Topic: The biggest thing missing in SFC3...

[Lieutenant_Q]

...from SFC 2 in my opinion was the F11 key.  Whenever i played SFC2 or 1 i would always push the F11 button at the start of the battle.  I liked knowing where everything was, how fast it was moving and what its hull status was with just a quick glance.  Can we get that back for the official patch release?

How about anyone else, what do you all think is missing?  (besides T-Bombs and that Cheeze ESG)  

[Mog]

Cheese ESG? ROFL. ESGs are easy to beat - stay outside range 4 and keep your speed the same or higher than the Lyran. Frkkn cheese lol.

[jimmi7769]

Methinks he's got his cheese mixed up with his Gruel.

[Cleaven]

Maybe he means the ESG Lance thingy. Never misses and no damage modifiers.  

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
Maybe he means the ESG Lance thingy. Never misses and no damage modifiers.  

I can't say I've ever used that in SP or online play.  I think a skirmish is in order.

[Mog]

Gotya Cleaven - i'd forgotten about that. Still, same thing applies except for the range - stay outside of range 6 and match speed and even the Lance won't hit.

[Komodo]

I remember the days when the ESG was a thing to be feared! They'd be able to charge while moving at a good clip (I guess I'm thinking SFC1). SFC#2 comes along, and the Lyrans go belly up, just like the Rom SPZ...Then again, things were much different then, damn double internals...LOL

[Mog]

Meow Komodo, you can still recharge a Lyran at high speeds, just takes a while.

Your double internals quip though leaves me puzzled. SFC1 had them as do EAW and OP.

[Cleaven]

The (unofficial?) 1.03 patch was single internals wasn't it?  

[Komodo]

Quote:
Meow Komodo, you can still recharge a Lyran at high speeds, just takes a while.

Your double internals quip though leaves me puzzled. SFC1 had them as do EAW and OP.  

Yeah- SFC1 did have singles until either the first or second patch- can't remember now...I still remember the range 0 drone bug- oooey! I thought it was a feature when I first started LOL

As for ESG- I don't really know- I didn't follow what happened there...with all the minor changes it added up to the ESG ships having a reduced capability. From all the hoopla, the Hydrans suffered the same fate too. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me they were under powered- mostly at charging time. Come to think of it, I think the phaser charging system was way off kilteracross the board. Even 1 shot from a phaser sucks like 15 power, for example (guessing here- it's been a awhile since I noted it- I think it's a percentage thing comparing total power output to capacitor size maybe) until the capacitor is charged again. The more it's drawn from, the longer it takes to recharge. Not enough power, it doesn't recharge at all. I always thought the power allocation was wacky too- I'd have preferred a percentage system instead of a priority system there...makes more sense to me. The worst case there was shields. Say you set them to #1 priority, and put in some reinforcement. Suddenly your ships stops moving in battle after you fire weapons 'cause there's no more extra power; you've inadvertantly set a specific amount of power to the shields, and the remainder is automatically and evenly divvied out amongst the rest of the systems. I know that's a radical example, but it happened to me on a few occasions before I decided it was madness to do that LOL.

Yeah- the power maintenance issue soon became something to be taken seriously by everyone. Sometimes it was something that could not be overcome in relation to your opponent's abilities.

[MarianoDT]

I think that a full 3d scenario would have been exelent.
As you donīt have variety neither in weapons nor systems, more complex maneuvers could have added a lot more strategies to think about, and a lot more fun.

Mariano  

[sjvessey]

I'm not so sure about that.  These ships are not supposed to get into dog-fights - they are more like naval vessels than jet fighters.  And even for the modern air superiority jet, dog-fights are rare.  The new Euro fighter, for example, was originally designed without a gun (just missile mountings) because it was felt that guns are irrelevant unless you're going to be strafing ground targets.  Even on the ground - with tanks - it's mainly about weapon range.  Tanks don't drive around trying to get into each other's blind spots or hit the weakest part of the armour.  The Abrams beats the T72 cos it can shoot twice as far, is all.

And especially in air-to-air combat these days it's all about your weapon systems, not the platform as such.  If your missiles fly farther, faster and more accurately than the other guy's, you will win.  It's as simple as that.  The US Phoenix missile, for example, can kill its target from 80-100 miles away.  Other missiles can't.  The USAF wins.

Same with naval vessels, and it would be the same with starships.  All this talk of maneouvering to get into position sounds like crap to me.  The guy with the biggest, highest firing rate, most accurate guns (or whatever) that can reach the farthest would win every time.

So I don't think 3D would really do anything from a tactical perspective.  And it would make controlling things a hell of a lot more complex.



 

[CptCastrin]

Tribbles.

[Davey E]

Atmosphere !!!

SFC 3 is so god damn sterile i almost fell asleep playing it,  
so i don,t any more

EAW rules everytime  

Lets have GAW, a game we can be proud of  

[MarianoDT]

Quote:
I'm not so sure about that.  These ships are not supposed to get into dog-fights - they are more like naval vessels than jet fighters.  And even for the modern air superiority jet, dog-fights are rare.  The new Euro fighter, for example, was originally designed without a gun (just missile mountings) because it was felt that guns are irrelevant unless you're going to be strafing ground targets.  Even on the ground - with tanks - it's mainly about weapon range.  Tanks don't drive around trying to get into each other's blind spots or hit the weakest part of the armour.  The Abrams beats the T72 cos it can shoot twice as far, is all.

And especially in air-to-air combat these days it's all about your weapon systems, not the platform as such.  If your missiles fly farther, faster and more accurately than the other guy's, you will win.  It's as simple as that.  The US Phoenix missile, for example, can kill its target from 80-100 miles away.  Other missiles can't.  The USAF wins.

Same with naval vessels, and it would be the same with starships.  All this talk of maneouvering to get into position sounds like crap to me.  The guy with the biggest, highest firing rate, most accurate guns (or whatever) that can reach the farthest would win every time.

So I don't think 3D would really do anything from a tactical perspective.  And it would make controlling things a hell of a lot more complex.



 

Well, we are suppose to "play" with 24th century technology. Real world and actual technology donīt apply.
In my opinion, naval (or flat) strategies are just boring....Hey man, you are in SPACE and you have a lot of space to move your ship. Why not flying around, up-side-down, warping at any direction, etc....
Anyway, it is a good game and I apreciate your oppinion. I will think about that...

Mariano
 

[jimmi7769]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not so sure about that.  These ships are not supposed to get into dog-fights - they are more like naval vessels than jet fighters.  And even for the modern air superiority jet, dog-fights are rare.  The new Euro fighter, for example, was originally designed without a gun (just missile mountings) because it was felt that guns are irrelevant unless you're going to be strafing ground targets.  Even on the ground - with tanks - it's mainly about weapon range.  Tanks don't drive around trying to get into each other's blind spots or hit the weakest part of the armour.  The Abrams beats the T72 cos it can shoot twice as far, is all.

And especially in air-to-air combat these days it's all about your weapon systems, not the platform as such.  If your missiles fly farther, faster and more accurately than the other guy's, you will win.  It's as simple as that.  The US Phoenix missile, for example, can kill its target from 80-100 miles away.  Other missiles can't.  The USAF wins.

Same with naval vessels, and it would be the same with starships.  All this talk of maneouvering to get into position sounds like crap to me.  The guy with the biggest, highest firing rate, most accurate guns (or whatever) that can reach the farthest would win every time.

So I don't think 3D would really do anything from a tactical perspective.  And it would make controlling things a hell of a lot more complex.



 

Well, we are suppose to "play" with 24th century technology. Real world and actual technology donīt apply.
In my opinion, naval (or flat) strategies are just boring....Hey man, you are in SPACE and you have a lot of space to move your ship. Why not flying around, up-side-down, warping at any direction, etc....
Anyway, it is a good game and I apreciate your oppinion. I will think about that...

Mariano
   

Adding the 3D aspect really isn't going to add anything to the game.  Your still gonna have to move toward or away from the guy and wether it's up down or flat it's still gonna be a straight line.  All it will add is more complexity to the way the ships are handled.  firing arcs, shields, etc would all have to be made more complex.  And the complexity was removed from 3 to make it more fun and playable, why would you want to add it back in??

[sjvessey]

Exactly.  On the ground, you can use the terrain to your advantage in a tactical way.  On the ocean, understanding the enemy's mindset is probably at least as important as your maneouvering - in an aircraft carrier you'd be launching air strikes against targets that were hundreds of miles away, and even in a battleship you'd be shooting over the horizon at a target you couldn't actually see.

In space there's nowhere to hide and you can do all the fancy maneouvering you like but at some point you simply have to move straight towards your enemy in order to close within weapons range.

Even the tactics that exist at the moment within SFC are somewhat forced, because they only exist due to the artificial devices of 'firing arcs' and 'weapon charge time'.

Small fighters have direct fire weapon systems that only shoot in the direction the thing is flying.  Capital ships don't, they usually have tracking turrets.  And with seeking weapons such as torpedoes it shouldn't matter which way you're facing.

[DavT]

Quote:
I'm not so sure about that.  These ships are not supposed to get into dog-fights - they are more like naval vessels than jet fighters.  And even for the modern air superiority jet, dog-fights are rare.  The new Euro fighter, for example, was originally designed without a gun (just missile mountings) because it was felt that guns are irrelevant unless you're going to be strafing ground targets.

But at the same time and roughly equally new or newer, the F-22, F-35, and the Rafale all have a gun. And AFAIK, the EFA did have a gun originally, it was only removed in the later batches for the RAF. The first batch of Eurofighters for the RAF does mount an internal cannon.

Besides, better safe than sorry, it's only a few hundred kilograms at best.

Quote:
Even on the ground - with tanks - it's mainly about weapon range.  Tanks don't drive around trying to get into each other's blind spots or hit the weakest part of the armour.  The Abrams beats the T72 cos it can shoot twice as far, is all.

Not true. Manuvering is very important in tank warfare, as the the frontal arc of today's MBTs are very difficult to penetrate with absolute certainty, especially at distance, and/or if your tank is inferior. And it was even more important during WWII, when the attack and defense abilities of tanks were even more unbalanced. Reading any books on the subject would tell you that.

The main weapons advantage of the Abrams is not that it shoots further than the T-72, as both have cannons that can reach out for miles, but rather the Abram's much superior fire control system that makes sure it hits something, and better hitting power due to both gun and ammunition. Range means nothing if you can't hit what you see, or kill what you hit.

Quote:
And especially in air-to-air combat these days it's all about your weapon systems, not the platform as such.  If your missiles fly farther, faster and more accurately than the other guy's, you will win.  It's as simple as that.  The US Phoenix missile, for example, can kill its target from 80-100 miles away.  Other missiles can't.  The USAF wins.

Actually, the platform is equally important. You rely on the platform's ability to employ the weapons system. On paper, the R-77 of the Russians is more or less equal to the American's AIM-120 in performance, but the biggest difference is the most advance platform of each side that can carry them. Forgetting for a minute that neither aircraft is in service, let's say those are the Su-37 and the F-22. Most people says the F-22 get the better chance, why? Because it's a stealthed platform with a more advanced radar, making it more likely to detect the Su-37 first and fire first. Platform matters.

Plus air combat isn't just "see target, shoot target". There is manuvering involved, even with Beyond Visual Range engagements. Reading any books on the subject will again, tell you just that.

The Pheonix was designed to shoot down enemy bombers, it has very limited applications today. Its rocket motor burns out within a few seconds of launch, so the missile is ballistic/falling for the rest of the flight, making it a poor choice for attacking nimbler targets like fighters. It also leaves a very clear contrail that can be seen quite a distance away. And it's a USN system, not USAF.

Quote:
Same with naval vessels, and it would be the same with starships.  All this talk of maneouvering to get into position sounds like crap to me.  The guy with the biggest, highest firing rate, most accurate guns (or whatever) that can reach the farthest would win every time.

That's a rather cynical view of combat in general. Anyone in the military would argue otherwise. Manuvering is an inherent part of properly employing any weapon system, it'll always be. I'm sure your gun might shoot further and faster than everyone else's, but if the enemy manuvers in close and hits your exposed flank, you're still dead. Your guns can't point in every directions at once, and your missiles relies on you to get them to a position to hit their target.

I'm sure you've seen the pictures of those disabled Abrams in Iraq. Guess what? They manuvered themselves into a trap, and was flanked by infrantry armed with RPGs. Their awesome weapon system did them little good in that situation, even their superior armor was defeated, because no defense is absolutely perfect. There are always vulnerabilities to be explored, and how do you exploit them? By getting in position through manuvering.

As for space combat, there are always blindspots in your weapon systems. Even onboard a Galaxy class starship, your most powerful phasers are pointed forwards, with much less powerful ones covering the aft areas. So you would want to manuver to keep your bow pointed at the target, while at the same time trying to keep the smallest aspects of your ship or the weakest arc of your ship to the target. It's not just in SFC games, it's something to be found throughout the scifi genre.

Well, maybe expect the Borg. But they can do that because their ships have no front or backs, just symmtrical shapes. But then, it's only because of their highly advanced and de-centralized technology could they accomplish that. Take the Death Star for example, it does have a front and a back. It does needs to manuver to hit its target.

Quote:
So I don't think 3D would really do anything from a tactical perspective.  And it would make controlling things a hell of a lot more complex.

Keh.    

Quote:
Exactly. On the ground, you can use the terrain to your advantage in a tactical way. On the ocean, understanding the enemy's mindset is probably at least as important as your maneouvering - in an aircraft carrier you'd be launching air strikes against targets that were hundreds of miles away, and even in a battleship you'd be shooting over the horizon at a target you couldn't actually see.

Depends on the era you're talking about. During WWII, the CVs manuvered like crazy to find enemy CVs, dodge attacks, etc. Today's CVs manuver for much the same reasons, to make sure their planes are in range of whatever, and to keep away from the enemy.

Quote:
In space there's nowhere to hide and you can do all the fancy maneouvering you like but at some point you simply have to move straight towards your enemy in order to close within weapons range.

In the vastness of space, there are plenty was ways to hide. Most simple one would be just to shutdown most systems and play dead. Without any emission, and little or light, you'd be at worst mistaken for a space rock.

At some point, everyone has to move towards the enemy...

Quote:
Even the tactics that exist at the moment within SFC are somewhat forced, because they only exist due to the artificial devices of 'firing arcs' and 'weapon charge time'.

Yeah, I mean, who ever heard of such things in weapons of the real world?  

Quote:
Small fighters have direct fire weapon systems that only shoot in the direction the thing is flying. Capital ships don't, they usually have tracking turrets. And with seeking weapons such as torpedoes it shouldn't matter which way you're facing.

Turrets can only turn so far before they are blocked by the superstructure of their own ship, and seeking weapons can be confused, decoyed, out manuvered, out runned, etc. No weapon system's perfect.

[Lieutenant_Q]

...from SFC 2 in my opinion was the F11 key.  Whenever i played SFC2 or 1 i would always push the F11 button at the start of the battle.  I liked knowing where everything was, how fast it was moving and what its hull status was with just a quick glance.  Can we get that back for the official patch release?

How about anyone else, what do you all think is missing?  (besides T-Bombs and that Cheeze ESG)  

[Mog]

Cheese ESG? ROFL. ESGs are easy to beat - stay outside range 4 and keep your speed the same or higher than the Lyran. Frkkn cheese lol.