Topic: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...  (Read 29634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ModelsPlease

  • Retired Model Junkie
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 4665
  • Gender: Male
  • ModelsPlease
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #120 on: February 23, 2006, 05:13:08 pm »
What I would like to see in SFC4 would probably make everyone happy. Which is why I want it :) but it also allows everyone their favorite playgrounds. In SFC-OP, you have four time periods: Early, Middle, Late, and Advanced. What happens is that we heavily redefine this.

Early period ship classes would be up to and including the TOS Constitution class, D7B, and so forth. Ship classes and races seen on ENTERPRISE. Main enemy races would be Orions and the SFB races that died out early, like Paravians, Carnivons, etc. Everything in SFB excluding X-ships.

Middle period ships would be ENTERPRISE-A, Ktinga, and all of the other early movie ships, and seen-on-TV classes up to AMBASSADOR class (in other words, everything pre-TNG). Enemy races would include a number of independants popping up like the LDR, Vudar, WYN, Andromedans, and a few others. SFB X-ships and SFC-OP X-weapons. The ISC would first appear in this period as they played no real part in galactic affairs before now.

Late period ships would be GALAXY, DEFIANT, and most everything else we've seen or heard on TNG, DS9, Voyager, and so forth. Enemy ships would include the Borg. Quantum Torps and other serious advanced weapons enter service, including some of the SFC3 stuff that's worth keeping.

Advanced period would be the playground for all the modders out there who have introduced goodies that split from either Paramount canon or SFB canon.

One key point is that as each new period occurs, the map becomes larger (or the size of the empires shrinks a bit) to allow space for the new arrivals.

This is only an outline, it needs a LOT of work and fine-tuning, but it could be made to work without too much effort. Other people have made much the same suggestions, here and there, but this is one approach to the game's background that would accomodate both the SFB purists with the people who never got into SFB and grew up believing TNG and DS9 were the only way to go.

Anyhow, that's my two cents worth.

I LUV this idea  ;D. I'd be very happy with a game like this, as long as it has the same or more modability then OP.Preferably more  ;). More weapons, actually ALL SFB and Canon Trek weapons would be nice. The ability to customize your ship when in dock based on weapon availabilty of the era you're currently in would be nice as well. That would free up many ship spaces if for example you're using the FCA. Availible weapons/shields etc should be available for puchase in dock. That way you wouldn't need to sell an FCA to then get FCAD or whatever. The Base class would be it, and then the player purchases whatever  refit pack they want ( FNCA,FCAD,FCA+,FCS,etc...) for their own ship, then customize it ala SFC 3. Just a thought. Each refit pack would contain the proper weapons,shield strength,shuttles, drones etc...... for that particular design. And I like the duel rule set idea as well. More acurate solar systems. The ability for large scale planetary invasions would be fun as well. Definative declarations of war. The ability to pick and choose treaties/alliances. All that good stuff that was part off Birth of the Federation.

ModelsPlease, resident "Model Junkie" recovering from a tragic crayon sharpener accident.

Offline FPF-Tobin Dax

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
  • Gender: Male
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #121 on: February 24, 2006, 07:17:35 am »
No thanks to bringing in "enterprise" era into an sfb/sfc game. While I liked some aspects of the show, continuity was a joke and would be so gamewise as well with sfb/sfc. Cloaking warp driven romulans in "enterprise" era and d-7s just for example. Nothing before TOS thank you very much.
Suspected leader of Prime Industries, #1 Pirate Cartel

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #122 on: February 24, 2006, 08:22:45 am »
Some considerations:

With the increases in processing power since SFC I came out, I could see an SFC IV with the ability to handle a full 11-ship fleet engagement.  If you're counting on "proper" human play, that's maybe a 4th player per side.  With the "proper" multi-player code inserted, that should be no problem, as many FPS games can run with 64 humans at once...  on a lot more detailed maps with characters having, IIRC, as many polies as a typical medium-polied SFC ship...

By coding in all the SFB S8 rules and other fleet rules, that takes care of the problems with the various weapons.  Per SFB, the ISC is limited to 1 PPD bearing ship per every 3 ships in the fleet, and are limited to something like 8 PPDs total, which is coincidentally the most you can get anyway (4 from the DN / BB, 2 from the CC, 2 from the CS, with a HSC, CL, 3xDD-hull (one being DDL) and 3xFF hull (maybe swapping an FFL for the DDL, as you can't have a 4th command boat in this formation), rounding out the Echelon.

The only other HW with a "weapons restriction" on it is the Webcaster.  Otherwise, all other HWs are unrestricted, primarily because they rely on luck and/or have counters (ie, an all-hellbore fleet doesn't have the fighter coverage of a mixed fleet or the in-close threat.)  Also, these weapons are fairly balanced against each other (ie, firing every hellbore on a fleet does about as much damage as every photon in a fleet).

To me, SFC IV should be as close to SFB as possible, not because I'm a bible-pumping SFB-ite, but because a number of problems that have existed since SFC I are due to differences in the rulesets.  Ships fly faster because they don't have to pay for EDR repairs or shield regneration, which messes up seeking weapons.  Auto-shield regneration messes up saber-dancing.  Nobody says the rules have to be exactly SFB (ie, the "EDR" magic screws can be figured by taking 2/3rd the number of systems that EDR could theoretically repair and making it 4 power per turn to repair the system instead of 3, or shield regerneration is factored by how much power is set aside to regeneration, ie 2 power = 1 point on each shield facing every third turn, while 12 power = 1 point on every shield facing each turn).

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #123 on: February 24, 2006, 12:43:02 pm »
And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse  ;D   That gets silly enough with 3 ships.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline EschelonOfJudgemnt

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 259
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #124 on: February 24, 2006, 01:00:28 pm »
And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse  ;D   That gets silly enough with 3 ships.

Either that or give every other heavy weapon the appropriate increase in range!  Photons in SFB have a 30 range max, which meant that feds got to wait out that range 40 disruptor shot from the Klink DN's, or ISC PPDs before coasting into range 30 and showing everyone the glory of prox photons!

Kaufman Retrograding with range 55 prox photons would simply be ugly for game balance... talk about uber!

I don't mind range 55 photons, as long as disruptors, hellbores, PPD's, Web Casters, etc. all get a similar increase (and appropriate 'to hit' adjustment).

Oh, and while you are at it, there is always the option of increasing the range on plasmas too.  I wouldn't mind seeing an R plasma reaching out and touching someone (for 1 point of damage) at 55...

So yeah, let's get some better parity at the longer ranges!

Offline EschelonOfJudgemnt

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 259
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #125 on: February 24, 2006, 01:57:16 pm »
Some considerations:

With the increases in processing power since SFC I came out, I could see an SFC IV with the ability to handle a full 11-ship fleet engagement.  If you're counting on "proper" human play, that's maybe a 4th player per side.  With the "proper" multi-player code inserted, that should be no problem, as many FPS games can run with 64 humans at once...  on a lot more detailed maps with characters having, IIRC, as many polies as a typical medium-polied SFC ship...

By coding in all the SFB S8 rules and other fleet rules, that takes care of the problems with the various weapons.  Per SFB, the ISC is limited to 1 PPD bearing ship per every 3 ships in the fleet, and are limited to something like 8 PPDs total, which is coincidentally the most you can get anyway (4 from the DN / BB, 2 from the CC, 2 from the CS, with a HSC, CL, 3xDD-hull (one being DDL) and 3xFF hull (maybe swapping an FFL for the DDL, as you can't have a 4th command boat in this formation), rounding out the Echelon.

The only other HW with a "weapons restriction" on it is the Webcaster.  Otherwise, all other HWs are unrestricted, primarily because they rely on luck and/or have counters (ie, an all-hellbore fleet doesn't have the fighter coverage of a mixed fleet or the in-close threat.)  Also, these weapons are fairly balanced against each other (ie, firing every hellbore on a fleet does about as much damage as every photon in a fleet).

To me, SFC IV should be as close to SFB as possible, not because I'm a bible-pumping SFB-ite, but because a number of problems that have existed since SFC I are due to differences in the rulesets.  Ships fly faster because they don't have to pay for EDR repairs or shield regneration, which messes up seeking weapons.  Auto-shield regneration messes up saber-dancing.  Nobody says the rules have to be exactly SFB (ie, the "EDR" magic screws can be figured by taking 2/3rd the number of systems that EDR could theoretically repair and making it 4 power per turn to repair the system instead of 3, or shield regerneration is factored by how much power is set aside to regeneration, ie 2 power = 1 point on each shield facing every third turn, while 12 power = 1 point on every shield facing each turn).

Hellbore fighters also had restrictions, as did various fed fighters, which the game should also restrict somehow.

One thing I think was a mistake was evening out the power curve for plasmas.  the 2/2/5 arming cost for the R plasma (and other plasma arming costs) did interesting things to ship speeds, i.e. you could rearm at higher speeds, helping you avoid counterstrikes.  But when it came time to finish arming, your speed would drop a bit, and you had the decision 'do I fire now or wait until the holding costs kick in?'.  Now your speed is constant so that little tactical nuance is gone.

As for EDR, etc. I have an observation.  When you were gathered around the table for hours on end, and a half hour or more passed between volleys, how damage was handled was OK.

In SFC, where engagements can be over in 2-3 minutes under the CURRENT rules, I'm sure the designers realized that leaving damage at SFB levels resulted in ships dying waaay too quickly!  If your ship always disappears with the first volley, well the game won't be as much fun frankly.  I for one think that doubled internals is a good thing, as it allows the game to play out longer, and keeps weapons on board longer, so players are able to fight back more effectively after a crushing volley.

As for SFC damage repairs, everybody gets similar benefits from it.  You can argue that some weapons are hurt more than others, but the way it works now does make the game more appealing to newbies.  As it stands now, you can stay in the fray while doing repairs.  By assigning an energy cost to repairs, this encourages people to break off to do repairs (which I used to do in SFB), resulting in stern chases, etc, hence MUCH longer games.  And we've heard enough people complain about how long plasma ballets can take...

As for shield regeneration rates, I again think they are a good thing, as long as they aren't too uber for any given race.  The reason disruptors have difficulty versus the feds isn't so much the fact that the shields are regenerating, but rather the fact that they are regenerating faster than 2 points per turn on cruisers (3-4 per turn for DN's and BBs), as they would in SFB with damage control rates.  I think having labs dictate how fast shields regenerate has been a recipe for game inbalance.  I'd rather see system repair rates tied to the number of labs onboard, to sorta kinda reflect that EDR thing.  Feds had more labs, so they could make repairs more certain than klinks with their measly 4-6 labs.  this also reflects design philosophies: Klink designs focus on taking you out quickly (better firing arcs), while feds are designed to soak up damage a little better. So,  I think that shield regeneration rates should strictly be a functiion of your damage control rating.

And then there was CDR (continuous damage repair) as well, which took a while but didn't cost any power.  4 repair points a turn could get you a phaser 2 back in one turn as I remember... which the Taldren system sorta kinda reflects (minus the part where you could only repair up to your damage control rating).  Perhaps to meet you halfway you could have a 'repair' energy category to speed up repairs (to reflect charging up your labs), and the amount of power you could assign would be a function of how many labs you have.

As for spare parts, I think that what people carry around in any given battle is probably too high.  I think I'd rather see this tied to your damage control rating (and perhaps labs), with a small 'spare part' regeneration rate between engagements, instead of packing around 20-30 parts in a given engagement.  This would reflect supply freighters, pirates, etc. that you rendesvous with between battles.  Perhaps 2x your damage control rating plus 1 per lab onboard?  And possibly replenish them at a rate of 1/2 your damage control rating when in home space?  This would make raiding the parts stocks on enemy ships a little more important when in enemy territory...

Batteries need to be implemented much better than they are.  At the very least, I think a check box or something which automatically drains batteries (for specific shield reinforcement) if you are about to take internals would be something... What would be an idea would be to have some way to assign batteries to specific energy uses (i.e. I want to dump batteries into weapons only, but not ECM, shield reinforcement, or whatever).  Again, this would be a check box on the energy distribution panel, so when you flip batteries on, they would be split between the categories that are checked.

It would also be nice to have a 'sixth' energy category for regcharging batteries.  That way, you could, say, have movement at priority #1, battery recharge at #2, weapons at #3, and so on.  This would really make batteries a lot more useful, as they were in SFB.

It would also be nice to be able to repair batteries.  And perhaps hull, lab, and other systems as well...

I don't think that game imbalance in SFC is really all that bad, as the player distribution fits the pattern.  We have a lot of feds, because they are the feds after all.  We also have a lot of klinks, and the other races, while having less players, are more or less distributed somewhat equally.

I'd argue that droners have more fans though (Mirakzinti), what with the KOTH, KAT, and other fleets.  Suprisingly, we don't seem to have a lot of ISC players though (I could be wrong), which is odd since everyone seems to consider their ships more uber than everyone elses...

If anything, the faster missiles in SFC are much scarier than the SFB drones...  when was the last time you took a speed 8 drone seriously (outside of an anchor situation)?

Cloak needs some tweaking though... this is obvious based on the low numbers of people that still play Rom.  As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2006, 02:31:25 pm by EschelonOfJudgemnt »

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #126 on: February 24, 2006, 02:37:14 pm »
Kaufman Retrograding

 :thumbsup:  I'd love to see this in SFC. (plus saucer and boom separation - all desperate measures but fun stuff)

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #127 on: February 24, 2006, 02:42:12 pm »
As for spare parts, I think that what people carry around in any given battle is probably too high.  I think I'd rather see this tied to your damage control rating (and perhaps labs), with a small 'spare part' regeneration rate between engagements, instead of packing around 20-30 parts in a given engagement. 

It is tied to DCR, DieHard developed a standard formula to apply to the DCR column in the shiplist that provides reasonable numbers of spares. (2-10) This has been applied to almost all dynaverse servers over the last few years.

As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

Down that road lies SFC3... >:(



762_XC

  • Guest
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #128 on: February 24, 2006, 04:40:46 pm »
Why stop there EoJ? If batteries are going to be improved we should have a full reserve power system, with the ability to instant-arm one turn weapons such as dizzies and fusions, and instant-overload others. ECM yo-yo would also be nice.

Regarding fighter CnC, we already do this on D2 via server rules.

Retrogrades are a bad idea imho (sorry AJTK). Seeking weapons would become even more useless vs DF. I think the idea of open space battles on the whole is kind of silly from a strategic standpoint. Nobody attacks an open sector of space; there should always be a fixed or slow-moving asset (such as a base or convoy) to attack/defend. In that type of scenario retrograde is not an option. Play F&E for 5 minutes and you will see how many battles actually get fought over nothing.

Offline Dfly

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1735
  • Lyran Alliance Lives
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #129 on: February 24, 2006, 06:41:35 pm »
My suggestion for Plasmas is simple.  Since ships in SFB travel mostly slower than the ones in SFC and plasmas most times can catch them quicker, I suggest upping the speed of the plasmas in the SFC to say 40?  Most people choose ships that have the ability to go faster than the enemy in most situations and those ships nearly all do 31 loaded.  At worst, a weapon or 2 get turned off and 31 is there.  With slightly faster plasmas you no longer need an R to hit enemy who you are chasing if you are 3 away. 

As it stands you can get chased by a plasma race ship and if you can stay 4 or more away(usually not hard to do) you know his Plasma S cant hit you while you are both moving speed 31.

This idea probably should not be implemented in Early or Mid(as we now know it) but only for Late Advanced Eras.

Offline Mog

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 610
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #130 on: February 24, 2006, 08:37:37 pm »
Why stop there EoJ? If batteries are going to be improved we should have a full reserve power system, with the ability to instant-arm one turn weapons such as dizzies and fusions, and instant-overload others. ECM yo-yo would also be nice.

Regarding fighter CnC, we already do this on D2 via server rules.

Retrogrades are a bad idea imho (sorry AJTK). Seeking weapons would become even more useless vs DF. I think the idea of open space battles on the whole is kind of silly from a strategic standpoint. Nobody attacks an open sector of space; there should always be a fixed or slow-moving asset (such as a base or convoy) to attack/defend. In that type of scenario retrograde is not an option. Play F&E for 5 minutes and you will see how many battles actually get fought over nothing.

A rare moment - I fully agree with you  :)
Merriment is All

Fear the Meow!

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #131 on: February 24, 2006, 11:16:17 pm »
I'd like to see a slightly more intelligent AI when it comes to Transporter uses.  I love seeing an AI ally drop his shield to Hit and Run, which happens to open his shield up to a G or S Torp.  Or how about when he drops a decoy then a split second later decides to nullify the decoy with a T-Bomb...seconds later he's hit with 2 Rs.  And just now I watched a Gorn CC drop a shield to H&R a R-FRD when the Gorn ship had no marines left!  Of course the FRD put his F-Torp into bare hull.

And who uses Photons beyond range 30 anyway? a 1 ECM shift and you're just wasting energy.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #132 on: February 25, 2006, 12:40:25 am »


As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

Down that road lies SFC3... >:(




Mags figured out how to do plasma bolts a long time ago........didnt even need new artwork......got shot down....ask him about it...

Offline EschelonOfJudgemnt

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 259
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #133 on: February 25, 2006, 01:27:02 am »


As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

Down that road lies SFC3... >:(




Mags figured out how to do plasma bolts a long time ago........didnt even need new artwork......got shot down....ask him about it...

Yeah I remember.  Twas a sad day, seeing it was such an elegant solution.

Offline Bonk

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13298
  • You don't have to live like a refugee.
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #134 on: February 25, 2006, 01:20:58 pm »
Plasma bolts as per SFB are another matter entirely, yes it would be great to have them as an option.  :thumbsup:

I'm just still ticked about SFC3 removing seeking weapons as a way to deal with inadequate AI. Which is my assesment of the reason they were removed, as there were too many fights about droners and hex flipping, so instead of fixing the AI to be able to cope with seeking weapons (a daunting task mind you) they just removed them.  >:(


762_XC

  • Guest
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #135 on: February 25, 2006, 02:47:30 pm »
Look at it this way Bonk.

I'm grateful Taldren made a game that would sell (read: dumbed down) and make them enough to stay in business long enough to patch up OP to where it is today.

SFC3 sucks, but its existence breathed some new life into OP.

GAW would have been nice, but face it - we are a niche market.

Offline Julin Eurthyr

  • Veltrassi Ambassador at Large
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
  • Gender: Male
  • Back in Exile due to Win 7 - ISC RM/Strat Com.
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #136 on: February 26, 2006, 08:25:15 am »
Took me a while to come up with this phrasing...

I'm not complaining about double internals.  Yet... ;)  I do realize that they probably need to stay in SFC no matter what.  A single-internals option would be nice, though not necessary.

Demon Fly hit one of the biggest problems since SFC I right on the head:
Most people choose ships that have the ability to go faster than the enemy in most situations and those ships nearly all do 31 loaded.

What happens if, with the new (EDR / Regen needs power) rules implemented, the player insists on flying speed 31 the entire fight?  To think of right off the top of my head:
Even the 4xPH-1 on a R-WE will eventually chip away and drop the rear shield.  Each internal scored will be "permanent", eventually slowing the target down enough to where the R-torp will hit and do significant (fatal) damage.  Other ships (all DF-races) will, obviously, do this damage quicker than envisioned by the WE, so the "long, drawn out battle" bit won't be an issue.

Don't forget, I'm just mentioning a "part" of the wishlist.  Many things (Dro-G & AMD linking, plasma bolts, fixing the "magic photon", offensive & properly linked Pl-D, smarter fighters, fighters and PFs for all, fixing the deck-crew / fighter regeneration, better cloak) that help out balance have earned permanent homes in the Equine Graveyard 3 years ago.  There's other things that should be added too, and obviously, things would have to be "tweaked" to fit into the real-time nature of the game.  Like I said, I'm for a "closer to SFB interpretation" because that's what all the balances were written for, there's always the option of trying to rebalance everything we don't change (I, for one, don't think the SFB-mandated Klingon mutiny is needed, and do we really want UIM-burnout or 30 Disruptor charts?)

AKA: Koloth Kinshaya - Lord of the House Kinshaya in the Klingon Empire
S'Leth - Romulan Admiral
Some anonymous strongman in Prime Industries

Offline RazalYllib

  • Imperial Romulan Information Service-senior advisor
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 784
  • Gender: Male
    • IRIS
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #137 on: February 26, 2006, 10:42:31 am »
Additionally, a Federation and Empire style economic/ship prodution port, would naturally restrict the "cheese", making the campaign enviroment more generic off the shelf hulls.  One thing I would like to see is a "programable or learning AI", I understand there was some work done some years ago on this for games. The games AI "remembered" how you played and tried to keep you past behavior in mind as it plotted moves ... sounded interesting.

The above ideas about the RPGness in a campaign would also be a marketable feature. Instead of lvls, you have Command Ratings. As you play...you eventually will get the opportunity to "bid" w/ your fleetmates, for the limited pool of hire CR rated ships. The other restriction that should be lifted is the total # of missions that can be loaded. Gives the player base more content to experience, especially if more things can be done with the engine and there is more RPGness. Multi ship engagements were a staple of the "historical" sfb general war. Most ships were too valuable to risk off by them selves, though small squadrens 3-5 do have their uses in pinning situations in FnE.

A more robust "Campaign Front End" would also be desired, a way for players to move/manage AI assets (at the cost of the expendature of prestige or the equivalent. Would go a long way in giving the players a more immersive experience. 
Comes a time when the blind man takes your hand
Says "don't you see?"
Gotta make it somehow
On the dreams you still believe
Don't give it up
You got an empty cup
Only love can fill
Only love can fill

Offline KBF MalaK

  • Just Another Target
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 673
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #138 on: February 26, 2006, 12:24:06 pm »
  Like I said, I'm for a "closer to SFB interpretation" because that's what all the balances were written for, there's always the option of trying to rebalance everything we don't change (I, for one, don't think the SFB-mandated Klingon mutiny is needed, and do we really want UIM-burnout or 30 Disruptor charts?)
That part is absolutely necessary to reflect the Klingon social order, where the weaker follow the stronger (under penealty of death).
"Artificial Intelligence is not a suitable substitute for natural stupidity"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Offline Age

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2690
  • Gender: Male
Re: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...
« Reply #139 on: February 28, 2006, 02:54:28 pm »
And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse  ;D   That gets silly enough with 3 ships.
Actually can we give it +3 in ecm shift Like Capt. Kirk would.  ;D