I usually use IFE for Fuelmizer engine.
With the FM engine my Privateers with 3 fuel pods can travel at warp 9 multiple years to colonize fast.

I found out recently I can play in a tiny universe fine without fuelmizer but I tried the same in a recent game in a small universe and I have had a horrible time colonizing.

My privateers can go maybe one year at warp 9 with the ddl7 engine but usually I have to go at warp6-8 for multiple years which is just absurd.

I usually make a ship fleet of about 5 to 6 privateers. What are your guys secrets for getting where you have to go without Fuelmizer?

Is there a cheap way before SFX's?
What cheap designs of scouts or frigates do you make to add to the fleets to give the privateers enough gas to go at warp 9 a few years for colonizing efficiently.


Thanks for any ones time for reading this or helping with this.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 20 December 2010 12:49]

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 11:43

I am asking about IFE and IT for beginning years when you have to travel like 4 or 5 years at warp 9 in a small universe or bigger. I wanted to know the guts of making boosters to get me there. So from what I gather from what you and the other guys say is to use Qj5 scouts with fuel pods because its lighter and cheaper then the bigger engines that will make you use more fuel in the long run. But shouldn't I make ddl7 privateers at the start and put them with Qj5 booster scouts? Or should they both be Qj5 engines? Ill try to peel off scout boosters like Neilhoward said. Sounds like a good plan so those boosters aren't sucking up more fuel after they have did there purpose. Now I have the basic idea thanks.

That seems a bit far to go for an IT, that can pop up a colony/gate in increments. You might try throwing up a gate at a red world as step in between.

Otherwise, one thing I like doing if I did't take IFE, is to take cheap con and get to Con8 as quick as possible, and skip the PVT's all together. I have done that with many races. You do end up with a lot of pop on the HW, and some lost breeding time, but it can even out with the cheaper transports (per volume). Lg freights, even with the QJ5 can move lesser than full loads fairly far, with a xport or 2. If you are a -f, you can do it before turn 2410, IIRC. The number 320 ly jumps to my thinking for the furthest I felt I could reasonable go using this strategy. Might be wrong on that, my memory is failing.

-Matt

Report message to a moderator

mlaub wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 14:50

slimdrag00n wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 11:43 I am asking about IFE and IT for beginning years when you have to travel like 4 or 5 years at warp 9 in a small universe or bigger. I wanted to know the guts of making boosters to get me there. So from what I gather from what you and the other guys say is to use Qj5 scouts with fuel pods because its lighter and cheaper then the bigger engines that will make you use more fuel in the long run. But shouldn't I make ddl7 privateers at the start and put them with Qj5 booster scouts? Or should they both be Qj5 engines? Ill try to peel off scout boosters like Neilhoward said. Sounds like a good plan so those boosters aren't sucking up more fuel after they have did there purpose. Now I have the basic idea thanks. That seems a bit far to go for an IT, that can pop up a colony/gate in increments. You might try throwing up a gate at a red world as step in between. Otherwise, one thing I like doing if I did't take IFE, is to take cheap con and get to Con8 as quick as possible, and skip the PVT's all together. I have done that with many races. You do end up with a lot of pop on the HW, and some lost breeding time, but it can even out with the cheaper transports (per volume). Lg freights, even with the QJ5 can move lesser than full loads fairly far, with a xport or 2. If you are a -f, you can do it before turn 2410, IIRC. The number 320 ly jumps to my thinking for the furthest I felt I could reasonable go using this strategy. Might be wrong on that, my memory is failing. -Matt

I think there is some confusion on what I need boosters for, maybe I left out some details. I'm talking about like year 10-20 or so when I am sending out my first ships for a planet before I have any gates up.

I know that I can get gates up in one or two years of colonizing but I still need the boosters to get the Privs to the planet in the first place in 3 turns instead of like 9 turns going warp 6 without fuel boosters. I think that sho

Report message to a moderator

slimdrag00n wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 09:43

I am asking about IFE and IT for beginning years when you have to travel like 4 or 5 years at warp 9 in a small universe or bigger. I wanted to know the guts of making boosters to get me there. So from what I gather from what you and the other guys say is to use Qj5 scouts with fuel pods because its lighter and cheaper then the bigger engines that will make you use more fuel in the long run. But shouldn't I make ddl7 privateers at the start and put them with Qj5 booster scouts? Or should they both be Qj5 engines? Ill try to peel off scout boosters like Neilhoward said. Sounds like a good plan so those boosters aren't sucking up more fuel after they have did there purpose. Now I have the basic idea thanks.

In the early game you will have plenty of ship design slots to work with, so I recommend using several types of colony ship.

Say you are sending out a fully loaded single privateer hull with two fuel pods and a colonization module. If it is going w9 with the QJ5, it will use 1302 Mg of fuel. With a LH6: 1320. DDL7: 1112. Unless you took CE, forget about the LH6 for now.

So if the target world is a single w9 hop away, or will have to travel at w9 for the last year of the journey, use a DDL7 and you won't need to sacrifice any boosters. If you can reduce speed for the final year and still get there just as fast, use the QJ5 on your privateer. It will have enough fuel capacity, so you won't be crash landing any boosters with it.

The initial upgrade cost for two DDL7s, is more minerals and resources than one booster which can be reused. In early game engines, the cost to upgrade buys you more battle speed improvement than fuel efficiency.

I would put Bat scanners on those boosters. Especially for a PRT that does not start with pen scans the added cost is less significant than the added value, and will help you better judge the necessity of DD boosters.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

neilhoward wrote on Wed, 22 December 2010 08:06

Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 21 December 2010 19:41 I don't understand the last comment about "crashing your fuel booster"... Hi Eagle, I was explaining why I would use both DDL7 & QJ5 colonisation privateers, and when to use which kind. They will often require the same number of boosters to go the same distance, but the QJ5 ship can't itself hold enough fuel to travel for a year at w9, So if the last year is more than 64,9 lY, use the DDL7.

Or don't fill the QJ5 priv to the max. Or use the colonizer hull which I think is still the best bang for the buck. A priv is a lot of iron to crash in a colony while your HW needs it (the iron and the priv) to ship pop. :-/

mch

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Void wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 01:54

mlaub wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 11:50 You might try throwing up a gate at a red world as step in between. From a pure colonisation perspective, if you're a -f IT and have taken ISB, then throwing up a quick dock is even faster. I just find IFE so useful on so many early ships, even if I could mitigate its loss on the colonisation/replenishing missions, there are still other missions it will impact. While many could be mitigated, the cost seems to be more MM. Not saying this is a bad thing, but anyone attempting to take this approach should know what they're getting into. Cheers, Void

Gate decreases travel time => more pop growth => larger monster => Win!

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 02:08

Void wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 01:54 mlaub wrote on Mon, 20 December 2010 11:50 You might try throwing up a gate at a red world as step in between. From a pure colonisation perspective, if you're a -f IT and have taken ISB, then throwing up a quick dock is even faster. Gate decreases travel time => more pop growth => larger monster => Win!

Generally speaking, yes, I agree wholeheartedly!

Specific situations do exist, however, where it's more effective to take an alternate approach. Consider an IT looking to colonise a planet ~400ly away. It's early game and you're looking to get a stake in the enemy's territory quickly. Being early game, you want to send 50k colonists. You could take the gate approach, which would take 10 years:

3 years @ warp 9 to get to a planet half way there
4 years to build a gate
3 years @ warp 9 to get to the destination

Or you could take the dock approach, which would get you there in 8 years. Instead of building a fort with a 250ly gate, you build an empty dock in two years, after which the fleet is refueled and you're on your way. Now, you do need an extra coloniser for this (a Santa Maria works fine for the first colonisation).

Unless you take enough pop to build the gate in a single year (~144k if memory serves), then the dock approach is faster.

Is this a very specific scenario? Absolutely. And I'd want to get actual gates up at both planets ASAP for the reasons you mentioned. This way just gets me that distant planet a little faster.

Cheers,
Void

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 05 July 2011 18:08]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Void wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 15:52

magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 15:07 Well, if I had ISB as IT I would use docks with gates, not forts with gates, as even with the double discount gates still cost far more than either hull. So I'd build the dock and then add the gate. I'm currently playing an IT with ISB in a game, and docks with a gate are more expensive than forts with a gate. By about 40 resources, IIRC. I'll have to look up the specifics when I get home, but I build the occasional fort with a gate just for that reason - speed.

Confirmed. At my current tech levels, a fort with a 100/250 gate costs 142 resources and the dock with the same gate costs 176 resources.

Unless you can take enough colonists to build either in a single turn (unlikely during the early game), then the difference is only 20k colonists for a two-year build. If I could afford it, I'd definitely go for the dock option, but if speed is of the essence and I only have 75k colonists to take along, then I'd rocket up that 250 fort and reinforce immediately.

Re-reading your posting I see you were saying the cost of the gate is more than the cost of either hull, not that the dock+gate is cheaper than the fort+gate. Absolutely true. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Wouldn't change my approach, though.

Cheers,
Void

Report message to a moderator

Void wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 02:16

Void wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 15:52 magic9mushroom wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 15:07 Well, if I had ISB as IT I would use docks with gates, not forts with gates, as even with the double discount gates still cost far more than either hull. So I'd build the dock and then add the gate. I'm currently playing an IT with ISB in a game, and docks with a gate are more expensive than forts with a gate. By about 40 resources, IIRC. I'll have to look up the specifics when I get home, but I build the occasional fort with a gate just for that reason - speed. Confirmed. At my current tech levels, a fort with a 100/250 gate costs 142 resources and the dock with the same gate costs 176 resources. Unless you can take enough colonists to build either in a single turn (unlikely during the early game), then the difference is only 20k colonists for a two-year build. If I could afford it, I'd definitely go for the dock option, but if speed is of the essence and I only have 75k colonists to take along, then I'd rocket up that 250 fort and reinforce immediately. Re-reading your posting I see you were saying the cost of the gate is more than the cost of either hull, not that the dock+gate is cheaper than the fort+gate. Absolutely true. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Wouldn't change my approach, though. Cheers, Void

Depends on whether you have the slot free.

If I only had one slot to spare on empty little bases with a gate, I'd make it a dock, because compared to the cost of the gate, the ability to build ships is worth it.

But, of course, I probably wouldn't take ISB in the first place, making this whole argument moot.

[Updated on: Thu, 07 July 2011 03:56]

Report message to a moderator

magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 00:54

But, of course, I probably wouldn't take ISB in the first place, making this whole argument moot.

I doubt I would, either, unless I was playing a -f IT.

Report message to a moderator

Void wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 22:01

magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 00:54 But, of course, I probably wouldn't take ISB in the first place, making this whole argument moot. I doubt I would, either, unless I was playing a -f IT.

Yeah, that would likely be my exception as well.

Like I said earlier, and like you said earlier (boy, this has been a weird discussion), forts with a gate are otherwise enough.

[Updated on: Thu, 07 July 2011 09:25]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator