You are not logged in.

1

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 8:07am

Incremental Infrastructure

From here

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Size Type Length (m) Length (ft) Cost Turnaround time
0 Slip 70m 230ft 0.5IP 1 week
0 Dry-dock 70m 230ft 1IP 1 week

.5 Slip 95m 312ft .75IP 1 week
.5 Dry-dock 95mft 312 1.5IP 2 weeks

1 Slip 120m 393ft 1IP 2 weeks
1 Dry-dock 120m 393ft 2IP 2 weeks

1.5 Slip 145m 476ft 1.5IP 2 weeks
1.5 Dry-dock 145m 476ft 2.5IP 3 weeks

2 Slip 170m 557ft 2IP 3 weeks
2 Dry-dock 170m 557ft 3IP 3 weeks

2.5 Slip 195m 640ft 2.5IP 3 weeks
2.5 Dry-dock 195m 640ft 3.5IP 4 weeks

3 Slip 220m 721ft 3IP 4 weeks
3 Dry-dock 220m 721ft 4IP 4 weeks

3.5 Slip 245m 804ft 3.5IP 4 weeks
3.5 Dry-dock 245m 804ft 4.5IP 5 weeks

4 Slip 270m 885ft 4IP 5 weeks
4 Dry-dock 270m 885ft 5IP 5 weeks

4.5 Slip 295m 968ft 4.5IP 5 weeks
4.5 Dry-dock 295m 968ft 5.5IP 6 weeks

5 Slip 320m 1049ft 5 6 weeks
5 Dry-dock 320m 1049ft 6 6 weeks

Was this suggestion accepted, shot down, or just condemned to die a slow quiet death in archive-land? Don't want to be a pill about it: I can handle a 'no' answer, but I would like to know if I choose to work on infrastructure sometime soon.

Points:
- Does not alter existing infrastructure
- Permits further options for slip and dock lengths
- Matches existing half-factory rules

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Brockpaine" (Dec 16th 2008, 8:08am)


2

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 1:36pm

I'd like this clarified too, I couldn't even find the original post!

I vote yes, I see no problems with this proposal and as Argentina it will help alot.

We don't limit ship lengths so why limit dock lengths?

3

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 1:47pm

I'm in favor of it.

4

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 1:50pm

Could help Bharat in the future. So I vote yes.

5

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 1:54pm

I see no serious issues

6

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 2:03pm

My only concern would be to keep it at 0.5 intervals so you can't end up with a Type 1.1 Slip that is 125m long. It would complicate things a bit too much.

7

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 4:05pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
My only concern would be to keep it at 0.5 intervals so you can't end up with a Type 1.1 Slip that is 125m long. It would complicate things a bit too much.

I can live with that.

8

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 11:06pm

I find it acceptable.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

9

Tuesday, December 16th 2008, 11:21pm

I've always found the current breaks clunky.
particularly the 1/2 and 3/4 marks.

So I'm in favor of the proposal.

10

Friday, December 19th 2008, 2:46pm

So what's the word from the mods on this?

11

Friday, December 19th 2008, 4:25pm

I'll go with the flow, seems to be ok to me anyway.

12

Friday, January 30th 2009, 2:13pm

OK, is this a go? Planning minds would like to know.....

13

Friday, January 30th 2009, 3:14pm

I think we're ok for this change.

14

Friday, January 30th 2009, 4:22pm

Hmmm so implement in Q2/37?

15

Friday, January 30th 2009, 4:38pm

I'm good with that

16

Friday, January 30th 2009, 4:39pm

The one person we HAVEN'T heard from here is Hoo.....

HoOmAn

Keeper of the Sacred Block Coefficient

  • Send private message

17

Friday, January 30th 2009, 5:29pm

ok

18

Friday, January 30th 2009, 5:36pm

Woohoo!