Steam Engines overpowered?

[WakeZero]

Compared to the other rocket engines, Steam Engines are overpowered. This is mainly due to the fact that their max rocket height is 25 and don't require fuel /oxidizer tanks, which frees up a lot of space for other modules. They only have a range of 10, but I've found it's super easy to setup refueling stations on other Planetoids by setting up a SPOM and steam producer, which simply require a source of water. With this setup you can reach all POIs with only steam.

Rocket Engines

• STEAM: Range 10, remaining height 20
• PETROLEUM (1 FUEL/1 SOX TANK): Range 10, remaining height 23
• PETROLEUM (2 FUEL/1 SOX TANK): Range 20, remaining height 15
• RADBOLT: Range 20, remaining height 15
• HYDROGEN (1 FUEL/1 LOX TANK): Range 16, remaining height 23
• HYDROGEN (2 FUEL/1 LOX TANK): Range 32, remaining height 18

As can be seen, the Steam Engine has more free module height than the more advanced rockets when configured for distance (2+ fuel tanks). The Radbolt Engine has great range, but is severely limited in module height. When not configured for distance, the Petroleum and Hydrogen Engines do gain 3 free module height, but they are offset by the extra hassle of managing more difficult fuel/oxidizer production for little to no gain in range, making setting up refueling stations on remote planetoids difficult.

All that being said, I would hate to see the Steam Engine nerfed. I think it's in the correct place for difficulty vs reward. I would however like to see the more advanced engines buffed. Here's what I would like see:

Possible Changes

• Increase the max rocket height of the Radbolt Engine to at least match the Steam Engine of 25. Radbolts are easy to generate, but I don't feel it warrants such a reduction in module height. Radbolt Propulsion is after all the final Radiation Technologies research, and it shouldn't be so thoroughly outclassed by a previous tier, especially since this is DLC content.
• Petroleum and Hydrogen Engines already have a decent height when not configured for range, and increasing it past 35 may not actually be best. Instead, I would like to see their base range increased to reward the extra effort of fueling them. This can either be accomplished by decreasing their fuel consumption rate, or by increasing the amount of fuel/oxidizer the tanks can hold.

NOTE: I did not discuss rocket speeds at all because, well, they are all still really slow 

[6Havok9]

22 minutes ago, WakeZero said:

NOTE: I did not discuss rocket speeds at all because, well, they are all still really slow 

You're right, but speed.. that's their drawback. They are SLOW. Much slower than the others, that engine burden is big. You can think of many situations where a faster rocket is preferable. I still love them! They have their niche and that's good.. right? 

[hackcasual]

They're great for research rockets, since their ample room means long loiter durations. Beyond that, they get as early scouts only if I haven't found some of the crucial resource planets early. After the early-mid game, I'm using CO2 rockets for shuttling resources around the inner ring, as they're trivial to refuel, super fast (don't even need food on board with a decent pilot), and have very little heat generation. Radbolt become my late game scouts/planetary colonizers, and petrol the cargo haulers.

If you're going with outpost based refueling, petroleum is trivial to setup a refueling station for. Liquid storage containers hold over 9 full petrol tanks worth, and a single container of oxylite is basically all you'll ever need (though you can eke out 1 more height by using a LOX tank).

Honestly, the best thing they could do is add a few more fuel tank sizes, so you could tune cargo rockets exactly for their trip duration. That would especially help hydrogen.

[WakeZero]

Speed IS the only drawback, but the difference is not enough to matter in my opinion. My workhouse steam rocket that I can configure for just about anything, has a speed of 0.9, while a hydrogen rocket with the same capabilities is only 1.7, so a little less than double speed for only 6 extra tiles of range.

For a full distance trip, the Steam Engine rocket will take 11 cycles to complete its 10 hex trip. The hydrogen rocket on the other hand will do the same trip in 5.8 cycles, or it's full range of 16 hexes in 9.4 cycles.

Faster, yes, but by the time I have rockets going, that 4-5 cycle difference in return time doesn't mean much to me, and it doesn't seem worth all the extra effort. Instead of carting petrol/liquid hydrogen all over the starmap, I can instead just use the natural water sources each asteroid generally has. At least until I get enough super coolant to make liquid hydrogen/ox everywhere.

[NewWorldDan]

4 minutes ago, WakeZero said:

Speed IS the only drawback, but the difference is not enough to matter in my opinion. My workhouse steam rocket that I can configure for just about anything, has a speed of 0.9, while a hydrogen rocket with the same capabilities is only 1.7, so a little less than double speed for only 6 extra tiles of range.

For a full distance trip, the Steam Engine rocket will take 11 cycles to complete its 10 hex trip. The hydrogen rocket on the other hand will do the same trip in 5.8 cycles, or it's full range of 16 hexes in 9.4 cycles.

Faster, yes, but by the time I have rockets going, that 4-5 cycle difference in return time doesn't mean much to me, and it doesn't seem worth all the extra effort. Instead of carting petrol/liquid hydrogen all over the starmap, I can instead just use the natural water sources each asteroid generally has. At least until I get enough super coolant to make liquid hydrogen/ox everywhere.

If anything, I think the hydrogen rockets need a power boost. By the time you're using them, you're mostly wrapping up achievements and what not. And you're just waiting and waiting for your dupes to get where they're going so they can get something done. Granted, there's a mod to adjust them, and I intend to start using it to hugely increase their speed.