Topic: Paramount hath spoken

[KBF-Crim]

Copy cat!

[Age]

  I bought the game  becuase of the TV Shows and Movies.You might want to look at the source code thread.

[Harry]

mommy, my head still hurts! 

p.s.  As I said a couple pages back, don't make any assumptions as to my presence here.  It was originally to discuss some points in my interview.  Regardless of my headache, it is an interesting read.

[NannerSlug]

sfc3 sold a hell of a lot more than what you thought.

ready for the bomb shell? from what i understand sfc3 sold as many units as sfc2 in the initial release even with the limited time sfc3 was given.

combine the fact that there was ZERO support for the game (lets see how good sfc2 or op would do with a couple of "beta" patches) and that activision RMA'd any remaining copies of sfc3 and whola..

i would challenge anyone to sell sfc with out the trek and see how far it gets. anyone in the gaming industry knows the reality of the matter. even erik did. why do you think sfc3 went forward?

the problem with sfc3 is that they cut too much out in the level of detail (and i dont mean sfb rules) and number of ships.

but regardless of what anyone says here it doesnt change a thing about where we are headed or what is going to happen.

you may like the game because it was sfb based - but the reason for sfc's success in sales is because it was a trek game which had depth to it.. by that i mean that unlike bridge commander, there were more than 4 ships to fly.. and when someone had different models than you - you didnt get just a blank screen staring you in the face, like bridge commander.

there are many, many reasons.. but again, that doesnt change a thing. i best leave at that.

[Holocat]

You were talking about real EW, with your scud references. What changed your mind?

As for Nannerslug being right about AV, which right do you mean? That it is a bad idea compared to other ways of adding negative modifiers for targetting? Correct.

Does EW have to be represented by 6 boxes? Of course not, how sillly to think so in the TNG land of three sliders. It should be blindingly obvious to even the slowest out there that you should use an EW slider, with no feedback indicator to show just how much power is being put into spatial distortion fields or expanding the scanner relay field charge or whatever. It would even be possible to use the slider to undercharge the sensor array so that you could accidently target allies (oops). Or even more basic, since some like it that way, just have an EW on/off switch, just like EM.

So don't get wrapped up in those six EW units because it's a sad cop out on what could have been a lot better than Snoopy Vs The Red Baron.

Err, no I was talking about real AV with scuds.  A scud's EW apparently consists of 'falling apart while flying' from what i've read.

And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.

And since I like throwing wrenches in people's statistics, I will state for the record that I found SFC1 completely by accident.  I bought OP after playing it though.

Since i'm throwing wrenches, i'll throw another in.  I don't play SFC3.  Never tried it.  Not that i'm against it, as I didn't get it as my computer at the time wouldn't support it.  However, i'm not obtuse to adding rules that are not SFB into SFC.  Not because they are or aren't realistic, are or aren't SFB or even are or aren't 'Trek.'

It's because, (as I believe i've mentioned before) it adds interest.  Tactical intrest.  A new doohickey to consider, no matter how strangely construed the doohickey, so long as the doohickey added tastefuly, makes for a more intresting, tactical game.

It's this tastefullness, or gameplay if you prefer, that draws the majority of people to or from a game.  I enjoy the current incarnations not because they're SFB, or because of or lack of realism.  I enjoy it because it's a trek game, and because it has a level of complexity that interests me.  Even the Puzzle Of The Twelve Boxes.

Let's say someone were to add AV to the game.  Cry war and beat the devlopers blue, tar and feather and all, but to me, it's just another consideration.  Or perhaps something odd and unexpected, like varying shield arc to race, such as the federation having four, the klingons having eight, the romulans having six, and some sucker stuck with only one.

I can't understand why anyone at this point would even bother trying to get me to believe something is true (as far as cannon goes) using of all things, a technical manual.  Oh please.  I've yet to find two of those wastes of perfectly good trees that actually managed to agree with one another.

I don't really care either, if one can follow what i'm saying.  Range 2 can be twenty thousand klicks, twenty klicks, twenty feet, twenty billion cubits or twenty bananas, so long as 2 is the shortest distance I should fire my, photon, quantum, impossiblium, totalus crapium or even Futon Torpedoes.  Or whatever range, so long as there's a weapons chart kicking around by which I can figure it out for myself.

I play the game because it is intresting.  Not for names, or labels, or companies, at least other than trek.

So long as it's intresting, so long as it's tasteful, so long as it brings to me that wonderful "Old Navy and Thundering Guns of the 42nd" back to me, i'll keep playing.

[NuclearWessels]

...

And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.

But you don't need to, it's freeware! 



The developer's page is here:
http://snoopy2.sourceforge.net/index.html

(note: I've never tried it, just happened to run across the link )

dave

[Holocat]

OMG!!!1  I'm getting it right freakin' now!

edit:  Simple star controlish fun.  Though you can't be snoopy vs. ai baron. :3

[GDA-S'Cipio]

or even Futon Torpedoes. 

You just cost me a new glass of scotch and a new keyboard.  Not to mention the pain and suffering!  (GlenMorangie hurts when it comes out of your nose.)  I hope you are pleased with yourslef!

-S'Cipio with the Sore Snout

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

You were talking about real EW, with your scud references. What changed your mind?

As for Nannerslug being right about AV, which right do you mean? That it is a bad idea compared to other ways of adding negative modifiers for targetting? Correct.

Does EW have to be represented by 6 boxes? Of course not, how sillly to think so in the TNG land of three sliders. It should be blindingly obvious to even the slowest out there that you should use an EW slider, with no feedback indicator to show just how much power is being put into spatial distortion fields or expanding the scanner relay field charge or whatever. It would even be possible to use the slider to undercharge the sensor array so that you could accidently target allies (oops). Or even more basic, since some like it that way, just have an EW on/off switch, just like EM.

So don't get wrapped up in those six EW units because it's a sad cop out on what could have been a lot better than Snoopy Vs The Red Baron.

Err, no I was talking about real AV with scuds.  A scud's EW apparently consists of 'falling apart while flying' from what i've read.

And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.

And since I like throwing wrenches in people's statistics, I will state for the record that I found SFC1 completely by accident.  I bought OP after playing it though.

Since i'm throwing wrenches, i'll throw another in.  I don't play SFC3.  Never tried it.  Not that i'm against it, as I didn't get it as my computer at the time wouldn't support it.  However, i'm not obtuse to adding rules that are not SFB into SFC.  Not because they are or aren't realistic, are or aren't SFB or even are or aren't 'Trek.'

It's because, (as I believe i've mentioned before) it adds interest.  Tactical intrest.  A new doohickey to consider, no matter how strangely construed the doohickey, so long as the doohickey added tastefully, makes for a more intresting, tactical game.

It's this tastefullness, or gameplay if you prefer, that draws the majority of people to or from a game.  I enjoy the current incarnations not because they're SFB, or because of or lack of realism.  I enjoy it because it's a trek game, and because it has a level of complexity that interests me.  Even the six Puzzle Of The Twelve Boxes.

Let's say someone were to add AV to the game.  Cry war and beat the devlopers blue, tar and feather and all, but to me, it's just another consideration.  Or perhaps something odd and unexpected, like varying shield arc to race, such as the federation having four, the klingons having eight, the romulans having six, and some sucker stuck with only one.

I can't understand why anyone at this point would even bother trying to get me to believe something is true (as far as cannon goes) using of all things, a technical manual.  Oh please.  I've yet to find two of those wastes of perfectly good trees that actually managed to agree with one another.

I don't really care either, if one can follow what i'm saying.  Range 2 can be twenty thousand klicks, twenty klicks, twenty feet, twenty billion cubits or twenty bananas, so long as 2 is the shortest distance I should fire my, photon, quantum, impossiblium, totalus crapium or even Futon Torpedoes.  Or whatever range, so long as there's a weapons chart kicking around by which I can figure it out for myself.

I play the game because it is intresting.  Not for names, or labels, or companies, at least other than trek.

So long as it's intresting, so long as it's tasteful, so long as it brings to me that wonderful "Old Navy and Thundering Guns of the 42nd" back to me, i'll keep playing.

And of course you realize that SFB, the game that inspired SFC, was itself inspired by the naval simulation board games that came before it.  Which is one reason why it works.

[Rod ONeal]

your right rondo, something did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadn't had so few ships and a few multiplayer issues..

the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.

Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.

Yep same here.

Me three but I am big on Trek and would not mind seeing a "good" cannon Trek game.

I think the ley to that is startships should not fly like fighterplanes.

Ditto! I'll do you all one better though. When I first heard of SFC all that I had was an old handmedown PC that I used to chat online with. It wasn't capable of playing SFC (or any other game AFAIK). So, I went to the store, bought a comp that was capable of running SFC, and purchased EAW and OP the same night. I essentially paid $1000.00 to play SFB on a computer.

Why don't you hire Dave Ferrell (if Dave's available), since he already knows this game inside and out, and let him do Galaxies at War for real (This is where the "let bygones be bygones that I mentioned in a previous post applies.). From what I hear that the budgets are for Producing games you could probably get it done for a song (relatively speaking). Give him a big enough budget to hire a team (I doubt that it'd have to be a big team. Maybe some people who have done very professional work for free on these games in the past. Toss'em a bone, they deserve it.) that would be willing to work for enough money to live decently on during the development, plus a % after release. It'd cost you very little, I'm sure. Since they have a stake in the final outcome, they'd be very motivated to make a successfull game (I've worked on commision most of my life. Can you tell?).

[Cleaven]

Err, no I was talking about real AV with scuds.  A scud's EW apparently consists of 'falling apart while flying' from what i've read.

And i'd pay for a game that featured snoopy vs. the red baron.

And since I like throwing wrenches in people's statistics, I will state for the record that I found SFC1 completely by accident.  I bought OP after playing it though.

Since i'm throwing wrenches, i'll throw another in.  I don't play SFC3.  Never tried it.  Not that i'm against it, as I didn't get it as my computer at the time wouldn't support it.  However, i'm not obtuse to adding rules that are not SFB into SFC.  Not because they are or aren't realistic, are or aren't SFB or even are or aren't 'Trek.'

It's because, (as I believe i've mentioned before) it adds interest.  Tactical intrest.  A new doohickey to consider, no matter how strangely construed the doohickey, so long as the doohickey added tastefuly, makes for a more intresting, tactical game.

It's this tastefullness, or gameplay if you prefer, that draws the majority of people to or from a game.  I enjoy the current incarnations not because they're SFB, or because of or lack of realism.  I enjoy it because it's a trek game, and because it has a level of complexity that interests me.  Even the Puzzle Of The Twelve Boxes.

Let's say someone were to add AV to the game.  Cry war and beat the devlopers blue, tar and feather and all, but to me, it's just another consideration.  Or perhaps something odd and unexpected, like varying shield arc to race, such as the federation having four, the klingons having eight, the romulans having six, and some sucker stuck with only one.

I can't understand why anyone at this point would even bother trying to get me to believe something is true (as far as cannon goes) using of all things, a technical manual.  Oh please.  I've yet to find two of those wastes of perfectly good trees that actually managed to agree with one another.

I don't really care either, if one can follow what i'm saying.  Range 2 can be twenty thousand klicks, twenty klicks, twenty feet, twenty billion cubits or twenty bananas, so long as 2 is the shortest distance I should fire my, photon, quantum, impossiblium, totalus crapium or even Futon Torpedoes.  Or whatever range, so long as there's a weapons chart kicking around by which I can figure it out for myself.

I play the game because it is intresting.  Not for names, or labels, or companies, at least other than trek.

So long as it's intresting, so long as it's tasteful, so long as it brings to me that wonderful "Old Navy and Thundering Guns of the 42nd" back to me, i'll keep playing.

I'm guessing that this wisdom should be filed with:

As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.

I mean we wouldn't want to confuse anybody and give them a completely wrong idea of what SFC is about would we. At least what you think it's about (hint - a game about starships, big things ....  in space)

[Rod ONeal]

The Patriot was originally designed to shoot down planes, not as an ABM defense system. It had very little problems hitting the scuds. As someone mentioned though, the scuds had a nasty habit of breaking up on entry. The patriots weren't advanced enough to target the section of the missile that contained the payload. Instead it locked onto the largest section of the vehicle, which generally was a section that carried the fuel for the missile. In the current Iraq conflict the patriot had an almost perfect intercept record (At least that's what we've been told so far.) One silkworm cruise missile managed to evade it. All other targets were successfully engaged. Including, unfortunately, some allied aircraft that ventured into the patriots defensive zone. Shooting down something as large (or as small) as a fighter proved no problem at all for the system. AV made absolutely no difference. It locked on and you were toast. Again, I want to say that the "friendly fire" incidents were an awful occurrence. I'm not trying to glorify them in any way.

[Tulwar]

I wouldn't mind a simplified version of SFC if (BIG IF) simplifying handling a starship meant controlling a single ship was micro-managing part of a fleet.  The selection of weapons on a ship would have to relate to a specific role that ship is to fill in a fleet.  This is a strength in the basic concept of SFB.

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.

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.

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 24tth century battle of Jutland or Midway.

Question to the community:  Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?

[Cleaven]

your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..

the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.

Actually, trek had very little to do with it for me. I bought them because of SFB lol.

Bought SFC1 because it was SFB, and then SFC2 after the D2 was fixed. Until then I avoided all Star Trek games like the plague (still do really) because they are crap games, which is a shame. Why can't there be another Star Trek game that has the goods, like Starcraft for eg?

[Cleaven]

I wouldn't mind a simplified version of SFC if (BIG IF) simplifying handling a starship meant controlling a single ship was micro-managing part of a fleet.  The selection of weapons on a ship would have to relate to a specific role that ship is to fill in a fleet.  This is a strength in the basic concept of SFB.

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.

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.

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 24tth century battle of Jutland or Midway.

Question to the community:  Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?

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.

[Holocat]

The Patriot was originally designed to shoot down planes, not as an ABM defense system. It had very little problems hitting the scuds. As someone mentioned though, the scuds had a nasty habit of breaking up on entry. The patriots weren't advanced enough to target the section of the missile that contained the payload. Instead it locked onto the largest section of the vehicle, which generally was a section that carried the fuel for the missile. In the current Iraq conflict the patriot had an almost perfect intercept record (At least that's what we've been told so far.) One silkworm cruise missile managed to evade it. All other targets were successfully engaged. Including, unfortunately, some allied aircraft that ventured into the patriots defensive zone. Shooting down something as large (or as small) as a fighter proved no problem at all for the system. AV made absolutely no difference. It locked on and you were toast. Again, I want to say that the "friendly fire" incidents were an awful occurrence. I'm not trying to glorify them in any way.

Yay!  I didn't dream up that dateline or whatever it was!

[Rod ONeal]

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.

Amen
SFBers might not be a huge gaming group, but we're very devoted. I'd pay a couple hundred dollars for a game that was as true to SFB as possible (in real time) and DONE RIGHT. No halfway done systems. Real G-racks, plasma-D, full on systems including EW, Sp. Sensors, reserve power, labs, etc... I'd also pay $50.00 a pop for real expansions, just like I've done for the past dozen or so years with SFB (No I haven't played it since the '70's like some have. ). ...and definitely add the F&E style campaigning (and the advanced boarding party rules, while you're at it. What an awesome FPS we'd have.)

[Holocat]

I wouldn't mind a simplified version of SFC if (BIG IF) simplifying handling a starship meant controlling a single ship was micro-managing part of a fleet.  The selection of weapons on a ship would have to relate to a specific role that ship is to fill in a fleet.  This is a strength in the basic concept of SFB.

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.

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.

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 24tth century battle of Jutland or Midway.

Question to the community:  Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?

There.  See that?  I want a destroyer flotillia.  I want a frigate group.

If anyone recalls from flames that hearken to a time long, long ago on a fourm far, far away, I was once fanatically opposed to single ship fighting only.  The BCH-fest, as it is called.

Despite having relented due to the fact this is the technical reality we live in, I'm still of this opinion.  I want to see more intresting old navy action.  I want to see the six destroyers of Captain Fat suprise and ambush the pair of patrol frigates of Sum Dum Gui, which sends the sector into a state of contestment.  I want a Destroyer fleet vs. the Bismark senario, even if no one really managed to do anything other than lose sleep during that particular historical battle snippet.  

I want to see meaningful roles for ships other than battlecruisers.  Escorting destroyer flotillias, frigate patrol groups, cruiser groups even, cruisin' for a brusin'.  Scouts that do something.  Line ships that do something other than act as AI fodder.  Meaningful fleets that are something more complicated than 3 BCH > 2 BCH.  Even meaningful supply is something we currently lack.

I want to see more diverse fleet roles.  Reconnisance, exploration, supply, merchant marineing, and a whole slew of intresting things to do other than pointing shooty bit A at Victim B and pressing the fire key.

Why settle for Captain when you can be Grand 1st Admiral of All That You See? Eh? Eh?

Or be Lieutenant Commander Sum Won Elys, the guy that runs from all the fights, but everyone needs because he commands a fast resupply frigate, essential for those front liners that loose crewmen and shooty bits at an alarming rate.

Yes, I want that.

[EmeraldEdge]

Here's one for you.   I bought SFC because I loved Trek (more specifically TOS &TMP), and SFB was the best implementation of that universe that I have ever seen.   When I saw the add for SFC1 I thought, wow this Trek game looks cool, but when I read the text and saw that it was based on SFB, I was sold right then and there.   I generally avoided Trek games because, as others have said, they stunk.   They lacked almost any kind of gameplay, for the most part, and that was if they even worked.   This one I was definitely onboard for.   When I read that SFC2 was in development, I though "Oh, cool I'll have to get that one" but when I read about the D2, I pre-ordered that baby.

I kind of laugh (because it's better than crying) when I hear about how SFB isn't real Trek, and they didn't have weapon X in Trek because the enterprise didn't fire one, or system Y.   Yet there are countless Trek games out there that make all sorts of stuff up, and have elements that just don't make much sense, at least SFB is a longstanding ruleset that has stood the test of time.  As I've often said, I'd buy a Trek game not based on SFB if it was up to par on depth and gameplay, but to me SFB is like a seal of quality that guarantees it's going to have at least a little something to offer other than an hour or two of pretty graphics and then off to the old game droor.

[KBF-Crim]

What cleav, rod, holo, and EE said...

THNX guys...you all saved me a lot of typing