Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

In another topic, WhiteHojo made a suggestion that might be a very good one. So that it doesn't get overlooked, I've made this new topic. I quote him below, with some editing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WhiteHojo:
I'm no gaming expert but might there be some way to ... mak[e] the computer think a base is similiar to a WP? Maybe changing the classification of all Bases to units w/a size of 0 and the displacemnt of 0 so as to not take up space in a planet's cargo hold,instead of labeling em as ships?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about it, modders? Is it possible to introduce into the game a special huge WP with the capacity of a starbase, and yet trick the program so that it doesn't take up any cargo space on the planet?

I can see some potential problems right away:
1) You don't need a spaceyard to build units, so you could build starbases on any planet.
2) It wouldn't show up on standard long-range scans of a system. Has the effect of giving starbases a sort of cloak for free.
3) It wouldn't have any maintenance costs.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

its not a shabby idea, but it does have the drawbacks you mentioned. in addition to the drawbacks you bring up, there are a few more:

unless the game its self is edited (not just text files) tonnage available for components is directly related to the ammount of space it consumes in storage. possibly there is an undocumented ability called 'reduce storage space required for this unit' but thats rather fancifull.

if you change the hull type of a starbase to a different designation that can be stored as cargo, it will have to end up like a fighter or sat (there are only so many documented hull types to choose from, take your pick) that can be stored (lets pretend that you can even store it for free) but now its in cargo and it cant fire until it is launched. unless you make it a weapon platform, which wont require a spaceyard (sorry, no require spaceyard flag - its built into the hull type) keep in mind that when you change the hull type, you are changing the class of mounts that can be used.

the only possible workarrounds (that have not been mentioned) that I can think of, is to give a space station one tactical movement point, and somehow keep it from haveing any strategic movement. this is very doubtfull, but has the highest odds of working. it still wont 'orbit' a planet or anything, but it might be enough to get it into range if someone is pounding a planet from the far side. or you could just further increase the range of its mounts.

maybe some of these ideas will spark some other thoughts, im defintitly not the final word on se4 mods or anything close to that.

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 08 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

I've been toying with the idea of either giving bases and sats inherent combat movement bonuses or creating combat thrusters for them that does.

I also want to be able to use my tractor and repulser beams on my own ships! Would be a good way to get cripples out of the line of fire or bases into the line of fire. I also want to be able to tow ships and bases in strategic mode so I can get cripples to a repairbase/planet and move bases to warp points.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
unless the game its self is edited (not just text files) tonnage available for components is directly related to the ammount of space it consumes in storage. possibly there is an undocumented ability called 'reduce storage space required for this unit' but thats rather fancifull.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, yes, that may be an idea-killer.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
if you change the hull type of a starbase to a different designation that can be stored as cargo, it will have to end up like a fighter or sat (there are only so many documented hull types to choose from, take your pick) that can be stored (lets pretend that you can even store it for free) but now its in cargo and it cant fire until it is launched.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As satellites they'd have the same problems that they have now. But hey, fighters wouldn't be so bad! A fighter-spacestation (FSS)! Fighters automatically don't have strategic movement, right? Unfortunately FSSs could have engines and a huge number of ion boosters (or whatever the extra fighter engines are called), which would allow them to go zipping all over the tactical map. And they could be loaded into carriers and launched during combat! Pretty hilarious unintended consequences. Not what anyone had in mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
unless you make it a weapon platform, which wont require a spaceyard (sorry, no require spaceyard flag - its built into the hull type) keep in mind that when you change the hull type, you are changing the class of mounts that can be used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, WP was the original idea. It gets around the problem of overly-movable fighter-spacestations. And changing the class of mounts is a bonus, IMHO. Spacestations should get mount bonuses over ships of the same size.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
the only possible workarrounds (that have not been mentioned) that I can think of, is to give a space station one tactical movement point, and somehow keep it from haveing any strategic movement. this is very doubtfull, but has the highest odds of working. it still wont 'orbit' a planet or anything, but it might be enough to get it into range if someone is pounding a planet from the far side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly don't see why modders (or MM, anyway) couldn't do this. Here are three ways:
1) They already give fighters combat movement but no strategic movement. (I don't know if this is true in the latest Versions, but it is for the old demo I'm fooling with, so I know they can do it.)
Just do the same for bases. (But limit the number of engines!)
2) Allow bases to have emergency propulsion units, but allow EPs on bases to work only in combat. This would be really sweet because it would introduce a lot of strategy into the use of the limited number of EPs. Actually, I don't see why EPs can't be used during combat for all ships.
3) Allow ships to fire on their fellow ships during combat. In particular, allow tractor and repulsor beams to do this. This would allow players to put attractor/repulsor beams on ships and/or WPs that they could use to maneuver their bases and/or satellites into position during tactical combat. You could repulse it out to within weapons range, fire, then attract it back close to the planet. Gives new meaning to the concept of shoot-and-scoot, eh?

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 11 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Trying to break the design classes like this seems awfully desperate to me. Load your starbase with MISSILES. They have enough range to cover any planet. You could make a missile mount for bases that extends the range a bit more, even. Or load it with fighter bays... That would be fairly cheap compared to weapons. You could also make weapon mounts for WPs more powerful as I have so that a given WP is equivalent to a much larger ship or base.

The changes we have been requesting to how planets can be damage would help, too. If you had to close in and use special weapons to kill off a planet's population it would be easier to protect. As things are now, you can just stand off and fire whatever standard long-range weapons you have on your ships.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

i think fighters do get strategic movement. i have not tried it, but i hear people talking about moving them with fleets, or launching and moving them independantly. also, i remember from way back someone mentioned deploying them at a warp point and moing them back to a planet to resupply. I believe their limitation is that they cant warp.

so you would have little spacestations flitting about your system. what do you think this is, deep space 9? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by Puke (edited 09 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Well, I know that in MOO2 tactical combat you would have a base right between the planet and enemy. Why, for crying out loud, can't this be done here? If somebody wants to get to the planet he would need to get through that base or go all the way around to get to the far side. If he does go around he would lose lots of turns, so he just won't be able to do much damage to planet.

As for that tactic that is used on bases it can be countered by making larger size mounts for point-defense cannons that will have longer ranges (that will make them fire more then once on the incoming seekers) for both bases, weapon-platforms and satellites. It is a solution that AI will be able to use. Also you can add a +1 range per mount size to all weapon-platforms. It will make them much more useful (I already did that in my games).

The satellites are even more useless as they are now. I think that the player or AI should be able position them before the tactical combat starts, and to be able to divide them in Groups (AI would use 5 unit Groups like fighters, and would position them all around the planet).

I really think that these changes would fix the problem and that it wouldn't take too long for MM to make it work.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

You are right, Daynarr. These changes would help a lot.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Trying to break the design classes like this seems awfully desperate to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Desperate times call for desperate measures.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Load your starbase with MISSILES. They have enough range to cover any planet. You could make a missile mount for bases that extends the range a bit more, even. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You'd have to REALLY extend the range, if the enemy fleet is on the other side of your huge planet. And what if the enemy fleet has very good PDCs?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Or load it with fighter bays... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not an option early in the game. And again, it's a strategy that is defeatable by PDCs. Also, fighters are susceptible to wars of attrition, because ships often escape from a battle badly damaged but fixable, whereas fighters have to be rebuilt. The attacker can bring a lot of repair ships and fix everything in one turn, but fighters can only be built so fast. (Because of the one shipyard/planet limitation. Yet another reason to get rid of it, or better yet, overhaul the construction system entirely.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You could also make weapon mounts for WPs more powerful...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but WPs are limited to combat-type stuff, they're not as big as bases, and they take up storage space so they're not as good for defending tiny planets.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
If you had to close in and use special weapons to kill off a planet's population it would be easier to protect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, that would help, but attackers could still go to the far side of the planet and remain mostly untouchable by a base.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Puke:
i think fighters do get strategic movement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I believe you. But I know for a fact that fighters did NOT get strategic movement in early demos. So my point is that it would be easy to put code in to allow bases to have tactical (i.e., combat) movement but not strategic movement. Or maybe the code is already there, and some flag in a data file controls it.

Of course, you'd also have to limit the number of engines to one. Maybe even limit the movement to one, or make base engines not usable every turn, or make them expendable, or make them unreliable, etc. Bases should move ponderously; they should not flit under any circumstances. But they shouldn't be rendered useless just by being on the wrong side of a planet.

Warning: Repetitious rant coming.
If MM is intent on not allowing bases to move and modders can't find a way around it, then at a BARE minimum (and this has been pointed out often):
a) bases should be positioned between planet and enemy, and/or
b) multiple bases should be distributed symmetrically.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

You know, it's just possible that starbases, or any bases, are not the best option for defending a planet! The thing that was UNrealistic was the old SE II/MOO system of forcing you to go through the bases to reach the planet. It's quite realistic to be able to go around them as you can now.

Try satellites. Launch them in Groups of no more than 20 (I recommend 10, actually) so the Groups will be spread around and give better coverage. Increase the cargo space of all planets in the planetsize.txt file so there's more room for WPs. We have discussed this issue in the beta forums. There's no realistic limit for planet capacity. It's just a convention required by the game to have a finite setting. Ten times more cargo capacity for planets would not be unrealistic, though maybe the game couldn't handle it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Maybe you could even increase the size of WPs then. If they were 400/600/800kt instead of 200/400/600kt you could have more efficiency. You might add a "Mega WP" of 2000kt for that matter and build your "ground starbase".

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

This "Ground Starbase" idea is interesting. If you did make some super WP is there anyway to flag it so that it would be the recipeant of all fire untill it is destroyed?

Not very realistic but dangit, it's what I want...

Also, I believe there is some way to adjust the amount of damage a specific weapon type does against a planet in one of the data files, but my question is how many of the files have to be modded? Is it just one main file or does each race have its own file that would have to be modded?

------------------
Character is best defined as that which you do when you believe nobody is watching.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Star Bases that have combat but no strategic movement are already possible. I have included this in my mod (1MP max). Made a special Station Keeping Engine for bases only (similar component could be made for satellites too). Only problem with these moving bases/satellites is that AI tends to attack with them, leaving the planet defenseless against smart player http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif.
I have been searching the files for a way to limit bases movement on planets orbit, but atm i think it's not possible.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
You know, it's just possible that starbases, or any bases, are not the best option for defending a planet! The thing that was UNrealistic was the old SE II/MOO system of forcing you to go through the bases to reach the planet. It's quite realistic to be able to go around them as you can now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you know, bases are not all that mobile, and even if they orbited, they would not orbit durring the course of an attack. if you had multiple bases, they should obviously be space equidistantly about the planet, but come on, if you were attacking a planet, why would you NOT go arround the starbases? this is a neat discussion, but i think its trying to find a solution for a problem that isnt there.

If the starbases were always in front of the attacker, you can bet I would be peeved about the psychically-teleporting-starbases. starbases are, however, a very good defense for warp points (if you can get them built there.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Well, must admit that Puke has a point. I wouldn't want movable bases so badly if
1) multiple bases were distributed around a planet, and
2) single bases were put between the attacker and planet INITIALLY (I never meant to imply that they'd get adjusted throughout combat), and
3) bases used opportunity fire or had greater weapons range.

However, you have to keep in mind during these mobility discussions that bases are not the only things in orbit around a planet. Once an attacking ship comes close to a planet, it will also be in orbit (in a sense). So I don't see why bases must be inherently immovable while ships are free to travel any way they please.


Also like Baron's points about storage space (points that he and others have made more extensively in previous topics). But again, you need opportunity fire or greater weapons range for the defense platforms.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Well, there are 2 reasons why I don't like to have bases move in combat:

1) AI doesn't use them well. He will go after the attackers and leave planet undefended. Also, that doesn't help bases against the move in-fire-move out tactic. Ships can have 4, 5 or 6 combat movement and against that 1 movement is as good as none. Basically that movement has no use at all.

2) They look just plain silly. A moving starbase that is chasing my ships across the space??? Or a bunch of satellites??? The whole point of having bases and satellites is to have static planetary defenses around the planet in combat. Having movement on them just kills the only reason of their existence. It is NORMAL to be able to go around some of the static defenses. Think of the planet as some sort of the base camp, and Starbases as some sort of the defensive towers around camp (and satellites as gun emplacements). How would you feel to see those towers move around the base in combat??? Silly is an understatement.

The whole problem is in placement guys. Whey they get placed well around the planet, they will be useful. It is the easiest solution and only MM can do it. So what I suggest is, since that issue appears to be important, that everybody mail MM about this problem so they can start working on it (and initiative too - it is sort of a cheating against AI as it is now).

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 10 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Puke said:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> i think fighters do get strategic movement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I responded:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I believe you. But I know for a fact that fighters did NOT get strategic movement in early demos. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry everyone, I was totally wrong. The fighters just didn't get any movement for the turn on which they were launched. After that, they had strategic movement (but no warp point transiting). My bad.

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 11 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dmm:
The fighters just didn't get any movement for the turn on which they were launched. After that, they had strategic movement (but no warp point transiting).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which I think is wrong. It should maybe at the most cost them one movement point to launch but the whole can't move after launch thing is kind of silly imo. Fighters should be quick reaction forces and I don't call that a quick reaction.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

I think that restriction is to make sure you don't use carries to form a chain and allow "endless" movement...

Consider, you have a single carrier and there are several enemy vessels around all in diffrent locations, you could launch and attack one enemy then go back to the carrier and get "recovered", then launch again and have full movement! Even if they coded the fighters to "remember" how much movement they EACH have (which I do not think would be easy, and would be a drain on memory if you had Hundreds of fighters), you still have the problem of a carrier chasing down an opponet... In one turn you get the carrier's movement + the fighter's movement, but this is all in the same .1 year... fighter's have to travel at the speed of the carrier to get to the location and then their .1 year is up...

Well, this is ofcource IMNSHO...

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

I think Trachmyr is exactly right about why fighters don't move on the turn of their launch. It is probably more a programming limitation than MM's idea of how it "should" work.

A few ways to change that without having to track the movement points of each fighter would be:

(a) Track whether a fighter has been recovered this turn and don't let it launch again if it has. This still requires individual tracking of fighters, but only a "bit" for each (recovered or not) instead of a "word" for each (number of movement points remaining).

(b) Don't let carriers & planets both launch and recover in the same turn. I think this would be an improvement over the current system because you could launch & execute a strike in the same turn. You still could not launch the strike, recover after the strike and beat feet all in the same turn, though (which is proper carrier-like behavior).

(c) In combination with (a), make fighters have to land by the end of the turn or be lost. This would be my preference ("fighters" sitting in space indefinately seems unrealistic). To cut down on the record keeping, you could somewhat adapt what Starfire does. There, you can't launch individual fighters. You have to launch Groups of 6 (which they call "squadrons" but I would call "flights" because of the small number). I would propose creating fighter units in SE4, under whatever name, which would work like fleets. There would be a minimum & maximum number of fighters allowed when you create a fighter unit, although casualties could reduce it below the minimum (you could not add above the max. All fighters in the same unit would have to be of the same design. Whether a fighter has launched or not would be tracked by unit, not by individual fighter (to cut down on the record-keeping). You can transfer fighters between units (but not while in space), or between units and cargo storage, but not OUT of any unit which has already recovered that turn. That allows you to freely reorganize before you launch, but not to put fighters which have already sortied into a different unit where they can sortie again. If you try to land a fighter unit someplace that can hold some but not all of its fighters, you would lose the excess (with a warning & chance to change your mind, of course). Fighter units could be part of a fleet, and would gain experience like a ship (individual fighters would not).

I also have some thoughts on the subject of moving bases. In tactical combat, the defender should be allowed to set up where he likes before the attacker is placed on the board. Assume bases have some inherent "station keeping drive" that can handle that sort of movement, but can't move them during combat or between sectors on the system map. Can attackers hit the planet from the other side? Sure, that is the inherent problem with static defenses. Build multiple bases so you can put them all around. Less efficient that ships, but again that is the inherent problem with static defenses. I would support a new type of "ground base", though, which would be on the planet surface and thus "on" the planet during combat like a Weapon Platform, but not cargo and not moveable. Rather, it would count as a facility. Each hull size of ground base would get a certain amount of "free" armor (doesn't count against its tonnage), to reflect that it is buried under rock, concrete, etc...

As far as stategic movement of bases goes, I have some thoughts there as well. I don't like the idea of space yards in ships (ever been to a real shipyard?) so I changed the space yard components in my data set to only be allowed in bases. However, I 'd like an ability as in Starfire to assemble a base remotely. You would have an option when building a base to "build as cargo", in which case it would appear when finished as a cargo item and be non-functional. You could use more than one ship to carry it as long as all of them are in the same fleet. When the ship(s) carrying it get where you want it, you would need something with repair capability to assemble it (there would be an "assemble base" order available to anything having repair capability). The base would then appear as a with all the components in need of repair (as if it had undergone a retrofit affecting every component), and have to be repaired. The process could be reversed (again using something other than itself having repair capability) to disassemble it to be reassembled or scrapped elsewhere.

One Last idea about space yard components. Even mounted in a base (or ship, if you haven't made my mod), they should not be allowed to build anything unless the base is at an inhabited planet that the base's owner controls. Again, real shipyards are not operated by a "crew" that lives on board. They employ wads of civilian workers who live in the surrounding community. No surrounding community (i.e. co-located colony), no workers. No workers, no construction.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

I have to disagree with you about no spaceyards in ships... robotic factories could easily handle such a thing (even today if we ever built something big enough to hold it), but perhaps a restriction on how big they can build something... for instance each shipyard (400 tons) can build a max of 200ton ship... perhaps this getting better as the facility improves (to where eventually a baseship could build a dreadnought or heavy carrier with 3 shipyards)... Also the rate of production should be lowered, but only if MM allows multiple shipyards to contribute to the rate of production...

Additionally, there should be NANOTECH in the game, and this would vastly improve the effectiveness of shipyards.

As a final note, perhaps building ships with a shipyard should also use supplies equal to the amount of resources used... thus you would have to be either at a port or have a fleet of resupply ships to allow a shipyard to produce massive fleets on the front line.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

As Trachmyr said space yards should have size limits on what they can build. But I don't think in the way he wants it. Space Yard Facilities should not be able to build anything bigger then 600kT (Battle Cruisers) and Space Yard Components should be more powerful and be able to build the biggest ships. Either they should be so powerful as to be better then a SYF with max pop bonus or they should get the pop bonus from the planet they are orbiting. I'd prefer simple raw power.

Why like this? Look at the size of the bigger ships. A BB is 800 000 Tonnes ship designed for use in deep space, not on a planet. It can't handle the stress of gravity when landed and just boosting the thing into orbit would cause heavy pollution.

At least that's my opinion. Maybe I placed the cutoff wrong (600kT) but it needs to be there imo.

Edit:
Forgot, I want to be able to build stuff in pieces like cargo and assemble on site (bases to deploy at warp points). Or at least tow the bases around.

[This message has been edited by Jubala (edited 14 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

I'm sure that these ground facilities have the ability to build large craft in orbit, these races are much more advanced than our 1970's space shuttle program... Why I believe that ship shipyards should be limited is the fact that you need labor and heavy macinery which is much more difficult to fit on a ship/base than a planet.

IMO that is...

[This message has been edited by Trachmyr (edited 14 January 2001).]

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

Well eliminating shipboard spaceyards will also kill Sphereworlds and Ringworlds. I realize that they won't be built too often but I have a game going now where I am building about 10 Spherewords just to see if I can.

Re: Useful Starbases! ? Modders, please respond.
 

If you assume that there is nanotech & robotic industry everywhere, then planets & population are completely irrelevant. All that matters under that paradigm are resources. You would not bother with colonization. You'd just park shiploads of nanobots in asteroid belts and they would crank out - more nanobots. Weapons would just be - more nanobots which would "eat" enemy hardware and make more of themselves out of it. It wouldn't look much like SE4, which is more "space opera". I prefer a SF paradigm in which we just see incremental improvements vs how things are done today (which is pretty much what "space opera" means - modern day or historical naval paradigms translated into space, with tech that is better but similar in principle to that which goes with the historical paradigm). So, I "reality check" things against my real-life experience (retired USNR CPO, 8 years active duty in submarines, on the commissioning crew for one new boat so I know a lot about shipyards).

Aside from the above, a practical reason that I don't like space yards in ships is that it reduces the value of real estate. The industrial base that realy counts is your space yards. If you can't move them, or at least not quickly (assuming my proposal for remote assembly of bases were in effect), then you have to defend the place they are. Otherwise, you just move them at first indication an enemy has seen the system they are in. In fact, to increase the importance of real estate & population I think it might be a good idea to give a production bonus to space yard bases based on the population of the planet they orbit (have to think that through more, though).

As to building ring & sphere worlds, if you could remote assemble a base as I have proposed, you could still build them pretty much as today. That not being in place, in my own data set when I killed space yard components in ships, I also reduced the size of all the ring & sphere world associated components so they will fit in a base ship.