1. You cant 'add to defend' unless you are allied with the affiliation being defended, or the affiliation the position being defended is in?
2. You CAN, however, 'add to enemy' anybody you like, provided you have a navel officer on board?
This seems too restrictive for 1. and not restrictive enough, for 2.
And:
3. You can change the EEM registration of any position, with a normal order?
I remember arguing, seemingly against concensus, that the PIR flag should be removable by an SA. This is waaay too far the other way, as it makes posting an individual position a total waste of time - and IND positions totally untracable! A paid-for special action, fine, but free is going too far!
TonyH
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Mar 7 2006, 06:50 PM) |
| 1. You cant 'add to defend' unless you are allied with the affiliation being defended, or the affiliation the position being defended is in? 2. You CAN, however, 'add to enemy' anybody you like, provided you have a navel officer on board? 3. You can change the EEM registration of any position, with a normal order? |
1 and 2) As far as i know you can't add to either defend or enemy on a ship unless your allied or at war. However starbases, outposts and platforms you can add what you like.
3) It costs stellars, although imo far too few and although I'm not sure an sa is the way to go it is defiently too cheap as it is.
Wouldn't it be better if, in order to re-register a ship, you basically have to do what is done for building a new ship? You don't pay to register a new ship, you build it to the shipyards and register for free.
Surely, in order to give a ship a new identity, it needs to go back to a shipyard and have ID plates removed, patches applied, new plates fitted, a new lick of paint and change of furry dice.
This means that you can't pop your ship to Gamma 15 of system X, away from prying eyes, and get the ship's ID changed magically where nobody can find you.
You need to go to a starbase where people will see you land, which will mean that PIR vessels can be traced to a dealer/chopshop. The bigger ships will need more work, so they may need to stay in the starbase for several weeks, and more risk of getting caught with a PIR ship in your docking bays.
Summary: To re-register a ship, you should need to dock at a starbase to apply Patches and spend work hours in the ship yards (delaying current ship-building projects).
Alun
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Mar 7 2006, 05:50 PM) |
| 2. You CAN, however, 'add to enemy' anybody you like, provided you have a navel officer on board? TonyH |
You can not add an ally to your attack list.
Everyone seems to be complaining about the cost of an officer, it seems to me that if you are paying that much, they should be able to DO something.
If the officer can only attack "declared enemies" why not just have the PD run all ships directly?
Using a "real life" example, officers in militiary organizations all over the world would not have been able to attack most of their enemies. In fact, I believe the last "declared war" by the USA (and probably the Brits too) was World War II. There's been plenty of undeclared "actions" since then.
Goth
My opinon is you should be allowed to add whoever you like to either list, but then a lot of people wouldn't 'offically' declare war or make alliances.
...OK, but balance that against not being able to defend anyone you like... seems weird, to me.
Anyway, I view that the navel officer cost pays for the right for the position he/she commands to engage in military activity, i.e. has the training to take life-or-death judgements, follows military orders and military procedures, and is basicly a professional military-trained person.
Wheras a civilian officer doesn't impact outside his/her own vessel, and basicly improves efficiency by being the person who decides which of the crew does what, and when.
But, its the current balance between the requirements, to attack and simply defend, that seems strange - and undermines a 'mercenary' role, short of war, for anything but whole affilliations - in real life, are/were 'Sandline international' or 'Executive Outcomes' only allowed to support formal, declared allies of their 'parent' country? - No.
The current setup seems to be designed for the convenience of people who dont want to deal with anything below 'Meta Aff' level.
TonyH
| QUOTE (ptb @ Mar 8 2006, 02:10 PM) |
| Didn't realise you could add to enemy lists, the order editor discribes it differently (a bug or is the texts bugged?) |
The editor text is wrong. Proved by experience - I couldn't defent the KRL without a formal alliance neither of us wanted.
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Mar 8 2006, 02:28 PM) | ||
The editor text is wrong. Proved by experience - I couldn't defent the KRL without a formal alliance neither of us wanted. |
Obviously, if you can attack someone not on a declared enemy list, you should be able to defend anyone you want to.
Goth
| QUOTE (Goth @ Mar 8 2006, 01:59 PM) |
| Using a "real life" example, officers in militiary organizations all over the world would not have been able to attack most of their enemies. In fact, I believe the last "declared war" by the USA (and probably the Brits too) was World War II. There's been plenty of undeclared "actions" since then. |
The current in-game example allows sneak attacks (as it should), but disallows any defensive reaction by ships unless a formal alliance has been proposed, and accepted, by both sides - which can take a week or more.
I would propose that war be declarable by passing an affiliation issue, but an option introduced to keep it secret from the target - until 'used' (checked). This covers the historical analogues of Nazi Germany Vs. Poland, Imperial Japan vs. USA, etc.
Immediate engagements could be instigated by POSTING a specific potential enemy position, or set of positions - virtually immediate, by anyone with the 'post position' power within an affiliation, I think? The historical analogue to this would be the Argentine dictatorship against the UK Falkland Islands military forces.
Already affiliation-posted (by anyone?) positions, and pirates, would remain free-fire (to anybody with a navel officer)... as now?
TonyH
Damn... another game change proposal already
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Mar 8 2006, 02:48 PM) |
| I would propose that war be declarable by passing an affiliation issue, but an option introduced to keep it secret from the target - until 'used' (checked). |
Of course some bodies would then keep active 'secret' wars against every potential enemy... A $5K a week standing charge for a war, secret or otherwise, would discourage this, maybe?
And for those affs with more money than s... others. How about 'enemy' agents being able to 'discover' secret wars... and 'out' them! The FET or CIA might be interested in the role, perhaps?
TonyH
I've even started going into combat game changes, now
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Mar 8 2006, 03:48 PM) |
| I would propose that war be declarable by passing an affiliation issue, but an option introduced to keep it secret from the target - until 'used' (checked). |
If your able to keep it secret then why not just allow an position to be added to any list (if you have a naval officer). The result is the same, after they are attacked they will know your hostile to them.
Personally I think the ingame declarations of ally/war are pointless, all that should be handled by the players on their terms and not forced into the two very simple catagories we have.
I had been talking about mutal defence agreements in certain systems, but the inability to apply this to ships made it less useful.
| QUOTE (ptb @ Mar 8 2006, 03:07 PM) |
| If your able to keep it secret then why not just allow an position to be added to any list (if you have a naval officer). The result is the same, after they are attacked they will know your hostile to them. |
Because going to war should be more than a spur-of-the-moment decision, perhaps? A weakness spotted by a potential enemy could be exploited by posting - but would at least have to be reviewed by a person granted that level of decision making by their aff.
Any highly organized and regimented multi-player aff would still be able to go to war within days (a nod to our DTR players) by organizing to get the necessary issue passed in that timeframe - a reward for their teamwork.
At the moment we are very close to having a free-for-all for anybody able to afford $10K - i.e. anyone with a political who can raise $1k.
Anyway, it's the lack of a rapid defence facility which is my big issue.
TonyH