Topic: Who wrote this?

[Gook]

Well 3 drone fleets there were, but only with slow drones we never got mediums, and no whined about them.

No one had BBs, though some had DNs, KDF-Kang for one

Patrol bug nobody misses

What server you refering to?  I didn't even start playing this until after CW5 and I remember seeing servers with 20 people with BBs.

"Unrealistic" deep striking? well if you can have "realism" including faster than light ships in a game, nothing wrong with DSing, in fact it was fun as you had to watch your behind.

"Realistic" in this case is what could happen in the "rules" of Trek and/or the SFB universe.

I'm sorry, a solo drone frigate or CL deep-striking a planet or empty hex and placing a base 20 hexes deep in sombody's territory is RETARTED.   

"Unrealistic running away" well unless you hadn't noticed space is Big I mean REAL BIG, and not like Kansas at all

See above.

PvP being meaningless?? dunno how you work that one out it was if anything more meaningful than the slugfest we have now.

Now that just doesn't make any sense in English?  Something get lost in the translation?   I know british is your first languge.   

I was refering to AF as thats what this thread was talking about, (assuming you actually read it), well what it got Hijacked to. IP play servers certainly had 20 BBs and more on them and some liked them, I didn't and apart from the when I started to play I never played IP WEst or East, I flew on Klinshai and UOO servers until AF.

Realistic SFB lol, anyhow if you ever played SFB you would know you could disengage by leaving the board or by acceleration, no one had to stay and fight unless the scenario rules said so. As for the boards most were the small ones supplied in game and if you counted the hexes and scale, would have fitted easily in the distance between the Earth and Moon, the rest of the Universe was ignored.

I'm sorry you think none trench warfare is retarded, I'm sure you will sit happily with General Foch and others from WW1.

I think that forcing everyone to play the same is to use your expression "retarded" in the sense that it imposes one persons way of playing a game on others who may not wish to play the same way. There was a recent poll which you may have been the author of in which when given the stark choice of F&E or no rules the "no rules" vote won (marginally) which should tell you that not everybody wants to play BCHs at dawn/late 200 duels.

I think I shall refrain from commenting on your skills with the English Language.

I note you joined around CW5 time in this game, it would perhaps be better for all if you ceased passing comments on events you were not actually privy too, and can thus not give first hand descriptions of what happened or how people felt.

Mog was there (AF) and didn't like it, so was Dogmatix, he didn't like it much either, but Jeff, Durin, myself and many others had more of blast in 6 weeks in 2001 than in many of the campaigns since, but I suppose we are retarded and don't count.

[Capt Jeff]

Mog was there (AF) and didn't like it, so was Dogmatix, he didn't like it much either, but Jeff, Durin, myself and many others had more of blast in 6 weeks in 2001 than in many of the campaigns since, but I suppose we are retarded and don't count.

    

[Max Power]

Who's Dagger?

Someone that the game is better off without. And I can't say that I've had to say that very often. Thanks to Mu archiving his offensives for all time, though, we can take a quick stroll down memory lane...













And of course, the final coup-de-grace...



For those who weren't present, "no ship loss" refers to the fact that in CW2 if you lost your ship it was replaced with the same kind of ship. This was due to the fact that if anyone dropped (or alt-F4'ed) in a multiplayer battle, unless you did the same, you'd lose your ship. A veritable haven for cheaters, as it were. Anyway, to prevent this you literally couldn't really lose your ship. CW3 was different as it had ship loss (when these screen shots were taken - the decision to go with loss was contreversial). Dagger had come up to assist the romulans in the fight for the Capella area, where Mr. Esteban had engaged him (finally - about 4 or 5 of us had been chasing him for about an hour IIRC). I distinctly remember this as IIRC it was Esteban, myself, Autolycus, and either Doppler or Vendetta who were trying to run him down. Thus the result above when we did.

Frankly, I remember fondly the battles of yesteryear, but not some of the players - and especially not some of the bugs.

[alfman]

Well 3 drone fleets there were, but only with slow drones we never got mediums, and no whined about them.

No one had BBs, though some had DNs, KDF-Kang for one

Patrol bug nobody misses

What server you refering to?  I didn't even start playing this until after CW5 and I remember seeing servers with 20 people with BBs.

"Unrealistic" deep striking? well if you can have "realism" including faster than light ships in a game, nothing wrong with DSing, in fact it was fun as you had to watch your behind.

"Realistic" in this case is what could happen in the "rules" of Trek and/or the SFB universe.

I'm sorry, a solo drone frigate or CL deep-striking a planet or empty hex and placing a base 20 hexes deep in sombody's territory is RETARTED.   

"Unrealistic running away" well unless you hadn't noticed space is Big I mean REAL BIG, and not like Kansas at all

See above.

PvP being meaningless?? dunno how you work that one out it was if anything more meaningful than the slugfest we have now.

Now that just doesn't make any sense in English?  Something get lost in the translation?   I know british is your first languge.   

I was refering to AF as thats what this thread was talking about, (assuming you actually read it), well what it got Hijacked to. IP play servers certainly had 20 BBs and more on them and some liked them, I didn't and apart from the when I started to play I never played IP WEst or East, I flew on Klinshai and UOO servers until AF.

Realistic SFB lol, anyhow if you ever played SFB you would know you could disengage by leaving the board or by acceleration, no one had to stay and fight unless the scenario rules said so. As for the boards most were the small ones supplied in game and if you counted the hexes and scale, would have fitted easily in the distance between the Earth and Moon, the rest of the Universe was ignored.

I'm sorry you think none trench warfare is retarded, I'm sure you will sit happily with General Foch and others from WW1.

I think that forcing everyone to play the same is to use your expression "retarded" in the sense that it imposes one persons way of playing a game on others who may not wish to play the same way. There was a recent poll which you may have been the author of in which when given the stark choice of F&E or no rules the "no rules" vote won (marginally) which should tell you that not everybody wants to play BCHs at dawn/late 200 duels.

I think I shall refrain from commenting on your skills with the English Language.

I note you joined around CW5 time in this game, it would perhaps be better for all if you ceased passing comments on events you were not actually privy too, and can thus not give first hand descriptions of what happened or how people felt.

Mog was there (AF) and didn't like it, so was Dogmatix, he didn't like it much either, but Jeff, Durin, myself and many others had more of blast in 6 weeks in 2001 than in many of the campaigns since, but I suppose we are retarded and don't count.

I played in AF also. There are things I liked like the large number of players, the grand strategies with the room on the map to carry them out, and the intense bond between pilots of the smaller staffed races (being Lyran or Gorn was practically like being in a fleet). On the other hand there were more arguments about player behavior (e.g. Cheating, Lack of "Honor"). After AF I restricted myself to the smaller servers until OP came out. After OP came out I played on big servers again (well not as big as the EAW servers that were out at the same time) until the conclusion of the first Slave Girls server. I quit then because the infighting, flaming and purely partisan views were causing me to lose interest in the game. I came back to this game last year to find the players better at self regulation, the servers more varied and new  challenging missions. I miss a lot of the better players and almost all of the old Romulans that I used to fight (I never saw any Romulans playing unfairly or without honor even in the old days). I have liked a lot of the changes to the game. The patches have fixed a lot of holes in the game itself. I did not use a voice chat program back then ,but most players do now and it adds a new level to the game. Yes I look back with fondness on AF, but all in all I have had as much if not more fun on the servers that have been run in the last year. I think that players that have stood behind this game have grown into a closer community than we had back then. It seemed like a lot of people kept trying to push their own private feuds from servers into everones face in the forums. 

I will stop ranting now and just say that while I miss some of the good pilots that have left, I  am happy with many of the changes that took place while I was away.

[FPF-DieHard]

Mog was there (AF) and didn't like it, so was Dogmatix, he didn't like it much either, but Jeff, Durin, myself and many others had more of blast in 6 weeks in 2001 than in many of the campaigns since, but I suppose we are retarded and don't count.

    

Well, if the shoe fits . . .   

I am sorry Gook that you can no longer fight a war with out actually having to engage the enemy.   Modern D2 just sucks like that 

PS.  We need a better "sticking out tounge' smiley for this forum  just don't cut it for the subtle taunts.

[SSCF-LeRoy]

I'm glad I joined up when I did 'cuz this place woulda been too hot fer yers truly had I come in earlier

[SSCF-LeRoy]

PS.  We need a better "sticking out tounge' smiley for this forum  just don't cut it for the subtle taunts.

Ya mean like this one?

[FPF-DieHard]

PS.  We need a better "sticking out tounge' smiley for this forum  just don't cut it for the subtle taunts.

Ya mean like this one?

Yeah!!  That one, you have that saved someplace?

[Capt Jeff]

Well, if the shoe fits . . .   

I am sorry Gook that you can no longer fight a war with out actually having to engage the enemy.   Modern D2 just sucks like that 

Yeah, that's the word I was looking for.....STRATEGY.  Things like feints, flanking manuevers, mineshafts....when territorial gains won the server.  You had to have a plan and execute it to make headway.

Now, it's a point on the map.   You make a LOS to that point and duke it out and may the biggest ship allowed on the server win...

Imagine WWII if all the Allies had to do was hold Paris, Athens, and Rome by 1945 to win the war...their "VC points"...lol   Nope, they had to strategize.  Insert forces in strategic positions, flank forces, and try to overwhelm.

[FPF-DieHard]

Well, if the shoe fits . . .   

I am sorry Gook that you can no longer fight a war with out actually having to engage the enemy.   Modern D2 just sucks like that 

Yeah, that's the word I was looking for.....STRATEGY.  Things like feints, flanking manuevers, mineshafts....when territorial gains won the server.  You had to have a plan and execute it to make headway.

Now, it's a point on the map.   You make a LOS to that point and duke it out and may the biggest ship allowed on the server win...

Imagine WWII if all the Allies had to do was hold Paris, Athens, and Rome by 1945 to win the war...their "VC points"...lol   Nope, they had to strategize.  Insert forces in strategic positions, flank forces, and try to overwhelm.

*Yawn*

Wars are won by killing the enemy.  "Old" D2 did not require this.  My side got it's ass kicked in PvP on SG3 yet we over-ran the server.

I'm sorry, that is stupid and horribly biased in favor of some races.  This has become really clear to me flying Romulan on a Hex-muching server right now.   I can't do sh*t other than hunt people down.

Yes, the disengaement rule actually forces people to fight.   What a concept, actually being forced to engage the enemy in a war game.   

Munching through 40 nuetral hexes before you reach the enemy is not "Strategic," it is BORING. 

PS:  Leave in destructable bases!  This adds strategic depth in every case.

[Mog]

Actually Gook, pvp back then was pretty meaningless. Because of the ship-loss bug, wasn't it set so that you didn't get downgraded after getting blown up? That's the main reason why I never went on the early CW servers. I just didn't see the point.

Now, pvp means that you can contribute to your side's victory by killing important ships, or you can secure a hex from enemy ships, allowing your side to take it unmolested. Can't see anything more meaningful than that.

Remove the rose-coloured glasses, you solicitor, you   

Ship loss bugwasn't a bug as such it was more to do with connection issues than anything. In AF when you lost a ship you were busted down to an FF. CW1 &2 were the servers where when you lost a ship you didn't get busted down, not AF.

Sorry I don't agree with current "meanigful" PvP, just having a late 200 slug fest in BCHs with unlimited BCHs availble (or whatever current top ship alloed is) is no better than, and IMHO worse than the older set up. Just an opinion.

The glasses may be rose tinted, but the view is better to me, I do not expect all to agree, but I know some do. Now where did I put those wrapround mirror shades

I typed a reply this morning before work, didn't take for some reason.

I did say the no downgrade of ship was on CW servers, sorry I didn't make that more clear. Iirc, BBJ and Skull weren't at all happy with Af server, thus they started their own.

I'm pretty sure if you lost your ship on AF, you weren't dropped down to a frigate. I lost several C7s to the ship-loss bug (you know, the Hand of Bethke bug - it was not all connection issues by any means - seeing that it could happen in solo missions), and usually ended up in a D5W. Some players even ended up in a base lol, which they exploited by trading in for lots of prestige.

Now, I see you harping on again about the 200 late syndrome. Cast your mind back a little way to GW1. Remember my one cat stand against 7 Kzinti players one evening? What kind of BCH was I in that night? I wasn't. Other examples: AOTK, my Rom command cruiser v Fluf's DN. Can't remember the planet name we were fighting over, leetak maybe?. I engaged him, and hurt him for a long time, during which the Klingon forces managed to keep hold of the planet. Repeated it later with a Hawk against his CVA, and later still with a KCR (yes a BCH that time).

RDSL had VCs for Cls and up. A great idea (glad I suggested it years ago). It had The Slot, for Cls and smaller. All meaningfyl pvp that didn't mandate a BCH fest.

Now, you are partly right in that servers usually become a BCH, BCV <insert big ship type here>. that's because the tendency of most players is to get into the biggest ship possible. As for why that is, who knows. Been like that since day 1 of D2, so it's not an effect of VCs for pvp in the current era.

You say the current implementation is worse than the days of yore. Why? Because one could run cheese fleets back then, to make up for lack of skill, just use massed drones and/or ai fighters/pfs to do your fighting for oneself? As opposed to now, where skill actually matters?

It would be an interesting experiment to put up a server just like the old ones, with no CnC restrictions, no VCs, none of the rules we have now, and see what turnout it gets, and how much fun would be had. Oh wait, there was one of those recently, called Red Alert. A fine place to play, or so I heard.

[FPF-DieHard]

Now, you are partly right in that servers usually become a BCH, BCV <insert big ship type here>. that's because the tendency of most players is to get into the biggest ship possible. As for why that is, who knows. Been like that since day 1 of D2, so it's not an effect of VCs for pvp in the current era.

There is a solution to this called OOB.

[Mog]

Well, if the shoe fits . . .   

I am sorry Gook that you can no longer fight a war with out actually having to engage the enemy.   Modern D2 just sucks like that 

Yeah, that's the word I was looking for.....STRATEGY.  Things like feints, flanking manuevers, mineshafts....when territorial gains won the server.  You had to have a plan and execute it to make headway.

Now, it's a point on the map.   You make a LOS to that point and duke it out and may the biggest ship allowed on the server win...

Imagine WWII if all the Allies had to do was hold Paris, Athens, and Rome by 1945 to win the war...their "VC points"...lol   Nope, they had to strategize.  Insert forces in strategic positions, flank forces, and try to overwhelm.

Sorry Jeff, I hate to disagree with you, but WW2 was won by a combination of 3 things. Taking territory, as you said, the destruction of the Axis logistic network (factories, oil refineries etc) and by the destruction of their armed forces. Taking territory would not have been possible without the other 2 things being done.

Therefore, a D2 campaign needs all 3 aspects to best simulate a war, imo.

Territory taking is obvious.

Destruction of the armed forces, simulated by VCs for destroying ships (though does not affect personnel at all - really it should be die and start a new character, imo).

Destruction of the logistics network, much more hazy. We need campaigns that have designated shipyard hexes, probably simulated by a base rather than a planet. Destroy the shipyard (base) and that side loses the ability to produce certain ship classes. This would be done by deep striking (re WW2 it was the Allied bomber offensive), and really would require guards assigned to those areas. But, that would be pretty boring, also there is the tendency to do operations like that when there is little hiuman opposition around. Strategically sound but a bit gamey imo.

[FPF-DieHard]

Destruction of the logistics network, much more hazy. We need campaigns that have designated shipyard hexes, probably simulated by a base rather than a planet. Destroy the shipyard (base) and that side loses the ability to produce certain ship classes. This would be done by deep striking (re WW2 it was the Allied bomber offensive), and really would require guards assigned to those areas. But, that would be pretty boring, also there is the tendency to do operations like that when there is little hiuman opposition around. Strategically sound but a bit gamey imo.

Destructable bases do this.  Disrupting your enemies abilitie to supply and repair is about all you can do.   IMHO, the stock base assult mission is way to easy for destructble bases though, it should require at least 2 CAs to take out a small base.

We can do more with SQL when it gets working.   i'm not sure if it is such a hot idea to expand on this.  As you saidm it is not that hard to destroy a base while your oponent is sleeping and who the hell wants to do guard duty on a shipyard?

[Mog]

Now, you are partly right in that servers usually become a BCH, BCV <insert big ship type here>. that's because the tendency of most players is to get into the biggest ship possible. As for why that is, who knows. Been like that since day 1 of D2, so it's not an effect of VCs for pvp in the current era.

There is a solution to this called OOB.

I know, but it's impractical without SQL. Dang, been saying that for over 3 years now. The elusive Holy Grail.

[SSCF-LeRoy]

PS.  We need a better "sticking out tounge' smiley for this forum  just don't cut it for the subtle taunts.

Ya mean like this one?

Yeah!!  That one, you have that saved someplace?

That tongue emoticon is linked from a UBB board, but I also have 'em saved on my computer.

[Laflin]

Geez, and I was just playing this game for fun - who knew I had to attend St. Cyr, Sandhurst or West Point to actually understand it!   

[Mog]

Ahh, I knew there was a reason for the way you are, Laffy 

[Gook]

As we have moved onto WW2 analogies, consider this when discussing the retarded deeps strike.

Now you all remmeber Dec 7th 1941 deepstrike, Wake Island Deep strike, defence of Midway deepstrike gone wrong, no LOS in any of these.

Every Bomber raid made by an airforce was a deepsrtike, no ground seized at all just plain destruction over enemy territory.

Chindits in Burma, deep strike and land seized, just about every Island seized in the pacific war, deep strike.

Long Range desert Group srikes against fuel dumps and airfields, deep strikes.

Every commerce raider that ever sailed, deep strike.

Uboats deep strikes, US Navy subs in pacific deep strikes.

Not Deep strikes front line actions.

Deeps strike, every Airborne (paras and Gliders) operation from Belgium (German) to the Rhine(Allied).

Number of capital ship encounters in WW2 one in North Atlantic, One in the Arctic Ocean, One in South Atlantic, Guadalcanal, Leyte, 3 In the Mediterreanean, plus raider encounters in the Indian ocean.

WW2 was won by overwhelming industrial capacity and manpower by the Allies (USA, USSR, UK, plus their confederates). 55 million dead, 25 million from USSR.

[Cleaven]

As we have moved onto WW2 analogies, consider this when discussing the retarded deeps strike.

Now you all remmeber Dec 7th 1941 deepstrike, Wake Island Deep strike, defence of Midway deepstrike gone wrong, no LOS in any of these.

Every Bomber raid made by an airforce was a deepsrtike, no ground seized at all just plain destruction over enemy territory.

Chindits in Burma, deep strike and land seized, just about every Island seized in the pacific war, deep strike.

Long Range desert Group srikes against fuel dumps and airfields, deep strikes.

Every commerce raider that ever sailed, deep strike.

Uboats deep strikes, US Navy subs in pacific deep strikes.

Not Deep strikes front line actions.

Deeps strike, every Airborne (paras and Gliders) operation from Belgium (German) to the Rhine(Allied).

Number of capital ship encounters in WW2 one in North Atlantic, One in the Arctic Ocean, One in South Atlantic, Guadalcanal, Leyte, 3 In the Mediterreanean, plus raider encounters in the Indian ocean.

WW2 was won by overwhelming industrial capacity and manpower by the Allies (USA, USSR, UK, plus their confederates). 55 million dead, 25 million from USSR.

To make your examples valid you would need to demonstrate how they could have been used in a non deep strike way. Otherwise they are not deep strikes, but rather normal operations. By definition an airforce bomber must cross the front line to find the enemy and drop bombs, even if it's only a kilometre. You must then decide what is deep (2 week patrol?) and what is not (2 day patrol?), and for the army versus the navy. But of course this is what happens when you mix your military metaphors and deal with differing time frames (air force mission 12 hrs Vs army mission of 12 days).