Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Droll
« on: October 04, 2023, 12:53:09 PM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on October 03, 2023, 09:41:16 PM
Quote from: QuakeIV on September 28, 2023, 08:53:30 PM
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.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: October 03, 2023, 09:41:16 PM »

Quote from: QuakeIV on September 28, 2023, 08:53:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Velociranga
« on: October 03, 2023, 07:59:34 PM »

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
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: September 29, 2023, 06:04:25 PM »

I think there has been a huge overreaction to the starfire mothball exploiting and the reaction is making the mechanic not useful at all.
Posted by: M_Gargantua
« on: September 29, 2023, 11:48:43 AM »

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.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: September 28, 2023, 08:53:30 PM »

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.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: September 28, 2023, 06:53:18 PM »

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...
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: September 28, 2023, 05:56:01 PM »

Quote from: Pedroig on September 28, 2023, 06:44:35 AM
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.
Posted by: Pedroig
« on: September 28, 2023, 06:44:35 AM »

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.
Posted by: Kiero
« on: September 27, 2023, 01:44:04 AM »

Quote from: Marski on September 26, 2023, 10:11:33 AM
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.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: September 26, 2023, 09:55:13 PM »

Quote from: Froggiest1982 on September 26, 2023, 09:16:29 PM
The mothballing topic comes out from time to time and to be honest while I understand why Steve is against while other players may be reqiesting it, I was wondering if could be easier to introduce the non maintenance (or a reduced one) checkbox at a fleet level only under SM mode.

This way only those who are actually interested will be using the function.

The code should be partially there and I think coding wise the biggest challenge will be ensuring the save and reload trick is not needed for the modification to take effect.

That seems reasonable. It would also encourage keeping museum ships as roleplay if they will not cost precious MSP, which is something I like the idea of.
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: September 26, 2023, 09:16:29 PM »

The mothballing topic comes out from time to time and to be honest while I understand why Steve is against while other players may be reqiesting it, I was wondering if could be easier to introduce the non maintenance (or a reduced one) checkbox at a fleet level only under SM mode.

This way only those who are actually interested will be using the function.

The code should be partially there and I think coding wise the biggest challenge will be ensuring the save and reload trick is not needed for the modification to take effect.
Posted by: Marski
« on: September 26, 2023, 10:11:33 AM »

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.
Posted by: Skip121
« on: September 26, 2023, 10:00:06 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley link=topic=13174. msg165877#msg165877 date=1695731408
There are a number of mechanics that could be used for mothballing.  However, the challenge is to make mothballing a ship a meaningful decision, rather than a way to simply reduce overall maintenance costs or a way to build a massive fleet ready for activation.  For that decision to exist, there must be a scenario where mothballing a ship turns out to have been the wrong choice.

For example, lets say it takes a year to reactivate a ship.  One scenario is alien attack and the ship is not available to fight for a year - but with the wrong mothballing rules you could have your regular navy (the same fleet you would have without mothball rules) plus a huge fleet in mothballs, so that situation is actually a lot better than before, not worse.

In principle, I think shipyards (maybe repair yards) would be needed to move ships in and out of mothballs, so that you have a meaningful decision regarding how you use that finite capacity.  This would be relatively cheap in BP but costly in time.  Even in the above scenario, you would then have to choose between building new ships or reviving old ships.  Once ships are in mothballs, there would need to be some cost and perhaps facilities involved in maintaining them in that state to avoid a massive mothball fleet.  I think the simplest mechanic would be to use existing maintenance rules/facilities, but treat the mothballed ships as smaller, perhaps 20% of their normal size/cost for maintenance purposes.

That way, you can establish a fairly sizeable mothball fleet, but by limiting to some extent your active fleet.  Also because you can only store and revive at the cost of building new, you would tend to start mothballing when you are in a less active period - which makes sense - and then you are faced with another meaningful decision in terms of whether to reactivate or build new.  Setting the right time/cost of reactivation would be key to making that a difficult choice.

Mothballing would only make sense if you planned to do it for a while, so that the cost of storing and reactivating would outweigh the long-term saving of 80% of MSP expenditure.

I really like this idea, it reminds me of the 'extended readiness' that the UK Royal Navy uses when the government wants to cut costs on ships.  Theoretically, they can be brought back into service when needed but there is a time/cost tradeoff to doing so.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: September 26, 2023, 07:30:08 AM »

There are a number of mechanics that could be used for mothballing. However, the challenge is to make mothballing a ship a meaningful decision, rather than a way to simply reduce overall maintenance costs or a way to build a massive fleet ready for activation. For that decision to exist, there must be a scenario where mothballing a ship turns out to have been the wrong choice.

For example, lets say it takes a year to reactivate a ship. One scenario is alien attack and the ship is not available to fight for a year - but with the wrong mothballing rules you could have your regular navy (the same fleet you would have without mothball rules) plus a huge fleet in mothballs, so that situation is actually a lot better than before, not worse.

In principle, I think shipyards (maybe repair yards) would be needed to move ships in and out of mothballs, so that you have a meaningful decision regarding how you use that finite capacity. This would be relatively cheap in BP but costly in time. Even in the above scenario, you would then have to choose between building new ships or reviving old ships. Once ships are in mothballs, there would need to be some cost and perhaps facilities involved in maintaining them in that state to avoid a massive mothball fleet. I think the simplest mechanic would be to use existing maintenance rules/facilities, but treat the mothballed ships as smaller, perhaps 20% of their normal size/cost for maintenance purposes.

That way, you can establish a fairly sizeable mothball fleet, but by limiting to some extent your active fleet. Also because you can only store and revive at the cost of building new, you would tend to start mothballing when you are in a less active period - which makes sense - and then you are faced with another meaningful decision in terms of whether to reactivate or build new. Setting the right time/cost of reactivation would be key to making that a difficult choice.

Mothballing would only make sense if you planned to do it for a while, so that the cost of storing and reactivating would outweigh the long-term saving of 80% of MSP expenditure.