Commercial faliures?

[Rich.h (OP)]

I am away that ships classed as commercial do not suffer from either maintenance failures of morale issues. But what of ships with both commercial and military parts? If I decided to stick a few plasma cannons on an otherwise commercial freighter it would become a military ship and be subject to failures and such. However do all parts have a chance to fail now or only the weapons and their reactors? Is it possible to have a military ship with commercial engines that will suffer failures for the most part but always be able to limp home (assuming jump gates) no matter how bad things got?

[Prince of Space]

I just double checked and military jump drives (counterintuitively) do not flag ships they are on as Military Vessels for maintenance purposes. I know for certain that I have had a military jump drive on a Military Vessel experience a maintenance failure that required spending some maintenance supply points to repair. I can't say it was in 6.43 that I experienced the failure, but it wasn't all that long ago. Therefore I assume that if there is a flag on certain components that exempts them from being chosen as a target for maintenance failures, it is not the same flag that determines whether or not a ship containing the component is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes.

So yes, commmercial components on military vessels can have maintenance failures, but I think some parts may be exempt, like the bridge. Don't quote me on that last part, though. I could not find a source to back it up.

[Garfunkel]

I haven't seen commercial components ever fail. Weapons and sensors are the ones that commonly experience maintenance failures, with military engines coming up as a third. But I have to admit that I haven't tried putting commercial engines on a military design in a long time, since the lack of speed isn't worth it, in my opinion.

[Rich.h (OP)]

I haven't seen commercial components ever fail. Weapons and sensors are the ones that commonly experience maintenance failures, with military engines coming up as a third. But I have to admit that I haven't tried putting commercial engines on a military design in a long time, since the lack of speed isn't worth it, in my opinion.

Having run a few tests I can confirm that commercial parts can and do fail when placed on military ships. I generally have explorer ships that make use of an efficient engine design where distance is more important than speed, I had hoped that they would also be guaranteed to always limp home too but it seems not so now.

[davidb86]

My understanding is that ships designated as military check for failures, while ships designated as commercial do not.  So a warship with commercial drives would still have to check for failures, although the drives themselves have a lower failure rate, are cheaper to repair, and are fuel efficient.  The problem with commercial drives is they take so much room.  The designation of commercial or military is made at the design phase, weapons, sensors larger than 1 hs, flight decks & hangers, military drives, or magazines get a ship a military designation.  Apparently military jump drives do not. If a chip is designated as military than all components on the ship are subject to the failure check regardless of whether it is a "miitary" or a "commercial" component.

[Rich.h (OP)]

That is how it would seem to work, though I do not think commercial parts have a lower failure rate. They seem to be subject to failure on a military ship at the same rate as all other parts. The only real difference is as you said they do tend to be far cheaper in MSP repair cost when they do fail. There are few times when I ever have need for them, but on occasions I like to use drives that are designed with total efficiency in mind for some ships and it turns out a commercial one fits the bill. My deep space explorers are one example, also my fleet supply ships as both of these craft try to keep their own fuel use as low as possible.

[sloanjh]

That is how it would seem to work, though I do not think commercial parts have a lower failure rate. They seem to be subject to failure on a military ship at the same rate as all other parts.

My recollection is that this is what Steve intended when he coded it up.

John

[Steve Walmsley]

My recollection is that this is what Steve intended when he coded it up.

John

Yes, that is working as intended.