Radiation exists, and its a health-hazard, but then again so are sunburns, car crashes, food poisoning, and axe-wielding psycho murderers. I don't see very many people stop going outside, driving in cars, eating out, or staying in hotels because of those threats

Topic drift: Learn to love it

Sorry, I couldn't understand your argument.

you can't add heavy weapons willy nilly. the hull where they are attached has to be able to hold and handle said weapon when fired. this may not be a big deal with energy weapons. but missile and rail guns would require so called hard points.

Let me just throw some blood into this shark's feeding frenzy by pointing out that civilian ships and military ships are going to be designed completely differently -- civilian ships don't have to worry about anything but efficiency, military vessels have to worry about battle damage. Redundant systems, blast doors to seal off every single small compartment, etc etc etc.

???

Okay, let's compare a small/medium sized passenger jet versus a B2 Stealth bomber. You think they have the same basic construction? The bomber is built around minimizing cross sections/radar signal. The passenger jet is built around fuel efficiency versus seating number versus cheapest building cost.

Sure, they both have backup systems. But they both do their jobs vastly better than the other could ever do.

Also

Here is another example:

How about a tank versus a similar powered tractor. Sure they both use tracks. I suppose you could put armor plating/weapons/optics/sensors/powerplant/different gearing on the tractor, but it would still suck. The tank was designed with a low profile to decrease target size. You can't retrofit the frame of the tractor to do that. Well, maybe you could replace the frame on the tractor as well...but then you've basically turned the tractor into something totally different...at a much higher price then if you had just bought the tank outright.

Alright, how about a logistics versus tactical structure example.

So, for our real world examples, we will compare a ship port (Refinery/Trade Port) versus a military air base (hangar). Okay, I am not sure this is even worth comparing. Anybody here think that converting a ship port to a military airfield would be easy? Anybody think that they have the same basic design and requirements? Anybody think that they would work nearly as well as they did with their original purpose?

I didn't think so

If you read what I wrote I already conceded that some (not the bulk by no means!) are different, and may require different construction techniques. And I also stated that these techniques often trickle to the common use quite quickly.
So, I find this already a non issue and a corner case (how many B2 Stealth bombers are there VS. f16s or more general all ground attack planes? or the entire fleet of cargo carriers? Na, I will not quibble over the minor and noted exception when the majority (and what I am talking about) fits the model.


Again you did not read my post . . you are talking about design (a VERY specific and narrow bleeding edge one that may very well require new construction techniques) I am not.
Read again . . . I am not

I am stating that the BULK of the military is constructed as any other civilian design vehicle. (Possibly to higher standards . .or . . not? If you hear some stories I hear). of course they have different purposes but the technology that goes into making them is not in any way radically different. Boeing IDS construction facilities has striking similarities to Boeing facilities making 777’s . . ponder that . . .
Again basically (with a few exceptions) the dock worker, materials, and building techniques needed to build, say a war ship, is little different and in some cases the same as building civilian ships. This follows to most other vehicles that have a civilian counterpart. The systems are what make them truly different.
(for example Subs do not so do not follow this trend)

[quote]How about a tank versus a similar powered tractor. Sure they both use tracks. I suppose you could put armor plating/weapons/optics/sensors/powerplant/different gearing on the tractor, . . .[snip]
And? the military has tractors and such, and the technology of making a take track is no different then civilian designs (and it is a rather tried and true design that has not changed much in a long time. So yes, ANY civilian company that makes large tractors should be able to construct to spec the tracks and chassis for a tank . . . the tracks and chassis are very the “low” tech parts . . even the power plant is not complex (even the M1s turbine is not special) . . Now the armor plating/weapons/optics/sensors ARE and would need to be married into the design. But the chassis no problem for any competent company.
Thanks for the example this is a good one!

you have to really read what I said, retrofit a tractor? Wha??? who do you think are maing the "frame" of the tanks? Did you know that car and heavy vehicle manufacturers make tank parts all over the planet?
In WWI and WWII ships, planes, tanks, etc where all made in civilian factories using mundane materials and average factory workers? Today it is an exclusive to big business contractors, but they use the same tools as everyone else.


I simply do not follow your point here, please restate.

/end a rather massive rant . . er sorry


Yes, anything larger would need allot of work . . and retro fitting was only one aspect to my over all point. Also it is getting easier to add weapons systems as they are becoming more modular.

My conclusion and opinion is that any large commercial Civ as successful as the one stated in the background story of Sin’s should have not problems reworking ship construction factories to construct most anything they would need (they have ALL of the skills) The only problem they would have is the weapon/sensor systems as this would be a new field for them. So on the onset on hostilities they should be able to put out bulk amounts of craft with fair but lack luster weapons systems. (win by numbers here may be a good tactic here, because quality will not be there) with the economy steaming it is likely that advances and ideas would come quickly and upgrades will be made fast. Problems are bulk may not suffice with a superior foe and only act as a delaying tactic till they can come up to speed(again near storyline) and so on . .

exactly what hitler knew would happen. which is why he allied with the japanese. so that they could keep us out of the war.

Assuming A) space vessels and civilian ships not designed with the worry of being shot at (as opposed to accidents happening):

A civilian ship (if its designed by smart people interested in maximum cost efficiency) will have their life-support spaces (places where people can live) made airtight against possible leaks. A military vessel will have their life support spaces divided up too, but instead of just sealing them off they will actually armor inside the ship where they are sealing off. Weapons grade lasers and the like don't just melt or (in the case of railguns) smash their way into the ship; razor sharp hyper-velocity fragments (i. e. take your hand off if its in the way, even if the splinter isn't actually sharp) will be sent flying all over the place.

A civilian vessel will place critical systems -- hull, drive, probably life support spaces as well -- near the "skin" of the ship, for easy access and repair in case of accident / needed maintenance. A military vessel will put those wherever they can be the best protected, even if thats in the center of the ship where repair / replacement will be very difficult / impossible, because that increases the chance of the ship coming home.

A civilian vessel will have backups for critical systems, yes. But it won't use multiply redundant systems, designed to operate completely independently while also being cross linked (e. g. you may have several different drive control systems, all with independent control runs, but the runs will be cross-connected so you can route around damaged sections through the runs for the other (possibly disabled) systems). A smart military designer would do that, if possible.

A civilian ship won't be very heavily armored -- any armor it might have would be focused against micrometeorite degradation. Need I explain why a military ship would do things differently? (Or that you can't simply slap armor onto something that wasn't designed for it?)



Let me just point out that its quite possible to retool a factory to build something other than what it was originally meant to build (especially when the items in question are related). That doesn't change the fact that they are completely different items.

Lets also take, as an example, the idea of a gaming computer Vs. a "plain" desktop computer, such as released by Dell or Gateway.

Gaming computer would have a highly powerful CPU; desktop computer would have something "strong enough" for word processing, running windows, and browsing the internet. Sure, there will be a quite a bit of overhead in that, because adding in that extra speed is cheap compared to the marketing advantage you get from it.

Strong GPU would be faced by -- quite possibly -- not even having a GPU slot.

A strong, capable motherboard on the one side, would be faced by a motherboard thats "just good enough" -- low memory speed, a few PCI slots, probably not any PCI-E or AGP slots (though some of the higher end ones do have those, most of the low end ones using an integrated video chip don't bother installing a PCI-E slot even if the board can use one).

Lots of fast memory Vs, again, memory "just good enough" -- slow, and probably not much of it since you can cache off the disk drive.

Even if you wanted to upgrade the desktop ("civilian") computer to a gaming ("military) one, you can't -- not without replacing just about everything from the motherboard up. Depending on the company, you might even have to replace the case -- I've heard of companies that use proprietary designs for their cases and motherboards, so they aren't interchangeable with their own hardware (i. e. their own desktop Vs. gaming motherboard either won't fit on the same screws, or the same backing, etc etc), much less external hardware.

Topic drift: Learn to love it. Besides, the devs have already stated that researching cap ships is in.

It was an analogy, nothing more. Of course the computer equipment on board military vessels is much the same -- computers pretty much have to be computers, design is determined by function and processing information is processing information. The differences are in how much information computers process how fast, for the most part.



I think you're misunderstanding my point: that necessity for robustness is the difference I'm talking about. And its going to be a fairly major difference in design and construction.

well i think ta missed a point, the American factories were in a state of disrepair, so they were retrofitted with new parts and machinery and 'weak' tanks were cranked out like mad. BUT, there is a huge difference between standard frigs and cap ships. its not like taking a normal frigate and tossing some armor and systems onto it, capital ships have TONS of weapons and other 'things' that the normal frigates dont have. You cant take a small factory made for producing small frigates and say 'ok, now youre making a giant ship.'

PS@ron, dell's gaming rigs are much higher in quality than most companies.

First Dell tends to be more conservative on the construction of there systems (save on repair in the long run), then other companies. That is why I used them as an example. . The higher quality is the stability not the performance. Also since they tend to make some custom destine changes upgrading must be done through them ( this is a business decision not a tech one) There are more “generic” mother boards and components out there then most people would think. And they fill the full gambit of simple to high end. (point is if you buy a proprietary system you must buy proprietary upgrades this means $$ for the comp.) . . . Most gaming rigs (and allot of low-medium end systems) are made of “generic” (read standard) parts so are entirely upgradeable and modifiable. I make a mean system balancing performance and price and quite easy to upgrade.

Also again your idea what goes into a "military" computer has little basis in reality. I should know I work on the systems! And my colleagues here have had there hand in construction on quite allot of our current computer, radar, aerospace and missile systems currently used in the US military.
So, really I am telling it like it IS.


YES YES I am agreeing here. . WTH? A Willys-Overland JEEP is a Willys-Overland JEEP! Willys-Overland = car manufacture. A Sherman tank was not the best design but that is all they had so on 1942 they went into full production . . .Normal workers in normal factories / shipyards . . Turning out a war effort . . . it was the economic and industrial potential that feeds a war effort . . . IF those factories where not here and if they did not have people that could do the basic jobs needed then there would have been no massive surge of equipment and craft.

Paradoxnt

I may have to recant my compliment on the quality of discussions possible here. "both types are 100% interchangeable"? and "well his logic holds up in the beta"? this is a bit childish and quite erroneous.
The discussion I proposed was based on an early decision SIN's made on having a full range of ships buildable early in the game. I defended this concept vs a more unrealistic but popular trend in RTS and 4x games to research and attain larger (read more powerful - another fallacy in reality) units later in the game.
I showed that economy and construction capability has much more to say about how a big craft is constructed then overall tech (the tech is manly the weapon/sensor systems) (one off craft/bleeding edge and are not mass produced can be an exception)
I pointed out real life examples. Here is another . .
Take the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, the oldest US Naval Shipyard. They make some of our newest ships. . and USE the SAME techniques of construction as other high end civilian Shipyards around the world to construct there ships. (current techniques include prefabricated sections a massive change in technique not limited to either civilian/military yards) . The designs are different; the systems they are installing are different. . but the guys with the plasma torch is the same.

This I find it interesting that people have a hard time reading a post fully, comprehend what they are reading (I may have to take some blame here since I do write these quickly - waiting on my next test case to finish running etc) and problems responding with a level headed response in a discussion. These concepts are not black and white, have historical elements and are hindered but the common (and gamming) trend / way of thinking.
Like in the BB discussion, BB’s have allot of propaganda, pride, fascination, and Ego assonated with them . . and where the poster child of bigger = better. People respond hostilely when shown that bigger <> better, and that BB in WWII played a role but a relatively small one vs the concept of it being the might/heart of the navy as they where designed to be in which they never attained. This really freaks people out, as like this current discussion because it goes against what they “believe/want” to be true or have gotten so used to they do not want to hear anything else. But regardless of how you feel, reality is another thing. When it comes to a civilian / military divide in equipment and craft it is not cut and dry (nor magical) and in some cases (as it would seem in computers systems) inverse on what you may believe (or understand from movies?)
Being in the industry this may seem more apparent from my point of view . . . but at least we could have a calm discussion about the apparent misconception. . . . if not . . . well your loss.