Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

UEA Change, Please Discuss

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 9:30:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

The following is the subject of some brainstorming of ideas for changes
in the UEA. This is only a discussion, they are not set in stone. I
know there is a lot, so if you going to reply on one area, cut all the
other stuff out in your reply.

Greg Bahr
UEA Creator

First, some Ship related changes

Warrant Class Assault Ship
Hull cost = 1050
LW = 4 @ 40KTs
Tow = 0
Max Hull Speed = 380
Drop Mine Sweeper
Add Grav Accelerator
Pod Bays = 0
Warp Sig = 110
Hull Trait = Combat Computer negates UEA 1/2 Kill damage and modifies
Merculite Rockets
Merculite Missile Combat Computer
Merculites can fire at fighters that are within the Merculite range
(400)
Damage to fighters is equal to Micro Missile Launcher
Charge time 1/2 (6)
Armor Drain = 0
If there is any damage to ship hull, Merculites will arc thru armor(any
amount) and do system damage.
"Merculite Rockets (Modified for Warrant)

Fire and forget rockets with a gamma ray bomb warhead. Widely used as
an anti personnel weapon to soften up enemy ships before boarding
parties attempt to capture the vessel. The gamma ray bomb warhead has
been modified to detonate as a small web field and release EMP pulses.

Very vulnerable to point defense fire. The weapon has good accuracy,
uses 3 ordnance units per shot, does a fair amount of damage to control
systems, does a fair amount of damage to engines, is very deadly to
target crew members and takes very little energy to fire, only 12gw,
but does no damage to target armor. If there is damage to the ship's
hull, the EMP pulse will arc thru the Armor to deliver it's system
damage" - Description modified from v4 Help files

---

Hammer Class Troop Carrier
Mass = 70
Armor = 250
Battalion Class Troop Carrier
Mass = 98
Armor = 500

Hammer and Battalion:
New Device = Assault Landing = Disables end of turn Dust off and lands
all Assault Pods on the planet it ends the turn over. Pods are not
subject to Combat VCR unless Troop Carrier is destroyed (Aren't Pods
that are docked to a ship that is destroyed killed with the ship.
Hross Mine Field Resistance X4

---

Ranger Station
New Device "Repair Dock"
Only works when owned by UEA
Only works on UEA Native hulls
Completely repairs ship that is the tow target in one turn.
Uses the amount of repair units the target ship would require to repair
itself from the Rangers supply.

---
Fighter Changes
(##) = previous stat

AS-480 Assault Fighter

Attack Air 190
Attack Ground Troops 50 (150)
Attack Cities 45 (85)
Attack Ground Units 30 (80)
Defense From Air Attack 120 (20)
Defense From Ground Troops 55 (10)
Defense From Ground Units 35 (10)
Beam Weapons 80 (60)
Missile Weapons 65
Accuracy Beams 70
Accuracy Missile 85
Range Beams 200
Range Missile 400
Ord Load 160
Travel Range (LY) 310
Armor 15 (8)
Evasive Bonus 30
Attack Bonus 60
Generator 15
Battery 200
Combat Quickness 100
Cost 200

DOA-187x Bomber

Attack Air 10
Attack Ground Troops 70
Attack Cities 225
Attack Ground Units 180
Defense From Air Attack 40 (20)
Defense From Ground Troops 40 (20)
Defense From Ground Units 40 (20)
Beam Weapons 15
Missile Weapons 100
Accuracy Beams 45 (60)
Accuracy Missile 90
Range Beams 50 (350)
Range Missile 400
Ord Load 250
Travel Range (LY) 360
Armor 8
Evasive Bonus 0
Attack Bonus 100
Generator 10 (20)
Battery 180 (280)
Combat Quickness 50
Cost 125

DOA wings can perform orbital precision strikes if they end the turn
over base. To target one building type using the command code "b01" to
"b30" The codes correspond with the order of the buildings listed on
the base overview screen. Each bomber destroys 1 building. Thirty
bombers destroy 30 cities or 30 farms. Chances of success depend on
the number of DOA fighters in the wing. 1% per fighter. AA-Guns will
each destroy one fighter before it performs it's mission, plus a random
change to destroy another fighter.

C-3 Defender

Attack Air 50 (65)
Attack Ground Troops 60 (90)
Attack Cities 20 (10)
Attack Ground Units 30 (80)
Defense From Air Attack 50
Defense From Ground Troops 55
Defense From Ground Units 30 (60)
Beam Weapons 55
Missile Weapons 0
Accuracy Beams 80
Accuracy Missile 0
Range Beams 150
Range Missile 0
Ord Load 0
Travel Range (LY) 10
Armor 6
Evasive Bonus 50
Attack Bonus 72
Generator 10
Battery 100
Combat Quickness 20
Cost 70 (110)

---

Contraband Lockdown as a hull trait is removed from all ships
A regular Contraband Lockdown is added to the Sergeant-at-Arms

---

Hawkings Retaining Center
New cost to build is 40Mcs and 1 Supply
These are hardly ever used, they just aren't worth it. So lets make it
so. This will require discussion to balance just right.
No longer costs any thing to re-educate prisoners.
Re-educated Prisoners retain their personnel type. (i.e.. Privateer
Colonists are reeducated to UEA Colonist, Fed crew are reeducated to
UEA crew, and EE troops are reeducated to UEA troops.)
HG can not be re-educated.
A percentage of the personnel will die in the process. That percentage
is effected by the Lawfulness of the race. This only applies to
personnel being re-educated and not those waiting on the base.
Re-education process generates income based on lizard selling formula
divided by 3, this includes effects of "bad blood"
Cyborg, Robot, Solorian and Crystal prisoners are not re-educateable.
Other nasty things can happen to your base when prisoners are being
re-educated.

---

The AU-147 Arresting Unit was not used, and never achieved it's
designed purpose, so here is the redesign:

Arresting action happens before movement. (So you have to land them
for a turn before they will capture enemies)
Attack setting must be Deep Ground Patrols or better.
Captures 200 colonists, 100 crew, and 5 troops per turn. (Currently
captures 500 colonists, 350 crew and 5 troops a turn.)
Enemy HG are immune and will protect 1,000 Colonist from capture for
each HG.
Arresting Unit combats crime on all friendly bases on the same planet.

Attack Air 0
Attack Ground Troops 5
Attack Cities 0
Attack Ground Units 1
Defense From Air Attack 5
Defense From Ground Troops 15
Defense From Ground Units 12
Cost 24

---

The Redistribution Center has become a vital part of the UEA economy.
But some tweaking is needed.
2 Food
1 Supplies
1 MCs
70 Ord
0.2 Ground Unit Type 1 "AU-147 Arresting Unit" (so that means 5 units
of CB to make one AU)

---

Fighting with Insect Natives may or may not work this way. This is the
way is should work and will be made to work if not.
Ground unit will fight first. (Currently PA-245 Battle Mech can kill
1250 insectoids each.)
Fighters in the base will fight second. (Currently C-3 Defender can
kill 800 insectoids each.)
Troops fight third
Crew fight forth
HG will fight fifth
Colonist fight/die last.


Greg Bahr
UEA Creator

More about : uea change discuss

March 1, 2005 7:18:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Warrent really don't think the UEA needs more weapons, Plus I like the
fact you can use this ship to tow other ships at speed 190ly.

The hammer and Battalion like the assault pod idea. Hross mine hit
thats cool too.

Ranger station. The UEA repairs everything but hyp/shields at the
highest rates already, adding a device that cuts out the middle man is
only asking for trouble. I can see why you would want it. It would cut
down the repair time on the max after you detonate grav mines over it
to catch and capture ships. So I say leave it out.

All fighters anything that makes a races fighters better then the COM
fighters I am against. COM are suppose to be the best fighter race.
They already got one hit after Tim reduced them when he fixed the cost.
These changes would be one more hit. So I say leave this out.

Contraband lock down, if it had full range that would be great.

Hawkings Retaining Center getting the colonist to fill cities that make
double money and pay taxes, and then getting liz selling prisoners on
top of it. Come on. If you want to make it cool let the centers be more
open ended in build, and each one converts the prisoners at a set rate.
That way you could control how fast they are converted. For example
each center converts 1000 colonist so if you build 10 thats 10000 build
100 centers thats a 100000 colonists a turn converted to tax paying
colonist.etc. Also you could re work you troops,crew ,HG make
money/work formula to get extra cash. So that each troop,crew,hg that
exists works and gives up money,not how many are trained in a turn.

The AU-147 Arresting Unit all depends on how the Center works

The Redistribution Center reduce food, but keep ord at the 100 level
need the ord. 1 more supply would be nice. The free ground unit can
give or take it. All depends on how the Hawkings Retaining Center ends
up working. If you are upset about the fighters maybe give a free
fighter for every 5 instead of the ground unit.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 7:51:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Discussing a topic in two different boards at the same time is always a
bit unwieldy, but for the sake of discussion, here's my answer from the
other board:

Like Sparrow I don't like the Warrant Assault Ships. Fighting ships
with grav acc are rare indeed, and the few races that have them are
disadvantaged otherwise. To give the UEA a grav acc fighting ship would
be an error. Especially since the Warrant also has a boarding laser.
The merculite missile computer I dislike not only because its great
antifighter potential (one of the few weaknesses of the UEA is that
they don't have a good antifighter ship), but I strongly discourage the
total armor arc against damaged hulls. A single grav mine explosion
would make an expensive Dreadnought dead weight this way. No, far too
strong.

A minehit immunity is always nice to have, but I wouldn't grant it to a
ship with a large towing capacity. Drop it at the Battalion.

The Bomber fighter gets a huge increase for its beam attack. Is that
necessary? I don't have much experienxe with the UEA and their fighters
though. Enabling it to attack buildings from space is a good idea - I
believe before it had to be part of a base, and that was too
unpractical.
The Defender fighter gets much cheaper. Both fighter changes greatly
reduce the UEA fighter weakness. Are you sure you want to eliminate
that? What were the other UEA weaknesses again? In comparison to their
strengths?

The change for the reeducation center appears roughly familiar to me
:) .

Generally I welcome occassional changes with the 3rd party races. They
are much too static often in comparison to Tims races. Just take care
the changes aren't too unbalancing.
Related resources
March 1, 2005 7:54:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

So far the UEA can and with your changes could:
- Get ships like the Xtals with their X-Field
- Get MF resistance like the EE H-Ross
- Get free Mechs like the EE
- Do things which are not even possible with any ET and at a much lower
cost (e.g. LW firing at fighters at a range nearly double of the MML)
this all on top to a strong race they already are.

Do nothing which makes the UEA stronger. Some small tweakings are ok,
but do not remove any weakness or add new strengths.

The Redistribution Center needs to be tuned down and not only by -30
Ord and -1 Food!
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:01:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Hm, discussing the same topic in two boards is somewhat unwieldy, but
here is a copy of my other answer.

Like Sparrow I don't like the Warrant Assault Ships. Fighting ships
with grav acc are rare indeed, and the few races that have them are
disadvantaged otherwise. To give the UEA a grav acc fighting ship would
be an error. Especially since the Warrant also has a boarding laser.
The merculite missile computer I dislike not only because its great
antifighter potential (one of the few weaknesses of the UEA is that
they don't have a good antifighter ship), but I strongly discourage the
total armor arc against damaged hulls. A single grav mine explosion
would make an expensive Dreadnought dead weight this way. No, far too
strong.

A minehit immunity is always nice to have, but I wouldn't grant it to a
ship with a large towing capacity. Drop it at the Battalion.

The Bomber fighter gets a huge increase for its beam attack. Is that
necessary? I don't have much experienxe with the UEA and their fighters
though. Enabling it to attack buildings from space is a good idea - I
believe before it had to be part of a base, and that was too
unpractical.
The Defender fighter gets much cheaper. Both fighter changes greatly
reduce the UEA fighter weakness. Are you sure you want to eliminate
that? What were the other UEA weaknesses again? In comparison to their
strengths?

The change for the reeducation center appears roughly familiar to me
:) .

Generally I welcome occassional changes with the 3rd party races. They
are much too static often in comparison to Tims races. Just take care
the changes aren't too unbalancing.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 8:05:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Gargh, sorry. Double posting.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:10:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

How is it that you think the fighter got better, on the Type 2 DOA I
reduced stats. The number with in the (##) is what it is right now. I
decreased space combat and beefed up a bit of the GA abilities.

Greg Bahr
UEA Creator
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:28:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Allow me to clarify fighter stats, here is what I propose:

Fighter Changes : These are the proposed changes, please compare to
existing stats.


AS-480 Assault Fighter

Attack Air
190
Attack Ground Troops 50
Attack Cities
45
Attack Ground Units 30
Defense From Air Attack 120
Defense From Ground Troops 55
Defense From Ground Units 35
Beam Weapons 80
Missile Weapons 65
Accuracy Beams 70
Accuracy Missile 85
Range Beams 200
Range Missile 400

Ord Load
160
Travel Range (LY) 310
Armor
15
Evasive Bonus 30

Attack Bonus
60
Generator
15
Battery
200
Combat Quickness 100
Cost
200


DOA-187x Bomber

Attack Air
10
Attack Ground Troops 70
Attack Cities 225
Attack Ground Units 180
Defense From Air Attack 40
Defense From Ground Troops 40
Defense From Ground Units 40
Beam Weapons 15
Missile Weapons 100
Accuracy Beams 45
Accuracy Missile 90
Range Beams 50
Range Missile 400
Ord Load 250
Travel Range (LY) 360
Armor
8
Evasive Bonus 0
Attack Bonus 100
Generator 10

Battery 180
Combat Quickness 50
Cost
125


DOA wings can perform orbital precision strikes if they end the turn
over base. To target one building type using the command code "b01"
to
"b30" The codes correspond with the order of the buildings listed on
the base overview screen. Each bomber destroys 1 building. Thirty
bombers destroy 30 cities or 30 farms. Chances of success depend on
the number of DOA fighters in the wing. 1% per fighter. AA-Guns will
each destroy one fighter before it performs it's mission, plus a random

change to destroy another fighter.


C-3 Defender

Attack Air
50
Attack Ground Troops 60
Attack Cities
20
Attack Ground Units 30
Defense From Air Attack 50
Defense From Ground Troops 55
Defense From Ground Units 30
Beam Weapons 55
Missile Weapons 0
Accuracy Beams 80
Accuracy Missile 0
Range Beams 150
Range Missile
0
Ord Load
0
Travel Range (LY) 10
Armor
6
Evasive Bonus 50

Attack Bonus
72
Generator
10
Battery
100
Combat Quickness 20
Cost
70
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:18:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Sorry, my fault!
But why do you prefer combat fighting power over vcr strentgh? UEA has
enough troops usually to GA without problems, so the fighters aren't
really needed there. Also in many assaults fighters don't participate,
since they are neglected in Crushkilldestroy battles.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:41:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

The modified Merc Missile is my baby, not Greg's. The system damage
issue that is being complained about is not so large as it seems. The
idea was that since the Gamabomb warhead has been replaced by a
concusion warhead that causes the outter casing to effectively become a
spiderweb of monofilliment wire and shrapnel moving at high speed - the
monofiliment being pulsed with Electro Magnetic Pulses (EMP) that once
the hull is damaged (mine hit) then there is a chink in the insulatino
against such things between the hull and the armor (still intact) so
that in that specific case a small percentage - say 10% of the weapons
system damage stat - would leak in and hit systems attached to any sort
of conduit etc that is located near the chink. Since the individual
systems damage for any given hit will be relatively low, 10% would
probably not be more than 1 ponit, certianly not more than 2 - there
would be no kill or blast that arcs through, and there would be no
armor damage.

I have not put the final weapon stats into written form, was going to
do that last night but did not get a chance.

The reason for this mod is that my race under dev has a freakishly
large phobia about energy weapons (bad things happen all around) and
Tim suggested that I modify some existing ord weapons.

Now, regarding the Warrant. Given that The Creator wanted to add Grav
Accell to it, and listed it's purpose as a primary boarding ship - I
took it more to an extreme for him, he has not followed me that far.

Specifically - reducing the LW to 30 KT - this effectvely make sthe
ship NOT a high speed fighting ship.

Specifically I suggested this modified Merc Missile to aid in its
primary role - Boarding Sled. As an accomplished priv player, the one
thign that takes down a high speed boarding sled (MCBR) is high speed
fighters. I had suggested upping the PD to 10, adding SW if they
liked, and changing the LW tothe 30 mounts giving it SC - which are
nice, very nice, until Sand Shields are all over the place, or against
fighters with native sand shields - Remeber that the UEA are supposed
to be Space Cops on a Megalomaniacle steroid trip. So, here you go, an
anti fighter weapon that does not suffer sand shield issues - BUT -
does not have the wing wide effect of the Sand Caster.....I also think
that the Gatling Phasor should have an anti fighter role as well, it
fires fast enough, it's THE top tech weapon, and it reminds me of the
new LW used against the Cylons in the new BSG....and who else uses it
anyway?

But I digress. So, here is a weapon that will have some use in
ship-ship combat, but not a lot. It so happens that the systems damage
and crew kill factors work for this race, the Priv, and my race....the
modified merc has 0 armor drain, and as stated, only a very small
amount of system damage will go through (armor plate is just that,
plate, made from a metal - Duranium - it will act as a giant conductor
for the EMP - and since there is hull damage, soem of that pulse will
leak through whatever damage has been done to the insulation layer
between armor and hull - power conduits will overload and fuse, data
conduits will overload and fuse, any non-hardened systems on board will
suffer damage - lights, ventilation, replication (food) - so life
support - com equipment - the ship wide power grid and stuff pulled
into that - internal fires will start and that sort of thing...all
small stuff, but SOME systems damage will result.

Once there is a large breach, then the full systems damage and the crew
kill can happen....kill coems from shrapnel, concusion, electrocution
form the pulse generator through those monofiliments - and collateral
kills from contact with over loaded and exploding internal systems
around the ship once the full EMP starts going off inside the hull.

I had thoguht about having engine damage etc, but focused it all on the
systems. As systems damage goes up other stuff fails....and since the
weapon does kill damage the effect of life support damage is
simulated....I also thought about hypercore damage, but don't know how
EMP would effect a hypercore...do you? Egines should get some damage,
but high system damage messes up navigation and stuff - so you might
still go fast, but you go fast to no place much...

I think that if the New Warrant is reduced to 30 KT LW mounts then it
is no longer a high speed fighting ship since about all it can do is
provide nusance fire, anti fighter cover, and run away fast.

******************
The troop carriers - modeled after the Space Marines of Asimov's
Stormship Troopers. The big difference between that and VGAP is that
plantary defenses are much different.....so....the changes (remember
that the UEA Space Marine/Cops employ Blitzkrieg tactics) And so, the
changes:
Minefield protection for running through minefields - can't blitzcreig
at 13 LY/turn - along with the protectino is a mass reduction on the
small carrier to between 90 and 99 KT hull mass for obvious reasons.
(remember, this also means that glory devices will destroy it
lock-stock-and-barrel) and this mitigates the mine field damage
reduction making it possible for the ship to run lightly mined planets,
but not heavily mined ones. Also, since the ship has to run the
gauntlet alone....anti fighter tech - adding 1 perhaps 2 mounts @ 30
(say 1 SC and 1 modified Merc) and some PD. I also suggested that the
pod bays be raised (on both) to perhaps double what they are...well
actually, 5 on the Hammer, and maybe 10 on the Battalion. I would also
suggest that the Hammer have the guest cap reduced to something quite
low - enough to defend the ship from boarding - a few hundred +
crew...and the cargo be cut. Anythign that they need on the ground has
to be in the pods (the reason for the extra pods - either a real ground
force, or, stuff to build a base)

So, the ship can stand a chance to run planetary defenses and get the
pods on the ground (I also thought that some sort of holocloaking
device to confse palnetary defenses to get the pods down)

In addition to this, there has been discusion of some sort of host
change that this ship can drop pods that reach the ground early and
have the abiltiy to attack the defendnig base that turn and then let
teh dust off pick them up the same turn.....though this doesn't fit the
data model I don't think.

So, to sum it up, the suggested changes are not so radical if they are
all made - this ships do not become the ultimate power house ships that
they might, the bonuses are coutnered by taking away the part that
would make the bonus too much.

The Warrant becomes a boarding sled ONLY (no tow) the prize has to be
collected in some other manner - against a fleet the power of this
falls off, as a patrol ship it is wonderfull - gets out there, grabs
the intruder and you take it home. It has the abiltiy to shake off 1
or 2 small wings of high speed fighters that chace it on the escape
beyond tic 50...this does not make it over powered.

The Hammer becomes a "get the pods down" ship. Good for lightening
raids - it has 0 tow, so there is no chance of it PAXing and running in
inthe same turn, it's got to show up and then make the landing
run...against GZ, it has to make a 2 turn event, it only goes 90 and
the PAX massing over 100 has to land outside the GZ range - assuming it
could get that close even.....but the Hammers have to make a solo 2
turn run, a robot with $$ on the ground could have a fighter force to
clear the place out - or defend the base well enough - in plenty of
time....if he's got ship boudling there, a defending fleet - just a few
Cats would take down many Hammers. If the UEA player instead brings in
the fleet and lays seige to the base in question, the changes to the
hammer are meaningless....and in a seige situation, the modified
warrant is also fairly useless.

Cost increases to both ships would not be out of the question.



On the surface, or by themselves, or against an unarmed / ill prepared
target, these become very powerful ships. Taken in the context of
actual use, not so much - still balanced ships with a specific purpose.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 12:44:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

The fighters were modified to reflect the orignial intentions. Type 2
is ground pounder, type 1 is fleet/planet anti figher defense, Type 3
is anti ship fighter. As they stood the type 2 seemed the better bang
for buck anti ship fighter due to missile power v cost.

At least that was what I got from the discussion.

Fighters are very hard to balance due to the averaging used in combined
wings.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 1:05:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

oh yeah, I understand the EMP itself is not going to electrocute
anyone/thing - but the induced current in any loop of condutor (wire)
will. The lethality of that collateral effect is directly dependant on
the contruction of the thing in which the current is induced.

Anythign with a lot of loops will be very bad - electric motors are BIG
in this sense, especially since the current is developed in an area
which usually does not have large currents (and EMP will generate a
current several magnitutdes larger than the working current for any
given motor - it has to do with the loops of wire inthe armature that
make the motor do it's thing. A length of power tranmision wire is in
effect a loop if the circuit is complete (down one side of hte hull and
up the other forming a power distribution grid within the ship) and
servers the double whammy of delivereing the kililng pulse of
electricity to the attached devices.

I just wanted to pout this out here to stop people telling/arguing that
electro magnetic pulses wont kill anything living. Alone, this
statement is more or less true.....
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:22:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

On the instant repair, it can only do so to 1 ship per turn. I'm
thinking the Ranger Station itself has priority.

All the fighters changes I saw make UEA fighers weaker than they are
currently.

On the Hawkings Retraining center, there is a death rate associated
with using the device. It should always yield more money having the
Lizards sell POWs directly than having them first reeducated and the
survivors of the reeducation sold to the Lizards.

The main point of the Redistrubtion Center is now to create the newly
remodeled AU 148 arresting units. Build your own factories and ord.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:27:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I'm not a fan of having MMLs fire on fighters.

On the other things

The AU 147 is even weaker in ground combat than the EE's droids.
Against enemy Mechs, the AU 147 will be blown out on the water. It's
also extremely weak against troops. Well, those troops that avoided
being arrested pre-combat.
It's now a pure cop.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:37:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

In the interest of full disclosure:

the new stats of the AU 147 is my baby. (terriable in combat and now
fights crime)

And so is Redistruption Centers producing them. (At a greatly reduced
rate than I initally proposed)

The idea for the lawfulness formula for the Hawkings Device, is mine as
well but hasn't been finalized yet. (This included the can't retrain
Robots, Borg, Solarians, or Crystals.) It is also the intention that
any new 3rd party race that have exemption to being assmilated by the
Borg also be unretrainable.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:36:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I suspect that after we finnish with these tweaks, the end result will
be some very nice units and I don't think that the race will be
overpowered.....but to do that you have to take all the reductions as
well as the increases - 40 KT LW mounts versus 30 KT LW mounts makes a
large difference....

MML firing on fighters makes perfect sense - most of our current "best"
anti fighter weapons are missiles, not guns - unless you are talking
something like the CIWS that is mounted on US naval vessels (you can
find it on Google) .... in which case the 35mm Vulcan needs an anti
fighter BOOST....a rather large one. At any rate, teh MML firing on
fighters is fine. The other anti figher PD probably do a better
overall job.

The modified Merc is an expensive anti fighter weapon when you factor
damage to fighters against ord usage and such - and not the best...but
it IS a weapon with a value (range is a key thing in this sort of
situation) and it looses a lot against ships - being so easy to hit
anyway.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:59:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

You asked for opinions so here you get them:

The modified Merc in combination with detonating Enforcer GravMines and
the incarceration beam is a killer. Too strong in combination!

The changes to the Hammer and Battalion are great though please remove
any towing capacity to those ships. Why towing if you double the pod
bays? Strong tow just enables the whole UEA fleet to become mine
immune.

Fabian
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 6:05:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I agree, Tow will be removed on the Troop Carriers.

Greg Bahr
UEA
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

On the matter of the Warrant Class Assault Ship, a few changes.
Reducing the Weapon mount to 30Kts severely limits the weapons on this
ship. The Warrant is a boarding ship, not a combat ship of the line.
I also think dropping the Inc Beam is required with the loss of pod
bays. The MercMod description has been updated. The MercMod is not as
big a deal as it is made out to be. With the limits of weapons to
MercMods, Sand Casters, and Mass Drivers, you really aren't going to be
using this ship to fight major fleets. MercMod is a way to make this
ship reach the goal of a boarding platform. The UEA have plenty of
warships, the changes aren't going to make this a super ship.

Warrant Class Assault Ship
Hull cost = 1050
LW = 4 @ 30KTs
Tow = 0
Max Hull Speed = 380
Drop Mine Sweeper
Drop Incaceration Beam
Add Grav Accelerator
Pod Bays = 0
Warp Sig = 110
Hull Trait = Combat Computer negates UEA 1/2 Kill damage and modifies
Merculite Rockets
Merculite Missile Combat Computer
Merculites can fire at fighters that are within the Merculite range
(400)
Damage to fighters is equal to Micro Missile Launcher
Charge time 1/2 (6)
Armor Drain = 0
If there is any damage to ship hull, Merculites will arc thru armor(any

amount) and do system damage.
"Merculite Rockets (Modified for Warrant)


Fire and forget rockets with a gamma ray bomb warhead. Widely used as

an anti personnel weapon to soften up enemy ships before boarding
parties attempt to capture the vessel. The gamma ray bomb warhead has

been modified to detonate as a small web field and release EMP pulses.

Very vulnerable to point defense fire. The weapon has good accuracy,
uses 3 ordnance units per shot, does a fair amount of damage to control

systems, does a fair amount of damage to engines, is very deadly to
target crew members and takes very little energy to fire, only 12gw,
but does no damage to target armor. If there is damage to the ship's
hull, the EMP pulse will arc thru the Armor to deliver no more than 10%
of the weapon's system damage." - Description modified from v4 Help
files
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 4:07:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Why would I want a ship designed to board and capture a ship have good
anti-fighter capabilities? Because fighters with travel range can
chase down a ship that boards from close range. The Warrant is not a
ship that is cost effective to build for fighter defense. Adm.
Tronthor, a veteran priv player will tell you the greatest threat to a
quick board is fighters that can chase you out of the 50 turn safe
period. Perhaps it would be better to equate the effectiveness of a
MercMod shot on a wing to a lesser PD weapon then the MML?

Greg Bahr
UEA Creator who welcomes all feedback.
March 2, 2005 5:19:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

On the Warrant:
Reduce the max hull speed of that ship. Currently their are only 2
ships which are capable of that speed (380) and that is the ShaiShan
(Cents) and the MCBR(privs). A speed of 300 ought to be sufficient, it
would still become the second fastest boarder (after the MCBR). Even
the Immamorata of the Scavs has a top speed below 380.
Also you might want to consider what the MercMod will be able to do
against Organic Armor ships - same rules or different ones. I strongly
suggest to modify these rules a little bit against OA ships. Maybe
something like this - no armor arc against these ships but a highly
increased armor drain (take note that armor drain is a little bit
different against OA ships).
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:20:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I'm against a grav accelerator on the Warrant.

Think you oversee the sideeffect that there is one more race with this
device in game which the Scavanger need.

As it is now, a combat ship with speed x is save from boarding in the
first 50 movment phase if it is (190 - x)/4 + BL-range LYs away from a
Warrant. This means if x = 110 then the ship must look to be 23 LYs away
from a Warrant.
If the Warrant get the Grav Accelerator this become to a much bigger
range of (380 - x)/4 + BL-range. This mean in the case of x = 110 the
ship must be 70,5 LYs away from a Warrant.

IMHO the guestquarter with 6000 and crew of 1650 is to high for such a
quick ship if it gets the Grav Accelerator.
Many enemy ships may then get an "easy" boarding target for the
UEA/Warrant, maybe the RCS Lotus (not test it)and other middle to small
ships.

IMHO the UEA have enough stuff for boardings, like the Grav Mines
special, Incaceration Beam and normal Biarding ships, the don't really
need such a quick ship.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:26:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I still can't see the use behind this.

You are lifting a tech 1 (!!!) LW to be
better than the best anti fighter PD! It
has about double range as micromissile
launcher! The double charge time is not
enough to bring it down.

On the other hand I don't see WHY (!!!)
you want to make the warrant a good anit
fighter ship when it is designed to raid
and capture ???

cu
Ilja

P.S. This may sound a bit harsh, but I
think this idea if far, far over the top.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:12:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Greg Bahr wrote:
> Why would I want a ship designed to board and capture a ship have good
> anti-fighter capabilities? Because fighters with travel range can
> chase down a ship that boards from close range. The Warrant is not a
> ship that is cost effective to build for fighter defense. Adm.
> Tronthor, a veteran priv player will tell you the greatest threat to a
> quick board is fighters that can chase you out of the 50 turn safe
> period. Perhaps it would be better to equate the effectiveness of a
> MercMod shot on a wing to a lesser PD weapon then the MML?
>
> Greg Bahr
> UEA Creator who welcomes all feedback.
>

I have no problem with the issue that
you want to give the Warrant something
to help against fighters. But a Tech 1
weapon that is better than a tech 9 PD
is much overpowered. UEA players will
have to raise hull tech first to have
Ranger, Pax etc. so they will have not
enough money to raise PD or LW tech. You
can build Warrants with these monster
Mercs within turn 10. But your enemies
may only have there fighters to fight an
early UEA attack (cause there ships are
disabled by gravs). SC and these Mercs
will easily kill all home guard fighter.

Give the Warrant some more PD slots and
maybe large ord capacities to mount more
SCs ...

cu
Ilja
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:37:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I am smitten with blindness. As Stonetroll pointed out somewhere else,
the Warrant can easily cause hull damage with its boarding laser. So
these hyper-mercmissile Warrants could engage a near high-armor
dreadnought, drill tiny holes in it before tick 50, and shoot it to
bits ignoring the armor. I can't repeat it strongly enough - I am
against the proposed merc missile changes!
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:40:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Actually you have forgotten about half a dozen Aczanny ships. But your
point is valid. The MBR is the only 380 speed boarding laser ship right
now, and I don't see a single reason to give the UEA an equivalent ship
(with even a greater guestroom).
The UEA has its grav mine special for capturing ships. That should be
enough.
March 3, 2005 7:21:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I'm also most strongly against both: LWs firing at fighters and the
armor bypass.
March 3, 2005 7:30:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Hm, I should say: I'm against any LWs beside the SandCaster firing at
fighters. ;-)
March 3, 2005 9:04:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Yep, I must have overlooked a few Aczanny Ships (but then not all of
their ships with a max hull speed of 380 can use it outside of combat)
and then in contrast to the Cents and Privs they do not have a hyp
capable ship (probably the reason for me having forgotten the Aczanny).

Well and then I have so far not really started to talk about the
combat/boarding capabilities of the new Warrant.
It was mainly about speed, and I honestly do not see a reason to give
the UEA a ship which has such a high speed, for one thing because it
would then make them the most mobile race (they already have the Pax
and a few ships which can move at a speed of 190).

Also a good idea would be to give the Warrant a much lower combat speed
(maybe around 50) - currently ships have their max hull speed as combat
speed - of course that would be a special property of the hull.

And then I see it as a good idea that some weapons, in this case the
Merculite Missles, get some special properties.
In any case some properties of the MercMods do need adjustment (as
already pointed out by quiet a few people) - toned down.
For one thing it could be made possible for the wing to shoot the
MercMod down before it hits the wing.
And/Or the MercMod is unable to shoot down fighters with a too high
armor (blast power of the MercMods lower than fighter armor).
The targeting of the MercMods is only able to switch targets all 50
combat tics. The MercMods are influenced by HoloDecoys as the PPTs are
(and in this case also your own HoloDecoys).
The special Armor Arc against ships does only function when the ship is
within a distance of 100. For the special MercMods to give system
damage not only Hull Damage but also System Damage is needed (if I
remember correctly Mine Hits and Boarding only does Hull Damage).
Of course that are only ideas.

In any case I would favor a solution for the MercMods without just
scraping them.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:10:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Greg, I like the UEA as they are.
I have no problem winning games with them.

The only problem areas I have are with the C3 fighter.
I would like to use it as an anti fighter fighter.
I would like it to be cheaper and have more range
like 100 to better fill this role.

I have never used the DOA bomber special ability.
And quite frankly even with the change you propose
I still can not find a use for it. But I do use it a lot
during the first 20 turns to provide security for my
starting homeworld. In this respect please do not
reduce its fighting capacity this is very important
to me. It would set back the starting ability of
the UEA by a lot. That will have a much larger
negative economic impact
to the UEA than the special ability will add to them.

And my use of the Au-147 unit is to prevent others from
ground assaulting my base. It will arrest people from
a new enemy base on the turn they from a new base
before they can ground assault you.
In this respect though I wish it was cheaper so I could
equip all my bases with 500-1,000 of these on each base.

With the warrent I have no problem with it now.
But if you want to change it go ahead.

Bottom line I will adapt, but wish I did not have to.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:15:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Quite a long post to answer :) . Ok.

Griffin never mentioned the 10% system damage factor of the merc
missile, I believe, and he explicitly mentioned the Battalion for the
mine immunity. So you have to pardon us in this regard.

Even with only the 10% system damage I don't like the total armor arc
ability of the Warrant. System damage is instrumental in early
disabling ships, i.e. take out the weapons. Armor dreadnoughts would
simply be too vulnerable to it.

A tech 1 large weapon which is roughly equal to a tech 10 point defense
is inappropriate. For all races. The fact that the UEA haven't had a
decent anti-fighter ship before only makes that count more.

Naturally a speed 380 boarder with 6k guestquarters would be the
delight of any race. You can only say that this won't make the UEA
'stronger' if you're seriously mincing words. Also I don't
consider it a good idea to make possession of grav acc ships too
common. Let the Aczanny, Centaurs and Privateers have their special
gimmicks. As I said, every race would like to have access to grav accs
- that's no reason to give the UEA one.

A decent mech for the price provided by the redistribution center is
much too cheap. And since Minime-hammer stated that its special ability
even works versus an assault base in the turn it is made it might have
to be tuned down anyway.

The UEA have the reputation of being a strong race (I never played them
yet though). The above changes would make them measurably stronger.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 8:36:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

How about a compromise for the GA. Instead of a GA, what about a
lightspeed device, with a rather limited fuel hold. Lets say 1200. Yes
you can catch the ship, but then you have to caculate is the price
worth 1000 KT of fuel. If you also make it a dog in speed, say around
hullspeed around 90, it would become more of a risker mission.

It still serves the purpose of boarding enemy vessels, but at a much
higher price, and a higher risk.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:09:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

You want to make the Warrant a bording ship. Why? Can´t you board with it
now? Didn´t I see a boarding laser on it? Didn´t I see 6000 Guests? Didn´t I
see already top speed of 190ly/turn? You can board with this ship, IF you
want.

And again? Can´t the UEA capture ship with their actual shiplist? Do they
really need to do this in a better way?


Greetings
Sebastian
March 8, 2005 9:47:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

So the Merc. avoiding armor are either too powerful or close to
useless. I see no reason why we would want either of it. ;-)
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:49:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I think the problem here is not the MercMod but the fact that it is
such a low tech weapon. I think people would have less problem with the
anti fighter modification if it was done to a diffrent weapon for
example if it was the Force Beam or the Energy Mines.
The Force beam because of it's price or the Energy Mines because of
their tech level.
No one is going to be happy with a low tech cheap alternative to the
MML (except for UEA players).
!