X4 5.0 Avarice - "fuel" for ships?

[Sturmer]

So, supposedly the Erking will be running on new kind of energy. The fact that this was mentioned specifically had me sitting up in intrigue. Right now, ships are basically running on nothing, they're not consuming any kind of fuel or need any kind of energy source. once you build the ship it will run indefinitely until it's destroyed, it doesn't need any kind of energy or fuel.

Does this mean that with 5.0 ships will require fuel aka energy sources to operate? Personally I find this idea amazing because the current system was indeed kinda immersion breaking.

[DavidGW]

I think whatever the new game mechanic is, it will be exclusive to the new pirate capital (can we call it the pirate M0?) and I also doubt it will be related to flight fuel. More likely it is a new capital class weapon that needs to be recharged, or maybe an overcharge to engines, weapons and shields that only occurs in the correct system, or only lasts a certain time outside the system.

That’s my best guess, anyway.

[LameFox]

I also had the impression it was related to some special ability, rather than just keeping it turned on.

[Imperial Good]

Right now, ships are basically running on nothing, they're not consuming any kind of fuel or need any kind of energy source.

The ships are running on matter/anti-matter power. The fuel is loaded into the ships upon construction (specifically construction of the engines) and is so energy dense it does not run out for the entire life of the ship. This is very much like UK/US designed nuclear submarines where the nuclear reactor contains enough potential energy to run the ship for 20 or more years before having to be changed or the ship scrapped (end of life).

Does this mean that with 5.0 ships will require fuel aka energy sources to operate? Personally I find this idea amazing because the current system was indeed kinda immersion breaking.

It would be a nice feature if just the Erking, and potentially other unique ships, needed fuel to operate. Given that it is intended to be a unique upgradeable ship that likely ends up as the most powerful ship in the universe this would make sense from a gameplay perspective. Especially if the fuel cells it requires to run can only be obtained in one sector so some logistics would be required to operate remotely.

Normal ships should not require fuel as that would make micro management too difficult. Maybe the fuel could be used to boost speed, similar to how the X3 thrusters worked, but that would be optional and a player only feature.

[Lord Crc]

I've been thinking the travel engine should require fuel, similar to how jump drives worked in X:R. That is, if the ship lacks "travel fuel" it takes way longer to enter travel mode, and effective max speed would be a low percentage of engine max speed.

The only thing I disliked with the X:R system was the "petrol stations". I think it would be better if stations could stockpile some "travel fuel", so ships could refuel while loading/unloading goods. That is, they act as trade stations for fuel.

The easy way to do that would be for the docking modules to have some fuel storage capacity, with the L ports having appropriately more. If we assume some anti-matter based stuff, the physical dimensions could be small enough that we can assume internal storage, hence no need to change the 3D models.

Obviously this should be paired with a global order allowing ships to automatically refuel, including ability to set faction restrictions.

This would add a much needed resource sink, and would add a strategical layer by possibly crippling sectors by destroying fuel producers in the area or similar. It would also add to the usefulness of fleet supply ships (which would also carry extra fuel of course).

[j.harshaw]

so ships could refuel while loading/unloading goods. That is, they act as trade stations for fuel.

...

Obviously this should be paired with a global order allowing ships to automatically refuel, including ability to set faction restrictions.

This is probably the strongest argument against such an addition. Building a new system that requires production, potentially transportation, logic, and additional UI that also requires no interaction with the player would be a lot of paid work for very little gain.

[-=SiR KiLLaLoT=-]

The implementation of fuel would have to be separated from the economy of production otherwise it would all have to be balanced again. The only interaction "allowed" would be the slowing of ships based on their fuel.
For example, a ship without fuel would go 50% slower and delay the delivery of resources, as is currently the case with miners who are slowed down by Kha'ak attacks.
In this case it would be enough to add a resource (for example fuel cell) directly integrated into the dock modules as drones and missiles are now.

Any other kind of implementation I believe would include rewriting half the game (maybe even what I just wrote would require that anyway).

[Lord Crc]

This is probably the strongest argument against such an addition. Building a new system that requires production, potentially transportation, logic, and additional UI that also requires no interaction with the player would be a lot of paid work for very little gain.

One could skip the production step if one integrates the production as mentioned by SiR KiLLaLoT. And I do think it could add an important resource sink as well as interesting tactical and fleet aspects. But of course, YMMV. I just think the "infinity fleets" we have now is problematic and boring.

[Tomonor]

I would love to see a fuel system introduced maybe for interplanetary travels, but not in X4. The game just couldn't handle that.

[Axeface]

The only form of fuel I would like to see is afterburner fuel (that should regenerate itself). I just dont think needing to fuel ships for normal travel is fun, necessary for gameplay depth, or even realistic. Cant we have powerplants in ships that last a very long time thousands of years in the future? Nuclear? Antimatter? Wish the engine effects in the game didnt look so 'conventional', doesnt gel well with the rest of the games crazy tech. If the game was much more low-scifi and low tech (like the expanse) they would look fitting.

[j.harshaw]

This is probably the strongest argument against such an addition. Building a new system that requires production, potentially transportation, logic, and additional UI that also requires no interaction with the player would be a lot of paid work for very little gain.

One could skip the production step if one integrates the production as mentioned by SiR KiLLaLoT. And I do think it could add an important resource sink as well as interesting tactical and fleet aspects. But of course, YMMV. I just think the "infinity fleets" we have now is problematic and boring.

You're just adding fuel to the fire. (Huh, a pun.) Asking a toymaker to spend effort to make a toy that you don't ever want to play with won't be very convincing to the toymaker. Not saying it's the worst idea ever. Just saying that if I had to convince my boss to give me time to implement a feature that players say they want but don't want to ever interact with (which is what automating all aspects of it away is) will very unlikely result in time allocated for that feature. Looking at you (or heck, me) as the customer, it would also take time away from features that I might have rather spent time interacting with that I wouldn't now get nor even know of because time was spent on this feature instead.

As to sinks, honestly, I'm not convinced that resource sinks are needed except maybe at the point where I'm overproducing pretty much everything (and that's speaking as myself as a player, no economic statistics to back that up); and even at the point that I'm completely vertically integrated, well I'm vertically integrated so what happens to the rest of the economy doesn't really matter all that much other than grousing about how the Argon Federation really ought to do x because y or whatever. But if you (and I mean collective you, not you personally Lord Crc) want to make a case for needing a sink, make a case for needing a sink. A straightforward argument to some concrete end is much more likely to yield some sort of result than pointing at something, saying I want that, saying I want all aspects of it automated away, then using sink as justification.

All that said, it might be a fun little project for a mod. Don't have to justify that to anyone, literally just a question of feeling like it.

[MarvC]

Reactor in X4 - OK
Replaceable Fuel in X4 - NO

that's my opinion

[Matthew94]

so ships could refuel while loading/unloading goods. That is, they act as trade stations for fuel.

...

Obviously this should be paired with a global order allowing ships to automatically refuel, including ability to set faction restrictions.

This is probably the strongest argument against such an addition. Building a new system that requires production, potentially transportation, logic, and additional UI that also requires no interaction with the player would be a lot of paid work for very little gain.

You could use this argument against X4's entire economy. Factories are mostly fire-and-forget affairs. Create the blueprint, assign some ships, give it a budget and job done. That's all it takes. Miners are the same, fire and forget.

The benefit of fuel is if it was possible to end up in a situation where ships/fleets could realistically run out of fuel necessitating retreats from battle or even ships surrendering if caught behind enemy lines. I don't think X4 has the structure to generate those kinds of scenarios and I doubt it ever would without a massive universe overhaul. My point is that "we shouldn't do this because it could be automated" would nullify a lot of X4.

As to sinks, honestly, I'm not convinced that resource sinks are needed except maybe at the point where I'm overproducing pretty much everything (and that's speaking as myself as a player, no economic statistics to back that up); and even at the point that I'm completely vertically integrated, well I'm vertically integrated so what happens to the rest of the economy doesn't really matter all that much other than grousing about how the Argon Federation really ought to do x because y or whatever. But if you (and I mean collective you, not you personally Lord Crc) want to make a case for needing a sink, make a case for needing a sink. A straightforward argument to some concrete end is much more likely to yield some sort of result than pointing at something, saying I want that, saying I want all aspects of it automated away, then using sink as justification.

What is the point of an economy without consumers? Why create without a need? I won't go into it as it's been discussed to death but the economy in X4 is bonkers given its absolute reliance on war. End the wars and you end your game.

[Exitialis101]

No thank you to fuel.

[flatbush71]

This is probably the strongest argument against such an addition. Building a new system that requires production, potentially transportation, logic, and additional UI that also requires no interaction with the player would be a lot of paid work for very little gain.

Fully agree !!

[Lord Crc]

As to sinks, honestly, I'm not convinced that resource sinks are needed except maybe at the point where I'm overproducing pretty much everything

One of the issues I have with X4 is that there's never a downside to acquiring something. Board a ship and keep it? No downsides. Build 5000 factories? No downsides.

One of the most important aspects in war is logistics, and that element is lacking in X4. Once I have assembled my fleet, there's zero upkeep and zero cost of doing something unless ships are destroyed. I can build factory after factory without any consequences, as again there's zero upkeep.

This means that things just snowball, and at some point I invariably have 20 destroyers, or 100 if I wait a bit longer, that can kill everyone and everything, including all the fun and excitement.

This thread was about fuel, which would be one way to add upkeep to a fleet. With ships requiring "travel fuel" my fleet of hundreds of fighters along with a few dozen carriers patrolling all my sectors would need a lot of additional resources to do so effectively. Those resources would invariably require miners which themselves require fuel. This could add a significant "friction" to assembling roflstomping-sized forces.

[Rei Ayanami]

While the idea of ships requiring fuel sounds good in theory, as an actual game feature I would say that I'd be highly cautious.
I think there would be a reasonable chance of the universe screeching to a halt because of - over time - more and more ships accidentally (or due to extra fuel consumption due to fights) running out of fuel and being stuck or moving at a snails pace.

Another issue would be balancing : How long should a ship be able to fly with one full fuel tank?
How long would patrols last on their fuel tanks? If you balance fuel for patrols to having to refuel at a reasonable times, would that amount last long enough for Intervention- and expedition fleets to travel through the entire map and back? If fuel should be balanced to be reasonable for intervention groups, wouldn't that make fuel almost irrelevant for normal patrols?
If you make it too short it'll result in the problem mentioned above. If you make it too long, the entire mechanic becomes essentially meaningless. What would be a good fuel tank size that would fit all situations that would come up?

The same with the price : If you make it too expensive it could criple players in the early game. If you make it cheap to enable a reasonable start, it'll become meaningless at the late game.

Rather than adding another logistical system I'd rather have Egosoft improve on the current logistic issues first, such as
- the pathetic size of auxiliary ships storage
- aux ship subordinate trading ships not staying docked at the aux ship until ordered to buy supplies and having found a valid trade, instead they stay undocked and are easy targets
- ai faction trading ships making suicide trips through enemy sectors (why don't ai factions have blacklists that prevent trading ships/mining ships from travelling through enemy sectors unless having no other option?).

[Matthew94]

Another issue would be balancing : How long should a ship be able to fly with one full fuel tank?

I think it'd be analogous to modern transportation. XL Carriers would be like aircraft carriers, S craft would be like fighter jets which would need to be transported to an engagement. Transport ships would have a huge fuel tank for deliveries.

M ships would be the typical player craft which would have enough fuel to traverse a few sectors before they needed refuelling.

The sectors in X4 are too small for this to be believable in my eyes but I do think it's viable for the genre. If a space game had a fuel system, limits to communication ranges, and huge sectors then it would make piracy viable. Have the pirates way out in uncharted territories where you'd need a fleet with a dedicated supply line to be able to traverse the distance to stop them. You could also put valuable mining areas far from civilisation, increasing the risk vs reward.

[AdrianWir]

Definitely not for fuel in x4. Despite the advantages of such a solution, with which I agree, the introduction of fuel would entail further micro-management. It would be too tiring.

Back to Erking, if I know life, will end up with a specific weapon that can only be mounted on it. Something like a high-energy Terran weapon that is impossible to mount on Commonwealth ships.

[Falcrack]

As to sinks, honestly, I'm not convinced that resource sinks are needed except maybe at the point where I'm overproducing pretty much everything

One of the issues I have with X4 is that there's never a downside to acquiring something. Board a ship and keep it? No downsides. Build 5000 factories? No downsides.

One of the most important aspects in war is logistics, and that element is lacking in X4. Once I have assembled my fleet, there's zero upkeep and zero cost of doing something unless ships are destroyed. I can build factory after factory without any consequences, as again there's zero upkeep.

This means that things just snowball, and at some point I invariably have 20 destroyers, or 100 if I wait a bit longer, that can kill everyone and everything, including all the fun and excitement.

This is actually my top issue with X4. More important to me than the fact there is no Boron, or fleet AI issues, or anything else.