Posted by: Father Tim
« on: September 13, 2010, 04:48:39 AM »Quote from: On_Target
Or just have the option for speed vs quality greyed out if the Overhauls Needed box isn't checked.
That would be my suggestion.
Or just have the option for speed vs quality greyed out if the Overhauls Needed box isn't checked.
Great suggestion about quicker building vs slower building. However whatever negative would be used for a quick-built ship would have to take into account those of us that don't play with maintenance requirements checked on. Maybe make the ship easier to destroy during combat would represent the corners that were cut, or easier for life support to be lost and kill the crew, or some other tangible problem.
Great suggestion about quicker building vs slower building. However whatever negative would be used for a quick-built ship would have to take into account those of us that don't play with maintenance requirements checked on. Maybe make the ship easier to destroy during combat would represent the corners that were cut, or easier for life support to be lost and kill the crew, or some other tangible problem.One method might be to increate the chance of explosions/secondary damage. To use a modern analogy, a modern warship tends to have more bulkheads/damage control compartments and more expensive materials that are more resistant to fire. If you build a ship to civilian standards it would be just as seaworthy (or spaceworthy) as the warship but it would suffer more damage from the same warhead as it has not been built to the same damage control standards. As I understand it, this is one of the issues with trying to build some of the Royal Navy's designs to civilian standards (all in the name of saving costs).