Steam VS fuel for a battleship?

[Javelin99]

FTD logic speaking, they both work great for moving large vessels. Fuel engines can have immense amounts of superchargers to lessen the amount of fuel used at any given time, steam engines can be modified to output more power and even the smallest steam engine can get past 1k, but eat up materials directly.


But realistically speaking, and since these are the only choices, what would not only be better for making a battleship, but what would be the more realistic engine found inside one? Space also isn't a problem whatsoever even with all the armor.

[xchrisx88]

Im not a friend of Steam Engine, just eat up way too much resources that are eventually better spend elsewhere, for repairs or ammo processor

most modern military ships (there aint no more "battleships" these days, just missile cruisers and that) use fuel engines,

Steam Engines where a thing in the very past, maybe 18. - 19. century, ( Im thinking about TW: Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai), with the steam powered galeons and the first iron clad war ships

[Javelin99]

Originally posted by xchrisx88:

Im not a friend of Steam Engine, just eat up way too much resources that are eventually better spend elsewhere, for repairs or ammo processor

most modern military ships (there aint no more "battleships" these days, just missile cruisers and that) use fuel engines,

Steam Engines where a thing in the very past, maybe 18. - 19. century, ( Im thinking about TW: Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai), with the steam powered galeons and the first iron clad war ships

I am quite aware that there aren't battleships in modern age in true fashion. :P Having been rendered opted out/obsolete due to them being immensely expensive to build, maintain, crew, roles taken by other platforms, and threat of longer range weapon systems.

But thanks for the answer. :3

[Th3N3rd]

Slight Correction, allot of ships in WWII used boilers of some sort to power themselves, including small destoryers. There was no such thing as fuel turbine engines that modern ships use (or nuclear for subs and such) back then so the only practical means was boilers. The Iowa battleships which the US still used until the 90s still had their steam engines in them. For me while I love their looks and they can produce tons of power, their efficency from what ive been told (havent tested) is kinda bad, BUT the major drawback ive found for them is in campain, not sure if its been reported allot by others but for me if i pull forces in campain maps any steam engine is reset to 0 and has to warm up before it gets power. Fuel engines seem to do that too but since their warms ups is like what 2 seconds or something its not noticable. But for the slow steam turbine engines, well I've lost more than a few of my battleship creations due to their engines being too low to have any of the systems work right if i had pulled them from play. So straight answer is use the steam engines for battleships if you want that feeling of battleshippyness. but for combat practicalness in campain, use fuels xD

[Javelin99]

Originally posted by Th3N3rd:

Slight Correction, allot of ships in WWII used boilers of some sort to power themselves, including small destoryers. There was no such thing as fuel turbine engines that modern ships use (or nuclear for subs and such) back then so the only practical means was boilers. The Iowa battleships which the US still used until the 90s still had their steam engines in them. For me while I love their looks and they can produce tons of power, their efficency from what ive been told (havent tested) is kinda bad, BUT the major drawback ive found for them is in campain, not sure if its been reported allot by others but for me if i pull forces in campain maps any steam engine is reset to 0 and has to warm up before it gets power. Fuel engines seem to do that too but since their warms ups is like what 2 seconds or something its not noticable. But for the slow steam turbine engines, well I've lost more than a few of my battleship creations due to their engines being too low to have any of the systems work right if i had pulled them from play. So straight answer is use the steam engines for battleships if you want that feeling of battleshippyness. but for combat practicalness in campain, use fuels xD

Naw, isn't just you. Steam engines intentionally shut off out of play, even if still sucking up your materials like a lawyer.

But excellent answer :P
I do so enjoy seeing or getting answers for questions that people actually bother to talk about the subject. Makes the process both nice, possibly educational, and gives a direct answer.

[FourGreenFields]

I think the powerdensity of an injector-engine is comparable to a steam piston-engine. But if you have an efficient refinery, the power/material is much better. So I'd say that's your best option if you want something small, yet reasonable efficient.

On my currently biggest ship I'm using fuel main propulsion, with steam turbine backups.

[Javelin99]

Originally posted by FourGreenFields:

I think the powerdensity of an injector-engine is comparable to a steam piston-engine. But if you have an efficient refinery, the power/material is much better. So I'd say that's your best option if you want something small, yet reasonable efficient.

On my currently biggest ship I'm using fuel main propulsion, with steam turbine backups.

I have no intention on going small for this. At most, two full sized engines. At least, a single full sized engine with a disregard to how big that one is.