Poll

Should the next generation of Aurora have some form of mothballing for ships?

No.  Things are fine as they are.
3 (8.6%)
Yes.  It should cost a tiny amount of MSP per month, and be relatively quick to unmothball (Say, 1/20th build time)
17 (48.6%)
Yes.  It should be free per month to maintain, but take a relatively long time to unmothball  (Say, 1/4 build time)
15 (42.9%)

Total Members Voted: 35

Author Topic: Bringing Back Mothballing  (Read 2288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Father Tim

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 911
  • Thanked: 51 times
Bringing Back Mothballing
« on: November 11, 2017, 11:37:13 PM »
I liked mothballing, I do miss it, but I can continue to live without it if it proves to be too much trouble to code.
 

Online QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 273
  • Thanked: 18 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2017, 03:48:36 AM »
Doesnt the new version already have stuff like this?
 

Offline El Pip

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • E
  • Posts: 59
  • Thanked: 9 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2017, 11:11:46 AM »
Is it being greedy to say I'd like Option 2 and 3 from that list?

Option 2 would be "Send to the Reserve Fleet" (or Standby Squadron, or whatever name you want to give it), ships are decommissioned but still looked after and kept ready to bring back into active service at, say, 1 months notice.

Option 3 is proper Mothballing, sensitive kit taken out so it won't be damaged, filled with foam, airlocks sealed and then left in a stable orbit.

If I had to pick I'd go with Option 2 as I would probably use that more.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 979
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2017, 03:19:46 AM »
Both options would be nice to have ( reserve for quick activation and mothball for long ).

But reactivating from mothball should also cost a bit of resources, wealth or supply I think so it's an important decision that can't be done "for free" but there is a tradeoff cost.
 

Online Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 336
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2017, 04:30:42 AM »
Maintaining ships in mothball or reserve should still eat TN materials. At a lower rate than combat ready maintenance, sure, but it would still require materials.
 

Offline Seolferwulf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • S
  • Posts: 48
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2017, 06:07:22 AM »
What the heck is mothballing?
I've done a quick search but Google had no satisfactory answer.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 979
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2017, 06:20:40 AM »
What the heck is mothballing?
I've done a quick search but Google had no satisfactory answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothballing

( Aircraft boneyard and Reserve fleet are relevant entries to this use of the word ).
 
The following users thanked this post: Seolferwulf

Offline Garfunkel

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 979
  • Thanked: 70 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2017, 09:14:23 AM »
Yeah, having both 2 and 3 would be cool.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1256
  • Thanked: 84 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2017, 12:36:04 PM »
The junkyard from Expansion Wars comes to mind where there are literally hundreds of centuries old ships sitting in lunar orbit sitting in mothball.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • o
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2017, 03:45:25 PM »
I'll go with option 1.

Ship made of sci-fi materials is parked in a vacuum, not sitting in saltwater or oxidizing in air. Turning it back on is nothing more than pumping air back into it, provisioning it, and crewing it. We're talking about flicking on a light switch. I'm not a big fan TN material evaporation either. If I'm not using a ship, it shouldn't be eating TN minerals to "maintain" it (but should if I am using it, which is why I don't just turn off maintenance---I'll miss the massive PDC hangars). I don't know if hangars  in C# Aurora still protect from TN evaporation, but if they do I guess I'll be building space docks, which will be fun.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 03:49:27 PM by obsidian_green »
 

Offline iceball3

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 387
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2017, 07:14:15 PM »
I'll go with option 1.

Ship made of sci-fi materials is parked in a vacuum, not sitting in saltwater or oxidizing in air. Turning it back on is nothing more than pumping air back into it, provisioning it, and crewing it. We're talking about flicking on a light switch. I'm not a big fan TN material evaporation either. If I'm not using a ship, it shouldn't be eating TN minerals to "maintain" it (but should if I am using it, which is why I don't just turn off maintenance---I'll miss the massive PDC hangars). I don't know if hangars  in C# Aurora still protect from TN evaporation, but if they do I guess I'll be building space docks, which will be fun.
They'll require a continuous flow of maintenance supplies, which essentially evaporates TN materials.
 

Online Hazard

  • Commander
  • *********
  • H
  • Posts: 336
  • Thanked: 26 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2017, 07:23:16 PM »
Actually, even just leaving a ship in vacuum for, say, a decade or two, causes issues. The specifics are beyond me, but between the cosmic radiation, micrometeor bombardment and quantum shenanigans an otherwise perfectly functional ship can become distressingly non functional. Even in a vacuum.
 

Offline vorpal+5

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • v
  • Posts: 122
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2017, 01:23:25 AM »
A lot of internal components are probably not that resistant to near absolute zero... So yes, upkeep! If only for game balance.
 

Offline obsidian_green

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • o
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 20 times
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2017, 08:28:54 PM »
Folks, if the argument is "game balance" I understand if I don't agree, but the Voyager probes are still working after forty years. They recently test-fired some thrusters that haven't been used since 1980 on one of them.

TN material evaporation takes place at the rate of tons per year for ships made of SF materials that allow them to stay intact when nuked or lased ... and this happens when they are simply parked in a vacuum. I think I lose more TN minerals having them parked than I do by their using maintenance supplies when deployed.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Bringing Back Mothballing
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2017, 10:59:51 AM »
You could just as easily argue that maintenance costs should be eliminated completely with that example.

MSP and maintenance costs are not the same thing.  Maintenance only applies to your maintenance clock.  You lose all the minerals you 'saved' by being deployed if and when you rewind your maintenance clock.  MSP only serves to stave off breakdowns and conduct repairs.  You could never pay maintenance at all if you build ships with sufficiently long lifetimes and retire them rather then overhaul them.

One way to mothball currently is to retrofit a lot of engineering spaces onto a design and then just sit it in orbit somewhere without maintenance facilities. It will decay only slowly. 
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 12:00:25 PM by TheDeadlyShoe »
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54