Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP

[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*  
 

[Captain KoraH]

Crimnik, you seem to have lost the point of my post by getting too caught up in the verbiage.


 

Quote:
 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.....

Uhm... Who cares?

 

Quote:
 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....
 

 

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

 

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

That is precisely what we are discussing here. A 3rd game system that will fix the rift between the two camps.


 
[evil]

I know it's wrong, but I just have to do it...

Quote:
 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....

  How cute! You believe that a poll taken on the Taldren forums is representative of the entire gaming public!  


[/evil]
 

[Mr. Hypergol]

In reference to Holocat's analysis of SFB reality, the point is that starships engage each other at significant standoff distances...i.e. 1000's of km's.  In the TV shows for example the D7 was magnified on the viewscreen ONLY.  If someone had looked out the window during these battles the D7 would have looked like a point of light moving against the background of stars.  Phaser and photon fire would have moved off in the direction of the (D7) point of light with an occasional flash near the point of light.

If you've ever watched NASA select TV during a shuttle / station rendezvous you'll know what I mean.  The station and shuttle see each other as nothing but points of light until they are very close to each other....maybe until 5 miles apart.

The point I'm making is that angular velocity does not come much into play with slow moving starships that are 1000's of km apart from each other.  Size might have an impact but not much because the effect of distance on targeting is of a much greater magnitude.  For example, at a distance of 1000 km there isn't much difference between a frigate and a starbase.  Don't let the illusion of the SFC game graphics mislead you.

In this kind of combat what REALLY matters is the quality of your sensors to lock on to a target and resolve it at a great distance.  You are also interested in making yourself harder to see or lock-on to.  In SFB ECM is a way of disrupting the other guy's sensors so he can't see you as well making you harder to resolve as a target and hit.

The effect of AV was covered by "erratic maneuvers" in SFB.  But AV does not have as much effect on targeting at great distances like ECM does, that's why "erratic manuevers" is a small modifier in SFB compared to other ECM effects or special sensors on Scouts.

In SFC3, the emphasis on AV would make sense if we now say starships are highly maneuverable like fighters and fight each other in close quarters.  But that is not what was being simulated in SFB and I assume SFC dispite what the board game dimensions or game graphics make it seem.  In that sense SFC3 is definately NOT based on SFB and has entirely change the focus of ship to ship combat in space from what originally was described as a "naval" tactical combat simulator.  Even in today's modern navy it would be hard for a DDG to "dodge" another DDG.  Such is not the nature of "naval" combat.  In today's modern Navy ECM is the name of the game....in tomorrow's space battles ECM will be even more of a factor....hence why the military is putting so much money into developing sensors for NMD.    

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Ren, I've been saying that for quite a while now  

Cleaven is my hero.  


BTW, Tracey...you bother because it's good to bother.  


 

[Tus]

here are a few ideas i was tossing around

1.  Empire production rates.  they could be 1 controled by a computer or 2 be controled in game.  i see the 2nd for fleets and all  so that they could actually have control over the game

2.    more players in game

3.  on dyna, the ability to jump into the middle of an engagment.  would be fun being able to call back up in

4.  a campaign that has multiple senarios instead of just 1 outcome.  most of the time when u lose 1 battle that is important, game over.   would make the campaign more interesting

5.  MORE MISSIONS.  on dyna you got a select few missions, I want more .  the more variety the better

6.  intergrated voice chat.  now that would be good

7.  a biggie, works better behind networks.

8.  the ability to be a frieghter commander.  ya its weird, but it would be fun running around the galaxy making money, fending of pirates and the whole 9 yards

9.  i think someone mentioned this earlier, but it would be nice to see your ship dock at a star base, or be in orbit around a planet or somthing

tus


 

[Lepton1]

Quote:
In reference to Holocat's analysis of SFB reality, the point is that starships engage each other at significant standoff distances...i.e. 1000's of km's.  In the TV shows for example the D7 was magnified on the viewscreen ONLY.  If someone had looked out the window during these battles the D7 would have looked like a point of light moving against the background of stars.  Phaser and photon fire would have moved off in the direction of the (D7) point of light with an occasional flash near the point of light.

If you've ever watched NASA select TV during a shuttle / station rendezvous you'll know what I mean.  The station and shuttle see each other as nothing but points of light until they are very close to each other....maybe until 5 miles apart.

The point I'm making is that angular velocity does not come much into play with slow moving starships that are 1000's of km apart from each other.  Size might have an impact but not much because the effect of distance on targeting is of a much greater magnitude.  For example, at a distance of 1000 km there isn't much difference between a frigate and a starbase.  Don't let the illusion of the SFC game graphics mislead you.

In this kind of combat what REALLY matters is the quality of your sensors to lock on to a target and resolve it at a great distance.  You are also interested in making yourself harder to see or lock-on to.  In SFB ECM is a way of disrupting the other guy's sensors so he can't see you as well making you harder to resolve as a target and hit.

The effect of AV was covered by "erratic maneuvers" in SFB.  But AV does not have as much effect on targeting at great distances like ECM does, that's why "erratic manuevers" is a small modifier in SFB compared to other ECM effects or special sensors on Scouts.

In SFC3, the emphasis on AV would make sense if we now say starships are highly maneuverable like fighters and fight each other in close quarters.  But that is not what was being simulated in SFB and I assume SFC dispite what the board game dimensions or game graphics make it seem.  In that sense SFC3 is definately NOT based on SFB and has entirely change the focus of ship to ship combat in space from what originally was described as a "naval" tactical combat simulator.  Even in today's modern navy it would be hard for a DDG to "dodge" another DDG.  Such is not the nature of "naval" combat.  In today's modern Navy ECM is the name of the game....in tomorrow's space battles ECM will be even more of a factor....hence why the military is putting so much money into developing sensors for NMD.    

I don't think I agree with this "distant ships" concept especially when we view TNG, Voyager, and DS9 battles.  They are clearly within visual range.  Of course you will say this is just for visual effect, but that is the standard set for us.  Ships engage at close quarters.  That is why the defiant was an unusual ship, fast and small.  While I understand and agree with your "naval" analysis, again we are not in the real world here.  Whether or not SFB/SFC are on a naval combat model, we want to see ships banging it out face to face, not taking potshots at each other from  thousands of kilometers away.   I don't dispute viewscreens are often at magnification, but scenes outside of the ships clearly show them in close proximity especially in Wrath of Khan, especially in the nebula for a TMP example.

[Lepton1]

Quote:


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.
 
 

 Perhaps misunderstand what you mean by a tactical simulation, but the military has based their lives on tactical simulation, be they aircraft simulators or naval simulations.

Additionally, there are a whole host of tactical simulation games that follow physical models with accuracy to a varying degree.  IL2 being one of the most physically based aircraft combat games that receives high marks from people who have actually flown the aircraft in question.

But I assume you are speaking of some higher level of organization in these tactical simulations, but it is a sliding scale when you have 20 or more planes in that air and ground units, etc.  Sounds pretty tactical to me.  But your points are taken.

[Mr. Hypergol]

I agree the "distant ships" concept is debatable when watching the shows.  Too bad it looks like one ship is right on top of the other and the helmsman is still saying "1000 Km"......confusing isn't it.

Anyway, I guess it's again a matter of preference.  If we like our SFC based on SFB then the distant ship concept applies because the SFB rulebooks clearly state the ranges are considerable.  This also explains why ECM has so much emphasis in SFB and AV (erratic maneuvering) has less.

If you like the SFC3 system where a destroyer flies like a fighter.....then AV is appropriate.

Personally I own both fighter sims and naval sims but SFC3 is the first sim I own where they've combined the two.

For SFC I prefer a "naval" sim.

Quote:
 especially in Wrath of Khan, especially in the nebula for a TMP example.  

It's interesting that you mention ST2.  That is a masterpiece.  Ironically, it supports both our points.  Even though the ships are in close proximity, they definately act like massive ships and not fighters.  It's also important to note that Kirk made a tactical error letting the Reliant get to point blank range....I believe he said "I got caught with my britches down.....must be getting senile".

As the shows and movies have progress it seems that we see more and more of the fighter-like behaviour in starship movement.  Perhaps this is done because it makes the show a bit more exciting......who knows?  

[Tulwar]

Quote:
I don't think I agree with this "distant ships" concept especially when we view TNG, Voyager, and DS9 battles.  They are clearly within visual range.  Of course you will say this is just for visual effect, but that is the standard set for us.  Ships engage at close quarters.  That is why the defiant was an unusual ship, fast and small.  While I understand and agree with your "naval" analysis, again we are not in the real world here.  Whether or not SFB/SFC are on a naval combat model, we want to see ships banging it out face to face, not taking potshots at each other from  thousands of kilometers away.   I don't dispute viewscreens are often at magnification, but scenes outside of the ships clearly show them in close proximity especially in Wrath of Khan, especially in the nebula for a TMP example.  

Has anyone ever heard the theatrical expression "convention?"  Yeah, when Voyager duked it out with a couple of Kaison ships, they did appeared to be fighting at distances that would make infantry feel closterphobic!  The limits of my imagination imploded watching the segment, but I realised that the director  made the ships appear that close for a good screenshot.  He had to justify the expense of the huge, lavishly produced models.

Babylon V, in contrast, used computer generated models.  The director could afford to make the station appear a hundred kilometers off as a Centari cruiser fired on it.  The convention here was that B5 had to be depicted large enough for the audience to recognise it.

Back during the US civil war, hot air balloons were used to spot for artillary.  Before WWII, battleships were designed with steam catapults to launch aircaft to spot for the big guns.  Even then, ships were integrated for combat beyond visual range.  Today, nations are equipped with non-strategic missles that have ranges in the hundreds of miles.

Please, do not insult our intellegence by telling us that in the twentieth-fifth century, we should expect faster than light spacecraft to fight at shorter ranges than we are familar with in the present.  

[Rod O'neal]

OK. I think the thread wants to know what we'd like to see in a game? Discussion about why it should or shouldn't be there is fine and I don't think we should discourage it. Debate away I would like to see more SFB, big surprise, in a 3D enviroment. I know SFB is 2D, but I think it started out that way because your table top is 2D and when someone suggested to add 3D rules, sometime after the "Temporal Elevator", the response was that the rules would be too complicated. In a PC game, that shouldn't be a prob. SO, SFB3D for me.  

[Tulwar]

I first want to appologize for my recent rant against SFC3.  Not that I don't mean every word that I said, but it's just not helpful.

Back years ago, I found a computer game called "Harpoon."  It was a game of modern naval combat based on the only board game more complicated than SFB.  It took a very different approach to computer gaming.  In Harpoon, the player took the position of a theatre commander, not an individual ship commander.  There were no lavish models, only a map, icons, range circles, and windows for controling the units.  The game was usually played in compressed time, but could be slowed down to real time when the crunch was on.

With the exception of fixed bases, enemy units did not appear unil detected by friendly units.  Having spoted a target, indivifual patrolling units with the propper load-outs would voluntier to intercept.  You could either let them, redirect other units, or even lauch aircaft to do the job.  It was suprizingly realistic, considdering that a modern US force commander is sitting in front of a CRT, looking at icons on a map.

I could see this as a model for a grand strategy ST game in 3d.  Of course, the ruleset would be radically simplified to work,  half the SFB rules would be tossed out the window, while new rules concerning sensor would have to be made up.  Think of the stategic implications for a cloaking device!

Not that I'm a programmer, but it seems as if it would be easier to code, thus less expensive to produce than SFC.

Just a thought.    

[Holocat]

Quote:
In reference to Holocat's analysis of SFB reality, the point is that starships engage each other at significant standoff distances...i.e. 1000's of km's.  In the TV shows for example the D7 was magnified on the viewscreen ONLY.  If someone had looked out the window during these battles the D7 would have looked like a point of light moving against the background of stars.  Phaser and photon fire would have moved off in the direction of the (D7) point of light with an occasional flash near the point of light.

Logical, consistant, and totally irrelevant

Quote:

In SFC3, the emphasis on AV would make sense if we now say starships are highly maneuverable like fighters and fight each other in close quarters.  But that is not what was being simulated in SFB and I assume SFC dispite what the board game dimensions or game graphics make it seem.  In that sense SFC3 is definately NOT based on SFB and has entirely change the focus of ship to ship combat in space from what originally was described as a "naval" tactical combat simulator.  Even in today's modern navy it would be hard for a DDG to "dodge" another DDG.  Such is not the nature of "naval" combat.  In today's modern Navy ECM is the name of the game....in tomorrow's space battles ECM will be even more of a factor....hence why the military is putting so much money into developing sensors for NMD.    

We can guess until we're blue in face at what space combat will be like.  Until it happens, we won't know.

Our university here has the New York Times and the London Times on microfiche since their inception.  I don't know about today's navy, but in yesterday's navy, the navy of the iron cruiser (the navy I belive you wish to see simulated AND the navy which I am told SFB is based on), The London Times has many wonderful accounts of how maneauver was important in that age, from the people sailing the ships and firing the guns at the time of world war 1, where most iron cruisers saw action. (they saw action in WW2 as well, but were already more liablities than assets at this point in time)

In addition, you have a certian degree of WW2-ness/early cold war-ness when talking about fighters.  In this modern age, it tends to be less the ablity of the aircraft to 'engage at close quarters' then it is to launch it's missles first;  They too usually no longer see each other in combat, which is why almost all combat aircraft do not carry direct fire weapons, in favor of more missles.

This is also ALL COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.


To reiterate the main point in my last, long, spammy, and probably skipped, post, It's FICTION.  Do the ships in SFB engage at long ranges?  The manuals probably have a statment saying as much, but what this really is, is an explanation for WHY THE RULES ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, NOT THE OTHER WAY 'ROUND.

If ships engaged at ranges of 1000's of km would delta AV be less of a concern?  Mabey so.  The statement is certainly logical.

Let's get to what's important here.  Underneath all the explanation for why you consider delta AV to be moot, your real reasons for wanting things the way they are show:

Quote:

a "naval" tactical combat simulator.

Ah ha!  Your reasoning for wanting AV to not be a tatical consideration is that you want this to be a naval game.  In the way SFB is a naval game:  Big ships, big guns and lots of ka-plowieplow.  A true, blue, "Thundering Guns of the 42nd" kind of schtik.  This is what you find TASTEFUL.

Let's stick completely to what we think is realistic, and for the sake of argument use the modern navy as an example.  If we continue with the "what is realistic in the modern navy" padigram, we get no significant AV.  Fine.  

We also get no tatical combat, or at least not the tatical combat as described in SFB.  You might not like that.  In an age where we can hit things we can't even see, we probably won't maneauver back and fourth as we do in SFC and SFB.  We'd instead build ships with wider sensors, better missles, and more efficient point defence, as most modern navies do.  Guns are usless, unless bombarding shorlines or threatening merchantmen;  Missles do the killing.  The simplist tatical padigram would be to simply sit on the Dynaverse map and hit one of two buttons: SCAN or FIRE MISSLES.  Not terribly exciting.

Of course, in real life there's support from fixed installations, indirect attacking(a VERY basic concept that is poorly implemented in the dynaverse), aircraft, submarines, etc.  All this combined can make (and has made) some very intresting STRATEGIC simulators.  There have been tatical simulators on modern naval missle combat, but I haven't to date seen any mentioned here.

So why is the WW1 type, "Thundering Guns of the 42nd" of 'naval' simulator more interesting, apparently?  A possible and simple answer is this:  Blood lust.  It's perfectly plausable to make a perfect SFB game with the ranges you describe, where your enemey is a tiny, tiny blip lost in space and the only thing that tells you it's there is your sensors pointing it out to you.  When it dies, you probably won't even ever be sure what it was or how it died.

I'm quite sure you won't be satisfied, probably often confused as to whats going on, and swiftly shelve the game.

The reason this game and the universe it's based on has direct fire weapons is because they're MORE PERSONAL.  The reason the ships are far larger in SFC than they should be is the same reason SFC 2, OP and SFC 3 have hull damage graphics, and why the game is so much slower that what would be 'realistic,' dictated by SFB or otherwise.

Medium-close range is considered to be 4-1.  Would it FEEL nearly as 'close' if one didn't see the ship, let alone see the ship get larger?  I highly doubt it.

Point blank range is under 1, or 10000 km to Closer-than-you-want-to-be.  Would point blank really feel like point blank if you never saw the ship until the last 0.001 of this point blank range, then have the ship suddenly appear out of nowhere, and before you can *think* has passed you, weapons fired, and is nothing but a blip again?  It would be confusing, more than anything else, and not conductive of the tension of being in point blank range for a significant period of time.

SFB may portray the two ships and 1000's of km apart, but for the same reason I accept that SFB has ships 1000's of km apart, I accept that the ships in SFC are much, much closer, because I CAN SEE AND MEASURE them as being alot closer.  One could argue that the ships only look larger, but in a universe where nothing is real, this has no more basis than any other argument.

Is there a point to this?  Yes, yes there is.  Could I have gotten to it sooner?  Probably.  Will I ever stop writing spammy posts?  Probably not.

The points I have tried to demonstrate here are:

  1.  Maneauver was important in World War 1, and is still of importance (though not so much so for surface ships now, and not even for the fighters that you coin 'engag[ing] at close quarters')

  2.  Any game manual, monster manual, D&D manual or SFB manual can say anything they want for why something is, however, it may not be nessisarly true, for anything.  Including the game it's written in.

  3.  SFC and SFB tatical combat takes at least a good portion of it's excitement from the direct and visible style of combat, even though this is attributed more to 'Iron Cruiser' ships of World War 1 navies than it is to modern or future combat.  Our ablity to see our opponents hurt, or to be able to see our last hurrah as the enemey bears down on us has more entertainment value than simply seeing flashes of light and mostly empty space.  Since we can see and hear it, we identify with it more, irrespective of whether it's realistic or not.

  4.  What you want, deep down, isn't nessisarly the disuse of delta AV.  The core of what you want is to preserve the WW1, "Thundering Guns of the 42nd" feel to the game;  The SFB feel.

  5.  What worked in SFB may not work in SFC.  Point blank need to feel like point blank, medium range needs to feel like medium range and long range needs to feel like long range.  Logically, this would dictate that the ship should look big and scary at point blank, scary but not terribly close at medium and really small at long range.  SFB never had to deal with this, as it was a table top, tatical, turn based game.  SFC has to deal with this, or you won't get the SFC feel.  If that's not what you think the game is portraying, fine.  Some of us, however, will judge what the game is portraying by simply looking at it, as opposed to what the manual says.  You can tell me until i'm blue that a unit of 1 equals ten thousand kilometers and that we move at warp speed.  I can tell you until i'm blue that because I believe the klingon D7 model to be less than a kilometer in length, we are moving at much less speed and fighting at far less distance.  Be aware that in this video game, you're no more (or less) right than I am, and no ADB rulebook can prove otherwise.


And now to the last point.  I'm not opposed to SFB.  The SFB roots of this game is probably what keeps me playing, for I too find the stately and majestic navies of the galaxy an appealing thing.  I enjoy the plucky frigates, the stalwart cruisers, and arrogant dreadnoughts of this imaginary age.

However, I am not opposed to delta AV either, (excepting for my previous argument, which centered around "we can fake it with tables and don't need true delta AV")

Wny?  SFB is a good, old, and tested system.  It's the basic system for how this game works.

But its not the only system out there.  Delta AV?  Nothing more than another complication in the game.  Can it be a useful complication?  Possibly.  I'm game, at least.

I don't think that little things like delta AV alone can take away the 'majestic ships of a space navy' feel from the game.  To be truthful, I don't think I, nor anyone else here, would take too much offense of departing SFB, SO LONG AS THAT IRON CRUISER NAVY FEEL REMAINS.


Let's move away from that argument now and start with my opinions, as I don't yet feel this post is spammy enough and haven't finished with annoying you all.

As demonstrated here, one of the requisites for any new game of the same caliber would be the preservation of a world war one, Iron Cruiser age feel to the game.  We all want this, to a greater or lesser degree.  It's Violent, Heroic, Tatical and Romatic, all rolled up into a conviently-sized-energy-weapon-of-your-choice.

As with the SFC3 crowd, I have not yet been able to distill what they want.  There was talk of AV and delta AV, which brought up a nice point, but probably not the essence of what they desire.

As for me?  I'll bring up one important point.  Strategy.  I want it.


To further explain, let's take a common 'cheat' senario, the I-Have-No-Intention-Of-Killing-You-But-Will-Not-Run-Off-Map senario.
The first point is that I should come up with a better name.
The second point is this situation is considered a 'cheat' because others can do missions while these two are playing around,  AND the people involved in this mission cannot be involved in the missions others are playing in the same hex.

To remedy this, I would put forward the idea of 'reinforcements';  Instead of the game allowing people to run missions independently of one another, have a single rolling mission move in a sector.  Any new entries would be reinforcements that would arrive as they enter the mission.  This both eliminates the reason this is cheating, and may make it an accepted and effective tatic;  If one ship distracts while reinforcements arrive to finish the mission, we get more intresting engagements. Certainly we can get such things as meeting engagements, esclating engagments, and ambuscades with no scripting nessisary.

Another point is the complex calculations done for ship assignment in D2.  We have no control over them.  remedying this would possibly be to allow total transparancy with the D2 engine.  For instance, if we had the ablity to simply stop ALL the equasions and set up ship yards exactly to a script, OOB becomes easier.  Don't like OOB?  Design a script that does all the calculations as before.

The point here is that we want control, and I mean total control over what the D2 does;  I want some way to insert a ship into a dock, remove it from a dock and adjust it's price all from a script, and all with perfect predictablity.  Ironically, this is easier to program than the current dynaverse:  Simply do away with all political, economic and defense calculations and drop them into the hands of the player.  Making a system that can interpret a script and implement the economic model one describes in a script is harder, but well within reach of most programmers.

Freighters that mean something.  Economy.  I want to see trade routes.  I want to be able to protect them, to prey on them, and to see the effects of my actions.  The routes by which money travels should be as important as the sources of money themselves.

Like or dislike the points I have made here, what I want is a more sophisticated, strategically interesting Dynaverse, one where fleets really do mean fleets, and empires act and feel like empires, complete with population, trade and culture.

Reading these posts had got to be bad on the eyes,

Holocat.