Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post Reply
dasbootopoortunitea
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 am

Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by dasbootopoortunitea »

Just lost three hours to the alien ships having a different ratio between cruise & combat acceleration than my ships...
I wanted a ship that could intercept all the alien fleets that try to bomb my stuff,and the strategic UI said that those fleets have a cruise acceleration around 36 milligees...

So I designed a destroyer with 100 milligees of cruise acceleration and bad delta-V (triple the acceleration is enough to run down enemies without huge delta-V bids, right?), commissioned like ten of them, spent a hundred or so in-game days waiting for them to complete, and by chance a couple popped out of my Mars shipyards right as an alien fleet showed up to attack a mars base...

I ordered an intercept and got as far as the pre-battle screen, before discovering that:

An alien ship which the strategic UI says has 29 milligees of cruise acceleration, also has a combat acceleration of 1.7 gees; while my 100 milligee destroyers only have 1 G of combat acceleration. So actually the ship whose only purpose is to intercept bombardment fleets can't actually do that.

(It can't even harass fleets in low orbit because the period between when one intercept fails, and the next one can start, is less than the time it takes to raze a mining base.)

Why is the ratio between cruise and combat acceleration different for human and alien ships? I'm most of the way through the tech tree and I haven't seen anything about this stat.
Zanotirn
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:02 am

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by Zanotirn »

Cruise acceleration is presumably when the drive is at the most efficient. Combat accel. is how much you can crank up the power even at the cost of reduced efficiency, more wear, etc. Nothing says these have to be the same for drives operating by completely different principles. The difference is in fact per drive, not per species. And fusion drives (which aliens use from the start) tend to have the most difference.

You could however make a case that with recent increase in the importance of combat acceleration on strategic level, it should actually be displayed in fleet information next to cruise accel.
Robertjciv
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:38 pm

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by Robertjciv »

I would suggest even a further separation in that there should be a utility module called combat thrusters with 5dv that can really make a ship agile in combat but has about 30 seconds of life. Technically doesn’t increase combat Acceleration, but for 30 secs would vastly increase it. Could even improve it for better life. It hurts so much that this isn’t a thing in game. Nose based ships should automatically have it without eating a utility slot.

I understand that at heavier tonnage you may only get 15 seconds of usage out of it. But it’s up to the player to balance weight versus the modules usefulness.
dasbootopoortunitea
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 am

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by dasbootopoortunitea »

Zanotirn wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:54 am Cruise acceleration is presumably when the drive is at the most efficient. Combat accel. is how much you can crank up the power even at the cost of reduced efficiency, more wear, etc. Nothing says these have to be the same for drives operating by completely different principles. The difference is in fact per drive, not per species. And fusion drives (which aliens use from the start) tend to have the most difference.

You could however make a case that with recent increase in the importance of combat acceleration on strategic level, it should actually be displayed in fleet information next to cruise accel.
You're right, you're right... I went back to the ship designer & see clear as day that different engines have different ratios between cruise & combat acceleration... I might have been fooled by how my chosen interceptor was using one of the few drives with a crisp, clean 10:1 ratio of combat to cruise acceleration (triton pulse drive, I think it was...)

It's cool to see that both chemical rockets & (IIRC) the lower-tier ion drives have the same cruise and combat accelerations, I guess because chemical rockets are designed solely for short burns & contemporary ion drives aren't designed to be "overclocked" to any significant degree...

I do like the idea of displaying combat acceleration in the strategic UI: whether or not fleet A has enough acceleration to force an engagement (or deny an engagement) with fleet B is very important bit of knowledge!
dasbootopoortunitea
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 am

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by dasbootopoortunitea »

In the unlikely event anyone cares, I did it... I built the interceptor of my dreams... the Zeta Boron fusion drive doesn't quite have enough thrust to outright out-accelerate the faster alien ships (not at my tech level, anyway), but it's fast enough to force fuel-intensive stern chases (IE, large maximum delta-V bids), and has enough thrust velocity that I can stack fuel tanks until I have more delta-V to spend than attacking warfleets (specifically, ones that made poorly-planned fuel-wasting transfers). It took like five chases, but I managed to stop an alien bombing force...
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by PAwleus »

I would suggest building smaller ships - up to Destroyers with Zeta Boron you can have highly maneuverable ships with 4g combat acceleration, 1200- 1500km/s DV while decently armored and being able to chase alien fleets with very small propellant expenditure.

Edit: eg. My 20Corvette/5Destroyer Zeta Boron fleet was able to go to Alpha Base from the Inner Solar System and with the rest of propellant easily chase and destroy 2 fleets with full tanks guarding it while applying highly maneuverable tactics in formation during combat (with no combat losses).
dasbootopoortunitea
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 am

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by dasbootopoortunitea »

An excellent suggestion -- but when I wrote "(not at my tech level, anyway)" I meant:

[*] No Terawatt Nuclear Fusion, so I couldn't stack more than one Zeta Boron engine on my ships

[*] Not enough AM production for antimatter spikers

[*] Neutronium spiker not even unlocked (I accidentally skipped it!)

IIRC my chosen design was a destroyer with 900ish milli-gees of combat acceleration & 200ish kps delta-V. Looking back, a mix of gunships with light railguns and escorts for PD might have been a better approach - some experiments in the ship designer suggest I could get to 1.1-1.2 gees with acceptable armor & delta-V. But, well, I didn't do that & the destroyers worked... acceptably.

One of Terra Invicta's weirdest features is how it makes you really *feel* the technology disparity between you and the aliens. Your X-Coms & the like go the "power fantasy" approach of always making sure that your forces and the aliens are always evenly matched, but not here: the aliens have better weapons, and better drives, and it's not until the very late game that you can build a space fleet that's a match for what the Hydra throw at you. It's kind of frustrating, but an interesting experience. (I was actually kind of disappointed when I discovered that my chosen fleet comp of rail/coil cannon destroyers + mass PD could wipe the floor with the light ships the aliens like to deploy on normal difficulty... but the alien dreadnoughts were a tougher nut to crack)
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by PAwleus »

How did you get to Zeta Boron without Terawatt Fusion Reactors? Anyway, in such a situation you need to build even smaller ships (at some point Corvette is becoming a new escort for me, built in large numbers, and you are probably already at this point) because your Destroyers look to me like much less combat-capable than even Missile Escorts with Advanced Pulsar which are much, much less research-intensive. In combat you don't need to be on par with tech - you just need better tactics and it's an Achilles Heel of AI, currently.

BTW, I wouldn't recommend using rails, especially when you have coils.
dasbootopoortunitea
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 am

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by dasbootopoortunitea »

How did I get Zeta Boron without Terawatt Fusion? Well, you see, I had no idea what I was doing, was rushing zeta boron drive very, very hard, and it turns out that Terawatt Fusion is a requirement for Z-Pinch Power Plant 3 but not for Z-Pinch 2 or Zeta Boron drive.

And don't insult my interceptor destroyers like that! They really punched above their weight, and then died bravely defending earth from the assault transport fleet that showed up in 2042. They got like four of of the five transports, that's a solid B right there.

Do missile escorts work at all after the 2030s roll around? IME the really fast light ships can just dodge missiles, and the heavier ships pack enough PD to ward off attacks from anything short of a coordinated attack from 6+ coil cannons. Or do missile boates have to go full macrosse-missile-massacre of twelve+ missile bays per target?

(Also, what's the deal with how the nuclear torpedoes are balanced? The damage numbers are ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous; is the tradeoff that the delta-V is so bad that it's impossible to pack enough to get through even marginal PD?)
PAwleus
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:58 pm

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by PAwleus »

dasbootopoortunitea wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:05 pm How did I get Zeta Boron without Terawatt Fusion? Well, you see, I had no idea what I was doing, was rushing zeta boron drive very, very hard, and it turns out that Terawatt Fusion is a requirement for Z-Pinch Power Plant 3 but not for Z-Pinch 2 or Zeta Boron drive.
What version of the game you are playing? In my recent game (and I always play on the validation branch) Z-Pinch Reactor III was a requirement for Zeta Boron.
dasbootopoortunitea wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:05 pm And don't insult my interceptor destroyers like that! They really punched above their weight, and then died bravely defending earth from the assault transport fleet that showed up in 2042. They got like four of of the five transports, that's a solid B right there.
I don't insult them, I just state the fact - my standard missile fleet with Advanced Pulsars from my recent game (3 pure Missile Monitors and 6-9 Missile/PD Escorts) would probably win with marginal losses to Escorts against such a fleet (and I say probably only because I don't know what's full composition of this fleet and there is a rare bug when missiles and projectiles fly through a target without doing anything).
dasbootopoortunitea wrote: Tue Apr 18, 2023 10:05 pm Do missile escorts work at all after the 2030s roll around? IME the really fast light ships can just dodge missiles, and the heavier ships pack enough PD to ward off attacks from anything short of a coordinated attack from 6+ coil cannons. Or do missile boates have to go full macrosse-missile-massacre of twelve+ missile bays per target?

(Also, what's the deal with how the nuclear torpedoes are balanced? The damage numbers are ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous; is the tradeoff that the delta-V is so bad that it's impossible to pack enough to get through even marginal PD?)
As I said earlier, you just need good tactics (or good enough). In my recent game missile/PD Escorts with Advanced Pulsars (with some support from pure Missile Monitors in larger fights) were in use up to 2036 acquiring over 1200 Exotics (and I won the game in 2038 basically with Zeta Boron Coil/PD Corvettes). It's much easier to overwhelm PD by missiles than by coils even when you take under consideration highly maneuverable tactics - missiles just don't work so good when you are trying to use them offensively (they are basically one-use-weapon in combat so they are less reliable when there is no way to replenish them fast).

Yes, it's much easier to outmaneuver torpedoes but if you think it's impossible to overwhelm PD with them you are mistaken. Perhaps it will be helpful if you look at this post.
dasbootopoortunitea
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 am

Re: Why are cruise/combat accel. ratios different?

Post by dasbootopoortunitea »

Now I'm just confused... there was 100% a period where the ship designer would only let me put a single ZB drive onto my ships...
Post Reply