Aurora 4x

Aurora => Newtonian Aurora => Topic started by: chrislocke2000 on December 19, 2011, 09:31:00 AM

Title: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: chrislocke2000 on December 19, 2011, 09:31:00 AM
Further to Steve’s recent post on slowing down the economies and growth rates to match off against the slower general expansion I was thinking about some of the knock on implications of this and ideas on further tweaks:

People:
The impact of individual bonuses appears to me to be a little too much and can often make huge differences in the performance of the economy / research etc. In order to re-balance this slightly I was thinking that the reductions in production and research could be more limited but then reduce the upside bonuses of characters to say 25% rather than 50%.
With a slower paced game retirement age is going to become more of an issue. This could potentially be addressed through a new genetics research tree that allows extensions of life expectancy and related increases in retirement age. At high levels this might even allow rejuvenation of people as in Peter Hamilton’s series of books.
Research:
With a matched decrease in research and ship building times I think we will still end up with the often frustrating situation of, by the time you re-tool and build a ship, having it technically out of date. (I seem to recollect this happening a lot to the poor old Russians in Steve’s last campaign as well). This could potentially be addressed to some extent through widening the gap between research and development – ie make core technology research take a bit longer then reduce the requirements for individual item development such that it’s a lot easier for players to design multiple iterations of different components for ships whilst relying on the same tech. This would for example make it worth designing a building several different sizes and types of jump engine without just waiting to research the next efficiency grade.
The other option of slowing down individual developments but not slowing down the overall research process would be to reduce the number of research facilities that a single project can use at any one time in the same way as noted above.
Ship production:
The reduced speed of ships production is going to leave empires more exposed to the impact of being caught by the likes of a swarm and less able to change focus in times of a war. Could be addressed through a few areas:
•   Increase maintenance lives of ships so that overhauls are required less often and keep current overall timelines to current rates to add value in overhauling rather than just scrapping
•   Keep current upgrade speeds at the same rate or reduce less than shipbuilding rate reduction to reflect ease of upgrading existing ships v trying to build new hulls
•   Potentially allow for faster building of ships through economies of scale or acceptance of lower quality work. (Thinking of the US approach to building commercial ships in WWII and the building of basic designs to allow rapid production.) Maybe this good be replicated through bonuses to production speed where more than one shipyard is building the same ship or a reduction to build costs where using technology that has been superseded – ie build with Ion engines rather than MPDs that have been researched would cost less than original ion engine to represent that its now an easily understood technology. Another option might be to have a sliding scale on reliability, reduce reliability but build quicker – this ramps up failure rate but reflects the fact that you are now building stuff that you don’t expect to survive for too long.
Shipyards:
Without wishing to get into the whole discussion on weapon accuracy etc again I’m must admit that I’m leaning towards the need for people to distribute their shipyards and, if at all possible, try to hide some of them away. However, with current mechanics I see this as something that’s going to be very hard to do something along the lines of sticking construction facilities away from habitable planets mainly due to population requirement constraints and mineral movements.
I think the points on moving minerals around has been discussed already so won’t comment further here.
On the population requirements I can think of two options:
•   Reduce the rate of increase in worker requirements for the shipyards
•   Create a middle ground between infrastructure and habitation modules – perhaps something what works along the line of a PDC – once built can’t be moved but can be pre fabricated and shipped to an otherwise uninhabitable location (such as an asteroid) and built using engineers. Would be considerably less expensive and bulky than a habitat module and would have the same zero growth as down side but would mean less logistics to get up and running.
Anyway that’s everything I can think of for now! Interested to hear other people’s thoughts and ideas but focused on addressing Newtonian issues rather than more general game play thoughts.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 19, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
You could also implement the improvement of outdated tech by efficiency research into existing parts; maybe making it slightly smaller, thus also reducing the material requirements.

As example, again, WW2, where the German Army had serious doubts about the 20mm Flak 30, given they've been working on a more advanced 37mm version for 10 years, but it always improved enough to stay useful, in the end mounting four guns on the same mount, saving 50% weight and cost.

This could be simulated by having equipment start slightly larger, maybe 5%, in dispalcement, but being very cheap to develop, then more research, cheap but slow (maybe make it cost 50% wealth?) would take away the penalty, and from there you could miniaturize it in 1 or 2% steps, but only if you're seriously short on money or develop in a completely different direction now will it ever reach full efficiency before it's completely outdated.

I expect that this would definitely improve on the "finished and obsolete" situation.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: byron on December 19, 2011, 09:20:59 PM
My solution is quite simple.  Base cost/build time reductions on this link:
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Engineering/Production_Cost_Curves.htm (http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Engineering/Production_Cost_Curves.htm)
Learning curve slope is how expensive unit 2n is when compared to unit n.
I would count units built at a specific yard as 2 units for these costs. 
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Yonder on December 19, 2011, 10:26:23 PM
My solution is quite simple.  Base cost/build time reductions on this link:
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Engineering/Production_Cost_Curves.htm (http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Engineering/Production_Cost_Curves.htm)
Learning curve slope is how expensive unit 2n is when compared to unit n.
I would count units built at a specific yard as 2 units for these costs. 

A really interesting idea, rewards building larger numbers of a design, and provides an incentive to stick with older hardware longer.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 20, 2011, 03:44:25 AM
+1
Though it doesn't allow to improve old hardware; Auroras research completely ignores the engineering part.^^
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: jseah on December 20, 2011, 12:29:43 PM
If you look at the table at the bottom of the link, aircraft have a smaller learning curve factor than ships.  Which means they get cheaper faster per unit produced than ships do. 

Perhaps this could make fighters slightly more viable. 

Have the learning curve factor drop based on the size of the thing being produced.  20kton cruisers might have a learning curve factor of 95%.  5kton corvettes might have 90%. 

500ton fighter-bombers might have 85%. 
And missiles would have 80%. 
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 20, 2011, 01:23:27 PM
My solution is quite simple.  Base cost/build time reductions on this link:
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Engineering/Production_Cost_Curves.htm (http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Engineering/Production_Cost_Curves.htm)
Learning curve slope is how expensive unit 2n is when compared to unit n.
I would count units built at a specific yard as 2 units for these costs. 

This mechanic is handled at the moment by the cost of retooling shipyards. Taking retooling into consideration, if you build 10 ships before retooling again, the overall cost per ship will be much lower than if you just built 1.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 20, 2011, 02:36:19 PM
Shipyards:
Without wishing to get into the whole discussion on weapon accuracy etc again I’m must admit that I’m leaning towards the need for people to distribute their shipyards and, if at all possible, try to hide some of them away. However, with current mechanics I see this as something that’s going to be very hard to do something along the lines of sticking construction facilities away from habitable planets mainly due to population requirement constraints and mineral movements.
I think the points on moving minerals around has been discussed already so won’t comment further here.
On the population requirements I can think of two options:
•   Reduce the rate of increase in worker requirements for the shipyards
•   Create a middle ground between infrastructure and habitation modules – perhaps something what works along the line of a PDC – once built can’t be moved but can be pre fabricated and shipped to an otherwise uninhabitable location (such as an asteroid) and built using engineers. Would be considerably less expensive and bulky than a habitat module and would have the same zero growth as down side but would mean less logistics to get up and running.

I have already been giving shipyards some thought. Based on the high level of potential damage in Newtonian Aurora, hiding shipyards or at least providing them with defences is going to be important. However, towing them through jump points is no longer possible. I am leaning toward some type of ship-based shipyard module to replace current shipyards. The issues will be expanding them, handling the difference between individual shipyards/slipways, using them in combination with populations, etc.

My current line of thinking is to create a new class of structure called a Space Station. In principle, the Space Station will be distinguished by having certain types of large, fragile modules such as a Habitat or a Shipyard Module. It will be very restricted in terms of acceleration and limited to minimal armour but you will be able to equip it with an FTL drive and you will be able to build it using construction factories. Most likely, only one shipyard module will be permitted per ship but you will be able to expand that module after the ship is built.

The expanding part could be tricky though. One option is to create different shipyard module sizes and allow you to refit the space station, without the usual charge for increasing size. That could mean a LOT of different shipyard modules though. Another option is to allow multiple shipyard modules in class design with the total capacity of the modules being used as one shipyard and allows refits as per option 1. To allow multiple slipways per shipyard there could be 0 space/cost slipway modules to designate how the available capacity is divided but that may get messy for refits. A third option would be to use the existing mechanics (without the constant increase option) to increase modules/add slipways and have the game automatically create a new ship class for the ship containing the shipyard module when the expansion is complete. Those automatically created classes could mount up though - maybe they are deleted automatically when no longer in use.

Not really happy with any of the above though, which is why I haven't tackled this yet, Still thinking :)

Just about to press Send when I had another thought. Going back to option one, which is to create different shipyard module sizes and allow you to refit the space station, without the usual charge for increasing size. I guess multiple modules could mean multiple slipways and I could restrict a design to only one type of module in the same way as one type of engine so the slipways would all be the same size. That way you could design a shipyard with two 2000 ton modules and expand it to two 3000 ton modules, or three 4000 tons modules, etc. At larger sizes, I could start to skip sizes - so 6000 ton, 8000 ton, 10,000, 12,500, 15,000, 20,000, 25,000, etc. and still have the distinction between commercial and military shipyards. The drawback is still a long list of shipyard modules in the class design window. Although if you have Space Station as a specific type, like ship or PDC, those modules would only appear when you were actually designing a shipyard. Still messy though.

In all the above scenarios I would still have shipyards operating in orbit of a population and using the existing mechanics. I may allow the use of tiny asteroids though as an anchoring point for those shipyards that have their workers in habitats.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Naismith on December 20, 2011, 03:08:48 PM
Maybe you could handle shipyards kind of like armor. Instead of adding modules you would have a selector to choose the size and number of slipways.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Gidoran on December 20, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
I actually like the space station idea, at least from what you've already got going for it. It'd provide a lot of decentralization, though the downside is you'd need to figure out some way to ferry materials to it regularly. Maybe an automatic order for freighters? Could go hand in hand with an idea I've seen tossed around about maintaining certain mineral levels/amounts at planets.

The type of free-floating shipyard you could make with this would be highly variable, even if it was one design per station. You could have many smaller stations to produce screen vessels or frontier fleet ships, then mix that up with a couple of gigantic stations intended to produce cruisers, battleships, and carriers.

As for expansion, I'd argue you shouldn't let the stations expand themselves once they're built. Unless the slipways are external affairs where everything is floating, and they've just got enough of a frame to keep it from all floating apart, it makes no sense as you'd basically be letting the station build itself bigger. And it may make it easier on you if you treated the shipyard module like, say, a Jump Drive, where the options would be how many slipways it has, the maximum capacity of each slipway, and how effective it is at production.

Now, all of this said... Is there any reason the old style of shipyard couldn't still exist alongside it? That way you have the flexibility but weakness of traditional shipyards, or the mobility but rigidity of the module-based ones.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: boggo2300 on December 20, 2011, 03:40:03 PM
What about having say Military and Commercial modules at 500 and 1000 ton capacity, and then at construction (or refit) combining them then into slips so for example building a shipyard with 4 1000 ton modules, but combining them as two separate 2000 ton slipways.

Matt
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 20, 2011, 03:51:26 PM
You could allow planetary shipyards, that assemble 90% of the ship on the ground and just bring large chunks up to fit them together.
It would have the drawback of ship construction costing fuel...
I'd say that'd be an interesting tactical option.
Maybe limit those ships in armor layers, or require a normal shipyard for some parts....

Also, why not just allow multiple modules to work on one ship?
It's space, no gravity, the "shipyard" could just fly around the ship.
These "drones" obviously wouldn't be able to repair/overhaul properly, you can't just open the ship^^

Edit: That might give problems with tooling, though. The suggestion below seems to be the same limited to stations; why not.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: halzet on December 20, 2011, 03:59:33 PM
Hello.  A long time lurker and the idea of Newtonian Aurora makes me as excited as the prospect of a lifetime supply of chocolate.   :D

The lack of jump gates did make me wonder how you were going to handle orbital constructs (Fuel harvester stations, orbital habitats, shipyards, e. t. c. ) as they would have been limited to where they were constructed, which sort of defeats the point.  :)  But instead of allowing the space station being able to move and then jump themselves, why not have a construction module that only allows construction of 'space station' designs?

Maybe allow construction facilities to still build space station designs so you can still easily build them in highly developed systems, but for newly aquired systems allow two options;

Pre-fab space station constructed at a developed colony, transported to the new system in freighters and then constructed by a construction vessel.  (Much like engineers could do with PDC's but faster. )
Construction vessel builds Space Station on site - Would require the construction vessel access to resources.

The only problem I can think of with both of the above would require access to pre-fab parts/resources and therefore wouldn't be able to be built around a non-habitable planet and would have to be tugged into orbit of these planets.   Though that wouldn't work in systems with no planet you can set up a temporary colony on.   Unless ships can draw resources from other ships in the fleet, instead of from a colony? Which I don't think is the case as the current gate construction vessels don't use any resources at all.

This would mean that you also wouldn't be able to have a heavily armoured space station jumping a fleet of non-FTL craft into an enemy system, so would be able to allow heavily armoured/armed defensive stations too, possibly? (With a huge maintenance bill. )

As for expansion of shipyards, why not disallow expanding already built shipyards?  I'm not be an engineer, but I can't imagine the frame and infrastructure required for the construction of a 5k ton vessel ever being able to be increased in size to support the construction of a vessel that is 10k tons without taking everything apart and then re-building the facility.   If you allow the construction of shipyards at set sizes, it means that shipyards will not have to grow from the 1k ton sizes they currently start at.   So, if you're building 10k ton ships and then get the urge to build a 50k ton military behemoth, instead of increasing the size by 10k each time, you'd design and build a 50k ton shipyard.

It would also give the player a chance to plan out.   Do you build a 5k ton shipyard to start churning ships out immediately and then build a 10k ton shipyard at a later date for larger vessels, or put a bit more time into the shipyard straight off and allow you a bit more flexibility and the space to grow your ship designs.

Of course, this is just an idea and might be in a completely different direction to what you want to do.   :)  I tend to have lots.  (With most being completely whacky. )
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: chrislocke2000 on December 20, 2011, 04:43:50 PM
Just been having a bit more of a think on these and how you might be able to make use of existing mechanics to do this and have come up with a three part solution:

1) As already mentioned, create a space yard construction module much the same as gate construction module.

2) Create a shipyard core item, this is built in factories and can be transported in cargo holds as with infrastructure etc. To "launch" a core you need to be in a valid position (please please include asteroids!!) and have a ship with a construction module present. Maybe scale this so a ship with the module could also reasonably have enough cargo space to hold one of these. Alternatively allow launch from planet so that if in orbit round earth for example the construction ship is not needed.

3) Create the equivalent of maintenance facility units which can also be transported in a cargo hold. Research could allow 250 / 500 / 1000 ton items. These can then be shipped to the location of the shipyard core and dropped off at the planet or used directly from the cargo hold if in the same fleet as the construction ship. The construction ship then has a target of the shipyard core in the orders and from there can be instructed to add x number of facilities to a slipway on add x slipways etc. It then has a build time to erect the increased capacity etc. Importantly the ship should also have orders to be able to deconstruct the shipyard into its components for shipping somewhere else.

This system would then enable direct construction from planets where you have industry present and allow distributed construction without having to deal with getting round towing or having huge stations with jump engines on them. Based on size of each module and build and deconstruction times you can make the location more or less of a strategic decision for the player.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 20, 2011, 04:56:33 PM
Hmm, so the options so far seem to be:

1) They are rather immobile; Not in favor
2) They can jump themselves
3) They are smaller, either just that, or one can combine them (POWERRANGERS!  ;D no you don't)
4) They can be constructed by special ships, like Gate Constructors so far, which could not create actual Ships
5) They work like PDCs, assembled by Industry, as above requiring build where it's needed
6) This problem could also be alleviated by allowing special jump modules that can jump larger ships, maybe in combination with a tow.
Speaking of which, I think Tractor Beams don't quite fit.
Will we get transportation clamps? Ropes? Glue?


The idea of building them to specified size is also an interesting point, though I suppose in space, where a Shipyard is likely not a solid construct, expansion is possible.
If it's empty, wouldn't it be partially hollow?
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: TheDeadlyShoe on December 21, 2011, 04:36:38 AM
One concern with SY modules stems from my experience with Orbital Habitats. At low armor technology levels, reasonably sized Orbital Habitats (i.e., towable within the next century or so) have half or more of their cost wrapped up in the single layer of armor.  It tends to bump their cost up into the mostly-prohibitive range.
Quote
Most likely, only one shipyard module will be permitted per ship but you will be able to expand that module after the ship is built.
Have it work like hangar bays.  # of slipways could be configurable via an extension of the retooling mechanism, for a premium cost after the initial free tooling. 

IE, I build 3  space stations with 10 shipyard modules. Each module is worth 1000tons of SY space.  They're all tooled to build single 10000 ton ships at no cost. Later, I change the ship two of them are building and pay the normal retooling fee.  However, I want to convert one of them into a FAC construction plant, so I pay an additional retooling cost to redistribute the # of slipways.   

PS - Wouldn't it be improbably difficult to build a jumpdrive for large stations?   Perhaps there should be a Deploy/Undeploy mechanism that reduces the effective tonnage of space station modules during transport.

Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Yonder on December 21, 2011, 08:59:14 AM
In principle, the Space Station will be distinguished by having certain types of large, fragile modules such as a Habitat or a Shipyard Module. It will be very restricted in terms of acceleration and limited to minimal armour but you will be able to equip it with an FTL drive and you will be able to build it using construction factories.

It seems odd to me to limit the armor of this class of ship.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Mel Vixen on December 21, 2011, 01:08:20 PM

In all the above scenarios I would still have shipyards operating in orbit of a population and using the existing mechanics. I may allow the use of tiny asteroids though as an anchoring point for those shipyards that have their workers in habitats.

Steve

If you allow habitats for that it you either would need bigger habitats or less workers per slipway. The wiki states that you need "100,000 per shipyard plus 1,000,000 population per slipway". That would be 22 Habitats which makes a Naval shipyard anchored to asteroid a rather expensive option and would limit you to the bigger colonies.   
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Teiwaz on December 21, 2011, 04:38:44 PM
I don't like the idea of Shipyards being their own special things. I already find their special rules confusing.

I'd make shipbuilding modules modules just like any other. If you find it optimal to build massive, mobile shipyards that take their workers along with them in hab modules so you can hide them, that's your choice to make. Maybe you think it's worth building missile defenses into the shipyards themselves. Or maybe not. Shipyard design can be as interesting as ship design, if we're given the same options. This could substantially inform your overall military strategy.

Of course, if shipyards are ships, you need a way to build ships without a shipyard. So I'd make it so planets can build ships, with penalties of time and material usage (as effectively you're building the ships in open space, without specialized tools, and havingto construct temporary scaffolding on site, etc.) So if you are looking to build multiple ships of a class, building shipyard ships for that is definately preferable. But for one-off designs, or special projects (like a massive space station) you have the option to make those without having to tool up to mass-produce them. (But you'll pay for it!)
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: mavikfelna on December 21, 2011, 05:47:57 PM
I think you should get rid of the distinction between naval and commercial yards and just give shipyards a x100 or something bonus to size when constructing civilian ships.

--Mav
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 22, 2011, 03:18:38 AM
Because it suddenly inflates when the product has no weapons. ???
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: GeaXle on December 22, 2011, 03:31:00 AM
Personnaly, I see a shpiyard a as station with floating ships in construction arround. The slipways aren't a big single sctructure but tons of little bit of structure and little ships working around. Therefore I would be fine with Mavikfelna idea. :) I would even find it awesome if the shipyard a capacity of building based on a total volume more than on slipways. So on the same shiwpyard you may build loads of small ships in one go, or a few huge one.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: chuckles73 on December 22, 2011, 08:57:37 AM
Why not make shipyards moveable in freighters like research labs? They can then travel FTL, be placed wherever you want, etc. I'm sure we can handwave how it's possible given the vagueness around exactly what a space-based shipyard actually is.

Maybe only make them transportable via freighter when they're the lowest size so you don't need to keep track of tonnage on the voyage (and maybe only transportable if they have only one slipway).
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Yonder on December 23, 2011, 08:46:33 AM
Why not make shipyards moveable in freighters like research labs? They can then travel FTL, be placed wherever you want, etc. I'm sure we can handwave how it's possible given the vagueness around exactly what a space-based shipyard actually is.

Maybe only make them transportable via freighter when they're the lowest size so you don't need to keep track of tonnage on the voyage (and maybe only transportable if they have only one slipway).

Or you could make one of the Shipyard tasks "Package" (only available when no slipways are active) and it would take X months to turn into a "Compact Yard" or something like that. Compact Yards could be 15th of the size or something and exist in Freighter Load orders (or put them in Hangars?). The only available task for a Compact Yard would be to unpackage, which would once again take X months to turn it back into a normal yard.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Ominous on December 23, 2011, 01:45:31 PM
Quote from: Yonder link=topic=4469. msg44838#msg44838 date=1324651593
Or you could make one of the Shipyard tasks "Package" (only available when no slipways are active) and it would take X months to turn into a "Compact Yard" or something like that.  Compact Yards could be 15th of the size or something and exist in Freighter Load orders (or put them in Hangars?).  The only available task for a Compact Yard would be to unpackage, which would once again take X months to turn it back into a normal yard.

While I like this idea, compacting the shipyard wouldn't reduce the mass of the shipyard, just the volume.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Mormota on December 23, 2011, 03:27:00 PM
Well, I suppose the problem with transporting is not mass but volume, since a higher mass just decreases acceleration, but there is a size limit of the cargo hold that the given object can go over.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 26, 2011, 10:20:19 AM
As for expansion of shipyards, why not disallow expanding already built shipyards?  I'm not be an engineer, but I can't imagine the frame and infrastructure required for the construction of a 5k ton vessel ever being able to be increased in size to support the construction of a vessel that is 10k tons without taking everything apart and then re-building the facility.   If you allow the construction of shipyards at set sizes, it means that shipyards will not have to grow from the 1k ton sizes they currently start at.   So, if you're building 10k ton ships and then get the urge to build a 50k ton military behemoth, instead of increasing the size by 10k each time, you'd design and build a 50k ton shipyard.

It would also give the player a chance to plan out.   Do you build a 5k ton shipyard to start churning ships out immediately and then build a 10k ton shipyard at a later date for larger vessels, or put a bit more time into the shipyard straight off and allow you a bit more flexibility and the space to grow your ship designs.

This is a valid point. I have allowed shipyards to be expanded mainly because they are a large investment and this allows players to expand an existing investment rather than have to build entirely new shipyards as their industrial base increases. It also takes a very long time to build a large shipyard so building a 50,000 ton shipyard from scratch would be a huge investment in time and materials. Finally, it restricts ship sizes to those of current shipyards whereas at the moment ship sizes tend to grow gradually and shipyards grow to support that. One option would be to make shipyards cheaper, although that would have an unbalancing effect in other areas. On the gripping hand, if they were built as one-off structures some type of discount based on size might be possible.

Overall at the moment I am still inclined toward expandable shipyards, although it would be interesting to hear other views on this.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: o_O on December 26, 2011, 02:46:30 PM
You could allow resizing of existing shipyards with an associated cost, similar to how converting mines to automines works now.   
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Corik on December 27, 2011, 02:49:32 AM
I would like to see ship components using factory production as default, and then using the shipyard to put them together and "building" the hull.  Just like now when you build the components before assigning the ship construction at the shipyard manually.  I think it's far more real and, in fact, more effective.  I find myself doing maths and checking how many components I need to build before actually building the ships.  Some kind of automation would be great.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 27, 2011, 05:41:05 AM
I would like to see ship components using factory production as default, and then using the shipyard to put them together and "building" the hull.  Just like now when you build the components before assigning the ship construction at the shipyard manually.  I think it's far more real and, in fact, more effective.  I find myself doing maths and checking how many components I need to build before actually building the ships.  Some kind of automation would be great.

There are a couple of issues with factory production by default. The first one is remembering what to build ahead of time - it can be annoying to be unable to start a ship because you forgot one component (although as you say some form of automation would help) - the second is that you would need construction factories wherever you have shipyards and if you are trying to disperse shipyards to protect them, that becomes far harder. Perhaps some type of automation without it being the default would be best. Maybe you select a class for the factories and all the components are populated.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 27, 2011, 06:15:26 AM
Thanks for the various suggestions on shipyards. I don't think I like my original idea any more :)

I like the suggestions of having shipyard components and allowing disassembly/re-assembly and transportation of the components. I think I will probably go for three component types. The Shipyard Hub Module, the Slipway Module and the Shipyard Capacity Module. Construction factories would produce the modules and they would be assembled/disassembled by construction factories or engineers or perhaps some new ship-based mobile construction module. A basic single slipway shipyard with a 1000 ton capacity would consist of one of each module. Each additional Capacity module would add 1000 tons of capacity. Each additional slipway module would sub-divide the overall capacity. In effect, the slipway modules are a way to wall off different sections of the shipyard to build a larger number of smaller ships.

For example, you assemble a shipyard with a hub module, two slipway modules and twelve capacity modules. This is a 6000 ton capacity shipyard with two slipways. If you add an additional slipway module, it becomes a 4000 ton capacity shipyard with three slipways. Removing slipway modules will also be possible, in order to open up the shipyard to accomodate larger vessels. Reconfiguration of the shipyard will only be possible when it is empty and adding/removing slipways or removing capacity would remove any tooling.

With regard to Military vs Commercial, one option is to replicate the three modules for military and commercial. Another option, but I am not sure if it will pass the giggle test, is to allow assembly of shipyards in either Military Configuration or Commercial Configuration. The difference would be that the Military Configuration is a more compact layout used for detailed and complex work while the Commercial Configuration has the capacity modules further apart and configured for bulk construction of less complex systems. A shipyard could also be reconfigured between military/commercial for a cost close to that of disassembly and re-assembly.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: chrislocke2000 on December 27, 2011, 06:58:34 AM
As mentioned before I like this idea of modules and I think going down this route is great for flexibility. I'm just wondering whether, rather than having separate modules to split up total capacity you set this as a configuration option when you build the core module with successive slipway numbers increasing the size / cost of the core module. Hence you can choose to launch a module that has capacity to support a single slipway quickly or take time to build a larger one with more possible slipways. I guess you would then restrict size increases to having enough modules available to add to all of the slipways at the same time.

On the commercial v military shipyards I would think it makes more sense to me that the distinction comes on the costs of the ships rather than two types of shipyard. Ie make the costs of building the shipyards cheaper than current to allow larger capacity ones to be built and then perhaps give them a time efficiency multiplier for building commercial ships v military. That way the additional effort in building the commercial size shipyard is offset by the reduced effort in building the ships themselves. You could also keep the balance by making the tooling costs for that shipyard for a commercial ship v those for a military ship substantially lower.

The other balance consideration here is that you will now be tying up more of your industrial base to increase the shipyards where as currently you can do this concurrently. This might be set off by the fact that the costs of the modules will not be scaling so expansion costs and times will not increase as the shipyards get bigger?
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: ndkid on December 27, 2011, 10:19:10 AM
There are a couple of issues with factory production by default. The first one is remembering what to build ahead of time - it can be annoying to be unable to start a ship because you forgot one component (although as you say some form of automation would help) - the second is that you would need construction factories wherever you have shipyards and if you are trying to disperse shipyards to protect them, that becomes far harder. Perhaps some type of automation without it being the default would be best. Maybe you select a class for the factories and all the components are populated.

Steve

I agree that this can be annoying, but because the build rates of a planet are so much better than of a shipyard because of the greater size of the planet, if you're trying to build ships as quickly as possible in the current system, you have to take on that annoyance... and the larger the ship, the larger the difference in time spent between doing on-planet fabrication and shipyard fabrication.

As to your second point, that isn't quite true. There has to be a colony at the planetoid the shipyard is orbiting, but the construction can be done elsewhere and the components shipped in. Personally, I find that notion leads to interesting tactical choices. Players would almost certainly want to protect that shipment of military engines more than that shipment of infrastructure, and commerce raiding on such a cargo ship would be more valuable. boarding such a cargo ship and stealing a shipment of military hardware would be great for the R&D boys or for your own warship production.

I do agree that this would all be improved with more automation... if I could tell a planet "produce the components needed for X ships of Y class", and it would finagle the percentages to get all quantities produced at approximately the same end date, that'd be a wonderful thing, even under the current game. Having cargo ships that can pick up all components at a planet (which we already have, I think, though maybe you have to chose one component at a time) is good, though some more sophisticated orders might be better.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Yonder on December 27, 2011, 11:13:57 AM
Three Shipyard Components

I like that main idea quite a bit, however I don't really think that the redundancy for Military and Commercial shipyards passes the "giggle test" as you say. However I don't think that you need to make separate versions of all three of the components. What if you had four: SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module, Commercial SY Capacity Module.

You can reuse the same Hub and Slipway modules for both purposes, and just have the capacity modules be different sizes/costs. The downside with this method is that it really doesn't intuitively allow for a way to assign slipways to the Military and Commercial capacities of the same ship. I'm thinking that designing a ship with both Military and Commercial Capacity Modules would give you an error like not having enough crew, however since people may want to make enormous motherships that can build both Military and Commercial ships than that may scrap the idea right there. Of course, people also may want to have Motherships with fighter and frigate construction slipways, and this method precludes that too...

Hmm... I think I thought of a nice way to resolve that issue though, this post is already long though, I'll think it on it over lunch and post again.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: wilddog5 on December 27, 2011, 11:25:29 AM
while i like the modular idea for some reason i kept thinking of the research screen... and construcion ships

this is what i came up with:

constructions ships coud be built and transported to other planets like labs are now.

the number of construction ships determine build speed.

the number of construction ships is devided by the number of ships being built. (more ships = linger build time) or could be be done manualy like the labs, either option gives choices

there would have to be a limit on the max number of construction ships per project (1 construction ship per X thousand tons?)

ship building tec research will be construction rate per ship

all this could be done using the planet screen with most of the code already inplace

the retooling for this method could be done by adding to the cost of the first ship (120%?) getting cheaper (4% per ship?) the more ships you build till bace cost (100%) to simulate the builders adjusting to the qewerks of the new design
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Yonder on December 27, 2011, 11:35:16 AM
Ok, so this next idea is an extension of the previous one, where you have four Component types: SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, SY Military Capacity Module, and SY Commercial Capacity Module.

We'll pretty much ignore the Hub Module, it may just be a large, expensive, crew intensive module.

We are going to treat the Slipway Modules like Fire Controls, and the Capacity Modules like weapons. So ships with a Hub Module will have an additional tab on their menu that lets you manage which Capacities are attached to which Slipways, as well as manage which Slipways are assigned to which ship classes, and what they are doing, etc. I'd imagine that just like our other UI redundancies much of this could be managed from the Planet Production screen of the Colony they were stationed at as well (if we are going to keep the restriction that construction must happen on colonies).

When you select the Slipway and the Capacities (you can't mix Naval and Commercial Capacities at this point) and click "Assign" or whatever, that slipway starts being configured. This could be a mix of the existing system and the Fire Control system, in that there could be a research item that affects the length and cost of shipyard modifications, and it could also (perhaps) be modified by Crew Grade. A similar procedure would be used to assign Slipways to new classes, as well as releasing capacities from slipways to go back to the pool of Capacities on the ship available to be assigned to Slipways. The length of work may also be based on the scale of the change, just like now assigning five capacities to a slipway for the first time would take longer than adding the fifth capacity to a Slipway that already has four. If Crew Grade affects the length of any of these changes, then building ships and retooling yards should both increase Crew Grade.

This 'Fire Control' method would also allow subsequent customization to Slipways down the line, similar to how you also assign ECM to individual Fire Controls. For example if you go down this road, especially if you want ships with minerals in their cargo bays to construct ships on the move (like Carriers in Homeworld) then you will probably want to move "Shipyard Construction" from a Planetary Governor skill to a Naval Officer skill. Then maybe you could assign a 'Shipyard Overseer' to the Hub Module, and then a separate officer to each slipways, similar to how Regional Governors and Planetary Governors work now.

It also opens you up to more out of the box thinking later. For example you could research modules that do things like "Increase Beam Weapon Construction Speed by 10%", "Increase Engine Construction Speed by 10%", "Increase Construction Speed of Ships under 2000 tons by 15%", then put those on a Shipyard Vessel and assign them to particular slipways.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 27, 2011, 12:08:54 PM
I like that main idea quite a bit, however I don't really think that the redundancy for Military and Commercial shipyards passes the "giggle test" as you say. However I don't think that you need to make separate versions of all three of the components. What if you had four: SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module, Commercial SY Capacity Module.

You can reuse the same Hub and Slipway modules for both purposes, and just have the capacity modules be different sizes/costs. The downside with this method is that it really doesn't intuitively allow for a way to assign slipways to the Military and Commercial capacities of the same ship. I'm thinking that designing a ship with both Military and Commercial Capacity Modules would give you an error like not having enough crew, however since people may want to make enormous motherships that can build both Military and Commercial ships than that may scrap the idea right there. Of course, people also may want to have Motherships with fighter and frigate construction slipways, and this method precludes that too...

Hmm... I think I thought of a nice way to resolve that issue though, this post is already long though, I'll think it on it over lunch and post again.

Ah! I think might not have been as clear as I could be with my last post. My original idea was to have shipyards as ships but after seeing all the suggestions I had moved away from that idea. The component module idea in my last post has shipyards exactly as they are in standard Aurora - not as a ship. The only real change is their construction and that they can be disassembled into component parts, loaded on freighters and moved somewhere else - or disassembled and the components used for other shipyards. The Manage Shipyard tab would look like it does now, except that shipyards wouldn't be able to build themselves and the assembly/disassembly and construction of constituent modules would be handed by construction factories/engineers.

Although I do like the concept of having SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module and Commercial SY Capacity Module within the framework I explained.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on December 27, 2011, 12:15:31 PM
Ah! I think might not have been as clear as I could be with my last post. My original idea was to have shipyards as ships but after seeing all the suggestions I had moved away from that idea. The component module idea in my last post has shipyards exactly as they are in standard Aurora - not as a ship. The only real change is their construction and that they can be disassembled into component parts, loaded on freighters and moved somewhere else - or disassembled and the components used for other shipyards. The Manage Shipyard tab would look like it does now, except that shipyards wouldn't be able to build themselves and the assembly/disassembly and construction of constituent modules would be handed by construction factories/engineers.

Although I do like the concept of having SY Hub Module, SY Slipway Module, Military SY Capacity Module and Commercial SY Capacity Module within the framework I explained.

Steve

Actually, I wonder if it would be smoother in gameplay terms if construction factories built the modules but the modules were assembled on the Manage SY window. Instead of a assembly cost (like putting together a PDC), there would simply be a time factor for moving the component parts of the shipyard into place (or disassembling them). That would make moving and re-assembling a shipyard less of a micromanagement task as you wouldn't have to ensure engineers/factories at the destination or origin.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Brian on December 27, 2011, 12:56:14 PM
Actually, I wonder if it would be smoother in gameplay terms if construction factories built the modules but the modules were assembled on the Manage SY window. Instead of a assembly cost (like putting together a PDC), there would simply be a time factor for moving the component parts of the shipyard into place (or disassembling them). That would make moving and re-assembling a shipyard less of a micromanagement task as you wouldn't have to ensure engineers/factories at the destination or origin.

Steve
I like the reduction of management part.  It also makes sense in that a shipyard even packed up for transport is going to have the resources to put itself back in operational order.  The main requirement would be time to do this.  As an alternative you could have factories/engineers speed up the assembly process but cost extra minerals.  You do afterall have to power all those factories/engineer vehicles so it would make some sense.

Brian
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: chrislocke2000 on December 28, 2011, 04:30:13 AM
I would agree on the construction piece as well, I think you need to divorce the assembly and disassembly of the slipways from the need for industry in the same location. I would also avoid the need for additional materials as required for PDC assembly which I have never quite understood the requirement for in any case.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: PTTG on December 28, 2011, 10:39:22 AM
What about planetary motion?

This is a bit of a non-sequitor, but planetary steps are bugging me, particularly when it comes to slow ships. Can planetary motion be divorced from the construction cycle at all?

This really becomes a problem when there are slow ships moving between close planets frequently, such as a freighter from the earth to the moon. If it's an early game ship, perhaps in RP terminology a near-future conventional spacecraft, the trip might take a day or two. However, if it's in flight when earth steps at the end of the week, suddenly it's several weeks away from home!

Of course, as the game progresses it gets less and less serious, but there's still chances for oddities being produced.

I'm not sure how much of a problem it might be to simply move all planets at the same time as ships. Of course there may be hundreds or thousands of planets if asteroid orbits are on. I suppose a compromise might be to treat planets in systems containing ships/populations/etc. as ships, and to only move any other planets under two conditions: every construction cycle, and whenever a ship enters the system they'd be brought up to date for that second.

I can't estimate how much load that would produce, but I do know it would definitely solve any qualms about planets hopping around. And it would make weird planets like Hot Fast Jupiters a little more interesting, since you could watch them spin around their primary every few hours.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on December 31, 2011, 12:42:18 AM
Asteroids are fine in this respect, most people don't have them even move.
Planets, yeah; having them move once a day, and every hour if populated, might be an option.^^
I like what you did with the Shipyards, Steve.
Though I also liked the idea of assembling a large yard as one, the flexibility is just more practical.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Bremen on December 31, 2011, 06:38:30 PM
Will maintenance be tweaked for Newtonian Aurora? It seems like ships will need more space for fuel, and trips will be longer, so it might be a good idea to lengthen maintenance timers for a given amount of engineering spaces.

Alternately, will the default mode for Newtonian games be maintenance off? (Since there's already so much more to keep track of).  I could see this being interesting, with establishing fleet bases out beyond the hyper limit so ships can jump directly into hyperspace.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 08, 2012, 10:02:50 AM
What about planetary motion?

This is a bit of a non-sequitor, but planetary steps are bugging me, particularly when it comes to slow ships. Can planetary motion be divorced from the construction cycle at all?

This really becomes a problem when there are slow ships moving between close planets frequently, such as a freighter from the earth to the moon. If it's an early game ship, perhaps in RP terminology a near-future conventional spacecraft, the trip might take a day or two. However, if it's in flight when earth steps at the end of the week, suddenly it's several weeks away from home!

Of course, as the game progresses it gets less and less serious, but there's still chances for oddities being produced.

I'm not sure how much of a problem it might be to simply move all planets at the same time as ships. Of course there may be hundreds or thousands of planets if asteroid orbits are on. I suppose a compromise might be to treat planets in systems containing ships/populations/etc. as ships, and to only move any other planets under two conditions: every construction cycle, and whenever a ship enters the system they'd be brought up to date for that second.

I can't estimate how much load that would produce, but I do know it would definitely solve any qualms about planets hopping around. And it would make weird planets like Hot Fast Jupiters a little more interesting, since you could watch them spin around their primary every few hours.

I originally added planetary motion for every increment in Newtonian, although I have since taken it out again due to performance concerns. At the moment when a planet moves during the 5-day increment, the course of any ship or missile heading for the planet (or for something in orbit) is automatically adjusted to head for its new location. I am not really happy with this though so I might go back to the motion every increment. I also should look at predicting the future position of a planet and heading there instead, although this is tricky due to the ship having to accel and decel and not knowing for how long it might coast. I'll attempt this at some point though.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 08, 2012, 10:05:04 AM
Will maintenance be tweaked for Newtonian Aurora? It seems like ships will need more space for fuel, and trips will be longer, so it might be a good idea to lengthen maintenance timers for a given amount of engineering spaces.

Alternately, will the default mode for Newtonian games be maintenance off? (Since there's already so much more to keep track of).  I could see this being interesting, with establishing fleet bases out beyond the hyper limit so ships can jump directly into hyperspace.

Maintenance is the same at the moment. However, the definition of a commercial engine is now based on the reduction in thrust used to gain extra fuel efficiency (50% or less normal thrust = commercial). Given the need for fuel efficiency, I think more ships will use low thrust engines and qualify as commercial.

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: PTTG on January 08, 2012, 01:47:15 PM
I also should look at predicting the future position of a planet and heading there instead, although this is tricky due to the ship having to accel and decel and not knowing for how long it might coast. I'll attempt this at some point though.

Steve

My friend and I had fun thinking about this. We keep bumping into the fact that we just need to sit down and learn calculus.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: wilddog5 on January 08, 2012, 03:07:26 PM

Im having a bit of a problem with running out of fuel from a gameplay perspective i standard aurora you run out of fuel the ships stop, in newton they carry on going and im ok with this mostly, my main concern is how to refuel a ship that is far away from any potential tankers and drift off into deap space (and the bad movies that this would produce), so i was thinking ( ::)) hydrogen capture field this would give a small amount of acceleration of say 0.01m/s this being enough to stop a ship and possibly get it home after a few decades / centures but not enough for exploitation after all what capitain in there right mind would set sail if they could be stranded like that... (and be a character in those films)


This is probably more of a suggestion than a tweek but there is not a section for those yet
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 08, 2012, 03:09:08 PM
Sit down and learn calculus!
Though you could just learn programming, and create a formula that calculates the appropriate hit of two curves, being the planet and the ship.

@ Steve: It still should be an update once per day for colonized planets, because otherwise ships might find themselves in a position where they either try to go where the planet was 2 days ago, and miss it, or go where it's supposed to be, and wait there for 2 days.^^
Aside, in the case of traveling to a close moon, teleporting the ships with it might be a valid option, but what if those ships are shot at?
Do you teleport the missiles as well?
And any support fleets behind the planet, so they don't suddenly get in range to blast away those missiles?  :o
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: wilddog5 on January 08, 2012, 03:45:26 PM
for the planet interception you could calc the course to the planet sim the planets movement then recalc the course, loop this function untill the last 3-5 cources are all within a set margin or error (distance to planet less than 1% of travel distance or 1 hour increment whichever less (or some other value that can be set on gamestart so people can talor it to their PC)) and set the ship for that point, while this might be time consuming for the first increment it only has to be done once for each ship in the system as long as no changes are made, once the ship arives it repeats untill it gets to the planet and is explanied by the pilot as rounding errors (i dont think even a computer can set a ship on a directional vector to 20 decimal places)
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Steve Walmsley on January 08, 2012, 04:07:18 PM
Im having a bit of a problem with running out of fuel from a gameplay perspective i standard aurora you run out of fuel the ships stop, in newton they carry on going and im ok with this mostly, my main concern is how to refuel a ship that is far away from any potential tankers and drift off into deap space (and the bad movies that this would produce), so i was thinking ( ::)) hydrogen capture field this would give a small amount of acceleration of say 0.01m/s this being enough to stop a ship and possibly get it home after a few decades / centures but not enough for exploitation after all what capitain in there right mind would set sail if they could be stranded like that... (and be a character in those films)


This is probably more of a suggestion than a tweek but there is not a section for those yet

If you aren't careful, ships will run out of fuel and head into deep space as you mentioned. I think this is a case of being careful in the first place :). Newtonian Aurora is going to need more micromanagement than Aurora but unfortunately that is just the nature of the beast. This is why original Aurora wasn't Newtonian. I think the best I can do is warn players if a ship is reaching a point where its fuel will be insufficient to slow down (in the same way as the current almost out of fuel messages)

Steve
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 09, 2012, 03:18:22 AM
So then you need a conditional order that checks if you'd still have over (specified) amount of fuel after coming to a stop if not aligned towards a system with a colony that has fuel.^^
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Hawkeye on January 09, 2012, 09:49:31 AM
I imagine ripped out hair, crushed monitors and frienldy men offering jackets that are being closed on the back for quite a few of us, a couple of weeks after Steve releases Newtonian Aurora.


 ;D    ;D    ;D
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: procyon on January 10, 2012, 03:17:07 AM
I imagine ripped out hair, crushed monitors and frienldy men offering jackets that are being closed on the back for quite a few of us, a couple of weeks after Steve releases Newtonian Aurora.


 ;D    ;D    ;D

Your assuming my wife and children don't kill me off first...   ;)
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 10, 2012, 03:22:21 AM
Maybe you can play safely 8) in the insane Asylum.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: procyon on January 10, 2012, 03:58:28 AM
Maybe you can play safely 8) in the insane Asylum.

I'm worried that typing in the required 'fashion statement' will be difficult.
 ::)
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 10, 2012, 04:49:44 AM
Nah, you'll voice control.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: UnLimiTeD on January 11, 2012, 06:20:48 AM
Another question, would it be possible to have sub turns based on system?
Like a time bubble, but automatically; if there's a battle in one system lasting three days, I'd be nice if it didn't calculate anything but that system and fleets inbound to that system, count the time, and then ramp up the rest of the universe once a normal increment, whether that'd be 1, 5, or 30 days.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: ShadoCat on June 21, 2012, 02:29:27 AM
Why not increment the movement of any system body that is a destination just before incrementing the movement of a ship headed there.  That way colonies with no ships headed to them won't slow the calculations and you don't have unpopulated worlds teleporting.

One issue is that then you have to track which planets incremented in that 5 day period so you don't "double move" them.
Title: Re: Possible game tweaks for Newtonian games
Post by: Five on July 14, 2012, 06:37:38 AM
Thanks for the various suggestions on shipyards. I don't think I like my original idea any more :)

I like the suggestions of having shipyard components and allowing disassembly/re-assembly and transportation of the components. I think I will probably go for three component types. The Shipyard Hub Module, the Slipway Module and the Shipyard Capacity Module. Construction factories would produce the modules and they would be assembled/disassembled by construction factories or engineers or perhaps some new ship-based mobile construction module. A basic single slipway shipyard with a 1000 ton capacity would consist of one of each module. Each additional Capacity module would add 1000 tons of capacity. Each additional slipway module would sub-divide the overall capacity. In effect, the slipway modules are a way to wall off different sections of the shipyard to build a larger number of smaller ships.

For example, you assemble a shipyard with a hub module, two slipway modules and twelve capacity modules. This is a 6000 ton capacity shipyard with two slipways. If you add an additional slipway module, it becomes a 4000 ton capacity shipyard with three slipways. Removing slipway modules will also be possible, in order to open up the shipyard to accomodate larger vessels. Reconfiguration of the shipyard will only be possible when it is empty and adding/removing slipways or removing capacity would remove any tooling.

With regard to Military vs Commercial, one option is to replicate the three modules for military and commercial. Another option, but I am not sure if it will pass the giggle test, is to allow assembly of shipyards in either Military Configuration or Commercial Configuration. The difference would be that the Military Configuration is a more compact layout used for detailed and complex work while the Commercial Configuration has the capacity modules further apart and configured for bulk construction of less complex systems. A shipyard could also be reconfigured between military/commercial for a cost close to that of disassembly and re-assembly.

Steve

Steve,

Just curious if this made it into 5.7 also?

Thanks

-Five