reserve fleet idea

[Kiero]

Repair yards "repairing" mothballed ships back in to service would make the most sense, perhaps reset the training revel as well so they're not 100% ready for combat right out the yard.

In addition, preparing the vessel for long storage should also take time.
After all, it's not like we turn off the lights and leave.

[Pedroig]

In space, not really, heck it only took the USN abut 6 months for the yarddogs to mothball status a couple of thousand ships, and just several years later they were able to reativate 540 for the Korea Conflict, these then when back into mothball status and then another 600+ were reactivated during Vietnam. 

Keep in mind, the last month or so of a ship's "active status" was spent by the crew readying it for the reserve, logging and fixing problems, using up and transporting perishables, and securing non-perishables, along with stripping paint and begin setting up dehumidifiers before they hit they yards.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In space, not really, heck it only took the USN abut 6 months for the yarddogs to mothball status a couple of thousand ships, and just several years later they were able to reativate 540 for the Korea Conflict, these then when back into mothball status and then another 600+ were reactivated during Vietnam. 

Keep in mind, the last month or so of a ship's "active status" was spent by the crew readying it for the reserve, logging and fixing problems, using up and transporting perishables, and securing non-perishables, along with stripping paint and begin setting up dehumidifiers before they hit they yards.

It is a bit suger coating how easy this was and also don't account for the size and complexity of the platforms. The less complex and less advanced something is the easier it is to store and reactivate. It is far easier to store and reactivate a bicycle than a car for example.  It also is far easier to restore a 1950 model car than a 2020 model car that both have been mothballed for 30 years in a garage. The latter are just more complex.

It will also become more and more of a challenge to reactive a specific platform the longer it has been stored for the pure fact of know how to operate them will eventually become a problem. It is the human factor.

[Pedroig]

Oh no doubt, in fact most ships if they don't leave the mothball fleet within 30 years are scrapped, and for the more modern platforms that has been almost halved. 

It also makes light of the lesson learned with the Red Lead Fleet and the luxury of having plenty of crews which were simply waiting for the final signoff by the yard to go home for good.

That said, micrometeorites are less corrosive than saltwater and oxygen.  I don't see a need for a reserve system in Aurora as it is rarely mentioned in Sci-Fi in general...

[QuakeIV]

The main reason you would want to mothball a ship is because it would deteriorate more slowly than if it was in use.  What if it was allowed to undergo maintenance failures as if it had no MSP remaining, but at a diminished rate?  So, maintenance clock will begin to run up and at some point components will start failing.  It would then implicitly require yard time (as suggested by others) to repair the failed components.  If nothing failed in the interim, then bully for you.

[M_Gargantua]

I do like the idea of using Repair yards to move ships in and out of Mothball. But I agree that it should take many months per ship, regardless of BP capacity. Getting a ship into long term layup is a lot more effort than just turning off the lights, and restoring it to combat readiness takes a huge amount of work. It would make even more sense if crew training played a bigger role, as a ship coming out of mothball will often have even worse crew readiness than new construction. At least with new construction most crews would be stood up before commissioning and be taking training and ownership as things are completed before launch.

But above all I would absolutely love the SM toggles to disable maintenance on a per ship basis so it opens up RP options for this in the meantime to a real mechanic.

[QuakeIV]

I think there has been a huge overreaction to the starfire mothball exploiting and the reaction is making the mechanic not useful at all.

[Velociranga]

I think the options Steve has raised with the addition of being able to use repair yards is a good idea

But like they noted still leaves options for exploits. I think the idea of adding it into the SM so people can RP mothballed fleets or museum ships (love the ark royal series) is fantastic and I don't really see any downside.

If we do a proper fleet mothball system I also like Starcactus idea of it costing money, though I would like to see it reduce the msp instead of change it to money entirely. I think that's a decent way to represent the extra costs and effort required. But might still be worth it

For example super rich nations with lots of money but little MSP would love that system. Feels like it gives it a bit more flavour

[nuclearslurpee]

What if it was allowed to undergo maintenance failures as if it had no MSP remaining, but at a diminished rate?

I like this idea, but in the opposite direction - maintenance failures happen at the same (or even an increased?) rate, however they are guaranteed not to cause catastrophic damage (i.e., ships won't blow up from engine or magazine failures). Then to reactivate a mothballed ship requires conducting repairs using the same mechanics that already exist (Repair Yards, etc.).

This seems like it could address the build-to-mothballs issues, since fixing nearly every component on a ship is pricey enough that it's probably not an attractive means to cheat the maintenance system. Repairing older ships with less advanced, thus cheaper, components is cheaper and faster (for a given shipyard work rate), which makes mothballing more attractive for older ships that could be restored a bit quicker in an emergency.

We can assign a (reduced) MSP cost or monetary cost as Steve feels necessary to maintain balance, but since this cost is a secondary part of the mechanic it does not have to be the main balancing factor so we can set it to a reasonable value and it is probably fine - say, 25% of the maintenance cost for an in-service ship for example.

I do think diminishing the rate of maintenance failures is the wrong direction, as that seems like it would be more economical than maintaining active-duty ships which doesn't solve any problems. You basically want the ship to be an irreparable hulk after several years, after which is can be restored to active service relatively more quickly than new construction but not necessarily much more cheaply so. We can roleplay/handwave the rate of failures as due to lack of shipboard maintenance, harsh radiation environment, etc. etc. as desired.

[Droll]

What if it was allowed to undergo maintenance failures as if it had no MSP remaining, but at a diminished rate?

I like this idea, but in the opposite direction - maintenance failures happen at the same (or even an increased?) rate, however they are guaranteed not to cause catastrophic damage (i.e., ships won't blow up from engine or magazine failures). Then to reactivate a mothballed ship requires conducting repairs using the same mechanics that already exist (Repair Yards, etc.).

This seems like it could address the build-to-mothballs issues, since fixing nearly every component on a ship is pricey enough that it's probably not an attractive means to cheat the maintenance system. Repairing older ships with less advanced, thus cheaper, components is cheaper and faster (for a given shipyard work rate), which makes mothballing more attractive for older ships that could be restored a bit quicker in an emergency.

We can assign a (reduced) MSP cost or monetary cost as Steve feels necessary to maintain balance, but since this cost is a secondary part of the mechanic it does not have to be the main balancing factor so we can set it to a reasonable value and it is probably fine - say, 25% of the maintenance cost for an in-service ship for example.

I do think diminishing the rate of maintenance failures is the wrong direction, as that seems like it would be more economical than maintaining active-duty ships which doesn't solve any problems. You basically want the ship to be an irreparable hulk after several years, after which is can be restored to active service relatively more quickly than new construction but not necessarily much more cheaply so. We can roleplay/handwave the rate of failures as due to lack of shipboard maintenance, harsh radiation environment, etc. etc. as desired.

I wouldn't even mind if the repair cost of returning a long-term mothball even being equal to or slightly exceeding the cost of a new production as the primary purpose is the speed in a ship can be brought back to active duty.

[LurkingNecromancer]

I would personally like to have it for RP purposes.  I have an old battleship with a handful of kills and some accolades.  Id rather turn it into a “museum” ship rather than scrap it.  Also, the argument about exploiting the mechanic is kind of shallow if you ask me.  SM mode is right there, you can exploit at anytime and thats not even mentioning exploiting the AI. 

Back to the topic, how does requiring a ship to be unmothballed costs the said  as fully building it but requiring half the build time plus an additional month for every year or whatever number seems right to refurbish

[misanthropope]

i want to amplify a point quakeIV made

i am certain the efficacy of "build into mothballs" is risibly overstated in starfire; theory and practice are in clear agreement.  shipyards are cheap in aurora, obsolescence is cruel, and opportunity costs are a thing everywhere, even if they are much harder to estimate in aurora than starfire. 

there exists a fairly serious concern the AI would shoot itself in the foot if it had access to such a mechanic, but on the player side avoiding "exploits" is easy, even if we're pretending it's not a strictly solitaire sandbox game.

[Rook]

I wonder at this idea of mothballed space ships being difficult to maintain/recommission. Many of the aspects of mothballed fleets on Earth would be non-existent in space. Especially if you chose a system with a relatively gentle stellar climate. Additionally, if you vented the atmosphere of the ship, I imagine many of the internal components would be more in a stasis than undergoing any sort of decay, avoiding their requirement for maintenance. Sure, temperature can have its own effect on some materials, but, aside from emptying a ship of perishables and toxic materials, then resupplying for active duty, I wonder what components would need heavy duty maintenance.

Seems to me, a mothballed spaceship would require little in the way of maintenance to return to active duty. Even decades later. Perhaps there are factors I'm not considering however.

That being said, I don't think it would be difficult to assume that any ship being recommissioned, after decades of being mothballed, wouldn't undergo some period of refitting. A few weeks or a few months. To make sure all of the systems are functioning, replacing or upgrading minor components (like displays, lighting, etc.), cleaning dust or debris (a monumental task itself for a large ship), cycling and overhauling atmospheric systems, and, perhaps, replacing or repairing parts of the structure. But, not more than 3 or 4 months, surely.