Changes to Freighters, Colony Ships and Shipyards

[SteveAlt (OP)]

I have added the changes for freighters and colony ships to the next version.

Tech System Changes
1) Cargo Holds are now 100 HS instead of 10 HS. Cost, crew, etc is exactly as before. Everything that can be transported requires the same amount of cargo holds as before with the exception of minerals. A cargo hold can now carry 2500 tons of minerals instead of 200 tons.
2) Cryogenic Transport Modules are now 50 HS instead of 10 HS. Cost, crew, etc is exactly as before.
3) A new type of engine has been added. Compared to the old Ship Engine (now Military Engine), it is 25 HS compared to 5 HS and costs twenty percent more. However, it produces two and a half times more power, uses only one quarter the fuel and only needs the same crew.

As a comparison, the Commonwealth Magneto Plasma Drive is 5 HS, Power output 80, Cost 40, Crew 25, Fuel Efficiency 0.6, Fuel Use per hour : 4.8 Litres
The Commonwealth Commercial Magneto Plasma Drive is 25 HS, Power output 200, Cost 50, Crew 25, Fuel Efficiency 0.06, Fuel Use per hour: 1.2 Litres

Comparing per HS instead of per engine the comparison is:
Military Drive:  Power Output 16, Cost 8, Crew 5, Fuel Use Per Hour: 0.96 litres
Commercial Drive: Power Output 8, Cost 2, Crew 1, Fuel Use Per Hour: 0.048 litres

Commercial Shipyards
Because of the above, some changes are needed to shipyards. A new Commercial Shipyard has been added and the existing Shipyard becomes a Military Shipyard. Shipyards function as before with the following exceptions:
1) Expansion of Commercial Shipyards costs only one tenth that of Military Shipyards. For example, adding 2000 tons of capacity to a Military Shipyard would cost 480 BP. For a Commercial Shipyard it would only cost 48 BP (and use 24 Duranium and 24 Neutronium). Retooling costs are the same as before.
2) Commercial Shipyards require only one tenth of the manpower of Military Shipyards for their size. Note that as commercial ships will generally not be ten times larger than before, this actually makes building Commercial Shipyards easier than at the moment in relative terms compared to Military Shipyards. An Empire will be able to expand its ability to build commercial shipping more quickly than in the past.
3) The modification rate of commercial shipyards is based on one tenth their capacity, although as the cost of increase is also one tenth of normal, this will work out to a similar expansion rate in percentage terms as military shipyards. Without this restriction Commercial Shipyards would grow amazingly quickly due to the faster growth rates for larger shipyards.
4) The Build Rate of freighters is based on one quarter of their size (see the later post in this thread for an explanation).

Maintenance Changes
To make things easier, all freighters and colony ships will no longer require maintenance as long as their design includes a full size engineering spaces. This means there is no longer any need for Commercial Freight Facilities. The maintenance requirements of Aurora are intended to simulate the logistical difficulties of long-range surveying, empire building and fighting wars. As freighters can't carry missiles and colony ships can't carry troops, I decided to remove the minimal maintenance requirements for the routine internal movements of freight and colonists.

Possible Additional Changes
Now I have changed freighters and colony ships to much larger hulls and added the necessary shipyard support, I find myself wondering whether I should extend the same principles to Terraformers, Construction Ships, Fuel Harvesters, etc. I originally sized their components based on likely shipyards sizes so they could actually be built. That is no longer a restriction so I probably should up their sizes too to a more reasonable level. I probably should also make jump gate construction easier because jump gates will be necessary for almost all freighters and colony ship traffic. I have considered two options. Firstly reducing the time required for each gate to be built or secondly making construction modules much larger (x10 or even x20) with a slightly longer construction time but removing the need for jump gate components. The latter would remove an significant element of micromanagement from the game.

Steve

[SteveAlt (OP)]

I have had to update the designs for the colony ships and freighters in the Trans-Newtonian Campaign. Here are the new designs for the Commonwealth. Note that some of these are older ships still in service so I created commercial equivalents for Magneto-Plasma Drive, Ion Engines and Nuclear Pulse Engines. An interesting side effect is that with the ships being so much larger, adding extra cargo handling systems has a negligible effect on size and speed so these freighters all load and unload faster than the original versions.

Code: [Select]

Atlas IV class Freighter    34800 tons     246 Crew     570.2 BP      TCS 696  TH 1400  EM 0
2011 km/s     Armour 1-94     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 10 MSP    Max Repair 50 MSP
Cargo 25000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 10    

Commercial MPD (7)    Power 200    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 200    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 86.2 billion km   (496 days at full power)

Code: [Select]

Atlas III class Freighter    34800 tons     246 Crew     486.2 BP      TCS 696  TH 1050  EM 0
1508 km/s     Armour 1-94     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 9 MSP    Max Repair 38 MSP
Cargo 25000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 10    

Commercial Ion Engine (7)    Power 150    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 150    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 86.2 billion km   (661 days at full power)

Code: [Select]

Atlas II class Freighter    34800 tons     246 Crew     395.2 BP      TCS 696  TH 700  EM 0
1005 km/s     Armour 1-94     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 7 MSP    Max Repair 25 MSP
Cargo 25000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 10    

Commercial Nuclear Pulse Engine (7)    Power 100    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 100    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 86.1 billion km   (992 days at full power)

Code: [Select]

Angel Large Cargo class Freighter    70400 tons     494 Crew     1118 BP      TCS 1408  TH 3000  EM 0
2130 km/s     Armour 1-151     Shields 0-0     Sensors 6/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 10 MSP    Max Repair 50 MSP
Cargo 50000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 15    

Commercial MPD (15)    Power 200    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 200    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 63.9 billion km   (347 days at full power)

Thermal Sensor TH1-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  6m km

Code: [Select]

Alaska IV class Colony Ship    20850 tons     243 Crew     932.2 BP      TCS 417  TH 1200  EM 0
2877 km/s     Armour 1-67     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 28 MSP    Max Repair 50 MSP
Colonists 50000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 10    

Commercial MPD (6)    Power 200    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 200    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 71.9 billion km   (289 days at full power)

Code: [Select]

Alaska III class Colony Ship    20850 tons     243 Crew     860.2 BP      TCS 417  TH 900  EM 0
2158 km/s     Armour 1-67     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 26 MSP    Max Repair 38 MSP
Colonists 50000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 10    

Commercial Ion Engine (6)    Power 150    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 150    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 71.9 billion km   (385 days at full power)
Steve

[Brian Neumann]

Possible Additional Changes
Now I have changed freighters and colony ships to much larger hulls and added the necessary shipyard support, I find myself wondering whether I should extend the same principles to Terraformers, Construction Ships, Fuel Harvesters, etc. I originally sized their components based on likely shipyards sizes so they could actually be built. That is no longer a restriction so I probably should up their sizes too to a more reasonable level. I probably should also make jump gate construction easier because jump gates will be necessary for almost all freighters and colony ship traffic. I have considered two options. Firstly reducing the time required for each gate to be built or secondly making construction modules much larger (x10 or even x20) with a slightly longer construction time but removing the need for jump gate components. The latter would remove an significant element of micromanagement from the game.

Steve

I would endorse having a larger size jump construction module, that does not require the jump gate components.  If the unit is 500hs, this will still be the same relative size as it is currently, to model the more capabale system, I would recommend making them at least 1000hs for a single component.  The alternative would be to have the current components be the same size, but reduce their cost and allow multiple construction components to work on a gate from the same ship at the same time.  This would drastically reduce the time to build a gate as long as it was flagged as a civilian item that could be built in a civilian shipyard.  Even without reducing thier cost the bigger shipyards will be able to build a large construction ship a little faster than can currently be built.  
Terraformers, and fuel harvesters can both be made larger, for the terraformer I would recommend then that it be covered by the changes to freighters on maintenance.  Otherwise they will rack up huge time on the clock and be very difficult to overhaul.

Brian

[SteveAlt (OP)]

I forgot to mention that in terms of the build rate of ships, freighters and colony ships are treated as being one quarter normal size. I will add this to the original post. This is because ships larger than 5000 tons are built at an increasingly faster rate than smaller ones, although the increase is not linear. This is to ensure that very large ships do not take forever to build. However, the introduction of very large, but extremely cheap (in relative terms), designs would skew that and you could be turning out 30,000 ton freighters in a few weeks. I have left the effective reduction at 4x, even though the increase in freighter size will be greater, in order to compensate for any general increases in freighter costs.

The actual formula is as follows

Build Rate Modifier = Class Size / 5000
Build Rate Modifier= 1 + ((Build Rate Modifier - 1) / 2) - this looks weird but is just cutting any value above or below one in half
Actual Build Rate = Build Rate Modifier x Racial Shipbuilding Rate

As an example, the pre-change Atlas IV freighter was 4250 tons and 338 BP. At the commonwealth current shipbuilding rate is 1000 BP. if we plug these figures into the formula we get

BRM = 4250 / 5000 = 0.85
BRM = 1 + ((0.85 - 1) / 2) = 0.925
Actual Build Rate = 0.925 x 1000 = 925.

So the ship will be built at a rate of 925 BP per year and will therefore take 388/925 = 0.42 years to build, or about 5 months. The new ship is 34800 tons and costs 570 BP. Without the /4 modifier the formula would be:

BRM = 34800 / 5000 = 6.96
BRM = 1 + ((6.96 - 1) / 2) = 3.98
Actual Build Rate = 3.98 x 1000 = 3980.

This would result in the ship being built in 570 / 3980 = 0.14 years, or about seven weeks. With the /4 mod, the formula becomes:

BRM = 8700 / 5000 = 1.74
BRM = 1 + ((1.74 - 1) / 2) = 1.37
Actual Build Rate = 1.37 x 1000 = 1370.

This would result in the ship being built in 570 / 1370 = 0.42 years, or five months. This happens to be exactly the same as the original smaller class before but that is just a coincidence for this particular design. As a second, briefer, comparison, the pre-change Alaska IV colony ship was 4250 tons and 788 BP. It required 0.85 years to build. The new version is 20850 tons and 932 BP. It will require 0.91 years to build

This adds an interesting dimension in terms of larger ships because a 70,000 ton freighter built with twice the systems of the original Atlas would take almost the same time to build. The build time for the Large Atlas is just 0.48 years, compared to 0.42 years for the smaller ship. Given that it is faster to get a shipyard with one 70,000 capacity slip than a shipyard with two 35,000 capacity slips, you could turn out more cargo capacity by building bigger ships. In addition, the cost per cargo hold is 114 BP for the Atlas IV and 108 BP for the Large Atlas so it is better value for money as well.

Code: [Select]

Large Atlas class Freighter    69250 tons     477 Crew     1080.4 BP      TCS 1385  TH 2800  EM 0
2021 km/s     Armour 1-150     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 10 MSP    Max Repair 50 MSP
Cargo 50000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 20    

Commercial MPD (14)    Power 200    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 200    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 200,000 Litres    Range 86.6 billion km   (496 days at full power)Taking this to greater extremes, if you build a ship with 5x the capacity of the Atlas IV, even that could be built in 0.53 years with a cost of 103 BP per cargo hold. As far as freighters are concerned, bigger would appear to be better.

Code: [Select]

Super Atlas class Freighter    172,350 tons     1170 Crew     2571 BP      TCS 3447  TH 7000  EM 0
2030 km/s     Armour 1-275     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 9 MSP    Max Repair 50 MSP
Cargo 125000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 50    

Commercial MPD (35)    Power 200    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 200    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 500,000 Litres    Range 87.0 billion km   (496 days at full power)Steve

[SteveAlt (OP)]

I have made the following changes to Jump Gate Construction for v4.1

Jump gate construction modules are now ten times as large (1000 HS or 50,000 tons for the smallest one) and twice as expensive. However, they no longer need jump gate components to build jump gates and the research cost of the construction modules has been halved. In addition, a construction module will allow a ship to qualify as a freighter if it doesn't break any of the other freighter restrictions. This means no maintenance requirements except for a single engineering spaces.

The result of this is going to be easier jump gate construction. Possibly too easy but I will see how it pans out in the test game. With the other changes though, more jump gates will be necessary to allow freighters and colony ship access to other systems and they will also facilitate some of the future civilian changes I have mentioned in the last week or so.

Here is the updated Construction Ship for the Trans-Newtonian Campaign.

Code: [Select]

Brunel class Construction Ship    63800 tons     789 Crew     1737.4 BP      TCS 1276  TH 2000  EM 0
1567 km/s     Armour 1-142     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: N/A    IFR: N/A    Maintenance Capacity 17 MSP    Max Repair 50 MSP
Jump Gate Construction Ship: 180 days

Commercial MPD (10)    Power 200    Efficiency 0.06    Signature 200    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 70.5 billion km   (520 days at full power)

This design is classed as a freighter for maintenance purposesSteve

[Beersatron]

So I take it you removed Jump gate Components from the ruins list that you can find in exploration?

[cjblack]

I have had to update the designs for the colony ships and freighters in the Trans-Newtonian Campaign. Here are the new designs for the Commonwealth. Note that some of these are older ships still in service so I created commercial equivalents for Magneto-Plasma Drive, Ion Engines and Nuclear Pulse Engines.

Should these really all have the Commonwealth's current best fuel efficiency, even when the original engines were built with lower efficiency tech?

[sloanjh]

The result of this is going to be easier jump gate construction. Possibly too easy but I will see how it pans out in the test game. With the other changes though, more jump gates will be necessary to allow freighters and colony ship access to other systems and they will also facilitate some of the future civilian changes I have mentioned in the last week or so.

If you're concerned about the easy of jump gate construction, you might contemplate making them destroyable.  That would allow races to "blow" jump gates as a defensive measure when their empire is penetrated, which in turn would require the attacker to make jump assaults at every system, rather than just to break into the perimeter.  If you gave them 100 or 1000 HTK, then it would probably require a sizable effort to blow them, similar to the tactical difficulties of blowing bridges.

John

[Steve Walmsley]

So I take it you removed Jump gate Components from the ruins list that you can find in exploration?

Yes, I have removed them

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

I have had to update the designs for the colony ships and freighters in the Trans-Newtonian Campaign. Here are the new designs for the Commonwealth. Note that some of these are older ships still in service so I created commercial equivalents for Magneto-Plasma Drive, Ion Engines and Nuclear Pulse Engines.

Should these really all have the Commonwealth's current best fuel efficiency, even when the original engines were built with lower efficiency tech?

That's a good point. I have changed the Ion-equivalent to 0.08 and the nuclear pulse to 0.09

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

The result of this is going to be easier jump gate construction. Possibly too easy but I will see how it pans out in the test game. With the other changes though, more jump gates will be necessary to allow freighters and colony ship access to other systems and they will also facilitate some of the future civilian changes I have mentioned in the last week or so.

If you're concerned about the easy of jump gate construction, you might contemplate making them destroyable.  That would allow races to "blow" jump gates as a defensive measure when their empire is penetrated, which in turn would require the attacker to make jump assaults at every system, rather than just to break into the perimeter.  If you gave them 100 or 1000 HTK, then it would probably require a sizable effort to blow them, similar to the tactical difficulties of blowing bridges.

It is an interesting idea in principle, although I can see a couple of issues. Firstly is that beam armed ships wouldn't have much trouble destroying them with no downside whereas missile ships would have to use up a lot of their ordnance. Secondly, with that in mind I would damage every jump gate in the Empire to within a couple of points so I could destroy it whenever I needed to without any trouble. If I avoided that by preventing damaged jump gates from working, then I could still prevent an alien attack by damaging them slightly.

I do like the idea that they could be destroyed though so there must be an alternative that makes it possible but difficult. Assume that a jump gate somehow binds with the jump point, keeping it open at all times, and becomes more than just a physical structure you can shoot at. Perhaps jump gate construction ships could undo the jump gate or perhaps the gate needs to be taken out in one huge explosion (like putting out an oil well fire). Perhaps a 100 point warhead (or even more) You would have to design gate-buster missiles and would need a launcher big enough to launch them.

Steve

[ShadoCat]

Instead of blowing a gate by causing damage to it, why not use a scuttle command?

Or better yet, turn the darned thing off.

I know that's the way I'd build them if i were designing a get on a JP in my home system....

If you can't switch them on and off like a light bulb, then being able to command a gate to vigorously disassemble itself works for me.

[Steve Walmsley]

Instead of blowing a gate by causing damage to it, why not use a scuttle command?

Or better yet, turn the darned thing off.

I know that's the way I'd build them if i were designing a get on a JP in my home system....

If you can't switch them on and off like a light bulb, then being able to command a gate to vigorously disassemble itself works for me.

I originally had jump gates belonging to one race or another and planned to have races control who used them. However, it occured to me that they could cause a lot of problems. If you could completely shut down a gate that it becomes an impassable barrier. If they were indestructible then whoever got there first would have complete control over a jump point. if they were destroyable then races would be continually destroying each other's gates and replacing them. Ancient gates would presumably have everyone locked out. I decided in the end it would be better for gameplay and micromanagement if they were accessible to all.

If I allow some type of instant scuttle command for an Empire's 'own' jump gates then there would still be a race to build jump gates at all key jump point in order to be the one who could destroy them. I think an ability for construction ships to dismantle any jump point is probably the best idea. It would take a lot less time than construction - perhaps one tenth of the construction time for a module.

Steve

[ShadoCat]

If I allow some type of instant scuttle command for an Empire's 'own' jump gates then there would still be a race to build jump gates at all key jump point in order to be the one who could destroy them. I think an ability for construction ships to dismantle any jump point is probably the best idea. It would take a lot less time than construction - perhaps one tenth of the construction time for a module.

That is probably the best solution for the way Aurora works.

One thing to consider is that a jump gate construction ship that is disassembling a gate to slow down an invasion will end up getting stuck in the system on the enemy side unless you have a jump ship big enough to get the construction ship through the jump point.

[Steve Walmsley]

If I allow some type of instant scuttle command for an Empire's 'own' jump gates then there would still be a race to build jump gates at all key jump point in order to be the one who could destroy them. I think an ability for construction ships to dismantle any jump point is probably the best idea. It would take a lot less time than construction - perhaps one tenth of the construction time for a module.

That is probably the best solution for the way Aurora works.

One thing to consider is that a jump gate construction ship that is disassembling a gate to slow down an invasion will end up getting stuck in the system on the enemy side unless you have a jump ship big enough to get the construction ship through the jump point.

An excellent point! Given that construction ships are going to be very large, that could be a problem. Perhaps the instability caused by removing a jump gate will cause jump gates at both sides of a jump point to be destroyed

Steve