| CNF Jon Tenor | |||
| I have a couple of ships without any crew, and yet they're still showing as "Efficiency impaired, R&R 0 weeks overdue". That can't be right, surely? | |||
| Darrenworthy | |||
| I queried something very similar with Mica recently and he told me that the efficiency record is kept with the ship rather than the crew to ensure that we don't just swap crew's between ships to stop the efficiency reduction. I imagine that this might be caused by the same thing. Darren | |||
| Steve-Law | |||
Erm, what would be wrong with that? Wouldn't rotating crew be a valid way to ensure that the crew is fresh? And depending on the ship, and where you do your own R&R (your own base or someone else's) it would actually be more expensive to swap crew rather than R&R. Of course that would mean keeping individual R&R records for every crew member, which is probably a lot of overhead. If that's the reason then I suppose we can accept it, but if it's some "game-mechanic" I wouldn't agree with it. | |||
| HPSimms | |||
| An answer to the mothballed ship R&R problem would be to put some crew in, do the R&R and then remove them again. Not too expensive every 30 weeks and you get some of the transfer costs back from the crew roistering in your recreation complexes. You would only need to keep 1 reserve crew available and if they are just doing R&R the efficiency does not have to be 100%. Geoff | |||
| CNF Jon Tenor | |||
| In this particular case, the ships are in the middle of an asteroid field, and so I'd like to give them only a minimal skeleton crew. The efficiency losses will mean I have to put more crew in, which is a bit annoying. | |||
| David Bethel | |||
fixed it. It now says 'Efficiency impaired, R&R overdue' when its the first week overdue (how did a zero slip in there) As for R&R issue. The order only costs TUs to do R&R and can be ignored with more crew so that s not really an issue. |