Actually that's not a bad mechanic for the game? You could forcibly jerry-rig a new type of equipment into an old frame (e.g. field modification without proper retrofit at the shipyard) but there is an increasing chance of catastrophic failure on use, destroying both the ship and all its components (probability dependent on age gap between the component and it's ship)... Ouch.

your talking about the modeling the ability to tell "Scotty" to jury rig something.

of course "repairs at sea" should be modeled! and of course your engineer's skill should affect outcome!

Don't think in terms of game mechanics, think in terms of what you want to simulate in your game world.

Because (insert science fiction excuse here)... Excessive subspace stress, space folding friction. Take your pick?

(personal opinion):

contrived, hokey, unrealistic.

as designer's we can do better than that.

as player's we want better than that.

and our paying customers deserve better than that.

Because (insert science fiction excuse here)... Excessive subspace stress, space folding friction. Take your pick?

(personal opinion):

contrived, hokey, unrealistic.

as designer's we can do better than that.

as player's we want better than that.

and our paying customers deserve better than that.

the computer can decide for the player what to research.

hull type is irrelevant.

Are you SURE? A ship might have a 50 year old hull barely capable of sub light speeds. You just try strapping that brand new warp/wormhole drive into it and see how long it takes before you turn the crew inside out...

Actually that's not a bad mechanic for the game? You could forcibly jerry-rig a new type of equipment into an old frame (e.g. field modification without proper retrofit at the shipyard) but there is an increasing chance of catastrophic failure on use, destroying both the ship and all its components (probability dependent on age gap between the component and it's ship)... Ouch.

No, I'm not sure :) Outdated hulls are nice... Yet, hulls in my game are quite unique and the new ones are not simply "better", just different. More hull types allow you to optimize your fleet composition better, not just provide you with better firepower. If I were to make hulls outdated I would need to make replacements for these hull types in various parts of the tech tree, or resign from the hull uniqueness (and like how unique the hulls are). And I already have like 20 hull types and I was trying to limit myself (if there were 3 tiers of hull "outdateness" I would need to make 60 hull types, not a problem to me, but the players brains would explode :D)

I simply doubt it's doable with so many hulls...

Player researches new tech, any ships created from then on get new tech automaticly, any old ships get retrofitted in-space, but after a delay depending on how far out from the empire's center they are, but auto-update instantly next time they visit a planet with a shipyard.

Any spaceship of any significant star-destroyer-esque size would have to have the supplies and equipment to manufacture their own parts for repairs; basic parts, anyway, probably not huge engines and complicated circuitry, but that can be handwaved. So if your ships can produce their own parts, all that needs to be done is transmit the new details and then time to manufacture them.
Though you'd want to transmit them securely, so you aren't accidentally broadcasting military-industrial secrets to your enemies. Nor would you want your ships to be mobile archives of all your latest tech...

I mean, I don't want the realism to eat up all the fun.

Another idea, let's have "supply". Each fleet gets supply points, it's consumed at a rate of 1 supply point per ship each turn. Now, each upgrade is instant but require 2 supply points per upgraded ship (so it's equal to 2 turns of normal supply consumption).

Or supply could be replaced with money (maintenance and cost of upgrade).

Still, is it worth implementing?

So having hull types become obsolete as they age is something people would expect, because that is what happens in our world

How about "generations of ships"? You can always build the same hull, these never obsolete (technically). But, after you make a *major* discovery (like new type of armour, super electronic computer, new source of energy) you move to the "next generation of ships" (it adds roman numeral to the hull name, like: Falcon I, Falcon II, Falcon III, Falcon IV, Falcon V), there are total 5 generations of ships overall. When you moved to the next generation of ships you can only build the +I generation of hulls now, also all costs are increased by 10%. You can not modernize the older generation of ships (eventually you will want to scrap all Falcon I when you have Falcon IV in service).

These generation of ships are considered a different design (so Falcon I might have different upgrades than Falcon II).

What kind of perks each generation of ship has depends on the order in which you acquired techs. If you first went for metallurgy your II generation will have better armour, if you went first for electronics your II generation will have better computers.

If your "hulls" are a combination of useful payload space, engines and main weapons, they are still a bit complex, and having 20 or more is not surprising. Maybe some more differences could become upgrades and optional systems rather than intrinsic hull features; upgrades drastically reduce hull obsolescence.

On the other hand, multiple "designs" (e.g. low-performance inexpensive cruiser for blockades and incredibly well armed fast cruiser for planetary assault) would share the same hull.

Example: Star Trek Federation large ships, with their traditional saucer and warp nacelles design.

Constitution class (the TOS Enterprise) and the much newer Intrepid class (the Voyager) are about the same size and shape and they could therefore be the same "hull", even if the latter has more advanced engines, weapons, computers and everything else. Different hull shapes and arrangements are likely to be insignificant, and other classes of similar size and role, like those that are similar to the Enterprise with 1, 3 or 4 warp nacelles, are presumably similar enough too.

On the other hand the Galaxy class (the main TNG Enterprise) is about twice as large, enough to be treated as a different hull with more cargo capacity.

Important Star Trek ships tend to be destroyed or fade into oblivion, but rebuilding would allow them to be updated to new technology; typical Star trek rebuilds would include experimental weapons, faster warp drives, fancy computers, better sensors.

I realized there are 2 separate things here. Progress and customization.

Progress means +1 to damage, +2 to damage, +3 to damage. It happens over time (research) and there is no real choice (player always wants to install the best lasers available). It should not involve the player.

Customization means choices like do we want thicker armour or more guns, speed vs defence, etc (so basicly how to use available space on the ship). It must involve the player.

So, progress and customization should be separated...

Maybe like this: you research (progress) better lasers and all ships are auto upgraded with these (+1, +2, +3), same for armour, reactor, shields, scanners, basic computers.

Then you have specialized modules (customization), each ship has 3-5 slots let's say. You don't put there any weapons, shields, etc per se, but boosters to these components. Like you have scanner tech level 3 (progress, auto installed) and then add a module "+50% to scanners" (so your final scanner level is 4.5) or a bit more fancy "scanner level adds to targetting vs incoming missiles" or "scanners can detect cloaking". Modules cost nothing, you want to always use up all slots; there are some limits (unique modules, like you can have only one "thicker armour" module). You can reinstall modules after the ship is built.