Why can I build only one Cargo landing pad ?

[Artful]

First, I know, mods fix that and I'm glad they exist ( I recommend this one https://mods.factorio.com/mod/a_lot_of_cargo_pads, it transform the landing pad into a requester chest, instead of an annoying buffer chest )

I'm just wondering why ? Why is it like that ?

The entire game is based on : "you can always expand, always have more". Why not the Landing pad ? In my base, I've build all around the Landing pad. I've created a mess of Transport belts, thinking "as long as it works it's ok, I'll build a new proper production next to the old one, when I'll need it, like for every others." But no. Why ? Without a mod I would have had to destroy everything around my Landing pad and re-do.

I think this isn't the "Factorio spirit". I shouldn't need to destroy anything. My first production lines are always a mess, and once I understand how to do it properly, I rebuild next to it ! And then I rebuild again but bigger and better, and again ... etc.

Never have I had to wipe out anything in this game because it was badly done the first time.

Plus it forces you to a centralisation I really don't like.

[Vyndicu]

Pivoting back to the original topic.


I am not alone in thinking that it is absurd to ship 500 wood from a rocket silo on the same-surface to another faraway location same-surface with a cargo landing pad on the same surface.

Before the productivity bonus, 50 rocket fuels, 50 light density structures, and 50 processing units are consumed by a rocket silo to launch a rocket with 1,000 MJ worth of energy in the form of wood.

Each rocket fuel has an energy value of 100 MJ and has an opportunity cost of 5,000 MJ, again before productivity, to launch a rocket. That represents a negative 4,000 MJ opportunity cost in the form of energy to move some wood.

I do not see an exploit since a train does identical logistics from A to B with significantly less opportunity-cost energy loss, without a space platform in orbit, significantly lower opportunity-cost infrastructure, and does not need multiple production lines to facilitate rocket launches at different locations.


Unironically, there may be a few maybe items that may be worth the opportunity cost, but not many: copper wires (4k in a single rocket launch, which is half of a train wagon maximum capacity) and fusion fuel cell*.


Replace the wood with any other rocket-transportable items; engineers will face the same problem except for the two items I listed above in terms of opportunity cost sink to move items in this manner (same-surface rocket silo to another far away location on the same-surface with a landing cargo pad).



Fusion Fuel Cell*: can't ship liquid ammonia onboard a rocket and will almost certainly be shipped to other worlds instead of launched from same-surface rocket silo to a faraway same-surface location).

Despite the significantly higher energy density, it is not worth doing same-surface launches to another location same-surface, where asteroids in orbit of Aquilo can destroy a space platform without significant resource upkeep.

[Hurkyl]

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

Messaggio originale di PunCrathod:

*snipped*

There is a hyperlinked quotation that I can click on, and there is a non-hyperlinked quotation that I can't click on.

And the non-hyperlinked quotation is repeating part of the hyperlinked quotation. Not to mention that quote has been quoted repeatedly in the thread of discussion.

Anyways, to continue this line of thought

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

does not need multiple production lines to facilitate rocket launches at different locations.

You wouldn't need another production line: you have your rocket logistics. To look at the math for fun....

Rockets can carry 300 Processing Units, 200 LDS, or 100 Rocket Fuel. So without productivity in the silos, 6 rocket launches would be able supply any point on the planet with the materials to launch 6 rockets.

If you put legendary prod 3 modules in the silos, it should only take 20 rocket parts, so 6 rocket launches can supply anywhere on the planet with the supplies to launch 12 rockets.

That sounds self-sustainable.

And remember, there is no need for rails between locations to do this. You just just blueprint power lines from map mode, send a spidertron out to place a cargo landing pad, a roboport, and a few robots, and blueprint whatever you want to build. and then your rocket network can start sending supplies to finish the construction of your new production facility and keep it supplied with the ingredients for rocket parts so the new facility can send stuff back.

Maybe you can skip the power lines completely with a few solar panels in the initial kit.

(correction: 15 -> 12, since the silo would have 100% productivity, not 150%)

[POWER WITHIN USER]

Welcome to Crutch-torio! Would you like some early cliff explosives and artillery shells with your unlimited cargo pads?
For an extra dollar we'll even throw in tier 3 modules that can be built without ever dealing with the spoilage mechanic.

[Chindraba]

Forget about the cost.

There is none!!!!

Once the "base" is extracting and processing resources to support 300k SPM who cares about the 'cost' of a dozen rocket launches?

With three dozen silos you could be shipping material in a couple minutes over distances which would take a nuclear fuel powered train 10 times that long to travel. Using the platform as the way-point negates all distance. No matter where it is shipped from and where it is going to it will take the exact same time to ship.

Therein lies the exploit's root. Teleportation. At that point you might as well be using a linked-chest mod.

At the risk of offending the sensibilities of others, the material cost is zero - for both systems. The setup costs are zero - for both systems. The operational costs are zero - for both systems.

[Vyndicu]

Messaggio originale di Hurkyl:

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

does not need multiple production lines to facilitate rocket launches at different locations.

You wouldn't need another production line: you have your rocket logistics. To look at the math for fun....

Rockets can carry 300 Processing Units, 200 LDS, or 100 Rocket Fuel. So without productivity in the silos, 6 rocket launches would be able supply any point on the planet with the materials to launch 6 rockets.

I will stop and respond to this right here and delve into this subject to show this is not a cheap endeavor.


A rocket silo needs 50 rocket fuel to launch a rocket with 100 rocket fuels. That is three rocket launches supporting six launches without on-site production lines.

A rocket silo needs 50 LDS to launch a rocket with 200 LDS. That is two launches support six launches without on-site production lines.

A rocket silo needs 50 processing units to launch a rocket with 300 processing units. That is one launch supporting six launches without on-site production lines.


For an engineer to launch six rockets at a remote rocket silo, six rockets have to be launched beforehand to move the material over. That is a total committed investment of 600 processing units, 600 LDS, and 600 rocket fuels before productivity modifiers.

Adding productivity modules will not make the entire thing cheap enough to be sustainable in a meaningful way, as productivity modules also have opportunity costs of their own.

Messaggio originale di Hurkyl:

If you put legendary prod 3 modules in the silos, it should only take 20 rocket parts, so 6 rocket launches can supply anywhere on the planet with the supplies to launch 15 rockets.

At the initial read, something seems off.


I tested four productivity tier 3 Q5 in the rocket silo. It takes 25 processing units, 25 LDS, and 25 rocket fuels—without any technology rocket silo productivity bonus.

A single productivity tier 3 Q5 adds 25% productivity, and rocket silo has room for four modules for a cumulative 100% productivity bonus. At 100% productivity, engineers get two crafts for one part, hence the 25 crafts. At 0% productivity, it takes fifty crafts.

To get a launch cost down to "20 rocket parts," it would take '150%' of productivity modifiers to reach a launch cost that low.

Without modules, to get fifteen levels of rocket part productivity technology researched for 150% rocket part productivity modifier, it takes 875k science research packs of each of the following types: red/green/blue/purple/cryogenic to research and unlock the fifteenth level.

Rocket parts productivity technology: 10% * fifteen = 150% from research alone.

Alternatively, five rocket parts productivity technology levels (five * 10% = 50% ) with 100% from productivity modules also work. That still represents non-trivial feeding packs to labs and producing all those science packs on top of 'gambling' for productivity modules tier 3 Q5.



By pointing out how many rocket parts are needed, it is clear that researching a 15-level-repeatable-cumulative-4.375-million-science-pack-expensive technology without productivity modules (not counting the previous fourteen repeatable science-pack tech costs) is better than building a considerable distance train logistics network.

Switching to just five repeatable levels requires 75 thousand science packs total and a non-trivial effort to mass-produce tier 3 Q5 modules.


I am amazed by the lack of forethought here.

Messaggio originale di Hurkyl:

That sounds self-sustainable.

Train logistics costs a tiny bit of one of the following: coals, solid fuel, rocket fuels, or any other material with fuel value to move hundreds of chunks.

Unlocking trains and using them as logistics is significantly cheaper technology-wise, and trains can handle an enormous load that would take multiple rocket launches.

Messaggio originale di Hurkyl:

And remember, there is no need for rails between locations to do this. You just just blueprint power lines from map mode, send a spidertron out to place a cargo landing pad, a roboport, and a few robots, and blueprint whatever you want to build. and then your rocket network can start sending supplies to finish the construction of your new production facility and keep it supplied with the ingredients for rocket parts so the new facility can send stuff back.

Maybe you can skip the power lines completely with a few solar panels in the initial kit.

I don't see how any of this has to do with the 'opportunity cost' of launching multiple rockets to support a remote outpost or rocket silos or whatever else on the same-surface.


Radar can send a signal across a vast distance on the same-surface —no power poles or circuit wires between faraway locations are required. But both radars have to be powered for it to work.


Constantly supplying the remote outpost with materials/ingredients/buildings runs in the same barrier as providing the necessary parts to build and support remote rocket silos.


Engineers are forbidden from launching a built rocket silo anywhere. So if an engineer wishes to place a remote rocket silo, they have to supply the raw material (concretes, steel, processing units, pipes, and electric engines) and then build it physically there in place or transport it via spidertron or construction train to the site. The cargo landing pad weighs so much that only one can fit in a single rocket launch.


Putting everything together that I have outlined in this post and earlier posts completely undercuts the various arguments that this is a cheating or exploitative usage of having more than one cargo landing pad on the same-surface.

[Maltsi]

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

Forget about the cost.

There is none!!!!

Once the "base" is extracting and processing resources to support 300k SPM who cares about the 'cost' of a dozen rocket launches?

With three dozen silos you could be shipping material in a couple minutes over distances which would take a nuclear fuel powered train 10 times that long to travel. Using the platform as the way-point negates all distance. No matter where it is shipped from and where it is going to it will take the exact same time to ship.

Therein lies the exploit's root. Teleportation. At that point you might as well be using a linked-chest mod.

At the risk of offending the sensibilities of others, the material cost is zero - for both systems. The setup costs are zero - for both systems. The operational costs are zero - for both systems.

You are compairing three dozens rockets to one train, what about three dozen trains? in order to support that amount of rockets, you already need a train network. Sure it could transport items fast from one place to another, its just that the animation times are so long that your train with 10-40x more stuff is already delivered and unloaded before the rockets arrive (and thats just 1 wagon). The distances would have to be insane to be better than just using trains.

[Chindraba]

Messaggio originale di Maltsi:

The distances would have to be insane to be better than just using trains.

Test it!

How fast can you load and launch a rocket and then get the output available in the landing pod? I guessed 2 minutes above, but that is probably much longer than needed. It's probably closer to 10 sec. more than the launch animation - which to be honest in such a case would be the short version since a rocket would always be ready.

In that given amount of time, using a single wagon train powered with nuclear fuel, how far can a train travel from a stopped, and just loaded, condition at one stop, to the ready to unload condition at the second stop? Use clear rails without any other train traffic - the best possible condition. Anything over that distance is a solid win for the rocket-drop system. Capacity don't matter because that's just a byproduct of the cost, which has already been shown as a non-issue at scale.

Messaggio originale di Maltsi:

in order to support that amount of rockets, you already need a train network.

Why? If the rocket-drop system is used for output for everything else, why would anyone use the train network just for the rocket parts? They can be drop-shipped just like everything else.

[PunCrathod]

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

For an engineer to launch six rockets at a remote rocket silo, six rockets have to be launched beforehand to move the material over.

Incorrect. It is quite trivial to make the materials to launch rockets on a space platform. Zero rockets need to be launched to move the material over.

[Chindraba]

Messaggio originale di PunCrathod:

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

For an engineer to launch six rockets at a remote rocket silo, six rockets have to be launched beforehand to move the material over.

Incorrect. It is quite trivial to make the materials to launch rockets on a space platform. Zero rockets need to be launched to move the material over.

Neat idea, if the single pod rule is dropped. Just have a few platforms in orbit, of each planet, making the rocket pieces. Drop them to each silo location as needed. Build the rocket there and launch it back up with the material to be drop-shipped somewhere else. Makes platforms and rockets completely replace trains, and all that puzzle involves, for anything over around 200 tiles distant. (200 is an absolute guess, but my prior post, if followed, would find the real number simple enough.)

[Maltsi]

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

Messaggio originale di PunCrathod:

Incorrect. It is quite trivial to make the materials to launch rockets on a space platform. Zero rockets need to be launched to move the material over.

Neat idea, if the single pod rule is dropped. Just have a few platforms in orbit, of each planet, making the rocket pieces. Drop them to each silo location as needed. Build the rocket there and launch it back up with the material to be drop-shipped somewhere else. Makes platforms and rockets completely replace trains, and all that puzzle involves, for anything over around 200 tiles distant. (200 is an absolute guess, but my prior post, if followed, would find the real number simple enough.)

I will do proper testing bit later, got no time right now. Regardless of what the distance will be, the question is do you want to build 1 train, or 100 rocket pads. while the cost is nothing in late game, the required space for rockets to replace trains is something to consider. If it takes something like 50 rockets to replace single wagon, its gonna be massive since late game bases easily uses 500+ trains (and vastly more than just 1 wagon per each)

[PunCrathod]

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

Messaggio originale di PunCrathod:

Incorrect. It is quite trivial to make the materials to launch rockets on a space platform. Zero rockets need to be launched to move the material over.

Neat idea, if the single pod rule is dropped. Just have a few platforms in orbit, of each planet, making the rocket pieces. Drop them to each silo location as needed. Build the rocket there and launch it back up with the material to be drop-shipped somewhere else. Makes platforms and rockets completely replace trains, and all that puzzle involves, for anything over around 200 tiles distant. (200 is an absolute guess, but my prior post, if followed, would find the real number simple enough.)

As an added bonus space platforms have infinite resources from asteroids so once set up you never have to touch it again. A lot of the stuff you'd want to build is just a slightly offset landing pad next to a rocket silo and a couple really highspeed assemblers/foundrys/whatever next to both of them. Zero belts or trains needed. Even mining would just be big mining drills next to rocket silos and landing pads. If you look at the recipes there are surprisingly few things that need to be done on a planet. The rest you can just make in space.

[Vyndicu]

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

Messaggio originale di Maltsi:

The distances would have to be insane to be better than just using trains.

Test it!

Been there and done that.

Maltsi is correct, and I will go into the what, how, and why a bit later.

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

How fast can you load and launch a rocket and then get the output available in the landing pod? I guessed 2 minutes above, but that is probably much longer than needed. It's probably closer to 10 sec. more than the launch animation - which to be honest in such a case would be the short version since a rocket would always be ready.

In that given amount of time, using a single wagon train powered with nuclear fuel, how far can a train travel from a stopped, and just loaded, condition at one stop, to the ready to unload condition at the second stop? Use clear rails without any other train traffic - the best possible condition. Anything over that distance is a solid win for the rocket-drop system. Capacity don't matter because that's just a byproduct of the cost, which has already been shown as a non-issue at scale.

Why? If the rocket-drop system is used for output for everything else, why would anyone use the train network just for the rocket parts? They can be drop-shipped just like everything else.

One can also conversely take the equivalent ore costs of "space platform + rocket silos + assemblers it takes to produce the necessary rocket parts" and translate it into multiple trains (bigger than 1-1 configuration).

All of a sudden, the rocket silo to same-surface strategy falls apart because it is unable to compete with something that can carry thousands of stacks at a lower opportunity cost.

I am looking at a single rocket silo and see that it costs 1000 steel to craft. I am ignoring the other material costs, production-setup/infrastructures, and the constant upkeep of raw materials for everything else for now.

That is approximately 5k iron plates sunk into a single rocket silo construction. I can instead build approximately 35 wagons (rounded down since I can't partially craft a wagon). A wagon costs 140 iron plates. 5000 divided by 140 = ~35.7.

It would take a single rocket silo four launches per wagon to match the same throughput (iron plates in wagon = 4k, and the rocket is limited to 1k iron plates). Then, take a logistic network with a constant 35 wagons dropping/pickup back and forth at any length.

It would take a single rocket silo 140 launches to match the same throughput, and I believe it takes ~30 seconds to launch a rocket (WUBE source: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-405 ). This fact ignores the destination's capacity to handle incoming cargo pods. It might or might not be able to handle this kind of throughput.

That single rocket silo will take on a minimum of seventy minutes to move 140,000 iron plates. Remember, this figure only looks at the equivalent cost of a single rocket silo' of steel cost translated to wagons. So that train will outcompete a rocket silo at 70 minutes at the train's maximum velocity.


Now we have the what and how. Is it an exploit to invest so many resources to move 140k iron plates from A to B?

No, especially not considering how much resources it costs to build the entirety of the same-surface rocket logistics infrastructure and then ongoing resources sunken into processing-units/light-desnsity-structures/rocket-fuel.

Why? Because everything put forward in this hypothetical scenario where the cost is unmentioned or unaccounted for ignores the reality of the amount of initial resources and ongoing resources sunk to accomplish this. Other alternatives exist, cost significantly less technology-wise, are considerably cheaper, and are available sooner in larger quantities.

Messaggio originale di Maltsi:

I will do proper testing bit later, got no time right now. Regardless of what the distance will be, the question is do you want to build 1 train, or 100 rocket pads. while the cost is nothing in late game, the required space for rockets to replace trains is something to consider. If it takes something like 50 rockets to replace single wagon, its gonna be massive since late game bases easily uses 500+ trains (and vastly more than just 1 wagon per each)

He gets it.


By the way, feel free to use my example of the rocket silo's steel cost equivalent to wagons example but then throw in everything else (space platforms, the non-steel cost for a rocket silo, etc.).

[Chindraba]

The space for 300 silos and 50 landing pads, scattered between different factories, is probably well offset by the space used for multiple train stations as well as the time to design, build and debug the massive rail network they would replace.

Granted, in your case the bots are 'off the table', for most the bots and the silos/landing pads can become a simple pair of blueprints, stamped as needed, and all the train network challenges are vaporized. That's the meat of the exploit the rule seeks to avoid. And, to be fair, 95% of the time the full adoption of that exploit would be used would be by speed runners and those making showcase, as in non-organic, megabases. The rest of us would be building up using normal progression and the multi-pod solution wouldn't be available until the rails are already built and it'd be a niche use case. It would still be used, however, and the devs apparently didn't want it used.

[PunCrathod]

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

Test it!

Been there and done that.

Maltsi is correct, and I will go into the what, how, and why a bit later.

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

How fast can you load and launch a rocket and then get the output available in the landing pod? I guessed 2 minutes above, but that is probably much longer than needed. It's probably closer to 10 sec. more than the launch animation - which to be honest in such a case would be the short version since a rocket would always be ready.

In that given amount of time, using a single wagon train powered with nuclear fuel, how far can a train travel from a stopped, and just loaded, condition at one stop, to the ready to unload condition at the second stop? Use clear rails without any other train traffic - the best possible condition. Anything over that distance is a solid win for the rocket-drop system. Capacity don't matter because that's just a byproduct of the cost, which has already been shown as a non-issue at scale.

Why? If the rocket-drop system is used for output for everything else, why would anyone use the train network just for the rocket parts? They can be drop-shipped just like everything else.

One can also conversely take the equivalent ore costs of "space platform + rocket silos + assemblers it takes to produce the necessary rocket parts" and translate it into multiple trains (bigger than 1-1 configuration).

All of a sudden, the rocket silo to same-surface strategy falls apart because it is unable to compete with something that can carry thousands of stacks at a lower opportunity cost.

I am looking at a single rocket silo and see that it costs 1000 steel to craft. I am ignoring the other material costs, production-setup/infrastructures, and the constant upkeep of raw materials for everything else for now.

That is approximately 5k iron plates sunk into a single rocket silo construction. I can instead build approximately 35 wagons (rounded down since I can't partially craft a wagon). A wagon costs 140 iron plates. 5000 divided by 140 = ~35.7.

It would take a single rocket silo four launches per wagon to match the same throughput (iron plates in wagon = 4k, and the rocket is limited to 1k iron plates). Then, take a logistic network with a constant 35 wagons dropping/pickup back and forth at any length.

It would take a single rocket silo 140 launches to match the same throughput, and I believe it takes ~30 seconds to launch a rocket (WUBE source: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-405 ). This fact ignores the destination's capacity to handle incoming cargo pods. It might or might not be able to handle this kind of throughput.

That single rocket silo will take on a minimum of seventy minutes to move 140,000 iron plates. Remember, this figure only looks at the equivalent cost of a single rocket silo' of steel cost translated to wagons. So that train will outcompete a rocket silo at 70 minutes at the train's maximum velocity.


Now we have the what and how. Is it an exploit to invest so many resources to move 140k iron plates from A to B?

No, especially not considering how much resources it costs to build the entirety of the same-surface rocket logistics infrastructure and then ongoing resources sunken into processing-units/light-desnsity-structures/rocket-fuel.

Why? Because everything put forward in this hypothetical scenario where the cost is unmentioned or unaccounted for ignores the reality of the amount of initial resources and ongoing resources sunk to accomplish this. Other alternatives exist, cost significantly less technology-wise, are considerably cheaper, and are available sooner in larger quantities.

Messaggio originale di Maltsi:

I will do proper testing bit later, got no time right now. Regardless of what the distance will be, the question is do you want to build 1 train, or 100 rocket pads. while the cost is nothing in late game, the required space for rockets to replace trains is something to consider. If it takes something like 50 rockets to replace single wagon, its gonna be massive since late game bases easily uses 500+ trains (and vastly more than just 1 wagon per each)

He gets it.


By the way, feel free to use my example of the rocket silo's steel cost equivalent to wagons example but then throw in everything else (space platforms, the non-steel cost for a rocket silo, etc.).

Your example falls apart from the fact that you already have infinite iron plates on space platforms and it is free to just drop them down to anywhere you need them.

[Chindraba]

Messaggio originale di Vyndicu:

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

Test it!

Been there and done that.

Maltsi is correct, and I will go into the what, how, and why a bit later.

Messaggio originale di Chindraba:

How fast can you load and launch a rocket and then get the output available in the landing pod? I guessed 2 minutes above, but that is probably much longer than needed. It's probably closer to 10 sec. more than the launch animation - which to be honest in such a case would be the short version since a rocket would always be ready.

In that given amount of time, using a single wagon train powered with nuclear fuel, how far can a train travel from a stopped, and just loaded, condition at one stop, to the ready to unload condition at the second stop? Use clear rails without any other train traffic - the best possible condition. Anything over that distance is a solid win for the rocket-drop system. Capacity don't matter because that's just a byproduct of the cost, which has already been shown as a non-issue at scale.

Why? If the rocket-drop system is used for output for everything else, why would anyone use the train network just for the rocket parts? They can be drop-shipped just like everything else.

One can also conversely take the equivalent ore costs of "space platform + rocket silos + assemblers it takes to produce the necessary rocket parts" and translate it into multiple trains (bigger than 1-1 configuration).

All of a sudden, the rocket silo to same-surface strategy falls apart because it is unable to compete with something that can carry thousands of stacks at a lower opportunity cost.

I am looking at a single rocket silo and see that it costs 1000 steel to craft. I am ignoring the other material costs, production-setup/infrastructures, and the constant upkeep of raw materials for everything else for now.

That is approximately 5k iron plates sunk into a single rocket silo construction. I can instead build approximately 35 wagons (rounded down since I can't partially craft a wagon). A wagon costs 140 iron plates. 5000 divided by 140 = ~35.7.

It would take a single rocket silo four launches per wagon to match the same throughput (iron plates in wagon = 4k, and the rocket is limited to 1k iron plates). Then, take a logistic network with a constant 35 wagons dropping/pickup back and forth at any length.

It would take a single rocket silo 140 launches to match the same throughput, and I believe it takes ~30 seconds to launch a rocket (WUBE source: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-405 ). This fact ignores the destination's capacity to handle incoming cargo pods. It might or might not be able to handle this kind of throughput.

That single rocket silo will take on a minimum of seventy minutes to move 140,000 iron plates. Remember, this figure only looks at the equivalent cost of a single rocket silo' of steel cost translated to wagons. So that train will outcompete a rocket silo at 70 minutes at the train's maximum velocity.


Now we have the what and how. Is it an exploit to invest so many resources to move 140k iron plates from A to B?

No, especially not considering how much resources it costs to build the entirety of the same-surface rocket logistics infrastructure and then ongoing resources sunken into processing-units/light-desnsity-structures/rocket-fuel.

Why? Because everything put forward in this hypothetical scenario where the cost is unmentioned or unaccounted for ignores the reality of the amount of initial resources and ongoing resources sunk to accomplish this. Other alternatives exist, cost significantly less technology-wise, are considerably cheaper, and are available sooner in larger quantities.

Messaggio originale di Maltsi:

I will do proper testing bit later, got no time right now. Regardless of what the distance will be, the question is do you want to build 1 train, or 100 rocket pads. while the cost is nothing in late game, the required space for rockets to replace trains is something to consider. If it takes something like 50 rockets to replace single wagon, its gonna be massive since late game bases easily uses 500+ trains (and vastly more than just 1 wagon per each)

He gets it.


By the way, feel free to use my example of the rocket silo's steel cost equivalent to wagons example but then throw in everything else (space platforms, the non-steel cost for a rocket silo, etc.).

When you can discuss the realities without "cost" factors, feel free to ping me. Until then, the epistles are not worth my time to read.