Talk:The United Enforcement Authority - Change Proposal
From PlanetsWiki
Contents |
[edit] Questions
- Hawkings Retaining Center: ... There is a chance the re-education will fail and the personnel being reeducated will die in the process. 5% chance for colonists, 20% chance for crew, and 33% chance for troops.
Will this this be calculated for each prisoner / for each center / for all centers in a base?
Calculated against the total amount processed for each type of prisoner. --Magik 23:27, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
- The AU-147 Arresting Unit: ... Enemy HG are immune and will protect 10,000 enemy Colonist, Crew, and Troops from capture for each HG. Troops will be protected first.
"will protect a total of 10,000 enemy Colonists, Crew..."?
Each HG is capable of protecting 10k personnel, so that's 10k total. --Magik 23:27, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
- The AU-147 Arresting Unit: ... Arresting Unit increases happiness by one point each, to a maximum of 100. There is nothing like feeling safe in your own neighborhood!
"to a maximum of +100"? or in other words, can they be used to increase happiness above 100?
- Fighting with Insectoid Natives:
- Fighters in the base will fight. (Currently C-3 Defender can kill 800 insectoids each.)
- Ground unit will fight. (Currently PA-245 Battle Mech can kill 1250 insectoids each.)
The current abilities are removed?
No. --Magik 23:27, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
- DOA wings can perform orbital precision strikes if they end the turn over base...
The ability in ground combat stays?
[edit] Comments
- Contraband cannot be bought at bases. Contraband is gathered by the military performing raids on nearby bases (friendly and enemy) to confiscate the contraband. "Police! Open Up!". Affected radius = base’s troops / 200 + HG * 20 + AU * 2, max 250 ly. Amount confiscated = same calculation as radius, max 1000. Will collect contraband from the planet surface as well.
As you'll scarcely find players with contraband, in effect this means surface contra / maybe Privs / and most importand allies, right? Intended? If yes, so be it ;)
Yes, then Enforcers perform law enforcement on everyone. --Magik 23:31, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
Suggestion: Sounds like a really nice change but perhaps have the range expansion (turn) limit the as the robot nests instead of a fixed 250LY ?Blackat 12:10, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
- Hawkings Retaining Center: New cost to build is 40 megacredits and 5 supplies. No longer costs any thing to re-educate prisoners. Re-educated prisoners retain their personnel type. (So Privateer Colonists are reeducated to UEA Colonist, Fed crew are reeducated to UEA crew, and EE troops are reeducated to UEA troops.) There is a chance the re-education will fail and the personnel being reeducated will die in the process. 5% chance for colonists, 20% chance for crew, and 33% chance for troops. Each Center can process 1000 POWs. HG can not be re-educated. Cyborg, Robot, Solorian and Crystal prisoners cannot be re-educated.
So its primary use will now be a compensation for the rather low growth rate. Kind of borgish ;)
no more borgish than converting them straight to troops, and a good bit more balanced... i wouldnt mind seeing them able to do something with borg,bot,sol,xtal as well... --.X Cal. 20:20, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
i would also like to think that prisoners being retrained will go thru an occaisonal shakedown, strip search for illegal contraband in the prisoner population thus occaisonally producing a lil more contraband to be destroyed.--protomatter 22:07, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
LOL! Niice! maybe 1 kt of contra per 1000 reeducated prisoner? but the reeducation rate is pretty low - only 1000 per turn per center seems like this will be less useful/cost effective than a PSP now.. but maybe my math is off... --Esquire 00:31, 21 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] Ranger Tachyon Emitter
I think the UEA do not need this device and could be a small weakness (like all race without this device). But they have lots of grav mines, and can even detonate grav to make any cloaked ships decloak due to high control system damage.
Lord Lancelot 18:20, 20 December 2008 (CET)
in the case of the of the ranger having a tachyon device. i would suggest it remain. its non mobile unless paxed, and if paxed it brings a movement vulnerability to the pax force. basically allowing the race this ability to decloak actually handicaps the movement of the pax to a speed of zero. not to mention if the race is building this vessel in mass for the sole purpose of detection, then they are obviously spending hords of money on non mobile tachyon devices. i dont see them having this a major problem.--protomatter 09:48, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
Note:The Ranger is as mobile as the lawdog towing it Blackat 12:06, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
leave it in the ranger, lower the tow limit on the lawdog - it's already very high for such a (relatively) low mass ship - 625 mass for the lawdog, 3500 tow limit. set the lawdog's tow limit to 1500-1800, which will mean only paxing or using an enforcer, which is an expensive use of an dreadnought if you want the (mobile) tachyon ability that much.--Esquire 00:37, 21 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] Merlin Class Alchemy Ship
i think the removal of this vessel is a bad idea. the race has no form of orbital mining, particle fountain and or alchemy ship if this is removed. in games where minerals become less above average, this race will suffer greatly. if in fact the merlin is removed i would reccomend the alchemy device be placed on the ranger in order to compensate.--protomatter 09:45, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] Detonating Grave mine doing a fix 25% control damage
Are extremely overpowered, extremely easy to setup, extremely hard to defend against if you do not have: Grav mine or grav well, low cost glory ships.
The trouble with this special ability is that they come from 650ly away in a surprise attack.
Having you own minesweeper on the defense does not help much, why ? because of own the mine laying vs mine sweeping work. The UEA simply need HGs on each of his maxim to ensure he will lay AFTER you try to sweep.
A second fleet will jump to destroy and board your disabled ships.
And the UEA is the Race who has the most HG, due to stats, and making huge amount of money with training worlds.
Having barbatic minefield layed in your own space does not work because you need many layers, and he can jump anywhere in your empire.
A good fix, would be you can not lay mine after a travel with a PAX. (Similar to a little draw back, like you have after warp chunnel travel, no shields.)
So they would have to come at warp, or lay mine 1 turn after their pax travel, witch give a chance to defend vs this overpowered ability.
Try to capture a big enemy fleet with Crystal or Privateer, 2 races who are supposed to be good at this, you will not succeed vs above average defending player no matter what race he is.
But even a good player will have a extremely hard time defending against this UEA ability if he does not have a race with the tools.
The UEA have the best mobility (Tie with the BORG) They have one of the best warship list, not much can go vs a pack of Lawdogs, and the law dogs can move and tow at w190, and can ignore enemy mines.
Exploding UEA grav mines, need a town down.
No mine laying after a Pax jump, and the control damage need to be changed from 25% flat, to a % based on the hull mass of the ships, like for exploding barbs.
Take the same hull damage exploding barbs do, but do control damage instead. I would still put a maximum of 25% control damage to light ships.
Or at the very least lower the flat 25% to 5% (or 10%) flat.
They also have the same ability of laser minefield, because they do 25% control damage, exploding 1 decloak cloaked ships. another good reason to lower the flat 25% to at least 5% (or 10%). Lord Lancelot 08:12, 19 February 2009 (CET)
What do you think ? Lord Lancelot 06:31, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
an alternate idea could be to revert the minefield damage into a defensive mode. and eliminate its offensive capabilities since the race itself already has unique weapons damage thats effect control systems. 1) minefield detonations do 5% damage to all systems. 2) moving thru an active minefield still does 25% control damage when u hit a minefield. in this fashion it would bring the mines back into a defensive capability and reduce its usefulness as an offensive weapon. if the UEA wants to perform offensive system damage, they still have the bonus to thier weapons to perform that action offensivesly. so basically in order for an offensive system damage to occur they would be required to engage in combat. minefields become 25% system damage only when ships hit the minefields during movement.
now a pax fleet that jumps out of nowhere to invade must do so by force via combat to capture your ships. this would effectively bring the race back into balance in my opinion--protomatter 09:59, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
Note: Flat 5% will not help much, just cause to bring along 30 maxim's instead of 6 or 7 or so. Secondly the UEA doesn't seem like a "defend" type of race to me.. offense is their nature imho. Blackat 11:41, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
alternate Idea by Blackat Detonation damage = ( 1 - (CurrentArmor/vessel armor) ) x 25% Control damage AND (armor dmg = 25- % of control damage done)
This would give 1% control damage and 24 armor damage to a fully armored virgo and 25% control damage to an armorless virgo
Basically UAE grav detonations would be damage would be dependend on the amount of % armor of the ships. But detonating them on armored ships would actually lower their armor instead and make them more vulnerable for the next detonation or fight.
Removeing 250 armor of an incomming swarm fleet isn't a bad extra if you ask me either.. while not being totally incappacitating or overpowered. Blackat 11:41, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
Well 5% is already 5 times more balanced, but the best is the damage based on mass of the ship like for exploding barbs other mine type, I could live with proto suggestion. Minefield are defensive by nature not offensive weapon. UEA have the best offensive of the game with Pax and law dog already. Lord Lancelot 13:53, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
I dont really agree. All i would see these changes do is increase both the attacker (UEA) and defender micromanagement to achive the same thing. The UEA would need more minefields to do the same trick The attacking/minesweeping race would be slowed down even more / need to send in a lot more sweepers / minelayers himself. I pitty races that do not have barbatic minefields to clear those minefields (like the RCS) due to the current minefield rules. Blackat 14:14, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] Minefield Alternative 2
UEA gravs do 0% system damage to enemy vessels when detonated but do 25% to UEA vessels caught within the UEA grav Field when it detonates. this will stop the offensive use of grav minefields. as it will disable the UEA more Effectively then thier enemies. the 25% system damage will remain as a minefield movement hit. thus requireing the UEA to go back to actual combat for capturing of enemy vessels. and allows its enemies to flee the combat area but at a speed of 13 to avoid the movement hits. this is still advantage over their enemies as the UEA has now effectively slowed the enemy movement to prevent their escape and allows the UEA to bring weapons to bear on their enemies with lil or no chance to escape combat. forceing the engagement so to speak.
the whole problem with the UEA is that already have the offensive capabilities in thier fleets, super laser,tachyon emiter, system damage weapons bonuses, Lawdogs, Sgt at arms, pax mobility to bring vessel to bear on their enemies, they even have boarding lasers and double the crew kill. the offensive abilities of the minefields is not needed and is the where the problem is. this offensive minefield capabilitie needs to be removed from the UEA altogether. --protomatter 21:37, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] PAX
About having the Pax gravity stabilized, so it has to move by itslef before HYP jump. Lord Lancelot 23:23, 4 February 2009 (CET)
Doesn't this only add micromanagement ? Blackat 14:16, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
No it limit Pax movement to 45ly before Pax jump, and 90ly if no jump.
hmm i thought pax was lmited to 45 lyr before jump anyhow? but i think i get the drift of what your saying. it can be towed further by a lawdog or other vessel before it jumps. with gravity stabilized it definately wont be getting towed anywhere.--protomatter 10:58, 14 May 2009 (CEST)
Yes now it can be towed at w190/2 before HYP. can also be towed a w190 to evade enemy. Lord Lancelot 04:12, 15 May 2009 (CEST)
the pax itself is fine, its the number of ships it can bring that has always bother me, there should be a limiting factor that is tied to both the pax and the chunnel. a fixed number of vessels per pax/chunnel. the old argument of it only increases micro is nto relevant. it increases the amouunt of fuel required to move such forces and the amiount of minerals and money to build the ships to move them. so i dont want to hear about its a micro issue. if in fact this were to pass, i would suggest the same fixed value be applied to battle jump CoK as well.
[edit] Normal HYP Jump Scan Rules
After a jump with a Pax all ships should get their sensor profile increase like HYP ships.
After a jump with a Pax all ships should get their scan power decrease like HYP ships.
Lord Lancelot 05:42, 25 February 2009 (CET)
- agreed --protomatter 22:17, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
I don't think there is much disagreement that this is proper and needed, i agree too.--Esquire 00:55, 21 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] Fighters
I personally never understood why the UEA, clearly a non-fighter race have fighter with over 300 LY range? please tone that range down to 80-100LY (the fuel tank can stay at 400). while limiting their strike range this would still give them the possibility to move around carrierless.
If they want to use the fighters in battle either PAX them or bring them along in either a towed ranger station or in an enforcer. At the moment the UEA can do everything.. long range fighter should be exclusive to Rebel & COM. Blackat 11:54, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
I agree Lord Lancelot 13:55, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
o like the iodea of large fuel tanks with limited travel range. so this has my support. the only other thing i would change is i would like to see the DOA be bable to hit buildings from orbit using the command codes, currently the code has to be assigned to a base and the fighters have to be in the base to take down the structure. making the option to specificly bomb rather pointless. the code nee to be effective for DOA wings. not UEA bases.--protomatter 22:12, 13 May 2009 (CEST)
Blackat 12:17, 13 May 2009 (CEST)undone accidental changes
i tend to disagree to cut it quite that much (80-100) there are quite a few other races with 120-200 ranges (birds, Lizards, UA, RCS, dracs) but cut it down to be more consistent with other non-fighter races, maybe 200 for the assault fighter, and 120 for the bomber.--Esquire 00:54, 21 May 2009 (CEST)
[edit] Possible Achilles Heel
Just an idea i had about a possible Achilles heel:
Have their minefields not hit any ship that has the device "cloack" turned on. This for both travel hits & detonation.
Have them keep their tachyon emitter though.
(story behind it:
Their Graviton mines are unable to lock onto vessels that have a cloacking device turned on. A side effect is that the cloacking technology actually deflects their EMP pulse from detonations as well. Because of this the UEA has heavily invested in outfitting their ranger starbases with Tachyon emitters.)
Blackat 12:53, 20 May 2009 (CEST)
Very Nice - i like this better than tweaking the mine laying/detonation rules - let the cops tremble from the sneakers! the cloaking races are so very weak right now - you have to scan to see around, which blows your cloaking cover. but maybe not completely invulnerable to detonations while cloaked tho - reduce the damage maybe, like maybe 1/2 or 1/4 normal grav damage? there are 2 or 3 'partial cloakers' (Saurian, MCBR for instance) that this would give too much of an advantage to. Perhaps limiting the invulnerability to those with a signature of 0 or less? still useful, but if they get 'tagged' by a tachyon emitter, then they lose the invulnerability..--Esquire 00:48, 21 May 2009 (CEST)
Making them 1/2 or 1/4 damage will only promote more minefield carpeting.
I am involved in a game now for example where the UEA actually knows what he is doing, he has around 35+ minefields overlapping his homeworld and other critical points.. :)
1/2 or 1/4 damage is still death from 4x the minefield :)
Do note however that the UEA has a tachyon emitter, I would just gravity stabilize the ranger though to prevent 190LY towing tachyons around.
Blackat 02:21, 21 May 2009 (CEST)
true - but birds have 2 (3 actually) completely tachyon immune cloakers, and one (two) of those mount a 100ly range base killing superweapon, and the Resolute has a 30000 capacity troop hold, with 6 bays for assault pods.
However, i get your point.. perhaps no system damage for cloakers, and only minimal hull damage - stands to reason if the mines have to 'see' something to target it - if it's seen, it can be targeted, but perhaps only minimal damage.. i think the UEA were originally conceived as anti-pirate, (the tactics have evolved against others now too, of course..) and giving the MCBR a free pass through UEA mines simply because it has a (nearly) otherwise useless device seems contrary to that. MCBRs are NOISY - if UEA mines can't at least slow them down, that removes the "law-enforcement" role from this race.
is there a way to tweak the output on the tachyon emitters? perhaps UEA's tachyon emitters only add 1/2 the signature of a 'standard' emitter? the current host has a setting for range and effectiveness of tachyon emitters, right? perhaps just add some code halving the value for UEA owned emitters?
adding some vulnerability to the UEA through the existing code, especially cloakers, really appeals to me, you can't interdict what you can't see! --Esquire 01:23, 22 May 2009 (CEST)
Cloaker immunity could be only for ship with sensor image = 0 So not for partial cloakers. Lord Lancelot 13:37, 22 May 2009 (CEST)
Note: that this disadvantage of their minefields & detonation not affecting cloackers is a lot weaker then the COM disadvantage for example of haveing no layer at ALL! (or cheap minesweeper for that matter). So i'd vote for "if cloack is turned on" whether or not its signature is >0. It has to be a real disadvantage not a weakenend and easy to circumvent disadvantage. -- Blackat 17:57, 22 May 2009 (CEST)
