To fix it with component cost mechanics change (regarless of being produced by SYs or factories of any type) - is to fix a problem itself with approximately the same time spent and more consistent model as a result.
This brings me back to the point - I don't understand how this proposed model is at all consistent.
In general, for most components the cost in minerals scales proportionally with size.
This makes sense. If I build a 50-ton component, I need 50 tons of materials. If I build a 500-ton component, I need 500 tons of materials. Granted, in Aurora one ton of component is not equal to one ton of minerals - I think we can assume that a large amount of cheap, conventional materials are used e.g. steel, aluminum, carbon-fiber, etc. However this basic relationship makes sense and is entirely consistent.
Well, you are not denying the physics of cross section in the first string and you are completely and absolutely denying the physics of cross section in the second string.
Denying - not at all. My statement is that I don't think target cross section is relevant because of the other factors I mentioned coupled with the hand-waving of TN technology.
I can understand the concept of cross section perfectly fine, and at the same time believe that the fire controls and weapons in Aurora can have sufficient precision that cross section effects are much less important, even negligible, compared to extreme range, speed, evasion, and so forth which characterizes the Aurora universe.
We could by similar tokens, for example, say that beam dispersion should be a mechanic, and the damage profile of beam weapons should become more spread out at longer ranges. However, this is needlessly complex and it is not difficult to believe or RP that our Aurora TN tech can focus a beam onto an area of ~1 m^2 at 100,000 km ranges. Anyone who works with beam optics of any sort will tell you that this is utterly impossible - with modern technology or anything analogous. However with Aurora's TN tech this is not a problem, or at least it does not have to be unless one's RP setting demands it.
I think at this point the best course is to agree to disagree, as it is clear we do not have any disagreements on physics but rather RP considerations, and it is of course useless to argue RP considerations.
Because for missiles velocity in Aurora is a factor, and ships are now suddenly not from the same universe.
Once again I do not understand this statement. Velocity is a factor for both beam and missile weapons, and ships and missiles broadly are subject to the same physics in Aurora (however oversimplified they may be) at least in terms of propulsion.I see you've posted below so I can wait for the brain to return to this universe.
P.S.
Just for example.
Production time of average modern fighter (smth about 0.02kt) is only about 2 or 3 times shorter then building time of 100kt supercarrier.
Compare to Aurora Build Time for the same scope of sizes.
A quick Google search reveals the following:
For a F-35A the required amount of labor is around 40,000 man-hours, as of 2017/2018. Of course this has likely decreased since then but it is a good rough number.
For a Nimitz-class CVN, 40 million man-hours are required, a factor of 1,000x greater. The new Ford class seems to be trending toward a similar figure with greater complexity balanced by improvements in shipbuilding in recent decades.
In real life, the difference is that far more people can work on a CVN at any one time than can work on a fighter plane - the factor of 2-3 times in real time from start to finish is due to this factor.
Further checking suggests that the cost of a fighter jet is around $80m while the Nimitz carriers were around $9b, roughly a factor of 100, which in my experience broadly correlates to how cost differences are between such disparate classes in Aurora, roughly, although of course Aurora fighters are ~0.2 kt, not ~0.02 kt.
It seems to be that mechanically, the "issue" is that fighter factories are much more efficient than shipyards because they can operate as an aggregate unit. Something similar to how GFTFs work would probably be more reasonable if the goal is to model real-life production more closely. I would not be opposed to such a change but I do worry it could have similar issues as the current GFTFs which people have complained about, where building something of larger size/cost can take several years due to only using one facility per task.
In any case, to bring it back around - it seems that the issue has more to do with the mechanic of using aggregate resources to build components, fighters, etc. and not with the mechanics of BP/mineral costs or shipyards. In this case if a change is needed it would be to limit or eliminate the use of aggregate resources for components, fighters, etc. and to leave cost and shipyard mechanics more or less as they are. Of course this change would introduce additional gameplay complexity and possibly micromanagement, so whether it should be done is open to question, but certainly I can readily see benefits to that complexity in terms of gameplay decisions so there are merits to the idea.