Hi, I would like to suggest adding an "Avoid Refit" checkbox button for the selected fleet in the fleet organization menu.

I think this will be very convenient for players who, like me, like to leave a couple of fleets in combat-ready condition to protect the capital while other fleets are being upgraded.
Such a button will save your time, and allow you not to worry about carefully choosing the correct name for each ship that you send for upgrade from the shipyard menu. Or a short-term leaving the planet's orbit, or whatever else to avoid refit for the cover fleets.
This is my humble suggestion on how to improve QOL when we playing this brilliant game

Names of Free Planets Alliance ships from Legend of the Galactic Heroes.

Yeah, but why not convert them into 10 automines instead of a new facility type? Does taking twice the cargo space really matter?

Like the ECM changes.

Why not just convert captured CMCs into automines?

I read some earlier posts about MSP and then had a little mishap of my own which got me thinking. What if bigger engineering departments could reduce MSP maintenance cost? Which would give us something to consider when designing to manage fleet MSP consumption.

The source of this idea is a little story in its own right which I will explain. I am still playing v2.1.1 so forgive me if I am missing out later versions' maintenance mechanics. It happened recently in my current game at a well populated outpost in Proxima Centauri that through 'administrative negligence' the colony's MSP ran out and PPV orbitals with varying MSP storage and build costs accrued deployment at different values per class, which puzzled me until I realised colony MSP ran out followed by the orbitals' onboard MSP, resulting eventually in deployment clock starting then component failures. It became apparent that box launcher based orbitals lasted longer than turret based orbitals due to lower build costs and thus lower maintenance costs and as luck would have it slightly higher onboard MSP stores.

I found this interesting and in digesting this mishap wanted to direct the empire towards an MSP consumption economy drive, wondering if I had missed a way to influence vessel maintenance cost in some way, besides making cheaper PPV vessels and avoiding deployment and concluded I had not. As I understand it engineering volume improves maintenance life and reduces the 5yr MSP requirement significantly but does not change maintenance costs.

The C# wiki rules say maintenance cost is 0.25x build cost per annum regardless, so orbitals can have very small engineering components and it will make no difference to maintenance cost as long as EMR (effective maintenance rate) from maintenance facilities is 100% and they have MSP supplies. If I understand correctly, its only when EMR is less than 100% that maintenance life and 5yr figures come into play in relation to the maintenance failure hazard, as happened at Proxima Centauri causing an alert for component failure and inability to repair due to lack of MSPs, which caught me by surprise! 

e.g. a 1000t ship with build cost 280, can have different sizes of engineering bays giving practical maintenance life of between 7.5 to 1.5 yrs and figures for 5yr use between 150 and 1500 MSP respectively but maintenance cost will always be 70 MSP/pa. What if maintenance cost was a bit lower or higher depending on engineering space, to reflect the better maintenance life and repair facilities that larger engineering departments provide? Just thought it might be worth a mention.