Cargo holds and build time

[Peewee (OP)]

How on earth does adding a million or so tons to the blueprints make the shipyard workers build (essentially the same ship) over 30 times faster?!

The first ship is 22,000 tons so it can be built in a shipyard with a capacity of 22,000 tons. The second ship is over a million tons so it needs a shipyard fifty times larger and therefore has fifty times more workers, which means it can be built a lot faster.

Steve

I understand that perfectly.

This is what I don't understand:

(using version 5.02)
I made two identical shipyards (using SM). One is tooled for Flashlights, the other is tooled for Lanterns.
They each have one slipway, 1200000 capacity per slipway, and the displayed 'mod rate' is 724060.
I ordered each shipyard to build one ship. (17 August 2027, 03:02)
then advanced time by ten days.

The Flashlight is at 10.4% progress, but the Lantern is only at 0.3%. (27 August 2027, 03:02)
Estimated completion dates:
Flashlight: 4 Nov 2027 (ABR = 826360)
Lantern: 21 Sept 2034 (ABR = 22440)

If the explanation is larger shipyard == more workers == faster work, shouldn't they be built at the same rate?
-----
I made another shipyard (again, SM) with 23050 capacity, 1 slipway, tooled for Lanterns. (27 August 2027, 03:02)
This one displays a 'mod rate' of 16812.
I gave it an order to build another Lantern, then advanced time another 10 days.

huge shipyard lantern progress = 0.6% (ABR = 22440) (started 20 days ago)
built-to-fit-perfectly shipyard progress = 0.3% (ABR = 22440) (started 10 days ago)

..so both shipyards build at the same rate, despite the huge shipyard having 50x more workers.

The wiki says (v4.77):

The larger shipyard needed for the supertanker can work on many more things at once than the small shipyard needed for the fishing boat. However, the reason the change in construction rate is based on ship size and not shipyard size is that it would hardly be efficient to build fishing boats in the shipyard intended for the supertanker.

Perhaps it wouldn't be as efficient, but the fishing boats would still be built faster... wouldn't they?

Should I not be able to make ships be built faster by making a larger factory?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I've made slight modifications to each class. The ones I used for the above construction experiment were these.

Code: [Select]

Flashlight class Sensor Outpost    1027950 tons     3006 Crew     165191 BP      TCS 20559  TH 2812  EM 0
136 km/s     Armour 5-907     Shields 0-0     Sensors 3750/3750/0/0     Damage Control Rating 10     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 845344%    IFR: 11740.9%    Maint Capacity 1004 MSP    Max Repair 27000 MSP    Est Time: 0 Years
Cargo 1000000    

Photonic Drive E0.05 (3)    Power 937.5    Fuel Use 0.5%    Signature 937.5    Armour 0    Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 17.4 billion km   (1481 days at full power)

CIWS-1000 (1x20)    Range 1000 km     TS: 100000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1)     GPS 9000     Range 675.0m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1)     GPS 900000     Range 67,500.0m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1)     GPS 180000     Range 13,500.0m km    Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1)     GPS 1800000     Range 135,000.0m km    Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1)     GPS 4500000     Range 337,500.0m km    Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1)     Sensitivity 3750     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1)     Sensitivity 3750     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3750m km

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Lantern class Sensor Outpost    23050 tons     1981 Crew     158940 BP      TCS 461  TH 2812  EM 0
6099 km/s     Armour 5-72     Shields 0-0     Sensors 3750/3750/0/0     Damage Control Rating 10     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 425%    IFR: 5.9%    Maint Capacity 43097 MSP    Max Repair 27000 MSP    Est Time: 0.38 Years

Photonic Drive E0.05 (3)    Power 937.5    Fuel Use 0.5%    Signature 937.5    Armour 0    Exp 0%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 780.8 billion km   (1481 days at full power)

CIWS-1000 (1x20)    Range 1000 km     TS: 100000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (1)     GPS 9000     Range 675.0m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR67500-R100 (10%) (1)     GPS 900000     Range 67,500.0m km    Resolution 100
Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (1)     GPS 180000     Range 13,500.0m km    Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR135000-R200 (10%) (1)     GPS 1800000     Range 135,000.0m km    Resolution 200
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (1)     GPS 4500000     Range 337,500.0m km    Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (1)     Sensitivity 3750     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (1)     Sensitivity 3750     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3750m km

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes

[Peewee (OP)]

(sorry about this intentional double-post, just trying to keep this somewhat separated from the main conversation)

On a bit of a tangent, why are cargo bays always full?

They're not.

They ought to take up very little mass (as they are, well, empty spaces).

They do.

I meant that they always take up the same mass (5000 tons), whether they're loaded or not.
Do the tanks in a real-life oil tanker weigh the same full and empty?
Ideally, they ought to weigh maybe 50 tons, and allow you to load an additional 5000 tons of cargo.

I think cargo should have it's own mass (which it already does, currently), and affect the mass of the ship carrying it (which it does not, currently).

That would make ship speed vary on 'up' and 'down' trips.

That it would, which is why it doesn't work the way you're suggesting.  A ship's max speed is a ship's max speed, and it doesn't change short of refit.  Feel free to operate your freighters at a reduced speed when they're loaded, to simulate the extra drag of the cargo.

[spoiler:11z5ibam]minor correction: max speed also changes if you use SM to unlock and change the class design, then look at the ship in the F6 menu. I found that out by accident.[/spoiler:11z5ibam]
I shouldn't need to simulate additional drag from loaded cargo... the game should do that for me (possibly as a checkbox option at the game details screen?).
I just think this is a glaring flaw in such a detailed game.

[Andrew]

(.

I think cargo should have it's own mass (which it already does, currently), and affect the mass of the ship carrying it (which it does not, currently).

As other people have suggested this assumes that mass is important. The displacement tons are used as an indicator of voulme/displacement not mass for the drive field to cover. Engines are clearly not Newtonian as there is no acceleration or momentum.

Also if we where to impose this level of irritating micromanaging monitoring logically we should also allow for the mass differences caused by
1) the use of fuel
2) use of missiles
3) if a carrier has launched its fighters
4) armour damage....
items 1,2 and 3 can easilya ccount for more than 50% of a warship so they are as signifignat as cargo . More so as the speed of warships is usually more important than of freighters.
This would cause the game to slow to the speed of a one legged tortoise and Steve to go mad trying to implement it

[Peewee (OP)]

As other people have suggested this assumes that mass is important. The displacement tons are used as an indicator of voulme/displacement not mass for the drive field to cover. Engines are clearly not Newtonian as there is no acceleration or momentum.

Ok. Let's say I buy that explanation. (Shouldn't 'tons' be replaced with 'kiloliters' or something, then?)
So... you're just saying that the volume/displacement of missiles, parasites/fighters, and cargo doesn't matter...?
It still doesn't make sense to me.

Also if we where to impose this level of irritating micromanaging monitoring logically we should also allow for the mass differences caused by
1) the use of fuel
2) use of missiles
3) if a carrier has launched its fighters
4) armour damage....
items 1,2 and 3 can easilya ccount for more than 50% of a warship so they are as signifignat as cargo . More so as the speed of warships is usually more important than of freighters.
This would cause the game to slow to the speed of a one legged tortoise and Steve to go mad trying to implement it

(I'm a CSCI major... I don't want you thinking I'm a clueless moron making impossible demands )
How would it slow the game down (Not to say that it isn't already at the speed of a one legged tortoise)? Or be particularly hard to implement?
Changing the mass of a ship should only require:
-one add/subtract operation on the ship size variable (1 arithmetic operator, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one call to the speed function ((engine output *1000)/total size) to set the new max size (1 method/function call, 2 arithmetic operators, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one comparison to check if speed <= max speed (1 comparison, 2 variable references)
-set speed to max speed (1 variable reference, 1 variable value change)

To implement, he'd just have to put something like "Ship.changeSize(integer)" at the end of every method that he'd want to change the ship size (loadCargo, unloadCargo, loadMissiles, fireMissiles, unloadMissiles, landParasites, launchParasites, etc.)

[sloanjh]

As other people have suggested this assumes that mass is important. The displacement tons are used as an indicator of voulme/displacement not mass for the drive field to cover. Engines are clearly not Newtonian as there is no acceleration or momentum.

Ok. Let's say I buy that explanation. (Shouldn't 'tons' be replaced with 'kiloliters' or something, then?)
So... you're just saying that the volume/displacement of missiles, parasites/fighters, and cargo doesn't matter...?
It still doesn't make sense to me.

This discussion/decision was already played out on the board a year or two (or possibly more) ago.  I might have even been the one to bring it up - I don't remember :-) ) was to go with tons as a measure of volume, because.....  (segue to Andrew)

As for the "making sense" part, you might want to go read the Starfire books (Crusade, In Death Ground, The Shiva Option, etc.) by David Weber and Steve White.  The drives are non-Newtonian (i.e. forget F=MA) and have a drive field that surrounds the hull, so it's the volume of the hull that controls how fast the ship can go, not the amount of mass inside the hull.

Also if we where to impose this level of irritating micromanaging monitoring logically we should also allow for the mass differences caused by
1) the use of fuel
2) use of missiles
3) if a carrier has launched its fighters
4) armour damage....
items 1,2 and 3 can easilya ccount for more than 50% of a warship so they are as signifignat as cargo . More so as the speed of warships is usually more important than of freighters.
This would cause the game to slow to the speed of a one legged tortoise and Steve to go mad trying to implement it

(I'm a CSCI major... I don't want you thinking I'm a clueless moron making impossible demands )
How would it slow the game down (Not to say that it isn't already at the speed of a one legged tortoise)?

Ummmmm y'know......if you don't like the game you don't have to play it.  And making any sort of demands, impossible or not, isn't necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people.  Oh yeah, and a huge percentage of the people who play the game are software developers themselves of one sort or another.

Or be particularly hard to implement?
Changing the mass of a ship should only require:
-one add/subtract operation on the ship size variable (1 arithmetic operator, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one call to the speed function ((engine output *1000)/total size) to set the new max size (1 method/function call, 2 arithmetic operators, 2 variable references, 1 variable value change)
-one comparison to check if speed <= max speed (1 comparison, 2 variable references)
-set speed to max speed (1 variable reference, 1 variable value change)

To implement, he'd just have to put something like "Ship.changeSize(integer)" at the end of every method that he'd want to change the ship size (loadCargo, unloadCargo, loadMissiles, fireMissiles, unloadMissiles, landParasites, launchParasites, etc.)

"Only"  The odds of touching the code in all the right places and getting them all correct is very small.  Don't forget that the code is written in VB6, is at least 10 years old, and is very database-manipulation centric (as opposed to heavily object-oriented with lots of polymorphism).  This doesn't really matter though, since I don't see Steve wanting to make the change - as mentioned above, it was debated years ago, wouldn't add much to the game balance (and would probably hurt it) and would be complex to implement.

BTW, the right way to do what you suggested (assuming the code were in something like C# or C++) would be to have put a Size property on class Ship from day 1 of the code.  Then you would only need to change a single method.  (Of course you'd probably also need to launch a SizeChanged or MaxSpeedChanged event so that e.g. TG could check if they're exceeding the new maximum speed.)  The fundamental design principle here is that complexity should be managed server-side (i.e. within the Ship object) rather than client-side (i.e. within each of the callers like loadCargo).

John

PS - to repeat myself, this is why new users are encouraged to post into The Academy, so that we don't fill up other boards like Mechanics (which is where Steve likes to announce new things he's implemented) with threads that rehash old decisions and explanations of how things work.

[AtomikKrab]

peewee, as to the speed: too many cooks spoil the pot.

or in other words there is an upper limit to how many people can work on a ship. a shipyard might have 50 million workers, but if the ship is only a 5000 ton frigate maybe only 1 million can actually work on it

[sloanjh]

Perhaps it wouldn't be as efficient, but the fishing boats would still be built faster... wouldn't they?

Possibly, but....

Should I not be able to make ships be built faster by making a larger factory?

No, because this would potentially introduce a game-breaking exploit.  Please go find the thread I mentioned above where the variable build rates were introduced and read it - it discusses Steve's concerns in depth.  The short version (IIRC) is that Steve needed to make it so that building a 50kton or 100kton warship didn't take half a century, so he set things up so that big ships are built at a faster BP/day rate than small ships.  If he tied the rate to the yard, then the exploit would be to build a really big yard and use it to build a bunch of small ships (which is what you seem to be complaining about not being able to do).

Something to keep in mind with Aurora is "suspension of disbelief".  Sometimes game-balance decisions have to override "if I carried this to it's logical conclusions" reasoning.  Steve tries very hard (and is very successful) at keeping this inconsistencies to a minimum*, but this can't be done everywhere.  At that point you just have to suck it up and make up some technobabble.

John

 *For example, go find the years of requests for fighter-mounted beam weapons.  Steve resisted for years, because he couldn't figure out how to set things up so that they wouldn't break the game when players mounted a zillion of them on a warship, and he hated the fact that other games just arbitrarily said "welllll you just can't do that".  We only got them (gauss cannon) when a mechanism was worked out so that they wouldn't break the game.

[UnLimiTeD]

He isn't asking for being able to build small ships really fast, he's complaining that he can essentially build the same ships faster by adding large capacity to them, thus making them bigger.
Bigger ships are built faster than small ships.
Btw, peewee, is that speed consistent? I figured that the Cargoholds are really cheap, so if they would just be finished first, the speed should drop afterwards... though I guess that'll not be the case.
( Also, making that really big yard costs resources that could well be spent in adding more slipways to produce the small ships not faster, but 10 a time^^)

[Father Tim]

Ships are built by build points, not by tonnnage.  Shipyards are rated by tonnage, not by build points.  Therefore a shipyard fifty times as big working on a ship fifty times as big but only twenty times more expensive will build it faster.

The tanks in an oil tanker don't weigh 50 tons, or 50,000 tons, or whatever.  They displace an amount of water weighing 50 tons (empty) or 50,000 tons (full) or whatever, and the relation of cargo to displacement is expressed by bouyancy and load efficiency formulae.

A Cargo Hold doesn't weigh 5000 tons, it displaces 5000 tons of 'Alzarian Standard Atmosphere' at 'Standard Alzarian Temperature and Pressure'.  The weight of any cargo placed in the hold is irrelevant, and given the ship is an air-tight sphere, the presence or absence of cargo does not in any way affect the tonnage of ASA is displaces.

Campaigning to add 'variable mass' and 'changing ship speeds based on current mass' is pretty much like campaigning to switch the UK to driving on the right:  The decision was made a long time ago, for valid reasons, and changing it now would require a massive amount of work, cause innumerable crashes, and has been roundly refused by the people currently using the system.  You may think it's a better way, and certainly there are others who agree with you, but ultimately it's Steve's decision and he has said many times he prefers the current version and he's not changing it.

[sloanjh]

Campaigning to add 'variable mass' and 'changing ship speeds based on current mass' is pretty much like campaigning to switch the UK to driving on the right:  The decision was made a long time ago, for valid reasons, and changing it now would require a massive amount of work, cause innumerable crashes, and has been roundly refused by the people currently using the system.  You may think it's a better way, and certainly there are others who agree with you, but ultimately it's Steve's decision and he has said many times he prefers the current version and he's not changing it.

Well said.

John

[Peewee (OP)]

peewee, as to the speed: too many cooks spoil the pot.

or in other words there is an upper limit to how many people can work on a ship. a shipyard might have 50 million workers, but if the ship is only a 5000 ton frigate maybe only 1 million can actually work on it

I agree, but this still doesn't justify why adding more work to do means that it gets done faster.

Btw, peewee, is that speed consistent? I figured that the Cargoholds are really cheap, so if they would just be finished first, the speed should drop afterwards... though I guess that'll not be the case.

Yes, it seems pretty consistent. I finished the flashlight in a couple months, and gave up on the lantern after ~4 years.

Perhaps it wouldn't be as efficient, but the fishing boats would still be built faster... wouldn't they?

Possibly, but....

Should I not be able to make ships be built faster by making a larger factory?

No, because this would potentially introduce a game-breaking exploit.  Please go find the thread I mentioned above where the variable build rates were introduced and read it - it discusses Steve's concerns in depth.  The short version (IIRC) is that Steve needed to make it so that building a 50kton or 100kton warship didn't take half a century, so he set things up so that big ships are built at a faster BP/day rate than small ships.  If he tied the rate to the yard, then the exploit would be to build a really big yard and use it to build a bunch of small ships (which is what you seem to be complaining about not being able to do).

And now the exploit is that constructing huge ships takes mere weeks.
Is this the thread you were talking about?

I could build a death star in a matter of weeks, so long as I can strap enough cargo holds to it.
No, seriously. I could, and actually, I have.

Code: [Select]

Death Star class Orbital Weapon Platform    1020502800 tons     9565700 Crew     57755285.0006 BP      TCS 20410056  TH 60000  EM 1800000
293 km/s     Armour 100-90292     Shields 60000-300     Sensors 3750/3750/500/500     Damage Control Rating 50000     PPV 19200
Annual Failure Rate: 166627697%    IFR: 2314273.6%    Maint Capacity 6768596 MSP    Max Repair 31500 MSP    Est Time: 0 Years
Flag Bridge    Hangar Deck Capacity 100000 tons     Troop Capacity: 100 Battalions    Magazine 67500    Cargo 50000000    Colonists 19000000    Passengers 25000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 200400    Tractor Beam    
Jump Gate Construction Ship: 20 days
Fuel Harvester: 3000 modules producing 420000000 litres per annum
Terraformer: 35000 module(s) producing 280 atm per annum
Asteroid Miner: 100 module(s) producing 7000 tons per mineral per annum
Maintenance Modules: 1000 module(s) capable of supporting ships of 200000 tons
Salvager: 5000 module(s) capable of salvaging 12500000 tons per day

Photonic Drive E0.5 ARM-10 <H/S> (16000)    Power 375    Fuel Use 5%    Signature 3.75    Armour 10    Exp 1%    Hyper Capable
Fuel Capacity 75,000,000 Litres    Range 2.6 billion km   (104 days at full power)
Omega R300/15 Shields <M> (4000)   Total Fuel Cost  60,000 Litres per day

Quad 80cm C25 Far Gamma Ray Laser <M> Turret (50x4)    Range 1,400,000km     TS: 100000 km/s     Power 672-100     RM 12    ROF 35        168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168
Particle Torpedo-50 <M> (10)    Range 1,200,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 125-25    ROF 25        50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
R1008/C25 Meson Cannon <M> (10)    Range 1,400,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 168-25     RM 1008    ROF 35        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quad Gauss Cannon R6-100 <M> Turret (20x40)    Range 60,000km     TS: 50000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 6    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
CIWS-1000 (100x20)    Range 1000 km     TS: 100000 km/s     ROF 5       Base 50% To Hit
50cm Railgun V9/C20 <M> (10x4)    Range 1,400,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 60-20     RM 9    ROF 15        20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18
80cm C25 Plasma Carronade <M> (10)    Range 1,400,000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 168-25     RM 1    ROF 35        168 84 56 42 33 28 24 21 18 16
PD Gauss Turret FC (10)    Max Range: 175,000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     94 89 83 77 71 66 60 54 49 43
Fire Control S16 700-100000 H10 <M> (100)    Max Range: 1,400,000 km   TS: 100000 km/s     99 99 98 97 96 96 95 94 94 93
Vacuum Energy Power Plant Technology PB-0.75 AR-10 (15)     Total Power Output 13500    Armour 10    Exp 1%

Size 100 Missile Launcher (100)    Missile Size 100    Rate of Fire 250
Missile Fire Control FC1012500-R500 (10%) <M> (20)     Range 1,012,500.0m km    Resolution 500
Missile Fire Control FC2025-R1 (10%) (20)     Range 2,025.0m km    Resolution 1

Active Search Sensor MR13500-R20 (10%) (3)     GPS 180000     Range 13,500.0m km    Resolution 20
Active Search Sensor MR675-R1 (10%) (3)     GPS 9000     Range 675.0m km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor MR337500-R500 (10%) <M> (3)     GPS 4500000     Range 337,500.0m km    Resolution 500
Thermal Sensor TH50-3750 (10%) <M> (3)     Sensitivity 3750     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3750m km
EM Detection Sensor EM50-3750 (10%) <M> (3)     Sensitivity 3750     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  3750m km
Phased Gravitational Sensors (100)   500 Survey Points Per Hour
Phased Geological Sensors (100)   500 Survey Points Per Hour

ECCM-10 (50)         ECM 100

This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposesThis only takes 0.07 years to build (~4 weeks).

A month. To build a practically indestructible (and yes, I put up defenses on the exhaust ports) billion-ton ship.
HOW IS THIS BETTER OR MORE LOGICAL THAN QUICKLY BUILDING SMALL SHIPS?!

[Steve Walmsley]

A month. To build a practically indestructible (and yes, I put up defenses on the exhaust ports) billion-ton ship.
HOW IS THIS BETTER OR MORE LOGICAL THAN QUICKLY BUILDING SMALL SHIPS?!

Because you would need a billion ton capacity military shipyard to build it. It would be faster to build a smaller version of the ship than wait a century or so to build the shipyard first. Within the other constraints imposed by the game, the current method creates the best compromise between gameplay and reality.

Steve

[Peewee (OP)]

Ah crap, I knew I forgot to reply to someone in my last post.

This discussion/decision was already played out on the board a year or two (or possibly more) ago.  I might have even been the one to bring it up - I don't remember :-) ) was to go with tons as a measure of volume, because.....  (segue to Andrew)

As for the "making sense" part, you might want to go read the Starfire books (Crusade, In Death Ground, The Shiva Option, etc.) by David Weber and Steve White.  The drives are non-Newtonian (i.e. forget F=MA) and have a drive field that surrounds the hull, so it's the volume of the hull that controls how fast the ship can go, not the amount of mass inside the hull.

I couldn't find the thread you mentioned. (I did give up after about half an hour, but still)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll add those to my reading list.

Ummmmm y'know......if you don't like the game you don't have to play it.  And making any sort of demands, impossible or not, isn't necessarily the best way to win friends and influence people.  Oh yeah, and a huge percentage of the people who play the game are software developers themselves of one sort or another.

I do like the game. I just thought I saw room for improvement.
I really didn't want to sound like I'm bragging about my major or anything; I'm just used to some other forums, where asking for new features starts flame wars.

"Only"  The odds of touching the code in all the right places and getting them all correct is very small.  Don't forget that the code is written in VB6, is at least 10 years old, and is very database-manipulation centric (as opposed to heavily object-oriented with lots of polymorphism).  This doesn't really matter though, since I don't see Steve wanting to make the change - as mentioned above, it was debated years ago, wouldn't add much to the game balance (and would probably hurt it) and would be complex to implement.

... Oh yeah.
Wait a minute. That... doesn't mean that all changes require reads and writes to the database, does it?

BTW, the right way to do what you suggested (assuming the code were in something like C# or C++) would be to have put a Size property on class Ship from day 1 of the code.  Then you would only need to change a single method.  (Of course you'd probably also need to launch a SizeChanged or MaxSpeedChanged event so that e.g. TG could check if they're exceeding the new maximum speed.)  

Hehe, it's like you read my mind.

[Peewee (OP)]

A month. To build a practically indestructible (and yes, I put up defenses on the exhaust ports) billion-ton ship.
HOW IS THIS BETTER OR MORE LOGICAL THAN QUICKLY BUILDING SMALL SHIPS?!

Because you would need a billion ton capacity military shipyard to build it. It would be faster to build a smaller version of the ship than wait a century or so to build the shipyard first. Within the other constraints imposed by the game, the current method creates the best compromise between gameplay and reality.

Steve

Ok.

My real question is this:
Why shouldn't a civilization be able to build a reasonable ship more quickly after investing in the same [spoiler:17k9ailn]friggin vogon constructor fleet[/spoiler:17k9ailn] billion-ton capacity shipyard?

[Steve Walmsley]

My real question is this:
Why shouldn't a civilization be able to build a reasonable ship more quickly after investing in the same [spoiler:h5sitauk]friggin vogon constructor fleet[/spoiler:h5sitauk] billion-ton capacity shipyard?

As explained in the original thread, I decided that basing construction time on ship size rather than shipyard size would allow players to build large ships in a reasonable time while preventing someone using shipyards designed for supertankers to build fishing boats. This is for both gameplay and realism reasons. To support your argument, perhaps you can point me to a shipyard in the real world that uses the slipways intended for carriers to build huge amounts of patrol boats?

Steve