Mission archive / player record
Follow each accepted command and incident, then inspect the base as it looked at that point in the mission.
Base design / strengths and weaknesses
This base finished with 1 modules and 0 corridor cells, including 0 greenhouse modules, 0 water modules and 0 utility modules. Connecting 100% of modules to the habitat is a clear layout strength: most installed equipment had a route into the base network. Protective modules accounted for 0% of module cost, leaving limited evidence of deliberate protection against a route or utility failure. A greenhouse-to-water distance could not be calculated because one module type was absent. A greenhouse-to-utility distance was unavailable because one module type was absent. Shorter distances can simplify a design, but distance alone does not show whether a corridor is connected, has enough flow capacity or survives a hazard.
The layout's weak point should be judged against what happened during operation: average water reserve was 38.56, and 1 crisis events were recorded. The water margin was less obviously constrained, but individual turns may still reveal a bottleneck. Compare the map with the operation and incident timelines to see whether a single corridor or utility was repeatedly stressed. In the next mission, retain the same crops and care settings while changing one connection or adding a backup route; compare delivered resources, harvests and crisis turns. This is a diagnosis of the simulated network and its observed outcomes, not proof that the same geometry would work on the Moon.
Distances are geometric. Follow the replay to inspect actual connections and turn results.
Selected moment
No actions queued; turn ended
Critical resource condition
Accepted player commands
Select an entry to show the base immediately after that step. Minigame input proofs are omitted from the readable log.
Unexpected events