Post by AtomHeartDragon on Mar 24, 2018 17:52:45 GMT
Ships will lose power generation even if they still have functioning reactors with radiators if they lose the reactor(s) that were placed first.
Case:
A small ship (around 1kt) with two 1.04MW reactors (stock), one near aft, one in the nose, and two rings of 2x20 TiC radiators (also stock) x3 and x1, respectively near aft and near nose.
Ship consistently loses power generation when the aft gets cut-off by gunfire separating propulsion from the surviving section and destroying/sepearating the rear reactor.
No significant spin or crew killed notifications after the event, but the surviving section shows as white despite having intact crew module, turreted weapons and powerplant.
In general the logic deciding when a ship (of any kind) has been mission killed in combat is grossly overzealous.
Edit:
I think it has more to do with ships' bisection than just losing reactors, but either way it's bad.
Case:
A small ship (around 1kt) with two 1.04MW reactors (stock), one near aft, one in the nose, and two rings of 2x20 TiC radiators (also stock) x3 and x1, respectively near aft and near nose.
Ship consistently loses power generation when the aft gets cut-off by gunfire separating propulsion from the surviving section and destroying/sepearating the rear reactor.
No significant spin or crew killed notifications after the event, but the surviving section shows as white despite having intact crew module, turreted weapons and powerplant.
In general the logic deciding when a ship (of any kind) has been mission killed in combat is grossly overzealous.
Edit:
I think it has more to do with ships' bisection than just losing reactors, but either way it's bad.