Shipyard Capacity - Only have Continual

[Treahblade (OP)]

Now that you have the option to do a continual capacity upgrade to a set limit, why do we have the other specific options? It makes no sense to ever use the ones that tie up the shipyard for a specific time as CC allows you to switch to something else without loosing progress.

Are the others used for role-play reasons or is there some advantage to the ones that tie up the yard?

[nuclearslurpee]

The specific options do not change the SY size until the task is finished, which means it will take longer but not require population, etc. until the task is done which can sometimes be useful. I would prefer to have this be an input-your-own-value instead of the fixed selections though.

[Erik L]

Now that you have the option to do a continual capacity upgrade to a set limit, why do we have the other specific options? It makes no sense to ever use the ones that tie up the shipyard for a specific time as CC allows you to switch to something else without loosing progress.

Are the others used for role-play reasons or is there some advantage to the ones that tie up the yard?

Some of us like the precision?

[Zap0]

Some of us like the precision?

Since C# you can just enter a target capacity it expands to, it's not like in VB6 anymore.



I agree with OP, the fixed expansion amounts don't have a purpose anymore. They're a little bit slower, and their theoretical advantage of only consuming workers once the whole expansion is done is an insignificant edge case not worth the complexity of having both options. Given how Steve codes the game, fewer cases are better, too.

[Droll]

Some of us like the precision?

Since C# you can just enter a target capacity it expands to, it's not like in VB6 anymore.



I agree with OP, the fixed expansion amounts don't have a purpose anymore. They're a little bit slower, and their theoretical advantage of only consuming workers once the whole expansion is done is an insignificant edge case not worth the complexity of having both options. Given how Steve codes the game, fewer cases are better, too.

Yeah I've never had the need to use the fixed options in C# so I wouldn't mind those getting removed.

Instead I would prefer that we have a "add slipways until X" option instead as it can get annoying for FAC shipyards to have to refresh the task every production increment.

[lumporr]

For what it's worth, I like to use the fixed increments to estimate how long certain expansion jobs will take, since it doesn't show the estimate for continuous expansion, but it does for the increments, IIRC.

[Napier]

For what it's worth, I like to use the fixed increments to estimate how long certain expansion jobs will take, since it doesn't show the estimate for continuous expansion, but it does for the increments, IIRC.

This makes up most of the cases I still use those fixed options for.  If I'm working on getting a new, larger ship class ready, it's useful to get an idea how long it will take to get a shipyard ready for it.

[Steve Walmsley]

I also used fixed expansions when population is a problem, so I am not using population until it is the size I need.

[alex_brunius]

Maybe it would make sense to have shipyards only requires population (workers) based on the size of the ships they are tooled to build (including currently retooling to build)?

That way you could have idle/mothballed shipyards, and they will man up only the moment when you need them to actually build something.


If your making the counterargument that the workers working on shipyard expansion should be modelled too, then they should be modelled for set size expansion as well IMO.

[Steve Walmsley]

Maybe it would make sense to have shipyards only requires population (workers) based on the size of the ships they are tooled to build (including currently retooling to build)?

That way you could have idle/mothballed shipyards, and they will man up only the moment when you need them to actually build something.


If your making the counterargument that the workers working on shipyard expansion should be modelled too, then they should be modelled for set size expansion as well IMO.

It's a possibility. I must admit, when I am in trouble population-wise I sometimes tow unused shipyards somewhere else, like in orbit of Venus, and maybe dump fuel refineries there too once I have sufficient harvesters. This is effectively the same thing with less hassle.

[Panopticon]

Related to that it would also be nice to have the ability to mothball/reactivate industry sectors by percentage a percentage amount rather than just off or on.

[Droll]

Maybe it would make sense to have shipyards only requires population (workers) based on the size of the ships they are tooled to build (including currently retooling to build)?

That way you could have idle/mothballed shipyards, and they will man up only the moment when you need them to actually build something.


If your making the counterargument that the workers working on shipyard expansion should be modelled too, then they should be modelled for set size expansion as well IMO.

It's a possibility. I must admit, when I am in trouble population-wise I sometimes tow unused shipyards somewhere else, like in orbit of Venus, and maybe dump fuel refineries there too once I have sufficient harvesters. This is effectively the same thing with less hassle.

I do wish a similar idea was also extended to teraforming installations. Right now once the teraforming is done, they just take up workers (and provide wealth!) for no reason. Perhaps their worker requirement should only factor in if they are actually in use? Could also do the same thing with fuel refineries.

The main challenge would be maintenance facilities, you would have to at minimum check that
A - They aren't actively producing MSP
B - There are no military ships in orbit that require maintenance

I would however also mention that I care less about maintenance facilities being "optimised" in this way. You don't fire your train technicians because there isn't currently a train waiting for maintenance.

[Andrew]

I would however also mention that I care less about maintenance facilities being "optimised" in this way. You don't fire your train technicians because there isn't currently a train waiting for maintenance.

Evidence suggest many organisation do fire those technicians and are confused when they have no capacity 3 months later

[Garfunkel]

It's literally how FX companies and game development companies work - they hire staff for a project, then fire them once the project is finished, then hire them and/or new people if/when they get a new project. It's absolutely ridiculous but that's the society we live in.

I don't agree that Terraformers should not require population if they are inactive as now with the new orbital mechanics, it is possible that a planet needs semi-continuous terraforming work. Plus, I like to RP that the atmosphere on terraformed planets need constant maintenance, hence I keep a couple of the installations around for that purpose at each colony. Unless there should be a toggle for them, like with other facilities, where they are 'turned completely off'.

[Droll]

It's literally how FX companies and game development companies work - they hire staff for a project, then fire them once the project is finished, then hire them and/or new people if/when they get a new project. It's absolutely ridiculous but that's the society we live in.

I don't agree that Terraformers should not require population if they are inactive as now with the new orbital mechanics, it is possible that a planet needs semi-continuous terraforming work. Plus, I like to RP that the atmosphere on terraformed planets need constant maintenance, hence I keep a couple of the installations around for that purpose at each colony. Unless there should be a toggle for them, like with other facilities, where they are 'turned completely off'.

I forgot to consider the elliptical orbit problem.