Not necessarily. People switched from Vacuum tubes because in the long run they were CHEAPER to make. And since it's off the shelf technology the "retrofit" is little more than routine maintenance. If you have a 40 year old car you don't use the same model of airfilter it came with do you?Krikkitone wrote:That is an upgrade of the design, and in any case the integrated ciruits (a higher tech thing) would cost more because they are higher tech... because they require the producion from a higher tech factory that in these games is modeled by a higher output from the higher tech factory.marhawkman wrote:think of it this way.... Your BattleshipV1 uses Vacuum tubes for it's radios. But it's a century old and you have since then upgraded to a more advanced design that uses integrated circuits that are less than a quarter the size. So instead of your people manufacturing vacuum tubes to replace the broken ones they replace the entire radio with a newer one.
So if Battleship VI Kept the Vacuum tubes it would require lower tech factory output, modeled as less production to maintain them.
Fleet Maintenance
Moderator: Oberlus
-
marhawkman
- Large Juggernaut
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:34 pm
- Location: GA
Computer programming is fun.
-
Krikkitone
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
But the assembly lines and updated factories in FO DON'T make things CHEAPER, they make more, so anMayito777 wrote:Agreed with you on that. Also by the time you have research the substitute for vacuum bulbes, the factories also get upgraded and they stop making the old design and move to the new designs, the assembly lines become more automated and so makes the production cheaper.
old Vacuum tube factory would produce 10 pp (the cost of a Vacuum computer being 50 pp)
New Assembly line Factory would produce 100 pp (the cost of a modern computer being 200 pp)
So the cost in terms of "per turn output" went down (the closest to an equivalent Real life term), 5 turns v. 2 turns but the Thing got more expensive in game terms (pp).
And that is the most effective way to do it to stop someone from only researching weapons... (If it makes them better And cheaper, then it is like researching Industry AND Weapons simultaneously)
The fact is it is a lot easier to just let the maintenance cost to be proportional to production cost, more factor for what should be a very simple thing (I Might consider adding a modifier for if the ship is currently in active service or not)
You are right, thinks don't get cheaper we just produce more, but if you have no ships alike it becomes more complicated to maintain them (keeping a stock of spareparts) as if they were all alike. That is why I suggested to make maintainace cheaper for ships that are very common in you Empire.
For Example : (ShipCost/log(shipCount))*x% = MaintainaceCost
For Example : (ShipCost/log(shipCount))*x% = MaintainaceCost
Dieser Text basiert ausschließlich auf frei erfundener Interpunktion und Orthographie. Jegliche Uebereinstimmungen mit geltenden Regelungen sind rein zufaellig und wurden nicht beabsichtigt.
A major factor in maintaining real-life systems isnt the age or type of the technology involved, its how many different things you have to maintain.
For example, if you have 3 different types of fighter plane (say, 100 of each for a total of 300 planes), then your maintenance costs go way up compared to having 300 of just one type of plane. The reasons for this are that you need more stores to keep all the different sorts of parts, you have to support more companies that make those parts, you have to train maintenance staff in more ways etc etc. This is why things like the JSF come about, and why the army uses 1 type of rifle, etc.
So it could be interesting to have maintenance costs either scale based on the number of concurrent designs in your fleet (e.g. x1.0 for 1 design, x1.1 for 2 designs etc) or be nonlinear based on number of ships of that design (e.g. first 10 ships cost 1.0 each to maintain, next 10 cost 0.9 each etc). I think it could be an interesting gameplay mechanism, and would dissuade people from keeping lots of old designs sitting around.
For example, if you have 3 different types of fighter plane (say, 100 of each for a total of 300 planes), then your maintenance costs go way up compared to having 300 of just one type of plane. The reasons for this are that you need more stores to keep all the different sorts of parts, you have to support more companies that make those parts, you have to train maintenance staff in more ways etc etc. This is why things like the JSF come about, and why the army uses 1 type of rifle, etc.
So it could be interesting to have maintenance costs either scale based on the number of concurrent designs in your fleet (e.g. x1.0 for 1 design, x1.1 for 2 designs etc) or be nonlinear based on number of ships of that design (e.g. first 10 ships cost 1.0 each to maintain, next 10 cost 0.9 each etc). I think it could be an interesting gameplay mechanism, and would dissuade people from keeping lots of old designs sitting around.
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.
No it wouldnt, because it never happens.utilae wrote:Having parts that are usable in either type of ship (as an example) would reduce maintenance.
Regardless, real life is not the issue, i was just using it to illustrate a point, i.e. - this is something that happens in real life, you could use a model of that process to achieve a gameplay effect. Even if it didnt happen in real life, you could still use the model.
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.
one of the reasons that the cost would go up would be because you'd have to stock all 3 types of replacement gizmos, instead of stocking one gizmo. You'd have to calculate the restocking level for 3 products instead of 1, and if you ran low on only 1 of the gizmos, then you'd still have to make a resupply run, even if you had plenty of the other 2 types. If you ran out of one of the gizmos, you would still be able to use 2/3rds of your fighters, but if you only had to stock 1 gizmo, you'd be extra careful to never run out.
by standardizing, there would be less restocking/transportation/tracking costs. Those costs would typically be far less than the cost of production, but would still be very real.
by standardizing, there would be less restocking/transportation/tracking costs. Those costs would typically be far less than the cost of production, but would still be very real.