Topic: Why there will never be an SFC4

[DH123]

An SFC4 should be based off of SFB with all the "missing" elements but should have the modability of SFC3.   Then us SFB grognards can get our fix and the TNG people can mod it into whatever their vision of a Trek game should be.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me  

An MMORPG based on GURPS: Prime Directive would be kinda cool.  

[Remby]

Hmmmm---- How interesting...

First --- I love the SFC series -- and uhhm I have probably been playing SFB longer than most everyone on this board seeing as I was one of the early game playtesters. (PT group 222-A).

I especially enjoyed playing the Orion Pirates edition and seeing the ship our group created for the board game become a wonderfully well used ship in the computer game. John Ramer of our group created the Orion Double Raider long long ago. His initial design was a bit overpowered in the engine area, but with some tweaking (and discussion) by the rest of the group and the ADB --- a new ship was born.

Ok so the computer game is not like the board game ---- what did you expect?

Ok so things are not exactly as you pictured they should be in the computer version.

Folks --- these games were designed for one purpose and one purpose alone (outside of making money for the people that worked hard on them and must earn a living) - and that is to have fun.

  Yes the computer game is based on the board game, but it is real time and you cannot apply turn based tactics in real time speed. Is it any less of a product? No!  This game takes the "Chess-Like"  Board-Game we all grew up with and loved and made it a real-speed highly visual combat simulator that almost every old StarFleet Battles player always dreamed of having one day. To say us old SFB players despise SFC is categorically wrong.

And as far as SFB'ers not wanting any change in rules (as in chess) --- sorry -- I sifted through errata after errata. (chuckles)

Ok yes there will always be gripes because it's different. and people will take issues with problems both in SFC and SFB. There will always be rules lawyers. There will always be cliquish groups. There will always be favoritism and sides. At the same time -- (thank goodness) -- there will always be players who enjoy both of the products produced.

Will there be an SFC-4 -- well that depends on if the people creating the game can justify the cost of producing it versus what they can make as a return from their audience.

Hopefully my statements will help reduce the partisanship between the two types of games players.

Now I have no more time for this foolishness -- time to get back to my game... I have Klingons to kill....!~

Thomas Green
 (Remby)



 

[Stingray2000]

I am going to weigh in, even though most of what needed to be said has already been written.  I am a diehard trek fan ? TOS and TNG timeframes.  I am also an old Avalon Hill war gamer (and those of other publishers, such as TSR).  I had all of the Squad Leader Modules as well as others ? there was nothing like storming/defending Fortress Europa, slogging/shooting/slinking your way through WWII Italian, French and Russian campaigns from D-Day through the Bulge and beyond - all  at the squad level!.  The level of detail required to play such games is enormous.  I was exposed to SFB but did not play it much.  The level of detail and potential variation was breathtaking, but I did not have an opportunity to play much as I lost contact with my circle of simulation playing associates.  It is my experience that, if you love such detail and strategic planning, you really love it and all else pales in comparison.  If you don?t, well then the detail and such can seem tedious and pointless.    

Having said this, it seems that the comments here fall into those made by one of the two  groups of people I have broadly described ? each with his/her approach to describing what are, essentially, irreconcilable differences as they represent two diametrically opposed approaches to simulation gaming.  But the comments from ALL sides seem to miss one basic failure of all of these games when it comes to ship-to-ship tactical combat (skirmish) ? despite enormously variegated and realistic 3dimensional backgrounds, the combat is 2 dimensional!  I don?t care what version of SFC you play, the ship-to-ship combat aspect of the games is inherently flawed by the failure to include the third dimension.  

I had a small hand in shaping the ST gaming community during its infancy.  The first truly widely played ST game was Starfleet Academy.  While the ship-to-ship combat aspect of that game lacked the realistic and superior graphics of either SFC OP or SFC III and while it also lacked the variety of different shipping available to each race, that old Interplay title had one facet that is sorely lacking in any of the SFC titles ? 3 dimensional combat.  I don?t care which of the SFC camps you hail from (love SFB/SFC OP, not love SFB & prefer SFCIII), an honest critique of either game would conclude that BOTH lack an honest attempt to simulate battles in space as both lack the necessity to:  
          A) make and execute your strategic and tactical plans; or
          B) tactically plan, point and shoot
In 3 dimensions ? you can only move right/left/?forward?/?backward?.  

Aside from the fancy ST universe graphics, pictures and the like, you might as well be playing a surface naval warfare exercise (no, it is not even like a helicopter dogfight, they move in 3 dimensions) with high tech weapons, energy shielding, and invisibility.  You might as well think of yourself as being ?on? the ocean as you are not ?in? anything as the (admittedly relativistic) concepts of up/down do not exist.  And even in 2 dimensions, the game engine removes what has been a crucial part of naval warfare for centuries ? go ahead, try to do what Capt. Picard did to the Scimitar in Nemesis ? the game engine will not permit two vessels to collide with one another.  Even in two dimensions, the game departs from reality by allowing two objects to occupy the same space at the same time (and to drop a mine while doing so).  

Please don?t take this the wrong way: this is not intended as a criticism of any of the SFC games, or any other games for that matter.  It is certainly not a criticism of the opinions or people advancing any of those opinions described above.  I am writing to point out what I believe many of you have missed.  These are games ? they are meant to be played for enjoyment.  If the conditions of the game make it so you do not enjoy playing it, then do not play.  Do not attempt to demean or diminish another because he/she does not share your enthusiasm for one game or disdain for another ? they are not more/less intelligent & thoughtful than you, they are simply different from you.  And do not attempt to mask your personal criticism of the tastes of another by cloaking it in terms of the ?complexity? of the game.  It seems to me that, in the SFC series, Taldren has produced different games, all based (to differing degrees) on SFB principles and set in the ST universe.  Each game appeals to different interests and, in so doing, also operates to enhance the diversity of the gaming community by attracting the people who possess those interests.  Obviously, I would like to see 3 dimensional combat, but you do not see me writing a critique of the previous SFC game titles (although I am sure that the more narrow minded reading this may very well seize on that portion of this post and ?run? with it ? sigh) listing all of ways where they are deficient (in my mind!).  The value/worth/beauty of any given game is, to coin a phrase, in the eye of the beholder.
 

[NannerSlug]

excellent points sting ray. i think that bridge commander could have been an excellent game. in fact, it won a number of awards.. however, its multiplayer dimension and lack of ships really killed the game. in my experience, BC has bare none the most cinematic/ star trek feel. it simply was not fleshed out.

[nx_adam_1701]

All Im gonna say is that I am satisfied with what I got,

 now...  when the holodeck comes out, let me know

then i'll be really happy, but i agree with most, SFC2OP is good for SFB fans

and SFC3, satisfies the TNG fans, my fav is OP, as yah already noe,. I asks tons of questions about sfc2 op, i havent even used sfc3, so i cant jugde it, but anything is better than nothing


adam out

[Dash Jones]

Quote:
SFC1, and SFB-based game, sold 400,000 copies.   Need I say anything more?
 

Could have sworn it was at least 600,000 to a million...

I like all the SFC games...

I would like an SFC which included all the elements of SFC2 and SFC 3 BUT also with the simplicity of the galaxy such as SFC1 as well as missions like SFC 1...

OR, if they desired to include a hex system for MP like SFC2, and SFC3, if they would include a single player element where once you got enough prestige/rank, if you so desired, you could run a Federation and Empire like campaign...yourself running the race which you had chosen at the start...

[Merlinfmct87]

Alright, my view:

I am not a SFB veteran. I have the rules, and I've been drooling over them for quite some time, but I am in a serious shortage of viable players(last local I introduced rammed into a planet), but I am very active in the online SFB arena.

I also have not played SFC3(damn thing wouldn't run) but from what I have heard I'm not missimg much. My aim has always been to bring SFC closer to SFB. I even made a post regarding that in the Scripting forum, although it seems to have been ignored(nobody even told me it was a bad idea, don't know why).

I do believe that there will be an SFC4. Activision is a publisher that markets to a different audiance than SFC, that being FPS's(they publish Wolfenstein, Quake, Doom, etc. and I don't have to tell you how THOSE sell...) so it's almost a given that when a FPS-publisher comes within 10 feet of SFC it won't last the night.

I think that if a new publisher aquires the rights or Activision gets some new leadership things would look better...especially if they can re-negotiate with Parimount to let SFC have the liscence to both SFC and TNG/Voyager.

Anyhow, maybe the reason SFB players are so sure they are doing it right is because they have been working on this way for 30+ years...they are sure of themselves, and IMHO, for a reason.

Not to mention the fact that the first three games sold like hotcakes and were based on SFB, then SFC3 rolls out and drops like a stone.

Difference?

SFC3 wasn't based on SFB. So maybe they have the right to be a little angry

Now me?

I like complex games. I like simple ones. I can appreciate both Chess, Hexagonal Chess, Starfleet Command, Star Fleet Battles, and Quake. They both have features and drawbacks. I just don't think you should base Chess on Quake or vice versa without good cause.

Also, in many people's eyes, SFC4 is already out--SFBOL. Star Fleet Battles Online. Check it out, you might like it.

Merlin  

[Dash Jones]

Quote:


Also, in many people's eyes, SFC4 is already out--SFBOL. Star Fleet Battles Online. Check it out, you might like it.

Okay, I like SFB as well as the next guy...but as far as computers go...after seeing this link (actually I've seen it before) it reminded me of why I am a MUCH bigger SFC fan as for games which are SFB related on computer, than SFB online...

Might as well play it in person...at least it's much more personable and you can argue with the person across the table about their move and perhaps get away with something totally stupid yourself!

 

[The_Infiltrator]

SFBOL is SFB played over the web. It has no automatic functions to speak of. It's only true purpose is to make it easier to play people, as you don't have to be physically present. It might also be noted that the players who play there are frequently the best in the SFB universe and any new player that starts there can expect to be awesomely humiliated on a routine basis for quite a while due to the difference in skill level (though not due to attitudes or player related problems). That's why they don't recommend you start there; it's like trying to jump straight from high school to the majors.

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:

OP == the pinnacle of SFC.

Someone mentioned OP left out too much stuff, I can't imagine what
the heck more you could have wanted (besides Andro's and Tholians!).

I didn't say it left out too much stuff - I said the nannerite crowd frequently complains about things that are in SFB but were omitted from the game. This is why people like myself and Hyper really want to see a SFC4. In truth, if I had to say what was a bad decision to be left out, I'd really only go with 3 things:

1. Working reserve power. Many of the races have different hold costs and other adjustments to them simply because this doesn't work. Oh, it works the way you programmed it - it just bears no resemblence to SFB, because it's effectively useless in OP/EAW.  This lack of functionality greatly changes the game and not really for the better in my or many other people's opinions.

2. Plasma Bolts. SFC uses while not quite floating maps, maps that are large in comparison to ones in SFB. This makes outrunning plasma much easier because you have a lot more room to work with. In SFB you at least have the option of nailing that phaserboater with a bolted plasma instead of launching when it will likely do no damage. Even then plasma isn't really balanced on floating maps (see plasma sabot).

3. Fighters and PF's for all races that had them, and heavy fighter functionality. Ask the PF races how they feel about CVA's when they have no equivalent, or fighter races about PF tenders when they have no equivalent. It's not an apples to apples comparison when you talk about fighters to PF's - the PF's are generally tougher. It's especially noticable since on the D2 it creates a lot of imbalance issues depending on when a campaign is started. Out of all the three this decision is also the most mystifying. The code for it exists, but an artificial "wall" is in the game that makes getting around it extremely difficult. As for BCS and SCS type ships, those are just flat out impossible, since again for no reason I can think of you can't put fighters and PF's on the same ship. If it's not too much trouble, would it be possible to ask why exactly the decision to go this route was done? I've never understood the reason for it, or the logic that must have led to it. Maybe there was a good reason but I just literally can't see one. It would be nice to know (there must have been a reason?). As for heavy fighter functionality, this means ensuring that if you put heavy fighters on a ship you can't load up with a full load of 16 of them (important to any fed SCS).

After those, off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of interesting things for SFC4:

All missing weapons modes for weapons in the game
specialty drones/drone construction
ECM drones/Plasma
WORKING SCOUTS <-----The lack of these really changes the game by removing options
Predictible fighter AI
Ship AI that isn't hopeless against seeking weapons
Ship AI that understands the concept of "effective range". Every time I see a R22 fusion AI shot I start to get annoyed
Dogfighting fighters
G racks that aren't OTT (IE, they work as SFB has playtested them, therefore no BPV increase for ships that have them is needed)
Dual purpose Plasma D
Ability to tell what fighters are which when they are in the bay easily
Ability to mount pods on fighters
EW fighters
Ability to loan ECM/ECCM to fighters from the carrier
Missing drone types, esp the Type-VI fighter weapon (plasma K is similar)
Ability to mod the game much easier - if I want to put 2 type I drones on a fighter I should be able to
Much improved Dwhatever system that greatly minimizes the amount of fighting done against AI and pushes PvP
Ability to fire a phaser 2 or 1 as a phaser 3 for PD purposes
Fighters that dogfight (IE, fighter on fighter combat that takes into account the fighter's capabilities)
Officers
Ability to upgrade a ship a la SFC 1 (another decision that no one seems to understand)
Tutorials for all the races
Modular ship capability - Orions should be able to use their option mounts, Romulans should be able to change variants like their shirt
Stasis Field Generators
The requisite Tholian and Andromedan races
Missing Drone racks - Type H for instance
AMD-30

Oh, and a lot more players in a battle - say 8 - 12 minimum - would make a huge advancement for the game. Anyway, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I could probabally come up with more

 

[Bonk]

Go Max Go!  

Specialty drones and plasma bolts ring true to me.
Don't forget the positron flywheel and awacs shuttles to give the Feds their special magic...

(...not that we don't sincerely appreciate all you have done David...)  

[Age]

 It is your fualt David the Disrupute thingy my is this game is a lot harder now.I am losing and gaining points in a Conquset Campaign after the Build 531 and are those Romulans are meaner now.I know you like Romulans David by your avatar but did you have to make them that mean.It your fault I am losing those points.

 I think there needs to be room for compromise in both styles of the two types of games.

 I would really like a more canonized game set in the 23Century with some elements of SFC2 in it.I know I said this in few post already.

 I am not debating this as I already have one going in the hot topics forum. I would like to say I enjoy them both.
 I am picking up on something here but I will save that for later.
 I believe there will be SFC.4 made right here by these talented people at this company.  

[nx_adam_1701]

whoa, whoa whoa, explain these things to me, Im not a SFB fan, but Im very interested in knowing about, I love to hear about these things, whats the awacs, and the flywheel thingy, please


thx

adam out

[nx_adam_1701]

I gotta agree witcha Age, i believe in time there will be a SFC4, after they finish their petty disputes, in time,  and theres one thing I know for sure, SFC, or Star Trek fans, whatever you wanna call us, we [bleep] about everything and everyone who makes the game and etc..., but when it comes down to it, we're the first ones on line, waiting to buy and play the game, then after a couple of skirmish, back to the forums to complain about it some more lol


adam out

[red_green]

Quote:
I gotta agree witcha Age, i believe in time there will be a SFC4, after they finish their petty disputes, in time,  and theres one thing I know for sure, SFC, or Star Trek fans, whatever you wanna call us, we [bleep] about everything and everyone who makes the game and etc..., but when it comes down to it, we're the first ones on line, waiting to buy and play the game, then after a couple of skirmish, back to the forums to complain about it some more lol


adam out  

   good point. I know I had my hissy fits when SFC3 came out. Gotta say though that its better then I first thought. So I am a bit of a hycocrite I guess.  

Maybe I was comparing SFC3 out of the box to OP patched and modded with 128 ships in each slot, with modded missions and ships etc. Its more fare to compare OP out of box to SFC3 out of box or each game modded. There are getting to be a number of good SFC3 mods with more on the way. So there still is interest in the game, despite all the politics  gone haywire.


Lots of interesting comments in this thread.

[The_Infiltrator]

Quote:
whoa, whoa whoa, explain these things to me, Im not a SFB fan, but Im very interested in knowing about, I love to hear about these things, whats the awacs, and the flywheel thingy, please


thx

adam out  

Those 2 things or the things I've listed? For just those things, there's no awacs but there is a federation SWAC shuttle. This shuttle adds 2 ecm and eccm to the carrier as long as it is within 10 hexes of it, and has another 2 points that it can allocate to either as desired. It also functions as a partially capable scout, with the ability to perform scout functions breaking lock ons, controlling seeking weapons, identifying seeking weapons and shuttles, detecting mines (most mines in SFB can't be seen without a minesweeper), gathering intelligence, and tac intel.

It's most powerful function is probabally the ability to "go wild". When this happens, ALL seeking weapons within 15 hexes of the SWAC instantly target the SWAC and attack it instead. This means all missles, all plasma torpedoes, etc - regardless if they are enemy or friendly. It is irrelevant also if the drone in question has ATG or some other kind of guidance. Careful use of this function can save the carrier from being destroyed by an overwhelming drone or plasma attack. The only exception to this is the type-VI dogfight drone, which is unaffected (but since it's nearly usless against ships, no one cares).

The positron flyweel is a federation toy that allows the shipto accelerate at a much higher rate than normal. It's also not a standard rule, and not even considered an optional one because it gives feddies a huge advantage. Something like the SPZ in SFC, but a lot more unbalancing. No one cares about 6 plasma F's, but a CB is a different matter. It can only be used if everyone agrees - which never happens, unless you just want to futz around with it to see what it's like.

Basically a "cheese rule" for federation whiners.  

[Age]

   The swac and the flywheel especially that would of been great in the PC game.I guess it is not in there is it.I assume you are talking about the board when it comes to these things?  

[Bonk]

Thanks for clarifying (SWAC - not AWACS, lol... similar systems only one's fictional - I was close, its been a while...) - two of em on the board was good fun, alternate flipping each one on and off till the seeking weapons run themselves out going back and forth...   (or was that legal?)

Odd, I thought the flywheel was a standard rule - I found its use limited by lack of power anyway  - I guess the more experienced crew I was playing with were giving me a break as a Fed starting out... though I didn't get any breaks once I mastered the Kzin and Thols...  The crew I played against was so good at the plasma game I had to resort to the Thols, always with interesting results...

Edit: eventually they banned me from playing Thol... hehe  

[Bonk]

Quote:
   The swac and the flywheel especially that would of been great in the PC game.I guess it is not in there is it.I assume you are talking about the board when it comes to these things?  

Yes, we're discussing features of SFB that we liked and miss in SFC.  

[Rod O'neal]

Random targeting on scatter packs
Real engine doubling. ie, being able to double one engine at a time.
Variable OLs on photons.
Accurate X-1 weapons. Fast loads and pulse phasers. Fully capable X-plasma, etc... and X-batteries to go along with fixed reserve power usage instead of giving them so much permanent power with extra APRs.
Seperate the volleys for different weapons types for better Mizia effect. It's not just the PPD that should benefit from this.
Add the missing lab capabilities to go along with all those drone types.


I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?

Double internals? Were the games just too fast before or was it to give a "Mulligan" of sorts so one bad tactical decision doesn't kill you?

Why so many spare parts?