Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread: C# Edition

[Andrew]

Pi is short for Pi the fundemental mathamatical constant

[skoormit]

Boat Bays:      cost 25 and provide 250t of parasite space in 262.5 tons of ship space with 3 crew and 1 HTK.
Hangar Decks:      100                   1000t                                 1050 tons                             12 crew        4 HTK

So, a Hangar Deck seems exactly equivalent to four Boat Bays.
Why would I ever care to research Hangar Decks?
Is there some advantage I am overlooking (other than the rather dubious advantage of absorbing 3 hits before losing any hangar space at all)?

[nuclearslurpee]

Boat Bays:      cost 25 and provide 250t of parasite space in 262.5 tons of ship space with 3 crew and 1 HTK.
Hangar Decks:      100                   1000t                                 1050 tons                             12 crew        4 HTK

So, a Hangar Deck seems exactly equivalent to four Boat Bays.
Why would I ever care to research Hangar Decks?
Is there some advantage I am overlooking (other than the rather dubious advantage of absorbing 3 hits before losing any hangar space at all)?

Other than the HTK, no, as the costs are identical.

IMO Steve should scrap the Boat Bay techs and just make them automatic research from Hangar Bays at this point. The +3 HTK is admittedly a nice bonus but not really worth 4k RP for a ship type that should not ever be getting hit.

[Zap0]

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Before this patch the hangar bay was more efficient, or rather the smaller boat bays had a larger tonnage overhead than the hangar deck.

[Zap0]

Question: Does electronic hardening do anything if your electronics component has an HTK of 0?

[Droll]

Question: Does electronic hardening do anything if your electronics component has an HTK of 0?

Yes, pretty sure electronic damage is a binary thing where a component either survives or is destroyed with no consideration for HTK. So electronic hardening gives a % chance the component survives the electronic damage.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

Boat Bays:      cost 25 and provide 250t of parasite space in 262.5 tons of ship space with 3 crew and 1 HTK.
Hangar Decks:      100                   1000t                                 1050 tons                             12 crew        4 HTK

So, a Hangar Deck seems exactly equivalent to four Boat Bays.
Why would I ever care to research Hangar Decks?
Is there some advantage I am overlooking (other than the rather dubious advantage of absorbing 3 hits before losing any hangar space at all)?

Other than the HTK, no, as the costs are identical.

IMO Steve should scrap the Boat Bay techs and just make them automatic research from Hangar Bays at this point. The +3 HTK is admittedly a nice bonus but not really worth 4k RP for a ship type that should not ever be getting hit.

 - Yeah, that needs some tweaking. Just tested this and the ship with 4 Boat Bays even had better IFR / AFR... that's busted.

[Droll]

Yeah, that needs some tweaking. Just tested this and the ship with 4 Boat Bays even had better IFR / AFR... that's busted.

Wait I thought that was only based on engineering tonnage / vs total tonnage. Why would that even make a difference?

[xenoscepter (OP)]

Yeah, that needs some tweaking. Just tested this and the ship with 4 Boat Bays even had better IFR / AFR... that's busted.

Wait I thought that was only based on engineering tonnage / vs total tonnage. Why would that even make a difference?

 - Max Repair for a Hangar Deck is 100MSP, Max Repair for a Boat Bay is 25MSP. So 4x Boat Bays extends the life by needing less MSP per breakdown, while the Hangar Deck NEEDS 100 MSP for a breakdown. Yes, yes the 4x Boat Bays will (on paper at least) breakdown 4x as much, but that's counterbalanced heavily by the fact that only one or two might break, resulting in an overall increase of Maintenance Life.

[skoormit]

Yeah, that needs some tweaking. Just tested this and the ship with 4 Boat Bays even had better IFR / AFR... that's busted.

Wait I thought that was only based on engineering tonnage / vs total tonnage. Why would that even make a difference?

 - Max Repair for a Hangar Deck is 100MSP, Max Repair for a Boat Bay is 25MSP. So 4x Boat Bays extends the life by needing less MSP per breakdown, while the Hangar Deck NEEDS 100 MSP for a breakdown. Yes, yes the 4x Boat Bays will (on paper at least) breakdown 4x as much, but that's counterbalanced heavily by the fact that only one or two might break, resulting in an overall increase of Maintenance Life.

Hangars and boat bays don't suffer maintenance failures.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

EDIT: Sorry for the huge-ness...

[skoormit]

EDIT: Sorry for the huge-ness...
(two huge pics)

Those ships have identical AFR and IFR.


The estimated 1yr and 5yr usage is erroneous.
Apparently that calculation doesn't realize that those components are not subject to maintenance failures.
I wonder if the same error shows up for two ships differing only by the number and type of cargo bays.

The max repair numbers are correct...it costs 25 to repair the bay, and 100 to repair the hangar.
Those components can be hit, they just can't fail due to maintenance.

[xenoscepter (OP)]

EDIT: Sorry for the huge-ness...
(two huge pics)

Those ships have identical AFR and IFR.


The estimated 1yr and 5yr usage is erroneous.
Apparently that calculation doesn't realize that those components are not subject to maintenance failures.
I wonder if the same error shows up for two ships differing only by the number and type of cargo bays.

The max repair numbers are correct...it costs 25 to repair the bay, and 100 to repair the hangar.
Those components can be hit, they just can't fail due to maintenance.

 - Oh, woops. I meant 1YR / 5YR, sorry for the confusion.

[ExChairman]

Is there a way to set ground troop elements to a starting field position? Its tedious to put 100s of units into Support, Rear and so on... Would be nice if these were given a position in "formation template"

[Droll]

Is there a way to set ground troop elements to a starting field position? Its tedious to put 100s of units into Support, Rear and so on... Would be nice if these were given a position in "formation template"

Although you are correct that a default field position would be ideal, in 1.13 this issue was heavily alleviated with the addition of a 3rd checkbox when selecting the field position. It lets you set the field position of ALL formations at the same body that have the same replacement template at once.