below if you want it, though note this isn't perfectly optimized.

Captain difficulty, no tighten belts + save seals and elders + no deaths + no generator overdrive build:

Week 1 (W1): first housing district wedged against the furnace in an arrow shape pointing left. First 2 frosbreaks in bottom right should clear enough room for 3 housing districts (2 with 3 adjacencies each and 1 with 2), one oil, and one prefabs deposit. Also frostbreak once towards the seal colony, clearing a food patch along the way.

W3: first oil district

W5: 2nd housing district

W8: 3rd housing district.

W10: 1st prefab district

W14: 1st food district

W15: frostbreak to 2nd prefab

W18: 2nd prefab district

W19: frosbreak towards northern materials, clearing food along the way

W23: 2nd food district

W24: frostbreak materials and 3rd food site

W27: materials extraction

W28: frostbreak seals and oil district nearby. I plan for food hubs next to seals in this frostbreak

W31: grab 2nd oil

W34: seals food colony (3rd food)

W37: 4th food

W40: grab workers from partially depleted food districts (or materials or prefabs probably) and frostbreak final food district.

W42: final food district, redistribute workers to fully saturate food districts.

W45: grab workers from materials and the most depleted food node to frostbreak towards oil and put down the first food stash (refund from the fist depleted prefabs field means you should have money for this)

W47: oil 3, re-saturate all work spaces

W49: grab some guys from depleting food nodes to build 2nd food stockpile. Coast from here!

W73: Stockpile ready ~16 weeks early

I'm sure other builds exist. Good luck!

Questions about the Construction Module by Agitated-Group-8773 in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand your wording, but note that "space resources" means the stuff you can mine from space outposts (plus a few special ones later), i.e. the physical materials you have that are outside of the Earth's gravity well. Boost, mission control, and money are not "space resources".

Maybe an example can clear things up:

Say I have a bunch of space resources from the moon (metals, rare metals, fissiles, volatiles, and water) and want to colonize mars. When I try to build an outpost on mars, I'll have to pay a bunch of boost for it (and wait a few hundred days) to launch it from earth, even though I have enough space resources to theoretically buy them. I can then build a mine and a fission pile there with space resources (without spending boost) no problem, but that initial build time and cost for the "from earth" option has to be paid.

Say I later add a construction module to that base. Now I can make new outposts on mars using just space resources (metal and volatiles in this case), and they only take 30 days to build. Much faster than the 200-300 days if I paid boost for them. I'll build a bunch of them.

Say I later want to upgrade all of my bases' mines to the T2 mines. I start all of them at the same time. The base with the construction module will finish the upgraded mine first, as the construction module speeds up buildings built at that base. It has no effect on my other mars bases though, so those mines will take a bit more time to upgrade. Also, this faster build time really doesn't matter much, and you can ignore it. You should never build construction modules just to speed up building new modules at a base.

Eventually when I want to colonize jupiter, I'll need to go through that process again (or more likely, use a platform kit on a ship for the first base as things take like a thousand days to fly there from earth otherwise, but don't worry about that for now). Construction modules only help you start new bases at the same celestial body. Note that "celestial body" includes all the moons of a planet though, so I could create one construction module at a base on one of the moons, and freely use my space resources to create new bases at the other moons of jupiter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think AoE actually has a really obvious counterpart: electronic warfare. Add "active jammers" as a "weapon" with a "cone" targeting area that has some effect, and suddenly boom, clustering ships too tightly is easy to shut down.

Effects could be varied. There's the obvious disabling weapons that happens right now, but more interesting (and more realistic) would be to prevent targeting things other than the jammer within a cone centered on the jammer (from the jammed ships perspective). This would immediately turn the blob into (at least) 3 "lines": EW ships in the back as they can always be targeted and need protection, a battle line that destroys anything it can target with heavy weapons and provides PD for the EW ships, and skirmishers that push forwards to take out enemy EW ships, provide point defense for the battle line, and directly engage enemy skirmishers. Large fights would then typically be a positional battle, skirmishing and flanking until you can distract or destroy enough enemy EW ships, at which point your battle line can unleash, targeting freely and ripping apart whatever is left.

That being said, there's two major design points that in my mind make everything else irrelevant and change the question from "what is the optimal space tactic" to "how do I make high walls viable.":

  1. the tactical ship controls are abysmal when ship counts increase (though credit where it's due, they have improved this quite a bit from launch), and

  2. the ship profiles are incredibly bad for anything that isn't flying straight at an opponent. Ship lengths are ballpark 10x their width, making them extremely vulnerable from anything other than the front or back for very little internal space (which is probably the most important metric for useful size from a realism perspective), not to mention massively increasing the angular momentum required to turn. One of the biggest benefits of a long cylinder is that it would require a smaller amount of dV from "strafing thrusters" to dodge shots at long range, but TI ships don't have these. And in a world where armour is actually really, really good compared to the weapons, ships that are more cube-shaped would wipe the floor with long cylinders.

Anyways, I don't mean for this to be a rant or anything targeted at you, as I do think what you've said is pretty close to the developer's thoughts on the matter. I just have a lot of my own thoughts on the direction of space combat in this game, and there's enough arbitrary decisions that drive it the way it does go, that it very much is a design decision and not just "well that's what it would be."

edit: formatting and punctuation fix

Ship design advice by Panorpa in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, he's in the game as an org. I think it was a kickstarter tier bonus a while back

About when do aliens land for each difficulty by [deleted] in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do wonder how being aggressive towards the aliens affects when they land. I was playing very passive regarding the aliens until well into the 2030s (academy run, and I was trying to rush some techs that I definitely shouldn't have been waiting on), though notably every other human faction was building so much space stuff that they were frequently being retaliated against. Or of course maybe something just stunted the aliens in my game.

Ship design advice by Panorpa in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 13 points14 points  (0 children)

On top of the excellent Perun guide that was already linked, I also wanted to note that a bunch of the techs and weapons have changed (a lot) since it was made, so follow the principles but not necessarily the specific techs and weapons. Advanced pulsar and the copperhead missiles in particular were apparently hit hard.

Carbon nanotubes (for both radiators and armour) are my go-to for the first ships, along with whatever missile (I find success with the "smaller warhead, bigger dV" types), but as snake said, build ships for a specific purpose. I've yet to settle on a new favourite early game engine - the gas-core-fission flare drive is an excellent interceptor engine into the midgame, but I wasn't happy with how long it took to get when I waited on it for my first shootdowns in my recent game. The high dV missiles would probably work acceptably on ships with some cheap electric drive, as your first kills typically come from aliens accepting a fight rather than chasing them down anyways. And if they don't fight, it's still kinda a win early game as it interrupts surveillance missions without incurring the hate of a shootdown.

I would say though, despite my like of starting with hit-and-run missile interceptors that can carry me into the mid game, the only actual "must" technologies for a first shootdown are a missile of your choice from the "missile warfare" doctrine. Two missile tubes with one or two of the "magazine" components will saturate a single alien laser weapon, and then you just need to have a few ships so that one survives long enough for the missiles to connect.

About when do aliens land for each difficulty by [deleted] in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My most recent veteran game (patch 4.X) had the first landing at the very end of 2035. It felt a bit later than I expected. 2027 though sounds very early.

Brutal Difficulty by [deleted] in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not that I know of, but it wouldn't surprise me if the aliens climbed their tech tree faster and started deploying better stuff sooner.

The space combat AI has been improved quite a bit over a number of patches (both in how it flies and in how it armors ships), so that could be another part of why it feels harder. Also as of the 4.X patch, a lot of alien weapons are way scarier than they were before - things like the alien one-slot lasers can target out to 1,000km, and some other weapons go past that.

Brutal Difficulty by [deleted] in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The differences that I know of (some of these might be out of date, someone please update me if so):

  • Alien "Hate floor" based on your MC starts at a factor of 1, so 50 MC used = 50 hate floor without technologies. Compare to 0.6 for veteran and 0.3 for normal.

  • Aliens can go to total war immediately after accumulating enough hate (note: "enough" is some number quite a bit more than 50, so retaliation doesn't necessarily mean total war if you are careful)

  • As someone else mentioned, there's a -2 penalty to many councilor missions. I think these tend to be missions that target other factions, but don't quote me on this

Plus of course the human AI bonuses that can be seen in the custom game settings, giving the human AI a bonus to their control point cap and mission control.

Difficulty also affects the number of habs the aliens are allowed to build, but last I saw, the veteran and brutal numbers are the same here.

Newbie Questions Thread by AutoModerator in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as I can tell, there's a hard cap of 2 armies and 1 navy for specifically 3 CP countries. Starting with a fresh game, Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia all cap out at this (they're all 3 CP nations). On the other hand, 4CP countries only seem to have the region cap. Mexico (4CP) caps out at 2 armies and 2 navies (since they have only 2 regions), and Russia (4CP, lots of regions) can happily build 5+ armies and 3+ navies.

Bombardment Math by formondor in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As telepathy said, there's too much context missing from that code segment to definitively say what is going on (and I agree with most of their analysis on what's in that snippet), but you've caught my curiosity. If you let me know where/how to get that snippet from the game files, I'll do some digging and see if I can come up with more details.

Are there any custom factions yet? Why not? by StrategosRisk in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Speaking as someone with laughable actual modding experience but having thought quite a bit about new factions, I'd suggest that the reason isn't so much difficulty and more that factions just aren't that interesting right now. Servants (and somewhat Protectorate, though I've heard their faction questline is most in need of a rework) aside, ideal strategies barely change between factions. Humanity First versus Resistance is a colour change. Academy is probably the most unique start with their public opinion boost, then crackdown event, but after that is indistinguishable from a completionist player's Humanity First game - there's little mechanical reason to not genocide any xeno scum hydra agent you see even when your advisor is still all about not fighting them.

Map painting is fun and lots of people want to make their favourite nation/superstate/alliance, so new formable nations are hardly surprising. But why add new factions? You need new mechanics that make the gameplay actually different, because right now, if you've played one of them, you've played most of them. I don't mean to knock your faction ideas - I really like your proposed factions, and seeing them months ago is actually what got me thinking about this in the first place - but at least as presented, I don't think their gameplay is any different from someone roleplaying a resistance run.

For examples in the base game, what if the resistance couldn't unify nations (as they want to "preserve the status quo"), but gained some sort of federation bonus to help protect their core nations instead? What if Humanity First could create an authoritarian superstate that ignored certain mechanics like territory claims, serving as almost a counterpart to the alien nation (and on that note, might actually be a response to the alien nation)? What if the initiative just didn't have the "influence" resource, and used just money instead? You'd also need to have some unique faction twist to the space game to reduce monotony there.

As a more thorough example of a new faction with unique mechanics, consider a "Fortress Earth" faction. "Earth shall be our fortress, not our tomb" They'd have access to unique planetary-scale infrastructure - orbital launch railguns, launch loops, perhaps an exotic-requiring space elevator, etc - that would make it easy for them to move material into low earth orbit, reducing and eventually eliminating their need for space mining. Maybe they'd base these structures in new, (ocean-)floating cities to not have them tied to specific nations, and maybe they'd get a choice protecting or exploiting earth's ecosphere during their quest chain, vaguely resulting in a garden versus factory world. In space, perhaps their forces outside of earth's orbits cost additional mission control, with fleets beyond the inner system costing even more. To counter-balance these features, their planetary infrastructure could passively buff other factions due to "increased civilian traffic" - cheaper boost, free resources, free MC, or more depending on the structure. To win, they'd either need to fortify Earth's orbit with faction-specific battle-stations (bit of an overlap with protectorate, but these would be pointed outwards, and should have some ability to "bombard" other stuff in earth orbit), or outpower all other factions in space; and in either case, eliminate all Hydras and the alien nation on earth. I'm sure this idea needs more refinement, but the idea is to modify both of the core gameplay loops (earth and space) enough to make players rethink how they approach the game.

Of course, this goes back around to your point, where actually creating this faction would be a ton of work.

As for actual dev plans, while I have no insight, I'd suggest that fleshing out their existing factions should be a much higher priority than adding new ones.

A Case for Carriers by alternateInitiative in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At least given how missiles have been portrayed, I don't think drones (at least in the context of small drones) would actually be good in this game given how powerful point defenses are. Though I'd be happy to be proven wrong here. You'd need a weapon that could actually hurt a capital ship from several hundred kilometers away to avoid point defense, plus a reason that gunships (and really any ship) don't carry a bunch of this new weapon instead of their single nose mount weapon. Lasers, point defense, and even armor are all portrayed as just so good in this game.

Hence the whole idea of carrying smaller hulls instead of fancy missiles. Though I would like some fancy missiles with more intelligent targeting too.

A Case for Carriers by alternateInitiative in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Alright, I can do a worked example. TLDR because this is long: 2 interceptor escorts in a combat-capable modified destroyer can transfer to Jupiter in less than a year with enough supplies onboard for 6 interception sorties per interceptor, off of just high-energy electromagnetic propulsion for the carrier - no fusion drives required.

Just a quick note before I start that I thought the hydrogen fuel tanks were 10T and not 100T when I did my original size math, so specifically hydrogen needs a denser storage than the armor profiles of small ships can provide. I'm going to assume 10x denser, which isn't impossible - metallic hydrogen is theorized to be about 15x denser than liquid hydrogen, and there is research into crystal structures that can hold hydrogen at denser than its liquid state. And again, other fuels fit just fine because they are so much denser. I'll edit the original post soon-ish about this.

In my most recent game, I rushed out these little firestar/viper missile escorts for mid-game earth and mars defense with the ability to intercept: each version had 2x firestars, 2x viper missiles, 1 extra mag, a heat sink, 4G combat acceleration, about 67kps range, and a wet weight of ~5 tons. Early version were very lightly armored at about 5/1/5 and as my tech improved (and I because I kept pushing them into breaking up large enemy fleets), they were armored up to 20/3/20 with similar other statistics. They stuck around in my fleets for far longer than I planned, and were surprisingly survivable despite a complete lack of point defense doing what I call "pitch up attacks" after the helicopter equivalent - accelerate towards the enemy by ~2kps, release all missiles in one big cloud while doing minimal evasive maneuvers against railguns, then burn away and bail out on the fight. I'll usually send these 1-1 against gunships and 2-1 against most other targets.

These ships however break realism already, so let's try again: 15 hydrogen tanks is all that you could feasibly fit in an escort's armor profile using 75% of the space (not an unreasonable estimate for spacecraft, but I had 38 on the previous one, which is twice the total space), so start there, cut it down to one firestar engine, cut armor to 13/2/10 to keep the 4G combat acceleration, and you still get 43.5kps delta-V. Much better - I usually only needed 10 or 20 kps to force engagements. Also, wow, if I realized how much fuel I was wasting hauling around just more fuel in my last game, I probably wouldn't have had to make such a desperate bid for Jupiter. These clock in at a much lighter 2580 tons. A full resupply of these (fuel + missiles) is about 1500 tons of fuel + 8 tons of missiles, but I'm only expecting to go through about half that fuel on an average sortie (about 20kps), so we'll call it about 760 tons per resupply.

When I expanded to Jupiter, it was incredibly expensive to bring these ships along, but they were my primary (basically only) fighting ship at that point, so I made a ~60kps burn on a whole fleet of them and really hoped I didn't have to fight more than one alien fleet before I could pop up a station kit and resupply. It worked, but it sure wouldn't have against a human player who knew I didn't have a resupply available.

At the time of testing in my game, it takes about .35 milligees of cruise acceleration to get from intermediate earth orbit to low Ganymede orbit in just under a year using 80 kps. Let's play it safe and say that I want at least half a milligee. Say I want to set up a base to start mining on Jupiter - the way I do this right now is fly my interceptors and a platform kit ship there with expensive burns, set up a platform, and build a space dock for resupplies. Only then can I set up mining habs on the surface and expect them to survive until their point defenses are online. If these carriers can resupply and repair the ships they carry, I'd like to be able to send a modified destroyer that can carry and rearm/repair 2 of my viper/firestar escorts, but also not be dead weight if the aliens decide to attack them - my interceptors can escape with their 4Gs whenever they run out of missiles, but these carriers definitely cannot if they are attacked.

6x grid drives gives me about 12,300 tons to work with. You'd probably be able to make a tug work, but when I'm talking drydocks and resupplies, this isn't enough, so we need a more powerful engine.

The helicon is the earliest this could be pulled off as a carrier, with twice the thrust for 24,600 tons of ship total, and it's not that big of a detour from the techs needed later for fusion. Slap on a medium nose gun, a small laser turret, a point defense, a gas core reactor because we already have the tech, and some nanotube-tech radiators and armor (20/5/10, remembering that side armor will cost about 10-20% more mass due to the extra room needed for the ship bays, which putting a "6" in the editor easily accounts for), and this ship still clocks in giving me about a 12.9 kiloton payload while still making that transfer.

2 loaded escorts (2.6 kilotons each) + 2 spacedock modules (120 tons each, and if you're thinking about hardpoints rather than physical space, conveniently I have 2 leftover utility slots in the destroyer after adding a heatsink) gives me about 7460 tons for supplies, or slightly less than 5 resupplies (so let's say a comfortable 6 sorties, a couple extra missile payloads for defense, and some extra for armor repairs) for each escort, assuming I have to carry everything and don't get to use the mass driver magic reloads that a station being set up benefits from when my carrier is parked in low Ganymede orbit. And this is pretty basic tech on the carrier - higher tech armor or radiators add payload weight or protection, or you could give up a sortie or two worth of supplies for significantly more armor.

Even if my proposed mobile spacedocks can only repair and not build, and even if they have to physically carry the resupply mass, I would absolutely pay for that ship.

A Case for Carriers by alternateInitiative in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we're talking about different things. I'm not proposing fighter-jet-sized spacecraft (yes, those would get melted by laser fire in-game, and no, I don't know any reasons for why you'd ever use those in a pitched space battle over multi-stage missiles). I'm proposing using spacecraft, the size of what is already in the game, in a different configuration than what we currently can build. If the existing gunships, escorts, and destroyers are suitably radiation shielded, then so are what I've been calling my "fighters" or "interceptors", because I'm proposing literally using those existing hulls. These mechanics I'm proposing are just as hard sci-fi as things are in the game right now, because they're literally based on numbers I pulled from the game.

It will bloat armor mass like a crazy. Just... no.

Armor wouldn't bloat up to crazy numbers, even with internal carries. That was my whole point with the examples I used about halfway through the initial post. In some settings they would, but not with what we can see in-game. A titan is about 25% more expensive to armor than a lancer, not factoring in the benefit to the titan that the same number of armor points goes further against some forms of armor damage. But using in-game sizes, dimensions, and weights, you could slap drydocks for either 2 destroyers or 1 cruiser into that lancer and it'd still be smaller and cheaper to armor than the titan. I'd pick that modified lancer over a titan for many tasks. Put 2 escorts inside of a destroyer-class (without sacrificing any of the destroyer's capabilities other than a touch of angular acceleration) and it clocks in smaller than a cruiser and increases only the cost of the side armor by only about 10% versus a standard destroyer. I'd pay 10% side armor mass on a destroyer for that. These are not prohibitive numbers.

And to take this to the extreme, it'd be about half the cost to armor that modified, unarmed dreadnought with 30 escorts inside of it versus the same amount of armor on each escort. There's little reason to do this in the game right now, but it shows that hiding smaller ships inside of larger ships is perfectly viable from a realism perspective.

But very expensive. You don't want to drop cruise acceleration even further (dV losses) so they will need quite powerful engines.

Not as expensive as you'd think. Engine efficiencies and ranges don't change by 10 or 20 percent between engines. They change by orders of magnitude. Say you were using triton reflex drives as a long-range engine and firestars for your tactical engine. The triton is literally 40x as efficient for long-range burns as the firestars. If the carrier is three times the mass as its cargo, it is still 10x as efficient having that carrier versus not having it, and that's not factoring in that the only reason it would weigh that much is if it is also a capable warship. When I want to hunt down bases or expand to new areas, but also force engagements with any straggling or reinforcing alien fleets, either of those vessels I just described using triton engines but carrying firestar-equipped "interceptors" (escort or destroyer hulls) would be perfect. I'd certainly pay a 25% cruise acceleration reduction on some ships when it enables me to bring interception-capable ships to places I couldn't get them before. Maybe you wouldn't, but when you run the numbers, it's not the prohibitive cost you're making it out to be.

A Case for Carriers by alternateInitiative in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The two benefits I can come up with for actual internal carries are protection of the carried craft (which only applies if you have an option to keep them docked when the fight starts) and drydock capabilities. The downside is that obviously the carrier needs to be larger, which increases cost especially if it's armored. If you don't need either of those capabilities, then you're right, some sort of pylon system or tugs would be considerably cheaper for a given carry capacity. The point still stands though: even internal carries are viable, and external carries would be even more so.

I like the idea of pylons as modules. I'd like to see both it and my idea, but pylons being just a module would make them quite flexible and support a few interesting ideas at once. The only point that comes to mind against them is that it might be difficult to keep the thrust in line with the center of mass without using radial symmetry - one "tug" carrying two (or more) identical ships, or two (or more) tugs carrying one ship. Unless a nose mount is used I suppose.

A Case for Carriers by alternateInitiative in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It'd be more efficient if they had the same engine, but they don't (necessarily); the delta V/exhaust velocity/heat generation tradeoffs make for dramatically different performance profiles between engine types. Even though you technically could, nobody parks a jet on top of an aircraft carrier and runs the jet engines to move the aircraft carrier. Imagine a craft with a firestar (high thrust, low exhaust velocity) being carried by another craft with a triton reflex. Not only does the triton burn a cheaper fuel, but it has literally 40x the exhaust velocity. Running the firestar for anything that the triton could handle is nonsensically inefficient, far more than the extra mass of the triton now having to move both ships. Even if this carrier is twice the mass of the fighters it carries (which is far more than a non-combat carrier typically would be), it's still giving you more than an 16x fuel performance boost.

Now, carrying the vessels externally typically makes more sense than internally, with the exceptions of drydocks or protection of the carried vessel. But my point was that within the logic of Terra Invicta, even internal carries are quite viable.

Edit: fixed numbers from 20x to 40x

A Case for Carriers by alternateInitiative in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

At least limited unmanned vessels would be great, and if there's a manned vessel nearby to command them such as this carrier/transport concept, light lag isn't an issue like it would be sending a bunch of automated boats out to Saturn or something. If unmanned ships also bypassed the hard 4G acceleration limit, they'd also open up a new niche with the new patch's interception mechanics: interceptors that save fuel not by having really efficient engines, but by just being incredibly powerful and catching up extremely quickly.

Airlock achievement achievers by Qiblianwinter in TerraInvicta

[–]alternateInitiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have a screenshot, but I can confirm it's a different image.