A computer fleet game might have to drastically divert from the mechanics of SFB to be playable in real time, unless multiple players were to be able to link up into battle groups. This could be a connectivity nightmare, but possibly easier for developers than creating whole new rulesets. I have no idea of how much computer power and bandwidth massive linking would require.
I don't think this would be any more bandwidth intensive to work out since linking into battle groups can be a 'lobby' function to place yourself in a group before entering a battle already in progress. It could be like Return to Castle Wolfenstein where players not currently in-game stage up as reinforcements, which queue into the game in progress (as a group) at regular intervals.
As far as EW vs AV goes: AV strikes me as a ridiculous concept for large ship combat, while EW seems to have been thrown into SFB as an afterthought. In a strategic game, AV would not be considered at all, where as subtle differences in sensor suites on various ships would make significant differences.
Agreed that Angular Velocity does not make sense, but Electronic Warfare does make sense. The reason that EW has its appeal is because it relates closely to an important aspect of modern naval combat operations. And it's not so far fetched in Trek where the concept of 'jamming' has come up on more than one occasion, even as it wasn't treated necessarily in an EW context.
SFC, except SFC3, has significant tactical depth, but not much of a strategic game. There is little or no "fleet" in any of the Starfleet titles. SFC (except SFC3) teases with fleet elements, but does not satisfy. SFC3 doesn't even tease. These games do not make it possible to simulate a 24t
Right, and the reason for this is that SFC is a real-time game, and for that, you have to consider player interfacing and control overload: there is only so much a player can do from second to second. You *can* give a player too much to control in a real-time game.
This may not be the answer you want, but yes I would love a fleet game, but not if it degenerated into RTS mayhem. Let me fight the SFB fleet games with ISC eschelons and carrier battle groups and I will pay three times the price of SFC:TNG. Go one step further and let me play F&E style campaigns and I will pay four times the price. This would be two separate games of course.
And see, the first thing that came to mind when it came to fleet games was *gasp* Armada 1 and 2. Yet, those do fall into the RTS mayhem category, and while fun, focus gameplay on a completely different area than SFC. SFC is about the ships. It's about the systems. It's about the crew. It's about playing the role of captain or admiral and knowing how to use a vessel or group of vessels to great tactical effect. Its the details of coordinating these complex instruments of space warfare that puts SFC in its special place in the hearts of Star Trek fans.
There are two ways I can see of extending SFC into fleet operations and still retain the complex, thinking-man's flavor that we have enjoyed with SFB and SFC's 1 and 2:
1. Fleet operations is a multiplayer affair where one person controls no more than a 'wing' of three ships, yet can coordinate with up to 7 other players as a fleet.
2. Make the gameplay be turn-based, where you can control an arbitrary number of ships and explore each of them in detail, issuing plot orders, defining targets, and letting the turn play out under AI control for 60 seconds (or something like that) at a time. This is how Combat Mission works for WWII combat, and believe me, the gameplay is rich in depth and very compelling to watch. This also allows Play by Email engagements for those of us who love to play, but don't have hours at a time to play major engagements.
Topic: Paramount hath spoken (Read 66427 times)