In a previous thread (closed by me) I was just getting started on the two separate takes that SFC3 and SFC: Orion Pirates (OP) use to deal with the habit of military forces to refit to newer ships, weapons, systems, etc.
We?ll start with SFC3. In SFC3 the model is fewer ships but more flexibility. This allows, in theory, a huge number of possible ships. In the stock incarnation however it was found that very few variations met with success. The theory was sound but what the design failed to take into consideration was that for ships to be worthy of combat you had to meet certain minimum firepower and defense criteria. This is not unlike present day navy ship (escort size and larger) in that most if not all have certain set speed and defense capabilities and variations occur more in the mission loads (armaments, delivery systems) that are set on the hulls. In SFC3 this ?naval? basis cause problems which was eventually dealt with by the introduction of ?mods? that are in use today on many servers and in GSA. (note: of course this was not the only factor that caused the mods to come out, the lack of interesting ships was also a major factor) Still as an accurate representation of ship ?refitting? the method of taking your ship in and instantly swapping out major systems is less than perfect. It has been argued that this is a better method than OP, in regards to that I say it?s not better just a different method to achieve the same result OP strives to ? variations in game play. If SFC3 were to be truly accurate in regards to refitting then each refit would take x amount of time based on the complexity of the refit. In game play however, the current system works well enough, and thus SFC3 is surviving as a fun, fast, and interesting starship combat simulation.
SFC: Orion Pirates takes a more ?traditional? view. In OP, ships are set mostly as is. The captain is relegated to dealing with whatever short comings the ship has in regards to weapons, defenses, power, and movement. However this does not mean that they are stuck as all ships have the ability to refit. This is done via replacing one ship with a newer class. In OP all ships have a ?tree? of upgrades stretching through the timeline of the game. A Heavy Cruiser can have 3 to 4 (or more) ?versions? of refit to choose from in a campaign (example: Federation CA ? CA+ -- CAR ? CAI ? CB) thus allowing the player to refit his ship. But unlike SFC3, OP?s refits are based on a military doctrine and the ?historical? timeline of the game it?s based on. This is not unlike the present military?s habit of keeping types of ships and equipment but eventually ?upgrading? a force with the introduction of a new weapon, vehicle, or ship. It also reflects the ?partial? refits that happen in the military that bring about revised classes based on the previous version (example: M60A1 ? M60A2 ? M60A3) that though similar are considered ?new? versions. Following this method leaves players in OP far fewer options but only if they stay with a certain ?class? of ship. Because of the natural progression of players to newer and larger ships, in actuality the choices are many though more finite than SFC3. Those with a more strategic bent have thus stayed with or gravitated to OP as a more military / strategic space warfare simulation where balance is more easily achieved by virtue of the fact that ship capabilities are more rigid.
So as you can see both games have ample variations. Refitting is inherent to both but the root methods are far different. One (SFC3) allows personalization and individualism to govern how one sets up their ship, limited only by its maximum hull limits, but only certain combinations are truly combat worthy thus the combinations are finite in game play. The other (OP) allows choice on a ship-by-ship level but those choices are based on the in game doctrine and history without the option for personal customizing, which requires a much larger pool of ships to be available to ensure players will have sufficient choices. Both methods are good and work for the games they are in.
I look forward to comments and feedback.