How about tying missile production to military goods

[tkobo]

facilities instead of airbases ,for sr2020 ?

Airbases are very costly and its annoying to have to create so many of them, that wont ever see an aircraft,simply becuase i want missiles.

[Balthagor]

I've written that one down, it will get some consideration. Might be possible with some of other changes already being considered...

[Eric Larsen]

I like the concept of tying missile production to the production of military goods! After all missiles are not manufactured at military airbases but at civilian factories. I would however tie missile storage to airbase capacity but I would allow missile storage at airfields as well as airbases. Say 10 for an airbase like it is now and 5 or so for an airfield.
Eric Larsen

[Pandora's Last Ray]

What I would like to see is tying uranium consumption to the production of nuclear weapons, and limiting the number of nuke weapons that can be produced by the number of power generating nuke plants, or breeder plants.

[Draken]

I like the concept of tying missile production to the production of military goods! After all missiles are not manufactured at military airbases but at civilian factories. I would however tie missile storage to airbase capacity but I would allow missile storage at airfields as well as airbases. Say 10 for an airbase like it is now and 5 or so for an airfield.
Eric Larsen

I would include also land bases, piers and ports...Maybe even supply depots... Why? Because no all missile are air launched...

[tkobo]

Im not really worried about storage, we do after all have the ability to turn off the storage limit.

[Eric Larsen]

After thinking about tying missile production to military goods production I've decided that this is a very bad idea. The problem is military goods production is rather variable, especially when someone (the AI) has it's production tied to demand. Then military goods production can go high one turn when a bunch of units pop out of reserve and suck up military goods then drop dramatically the next turn. The poor AI or player would see it or he could produce a whole bunch of new missiles one turn only to watch them drop out of production the next because of variable missile production tiedn to varaible military goods production.

Plus it screws a player who has military goods up the behind and decides to cut production to save money and resources. If that player has no export market then the only way to burn off that excess military goods inventory is to cut production below demand and live off the excess inventory. A player playing smart economically should not be penalized but if you tie missile production to military goods production that's exactly what will happen and you'll hear a lot more complaints.

It is far more costly to produce military goods than it is to maintain an airbase. The whole issue is higher missile production so why not just make a simple fix by increasing the missile build capacity for airbases? A heck of a lot less programming to change one variable than to program a whole new routine with the possibility of new bugs creeping into the mix.

Since missile storage is already tied to airbase capacity it is logical to maintain missile production as a function of airbase capacity, just crank up the build rate per airbase!
Eric Larsen

[Lightbringer]

Wouldn't missile production be tied to military goods production "capacity"? You don't stop producing missiles at airbases just because no air forces are stationed there, nor because you are not producing air forces. In fact, you could have missile production be represented as an actual usage of said capacity. Meaning the only time your missile production might drop, was when you overtaxed said industry. If I mistook you Eric, and this was what you meant by...

"The problem is military goods production is rather variable, especially when someone (the AI) has it's production tied to demand. Then military goods production can go high one turn when a bunch of units pop out of reserve and suck up military goods then drop dramatically the next turn. The poor AI or player would see it or he could produce a whole bunch of new missiles one turn only to watch them drop out of production the next because of variable missile production tiedn to varaible military goods production. "

then my apologies. Still and all, it makes sense. The industry can only produce so much stuff at once, and if your infantry needs rifle ammo, you aren't going to short them for a few missiles.

(shrugs) I'm not high on missiles anyway, so it doesn't matter much to me.

[tkobo]

Not sure why you thought it would be tied to production from the facility, instead of just capacity tied to the facility, like it is now with airbases.

To explain further:

Right now the number of airbases decides how many missiles you can build at one time, and store.

What i would like to see, is the number of military goods facilities deciding how many missiles you can build at one time,and store.

Although, since we have the option to turn off storage limits, im not that worried about that aspect.

I also think Draken's idea about using other base types for the missile storage limit in addition to airbases or military goods facilities is a good one.

[Lightbringer]

are you replying to Eric? or to my reply to Eric?

[tkobo]

To anyone, i quess, who didnt understand what i was asking for.

[Lightbringer]

Tying it to military goods capacity only seemed natural to me. I was unsure whether Eric mispoke or misunderstood was all.

[Eric Larsen]

Tying it to military goods capacity only seemed natural to me. I was unsure whether Eric mispoke or misunderstood was all.

Lightbringer,
Upon first hearing of the idea to tie missile production to military goods production I too thought it sounded like a good idea. However while playing I thought more about it and figured out that it isn't such a good idea after all.

The problem with military goods production is it can be highly variable. Military goods production are dependent upon other resources like electricity and industrial goods which rely on other resources. If a region experiences a resource shortage of some kind (like the AI's do so often with electricity) then military goods production can take a sudden sharp downturn. How would that affect missile production? I'd bet it would cancel it for the excess missiles or just put it on hold.

The AI's tend to tie their production to demand after a while and then demand can go up and down like a yoyo. That would wreak havoc on missile building as the build capacity would go up and down like a yoyo too. Just think of the complaints from players that would ensue if their missile building program is fraught with ups and downs.

What we all want is more missile building capacity and the easiest way too accomplish that is to increase the missile build capacity for each airbase. Missile building capacity based upon airbase capacity is far more stable and thus is the best solution.

I think missile storage tends to be fine. I never turn off the missile storage limit because of what that would do to the AI. The poor AI would just keep building missiles, freefall bombs mostly, that it would rarely use. I've seen too many instances of AI's with missile storage stuffed to the gills already to turn that off just to screw up the AI further.
Eric Larsen

[Balthagor]

You seem to have missed Tkobo's comment entierly

...The problem with military goods production is it can be highly variable. Military goods production are dependent upon other resources like electricity and industrial goods which rely on other resources. If a region experiences a resource shortage of some kind (like the AI's do so often with electricity) then military goods production can take a sudden sharp downturn...

As tkobo mentioned, only actual production can take such sharp turns, capacity remains constant unless factories are turned off or built

If we pursued such an idea, it would be tied to capacity, not to actual production.

[Lightbringer]

Eric wrote:

Military goods production are dependent upon other resources like electricity and industrial goods which rely on other resources. If a region experiences a resource shortage of some kind (like the AI's do so often with electricity) then military goods production can take a sudden sharp downturn. How would that affect missile production?

I imagine it would effect it realistically. If I understand some of you other recent posts, you were leaning towards Jedi special forces and being able to ally with the Klingons. Really though, if you can't properly supply your country with electricity, do you think you deserve to be churning out hundreds of missiles every day? Shortages affect production of everything. It is a basic law. If you don't have the proper stuff to make the things with, you don't get to make the things. As it stands right now, off duty Airmen sit around crocheting missiles from cobwebs, even if the entire economy has collapsed and every military goods factory has been wiped out by the AI ( ). Missiles always struck me as a cross breed between "units" and "military goods" anyway.

I'll leave the debate to people who actually give a rat's arse about missiles, I got bored of them in the early 80's with missile command.