Aurora 4x

VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: mithril on February 06, 2008, 07:21:10 PM

Title: tankers?
Post by: mithril on February 06, 2008, 07:21:10 PM
is there any special ship component needed to make a tanker? i'm looking to convert some frieghters into tankers to keep my fleets fueled up when operating away from Sol.
Title: Re: tankers?
Post by: sloanjh on February 06, 2008, 07:59:24 PM
Quote from: "mithril"
is there any special ship component needed to make a tanker? i'm looking to convert some frieghters into tankers to keep my fleets fueled up when operating away from Sol.

Fuel tanks :-)

In other words, a class is a tanker type if you say it is.

John
Title:
Post by: Erik L on February 06, 2008, 08:34:47 PM
For the explicit tanker commands, the check mark, though if you only have 1 fuel component, it won't be a very GOOD tanker ;)
Title:
Post by: ZimRathbone on February 08, 2008, 06:33:10 AM
I quite often have my jump tenders equipped with rather more fuel tankage for this very reason  - also tend to have better sensors as well.

Slainthe

Zim
Title: Re: tankers?
Post by: Steve Walmsley on February 09, 2008, 05:24:34 AM
Quote from: "mithril"
is there any special ship component needed to make a tanker? i'm looking to convert some frieghters into tankers to keep my fleets fueled up when operating away from Sol.

No, just add plenty of fuel storage. Also, check the Tanker checkbox on the class window. The checkbox is so every fleet of every type doesn't get all the associated tanker order options on the Fleet window.

Steve
Title: Benefit of "noncombatant" status? - Re: tankers?
Post by: jfelten on February 02, 2009, 05:21:41 AM
If I put a single small anti-missile missile launcher on my tanker it is no longer considered a noncombatant since the game has no way of knowing I'm not going to use that launcher offensively.  What is the tanker not being considered a noncombatant costing me?
Title: Re: Benefit of "noncombatant" status? - Re: tankers?
Post by: welchbloke on February 02, 2009, 07:15:21 AM
Quote from: "jfelten"
If I put a single small anti-missile missile launcher on my tanker it is no longer considered a noncombatant since the game has no way of knowing I'm not going to use that launcher offensively.  What is the tanker not being considered a noncombatant costing me?

You can't use the Frieghter maintenance check order to refit at a Commercial Freight Facility, all overhaul have to be done using the overhaul order (with the associated time penalty).
I don't know if there are any other implications.
Title: Re: tankers?
Post by: waresky on February 02, 2009, 11:32:53 AM
A damned GOOD tanker are the Fuel Harvester MARKED it on "Tanker" and put around every GAS Giant with decent Sorium depot..i think r a good logistical choice.

From that point,the Sorium ICONS (in Galactic MAP) around the Solar System are VERY USEFUL for deploy wisely this "Fuel Harvester-Tankers"..and are a happy choice for every damned Admiral who will save her Fleet from Fuel End...
Title: Re: Benefit of "noncombatant" status? - Re: tankers?
Post by: Kurt on February 02, 2009, 12:27:58 PM
Quote from: "jfelten"
If I put a single small anti-missile missile launcher on my tanker it is no longer considered a noncombatant since the game has no way of knowing I'm not going to use that launcher offensively.  What is the tanker not being considered a noncombatant costing me?

Just going from memory, there are three classifications:

1.  "Freighter" (or commercial), whatever.  This classification requires no weapons or large sensors, and at least some cargo holds or colonist transport units.  This type of unit can perform the equivalent of an overhaul at the commercial freight facility instantaneously.

2.  Noncombatant.  This classification is for unarmed units that don't meet the requirements of classification #1.  These units cannot use a commercial freighter facility and thus must do an overhaul at a world with maintenance facilities to wind back their maintenance clock.  However, because they are classified as noncombatants, their clock gets rewound faster than an armed ship.  

3.  Normal (warship).  Armed ships, and/or ships with large sensor arrays.  These ships must overhaul at planets with maintenance facilities and take longer to wind back their clocks.  

Kurt
Title: Re: Benefit of "noncombatant" status? - Re: tankers?
Post by: Erik L on February 02, 2009, 01:24:26 PM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "jfelten"
If I put a single small anti-missile missile launcher on my tanker it is no longer considered a noncombatant since the game has no way of knowing I'm not going to use that launcher offensively.  What is the tanker not being considered a noncombatant costing me?

Just going from memory, there are three classifications:

1.  "Freighter" (or commercial), whatever.  This classification requires no weapons or large sensors, and at least some cargo holds or colonist transport units.  This type of unit can perform the equivalent of an overhaul at the commercial freight facility instantaneously.

2.  Noncombatant.  This classification is for unarmed units that don't meet the requirements of classification #1.  These units cannot use a commercial freighter facility and thus must do an overhaul at a world with maintenance facilities to wind back their maintenance clock.  However, because they are classified as noncombatants, their clock gets rewound faster than an armed ship.  

3.  Normal (warship).  Armed ships, and/or ships with large sensor arrays.  These ships must overhaul at planets with maintenance facilities and take longer to wind back their clocks.  

Kurt

Isn't it a shipyard for #2 and 3? Or was that changed?
Title: Re: Benefit of "noncombatant" status? - Re: tankers?
Post by: Kurt on February 02, 2009, 02:42:34 PM
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "Kurt"
Quote from: "jfelten"
If I put a single small anti-missile missile launcher on my tanker it is no longer considered a noncombatant since the game has no way of knowing I'm not going to use that launcher offensively.  What is the tanker not being considered a noncombatant costing me?

Just going from memory, there are three classifications:

1.  "Freighter" (or commercial), whatever.  This classification requires no weapons or large sensors, and at least some cargo holds or colonist transport units.  This type of unit can perform the equivalent of an overhaul at the commercial freight facility instantaneously.

2.  Noncombatant.  This classification is for unarmed units that don't meet the requirements of classification #1.  These units cannot use a commercial freighter facility and thus must do an overhaul at a world with maintenance facilities to wind back their maintenance clock.  However, because they are classified as noncombatants, their clock gets rewound faster than an armed ship.  

3.  Normal (warship).  Armed ships, and/or ships with large sensor arrays.  These ships must overhaul at planets with maintenance facilities and take longer to wind back their clocks.  

Kurt

Isn't it a shipyard for #2 and 3? Or was that changed?

That was changed several versions ago, IIRC.  Instead of shipyards you now need maintenance facilities (ground buildings) which build maintenance supplies and overhaul ships.  

Kurt
Title: Re: Benefit of "noncombatant" status? - Re: tankers?
Post by: Charlie Beeler on February 03, 2009, 06:56:02 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"

That was changed several versions ago, IIRC.  Instead of shipyards you now need maintenance facilities (ground buildings) which build maintenance supplies and overhaul ships.  

Kurt

Correct.  But they do need to be large enough for the hull being serviced.