1
C# Mechanics / Re: Fighter training fuel cost
« Last post by bankshot on Today at 10:19:58 PM »Could you perhaps build your fighters with slow/efficient/cheap "training" engines then after training completes refit them to combat engines?
Darn so I'm really gonna have to burn 30 million litres of fuel just to tug an orbital habitat one system over, huh? And so many engines just to go 200km/s. . . .
Side note: fuel has become less of a problem after attaching one of my military tankers to the tug fleet whenever it has to tug a long distance.
My terraforming ships tend to be large and slow. ~~Snippy Snips~~
This thread has an interesting conversation regarding Terraforming Installations and their utility compared to the ship-based component. Long story short, Terraforming Installations are wretched as they're a logistical nightmare (5 cargo holds per installation + infrastructure required for the population to run them) as opposed to orbital stations, which can be tugged into place much quicker and easier. The fact they cost more is just insult to injury.
I'd like to propose that the cost of Terraforming Installations be slashed, anywhere from one-half to one-quarter their current value. This would create an actual trade-off for the logistical headache they pose for use anywhere outside of Sol. It'd also be a lore-friendly way to explain how it takes a million people on the planet to do what a crew of hundreds can accomplish in orbit - i.e. automation. And as Jurassic Park taught us, that kind of automation is neither easy, nor cheap.
Would it be possible for Artillery, when being subjected to Counter-Battery Fire, would use the higher of their two "evasion" stats? So the higher of Hit Mod or Fortification. This I think would make representing a vehicle's ability to "shoot and scoot" over a Static pieces in-ability better represented w/ minimal effort. Since it happens in the Bombardment phase, which I assume is distinct from the regular Attack / Defend phase, this might be simple~ish to execute.
Thank you for your inputs, I was just trying to assert that such costs exists and should be factored.
If we are discussing min-max I agree that they are more efficient but we need to account all costs related to both parties, and we are also excluding the cost of workers and the underlaying infrastructure when using installations.
If cash-poor, the best investment is financial centers, not overpriced other installations.