Topic: SFC Galaxies at War? (Read 2627 times)

Age · « **on:** May 19, 2005, 01:13:41 pm »

I was answering a question about Galaxies at War over at STGs and couldn't remeber if it was cancelled game or just nerfed for Orion Pirates.I know many of you in here would be able to tell me so what was it?Thanks

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2005, 04:36:55 am »

Ok, since nobody else is takin' a stab at it, I'll give my best recollection. As I remember it, GaW was never really "in development" to the point where you could call it cancelled. Erik said that, as with SFCIII, OP was the game that Taldren was asked to make by the publisher, or something like that. Andromedans and Tholians, as he said, were would have been a hard sell to the suits, but everyone relates to pirates, so that's the direction the expantion took. Of course the hope then was to make SFCIII as GAW, I believe, with Andro's and Thol's (I mean, they did make some models and stuff at one point even), but the license was moved to ATVI and you know that whole story.

Greenvalv · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2005, 02:02:14 pm »

As far as I know, the Andromedan models were released at Sfc3files.

Father Ted · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2005, 05:03:29 pm »

Dave Farrell said about a year or so ago that before Activision bought out Taldren, SFCIII was going to be GaW and include Tholians and Andromedans. The nitwits at Activision thought TNG would be a better bet and ruined the game in the process.

Greenvalv · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2005, 05:47:00 pm »

Oh, so Activision owns Taldren?

Magnum357 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2005, 12:52:18 am »

Wow! I didn't know that. I don't mind SFC3 (in its TNG state) but to hear that SFC3 was going to actually be a continuation of SFC1 and 2 (ie, SFB rules) is quite heartbreaking.

KBF-Crim · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2005, 02:25:53 am »

Whoa...hold the buss..

Activision didnt buy out Taldren...Taldren sold an SFC game to the ONLY publisher licensed to sell one..period...

SFC3 was never going to have TOS content OR SFB content...

Activision didnt have license for TOS at the time...and no one even thought of doing a deal with ADB...

Any mention of SFB or TOS was pretty much stepped on during testing...

GaW...aka galaxies at war..was a fan driven suggestion thread for SFC 3..long before one was ever announced...

In fact...many of the feature suggestions such as option mounts, fleeting , hidden cloak ,warp speed, retrograde....where ALL suggestions from fans...

EAW was originally slated to have andros and tholians as well...but problems in coding weapons would have delayed EAW far too long...

The andro models where for EAW...not GaW...same reason the TRB weapons are easter eggs...they were simply not finished in time for release...

In fact age...you and WT are the only people I've ever heard suggest that GaW was ever a real project...based on something Ann allegedly said in passing conversation...

IMHO..this is another WT "SFC myth"...based solely upon the release of the andro models...models designed for EAW...

Magnum357 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2005, 04:02:54 pm »

Boy, it would have been nice if Taldren had added Hidden Cloak Option and Warp Speed to EAS/OP. Those were two features I had always wanted in SFC1 and 2. I know SFC3 had both, but it would be nice to escape at Warp in SFC1 and SFC2.

I could understand why they didn't add the Andro and Tholians. To this day I still have trouble understanding how PA Panels work within SFB.

Tholian Webs would probably be a coding nightmare!

Question: I thought I heard once that TRB's can be added to a ship in SFC OP. Is this true?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2005, 05:56:42 pm »

You know the reason you can't escape "at warp" in EAW/OP? Because you are already going at warp.

At least in SFB all combat (unless you use the special sublight rules for really early era combat mostly) was done at warp speeds. SFC3 changed it to impulse/sublight speeds, and thus the addition of warp made more sense. The reason you speed away when you reach the border is because of the disengagement rule (although I would have preferred a floating map and disengagement by distance, but maybe that's just me.

) I personally like the tension of trying to escape, shoving every ounce of power you have into movement and trying to accelerate out of a situation, or trying to repair enough engines to reach max velocity. That kind of thing adds to the game, but maybe that's just me. I'll have to read the EAW manual again and see if they said it was combat at sub warp speed or not, but I know that at least it is explained "properly" through SFB. Interestingly they kind of got things opposite with the two SFC games. SFC3 has sublight combat, but you can have various top speeds. Well, what sense does that make? They are only supposed to be able to go to the speed of light, and every ship should be able to reach it given enough time to accelerate, right? Whereas the ships in the previous SFC's should have varying warp speed cababiliities (Yeah, some do and I like that, actually) instead of every ship maxing out at speed 31. I mean, should an old era ship be able to go speed 31, where a new era ship never learned how to break to that next speed? Not sure I buy that. Anyhow...

Hidden cloak, however, was an optional rule for cloaking in SFB, and yeah it would have been nice. Especially given the disadvantage the Roms are at a lot of the time. They pay for the cloak in BPV but it doesn't seem to offer up as much of an advantage as it was intended, imo. It has gotten better with patching though, I think.

yes, TRB's are an option in OP, I believe they come in two sizes. They were an easter egg of sorts, although I'm not sure how far they got with the AI learning how to use them. I think there was an effort at one point, but it's a little hazy. Anyone? They aren't an option if you are using shipedit though, so you'll have to add them manually I think. I don't remember what the abbreviation for them is though. There is probably a guide for it though.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2005, 08:27:51 pm »

Ya, I already know that in SFB the ships are actually travelling at slow warp (between Warp 1 too Warp 3.2). But I have noticed that in SFC1 and the other SFC titles that the scale is not the same as in SFB. One SFB hex equaled 10,000 Km's, but in SFC, it seems like 1 square/distance = 1,000 Km's. I like to assume that in SFC at least, that combat is still at impulse speeds and that the Warp Engines are their to help augment Impulse speed at sublight velocities. As you said yourself above, it doesn't make sense to you why each ship in SFC3 has different Max speeds when theoretically all ships should be able to reach near the speed of light at sublight velocities. I have had a theory in SFC (and maybe SFB) that Imuplse Engines need the Warp engines to help generate a low powered warp feild so that ships can engage each other at high sublight velocities. The Disengangment rules (in SFB) would in effect be the Warp engines engaging to get the ship past the Light Barrier and into Warp Velocities. So basically, what I wanted in SFC was a "Disengagment" option so the ship can Warp off the map.

As for SFC3 ships having different Max Velocities, I think this has a lot to do with the Mass of the ship versus the Impulse engines it has. Even in the Star Trek TNG: Tech Manual, it stated ships could go at near the speed of light with its Impulse engines, but because of the problems with Time destortion and the unfortunete problem of ships consuming more fuel the closer you get to the speed of light, it stated in the Tech manual that there is a cap on speed (only a fraction of the speed of light) that the ships actually fly at impulse. And if you have a larger ship trying to get faster and faster, it would take more fuel (ie Fusion engines or whatever) then a smaller ship so maybe this is why ships in SFC3 have different Max velocities.

Greenvalv · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2005, 09:12:40 am »

Ah, so GAW was wanted but Activision said otherwise....

What does TRB stand for, and does anyone know it's abbreviation for the shiplist?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2005, 05:47:18 pm »

TRB is the tractor repulsor beam, used by the andromedans. I don't recall it's abbreviation though. I don't think the graphic was ever fully implemented either. It's just sort of a blue beam, if I recall. It's been a while since I've seen it in use so...

As far as ATVI wanting otherwise, I believe a lot of Taldren folks wanted to get away from SFB as well. I know that they have stated as much anyway. Also, at the time when SFCIII was starting development, ATVI didn't have the license to do anything from TOS or TMP, so a continuation was supposedly out anyway. There wasn't enough time left under InterPlay's contract with TOS/TMP to get a new game done, and they didn't have the money anyway. I do have to wonder though, could they have started the game as a TMP game anyway, knowing that they would have had the license for it by the time that they would have released it? Supposedly TNG is the big money maker so they wanted a game in that generation. I'm not so sure, I mean how many TOS/TMP games are there, really? Anyhow, those are the stated reasons for it not being a continuation. One thing I always thought mildly humorous (only because it helped the anger) is that one side said "We made the game we were paid to make" and the other side said "We distributed the game we were given" at least in essence. Nobody really wanted to take full responsability for the game that was actually produced. Anyway...

Mr_Tricorder · « **Reply #12 on:** May 23, 2005, 06:20:17 pm »

Completely ignoring anything having to do with SFB and going entirely on the established science of canon Trek, The SFCIII way of handling movement is fairly accurate. In Star Trek, battles don't usually happen at warp velocities. Here's why.

1. Subspace field -- The subspace field generated around a ship from the warp nacelles is what allows the ship to travel at warp. It changes several physical properties of the matter inside the field to allow this to happen. Otherwise, the ship could only accelerate toward light speed but never reach it. The subspace field does not actually propel the ship. That is done through the impulse engines. The subspace field prevents certain actions from taking place, such as turning because this will deform the ship within the field, launching objects that are not design to leave a subspace field (photon torpedoes and certain probes can be launched at warp), and firing phasers.

2. Impulse engines -- Other than thrusters, impulse engines are the only means to propel a ship ("going to warp" involves placing a subspace field around a ship so the impulse engines can propel the ship at faster than light speeds compared to everything outside the field). Impulse engines CANNOT ACCELERATE A SHIP TO VERY NEAR THE SPEED OF LIGHT. This is not only a myth, it is scientifically impossible (Trek science or otherwise) without causing significant problems for the object being accelerated (relative time nearly stopping, mass reaching near infinity, etc.). There are different classes of impulse engines for different ships that range greatly in power, and a ship's mass has a great impact on how fast it can travel with a certain type of impulse engine.

3. Thrusters -- Thrusters allow a ship to maneuver and propel itself at very slow speeds (compared with impulse speeds). SFCIII only takes into account the maneuvering, but this is fine because forward propulsion by thrusters only would be negligible in the game. It only makes sense that if you equip your ship with better thrusters, it can maneuver better.

Take this information for what it is, canon Trek science which has absolutely nothing to do with SFB. I am not saying that SFC3 is better than SFC1, 2, or OP. In fact, I think that SFC3 has some very serious shortfalls and, overall, OP is the best SFC game ever made.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2005, 03:56:49 pm »

See, here's my thing with the impulse engines though. Shouldn't they all be able to go to the same top speed, whether that's near light speed or half the speed of light or whatever. Time distortion factors would be equal to all ships going at the same speeds, wouldn't they? Thus acceleration should be the only factor, top speed in a sub-warp sitation should be the same. A ships mass should only effect it's acceleration, not it's speed. The different engines aren't by class either, they are just a few different sizes that you can fit on any class ship. Of course it you could equip a Dreadnought with the low end engine that barely manages to make a frigate function, but that would be stupid. You can still do it though. Is there a real good reason that top speeds are different?

News: