Confused about MSP use

[trabber Shir (OP)]

From the wiki "Any ship stationed in a colony with sufficient Maintenance Facilites still requires 25% of its BP cost in MSP per year"

Code: [Select]

http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=C-Installations#Maintenance_Facility
Does that mean it is cheaper to keep a ship in deep space rather than over a colony if their MSP divided by Maint Life in years is greater than 1/4th their build cost? Example:

Code: [Select]

Halifax class Geosurvey Ship      5,431 tons       69 Crew       416 BP       TCS 109    TH 120    EM 0
1104 km/s    JR 1-25(C)      Armour 1-27       Shields 0-0       HTK 24      Sensors 0/0/0/2      DCR 5      PPV 0
Maint Life 13.78 Years     MSP 979    AFR 47%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 10    5YR 144    Max Repair 100 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 144 months    Morale Check Required   

JC6K Commercial Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 5500 tons    Distance 25k km     Squadron Size 1

Commercial Engine  EP120.0 - 2Kt - 2.07LPH (Improved Nuclear Pulse) (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 1.73%    Signature 120    Explosion 3%
Fuel Capacity 501,000 Litres    Range 961.7 billion km (10082 days at full power)

Geological Survey Sensors (2)   2 Survey Points Per Hour

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
[/spoiler]

According to that line from the wiki, this ship would cost 104MSP per year while supported by maintenance facilities, but would only use an average of less than 72MSP per year while deployed.


A slight further confusion is with regards to ships at a colony and under a training command.  Since they suffer system failures, I assume they do not use MSP from the maintenance facilities.  Is that accurate?

[nuclearslurpee]

From the wiki "Any ship stationed in a colony with sufficient Maintenance Facilites still requires 25% of its BP cost in MSP per year"

Code: [Select]

http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=C-Installations#Maintenance_Facility
Does that mean it is cheaper to keep a ship in deep space rather than over a colony if their MSP divided by Maint Life in years is greater than 1/4th their build cost?

While the actual math may be slightly more complicated, the short answer is yes. It is possible to design a ship which is cheaper to run around for a few years and then overhaul rather than keeping it in port all the time.

However, in practice one consideration here is that if you are relying on constant overhauls to keep a fleet in good shape (and you will need to overhaul your ships in this case, because the maintenance failure rate increases the longer a ship goes without an overhaul), you will have your ships unavailable for action ~25% of the time, whereas fleets kept idle in port are always ready for action if an emergency comes up. Unless you are suffering from a severe mineral shortage (usually gallicite, it seems), it's probably better to pay a little more for the MSP to keep your ships docked in a port and ready for action.

A slight further confusion is with regards to ships at a colony and under a training command.  Since they suffer system failures, I assume they do not use MSP from the maintenance facilities.  Is that accurate?

Correct. Ships undergoing fleet training under a TRN command will not be maintained by the planetside facilities, to simulate that they are undergoing intensive maneuvers instead of sitting idle in a spaceport.

[trabber Shir (OP)]

Thank you much

[Zap0]

According to that line from the wiki, this ship would cost 104MSP per year while supported by maintenance facilities, but would only use an average of less than 72MSP per year while deployed.

I'm not quite following, how do you get the 72 MSP number?

While the actual math may be slightly more complicated, the short answer is yes. It is possible to design a ship which is cheaper to run around for a few years and then overhaul rather than keeping it in port all the time.

So my understanding of the maintenance mechanic is that, when not being maintained in orbit, a ship will accumulate it's maintenance clock. When it gets back to port and enters overhaul it'll need to pay back any of the missed maintenance that's on the clock, so overhauling 1 year of maintenance clock will take 4 months (a third of the time), during which time it'll consume 4x the normal maintenance.
So, in case of a 416BP ship, after one year it has effectively 104MSP "on the clock". It enters overhaul and spends another 4 months in there until fully overhauled. During that time MSP drain is 4x regular, so 138.6. 34.6 of these MSP are consumed to maintain the ship for those four months and 104 are used to pay back the maintenance debt over the year.

Important to note here is that ships rewind their clock at 3x time, but pay MSP at 4x normal - because during the time they're in overhaul, they still have their regular upkeep on top of rewinding the clock.

Does that mean it is cheaper to keep a ship in deep space rather than over a colony if their MSP divided by Maint Life in years is greater than 1/4th their build cost?

I believe the confusion stems from this, the maint life of a ship does not have any bearing on it's upkeep cost, it only dictates the likelihood of maintenance failures while not being maintained, and any MSP cost incurred through those is seperate from upkeep aka. the maintenance clock.

...or I could be wrong about all of this and will be learning something new about Aurora today :-)

A slight further confusion is with regards to ships at a colony and under a training command.  Since they suffer system failures, I assume they do not use MSP from the maintenance facilities.  Is that accurate?

Yes, ships in training don't count for maintenance and shore leave even if in orbit. Ships in training run up their maintenance clock (and crew exhaustion) twice as fast as normal ships in space, so they actually consume double during training, plus maintenance checks.

[nuclearslurpee]

While the actual math may be slightly more complicated, the short answer is yes. It is possible to design a ship which is cheaper to run around for a few years and then overhaul rather than keeping it in port all the time.

So my understanding of the maintenance mechanic is that, when not being maintained in orbit, a ship will accumulate it's maintenance clock. When it gets back to port and enters overhaul it'll need to pay back any of the missed maintenance that's on the clock, so overhauling 1 year of maintenance clock will take 4 months (a third of the time), during which time it'll consume 4x the normal maintenance.
So, in case of a 416BP ship, after one year it has effectively 104MSP "on the clock". It enters overhaul and spends another 4 months in there until fully overhauled. During that time MSP drain is 4x regular, so 138.6. 34.6 of these MSP are consumed to maintain the ship for those four months and 104 are used to pay back the maintenance debt over the year.

Important to note here is that ships rewind their clock at 3x time, but pay MSP at 4x normal - because during the time they're in overhaul, they still have their regular upkeep on top of rewinding the clock.

You're right, I neglected the cost of overhauls in my reply. Probably I got it confused with the idea of building a ship with very long maint life and letting it run away from a spaceport until it explodes from a maintenance failure in 10-20 years.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

While the actual math may be slightly more complicated, the short answer is yes. It is possible to design a ship which is cheaper to run around for a few years and then overhaul rather than keeping it in port all the time.

So my understanding of the maintenance mechanic is that, when not being maintained in orbit, a ship will accumulate it's maintenance clock. When it gets back to port and enters overhaul it'll need to pay back any of the missed maintenance that's on the clock, so overhauling 1 year of maintenance clock will take 4 months (a third of the time), during which time it'll consume 4x the normal maintenance.
So, in case of a 416BP ship, after one year it has effectively 104MSP "on the clock". It enters overhaul and spends another 4 months in there until fully overhauled. During that time MSP drain is 4x regular, so 138.6. 34.6 of these MSP are consumed to maintain the ship for those four months and 104 are used to pay back the maintenance debt over the year.

Important to note here is that ships rewind their clock at 3x time, but pay MSP at 4x normal - because during the time they're in overhaul, they still have their regular upkeep on top of rewinding the clock.

You're right, I neglected the cost of overhauls in my reply. Probably I got it confused with the idea of building a ship with very long maint life and letting it run away from a spaceport until it explodes from a maintenance failure in 10-20 years.

Reusable ships are overrated.

[trabber Shir (OP)]

Thanks for all the clarification.  Lets see if I can actually work out the cost of ownership if disposable versus cost of overhaul.

Formulas from discussion and Wiki:
Overhaul time = Maintenance clock/3
Overhaul cost in MSP = Overhaul time in years * Class Cost in BP
Maintenance cost in MSP = time at Maintenance Location in years * Class Cost in BP / 4
1 MSP = 0. 1 Duranium + 0. 05 Uridium + 0. 1 Gallicite = 0. 25BP

Derived formulas:
Overhaul cost in BP = (Maintenance clock in years * Class Cost)/12
Maintenance cost in BP = (time at Maintenance Location in years * Class Cost)/16

Conclusion 1: If your deployment time is greater than 12 years, it is cheaper to replace the ship than to overhaul it.

Conclusion 2: If your deployment time is greater than 16 years, it is cheaper to keep it idle in deep space (and replace it when it goes boom) than to keep it idle at a maintenance location.

And, Conclusion 2 is the answer to my original question. . .  but I am using Maint Life and Deployment Time interchangeably when I should really be saying "how long the ship is expected to last outside a maintenance location" which is actually really hard and somewhat situational to calculate.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Thanks for all the clarification.  Lets see if I can actually work out the cost of ownership if disposable versus cost of overhaul.

Formulas from discussion and Wiki:
Overhaul time = Maintenance clock/3
Overhaul cost in MSP = Overhaul time in years * Class Cost in BP
Maintenance cost in MSP = time at Maintenance Location in years * Class Cost in BP / 4
1 MSP = 0. 1 Duranium + 0. 05 Uridium + 0. 1 Gallicite = 0. 25BP

Derived formulas:
Overhaul cost in BP = (Maintenance clock in years * Class Cost)/12
Maintenance cost in BP = (time at Maintenance Location in years * Class Cost)/16

Conclusion 1: If your deployment time is greater than 12 years, it is cheaper to replace the ship than to overhaul it.

Conclusion 2: If your deployment time is greater than 16 years, it is cheaper to keep it idle in deep space (and replace it when it goes boom) than to keep it idle at a maintenance location.

And, Conclusion 2 is the answer to my original question. . .  but I am using Maint Life and Deployment Time interchangeably when I should really be saying "how long the ship is expected to last outside a maintenance location" which is actually really hard and somewhat situational to calculate.

You completely disregard the opportunity cost if forcing a ship to maintain 10 or more years in space. That is a huge chunk of space dedicated to maintenance and not other systems. That also means armour, engines, fuel, crew and all other stuff you need to support the ship.

Build a ship with 2.5 years maintenance and another with 12 years and see how much weapons and sensors you now miss out on. You will pay a substantial overhead cost in resources for the same amount of mission tonnage in the field.

Here are two example ships...

Code: [Select]

Sword Type-II class Destroyer      10 000 tons       276 Crew       1 502.5 BP       TCS 200    TH 975    EM 0
4875 km/s      Armour 6-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 86      Sensors 33/33/0/0      DCR 4      PPV 30
Maint Life 2.25 Years     MSP 422    AFR 178%    IFR 2.5%    1YR 112    5YR 1 686    Max Repair 162.5 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Magazine 426   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

Naval Ion Drive  1000/130 (3)    Power 975    Fuel Use 81.75%    Signature 325    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 901 000 Litres    Range 19.8 billion km (47 days at full power)

Type-3 Anti-missile Launcher  RR-60 (30)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
MD-50  ATM Fire-control system  Mk-III (5)     Range 17.1m km    Resolution 1

MX-25  ATM Sensor System  Mk-III (1)     GPS 11     Range 6.1m km    MCR 545.7k km    Resolution 1
EM Sensor Type-3  Mk-III  (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  45.4m km
Thermal Sensor Type-3  Mk-III (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  45.4m km

ECCM-1 (3)         ECM 10

Code: [Select]

Sword Type-IIb class Destroyer      10 000 tons       296 Crew       1 621.3 BP       TCS 200    TH 975    EM 0
4875 km/s      Armour 6-41       Shields 0-0       HTK 98      Sensors 33/33/0/0      DCR 19      PPV 16
Maint Life 12.05 Years     MSP 1 976    AFR 41%    IFR 0.6%    1YR 25    5YR 377    Max Repair 162.5 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Magazine 115   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 120 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

Naval Ion Drive  1000/130 (3)    Power 975    Fuel Use 81.75%    Signature 325    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 906 000 Litres    Range 19.9 billion km (47 days at full power)

Type-3 Anti-missile Launcher  RR-60 (16)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
MD-50  ATM Fire-control system  Mk-III (3)     Range 17.1m km    Resolution 1

MX-25  ATM Sensor System  Mk-III (1)     GPS 11     Range 6.1m km    MCR 545.7k km    Resolution 1
EM Sensor Type-3  Mk-III  (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  45.4m km
Thermal Sensor Type-3  Mk-III (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  45.4m km

ECCM-1 (3)         ECM 10
You also have to count the 1976 MSP the type b ship above is using during the 10+ years in service, then you will need to scrap the ship so you regain 25% of the resources while the other ship can be refit with new components and save the waste of scraping it for a much longer time. Refit is both faster and cheaper than building a new one. Ships can often last for several decades before you will feel the urge to scrap them sometimes even centuries.

The same is basically true for survey ships as well as they will become bigger than they otherwise need and you still will want to refit them once in a while with new engines and sensors.

To be honest it is not worth it...

[nuclearslurpee]

Additionally, there is one major reason not to let ships run around until they blow up from engine failure, which is crew experience. A crew with 22% grade and 100% fleet training, particularly a warship crew, is a valuable resource. So much so that some players will refit an old ship into a new ship even if the build cost is more than the price of a new ship just to keep the crew.