THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 1 (The ACU Bubble Shield)

---

-About Me-

After debating whether or not to post, and after my buddies finally encouraged me to do so, here I am. Hi, my name is ComradeStryker, or Stryker for short, and we need to talk about the UEF.

To start off, I would like to share some quick info on myself. I am currently a 1,500-rated player with over 1,100 ranked games with the UEF faction alone. I've been told I have around 1,800 matches played if we include unranked games. Now, I am aware that there are players who have played significantly more games, but I just want to lay out that I do have a bit of experience with the UEF faction.

I would like to address several areas that I believe would significantly improve the UEF faction from its current iteration. Rather than addressing these concerns in one large post, I have decided to split these into multiple small posts. This will be part 1.

Just a quick note, I use Advanced Strategic Icons, in case someone is wondering about the weird icons I have.

This was originally planned to be one significantly large post, but I doubt many of you would want to read almost 8,000 words all at once. So, if anything ends abruptly, I apologize, as my decision to split this article up was made at the last minute, so, I couldn't iron out everything.
All information was gathered from in-game statistics and cross-referenced with the unit database.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

Now, to get started!

---

-The Armored Command Unit (ACU)-

Problem: Bubble Shield Upgrade, detailed version:

FtXCommando has already pointed out this issue and I'm here to reinforce it. The UEF's Bubble Shield upgrade is absurdly power-hungry as it costs nearly as much power as a Cybran ACU's Laser upgrade! We're talking about a 50,000 power difference (450,000 to 500,000). This is a huge issue, as the purpose of this upgrade is to allow the Commander to remain on the front lines for an extended period of time and for it to push with some unit support.

The upgrade itself is meant to be used during the early stages of T3, but because of its power cost, it never gets used as such. The issue is that you need seven, I say again, SEVEN T3 power generators (pgens)(-13,465 E/s) to have this upgrade passively building without powerstalling! Don't even think about assisting the upgrade unless you want your descendants to keep paying the power cost. Just for context, adding in a T1 engineer to assist the Commander with this upgrade will cost you an additional -661 E/s.

Now, these seven T3 pgens are needed if your Commander has the T3 Engineering Suite upgrade as it provides 100 Build Power (BP) for the ACU. Roughly halve that amount if you have the T2 Suite - still needing about three T3 pgens (-5,788 E/s) to compensate for the upgrade's power. This number seems like a more reasonable power consumption cost if it were a T3 Engineering ACU. Constructing the pgens needed for that upgrade to be usable at its most advantageous time would mean you would have to focus solely on your economy, never mind actually playing the game (building land, air, navy, and structures). It would be made even more difficult to obtain this upgrade if you're trying to manage an entire base, army, and its economy on top of that.

(This is also a second upgrade, needing the previous upgrade to unlock)

The power cost should, at the very least, be reduced by half. The Bubble Shield's HP could be altered if need be, but I would say to still offer a large HP boost compared to the first shield upgrade (which provides an extra 19,000 HP) to still make it a lucrative upgrade.

---

Now, let's talk about the bubble shield itself. The bubble isn't nearly as big enough as it should be, as only a handful of units can fit underneath it. This is noticeable when the ACU and an escort of units enter combat. The units tend to strafe out of the shield constantly, especially if you're micro-managing (microing) your ACU, which you will be considering you're on the offensive.

Another factor here is the speed of the ACU and that of the units accompanying it. Every unit is faster than the ACU. Yes, even the Percival. This causes even more issues as when you order them to move to a destination, the units will leave the Commander behind.

Image: Shows land units not slowing down for the ACU

A formation move would help keep all units moving together, but most of the time, it would place the Commander at the far back of the formation or at either side. Even if the ACU was in the middle or at the front, the spacing between units in a formation is too large leaving the majority of them outside of the shield cover.

Image: Formation 1 - ACU is placed at the back

Image: Formation 2 - ACU is placed on either end

On top of that, even with a smaller number of units, giving them a formation-move order, then updating or changing that move order will result in the units cluttering around into a pathfinding-wreck, leaving them vulnerable to attacks as they have likely moved out of the ACU's shield cover during that time.

You may have thought that assisting the ACU may work, as units tend to circle around the assisted unit or structure, this is true. However, in this case, it becomes difficult to move the ACU as it bumps into the units constantly, as they do not change direction as quickly as the ACU does as there is a small delay (between the order given to the ACU and the units assisting the ACU to react). This becomes increasingly more difficult to manage as the size of the formation grows.

Image: Based on the track marks, you can see that the units are going mayhem. (These units were given an order to assist the ACU. Giving a formation-move order when needing to change directions during combat would have all units bumping into each other, similarly to this assist order

Adjusting the size of the shield to encompass a larger army would help alleviate most, if not all of these issues.

---

Problem: (Bubble Shield Upgrade TL:DR)

The ACU's Bubble Shield upgrade is very expensive in energy and the shield size is not large enough.

Proposed Solution:

Reduce the power cost: 450,000 -> 225,000
Increasing the shield size to allow the accommodation of a larger army to tag along with the ACU would be of benefit: 16 -> 20

---

Thanks for your time!
Again, I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

I will be posting the next parts over the course of the next few days.
Sneak peek at part 2: The Billy Nuke

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 2 (The ACU Billy Nuke)

---

Welcome back!

In this post, I would like to bring some attention to the UEF's Billy Nuke Upgrade.
And, to save some time, let's just head straight into it.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-The Armored Command Unit (ACU)-

Problem: Billy Nuke Upgrade, detailed version:

For a while, I've felt that the UEF's Tactical Nuke could have used an update. Don't just take my word, however - I've gone around and asked players (of varying skills) what their thoughts of this upgrade are and this is what they had to say:

"Currently, the upgrade is a meme that you only use in team games." - Oblii
"I never use it, tbh." - Strdxr
"...it's super easy to counter." - Xeigho
"Every Billy Nuke you build is that fewer Titans." - snowy801
"I think it's lackluster... Needs to do more damage in a bigger area and have more health." - Hyp3r2001
"It's a good meme, that's it." - SpikeyNoob
"It's just the 3-4 T3 pgens that are a bit outrageous." - Xayo
"Too expensive to use..." - Prohibitorum
"...I almost never ever get it as its rarely worth the risk..." - Hot-Soup
"Too Expensive... by the time you can afford it, it's already too late." - Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
"... If opponent has brain... billy is completely unusable" - Grimplex

The Tactical Nuke is a bewildering upgrade. Currently deals 12,252 damage, which is enough to wipe out any Tier 1-3 land unit, however, it has a few large issues, causing it to really not be seen outside of team games. I believe the reason for its rare use is because of its overall high risk with low-impact on the game.

To start off, the damage fall-off is extraordinarily high. The Billy Nuke deals all of its damage in the inner ring of the reticle; dealing a pitiful 252 damage to anything outside of that inner circle. This makes the upgrade difficult to use, as not only can the missile be destroyed with ease, but if it barely misses its target, it will just tickle it!

A decrease in the damage fall-off needs to be made, as well as a slight increase to its main damage, so, that even if it misses its intended target, the projectile would still have an effect on it. After all, it is a tactical nuclear warhead.

Increasing the damage would help get the most out of the cost of this upgrade as it costs a whopping 5,400 mass! Let's not forget the previous upgrade, too! Plus 1,400 mass! On top of that, you have to build the projectile for an additional 3,000 mass. All totaling 9,800 to fire one projectile.
Almost 10,000 mass and you only get 12,000 damage out of it and we're not counting the mass needed to build the power generators to obtain said upgrade.

Image: Shows where Billy Nuke damage is applied against Brick test subjects.

Image: Shows HP remaining from an enemy unit stationed in the outer ring.

The upgrade and projectiles themselves are already expensive on power, so I believe that by increasing the damage the projectile deals, it would counter-weigh its power cost, making it worth the investment if it manages to land one hit, even if multiple are fired.

Since the Billy Nuke is easy to counter, a small increase in its projectile HP would be of benefit. This would also help counter-balance the upcoming Buff to Tactical Missile Defenses (TMD) as they were buffed to counter cruiser missiles, which offsets the balance against The Billy. Again, it can tank three hits from a TMD with the fourth destroying the projectile. This makes it incredibly punishing to use as any shield will block its damage and it takes only two TMDs to destroy it. Aeon, on the other hand, only needs one TMD as the flare completely deflects the projectile.

Because of this, the projectile should explode upon destruction. However, instead of dealing full damage when destroyed, it would deal a portion of the damage. This would still keep it deadly and would make it viable to use against navies or very shielded targets.

Since we are talking about a nuclear projectile, I would also like to bring some attention to unused audio lines that have been found in the game files. Specifically audio lines numbers 202 & 203. Unfortunately, I cannot link or post them here as the forum does not take .MP3 files, however, audio line 202 warns "Enemy Nuke Inbound" & audio line 203 notifies "Strategic Missile Destroyed".

I believe these two audio lines can be brought back and used in conjunction with this new Billy Nuke change. Considering its new damage output, it will be deadly to unshielded enemy Commanders, bases, and armies. When the projectile is fired, line 202 should be activated to warn enemy players and line 203 can be used to notify the player that the projectile has been destroyed.

(Audio line 202 should be edited to say "Tactical Nuke Inbound".
Line 203 could get annoying if the enemy Commander keeps firing them progressively, so this line could be left out.)

---

Problem: (Billy Nuke Upgrade TL:DR)

Billy Nuke missile lacks HP, projectile damage is low compared to its high-risk and investment costs, and damage fall-off is ridiculously high.

Proposed Solution:

Projectile HP increase: 4 -> 6 (Edit: 5)
Projectile explodes upon expiration.
Direct damage increase: 12,252 -> 15,000 (Edit: 13,000)
Fall-off area damage increase: 252 -> 10,000 (Edit: 5,000)
Add warning to enemy players when the projectile is fired.

---

Thanks for your time!
I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate all the feedback I can get.

I will continue to post the next parts over the course of the next few days.
Sneak peek at part 3: The Parashield

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

@ftxcommando

UEF best faction!

~Stryker

@spikeynoob

You are correct, the mod's versions stats are a bit off and need to be reduced - it is difficult to visualize numbers without actual gameplay or without physically seeing them in action.

After some tests, I have adjusted the stats a bit in this post.

(Side note: The Billy Nuke damage is a little off, too, haha.)

Thanks again for being a legend, Spikey!

~ Stryker

@barry_whiter

increase the maximum speed of the projectile.

I honestly didn't think of that. That is actually quite smart.

Though, I believe we would still have issues with the damage AoE.
The fall-off damage is still quite high, in my opinion.

Originally, I had it at 10,000 but after seeing some tests, I think this could be toned down to 5,000 or less. This way, it would still damage units on the outside ring.

Still need to conduct more tests to have a more balanced option.

But, yeah, An increase in speed would be quite useful actually.
Thanks for the feedback. I really do like that idea.

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 5 (The Bulwark)

---

Hi everyone. Thanks for sticking with me throughout these posts.

Today, we will tackle the Shield Boat. I would like for us to focus mainly on the shield itself and how it interacts with the environment, but I will also be offering a nerf / buff as well. The nerf / buff is more so of a secondary change. So, please keep this in mind. Thanks! Now let's get to it.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-Navy-

Problem: The Bulwark (Shield Boat), detailed version:

The Bulwark is a strong support unit. Very strong if paired with almost any other navy unit, in fact. However, it comes with a drawback. I understand that the shield range is meant to be large to accommodate the navy underneath as well as to allow enemy units the opportunity to get underneath it and destroy the shield boat, but, the issue here is that the shield size is very misleading. To explain this, I will be using the following terms: 'Actual range', 'Visual Range', and 'Usable range'.
Below you will find an image showcasing each ring and its position.

Image: Shows the range of the Bulwark's shield with custom terms.

When you select a Bulwark, you will notice the shield's range ring; the light-brown or cream-colored circle. I will be dubbing this term the Actual Range - A novice player may see that it extends a certain distance away from the unit and based on that range, may think that the shield would cover a unit up to this point - it does not.

If we zoom in to see the shield render, you will instead see that the shield hits the seafloor - Visual Range - before it reaches its maximum shield range. Again, a novice player may see the physical shield extend a certain distance away and would think that it would cover a unit near the edge of this marker - It does not cover surface ships, but it does extend past the surface down to the 'Actual Range'. Here it would offer some protection to subs.

Now for the 'Usable Range'. The shield size covers about 34 units (distance) away from the actual unit before it hits the surface. Up to the red ring's range is where any surface ship would be protected.

Instead of having a shield with a large diameter (currently it reaches up to 120 units (distance) away), it would have a smaller diameter to make the shield steeper at the edge to match its usable range.

Image: Frigate is positioned so the Bulwark's shield covers the back half of it, Attack Submarine is in front of the Frigate but is still covered by the shield. Support ACU is further in front of the Attack Submarine on the seafloor yet is still covered by the shield

As you can see, the shield is quite misleading.
This shield is still a little large as it was exaggerated to showcase a point.

---

I will now like to show what I believe would be a more reasonable shield adjustment.

Image: Shows new shield range of Shieldboat.

Image: Shows a side view of the new shield adjustment. I apologize for the weird shield height, I am still new to modding;

This shield modification has a range of 88, which is in between its current surface range (34) and its maximum range (120). Here we can see that the shield is significantly steeper when it collides with the water surface and the seafloor. This will fix the issue with the current shield as this will no doubt clear up any confusion about where the Shield Boat can and cannot cover.

---

On a different note, the Shield Boat is quite the unit to face, especially in late navy engagements or in large numbers. I recommend that the Shield Boat's energy cost be adjusted to better represent the unit. It's a strong unit, after all. Increasing the energy cost by just 1,000 would mean only 2 more seconds from one T2 Pgen's power output. So it would not become too expensive - even in the early T2 navy stage.

Why increase the energy cost and not the mass cost? Well, In my experience, the mass cost is already where it needs to be, especially in relation to global T2 and T3 navy. It's already over half the cost of a destroyer. Increasing its energy cost just a tad, as well as increasing the build time to mirror will help to better balance the unit in early T2 all the way into late T3 navy engagements.

To help balance this small nerf, I suggest that it get some light torpedoes and torpedo defense. This would help the UEF in its infamous torpedo problem. Not so much so that it is strong or that it matches the Cooper (UEF T2 Torpedo Boat) but instead mirrors the Valiant (UEF T2 Destroyer). This would alleviate some pressure as the UEF has a difficult time dealing with subs of any sort unless you have a few Coopers to take on the task. This would help buy time in navy mixes without anti-sub capabilities.

---

Problem: (The Bulwark's Shield TL:DR)

The Bulwark's Shield is quite misleading and would be of benefit to be adjusted.

The unit has a strong influence in combat, so its energy cost should be adjusted to reflect that.
The unit is defenseless; some light torpedos and torpedo defense should be added in.

Proposed Solution:

Decrease shield range: 120 -> ~70 & adjust shield height, and size.
Add light torpedo defense to help fend off small attackers that get under its shield.
Increase energy cost: 13,000 -> 14,000
Increase build time: 5,200 -> 5,400

---

Thanks for your time!
Unfortunately, this change isn't implemented in the mod, just yet.

Again, I wanted to focus mainly on the shield rather than the changes to the unit itself.

I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

To not bombard you guys with posts, I will now be posting on Fridays and Mondays.
Only about 5 more posts! Haha! Just a few structures to talk about and then the infamous Experimentals!
Sneak peek at part 6: The Kennel

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

@Javi

Perhaps I am focusing more on one faction... But I'm trying my best to keep things balanced overall - though I am not perfect... Hence the disclaimer I place before every post.

That being said, it seems that you have a lot to say, so I look forward to reading your posts on improving other factions.

---

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

---

Hi everyone!

Today I would like to talk about the Kennel and its drones.
In extension, the shoulder drones for both the UEF ACU and SACU.

I won't quite get into specifics on mass efficiency or Build Power efficiency as FtXCommando has already covered Kennels Vs. Hives in one of their previous posts with great detail. So, go view that one, too!

But the main gist will still be tackled.
This one is a little long, so bear with me.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-Structures-

Problem: The Kennel (Engineering Station) & Drones, detailed version:

Kennels are a fantastic unit, they produce flying engineer drones that can move anywhere on the map! In terms of Engineering Stations, they are quite similar to the Hive and its variants, so I will focus on its comparison with the Cybran structure.

---

Structure Wreckage Values

To start off, I would like you guys to take a look at the image below:

Image: Shows reclaim values for each tier of engineering station for both Cybran and UEF.

Notice a problem? If you haven't, allow me to assist.

What we are looking at specifically is the wreckages of each Engineering Station. On the top row, we have the Hive and each of its tier's wreckage values. On the bottom row, we have the UEF and its variants.

Notice how the base Kennel's wreckage is worth 446 mass, yet the upgraded variant is worth a little bit less at 405.

Before I go on, I would like to quickly point out that a max upgraded Hive and a max upgraded Kennel are worth the same in terms of mass investment. Both require 1050 mass total.

Now, with this information, the wreckage of the upgraded Kennel should be valued at around 810 to 892 mass. Or, for balance's sake, at least the same as the max upgraded hive; valued at 851 - since you are investing the same amount of mass.

---

Drone HP

If you are unfamiliar, drones are classified as air units. Air units that have 6 HP each - across all Tech stages. This means anything with AA (with the exception of ASF) can shoot at them; and with their low HP, they will be destroyed easily. I'm specifically mentioning this as even a T3 drone has 6 HP. Yes, 6 HP at the T3 & T4 stage.

The drone's range and ability to be used anywhere is severely held back by their HP.
I will explain in more detail further below.

---

Drone Rebuild Time & Cost

It takes almost 40 seconds for a Kennel to rebuild a drone. The Kennel requires 6 mass and 66 energy per second to rebuild it during that timeframe.

Doing the math, that's about 240 mass and 2,640 energy to rebuild a drone. (According to the database, a drone is valued at 250 mass & 2,500 energy.)

So, this is a problem as losing the Build Power for almost 40 seconds is already a huge penalty. Why must the user also pay for the drones each time they are destroyed, as well?

On top of this, the Upgraded Kennel only rebuilds one drone at a time, needing 80 seconds to rebuild both drones. Another issue here is that you cannot even assist the Kennel in rebuilding its drones - so it's a static 40 to 80 seconds at all times!!!

---

Drone Speed & Assist Range

Though this isn't quite an issue as the other problems mentioned, but, I would still like to touch on it.

The assist range of a drone makes swapping between assisting units, structures, factories, and more, quite lengthy and wacky. Currently, its range matches that of a T1 engineer; This makes the drone fumble around needing to re-adjust its heading, height, and the direction it's facing when swapping assist orders, then it has to move as well.

If this was increased to that of a T3, or even just a T2 engineer, it would make the drones a little more viable to use in bases. More than accounting for the awkwardness drones have. As they will swap and start assisting a little bit quicker, not wasting time on the movement.

Below, we are comparing the range of a Kennel's Drone to that of a T3 engineer.

Image: Comparing the range of Drone (Inner dark brown circle) to T3 Engineer (Outside golden circle) with a base as reference.

In theory, it does make up for this 'short range' with its ability to fly; However, then its speed comes into question. Its max speed, as stated by the database is "3-4".

Image: Stats of a Kennel Drone, specifically, focusing on the speed stat.

Its assist-range ability is greatly affected by its speed as it cannot swap between structures as fast as the Hive - which can swap INSTANTLY between anything in its range.

---

Reclaim Action

A hive is able to reclaim incoming Moving units
Let's be real, we've all done it once or twice in games when it's getting tight.

Incoming Experimental? Suck it up and leave its wreckage as a statue to remember this victory!

Image: Standing wreckage of an unlucky GC that attacked a base with Hives as T4 PD

However, drones cannot reclaim units that are moving. I believe this is an engine limitation, but I'm still mentioning it in case anyone can explain why this isn't possible.

---

I can see a few possible solutions to these problems; Option 3 was offered by Oblii (2100), so credit for that idea goes to them.

• Option 1: Make the Kennel drones far cheaper, or even free, to rebuild.
  Lower the rebuild time significantly.

• Option 2: Increase the survivability of the drone.

• Option 3: Increase the HP by a significant amount, but impose restrictions.

---

Option 1:
Decreasing the time needed to rebuild the drones would make it so a player goes less time without needing to rebuild their BP.

Decreasing their cost would make it so the user doesn't need to pay multiple times per drone each time they are destroyed as they are very fragile and quite expensive in numbers. You can easily lose 10 drones, costing you 2,500 mass, and 25,000 energy!

---

Option 2 (A):
An option here is to increase their HP. This will help them significantly.
It will make it more difficult to lose a drone to any form of AA as well as lose them to excess splash / AoE damage.

For example: If your drones are under a shield (specifically near the edges of the shield), and anything with AoE attacks, (Strats, T2 & T3 static and mobile arty, etc.) There is a high chance that damage spills into/through the shield which then destroys the drones.

---

Option 2 (B):
A suggestion that was offered to me was that the drones fly a little higher to prevent splash from hurting them. This can be useful in all Tech stages of drones but would benefit the ACU shoulder drones mostly, especially in the early stages of T1.

---

Option 3 (A):
Increase the HP of the drones significantly to allow them to be used with more confidence. However, to balance this, add a 'leash' - or limit their range - so they cannot fly everywhere.

---

Option 3 (B):
Similar to the previous option, but instead of limiting their range, a fuel bar is imposed. Requiring the drones to refuel at their stations every few minutes.

---

Drone BP:

(This section may be disregarded if the Nerf to the hive goes through.)

I believe their drone's BP should be increased. Compared to the Hive - which can upgrade itself twice, effectively tripling its BP, it's lacking!!

Now, I understand that you need to pay for the flying ability and the range that Drones offer, as they can move anywhere, but sacrificing so much BP for that seems strange. Right now, Kennels cost 550 mass to build and a Hive costs 350 mass to build. Both produce the same BP: 25. The Kennel can be upgraded for 500 mass to double its BP, which now totals 50, and the Hive can upgrade itself twice for 350 mass each time, for a total of 75 BP.

Essentially, both will cost you a total of 1050 mass. However, one provides you with 50 flying BP while the other provides you with 75 static BP. So, you're paying the same mass cost for 33% less BP.

By increasing the BP of the drones just slightly, they will have more of a chance to compete with Cybran Hives. Though you will still lack enough BP to keep Hives as the king of assistance in the immediate area where they operate in. This small increase in BP should balance itself out with the fact that Drones can be destroyed by almost every unit that has anti-air and by the higher drone and structure costs.

---

Suggestions:

I recommend all drones be immune to damage whilst they are docked as any form of (AoE) damage will destroy them.

This can be witnessed on the ACU and SACU Drones as they will be destroyed by damage from another (support) commander's main weapon, T1 mobile artillery, overcharge, T1 bombers, Strats (Their AA capability), etc.

Heck, even an Interceptor can also shoot the drones off of a Commander's back!

AoE damage can also be noticed if a T1 bomber ground fires the area where a drone / or a group of drones are operating in, the AoE will damage and destroy the drones.

---

A quality-of-life suggestion would be that, if we are to take advantage of the drone and its ability to fly, they should be allowed to reclaim wreckages with just a Patrol or Attack-move order. This would encourage drone use outside of just bases.

Though, the HP again, would be an issue.

---

On a separate note, I suggest that the Kennel get its own T3 variant. In the FAF database, the upgraded Kennel is classified as a T3 structure. It would be favorable for the Kennel if you could build the upgraded variant when you have a T3 Engineer or T3 Suite, saving you some time from managing upgrades as these upgrades take longer than Hive upgrades. It'll still cost the same resources and whatnot, but it would also give the Kennel some more compete-ability against the Hive as in typical Cybran fashion, they are more favored.

---

Problem: Kennel Drones / Drones: TL:DR

All drones the UEF has in its arsenal are in need of rebalancing.
The Kennel itself as well as its drones have a few flaws that are in need of re-adjusting.

---

Proposed Solutions:

---

All drones:

Invulnerable whilst docked (Kennel Station, ACU, SACU).
Allow all drones to reclaim like standard engineers (Patrol & Attack Move)

As for what Option 2 (B) says:
Operational elevation increase: 3 -> 8?

For reference, a T1 Interceptor flies at an elevation of 18. This would help avoid random ground splash damage from killing the drone(s). But not too high to where it float above/outside of shields.

---

ACU Drones:

HP increase: 6 - > 51

This would make it so ACU drones take 2 shots from an Intie before dying but still keep their HP low enough so that T1 AA can deal with it with ease. They're already worth quite a lot - as much as a T1 Transport each. Having them with a bit more HP would help in their survivability.

Rebuild time reduction:
It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.

---

SACU Drones:

HP increase: 6 - > 201
Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5

In the T3 Stage, even with 200 HP, anything will kill them with ease. But this would help again, with random Splash that hurts them. For example, a Spy Plane or an ASF's crash's damage won't just send them to oblivion.

As for the speed, having it increase would compliment the Kennel drones when they are tasked on a mission, having one slower than the other would be counterintuitive.

Rebuild time reduction:
It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.

---

Kennel & Drones:

Increase the wreckage value of T3 Kennel: 406 -> 851
Increase the assist range to match a T3 engineer.
Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5
(Fixes issue with drone fumbling, compliments SACU drone speed change.)

Option 1:
250 Mass -> 50 Mass (Free?)
2,500 Energy -> 500 Energy (Free?)
Rebuild Time: 40 seconds -> 7 seconds
(10 seconds or more would still feel quite long and 5 seconds may be a little short. 7 would be a good middle ground.)

Option 2 (A):
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 151.
This would help in sending drones out to get reclaim or whatnot in the T2 and T3 stages as well as make it slightly more difficult to lose them.

Option 3: (A)
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
Max Range ∞ -> 256 (Same range as a TML)

Option 3: (B)
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
Fuel Capacity: 10 Minutes

Suggestions:
Allow the blueprint for an upgraded T3 Kennel to be built in the T3 Suite.
Allow passive reclaim via Patrol or attack-move order.

---

Option 3 (A & B):

My thoughts:

The high HP would make them quite useful for front-line use. With this HP, the drones would be far weaker than gunships, (flak would 3 or 4 shot them) but still enough to make inties and "Swift Winds'(Aeon T2 Combat Fighter) not one-shot them - increasing utility and enforcing more aggressive actions with drones.

However, I would prefer Option 3 (B), as even without fuel, the drone could still fly around and utilize its range. This can be useful in larger maps like Seton's when you want to send out the drones to reclaim in the middle of the pond(s), risking air and navy fire.

That being said, I still believe Option 1 is the best overall as it doesn't change the fundamentals of the drone itself and how it's used.

Being honest, Option 3 (A) is quite extreme, to me. And imposing range restrictions would make the point of paying for the Kennel's range ability, quite dull. But the huge HP increase would likely make up for the fact.

Though I am slightly opposed on Imposing limitations on range; I am still sharing it with you all as it seems like a great idea that could be further expanded upon.
With obvious balances, of course.

Having a drone with 500 HP would likely mean no more T3 Kennels, no? All for balance!

---

Thank you!
I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

Next post on Friday!
Sneak peek at part 7: The Ravager

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 6 (The Kennel & Drones)

---

Hi everyone!

Today I would like to talk about the Kennel and its drones.
In extension, the shoulder drones for both the UEF ACU and SACU.

I won't quite get into specifics on mass efficiency or Build Power efficiency as FtXCommando has already covered Kennels Vs. Hives in one of their previous posts with great detail. So, go view that one, too!

But the main gist will still be tackled.
This one is a little long, so bear with me.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-Structures-

Problem: The Kennel (Engineering Station) & Drones, detailed version:

Kennels are a fantastic unit, they produce flying engineer drones that can move anywhere on the map! In terms of Engineering Stations, they are quite similar to the Hive and its variants, so I will focus on its comparison with the Cybran structure.

---

Structure Wreckage Values

To start off, I would like you guys to take a look at the image below:

Image: Shows reclaim values for each tier of engineering station for both Cybran and UEF.

Notice a problem? If you haven't, allow me to assist.

What we are looking at specifically is the wreckages of each Engineering Station. On the top row, we have the Hive and each of its tier's wreckage values. On the bottom row, we have the UEF and its variants.

Notice how the base Kennel's wreckage is worth 446 mass, yet the upgraded variant is worth a little bit less at 405.

Before I go on, I would like to quickly point out that a max upgraded Hive and a max upgraded Kennel are worth the same in terms of mass investment. Both require 1050 mass total.

Now, with this information, the wreckage of the upgraded Kennel should be valued at around 810 to 892 mass. Or, for balance's sake, at least the same as the max upgraded hive; valued at 851 - since you are investing the same amount of mass.

---

Drone HP

If you are unfamiliar, drones are classified as air units. Air units that have 6 HP each - across all Tech stages. This means anything with AA (with the exception of ASF) can shoot at them; and with their low HP, they will be destroyed easily. I'm specifically mentioning this as even a T3 drone has 6 HP. Yes, 6 HP at the T3 & T4 stage.

The drone's range and ability to be used anywhere is severely held back by their HP.
I will explain in more detail further below.

---

Drone Rebuild Time & Cost

It takes almost 40 seconds for a Kennel to rebuild a drone. The Kennel requires 6 mass and 66 energy per second to rebuild it during that timeframe.

Doing the math, that's about 240 mass and 2,640 energy to rebuild a drone. (According to the database, a drone is valued at 250 mass & 2,500 energy.)

So, this is a problem as losing the Build Power for almost 40 seconds is already a huge penalty. Why must the user also pay for the drones each time they are destroyed, as well?

On top of this, the Upgraded Kennel only rebuilds one drone at a time, needing 80 seconds to rebuild both drones. Another issue here is that you cannot even assist the Kennel in rebuilding its drones - so it's a static 40 to 80 seconds at all times!!!

---

Drone Speed & Assist Range

Though this isn't quite an issue as the other problems mentioned, but, I would still like to touch on it.

The assist range of a drone makes swapping between assisting units, structures, factories, and more, quite lengthy and wacky. Currently, its range matches that of a T1 engineer; This makes the drone fumble around needing to re-adjust its heading, height, and the direction it's facing when swapping assist orders, then it has to move as well.

If this was increased to that of a T3, or even just a T2 engineer, it would make the drones a little more viable to use in bases. More than accounting for the awkwardness drones have. As they will swap and start assisting a little bit quicker, not wasting time on the movement.

Below, we are comparing the range of a Kennel's Drone to that of a T3 engineer.

Image: Comparing the range of Drone (Inner dark brown circle) to T3 Engineer (Outside golden circle) with a base as reference.

In theory, it does make up for this 'short range' with its ability to fly; However, then its speed comes into question. Its max speed, as stated by the database is "3-4".

Image: Stats of a Kennel Drone, specifically, focusing on the speed stat.

Its assist-range ability is greatly affected by its speed as it cannot swap between structures as fast as the Hive - which can swap INSTANTLY between anything in its range.

---

Reclaim Action

A hive is able to reclaim incoming Moving units
Let's be real, we've all done it once or twice in games when it's getting tight.

Incoming Experimental? Suck it up and leave its wreckage as a statue to remember this victory!

Image: Standing wreckage of an unlucky GC that attacked a base with Hives as T4 PD

However, drones cannot reclaim units that are moving. I believe this is an engine limitation, but I'm still mentioning it in case anyone can explain why this isn't possible.

---

I can see a few possible solutions to these problems; Option 3 was offered by Oblii (2100), so credit for that idea goes to them.

• Option 1: Make the Kennel drones far cheaper, or even free, to rebuild.
  Lower the rebuild time significantly.

• Option 2: Increase the survivability of the drone.

• Option 3: Increase the HP by a significant amount, but impose restrictions.

---

Option 1:
Decreasing the time needed to rebuild the drones would make it so a player goes less time without needing to rebuild their BP.

Decreasing their cost would make it so the user doesn't need to pay multiple times per drone each time they are destroyed as they are very fragile and quite expensive in numbers. You can easily lose 10 drones, costing you 2,500 mass, and 25,000 energy!

---

Option 2 (A):
An option here is to increase their HP. This will help them significantly.
It will make it more difficult to lose a drone to any form of AA as well as lose them to excess splash / AoE damage.

For example: If your drones are under a shield (specifically near the edges of the shield), and anything with AoE attacks, (Strats, T2 & T3 static and mobile arty, etc.) There is a high chance that damage spills into/through the shield which then destroys the drones.

---

Option 2 (B):
A suggestion that was offered to me was that the drones fly a little higher to prevent splash from hurting them. This can be useful in all Tech stages of drones but would benefit the ACU shoulder drones mostly, especially in the early stages of T1.

---

Option 3 (A):
Increase the HP of the drones significantly to allow them to be used with more confidence. However, to balance this, add a 'leash' - or limit their range - so they cannot fly everywhere.

---

Option 3 (B):
Similar to the previous option, but instead of limiting their range, a fuel bar is imposed. Requiring the drones to refuel at their stations every few minutes.

---

Drone BP:

(This section may be disregarded if the Nerf to the hive goes through.)

I believe their drone's BP should be increased. Compared to the Hive - which can upgrade itself twice, effectively tripling its BP, it's lacking!!

Now, I understand that you need to pay for the flying ability and the range that Drones offer, as they can move anywhere, but sacrificing so much BP for that seems strange. Right now, Kennels cost 550 mass to build and a Hive costs 350 mass to build. Both produce the same BP: 25. The Kennel can be upgraded for 500 mass to double its BP, which now totals 50, and the Hive can upgrade itself twice for 350 mass each time, for a total of 75 BP.

Essentially, both will cost you a total of 1050 mass. However, one provides you with 50 flying BP while the other provides you with 75 static BP. So, you're paying the same mass cost for 33% less BP.

By increasing the BP of the drones just slightly, they will have more of a chance to compete with Cybran Hives. Though you will still lack enough BP to keep Hives as the king of assistance in the immediate area where they operate in. This small increase in BP should balance itself out with the fact that Drones can be destroyed by almost every unit that has anti-air and by the higher drone and structure costs.

---

Suggestions:

I recommend all drones be immune to damage whilst they are docked as any form of (AoE) damage will destroy them.

This can be witnessed on the ACU and SACU Drones as they will be destroyed by damage from another (support) commander's main weapon, T1 mobile artillery, overcharge, T1 bombers, Strats (Their AA capability), etc.

Heck, even an Interceptor can also shoot the drones off of a Commander's back!

AoE damage can also be noticed if a T1 bomber ground fires the area where a drone / or a group of drones are operating in, the AoE will damage and destroy the drones.

---

A quality-of-life suggestion would be that, if we are to take advantage of the drone and its ability to fly, they should be allowed to reclaim wreckages with just a Patrol or Attack-move order. This would encourage drone use outside of just bases.

Though, the HP again, would be an issue.

---

On a separate note, I suggest that the Kennel get its own T3 variant. In the FAF database, the upgraded Kennel is classified as a T3 structure. It would be favorable for the Kennel if you could build the upgraded variant when you have a T3 Engineer or T3 Suite, saving you some time from managing upgrades as these upgrades take longer than Hive upgrades. It'll still cost the same resources and whatnot, but it would also give the Kennel some more compete-ability against the Hive as in typical Cybran fashion, they are more favored.

---

Problem: Kennel Drones / Drones: TL:DR

All drones the UEF has in its arsenal are in need of rebalancing.
The Kennel itself as well as its drones have a few flaws that are in need of re-adjusting.

---

Proposed Solutions:

---

All drones:

Invulnerable whilst docked (Kennel Station, ACU, SACU).
Allow all drones to reclaim like standard engineers (Patrol & Attack Move)

As for what Option 2 (B) says:
Operational elevation increase: 3 -> 8?

For reference, a T1 Interceptor flies at an elevation of 18. This would help avoid random ground splash damage from killing the drone(s). But not too high to where it float above/outside of shields.

---

ACU Drones:

HP increase: 6 - > 51

This would make it so ACU drones take 2 shots from an Intie before dying but still keep their HP low enough so that T1 AA can deal with it with ease. They're already worth quite a lot - as much as a T1 Transport each. Having them with a bit more HP would help in their survivability.

Rebuild time reduction:
It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.

---

SACU Drones:

HP increase: 6 - > 201
Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5

In the T3 Stage, even with 200 HP, anything will kill them with ease. But this would help again, with random Splash that hurts them. For example, a Spy Plane or an ASF's crash's damage won't just send them to oblivion.

As for the speed, having it increase would compliment the Kennel drones when they are tasked on a mission, having one slower than the other would be counterintuitive.

Rebuild time reduction:
It takes longer to rebuild the drone than it is to get the upgrade again.

---

Kennel & Drones:

Increase the wreckage value of T3 Kennel: 406 -> 851
Increase the assist range to match a T3 engineer.
Increase speed of drone: 4 -> 5
(Fixes issue with drone fumbling, compliments SACU drone speed change.)

Option 1:
250 Mass -> 50 Mass (Free?)
2,500 Energy -> 500 Energy (Free?)
Rebuild Time: 40 seconds -> 7 seconds
(10 seconds or more would still feel quite long and 5 seconds may be a little short. 7 would be a good middle ground.)

Option 2 (A):
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 151.
This would help in sending drones out to get reclaim or whatnot in the T2 and T3 stages as well as make it slightly more difficult to lose them.

Option 3: (A)
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
Max Range ∞ -> 256 (Same range as a TML)

Option 3: (B)
Increase drone HP: 6 -> 501
Fuel Capacity: 10 Minutes

Suggestions:
Allow the blueprint for an upgraded T3 Kennel to be built in the T3 Suite.
Allow passive reclaim via Patrol or attack-move order.

---

Option 3 (A & B):

My thoughts:

The high HP would make them quite useful for front-line use. With this HP, the drones would be far weaker than gunships, (flak would 3 or 4 shot them) but still enough to make inties and "Swift Winds'(Aeon T2 Combat Fighter) not one-shot them - increasing utility and enforcing more aggressive actions with drones.

However, I would prefer Option 3 (B), as even without fuel, the drone could still fly around and utilize its range. This can be useful in larger maps like Seton's when you want to send out the drones to reclaim in the middle of the pond(s), risking air and navy fire.

That being said, I still believe Option 1 is the best overall as it doesn't change the fundamentals of the drone itself and how it's used.

Being honest, Option 3 (A) is quite extreme, to me. And imposing range restrictions would make the point of paying for the Kennel's range ability, quite dull. But the huge HP increase would likely make up for the fact.

Though I am slightly opposed on Imposing limitations on range; I am still sharing it with you all as it seems like a great idea that could be further expanded upon.
With obvious balances, of course.

Having a drone with 500 HP would likely mean no more T3 Kennels, no? All for balance!

---

Thank you!
I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

Next post on Friday!
Sneak peek at part 7: The Ravager

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

@Javi

Perhaps I am focusing more on one faction... But I'm trying my best to keep things balanced overall - though I am not perfect... Hence the disclaimer I place before every post.

That being said, it seems that you have a lot to say, so I look forward to reading your posts on improving other factions.

---

~ Stryker

@javi

Dude the shield boat is so insanely good. It makes hitting cruisers a pain.

It is, which is why I'm suggesting a small nerf.

Now you also want it to have torpedo defense of a T2 destroyer? Bruh

The 2nd half was more of a suggestion but, yeah, If you played the game, you'd know how crappy the Valiant's Torp and Torp defense is. This is just a minor suggestion to not leave the unit defenseless when a unit gets underneath it.

I feel like these posts you are making are literally going into “buff UEF buff UEF buff UEF” territory where you just grab any unit in the UEF and find a reason to buff it.

The series is literally called "The Problems With The UEF" - It would be quite awkward if any other faction's unit was on here...

I wish Seraphim had a shield boat

It does have a shield option - It's called the T3 Mobile Shield, though why would it need it? Its destroyer literally submerges. I wish UEF units were able to submerge. While we're at it, let's give the UEF battleship the ability to build and fire nukes, too.

or a cruiser with amazing missiles

The Seraphim cruiser - again, if you played the game - deals way more damage than UEF cruiser missiles. And the cruiser fires missiles non-stop.

Sera Cruiser is arguably the best as it has, if not the best AA, definitely better than the UEF Cruiser's AA, its AoE is devastating to clumped units.

It's a better cruiser overall. What more could you want?

Thanks for the feedback, though.

---

~ Stryker.

@zeldafanboy

I really support this change, the way Forged Alliance did shields was often a bit janky imo, in that all shields had to be a perfect sphere and to create shallow domes the game moved the center of the radius far below ground so only the top 1/3rd of the shield was sticking out and blocking units. Making the Bulwark shield projection radius actually centered on the boat itself means that there's no weird slope that big ships can stick out of. I actually thought this wasn't technically easy for whatever reason but nope GPG just made a weird shield shape.

Yeah, it was quite weird and it doesn't make sense now-a-days.

I was teaching the game to a friend of mine and he instantly complained about this.
I found it quite funny as it reminded me of how I first saw shield boats back when FA launched. Long ago but I still vaguely remember how weird that the shield was so awkward.

---

~ Stryker

@ftxcommando

I really don't understand why you decided to focus on the bulwark. The whole problem with UEF navy centers on the general failures of cooper and valiant to perform their roles at any decent level. The shieldboat and cruiser for UEF are both totally solid support units.

Just focusing on the shield mainly. The torp thing is a suggestion.
I just want to see if the Shield could be modified, that's all.

The Cooper is strong for its purpose but weak against everything else. It lacks the HP and range to be useful.
The Valiant is... standard. It's not great, to be honest, but it does have some perks over other Destroyers. Though yes, I would like to see it improved, but unfortunately, that can't really be done as it would make the unit fall out of the place. If it's good at countering subs, the Cooper has no purpose. etc.

I'm all ears to any suggestions but for now, this is mainly about the Bulwark.

Some good shit about cooper btw, you need to make 5 coopers (4500 mass) to beat a Cybran torp/stealth ACU. Aeon or Cybran would need to make 2 of their destroyer, which is coincidentally exactly 4500 mass just as well!

Another thing is that you need 5 coopers to take counter an Atlantis completely.
5 if they're all Shift-G'd together in the same position or 6 if they are spread out. Not too spread out or the Atlantis can pick them off one by one.

They're strong.

However if a single one of those coopers dies, the Cybran ACU can kill 4 coopers meaning you need to keep each 1750 hp unit alive which could be swarmed by frigates, ambushed by 3 torps, or sniped by a few salem shots. Also don't forget to put another 4500 mass into your destroyers so you can actually do what the exodus and salem can do with their main gun against frigates while doing damage to the torp ACU.'

This is forced by 2200 mass into 2 ACU upgrades.

Yeah, that unit is out of place - just like the Aeon Shard (T1 AA boat)!

---

~ Stryker

@rowey

this is call the Cooper

Well, it was not my intention to have it be anywhere as strong as a Cooper... just stronger than it currently is. As stated in the latter half of my post, Light torpedo defense... even if it matches the valiant, it would be able to defend itself from one or two subs.

---

~ Stryker

THE PROBLEMS WITH THE UEF - Part 5 (The Bulwark)

---

Hi everyone. Thanks for sticking with me throughout these posts.

Today, we will tackle the Shield Boat. I would like for us to focus mainly on the shield itself and how it interacts with the environment, but I will also be offering a nerf / buff as well. The nerf / buff is more so of a secondary change. So, please keep this in mind. Thanks! Now let's get to it.

---

-Disclaimer-

These are just some problems I wanted to bring attention to. I am offering my own solutions to these problems, however, I am not a balance team member, nor do I have a large data pool to back up my suggestions; Hence, the balances will likely need some adjustment. There may also be some better ideas to fix these issues, out there - so I encourage you guys to suggest your own ideas as well.

---

-Navy-

Problem: The Bulwark (Shield Boat), detailed version:

The Bulwark is a strong support unit. Very strong if paired with almost any other navy unit, in fact. However, it comes with a drawback. I understand that the shield range is meant to be large to accommodate the navy underneath as well as to allow enemy units the opportunity to get underneath it and destroy the shield boat, but, the issue here is that the shield size is very misleading. To explain this, I will be using the following terms: 'Actual range', 'Visual Range', and 'Usable range'.
Below you will find an image showcasing each ring and its position.

Image: Shows the range of the Bulwark's shield with custom terms.

When you select a Bulwark, you will notice the shield's range ring; the light-brown or cream-colored circle. I will be dubbing this term the Actual Range - A novice player may see that it extends a certain distance away from the unit and based on that range, may think that the shield would cover a unit up to this point - it does not.

If we zoom in to see the shield render, you will instead see that the shield hits the seafloor - Visual Range - before it reaches its maximum shield range. Again, a novice player may see the physical shield extend a certain distance away and would think that it would cover a unit near the edge of this marker - It does not cover surface ships, but it does extend past the surface down to the 'Actual Range'. Here it would offer some protection to subs.

Now for the 'Usable Range'. The shield size covers about 34 units (distance) away from the actual unit before it hits the surface. Up to the red ring's range is where any surface ship would be protected.

Instead of having a shield with a large diameter (currently it reaches up to 120 units (distance) away), it would have a smaller diameter to make the shield steeper at the edge to match its usable range.

Image: Frigate is positioned so the Bulwark's shield covers the back half of it, Attack Submarine is in front of the Frigate but is still covered by the shield. Support ACU is further in front of the Attack Submarine on the seafloor yet is still covered by the shield

As you can see, the shield is quite misleading.
This shield is still a little large as it was exaggerated to showcase a point.

---

I will now like to show what I believe would be a more reasonable shield adjustment.

Image: Shows new shield range of Shieldboat.

Image: Shows a side view of the new shield adjustment. I apologize for the weird shield height, I am still new to modding;

This shield modification has a range of 88, which is in between its current surface range (34) and its maximum range (120). Here we can see that the shield is significantly steeper when it collides with the water surface and the seafloor. This will fix the issue with the current shield as this will no doubt clear up any confusion about where the Shield Boat can and cannot cover.

---

On a different note, the Shield Boat is quite the unit to face, especially in late navy engagements or in large numbers. I recommend that the Shield Boat's energy cost be adjusted to better represent the unit. It's a strong unit, after all. Increasing the energy cost by just 1,000 would mean only 2 more seconds from one T2 Pgen's power output. So it would not become too expensive - even in the early T2 navy stage.

Why increase the energy cost and not the mass cost? Well, In my experience, the mass cost is already where it needs to be, especially in relation to global T2 and T3 navy. It's already over half the cost of a destroyer. Increasing its energy cost just a tad, as well as increasing the build time to mirror will help to better balance the unit in early T2 all the way into late T3 navy engagements.

To help balance this small nerf, I suggest that it get some light torpedoes and torpedo defense. This would help the UEF in its infamous torpedo problem. Not so much so that it is strong or that it matches the Cooper (UEF T2 Torpedo Boat) but instead mirrors the Valiant (UEF T2 Destroyer). This would alleviate some pressure as the UEF has a difficult time dealing with subs of any sort unless you have a few Coopers to take on the task. This would help buy time in navy mixes without anti-sub capabilities.

---

Problem: (The Bulwark's Shield TL:DR)

The Bulwark's Shield is quite misleading and would be of benefit to be adjusted.

The unit has a strong influence in combat, so its energy cost should be adjusted to reflect that.
The unit is defenseless; some light torpedos and torpedo defense should be added in.

Proposed Solution:

Decrease shield range: 120 -> ~70 & adjust shield height, and size.
Add light torpedo defense to help fend off small attackers that get under its shield.
Increase energy cost: 13,000 -> 14,000
Increase build time: 5,200 -> 5,400

---

Thanks for your time!
Unfortunately, this change isn't implemented in the mod, just yet.

Again, I wanted to focus mainly on the shield rather than the changes to the unit itself.

I encourage you all to offer your own suggestions.
I appreciate the feedback.

To not bombard you guys with posts, I will now be posting on Fridays and Mondays.
Only about 5 more posts! Haha! Just a few structures to talk about and then the infamous Experimentals!
Sneak peek at part 6: The Kennel

For now, see you on the battlefield!

~ Stryker

@veteranashe

I believe a long time ago it was thought aeon was very power hungry because of the obsidian sheild and their t2 sheild tank and without power it's hard for aeon to compete. It might be that their sheild tank has to be lower e maintenance for balance reasons and messing with the parasheild could break this, idk I'm just some guy.

I don't think we should be really messing with this.

The Obsidian and the Shield tank are one and the same. Currently - The Obsidian's shield is very cheap to run. It costs a whopping -10 E. Yeah, 10 energy. And you're gaining 1,500 SHP. If anything, it should be increased, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

The point of this discussion was to show how inefficient the Parashield is.

---

~ Stryker

@farmseatmushroom

As you state in your prior posts, youre a 1k. If you actually want to convince anyone, especially when disagreein with in points that invalidate your argumentation you should bring actual evidence.
"I believe xxx" is a 100% worthless argument.

@comradestryker said in The Problems With The UEF - Part 3 (The Parashield):

With this mod, we can now visualize most of the changes (as well as upcoming ones) I have proposed with units, abilities, and structures. Now, we can all gather data together! This mod is still a work-in-progress and most stats are subject to change due to adjustments and tweaks.

I already offered what I could, here. I showcased stats and numbers. However, anything I don't know is concluded and based on my experiences with FAF.

---

You are more than welcome to go fetch the actual evidence and draw your own conclusions.
After all, that is why I shared the mod.

Though, everything is subject to change.

Thanks for your understanding, sir.

---

~ Stryker

@snagglefox

Ngl, I kind of want to take Javi's sarcasm and make it real to break the monotony of the air meta.

Cyb - Stealth, more maneuverable but weaker asf
UEF - Jamming but average asf
Aeon - Shielded but less maneuverable?
Sera - Tier 3.5 asf

It would probably not work all that great, but I'd be curious to see it.

It would take the meaning of faction diversity to a new level - which I am all for!
That's the whole reason I wrote this post -to help diversify the factions and help UEF in its air problem whilst doing so.

---

~ Stryker