Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP

[Tulwar]

If I didn't want a SFB-like game, I would have never, ever remotely considdered buying into SFC.  Any space war game should be 3d.  2d was a convention I was willing to accept because SFB, being a boardgame too complicated and time consuming to actually play, was so interesting.  It was so open-ended, with limitless possiblities, not just tactical, but stategic.

Fleets are made of ships, and ships have weapons and capablities.  Fleets are organized on the differences in those weapons and capablities.  In SFC1, 2, and OP, you had captalships, escorts, fire support ships, ships designed to opperate independently, and ship designed to opperate against specific adversaties.  This is the heart of fleet combat.  This is the difference between stategy and tactics.  Have a force of different ships doing very different jobs, working together for the same goal.

Think of it!  In the blink of an eye, a tiny escort could hurtle straight into a swarm of missles, save the carrier, and thus snatch victory from the jaws of defeat!  Picture a mauler tucked away in the back of the fleet, coming forward to smash a shield on an enemy a starbase!  SFC was almost there!  I could taste it!  

Then I see SFC3, and read these post about the "realism" of the AV system.  Give me a break.  

[Storvick]

What we need is a game that supports and helps both SFBers and non SFBers. I really bought the games because it was Star Trek based and better then the others out there. If they make a SFC thats all SFB style then count me out.

[NannerSlug]

okay cleaven, then use delta AV - it really doesnt matter to me either way - (i understand the difference between the two) it simply to me is a matter of developing a system which seems more realistic and engaging than 16% hit brackets and what not. it is again, personal preference.. the bottom line either way -> the bigger and slower it is, the easier target it is. the smaller and faster it is, the harder it is to acquire and squish.

i also agree - it is about building a good trek ship to ship combat game.

[Cleaven]

You say you appreciate what delta AV really is, but then say it doesn't matter which you use? Regardless of which is more correct for the game system to work in a future-tech realistic way.

The point is that if you want FPS style realism reflected in the difficulty to hit calculations then you have to choose what is right, not just say "Anything but SFB is okay".  

[NannerSlug]

cleaven - that was not a jab at sfb - it was a point blank positive opinion about what i would like. i personally feel that plain old die roll where you can miss a starbase at point blank or near point blank range is inferoir to a system which takes into consideration the speed and size of the target you are shooting at. very simple (yet realistic in my view) point.

yes, i do understand delta movment and you are probably correct that it would be the more realistic model visa via erratic manuevers or jinking - but you should also take into consideration the over all speed and size of the ship as well. no biggie for me - it is solely a personal preference.

relax, breathe, enjoy life.

peace, luv and chikin

[Cleaven]

That's okay then. Of course if each hull had a size class modifer it would help. If you want detail don't go any further than the ASL system. The SFB-is-too-hard whiners just don't have a clue.  

[Cpt. Chaos]

Quote from the Reverend:

Quote:
I agree with having more ships for fleet control.... and with the many other great ideas previosuly noted. SFB, however, appealed only to mathematics majors in colleges.

Heh, heh, well, I wouldn't say math majors, as the actual math wasn't all that complex, but I would agree that it is a game for smart people.  Any idiot can master an FPS (no offense meant, for those who happen to be idiots.)

Quote:
 It was and is simply too complex, too droll, and too anal-retentive with the over-abundance of rules upon rules, as well as its restrictions-

Oh, I agree with you, and that's the beauty part of SFC...  If the game engine let's you do it, you can do it, if it doesn't, then you can't.  Simple, no hours of haggling with smug, 350 lb. rules lawyers covered in Doritos crumbs and pizza grease, no 15 minute waits while someone tries to find the rule they're sure they remember having read...  Of course, you can come here later and argue that the game engine is wrong, but that doesn't interupt the flow of the game.  SFC can mantain nearly all the complexity of the Doomsday rules, without the Doomsday rules.  That, and an intellegent AI opponent make it vastly superior to all those rule books, and having to hope that at least a few players show up at the game store on Saturday to play with you...

Quote:
 it has almost nothing to do with the Star Trek series. Why can't you go to warp when needed, or have to travel through hexes? Why cant you find such-and-such on a map and then dock/communicate/engae with it? Hexes were simply for easier plotting, not something to base everything on... hexes are like the Tactical view- a tool, not the universe. TNG SFC drew more than the others because it had a little more of the ST feel to it, and less SFB. Yes, SFB was an excellent tactical pursuit, but, stop flogging a dead horse. Use some of its concepts, but do beddragle everyone with infinite rules that end up ruining a playing experience... we needed a continuous space experience, not sectionalizing everything.. its clausterphobic.

Well, let's remember that SFB was designed as a tactical ship combat system, not a complete Trek Universe to go out and explore.  Let's also remember that SFB achieved a remarkable feat: It made consistant, logical sense out of a series of scripts that were written by many different people and then mashed down into a 1-hour TV show...  The fact that SFB departed from ST was mainly a function of the fact that it had no choice.  It had to be much more consistant than the TV show ever dreamed of being.  It ended up having to invent enough stuff, in order to maintain a consistant, logical system, that in the end it wondered off into it's own little section of the Trek universe.  It had to.

Quote:
 Friends, I know you love your SFB, but it should have been taking several steps further.... no one bought the game(s) because it didnt have anything to do with Star Trek- they couldn't live out their favorite scenarios because they would feel cramped..."Gosh, why can't I go backwards- I can exceed the speed of light (after I leave the hex?!?), but I cant back up? Why can I see that cloaked ship? Why can I not see myself dock with Starbases? How do I know its even doing so?".
I would almost say get out of your shells, but that's rude. I mena to say, no, I do not want to see it dumbed down further, just add a universe to it- some depth. Not 3-d up and down, thats for fighter games and Star Wars- these are stately, massive, and majestic ships. They would require a lot of interface, but we needed a bigger place to play in- a consistent and continuous space to play it, with the hexes only for a tactical drop-down when your planning something or flying somewhere specific. And no. its not that hard- look at all the other games that sell ten times more than this series. SFC was sooo close! SO close! Bridge Commander was too confusing, although I beat it, too much like flying a fat old fighter... too fast- but the universe was a close shot at what would sell.  

If they could combine the best elements from SFC TNG, plenty and plenty of races to fight and play, modability, and a continuous space with reactionary places and things, it would sell, I know it would. Thats not too much to consider, really. Science missions, rescue missions, being able to interact fully with any object, land on bases or beam things to planets, whatever.

At the risk of starting a real flame war, which is certainly not my intention, I will note that what you are describing sounds an awful lot like the vision of BC3000...  He (the unnamed one) wants a complete, thorough universe that you can explore and conquer from one end to the other.  I have not done more than read about it, so I can't really say, but maybe you should actually try it?

Remember, this game (SFC) began life with the specific intention of bringing SFB to the computer.  They made it real time because they felt it would sell to a wider audience, and I guess you are part of the proof that they were right.  But I submit that you are longing for a different game.  One that is not based on SFB at all.  One that captures your vision of the Trek Universe.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!  However, it is a mistake to try to retrofit your dream onto a game designed around mere tactical ship combat scenarios...  SFC is, and was meant from the start to be SFB for the computer, or at least relatively close.  That is ALL.

Quote:
 ...By using SFB rules to the letter in something like this, it alienates a lot of potential customers, who have waited forever for a ST game that is just fun, and reminds them of their favorite show. I have played many other games, and had a lot of fun.. I paid to be on their server... it was a nuisance, but it was worth it, because I actually felt like I was flying a spaceship in outer space. Too bad it had nothing to do with ST. My point being, is that there is a lot more to argue about or wish for than more stiff SFB rules. A real universe, with real things and places to interact with. Unique places to see and go and fight in. Sure, lets have plenty of fighting, thats the backbone of such, lets just not ask for it to be any more stiffer than it is already.  

Again, that sounds like a really cool game.  It just has very little to do with SFC.  Leave us in peace to fight our little battles, please.  Your game is out there, somewhere, and if not now, then soon.


Chaos

[Rod O'neal]

A couple of mistakes made about SFB. 1, You do have reverse movement in SFB. 2, You do have small target modifiers in SFB. 3, You do move at warp in SFB. 4, You do have hidden cloak in SFB. I won't bore anyone by being a rules lawyer and quoting all the rules verbatum w/all the letters and numbers and decimals No insult intended to anyone. "Rules Lawyer" is an accepted term in the SFB universe.  

[NannerSlug]

one quick correction choas about fps - not every idiot can play all fps.. i would challenge you to try rainbow6 raven shield, ghost recon, etc.. you may not know this - but there are many, many tactics involved in many fps games.. so you can stop trying to make a game "superior" because it is not an fps game - simply put, its all about individual taste in game.

rob - even if there were modifiers (which i have never heard of before - this is the first ive heard of it), it is still based on 16% range breaks - and while size modifiers would be a good step forward, it still probably does not take into consideration its movement, etc (it cant - we are talking about real time here).

anywho. like i have said many, many times before - its a matter of taste. .some of us just want the best trek ship to ship combat game we can.. others (like your self) want to reproduce sfb to the letter (save the turn base aspect). it is all a matter of taste and opinion - and is why there will always be conflicts. <shrug>

getting back to this thread -> my suggestion is simply that the targeting solution should be based on realistic factors, not range breaks and die role, that is my personal opinion - nothing more, nothing less.

[Cleaven]

It's also would be good if the SFC:TNG ranges were based on expressions representing performance curves, and not range tables even though they are smoother than SFB/SFC (with range breaks none the less). This would also add to the realism and not just change big range breaks for small range breaks.
As for the dice, I was under the impression that SFC:TNG did use a random number generator based on a D10 (10 sided or percentile dice). If it doesn't use dice for it's randomness then what does it use?  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

rob - even if there were modifiers (which i have never heard of before - this is the first ive heard of it), it is still based on 16% range breaks -

There are small target modifiers in SFB.  There have been ever since the early 1980's.  They are used for fighters and other targets which are very small, and thus difficult for targeting sensors to keep a steady lock on.

Quote:
and while size modifiers would be a good step forward, it still probably does not take into consideration its movement, etc  

Of course it does.  So does SFC.  It's called the erratic maneuvers modifier.

I take issue with your arguement that Battleships should be easier to hit than destroyers by any game-reflected mechanic.  Space is big.  Ships are small.  At 20,000 km (range two) not even the BB is visible to the naked eye.  What is important is how accurately you sensors can resolve the target when they pick out a point in space and hold your needle-beam phasers on it.  If they can hold the target, the size of the target is irrelevant in comparison to the acrlength near the target of even a tiny wiggle in your own pointing vector.

-S'Cipio

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
i challenge the notion that sfc3 went away from THE core audience.. THE core audience arguably are trek fans.

The core audience of SFC is by definition SFB fans.

SFC *is* SFB.  Really, it is.  The (minor) differences between the two (like drone speeds or double internals) are no bigger than the variances you will find in the house rules of various gaming clubs.  It doesn't change the fact that a drone is still a drone, a plasma is still a plasma,  the ECM rules are still the ECM rules, and your ship is still a copy of the SFB SSD.

If the gamer bought SFC and played it for a week and then tossed it out, then maybe they only played it because it was a Trek game.  The core audience of SFC, however, bought a game and was still playing it over a year later.  That means they liked the way the game worked.  That means -- whether they knew it or not -- they liked SFB.

SFC3 (sic) wasn't Starfleet Command, and it wasn't the third installment of anything.  It walked away from its core audience.

That being said, the point of this thread is to decide what is best from each title.  Given that I'd admit I like the ability to form fleets and move together in SFC3 (sic).  That feature should be retained.

My favorite cloak is the one from SFB.  (Standard rules, with non-hidden movement.)  SFC1 and 2 shortchanged the Romulans as those titles did not fully implement the damage reduction abilities of cloak in SFB.  I hear the new OP patch will try to do this, and for this reason I'm actually looking forward to dusting off my copy of OP once the patch is released.

-S'Cipio

[Cleaven]

Another two cents since I'm bored:
The TNG implimentation of the cloak is cool, like it is in the other TNG games, but it is not balanced. There is a lot of balance built into SFC2 due to it's heritage. There was also a lot of balance lost due to the almost but not quite complete translation of the game systems, and a little more was lost with the real time translation. Some rebalancing was required.

The TNG cloak was not balanced in it's initial implimetation and this was made harder by the closeness in operation of the weapons systems between the empires. Two empires got a cloak, requiring a three way balance instead of two way. Also there was no play history of the TNG systems to fall back on to have a good idea of what was a good balance and what is not. StarCraft still gets my rating for all-time game balance and it had to go through two iterations of WarCraft to get there with multiple patches to get the three way system right.  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Angular Velocity... hmmmm...
Does this emply Newtonian Mechanics or Einsteinian Mechanics as the base mathematical formulae. And what about the relativistic time-distortion properties of a sub-space field? And what about the Picard Maneuver?

[Cleaven]

That depends. Do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
That depends. Do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?    

Even assuming that all combat is done at sublight speeds (which it isnt), Newtonian mechanics works fine for ordinary everyday physics. However, once you reach a velocity that is even just a mere few percent of the speed of light, we begin to see errors, the theory for which was put forward by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity, and later shown to be a better physics model by measuring the apparent position of stars that lie close to the horizon of the Sun. The stars' position were not quite where they should have been according to Newtonian mechanics, but were exactly where Einstein predicted they would be. This showed that light waves (particles??) were 'bent' through a gravity well, hence the term Einsteinian mechanics.
According to the Special Theory of Relativity, as an object increases in velocity closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases, and it's relative time slows down. At the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass, and time stops. The only known particle to move faster than the speed of light is a tachyon. Such a particle, in fact, can never move slower than the speed of light. It is theorised that such a particle must therefore have the property of negative relative time, that is, it is moving backwards in time.

In Star Trek physics, the ficticious 'warp bubble' is used to seperate the relativistic time dilation effects of faster than light space travel, so that on board time is the same as an observer remaining stationary and is not near a gravity well.

[Cleaven]

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?  

[Rod O'neal]

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?    

I  think her point is that if you want it based on reality this is the type of considerations that you would have to make, and therefore, not practical. I might be wrong though, she's obviously a lot smarter than I am.    

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Korah posted: "In this post I use the term "SFB players" to mean supporters of SFC1/2/OP and "SFC players" to mean supporters of SFC3."

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....

Most fans of the original games...dont like SFC3.....most new fans dont like the original games....

THAT is the divide.....a third game system will never solve that....

Korah posted: "This discussion should not be about "SFB vs SFC", it should be about what the players want. "

We allready did that....Erik took a poll....SFB based SFC won hands down....Many ot the "improvements" in SFC3 were outright suggestions from the original game fan base.....the problem is that these "improvments" were placed in a game that few of the "existing" fan base wanted....

Nanner posted: ".some of us just want the best trek ship to ship combat game we can.. others (like your self) want to reproduce sfb to the letter (save the turn base aspect)."

LMAO....You know...some of us think that we allready had the "best ship to ship combat game".....

Look...you guys have every right to think that SFC3 is superior....just as people like me have every right to think that the original games are superior...there are even people who like BOTH games for their own qualities....

 But its just too late...the product line has been split....as has the fan base....nothing can change that now...

People like myself....will never accept a "Galaxies at War" based on SFC3.....

SFC4 should simply continue on with the SFC3 ruleset.....while GaW should continue the sfc2/OP ruleset...

This is the only way to make both fan groups happy...









 
   

[Cleaven]

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.