Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin
You do mean that you haven't found anything _beyond_ having to conduct battle and other defined operations with Multitasking penalties or simply leaving some tasks undone don't you?
|
The consequences of not having crew that can perform certain tasks is pretty clear (you can't do those tasks, or you have to multitask, as you note). The issue really is that no consequences of having insufficient workspace techs are mentioned (aside from small vehicles being able to ignore the need in exchange for a -1 to HT).
One idea might be to require a monthly roll against the average skill of the technicians working in a given system. Having half the workspaces filled means rolling at +0. Otherwise, every full +1 SSR (that is, +1 step on the Size and Speed/Range Table) is +2 to the roll, to a maximum of +4 at 100%. Every -1 SSR, or fraction thereof, is -2 to the roll. Optionally, allow for half SSR steps. Have a table:
Code:
% Mod
100 +4
85 +3
70 +2
60 +1
50 +0
40 -1
30 -2
25 -3
20 -4
17.5 -5
15 -6
12.5 -7
10 -8
On a success, everything works normally. On a failure, the system suffers from lack of proper maintenance. This results in a -5% to effectiveness - acceleration and delta-V for engines, damage for weapons, number safely supported for systems with life support, etc. A critical failure results in -15%. Failures can accumulate, to a maximum of -50%. Alternatively (or additionally), failures can introduce or worsen the chance of a system outright failing (treat as disabled) when used. You can avoid these penalties with more expensive maintenance - every -1% to effectiveness that is negated calls for a monthly maintenance cost equal to 0.1% of the cost of the system. Following this, success on the roll when doing the more expensive maintenance or critical success gives a +5% to effectiveness. Critical success while doing the more expensive maintenance gives +15% to effectiveness. In any case, effectiveness cannot go above 100%.