donkey_roxor
Posts: 45
Joined: 1/23/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fbs Why would an inland base with a lot of aircrafts have a large tank farm to store ship fuel? Fuel is not used by aircrafts, transported by them or stored in airports. But fuel is used by industry, right? So fuel is not simply just ship fuel. That being said, you are right that aircraft don't use fuel. Maybe airfield rating could be thought of as representative of an overall infrastructure capability? quote:
Its true that airfield and port size indicate logistics capacity, but they are not the only ones. Heavy industry, refineries and oil wells also indicate logistics capacity, and these plus port size are a better indicator for fuel capacity than airfields. I agree, especially re the heavy industry, refineries, and oil wells. quote:
That's because inland bases do not store fuel - they are just transfer fuel from one place to another. The losses due to transfer are already calculated during the transfer itself, so you don't need to add spoilage. The fact that inland bases end up with ship fuel is just temporary and incidental to the transfer routine. The purpose of disabling spoilage of fuel for inland places is just to allow the transfer routine to resolve itself without penalizing the player with spoilage losses caused by the computer storing ship fuel in a place that should have stored no ship fuel at all. Why wouldn't inland bases store fuel? I believe there were inland fuel storage facilities, to prevent possible seaborne attacks. I guess my interpretation is that the port/airfield ratings are indicative of the overall infrastructure at a particular base, and it's reasonable to link the overall base infrastructure to storage. It would certainly be more realistic to have a distinct network for fuel transfer, such as fuel storage depots, fuel transfer pipelines, etc, but given that these are abstracted, why not tie it to base size?
|