Posted by: Erik L
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:58:18 AM »I think a better option than continual expansion would be something like "continual 500/1000/2000 ton increments"
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: September 24, 2013, 01:32:15 AM »I used to use SM to trim off excess capacity, but occasionally I find myself seriously wanting a ship with just a little bit more tonnage than the yard can handle, so now I just let it slide (but every time my OCD sees the mess that is my shipyard capacities I die a little inside.
Posted by: Nibelung44
« on: September 24, 2013, 12:43:51 AM »Continual expansion also results in shipyard capacity being a messy string of random numbers which might annoy some folks' OCD. :p
The odd time I've played with it I had to use SM mode to trim it to a nice round number.
That's not just OCD (although I feel compelled as you to round them with SM before launching a new bird), it is more difficult to read rapidly all SY capacities.
So the OCD people said...
Posted by: Erik L
« on: September 23, 2013, 06:32:34 PM »Unless you forget to cancel the expansion and end up with a 251,849.42 ton shipyard- and yes, it happened to me onec
Fixed that for you
Posted by: Wolfius
« on: September 23, 2013, 06:10:14 PM »Continual expansion also results in shipyard capacity being a messy string of random numbers which might annoy some folks' OCD. :p
The odd time I've played with it I had to use SM mode to trim it to a nice round number.
The odd time I've played with it I had to use SM mode to trim it to a nice round number.
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: September 21, 2013, 11:58:30 AM »Unless you forget to cancel the expansion and end up with a 200,000 ton shipyard - and yes, it happened to me onec
- and yes, it happened to me onec Posted by: Nibelung44
« on: September 21, 2013, 11:19:50 AM »I came to this conclusion also, continual expansion is best, because it dynamically increases SY speed and can be cancelled when needed without adverse effect.
Posted by: Mel Vixen
« on: September 21, 2013, 04:25:42 AM »There is also the Shipyard projects in the Construction/Production research.
Posted by: metalax
« on: September 20, 2013, 08:29:16 PM »The fastest way to increase shipyard size is to set it to "continual capacity expansion". As the size and hence the production speed increases each construction cycle it will build faster than expanding the shipyard in discrete chunks that are not added until the full upgrade is complete. Other than ensuring that there are sufficient workers to staff the shipyard to avoid penalties, there is no way of speeding construction further.
Posted by: Nibelung44
« on: September 19, 2013, 12:51:57 AM »By the way, how you hasten the size increase of SY, seems to take forever. Can I help with my industries?
Posted by: MehMuffin
« on: September 18, 2013, 08:08:07 PM »If you have any worlds large enough to accommodate it, send it there and get rid of stuff on that world until enough of the population is free to staff it. You can always just send in parts from other worlds to speed up construction times as well.
Posted by: Mel Vixen
« on: September 18, 2013, 04:06:45 PM »Well how much pop does it need? At million tons you could put out some great Baseships. Hauling it to one of your other collonies with low employment rates (say the moon) might be a nice idea. You produce the engines and stuff on your homeworld and ship them then out to the new location for assembly.
Posted by: Stardust
« on: September 18, 2013, 02:30:10 PM »Is it possible to remove a shipyard? I had tasked a military shipyard to continuously expand and subsequently forgot that I had done so. I learned of the oversight when I found that the class 0 planet it was on, although quite well populated, was overwhelmed with maintaining the shipyard that now had a capacity close to 1,000,000 tons.
I just employed an obsolete tug to hall it somewhere. So there they have sat for many years until I read this post and remembered of their ordeal.
Any suggestions?
I just employed an obsolete tug to hall it somewhere. So there they have sat for many years until I read this post and remembered of their ordeal.
Any suggestions?
Posted by: Paul M
« on: September 18, 2013, 01:56:28 AM »Orbital habitates allow you to run things other than mines on a world. They make sense when you need to colonize a body that has a colonization cost so high that the amount of people left over to run things is too low to actually run the number of them that you want.
Examples from my AAR: orbital habitates would make sense at Forge to allow me to put maintenance facilities there; or orbital habitates would make sense of Venus to allow me to put a terraformer or regular mines on the planet. But the NCC has not the technology to produce orbital habitates so it is not possible at this time.
You would need to do a case by case comparison to determine if automatic mines or regular mines supported by orbital habitates made sense. I doubt there is a universe rule.
Examples from my AAR: orbital habitates would make sense at Forge to allow me to put maintenance facilities there; or orbital habitates would make sense of Venus to allow me to put a terraformer or regular mines on the planet. But the NCC has not the technology to produce orbital habitates so it is not possible at this time.
You would need to do a case by case comparison to determine if automatic mines or regular mines supported by orbital habitates made sense. I doubt there is a universe rule.
Posted by: Nibelung44
« on: September 17, 2013, 04:58:36 PM »nice!!
unrelated but you might answer, in which case orbital habitats make more sense (cost wise) than automated mines? I would only use them for gas giants probably.
unrelated but you might answer, in which case orbital habitats make more sense (cost wise) than automated mines? I would only use them for gas giants probably.
