Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?    

<Passes the Big Book of Physics to Cleaven>...

Here, look it up yourself...  

How remiss of me, I forgot you lived in Queensland..

<passes Cleaven the young readers version instead>

Try not to colour in all the pictures all at once.

[Toasty0]

Could someone take the cutlery away from Tracy? She's gonna hurt someone.


hehe  

Best,
Jerry  

[Cleaven]

Quote:

Quote:
No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.  

Are you referring to a strategic gaming paradigm, a tactical gaming paradigm, a simulation based upon real world physics, or something else entirely?  

Paradigm means what sort of rules do you want to follow in your world, ie real physics or StarTrek physics (or Star Wars).

Context means what do you want the simulation to reflect in its operation. If you want a simulator with both strategic and tactical contexts it obviously adds complexity. But you must choose the context ie WW2 tank combat,  naval combat, 3D space combat.

You then apply the rules of the chosen paradigm to this context. Of course this is a question to you and others, I have no preference in this development. Also if you wish I can loan you a real book, A Brief History of Time, so you can see how the story ends.  

[Cleaven]

Quote:

Quote:
No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.  

please dont try to take a nickel answer and turn it into a 5 dollar question.

i made a simple input into this thread. it was very simplistic in it desire and nature. if its small and fast, its harder to hit. if its big and slow, its an easier target. what is so hard to grasp about this concept? tack that together with a curved  to hit chart and you have what i prefere - not somthing that is solely based on 16% hit brackets (die role).. to  me, one takes advantage of a computer.. just as i like the fact that sfc3 uses the mass/engine power of the ship to determine the movement - not a magical turn mode.

its all about preferences - and there is no right or wrong when it comes down to it.

personally, if they were to just add a few things into sfc3 (and a lot more ships), it would be perfect for my self.. that way i could have a game which represented trek from TOS to current.. it represents star trek.. (which IS the core audience of the game).

from my view.. the split is more over those who like the sfb rule set over those who are simply seeking a good real time tactical simulator. similar changes in game rule sets have happened with items like war craft3 and what not - and are not unusual for video games - infact it is the norm..

is sfc3 perfect? no,. if it were more like TNZ, i think it would have fit the bill closer.. i think there are some issues related to damage as well (a phaser 9 is equal to a phaser 3) - but thats another issue in and of its self.

anywho - thats how it is, i suppose.. and i  think sfc3 is doing far better than some of you guys think or hope. if only activision had provided a demo or official patch.. again, if sfc2 had been given the same support that sfc3 is being given, there would be no sfc2 currently (or a very, very small number of people).

its all about preferences people.  

And I thought you would respond on how SFC:TNG doesn't use dice and range breaks. Aside from the position that SFC:TNG does not have these there is nothing wrong with what you have said above. Making a space sim more in the model of a FPS does have marketing appeal, it's just that the implimentation was a little lacking from my point of view.

PS You do know that the answer you have quoted was for a different question? I have assumed that in this instance you have just made a mistake and not just used it as an excuse to restate something you've already said about 10 times before.    

[Ifrit]

The vast majority of space "sims" have been first person shooters.  The excellent X-WING series, for instance, or even the more recent (and equally impressive) IW2, which merged a detailed physics model with some familiar FPS conventions (you get to strafe back and forth, but your dreadnought drifts about half a kilometer before changing vectors).  What do all these games have in common?  They're all coded to the first person point of view (along with KA and BC, to a lesser extent).  SFC draws much of its appeal from its use of a third-person perspective.  I loved X-WING and IW2, but SFC will always be my favorite, in large part due to its very intuitive choice of perspective.  BC and KA just aren't as much fun, because I never know the exact orientation of my ship to its immediate surroundings (well, in BC you can always switch to external view, but then the game suffers from the addition of a third axis, which makes it tactically less interesting than a "flat" sim).

Perhaps what we need is a shooter coded to a second-person point of view (i.e. the players fire shots at themselves, in an attempt to kill themselves).  What would it be called?  Perhaps "CounterCounterStrike"?  

[Tulwar]

Is SFC1,2,OP that complicated?  OK, the single player campaigns in SFC1 were too difficult  I hated chacing that nasty missle boat around the Orion base in the Fed campaign, just to meet my double.  Out of the box, I found SFC2 campaigns were challenging, but not unbeatable.  They got dumbed down with the patches.  They should have been left alone.  I would say the same about SFC3, but when my computer crashes every time I try to load certain missions, it just takes the fun out of it.

I wounder why people defend SFC3.  I found gameplay surpizingly dull.  Not that there were no missles, fighters, or seeking plasma, but that a ship raked with a successful alpha strike would just fly on and fight as if nothing happened.  It's hull integrety would go down, but it wouldn't slow or lose weapons.  Getting a good shot required too much concentraition with too little satisfaction.  This is my definition of tedium.

The only real advantage to having small ships is the lack of expense compared to larger ships.  The ability to mod a ship in game was a good notion, but the lack of a need for specialized ships make it pointless.  You start with a stripped down vessel, and have to bring it up to snuff.  You have to learn what works and what doesn't, but it doesn't give you any reason to have a small ship other than you can't afford a larger one.  I simply found it tedious.

All the time, I listened to a really poor music track  I learned to fly Lyran in SFC2, just because of TOS fight music.  Running over a light cruiser with four ESGs fired up....  That's satisfaction!  

When flying a capital ship in OP, you may also buy an escort to guard your behind.  Set it to fire on your command.  It is very difficult to get it to propperly defend you, but in that mode, it will shoot down fighters and missles.  This does: however, gives small ships a reason to exist, other than virtue of low price.

Is it multi-player that make the old SFC too hard?  I, personally, have never been able to kill a moderately skilled Fed BCF player with my Klingon C-7.  I'm an average player.  I win some; I lose some.  I know a few tricks.  Some players know how to fly a certain ship with certain tactics and are virtually unbeatable.  Yes, they are intimidating, and unless you have a trick up your sleeve, never fight them on their own turf.  Maybe the blandness of SFC3 give a more level playing field.

Is it TOS vs TNG?  On that I can't comment.  I flipped channels when Voyager came under fire.  TNG combat is the lowpoint of an episode.  Maybe SFC3 is more cannon.  There is certainly less content to contest.  In my humble opion, less is less.  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

Paradigm means what sort of rules do you want to follow in your world, ie real physics or StarTrek physics (or Star Wars).

I believe I addressed this issue already.

Quote:

Context means what do you want the simulation to reflect in its operation. If you want a simulator with both strategic and tactical contexts it obviously adds complexity. But you must choose the context ie WW2 tank combat,  naval combat, 3D space combat.

I won't state the obvious.

Quote:

You then apply the rules of the chosen paradigm to this context. Of course this is a question to you and others, I have no preference in this development. Also if you wish I can loan you a real book, A Brief History of Time, so you can see how the story ends.  

Thankyou Cleaven for the offer, I must decline as I already have two copies of Stephen Hawking's book, and several others. Paul Davies and John Gribben are two other authors on the subject you may wish to read as well.  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 1. Interface - how the game looks and feels on your computer

Agree completely with UI comments.  The SFC1,2,OP UI's were the best.

 

Quote:
2. Races - the good, the bad, and the ugly
 

Humm....all I want for from SFB is Tholians and Andros....is that asking too much?

Honestly I would like to see a game where all the SFB and Canon Trek races are blended together and evolve with time.  For example an all era's game where you select a "year of play" and this defines the map, races, weapons, systems, etc.  If I select the year 2245 for example I would have TOS/SFB races and the game would be pretty much SFB based.  If I select the year 2360 I should see TNG based races, systems, etc.  With this type of game setup things (i.e. tech, weapons, ships etc.) would have dates first available AND dates where things get phased out.  A game like this would have an extensive history briefing to explain how the races evolved over time.  For example, the Lyrans joined the Klingon empire is such-in-such date or the Gorns joined the Feds in such-in-such date and the map now reflects this.

The big question unresolved in my mind about this "all-eras" type game would be whether to use a modified F&E based map or a modified canon map (for example from the recent book Star Trek Star Charts).  The canon map looks pretty hard to balance for strategic gameplay given that some races have HUGE sections of space while others have smaller areas.  It's interesting to note that on an F&E map the Tholians have this "tiny" holdfast but on the canon map they control a vast area.....go figure.

 

Quote:
 3. Devices - Sensors, Cloaking Device, Power management, etc....
 

I hate AV.  It makes no sense to use with starships that are 10's of thousands of KM apart moving at slow speeds relative to each other.  This is not a fighter sim and just because the graphics make it seem like ships are close to each other, in reality they can't see each other visually.  Advanced sensors are critical for space combat just to see the enemy let alone shoot him.  This is why SFB used the ECM/ECCM system.  The graphics in SFC are misleading but have to be done this way for practical gaming reasons.  AV make no sense if you understand the true perspective that was being transferred from the SFB board game.  Bring back ECM/ECCM.

Energy management should be a "game within a game".  Nuff said.

SFB had an officer system...so use it.  Nuff said.

I can live with SFC3's repair system.

6 shields was better because it gave you more ability to maneuver.  More is better.

I can live with SFC3's tactical map.  See I'm not totally closed minded.

SFB's cloaking system worked great and it had a hidden cloak option.  Nothing in SFB prevents a hidden cloak.  Use it.  Nuff said.

As far as weapons go I would have the TOS/SFB races using phasers (1,2,3..etc.) as primary weapons in TOS era but say that the other races eventually fell behind the federation in phaser tech so they replaced phasers with disruptor tech by the TNG eras.  This would all occur over time in an "all eras" format.  Essentually Klingons and Romulans phased out phasers and used disruptor tech (which used to be their heavys in TOS era) for their primary weapons when they couldn't keep up with the feds over time in phaser tech.  The Klingons began using Photon torps along with other new weapons as their new heavies.  Romulans continued improving and using  their plasma weapons as heavies and were able to increase their plasma torp speed over time.


CONCLUSION:  Create an "all eras" SFC where the SFB people get GAW in TOS era but things evolve into more canon TNG as the years go by.  The game's theme is more history based where what you get is based on the "year of play" selected.  By being creative I believe most of what people want can be accomodated.

The big question is WILL THE NEXT PUBLISHER GET THE RIGHTS TO ALL TREK ERAS?  If not, then an "all eras" game is caput and separate games (i.e. TOS based or TNG based) will HAVE to be made.  Activision was in the unique position of being able to do an "all eras" game, but that is now no longer the case.  We'll have to wait and see what happens.

Lastly, for those that think SFB based rules cannot be used for the TNG era, you're wrong and this guy proves it...check out this web site and what this guy has done....it's really cool and could be the basis for an "all eras" SFC:

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/index.html  

[Cpt. Chaos]

So, since we're talking about this,

Can the 'warp bubble' generated around the ship by the warp engines be considered an artificial wormhole?  ...Created by the ship as it travels down it?


Chaos

[Tulwar]

Mr. Hypergol has it exactly right.  

[Cleaven]

Quote:

Quote:

Paradigm means what sort of rules do you want to follow in your world, ie real physics or StarTrek physics (or Star Wars).

I believe I addressed this issue already.

Quote:

Context means what do you want the simulation to reflect in its operation. If you want a simulator with both strategic and tactical contexts it obviously adds complexity. But you must choose the context ie WW2 tank combat,  naval combat, 3D space combat.

I won't state the obvious.

Quote:

You then apply the rules of the chosen paradigm to this context. Of course this is a question to you and others, I have no preference in this development. Also if you wish I can loan you a real book, A Brief History of Time, so you can see how the story ends.  

Thankyou Cleaven for the offer, I must decline as I already have two copies of Stephen Hawking's book, and several others. Paul Davies and John Gribben are two other authors on the subject you may wish to read as well.  

Quite correct, simply switching the terminology around as you have done does not constitute an opposing point of view, it merely clouds the issue for the onlooker.
I prefer Paul Davies, but Steven Hawkings has a better public awareness for his two popular books so you always offer him first to the unwashed masses in the hope that the name will kindle a glimmer of recognition.  

[mbday]

Quote:

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

 
   

NO THIS TREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE SFC vs SFB SFC1, 2, OP vs SFC3.This was about what every one would like too see in a game that could be next. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A vs ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IF YOU READ THE VERY FIRST POST IT WAS NOT ABOUT ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IT WAS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE USE FROM EACH GAME TO MAKE THE GAME THAT EVERY ONE WHATS. NOT JUST THE SFB OR THE SFC OR SFC1, 2, OP OR SFC3 BUT WHAT EVERY ONE WHOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM BOTH SIDE.


  Now sorry about the Yelling but is has been said once or twice already but not one of you have listened.  

[Cleaven]

Quote:

Quote:

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

 
   

NO THIS TREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE SFC vs SFB SFC1, 2, OP vs SFC3.This was about what every one would like too see in a game that could be next. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A vs ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IF YOU READ THE VERY FIRST POST IT WAS NOT ABOUT ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IT WAS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE USE FROM EACH GAME TO MAKE THE GAME THAT EVERY ONE WHATS. NOT JUST THE SFB OR THE SFC OR SFC1, 2, OP OR SFC3 BUT WHAT EVERY ONE WHOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM BOTH SIDE.


  Now sorry about the Yelling but is has been said once or twice already but not one of you have listened.    

And as one of the "you" how does my complaining about the difficulty of making SFC "realistic" translate to SFC Vs SFB? How is it that you have to bring it down to that? Yell all you want, throw a tantrum and stamp your feet if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that realism in space is hard to do. (And that won't make SFB go away either no matter how much you want it to.)  

[Tus]

Wow this went from a simple post to quite the arguement. Its interesting to read, but it would be nice if you all would stop the this arguement on who's idea or opinion is better and instead just post new ideas.  So far its just been pounding in of 1 or 2 opinions that someone disagreed with and nothing really new.

tus  

[mbday]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

 
   

NO THIS TREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE SFC vs SFB SFC1, 2, OP vs SFC3.This was about what every one would like too see in a game that could be next. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A vs ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IF YOU READ THE VERY FIRST POST IT WAS NOT ABOUT ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IT WAS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE USE FROM EACH GAME TO MAKE THE GAME THAT EVERY ONE WHATS. NOT JUST THE SFB OR THE SFC OR SFC1, 2, OP OR SFC3 BUT WHAT EVERY ONE WHOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM BOTH SIDE.


  Now sorry about the Yelling but is has been said once or twice already but not one of you have listened.    

And as one of the "you" how does my complaining about the difficulty of making SFC "realistic" translate to SFC Vs SFB? How is it that you have to bring it down to that? Yell all you want, throw a tantrum and stamp your feet if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that realism in space is hard to do. (And that won't make SFB go away either no matter how much you want it to.)  

    Cleaven I was not talking about you but aabout the ones that are trying to make this a SFB vs what ever type post.
I was not pointing at you. I realy have no problem with SFB. But I have a problem with poeple trying to trun something in to something it is not. You have a very good point.

  As for something new to add. Here you good.
I like the
1) wepones lay out of SFC2 and SFC OP. The ones in SFC3 just suck.
2) The look of SFC1, The one for SFC3 one for all type look.
3) The D3 play. I.E. Fleeting up picking who I what to draft as a enemy and the stublity of it. The sublity relay comes from the type of system that is beening used as a server from what I'm learning.
4)I like the Fighters of SFC2.
5) The most of the wepons SFC OP and SFC2 and the Cloak of SFC3.
6) The easy customation like in SFC3.
7) The mission from SFC2 and SFC OP.
8) MOre race then in SFC3 but not as many as SFC OP.
9) More control over the AI's. Not all of the games have the best control over the AI's SFC3 comes close but it just take to much time to Click on Comms and then go thought every thing like you do in SFC3. Give the Command interface like SFC2 or SFC OP.
10) Officers like SFC3 and SFC1. Als add a few more tothe mix I.E. add a Transport Chife and one for the shuttles not just one officer.
11) Better Graffices.
12) 3D, 3D, 3D.Beening able to come at the enemy from above below or from just about any were.
13) Add some of the Rules from SFC, KA, SFB all of it.
14) MOre ships. MOre ships.MOre Ships. Even TNZ does not have eonght for me. I what to have more ships. Like a Fedx Cargo ship that come with the game not one that you have to make and add to the game.

Ok I think that should do it.
I would also like to close by saying that I feel that all the games have something for every one.
But the above is what I would like to see in a new Star Trek Games.

[Cleaven]

Okay then, how about multiple empires, but only so many empires as you can make different systems for them so that they are different in tactical style. Don't neuter an empire by giving it a special feature which doesn't work thereby making it a weak copy of another empire. I am a fan of the scissors-paper-rock style of game balance and not the mirror-image balance of chess (for this type of game). SFC:TNG does lend itself to the former because of the limited number of races and the options, eg shield/shieldless or cloak/cloakless, but this balancing was not completed (I think). There was still too much equivalence in weapon systems and not enough difference to force really different tactics on each empire. This is a fault of the adherance to the canon of the TNG shows and movies, with insufficient freedom being allowed to the designers to create a better game. Of course there is difference in the game as it is but I think the game would benefit from more differences.  

[mbday]

As I said I realy do not like the way the wopens ion SFC-TNG are. They need to be changed. In many ways.
I would like to see a multiple empires and different systems for each. I would also like to see a game that would have all of the space as Star Trek Does. I.E. Alpha, Delta and so on. Whit wormholes and Transwarp to get around. THis just might make a campaign a little more of fun becuase you have to be abl eto find the right wormholes and or find the to make transwarp drives. You know adding a little more for a  empires to work on besides just taking ground and killing each other. Just makes for more fun I think.

[Mog]

When I used to play Birth of the Federation, I always felt that the tactical aspect of SFC would fit in very well, compared to that game's simplistic tactical side. Only problem being, who would control each Empire's production etc in a mass multiplayer game?

[Lepton1]

While there has been alot posted here, I would say a physics "realistic" game is out of the question for obvious reasons.  What is important is just that the game have a consistent internal game physics.  If we take trek flims and tv as a model for a game, battles would be over in a couple of shots.  If we define realism in this aspect, trek games would be pointless so there is no criteria one might supply to making a game more like trek or getting weapons and systems to be more trek-like as trek movie and TV based battle is silly and plot drive, not anything like a tactical reality.  I don't think there is anything wrong with using probability in game physics.  All events are probablistic, but hit ratios should be modified by distance and speed parameters.  What I do dislike is variable damage amounts.  1 phaser shot to another should be 100% consistent at the same range.

I would vote for an alteration of SFC3 officer modifiers.  Often in SFC3 if one of your officers is hit, you lose significant performace in your ship.  Display of ship capabilities on the refit screnn should always be the base rate without officer effects such that you don't overload your ship with capabilities or weapons, etc that loss of officers would not support, so that in battle you are not saddled with an immobile underpowered hulk.  Officers should only help, not hinder.

I would personally like to see a game based on F&E that moves over multiple eras.  I can hardly imagine a better PvP combat game than SFC unless it were in 3D space, so I think the next logical step would be a pure strat game like F&E that is not Armada.  Ugh, I hate RTS game probably because I suck at them.

[Holocat]

Alright, I can't help myself.

Point 1.  The important word in 'science fiction' is FICTION.  Star Trek is not hard science.  It's not even somewhere near the left field of hard science.  Somewhat hard science fiction is much harder than Star Trek.  Star Trek is a very soft science fiction.  Since we're all here, we all like it anyway.  Please keep this in mind when we start talking realism.  Technobabble is a Star Trek invented term, and it was invented because most of what Star Trek does dosen't make sense to Physically minded people, and that the writers really don't care.


Point 2.  I would address the argument for Delta AV and the importance of Delta AV.  

First, Cleaven is right, Delta AV is what, in the area outside this screen known as reality, makes a moving target hard to hit.

Secondly, I would put forward a reason why we will use discreet values instead, at least for the time being.

Whatever happened to the US initative FAADS (Forward Area Air Defense Systems (my apologies, if I got the acronym wrong, i'm just too lazy to check it)) and the several brain childs that came from it, such as the Sergant York?

Well, they failed.  Why?  The computers we're using can't target a hostile with sufficently intresting Delta AV if their life depended on it.

Calculating delta AV in a real time setting is beyond the brains of most computers, from evidence.  Why on earth should we expect a overworked programming team that has to deal with graphical programming, interface design, and an endless horde of changing tools try to create a solution to a problem that the Defense Department hasen't figured out? (contrary to public opinion, I belive that the defence department would like their missles to hit just as much as anyone else)

But I suspect that what Cleaven wants is much simpler, such as a negative modifier to hit dependant on the current value of delta AV.

Even so, there is one tiny problem.  This takes computing power.  Not alot, but if you program, you'll probably agree that it takes a whole lot more computing than an set of discreet values (IE, a static array(and yes, dammit, ignoring swapping and thread issues, and what ever else you can come up with at a sufficently low level that muddies the waters;  gimme a break already.).)

Let's take a simple combat between three ships.  Each pair of ships have a different relative delta AV.  6 possible calculations.  Not too bad.
A ship launches 3 groups of fighters.  Each group of fighters has a different relative value of delta AV.  Presuming that they're not traitors and won't attack their carrier, that's 12 more AV calculations.
Oh oh, a ship just let a scatterpack burst.  Assuming that both the opposing ships can fire on each of those 6 missles, that's another 12 (assuming we don't take into account the delta AV of the target the missle is hitting when it hits, which would be another 6 calculated on impact)

Regardless whether this is accurate or i'm an idiot and this is a bit off, these calculations take time.  Quite a bit of time.  Time that isn't spent updating your 19" screen (that usually needs to be updated far faster than I want to think about).  Time that's not spent showing you cool blasty graphics, or blaring out cool tunes.

Faking AV?  Programmers can do that.  Real AV?  you're joking, right?  RIGHT?  And for any of those fans of AV, it's probably faked with a table of discreet values too;  There is no change in how it's actually calculated, it's just the *look*

To conclude the delta AV point, it can also be faked with a table of discreet values.  Tables are nice, friendly and fast.  Calculations that potentially involve irrational numbers are as unfriendly to a base processor as you can get.


Point 3, SFB is not reality.  Let's deconstruct another principle:  That 1 unit on the tatical screen equals 10'000 km.  Has anyone ever wondered if this was true, or took it from the mouth of Sulu that it was?
As much as I like Sulu, I did my own test.  I simply timed how long it took at speed X to cover .1 of a unit, or 1 unit if I was moving fast.  Then I flew over another ship, and given the time it took, calculated how large that ship should have been.

In this game, if 1 unit indeed equals 10 000 km, a D7, from stem to stern, is about 200km, making it slightly larger than the movies and published 'technical' manuals. (if you wish to take this test, drive slowly and get the other ship to sit still.  I found that the distance is usually 0.02 from very rough estimates;  i'm not anal enough to use a clock to demonstrate this.)

To put another nail in that coffin, I recall from SFB that a speed of 11 or so is warp 1.  Let's be less generous and simply ask the question;  If a value of 1 = 10 000 km, do I ever fly faster than light speed?

Light speed is about 3 million meters per second, or 300 000 km per second.  this is about 30 units.  Has anyone ever crossed 30 units in a second, regardless of set speed?  I can't even do it at game speed 11.


Let's come about to the final and first point I made in this post, that the important word in science fiction is FICTION.

Remember, all that you see is an illusion.  The shapes made in a graphical design program look good, but the construction of those images are but shortcuts of what one would actually see.

My point?  Tatical simulators intrest people NOT because they're realistic;  No tatical simulator can be realistic, for if there is a computational shortcut, a way to shave off five lines of code, a method where a value need not be accessed every time, programmers will take it, like it, and be very happy with it, for we will not have the computing power to simulate real life anytime soon.  Fake real life?  That's just around the corner.  Simulate real life?  that's a different beast altogether, and what a beast it is.

Tatical simulators intrest people because the rules that they do follow ARE INTERSTING, OPEN AND TASTEFUL.

By intresting I mean the rules played engage one's mind, regardless of complexity;  Even checkers is an intresting tatical simulation, if you can find out what the game is truly playing at.

By open I mean that there is no set pattern to winning, no set of procedural steps that always result in what you want.  Walking is not an intresting tatical simulation because of this.

Tasteful is where most of the arguments come from, for by tasteful I mean the rules and idioms placed in one's mind, by prejustice, education, or culture, that ONE EXPECTS TO SEE AND POSSIBLY EXPLOIT.  To date I have never found a real time tatical wargame satisfactory because of the way infantry is treated;  This is simply my opinion.  
Others hate the SFC 3 cloak, as they see it as unbalancing, a superweapon if you will.  There's nothing in reality that prevents someone having a superweapon (then again, a true superweapon is quite hard to make), but these people expect balance, and expect it in their favor (or at least a bit more in their favor than it is now, a chance if you will).  
Some people want some sort of AV.  What does this mean?  They expect that manuver matters in combat resolution, that a big slow object is easier to hit than a speedy small one.  A perfectly logical statement if not scrutinized too far.  

Try not to make a monster out of details and cut to what they really want when they say something.  Someone wants AV?  They want to be able to hit a starbase more easily than a frigate, in the sense that a moving small ship is probably at most times harder to hit than a immoble, enormous starbase.  How one decides to implement the change is irrelavent, so long as the effect it has is what one desires.

Should targeting be made harder according to AV or delta AV?  I don't think Nanner cares, as long as the effect of a small ship being harder to hit than a big ship is maintained.

Perhaps more time should be spend desconstructing why everyone liked what they did in each game, and why they didn't.  Labels are nice, but in this place where nothing exists except the weak magnetic signatures we put labels on, we can become easily confused as to what we really mean.

Remember there's life outside the corners of your screen (or perhaps ON them if you're to lazy to clean),

Holocat.

Note:  Most spammy post *ever*