Usefulness of steam engines?

[Grumpy Old Gamer]

Is it more than just flavor? Im wonderign about fuel conversion ratios. Or is it more an early game/roleplaying thing?

[FourGreenFields]

Cheap. Not really cheap to run, but cheap to build.
I think some other stuff too. But that's the most important thing afaIk.

[CHOO CHOO]

I don't build them, really...far too slow to heat up or cool down.

[Doombringer]

Steam Engines are for high power density.
The is a bug where the power/block of steam engines will vary with your framerate :(
A large steam engine can generate 127 to 163** power per block under full load, where as a practical fuel engine is going to do at best 80 to a little under 90 @ 66.5 power/fuel.
(you can get 100 power/block for an outboard fuel engine with unconnected exhausts.)

** at 1.00 game speed and 47 to 80 frames per second. Steam power output isn't stable like fuel engines, so it will bounce up and down a bit as well.
That gives a material efficiency (it burns material) of 1056 to 1357 power per material
Steam gives the same fuel efficiency as an injector engine if you get ~18 fuel per material from a refinery. Refineries can make up to 299.2 fuel per material though.
The amount of space required to store material is about 1/9th as much as what an injector engine would need to store fuel.

A steam turbine can generate 1550 electric charge per material. You only ever need to use the compact turbine, regardless of how many boilers you have.



TL/DR: Steam is super easy/cheap to build and compact, but takes a lot longer to spool up and is not fuel efficient.

[Rimuru Tempest]

very not fuel efficient have you seen the warlords steam engine?

[xchrisx88]

only good thing I found out about them are the resource to battery ratio they have using turbines,
a 3x3 mini steam engine can create 825 energy per sec while only using 0.4 resources

[Grumpy Old Gamer]

Yes but tht sme 0.4 resources can make 40 liquid fuel which will run a trubo stacked 8 cylinder (or 8 carb) diesel electric setup for an hour. So the purchase price of the steam setup is lower but the total cost of ownership is much much higher and it doesnt take long for the fuel engine to pay for itself.

Which is not very realistic, since IRL steam turbines are MORE effciient and the prefered method for large ships (ocean liners, oil tankers etc.).

[Videogames]

Their fuel inefficiency was nick's way of balancing them for being ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE AT DOING THEIR JOB unlike fuel engines which were nerfed to death and are mostly good for small or efficient craft now.

EDIT: also 'geared turbines' which is what is used in real life, would further annihilate nick's dumb meta so those will probably never be added.

[Grumpy Old Gamer]

Fuel engines are nerfed. IRL a 500 horspower engine (e.g. FORD 460 cid) which takes up just slightly over 1 square meter produces 384 KW of power, enough to power a medium sized office building. So if we assume that the power listed is in metric horsepower (1 KW) thenit takes about 9-12 times as much space to produce the same horsepower in game. I like realism in my games too, btu the only way I see this being resolved is with either a generic fuel engine block (no lego/tetris fun there), or by making the existing cylinder produce 10 times as much power as it currently does.

Personalkly I vote for both. Increaset hepower density of fuel engines, and also steam engines which are also underpowered, and increase the fuel effciiency of steam engines . Perhaps by actually simulating the boiler, whichisnt fast on/off like fuel engines. Boilers take time to heat up and the fire doesnt stop burning just because you arent using the power.

[Doombringer]

If power output of steam engines didn't vary with framerate I would be happy :(
(at game speed 1.0 and 80FPS they generate more power than at game speed 1.0 and 40 FPS for example...)

[Videogames]

Originally posted by Doombringer:

If power output of steam engines didn't vary with framerate I would be happy :(

Lol, I know that bug with alot of things.

[death rage]

i think they should put another resource like coal for steam power operation.
the thing is that i find myself in campaigns fueling ships with resources that could have been used to build more ships and at the same time it takes a fraction of the resources to fill the fuel tanks of a normal' fuel engine ship or plane.....

kinda gave me the same feeling as shooting military grade ammo in metro 2033....

[CHOO CHOO]

I find myself going back to pure RTG power more and more. It's just a lot more economical in the long run.

[death rage]

nearly all of my campaign aviation is RTG powered becaues of that

[Grumpy Old Gamer]

Originally posted by CHOO CHOO:

I find myself going back to pure RTG power more and more. It's just a lot more economical in the long run.

Myself as well. But I usually keep a largish fuel engine on my bases which is contorlled to only kick in if battery levels go below 50% and to shut down once they hit 95%. This way the engines run at 100% when they run at all.

RTG is really the way to go in the long run in campaign, but in adventure, where you will suffer battle damage, replacing a 5K RTG is harsh.