A good suggestion to make in the suggestion thread might be for Aurora to launch an "are you sure" dialogue when launching a refit task if the cost of the task is above some threshold (like 50%) of new construction.Added for v5.1
A really good idea, it would make it much harder to refit a 40,000 tom carrier into a 1000 ton FAC By accident
Fourth, a good suggestion to make in the suggestion thread might be for Aurora to launch an "are you sure" dialogue when launching a refit task if the cost of the task is above some threshold (like 50%) of new construction.
John
Quote from: "sloanjh"Quote from: "sandman662"Well, if the material costs of refitting are lower than building a new ship, there is your benefit. I am starting to run out of minerals on Earth and if it is cheaper for me to refit than to build new, I guess I'll have to deal with the much longer time frame.
First, what all the other old hands said
Second, you can recover minerals by scrapping the old ships. Don't remember the ratio. So in the situation you describe, I would probably build new ships and either scrap or put into the "reserve" the old ships. (Note that commercial ships like freighters don't cost anything to keep around, but military ships will cost minerals and so are probably better off scrapped.)
Third, as many others have pointed out, the refit system is intended for small changes to the design. For example, when upgrading my conventional-start PDC to TN sensors, I design the new bases with conventional armor and launchers, rather than TN versions. This way, I'm only ripping out the old fire control and putting in new fire control (this is what refit is intended to support). If I replaced everything, I might as well build a new base.
Fourth, a good suggestion to make in the suggestion thread might be for Aurora to launch an "are you sure" dialogue when launching a refit task if the cost of the task is above some threshold (like 50%) of new construction.
John
That's not a bad idea at all.
Quote from: "sandman662"Well, if the material costs of refitting are lower than building a new ship, there is your benefit. I am starting to run out of minerals on Earth and if it is cheaper for me to refit than to build new, I guess I'll have to deal with the much longer time frame.
First, what all the other old hands said
Second, you can recover minerals by scrapping the old ships. Don't remember the ratio. So in the situation you describe, I would probably build new ships and either scrap or put into the "reserve" the old ships. (Note that commercial ships like freighters don't cost anything to keep around, but military ships will cost minerals and so are probably better off scrapped.)
Third, as many others have pointed out, the refit system is intended for small changes to the design. For example, when upgrading my conventional-start PDC to TN sensors, I design the new bases with conventional armor and launchers, rather than TN versions. This way, I'm only ripping out the old fire control and putting in new fire control (this is what refit is intended to support). If I replaced everything, I might as well build a new base.
Fourth, a good suggestion to make in the suggestion thread might be for Aurora to launch an "are you sure" dialogue when launching a refit task if the cost of the task is above some threshold (like 50%) of new construction.
John
Well, if the material costs of refitting are lower than building a new ship, there is your benefit. I am starting to run out of minerals on Earth and if it is cheaper for me to refit than to build new, I guess I'll have to deal with the much longer time frame.
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Depending on how radical the change is, triple time might be low. Things like new armor and radically different engine configuations can trigger very long refit times.It should never be longer than building a whole new ship; otherwise it defeats the entire purpose of refitting. If it weren't for the fact we can't currently transfer crews (and their associated experience and training) between ships, refits would be entirely pointless given exaggerated costs. That is, unless the changes are minimal and the cost doesn't surpass that of building a new vessel.
I believe the culprit is the tonnage increase costs. Perhaps those should be lower.
Well, if the material costs of refitting are lower than building a new ship, there is your benefit. I am starting to run out of minerals on Earth and if it is cheaper for me to refit than to build new, I guess I'll have to deal with the much longer time frame.Well, I guess that's it. I suppose I value time way more than I do actual resources, though.
It should never be longer than building a whole new ship; otherwise it defeats the entire purpose of refitting.Not necasserily true. When you factor in the teardown time refits, in our current real world, often take longer that original construction. As long as the fincancial cost is lower than new construction refit makes more sense, too the bean counters, than original construction.
Actually the reverse is true. When you start to talk about adding enough tonnage to be significant then the time and expense to tear the ship appart before rebuilding it can cost more than just building a new ship. For changes that only make minor adjustments to the total tonnage the system is working quite well. The only time I have had any real problems with cost is on freighters, changing their engines and for warships when the tonnage change was greater than about 10%. Once I got over that I noticed the cost for the refit was getting quite close to just building a new ship.Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"Depending on how radical the change is, triple time might be low. Things like new armor and radically different engine configuations can trigger very long refit times.It should never be longer than building a whole new ship; otherwise it defeats the entire purpose of refitting. If it weren't for the fact we can't currently transfer crews (and their associated experience and training) between ships, refits would be entirely pointless given exaggerated costs. That is, unless the changes are minimal and the cost doesn't surpass that of building a new vessel.
I believe the culprit is the tonnage increase costs. Perhaps those should be lower.
Depending on how radical the change is, triple time might be low. Things like new armor and radically different engine configuations can trigger very long refit times.It should never be longer than building a whole new ship; otherwise it defeats the entire purpose of refitting. If it weren't for the fact we can't currently transfer crews (and their associated experience and training) between ships, refits would be entirely pointless given exaggerated costs. That is, unless the changes are minimal and the cost doesn't surpass that of building a new vessel.
