100 troops, just use the number of troops that are being paid as the figure that is contributing..
What the nett effect of those security is, I am not really sure..

All troops are paid regardless of what they are doing. How can you tell which are being paid for security work?

Troops on a starbase got two tasks IMHO.
First they act as defence force, so they all get paid, its like an army.. even in peacetime troops get paid... Secondly each 100 troops acts as the crew manning the security complexes.
So, if you got 32 complexes and your wage bill is 1857 stellars for your troops, then you get some shortage on your security complexes.. Using the wage bill for your troops is just an easy way to calculate the number of troops.. Especially if you get lots of different types of troop an calculation error is quickly made.

If you ask me, security complexes shouldn't need to have manhours allocated to them, but thats another issue.

That pretty much answers it...

LOL, that's very handy

Thanks Clay.

I bet that running 10 stations at 30% is worse then 3 stations at 100%., as those 10 need 10 employees a piece also... so you are throwing away 70 stellars per week...

Not only that but 100% / 3 = 33% so it's 3% better anyway

But seriously, given the same actual % and even discounting employees, I would expect those running at 100% would still have the edge in reality (less red-tape etc), but probably not in game terms.

Nope.

Not according to my calculations.

This table suggests that too much security is a bad thing too.

Security is for all complexes, including security complexes. More complexes means more active ground for operatives to be in reguardless of activity or not. Or at least that was the theory

So the 140% is unattable?

Based on 1:1 would be one security complex at 100% per complex (including the security complexes themselves) and the lack of command complexes would give less than 100% efficency.

Just to query if i'm understanding it correctly, I wasn't intending to try and get to 140%

Well, 1 security complex with no command complex would give 99.9% according to my calculator.

99.9% of 140% = 139.86%

Would that be rounded up or rounded down?

However, the starbase rules say "Excess work-hours may be used to accommodate any efficiency drop from lack of command complexes" although I've never seen this happen as far as I know.

Perhaps more importantly though, and again I haven't tested this yet, the description of the "Set Employee Wages" order states "If you have higher wages it increases the position's efficiency back towards a maximum of 100% when it has been reduced by other factors." (I would assume this would allow you to get such a position to 100% efficiency otherwise what would be the point of paying more wages?)

So it would seem possible to me...

It's only one complex, maybe I'll try it

Yes at a starbase - 1 security complex at an OP -> 210% (x1.5)

I've had much more excess peeps than that and still seen efficiency drops (including from insufficient commands) so I'd guess that bit of the rules isn't true (or is bugged?)

(And the numbers all work out irrespective of number of [excess] employees, so they don't even contribute partly, it would be nice if they did though..)

Yes, I'd call 100% security at a starbase a police state myself

Dan

Well... personally I wouldn't want to keep any less than 10,000 troops at a 1000 complex starbase. In fact, for preference I'd prefer to have double that. Maybe I'm just paranoid

would mean 100% security though, if you have a soldier following around each person a spy/agent/terrorist etc would stick out like a sore thumb (assuming they stick out that is, i have no idea were that phrase comes from)

That's a fair point I think. Maybe it should be a certain number of combat/control factors per complex so if you station basic mercs you need 100 but if you station vet soldiers/marines you need a lot less. You'd need a order to assign specific troops to security complexes though and this could over-complicate things.