How Engineering and Maintenance Storage work

[Jorgen_CAB]

While this might not be very realistic that one large engine have the same chance the break as 60 smaller engines break it is a game balance issue. Perhaps it could become a bit more refined in the future, but it works for what it is intended. Giving you choices to make. Large expensive components will make ships very expensive to maintain... it is as simple as that.

Which is exaclty my point, thats just not realistic and a little couter-intuitive. That's all

No... engines this small require exactly ONE crew to maintain and you are not suppose to use more than ONE engine in any design this small. The crew allotment will not become linear until you reach 1HS size. This is an intentional design decision by Steve for a reason... 

If you need two 0.1 engines you are ALWAYS better of just designing a 0.2 engine instead as they are extremely cheap to design there is no reason not to.

[Energyz]

Why do you focus on the small engine? I'm just pointing out what shriking out components do on maintenance life, i'm not saying that 0.1 HS engine is optimal...

Here's a more realistic approach:

Neptuno II class Cruiser Escort      30 975 tons       605 Crew       6 936.7 BP       TCS 619    TH 2 400    EM 8 520
7748 km/s      Armour 9-87       Shields 284-532       HTK 180      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 24      PPV 120
Maint Life 1.09 Years     MSP 2 759    AFR 548%    IFR 7.6%    1YR 2 342    5YR 35 127    Max Repair 900 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1 000 tons     Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP1200.00 (4)    Power 4800    Fuel Use 24.49%    Signature 600.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 250 000 Litres    Range 29.7 billion km (44 days at full power)
Delta S71 / R532 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 532 seconds (0.5 per second)

Quad Gauss Cannon R100-17.00 Turret (20x16)    Range 10 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R240-TS25000 (2)     Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58

Active Search Sensor AS8-R1 (1)     GPS 50     Range 8.9m km    MCR 971.5k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Neptuno II - Copy class Cruiser Escort      30 975 tons       605 Crew       6 936.7 BP       TCS 619    TH 2 400    EM 8 520
7748 km/s      Armour 9-87       Shields 284-532       HTK 200      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 24      PPV 120
Maint Life 2.00 Years     MSP 2 759    AFR 548%    IFR 7.6%    1YR 917    5YR 13 751    Max Repair 300 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1 000 tons     Cryogenic Berths 200   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 2   BRG   AUX   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

Internal Fusion Drive  EP400.00 (12)    Power 4800    Fuel Use 42.43%    Signature 200.0    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 1 250 000 Litres    Range 17.1 billion km (25 days at full power)
Delta S71 / R532 Shields (4)     Recharge Time 532 seconds (0.5 per second)

Quad Gauss Cannon R100-17.00 Turret (20x16)    Range 10 000km     TS: 25000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R240-TS25000 (2)     Max Range: 240 000 km   TS: 25 000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58

Active Search Sensor AS8-R1 (1)     GPS 50     Range 8.9m km    MCR 971.5k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes

Same cost, same crew, same speed, same everything except maintenance and range. (I think we can ignore HTK here)

So yes, I understand that there's a tradeoff between maintenance and fuel consumption and that it is a direct consequence of the system. But I've always felt that in general bigger components were more efficient in every way but the cost, and I feel the game pushes you to think that way.

Hence it feels weird, as it is not following common sense and from a game balance perspective.

[Father Tim]

Why do you focus on the small engine? I'm just pointing out what shriking out components do on maintenance life, i'm not saying that 0.1 HS engine is optimal...

Because that's expressly one of the points of multiple small components?  Less efficeint, but easier & cheaper to maintain.

It's the reason why fuel, engines, maintenance storage, magazines, engineering spaces, boat bays, etc., all have various-sized versions where the larger they are, the more efficient they are per ton displacement.

- - - - -

Loading up a unit with hundreds or even thousands of tiny components in order to game the maintenance failure system is a well-known exploit from VB Aurora.  NPRs don't do it, I don't do it, and if you have a problem with it, I suggest you don't do it either.

Certainly, I'd never accept dropping range from 44 days down to only 25, no matter what it did to my expected maintenance life.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Same cost, same crew, same speed, same everything except maintenance and range. (I think we can ignore HTK here)

So yes, I understand that there's a tradeoff between maintenance and fuel consumption and that it is a direct consequence of the system. But I've always felt that in general bigger components were more efficient in every way but the cost, and I feel the game pushes you to think that way.

Hence it feels weird, as it is not following common sense and from a game balance perspective.

Which one of he two ship below are more appealing to you?!?

Code: [Select]

Ark Royal I class Carrier     13 429 tons       221 Crew       1 538 BP       TCS 269    TH 750    EM 0
2792 km/s      Armour 3-50       Shields 0-0       HTK 79      Sensors 5/5/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.47 Years     MSP 787    AFR 131%    IFR 1.8%    1YR 179    5YR 2 678    Max Repair 375.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 5 000 tons     Magazine 600   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 100    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP750.00 (1)    Power 750.0    Fuel Use 28.58%    Signature 750.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 750 000 Litres    Range 35.2 billion km (145 days at full power)

FN/SPN-1A Navigation Sensor (1)     GPS 1000     Range 18.5m km    Resolution 100
FN/SQR-2A Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
FN/SER-3A EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

Code: [Select]

Ark Royal II class Carrier     13 429 tons       208 Crew       1 512.2 BP       TCS 269    TH 750    EM 0
2792 km/s      Armour 3-50       Shields 0-0       HTK 84      Sensors 5/5/0/0      DCR 8      PPV 0
Maint Life 2.47 Years     MSP 580    AFR 175%    IFR 2.4%    1YR 132    5YR 1 977    Max Repair 125.00 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 5 000 tons     Magazine 600   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 100    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP250.00 (3)    Power 750.0    Fuel Use 49.50%    Signature 250.00    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 917 000 Litres    Range 24.8 billion km (102 days at full power)

FN/SPN-1A Navigation Sensor (1)     GPS 1000     Range 18.5m km    Resolution 100
FN/SQR-2A Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
FN/SER-3A EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km
The differences between them are basically that the first have more engineering space and a few extra crew requirement and cost slightly more BUT it has a much better fuel economy so will be cheaper in the long run by quite a margin. The second ship traded the engineering space for more fuel storage. Larger engines are better in almost every way except for the cost in research and worse redundancy, it also is harder to fit a larger engine into different classes of ships in different sizes.

If you are not interested in better fuel economy you should not build large engines, period!!!

[Garfunkel]

He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

[Jorgen_CAB]

He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

[Droll]

He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

So you want a new "component delicacy" value that affects the MSP characterisics of a component. This could be leveraged in a way where weapons that are lower than you max tech level actually become cheaper to maintain - "tried and tested" vs "cutting edge" so to speak.

[Jorgen_CAB]

He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

So you want a new "component delicacy" value that affects the MSP characterisics of a component. This could be leveraged in a way where weapons that are lower than you max tech level actually become cheaper to maintain - "tried and tested" vs "cutting edge" so to speak.

It would not be unreasonable for components to become cheaper to maintain the longer it was they were designed using such a system. You could also make it so brand new components are quite expensive to maintain in the beginning too.

[Tikigod]

He is not talking about fuel economy Jorgen_CAB, he's talking about small components being easier to maintain than large components and how that is counter-intuitive to him.

I don't really care about the sizes of the components vis-a-vis maintenance - the maintenance costs go up because the BP cost goes up and that's logical to me.

Yes.. I agree that it might be in some way counter intuitive when you don't understand the mechanic... they way it works is that there is a certain % chance every construction cycle that a component breaks... if it breaks it then randomize based in size which component that breaks. This means that a 60HS engone have the same chance to break as three 20HS engines and as one larger engine is more expensive it also means that on average the larger engine is more expensive to maintain.

In reality it probably would not be as black and white and often many smaller components actually is MORE maintenance heavy that a single large component if the same type. So three 20HS engines would in reality be more expensive to maintain than a single HS60. The bigger engine might be twice as likely to fail but when you have three engines there is three chances to fail during the same time period, that is how things work in real life.

But the game work differently and the only reason to build a larger engine is because you want a better fuel economy, otherwise you should avoid them as they are more expensive to maintain, provide less redundancy, cost more in research, provide less HTK etc...

I would like to see some overhaul to the maintenance rules at some point where each component has a maintenance value and that is something you can influence during the design step. That way a large engine would become more efficient in more ways than just fuel as components fail individually.

Part of what I showed was that if you make them have equal maintenance life the ship with a larger engine still get more range and require less fuel per travelled distance. The differences in cost are quite low. Personally I generally prefer the second option of the two as I do value redundancy, cheaper research cost and being able to fit the same engines into multiple hull sizes to be quite important. But really large engines do have their place...

So you want a new "component delicacy" value that affects the MSP characterisics of a component. This could be leveraged in a way where weapons that are lower than you max tech level actually become cheaper to maintain - "tried and tested" vs "cutting edge" so to speak.

It would not be unreasonable for components to become cheaper to maintain the longer it was they were designed using such a system. You could also make it so brand new components are quite expensive to maintain in the beginning too.

But old technologies are also most costly to repair in terms of utilising older components that are no longer in standard use so are no longer produced in high frequency.

[Doren]

Maybe glossary in aurora should include short version that MSP provided by stores fluctuate with cost?

[Jorgen_CAB]

But old technologies are also most costly to repair in terms of utilising older components that are no longer in standard use so are no longer produced in high frequency.

While that is true most often high maintenance cost for old equipment is the fact that it is old and many parts of the construction can't be replaced and even if you put in some new parts things don't work like it used to... but on the other hand you have very experienced crew who knows the equipment very well and so are very good at fixing and reapiring it... but over time... yes old ships should become more and more expensive to maintain.

But old technologies are tried and often cheap to produce and maintain and as long as they are still in use and you create new components they should be cheaper and cheaper to maintain.

Not sure how viable it would be, but the game could track how many components you have of one type and then use that as one of the parameters to maintenance cost... the more you have of the same component in a fleet the cheaper it should be to both produce and maintain... So... new components would be both expensive to produce and maintain at the beginning but become less so as you get more of them. If you have specific components that you have very few of... say a very large active sensor system then that component will be expensive throughout the entire life cycle... which seems realistic.

You then also could get the same effect as in reality... small component generally are more expensive to produce and maintain due to being more complex for its size compared with a larger component, in terms of price per ton that is. But, you then would see smaller components getting less and less expensive both to produce and maintain as you start mass produce them for yor entire fighters fleet, say a particular fighter engine that you will have like 200 of. But 2000t cruiser engines might be cheaper per ton to build at start but will remain quite expensive as you might just build like 20 of them or so.

It would be very difficult to know how expensive your ships are and will become in the future as it relies entirely on how many components you will build of the types you have in them. A ship can be quite inexpensive after a while when you have a large amount of them.

It would also show they more realistic approach to jack of all trades ship versus more specialised ships... it would be more efficient over time to build all ships with the same sensor suite even if they are not optimal for every ship from an economical perspective. These are real life decisions militarise have to wrestle all the time. Good enough versus the best but very expensive... there are rarely a best answer to that question.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate.  The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.

One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds.  The only difference between them is the armour.

Code: [Select]

Example 1 class Tin Can      582 tons       20 Crew       72.2 BP       TCS 12    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-6       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years     MSP 77    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Example 2 class Tin Can      3,272,493,938 tons       20 Crew       392,699,274.9 BP       TCS 65,449,879    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2000-196349       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 75    AFR 85673732567223%    IFR 1189912952322.5%    1YR 9,495,505,359,534    5YR 142,432,580,393,008    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point.  Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?

[Jorgen_CAB]

The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate.  The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.

One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds.  The only difference between them is the armour.

Code: [Select]

Example 1 class Tin Can      582 tons       20 Crew       72.2 BP       TCS 12    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-6       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years     MSP 77    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Example 2 class Tin Can      3,272,493,938 tons       20 Crew       392,699,274.9 BP       TCS 65,449,879    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2000-196349       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 75    AFR 85673732567223%    IFR 1189912952322.5%    1YR 9,495,505,359,534    5YR 142,432,580,393,008    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point.  Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?

Therefore a system that look more to individual components AND the ship as a whole would be a bit more interesting and also would provide one more dimension when building ships as well. I do agree that this is a very extreme example and probably don't matter that much in a real game... but it certainly do matter to some degree.

[space dwarf]

The part that bugs me about maintenance is that armour, which can't suffer failures, counts against the failure rate.  The logical conclusion is that wrapping a ship in armour somehow makes the internal components less reliable.

One of these ships has an operational life measured in decades, the other in seconds.  The only difference between them is the armour.

Code: [Select]

Example 1 class Tin Can      582 tons       20 Crew       72.2 BP       TCS 12    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 1-6       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 22.16 Years     MSP 77    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Example 2 class Tin Can      3,272,493,938 tons       20 Crew       392,699,274.9 BP       TCS 65,449,879    TH 0    EM 0
1 km/s      Armour 2000-196349       Shields 0-0       HTK 5      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 11      PPV 0
Maint Life 0.00 Years     MSP 75    AFR 85673732567223%    IFR 1189912952322.5%    1YR 9,495,505,359,534    5YR 142,432,580,393,008    Max Repair 25 MSP
Kaigun-Ch?sa    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Morale Check Required   

Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
This is admittedly an extreme example, but demonstrates the point.  Is the second ship just crushing itself under its own gravity?

Maybe it represents the fact that heavily-armoured ships would need more complex systems of hookups between sensors and external components to ensure maintainability without compromising on armour integrity. After all, an external sensor which is connected by a thin conduit through 10 meters of armour composite plating is probbably harder to maintain that one which is directly on the pressure hull of the vessel.

Or maybe im just making paper-thin justifications XD

[dag0net]

As to fuel efficiency?

TN is umm, non-newtonian. 

Alright, so I've probably forgotten a lot of lore, but if TN drives are not traditionally plumed (which iirc they are not, it would hardly make any sense) then the intuition/calculation for cooperative drives does not work on a simple power to weight ratio which nixes the FE argument about smaller drives anyway.

As to AFR/IFR

Consider access.

A server array is built of relatively small modular components that can be swapped & repaired as individual components.  The server array is not one giant processor or storage component, but dozens or . .  of smaller components contributing to a whole with greater capacity.

This is, I think, a relatively clear example of why a large system of small components is easier to build & maintain than one large item.  Nobody builds single processor storage units 100m cubed because it's insane.
The individual components are easier to design, make & maintain & once the design philosophy of the matrix is adopted they can be adapted using new components. 

Not precisely contiguous, but it should be intuitive that a device or set of tools custom built to work a given problem are better at that role than devices that are designed to compromise efficiency in favor of multiple uses or .  As we're on scifi - consider comprehensive designs of self-evolving/repairing ships where the whole is the components in a more real sense, eg nanotech.  versus a design philosophy where the components are


As to armour.

In order to repair an item one must have access to it, a user having access to a thing probably means that item is more exposed to the enemy and the environment also.  In order to protect components from damage one emplaces armor or overengineers components, which then have to be grappled with to perform not just repairs & maintenance, but everyday operations.  The more armour/emphasis on protection - the harder they are to access/repair when that protection has been compromised. .  indeed there
are literally hundreds of design examples of military equipment that show that often armor placements even without combat damage make repair or utility impractical.

The problem here one supposes is that the difference in design philosophy is not always evident in a singular field without expert knowledge, because industry standards have already adopted what makes most sense in that application.  For earth moving one big vehicle is preferred over many small ones.


Idk if this helped or hindered, but. . yeh.