Topic: I miss the T Bomb (Read 13646 times)

Mentat Jon · « **on:** April 24, 2003, 09:58:02 pm »

Yep,I enjoy the game,but I miss T bombing other ships.

a patch perhaps to return my beloved T-bomb?

my On topic thread for the month.

korus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 24, 2003, 11:22:17 pm »

Bump... I too would like to see its return... Since shuttlepacks are out what about suicide shuttles carrying an antimatter mine? I miss those too... sniff sniff...

Korus

SghnDubh · « **Reply #2 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:16:09 am »

OMG, you haven't resurrected the "Miss T-Bombs" thread, have you?

I'll find it on the old forums. It was a classic!!!

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #3 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:19:39 am »

Quote:

OMG, you haven't resurrected the "Miss T-Bombs" thread, have you?

I'll find it on the old forums. It was a classic!!!

I dont know have i? lol I just want my transporter mine bomb back!!!

E_Look · « **Reply #4 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:15:35 am »

I don't know, Jon, as I can't run SFC3 (yet), but I literally just finished getting plastered by t-bombing Klingons in SFC1 and somehow it doesn't seem too fair, especially if all the ships facing you are doing it. It seems it's an AI favorite. What, hit and run on their transporter???

Magnum357 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:27:21 am »

Well, T-bombs and Hit'n'Run raids have been in the game system ever since SFB. Its too bad Taldren never implemented Security teams with your Boarding Parties on your ship to certain systems, it would definitly help prevent raping of systems with H&H tactics.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:29:40 am »

Also, I'm not sure if it works, but I think I recal Erratic Maneuvers does reduce the odds (or possibly eliminates) H&R raids from occuring on the target ship. You might want to see if EM protects you from H&R.

SghnDubh · « **Reply #8 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:07:36 pm »

Alas, the old forums are indeed history (I thought I could find the thread, but you have to type inside the URL and the search feature doesn't work there).

So you'll miss out on my original thread, "I miss T-Bombs" in which someone unknown (probably Moofighters

) registered as TBOMB and other pseudonyms and proceeded to tease me relentlessly.

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #9 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:19:01 pm »

I'd like to see T-bombs in SFC3.

Tulmahk · « **Reply #11 on:** April 26, 2003, 02:17:29 am »

Go play SFC2 then, and stop trying to make SFC3 like SFC2.

With any luck, the next great Star Trek starship combat sim will be put out by another company without any of this drag-the-game-down SFB luggage to ruin it.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2003, 07:09:37 pm »

Agreed! I that joker above can tell me what Star Trek game hasn't been influenced by SFB in some way I would be shocked. SFB has been the only game that has ever portrayed Star Trek ship combat properly and for this joker to say that it has bad influences to other Star Trek games is being stupied. Granted, maybe SFB needs a slight face lift in game mechanics (like focusing away from 6 sided dice of a board game and utilizing the computering power of the PC) but the basic game design works and is very balanced.

Heck, that idiot should give credit to SFB because even though SFC3 could use some improvements in my opinion, its by far the best Star Trek tactical combat game out their.

ActiveX · « **Reply #15 on:** April 27, 2003, 03:31:06 am »

T-bombs are canon...

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #17 on:** April 27, 2003, 10:12:58 pm »

its just T-bombing was such a good tatic,some guy chasing you,you drop a little freind in their way,boom,

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2003, 01:01:54 am »

For point of fact, in SFC3, your boarding parties DO station themselves to prevent hit and runs. That's why you'll lose some marines during a hit and run, thats why a good tactical officer means less likely system loss, and that's why the 'run' part never seems to occur.

Alexander

Monk · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2003, 07:05:30 pm »

I've been playing EAW and lurking aound here for about a year, but have never posted to this forum. So, feel free to ignore me. :-) But I'm confused by Pestalece's statement that game speed 9 in SFC is real time. It's been a VERY long time since I played SFB, but I seem to recall one turn (the time required for a phaser to recharge) equaling a minute. In EAW, that equates to game speed 5, I think. Anyway, I have tried EAW at game speeds higher than 5 and just am not digging it. You seem to lose so much of the simulation--adjusting your speed, playing with ECM, etc. The ships even look a little silly at speed 7 and up as they wiggle around the screen like they're on a fast forwarded video. I've avoided D2 for this very reason. Just can't get into the high game speeds, which is all that seems to be available. Anyway, I freely admit to being a newbie around here but I just thought I'd toss in my $.02.

Credo Narth · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2003, 05:22:56 am »

Eh...?

sjvessey, you're obviously looking for a flame war.

Firing arcs... SFB, and SFC 1 and 2, features much wider arcs than SFC 3. They are, however, based on reality as much as on Star Trek. How often do you see Yoyager's port phaser bank firing starboard? In ST2 TWOK, the Enterprise's port phasers fire out to port, not starboard. By the design of the phaser, you could tell that it had a limited firing arc. So in the show, they can't actually fire where they want to.

Recharging phasers... Au contraire. In ST Nemesis, the Enterprise ends up with it's phaser coils burnt out. Every time a red alert is called, they charge phasers. Sure, they take a lot less time than in SFC/SFB, but think about it. Can you really prepare a 800 metre strip of phaser coils for firing in 3 seconds? I would say the show reduces this time because it's expedient, not because it reflects reality.

HETs... Never seen any ship in Star Trek perform a high energy turn. But the HET recharge rate makes sense... You make be able to turn a Galaxy on a dime using internal dampening fields and by overloading the structural integrity fields, but these would then need time to be repaired and prepared before they could next be used.

Shields dropping at warp... Didn't the Enterprise E get directly hit in Nemesis at warp? Causing her to lose warp power and hence drop in sub-light speeds? Enough said.

Low power of weapons... Try flying the Scimitar against a Valdore in Skirmish mode, I believe you'll find it has ample power. Also, why not drop your shields and try getting an alpha strike from a Warbird. Watch the pretty colours as your hull goes poof.

Star Trek ship combat compromises reality for the sake of time as well as simplicity. SFB evolved over many years as an experiment of what people could do given the technology available. Hence missiles, scatterpacks, wild weasels, t-bombs, ECM/ECCM and the like. It is very detailed, but far more accurate than any Star Trek battle.

You should try it. I reckon you'll find that not only is SFB combat different, it's also a lot better.

sjvessey · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2003, 07:15:11 am »

Who is Johnny Carson? Envelope to forehead? Sorry you lost me.

Perhaps I was just being pedantic but there certainly ARE plenty of ST games that bear no resemblance to SFB. And correct me if I'm wrong but Elite Force seemed pretty successful to me. Even though success or not has little to do with the veracity of the original post.

And slap me on the wrist for using the word 'realistic' when in fact the poster I quoted said 'properly'. Seems like this is a tautology here. If you define 'proper' starship combat as that you find in SFB then of course SFB will be the only 'proper' starship combat simulator.

My point, however, is simply that SFB and all the SFC titles contain significant deviances from the series and movies purely for the sake of gameplay. In this sense, they aren't 'really' Star Trek at all and so to say that SFB is the only 'proper' Star Trek combat game is meaningless.

As for 'realistic', no I didn't mean well balanced self-consistent gameplay, I meant realistic. Neither the game nor the series is particularly realistic, and I don't just mean because the technology doesn't really exist. I mean that the use they make of the postulated technology is silly.

Hit and run raids? T-bombs? Why not just beam a bomb into the ship? Photon torpedoes? As I said elsewhere a 5 kilo antimatter warhead detonated next to a starship hull would release an energy pulse of over 100,000 terawatts, instantly vapourising everything within tens of miles of the epicentre. That's not future science, a guy from 1920 could have worked that out. Closing to within visual distance before firing off your weapons? Come on... you don't even do that in the 21st century.

Finally, if you think using the word 'crap' is crude you should head down to your local junior high and listen to what kids say in the schoolyard.

Mog · « **Reply #29 on:** May 02, 2003, 08:22:16 am »

I started playing SFC1 online in August 2000. I started playing SFC2:EAW the day it was released. I started playing SFC2:OP the day it was released. I still play EAW and OP online, and can see myself continuing to do so untill the day my computer will no longer run the software. SFC3 lasted about a week for me. It has been uninstalled and filed away under B for Bin. Point is, some people like the older games, some people like the new game. Arguing about it seems pointless to me. Attacking the games (or their source of inspiration) also seems pointless to me (Tulmahk - you seem to have replaced Nannerslug as the anti-SFB lead spokesperson around here). Just play whichever version you enjoy best and have fun.

sjvessey · « **Reply #32 on:** May 02, 2003, 09:58:17 am »

It's called 'suspension of disbelief'.

However, if you want a good (i.e. much more based in real physics) description of what future space warfare MIGHT look like, read 'The Reality Dysfunction' by a guy called Peter Hamilton.

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #33 on:** May 02, 2003, 08:02:04 pm »

I just miss T bombing,oh well I shall carry on,hit and run with transpoters,The Marine is your freind.

Cleaven · « **Reply #36 on:** May 02, 2003, 09:23:51 pm »

But I thought you were one of the few who played SFB out of a plastic bag.

Cleaven · « **Reply #38 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:40:24 pm »

That was part of the reason I decided to buy the volumes instead of just playing with my friends' gear (models too).

mbday · « **Reply #39 on:** May 04, 2003, 07:49:21 am »

I can say that I have played SFB, SFC1, SFC2, SFC2 OP. SFC3, EF, KA, SFA, and D&D.
SFB is SFB. SFC is SFC SFC2 and OP are SFC2 and OP SFC3 is SFC3 so on.
The point some poeple do not SFC3 or D&D and some poeple do.
Some people do not like SFB, SFC1, 2, or OP and some Do.
Why can't we all stop bashing each other.
Can't we all get along?
They are all games let shake hands and get on witrh life.
I like all of the games.

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #41 on:** May 04, 2003, 11:16:15 pm »

I feel really God Damn Old now,there is a generation of persons who dont know who JonnyCarson is,

a few days ago I had to Explain who Ernest Borgine is.

Kid didnt know "the Black Hole"" Mchales Navy" " The wild bunch"

and to top it all off I found a grey hair ****!!!!!!

ps to stick in the thread topic : still miss my T bombs

ok back to felling old,and Jonny Carson.

cheers...

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #43 on:** May 05, 2003, 07:43:49 am »

My only reply will be that I dont miss T-bombs, as my Firesoul updated OP shiplist lets me use them to my hearts content. I enjoyed SFC3 till they came out with an "official beta patch" at which point I promptly gave it up. If and when they come out with an OFFICAL "Official patch" I'll try it again.

Anyways, I wont go into my opinon on this, any of you know DO know that Ed worked for Johnny KNOW my opnion, but I just wanted to post to get one shot closer to Captain.

Have a nice day!

JMM · « **Reply #44 on:** May 09, 2003, 01:20:08 am »

SFC being polluted by SFB? I think not. If you want your star trek game put out by another company, may I suggest you go buy an Atari 5600 and play that combat simulator? Or better yet, go play Stellar Track on the Atari 2600, you should get all the fun you deserve...

Cyberkada · « **Reply #45 on:** May 09, 2003, 04:42:00 am »

I put away and uninstalled SFCIII already (had it since Beta). I'm back with EAW and OP. Why? The richness of weapons and other systems inspired by SFB. I'm a baggy Klingon - been playing since 1981 or so. The only thing I wish Khoromag would patch in EAW and OP is RE-VER-SE. I have to admit it does add another element of tactics to the game. And yes, officers would be nice as well.

After I went back to EAW and OP from SFCIII, I found I was getting plastered on a regular basis until I rethought my stategy - both with BEER and by opponents ships.

There is nothing better than watching a ship get destroyed when my ESG impacts your hull.

Hell, if SFC was really canon to Star Trek, we'd end up with lots of tiring speeches and feel-good diplomacy - not combat.

How many times did we actually see an actual battle in ST:TNG? (Puts on Flame-retardant suit)

I too miss my T-Bomb.

Mog · « **Reply #46 on:** May 09, 2003, 05:14:22 am »

Actually I would have to disagree with adding Reverse , if it was done so that you could reverse at full speed. The quarter speed in SFC3 isn't bad, but I could see the Retrograde becoming the common tactic if it was introduced so that you could go flat out in reverse. It would be the final death-knell of the non-PPD plasma races, who have a pretty hard time of it already against good players, without the Plasma Bolt option.

Cyberkada · « **Reply #47 on:** May 09, 2003, 06:25:05 am »

Agreed about quarter-reverse. Probably no more. You could S-L-O-W-L-Y back away from a target. Thats the only thing that I have every seen in Star Trek.

Cleaven · « **Reply #48 on:** May 09, 2003, 06:40:12 am »

That (speed 7) would be too fast as well. Testing would be required Vs SFC weapons systems, but I'm guessing speed 2 or 3 would be adequate to add to the game but not change the tactical balance greatly.

http://www.johnnycarson.com/carson/entertainment/whats_showing/feature/carnac/120x92.jsp?id=4

Cyberkada · « **Reply #49 on:** May 09, 2003, 07:08:12 am »

Reverse should be based on hull class and turn mode

1 for BBs up to 7 for nimble ships. Similar to HETs

Cleaven · « **Reply #50 on:** May 09, 2003, 07:19:41 am »

Why Speed 7?

Cyberkada · « **Reply #51 on:** May 09, 2003, 09:15:57 am »

Speed 7 = about 1/4 of speed 31

Cleaven · « **Reply #52 on:** May 09, 2003, 07:55:40 pm »

Hmmm, perhaps a different question will achieve the desired outcome.

Why 1/4 speed?

And to say that it is about speed 7 is inappropriate.

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #53 on:** April 24, 2003, 09:58:02 pm »

Yep,I enjoy the game,but I miss T bombing other ships.

a patch perhaps to return my beloved T-bomb?

my On topic thread for the month.

korus · « **Reply #54 on:** April 24, 2003, 11:22:17 pm »

Bump... I too would like to see its return... Since shuttlepacks are out what about suicide shuttles carrying an antimatter mine? I miss those too... sniff sniff...

Korus

SghnDubh · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:16:09 am »

OMG, you haven't resurrected the "Miss T-Bombs" thread, have you?

I'll find it on the old forums. It was a classic!!!

E_Look · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:15:35 am »

I don't know, Jon, as I can't run SFC3 (yet), but I literally just finished getting plastered by t-bombing Klingons in SFC1 and somehow it doesn't seem too fair, especially if all the ships facing you are doing it. It seems it's an AI favorite. What, hit and run on their transporter???

Magnum357 · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:27:21 am »

Well, T-bombs and Hit'n'Run raids have been in the game system ever since SFB. Its too bad Taldren never implemented Security teams with your Boarding Parties on your ship to certain systems, it would definitly help prevent raping of systems with H&H tactics.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:29:40 am »

Also, I'm not sure if it works, but I think I recal Erratic Maneuvers does reduce the odds (or possibly eliminates) H&R raids from occuring on the target ship. You might want to see if EM protects you from H&R.

SghnDubh · « **Reply #61 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:07:36 pm »

Alas, the old forums are indeed history (I thought I could find the thread, but you have to type inside the URL and the search feature doesn't work there).

So you'll miss out on my original thread, "I miss T-Bombs" in which someone unknown (probably Moofighters

) registered as TBOMB and other pseudonyms and proceeded to tease me relentlessly.

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #62 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:19:01 pm »

I'd like to see T-bombs in SFC3.

Tulmahk · « **Reply #64 on:** April 26, 2003, 02:17:29 am »

Go play SFC2 then, and stop trying to make SFC3 like SFC2.

With any luck, the next great Star Trek starship combat sim will be put out by another company without any of this drag-the-game-down SFB luggage to ruin it.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #67 on:** April 26, 2003, 07:09:37 pm »

Agreed! I that joker above can tell me what Star Trek game hasn't been influenced by SFB in some way I would be shocked. SFB has been the only game that has ever portrayed Star Trek ship combat properly and for this joker to say that it has bad influences to other Star Trek games is being stupied. Granted, maybe SFB needs a slight face lift in game mechanics (like focusing away from 6 sided dice of a board game and utilizing the computering power of the PC) but the basic game design works and is very balanced.

Heck, that idiot should give credit to SFB because even though SFC3 could use some improvements in my opinion, its by far the best Star Trek tactical combat game out their.

ActiveX · « **Reply #68 on:** April 27, 2003, 03:31:06 am »

T-bombs are canon...

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #70 on:** April 27, 2003, 10:12:58 pm »

its just T-bombing was such a good tatic,some guy chasing you,you drop a little freind in their way,boom,

Alexander1701 · « **Reply #71 on:** April 28, 2003, 01:01:54 am »

For point of fact, in SFC3, your boarding parties DO station themselves to prevent hit and runs. That's why you'll lose some marines during a hit and run, thats why a good tactical officer means less likely system loss, and that's why the 'run' part never seems to occur.

Alexander

Monk · « **Reply #73 on:** April 28, 2003, 07:05:30 pm »

I've been playing EAW and lurking aound here for about a year, but have never posted to this forum. So, feel free to ignore me. :-) But I'm confused by Pestalece's statement that game speed 9 in SFC is real time. It's been a VERY long time since I played SFB, but I seem to recall one turn (the time required for a phaser to recharge) equaling a minute. In EAW, that equates to game speed 5, I think. Anyway, I have tried EAW at game speeds higher than 5 and just am not digging it. You seem to lose so much of the simulation--adjusting your speed, playing with ECM, etc. The ships even look a little silly at speed 7 and up as they wiggle around the screen like they're on a fast forwarded video. I've avoided D2 for this very reason. Just can't get into the high game speeds, which is all that seems to be available. Anyway, I freely admit to being a newbie around here but I just thought I'd toss in my $.02.

Credo Narth · « **Reply #77 on:** May 02, 2003, 05:22:56 am »

Eh...?

sjvessey, you're obviously looking for a flame war.

Firing arcs... SFB, and SFC 1 and 2, features much wider arcs than SFC 3. They are, however, based on reality as much as on Star Trek. How often do you see Yoyager's port phaser bank firing starboard? In ST2 TWOK, the Enterprise's port phasers fire out to port, not starboard. By the design of the phaser, you could tell that it had a limited firing arc. So in the show, they can't actually fire where they want to.

Recharging phasers... Au contraire. In ST Nemesis, the Enterprise ends up with it's phaser coils burnt out. Every time a red alert is called, they charge phasers. Sure, they take a lot less time than in SFC/SFB, but think about it. Can you really prepare a 800 metre strip of phaser coils for firing in 3 seconds? I would say the show reduces this time because it's expedient, not because it reflects reality.

HETs... Never seen any ship in Star Trek perform a high energy turn. But the HET recharge rate makes sense... You make be able to turn a Galaxy on a dime using internal dampening fields and by overloading the structural integrity fields, but these would then need time to be repaired and prepared before they could next be used.

Shields dropping at warp... Didn't the Enterprise E get directly hit in Nemesis at warp? Causing her to lose warp power and hence drop in sub-light speeds? Enough said.

Low power of weapons... Try flying the Scimitar against a Valdore in Skirmish mode, I believe you'll find it has ample power. Also, why not drop your shields and try getting an alpha strike from a Warbird. Watch the pretty colours as your hull goes poof.

Star Trek ship combat compromises reality for the sake of time as well as simplicity. SFB evolved over many years as an experiment of what people could do given the technology available. Hence missiles, scatterpacks, wild weasels, t-bombs, ECM/ECCM and the like. It is very detailed, but far more accurate than any Star Trek battle.

You should try it. I reckon you'll find that not only is SFB combat different, it's also a lot better.

sjvessey · « **Reply #80 on:** May 02, 2003, 07:15:11 am »

Who is Johnny Carson? Envelope to forehead? Sorry you lost me.

Perhaps I was just being pedantic but there certainly ARE plenty of ST games that bear no resemblance to SFB. And correct me if I'm wrong but Elite Force seemed pretty successful to me. Even though success or not has little to do with the veracity of the original post.

And slap me on the wrist for using the word 'realistic' when in fact the poster I quoted said 'properly'. Seems like this is a tautology here. If you define 'proper' starship combat as that you find in SFB then of course SFB will be the only 'proper' starship combat simulator.

My point, however, is simply that SFB and all the SFC titles contain significant deviances from the series and movies purely for the sake of gameplay. In this sense, they aren't 'really' Star Trek at all and so to say that SFB is the only 'proper' Star Trek combat game is meaningless.

As for 'realistic', no I didn't mean well balanced self-consistent gameplay, I meant realistic. Neither the game nor the series is particularly realistic, and I don't just mean because the technology doesn't really exist. I mean that the use they make of the postulated technology is silly.

Hit and run raids? T-bombs? Why not just beam a bomb into the ship? Photon torpedoes? As I said elsewhere a 5 kilo antimatter warhead detonated next to a starship hull would release an energy pulse of over 100,000 terawatts, instantly vapourising everything within tens of miles of the epicentre. That's not future science, a guy from 1920 could have worked that out. Closing to within visual distance before firing off your weapons? Come on... you don't even do that in the 21st century.

Finally, if you think using the word 'crap' is crude you should head down to your local junior high and listen to what kids say in the schoolyard.

Mog · « **Reply #82 on:** May 02, 2003, 08:22:16 am »

I started playing SFC1 online in August 2000. I started playing SFC2:EAW the day it was released. I started playing SFC2:OP the day it was released. I still play EAW and OP online, and can see myself continuing to do so untill the day my computer will no longer run the software. SFC3 lasted about a week for me. It has been uninstalled and filed away under B for Bin. Point is, some people like the older games, some people like the new game. Arguing about it seems pointless to me. Attacking the games (or their source of inspiration) also seems pointless to me (Tulmahk - you seem to have replaced Nannerslug as the anti-SFB lead spokesperson around here). Just play whichever version you enjoy best and have fun.

sjvessey · « **Reply #85 on:** May 02, 2003, 09:58:17 am »

It's called 'suspension of disbelief'.

However, if you want a good (i.e. much more based in real physics) description of what future space warfare MIGHT look like, read 'The Reality Dysfunction' by a guy called Peter Hamilton.

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #86 on:** May 02, 2003, 08:02:04 pm »

I just miss T bombing,oh well I shall carry on,hit and run with transpoters,The Marine is your freind.

Cleaven · « **Reply #89 on:** May 02, 2003, 09:23:51 pm »

But I thought you were one of the few who played SFB out of a plastic bag.

Cleaven · « **Reply #91 on:** May 02, 2003, 10:40:24 pm »

That was part of the reason I decided to buy the volumes instead of just playing with my friends' gear (models too).

mbday · « **Reply #92 on:** May 04, 2003, 07:49:21 am »

I can say that I have played SFB, SFC1, SFC2, SFC2 OP. SFC3, EF, KA, SFA, and D&D.
SFB is SFB. SFC is SFC SFC2 and OP are SFC2 and OP SFC3 is SFC3 so on.
The point some poeple do not SFC3 or D&D and some poeple do.
Some people do not like SFB, SFC1, 2, or OP and some Do.
Why can't we all stop bashing each other.
Can't we all get along?
They are all games let shake hands and get on witrh life.
I like all of the games.

Mentat Jon · « **Reply #94 on:** May 04, 2003, 11:16:15 pm »

I feel really God Damn Old now,there is a generation of persons who dont know who JonnyCarson is,

a few days ago I had to Explain who Ernest Borgine is.

Kid didnt know "the Black Hole"" Mchales Navy" " The wild bunch"

and to top it all off I found a grey hair ****!!!!!!

ps to stick in the thread topic : still miss my T bombs

ok back to felling old,and Jonny Carson.

cheers...

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #96 on:** May 05, 2003, 07:43:49 am »

My only reply will be that I dont miss T-bombs, as my Firesoul updated OP shiplist lets me use them to my hearts content. I enjoyed SFC3 till they came out with an "official beta patch" at which point I promptly gave it up. If and when they come out with an OFFICAL "Official patch" I'll try it again.

Anyways, I wont go into my opinon on this, any of you know DO know that Ed worked for Johnny KNOW my opnion, but I just wanted to post to get one shot closer to Captain.

Have a nice day!

JMM · « **Reply #97 on:** May 09, 2003, 01:20:08 am »

SFC being polluted by SFB? I think not. If you want your star trek game put out by another company, may I suggest you go buy an Atari 5600 and play that combat simulator? Or better yet, go play Stellar Track on the Atari 2600, you should get all the fun you deserve...

Cyberkada · « **Reply #98 on:** May 09, 2003, 04:42:00 am »

I put away and uninstalled SFCIII already (had it since Beta). I'm back with EAW and OP. Why? The richness of weapons and other systems inspired by SFB. I'm a baggy Klingon - been playing since 1981 or so. The only thing I wish Khoromag would patch in EAW and OP is RE-VER-SE. I have to admit it does add another element of tactics to the game. And yes, officers would be nice as well.

After I went back to EAW and OP from SFCIII, I found I was getting plastered on a regular basis until I rethought my stategy - both with BEER and by opponents ships.

There is nothing better than watching a ship get destroyed when my ESG impacts your hull.

Hell, if SFC was really canon to Star Trek, we'd end up with lots of tiring speeches and feel-good diplomacy - not combat.

How many times did we actually see an actual battle in ST:TNG? (Puts on Flame-retardant suit)

I too miss my T-Bomb.

Mog · « **Reply #99 on:** May 09, 2003, 05:14:22 am »

Actually I would have to disagree with adding Reverse , if it was done so that you could reverse at full speed. The quarter speed in SFC3 isn't bad, but I could see the Retrograde becoming the common tactic if it was introduced so that you could go flat out in reverse. It would be the final death-knell of the non-PPD plasma races, who have a pretty hard time of it already against good players, without the Plasma Bolt option.

Cyberkada · « **Reply #100 on:** May 09, 2003, 06:25:05 am »

Agreed about quarter-reverse. Probably no more. You could S-L-O-W-L-Y back away from a target. Thats the only thing that I have every seen in Star Trek.

Cleaven · « **Reply #101 on:** May 09, 2003, 06:40:12 am »

That (speed 7) would be too fast as well. Testing would be required Vs SFC weapons systems, but I'm guessing speed 2 or 3 would be adequate to add to the game but not change the tactical balance greatly.

http://www.johnnycarson.com/carson/entertainment/whats_showing/feature/carnac/120x92.jsp?id=4

Cyberkada · « **Reply #102 on:** May 09, 2003, 07:08:12 am »

Reverse should be based on hull class and turn mode

1 for BBs up to 7 for nimble ships. Similar to HETs

Cleaven · « **Reply #103 on:** May 09, 2003, 07:19:41 am »

Why Speed 7?

Cyberkada · « **Reply #104 on:** May 09, 2003, 09:15:57 am »

Speed 7 = about 1/4 of speed 31

Cleaven · « **Reply #105 on:** May 09, 2003, 07:55:40 pm »

Hmmm, perhaps a different question will achieve the desired outcome.

Why 1/4 speed?

And to say that it is about speed 7 is inappropriate.

News:

Topic: I miss the T Bomb (Read 13646 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Mentat Jon

korus

SghnDubh

Mentat Jon

E_Look

Magnum357

Magnum357

jimmi7769

SghnDubh

Captain KoraH

Alidar Jarok

Tulmahk

Cleaven

FMMonty

Magnum357

ActiveX

jimmi7769

Mentat Jon

Alexander1701

Pestalence

Monk

Dopler

jimmi7769

sjvessey

Credo Narth

Ryker

Cleaven

sjvessey

jimmi7769

Mog

jimmi7769

Cleaven

sjvessey

Mentat Jon

J'inn

J'inn

Cleaven

jimmi7769

Cleaven

mbday

Cleaven

Mentat Jon

Pestalence

**DONOTDELETE**

JMM

Cyberkada

Mog

Cyberkada

Cleaven

Cyberkada

Cleaven

Cyberkada

Cleaven

Mentat Jon

korus

SghnDubh

Mentat Jon

E_Look

Magnum357

Magnum357

jimmi7769

SghnDubh

Captain KoraH

Alidar Jarok

Tulmahk

Cleaven

FMMonty

Magnum357

ActiveX

jimmi7769

Mentat Jon

Alexander1701

Pestalence

Monk

Topic: I miss the T Bomb (Read 13646 times)

DONOTDELETE