Ship Systems in Combat

[LordDave]

This thread is to discuss what we want in our ship systems and the systems of the enemy. How complex we want them, what we want to be able to do with them, ect...

We know that there will be 4 shield facings and we can transfer recharge power from one facing to another.
We know we can transfer power from and to weapons and engines.

What we don't know is how detailed damage will be.

Can I damage their port phaser array and not their starboard?
Can I disable their aft torpedoes and pelt them from behind while they try desperately to get me in front to hit me with a volley from their forward torpedo tubes?
Will we see our different phaser arcs or are they just "there" and invisible?
Will each phaser or disruptor have it's own separate recharge rate or will they all be linked to one "power bar"?
Will warp engines and impulse engines be separate systems or are they both covered in the engine damage?
Can we target sub-systems?
Can we target the enemy shield generator only?
Can we fire low powered phasers to disable only and not destroy?

Or is this a rehash of Star Trek Legacy's weapons where weapons are either all good or all damaged? Where targeting requires timing instead of a drop down menu? Where our phaser energy comes from one bar that doesn't care where we fire from?

Discuss.

[Loekii]

I am only interested in a tactical Space game (basically like you listed).

I am hoping that they have not gone with an overly simplistic Combat system:

burn down Shield HP
Disarm Phasers/Torps
burn Down Hull HP
Ship goes boom!


Basically 'facerolling' FTW. :(

What I had hoped to see was a tactical game closer to SFBs, where a ship might lose use of some of its weapons slots, but not all of them -- which means you had to work the 'good arcs' into position.

I would hope that Cryptic would be clear about how 'tactical' their game really is intended to be, instead of saying 'Its very Tactial......(mumbles compared to space invaders....)'.

If our only target options are going to be, Target:

Engines
Phasers
Torpedos
Hull


I would like them to say so, now.

I had hoped for something much more tactical, like, Target:

Warp Engines
Impulse engines
Shield Generator
Individual Weapons Banks (Forward Phasers, Starboard Phasers, Port Phasers, Aft Torpedoes, etc.)
Sensor Array
etc.


I wasn't expecting complete SFB, but I also wasn't expecting Star Trek DAC either, based upon Craig's comments about how 'Tactical' space combat is. If it is less than other games, perhaps it would have been better to clarify 'tactical'.

[Rgoodfel]

I am only interested in a tactical Space game (basically like you listed).

I am hoping that they have not gone with an overly simplistic Combat system:

burn down Shield HP
Disarm Phasers/Torps
burn Down Hull HP
Ship goes boom!


Basically 'facerolling' FTW. :(

What I had hoped to see was a tactical game closer to SFBs, where a ship might lose use of some of its weapons slots, but not all of them -- which means you had to work the 'good arcs' into position.

I would hope that Cryptic would be clear about how 'tactical' their game really is intended to be, instead of saying 'Its very Tactial......(mumbles compared to space invaders....)'.

If our only target options are going to be, Target:

Engines
Phasers
Torpedos
Hull


I would like them to say so, now.

I had hoped for something much more tactical, like, Target:

Warp Engines
Impulse engines
Shield Generator
Individual Weapons Banks (Forward Phasers, Starboard Phasers, Port Phasers, Aft Torpedoes, etc.)
Sensor Array
etc.


I wasn't expecting complete SFB, but I also wasn't expecting Star Trek DAC either, based upon Craig's comments about how 'Tactical' space combat is. If it is less than other games, perhaps it would have been better to clarify 'tactical'.

I agree I would like some of systems you mention to be shoot able. I would also maybe have one shield gen for each shield facing also. Just so we don't get, shoot shield generator, shoot weps offline, blow up ship, rinse repeat. Unless they accounted for that already.

[Reinkaos]

I'm chiming in with everyone who'd prefer a more tactical experience, with individual arcs, health and power bars for individual weapons (forward phasers, aft phasers) and with subsytems from weapons to nacelles to the deflector dish be targetable - and the ability to disable them, not just destroy. Combat should have some thought to it and not be about who has the most powerful ship.

There may be four lights, but there are six shield facings :mad:

[redbeard1682]

If it's not Scottish, it's XXXX!!!!

sorry - wrong phrase....

If it's not Bridge Commander it's XXXX!!!!!
-----------------
Full maneuverability - as many targetable systems as you can possible imagine all with individual results upon being damaged - 6 shield facings

And the ability to let the AI do all the tactical maneuvering and firing OR for me to control the helm fully and click the fire button to fire at the targeted subsystem.

[Marytha]

I would like a slower tactical game. I'm not movement centric, but Cryptic did say tactical. I would really like to know what their version of tactical means. I would also like to know what their version of slower means.

I was hoping that combat would be slower, thus allowing time for more tactical decisions. If our choices are attack enemy, shields are down, attack hull or weapons, the game should be fast, as there are no actual tactical choices.

Marytha

PS I'm sorry I may not have answered what the thread was asking

[ElJoker]

I would really like to see a system like Star Fleet Command (or its successors, Empires At War, Orion Pirates) where you can increase/decrease shields, target specific weapons with either transporter marines (need a shield down to get them thru) or by targeting systems with your weapons. Also like to see the ability to repair weapons on the fly, and charge them up to a specific percentage, like phaser banks set to 80% for example. Hopefully, it will have Hold/Repel tractor beams that you can set to a certain strength (Repel would need to be equal to or greater strength than the tractor that is holding you in order to break the hold and get away).

Really I am hoping for an updated Star Fleet Command game, and anyone who has ever played that will agree, it was set up the right way.

[Xenoshaft]

I'm chiming in with everyone who'd prefer a more tactical experience, with individual arcs, health and power bars for individual weapons (forward phasers, aft phasers) and with subsytems from weapons to nacelles to the deflector dish be targetable - and the ability to disable them, not just destroy. Combat should have some thought to it and not be about who has the most powerful ship.

There may be four lights, but there are six shield facings :mad:

Quickly They are coming to take you, and I cant stop them....
How many lights?

Their are 4 LIGHTs!!!!!!

[inXi]

I would prefer it as complex as possible, sufficient to ensure an involving PvP or PvE gameplay...

I was wondering if ships would always be on auto-regen aka someone is repairing it but you can tell them where to concentrate...

[Xenoshaft]

This thread is to discuss what we want in our ship systems and the systems of the enemy. How complex we want them, what we want to be able to do with them, ect...

We know that there will be 4 shield facings and we can transfer recharge power from one facing to another.
We know we can transfer power from and to weapons and engines.

What we don't know is how detailed damage will be.

Can I damage their port phaser array and not their starboard?
Can I disable their aft torpedoes and pelt them from behind while they try desperately to get me in front to hit me with a volley from their forward torpedo tubes?
Will we see our different phaser arcs or are they just "there" and invisible?
Will each phaser or disruptor have it's own separate recharge rate or will they all be linked to one "power bar"?
Will warp engines and impulse engines be separate systems or are they both covered in the engine damage?
Can we target sub-systems?
Can we target the enemy shield generator only?
Can we fire low powered phasers to disable only and not destroy?

Or is this a rehash of Star Trek Legacy's weapons where weapons are either all good or all damaged? Where targeting requires timing instead of a drop down menu? Where our phaser energy comes from one bar that doesn't care where we fire from?

Discuss.

I would like a slower tactical game. I'm not movement centric, but Cryptic did say tactical. I would really like to know what their version of tactical means. I would also like to know what their version of slower means.

I was hoping that combat would be slower, thus allowing time for more tactical decisions. If our choices are attack enemy, shields are down, attack hull or weapons, the game should be fast, as there are no actual tactical choices.

Marytha

PS I'm sorry I may not have answered what the thread was asking


Dont worry guys.

When told this is going to be fun... ship combat. and guys that I KNOW hate pvp tell us they really have a blast at it. The ship combat is going to be covered.

Anything less then subsystem combat would be sooooooo 90's I dont think we are going to see anything that crappy...

I would also like to see more on this.

Im sure you will have star/port. fore-aft. impulse/warp/and all manner of weps. Im sure power will be a major commodity in the game. Im sure we will all find out self's spinning plates.

[knightofhyrule730]

expect BC like system targeting.

[Loekii]

The more and more I think about it, the more and more I am suspecting that the combat is going to be MORE SIMPLISTIC that we considered.

It would make sense, as the simplistic combat would slide right into an Xbox360 controller with little difficulty.

[Isengardtom]

Dont worry guys.


Anything less then subsystem combat would be sooooooo 90's I dont think we are going to see anything that crappy...



it would be soooo Legacy

[Beaver8]

I actually deleted my post becuase I was basically typing the same thing as this. So this goes for me as well.

I am only interested in a tactical Space game (basically like you listed).

I am hoping that they have not gone with an overly simplistic Combat system:

burn down Shield HP
Disarm Phasers/Torps
burn Down Hull HP
Ship goes boom!


Basically 'facerolling' FTW. :(

What I had hoped to see was a tactical game closer to SFBs, where a ship might lose use of some of its weapons slots, but not all of them -- which means you had to work the 'good arcs' into position.

I would hope that Cryptic would be clear about how 'tactical' their game really is intended to be, instead of saying 'Its very Tactial......(mumbles compared to space invaders....)'.

If our only target options are going to be, Target:

Engines
Phasers
Torpedos
Hull


I would like them to say so, now.

I had hoped for something much more tactical, like, Target:

Warp Engines
Impulse engines
Shield Generator
Individual Weapons Banks (Forward Phasers, Starboard Phasers, Port Phasers, Aft Torpedoes, etc.)
Sensor Array
etc.


I wasn't expecting complete SFB, but I also wasn't expecting Star Trek DAC either, based upon Craig's comments about how 'Tactical' space combat is. If it is less than other games, perhaps it would have been better to clarify 'tactical'.

[Beaver8]

The more and more I think about it, the more and more I am suspecting that the combat is going to be MORE SIMPLISTIC that we considered.

It would make sense, as the simplistic combat would slide right into an Xbox360 controller with little difficulty.

I have been thinking the same. It will probably come out for the Nintendo Wii actually. Where you only need 3 buttons to play. "A-button to FIRE" "movement pad" "B button to shield transfer." Then just giggle your hand quickly at your pelvis to move faster.

[Messer_Macheath]

Can I disable their aft torpedoes and pelt them from behind while they try desperately to get me in front to hit me with a volley from their forward torpedo tubes?
Will each phaser or disruptor have it's own separate recharge rate?
Will warp engines and impulse engines be separate systems or are they both covered in the engine damage?
Can we target sub-systems?
Can we target the enemy shield generator only?
Can we fire low powered phasers to disable only and not destroy?


I hope the answer is "yes" to all of these questions. The rest, I don't care so much about. Get this stuff right, and I'll be content, at least.

To be able to disable a ship, rather than outright destroy it, is of the utmost importance to those playing Starfleet. Starfleet has never expected a captain to simply destroy an enemy vessel on contact, that's not how the Federation operates. If my Federation superiors insist that I destroy every vessel I come across in a mission, I will be pretty disappointed in the dev team.

I don't care about targeting specific phaser banks (as Cryptic has hinted to the fact phasers are all linked together anyway, by saying that you can fire phasers "through" your own ship's graphic. That means any phaser bank will essentially be able to fire, despite the positioning of the 2 ships.), but targetting fore and aft torpedo banks is a great tactic that needs to be in this game. It will make positioning important, and that is a good thing.

Targeting warp versus impulse engines is also necessary, I believe. There are many episodes of the different Star Trek series' where a damaged ship cannot go to warp, but is not dead in the water. It would be a terrible oversight to fail to recognize a difference between these 2, completely different systems.

Being able to target one section of the shields is also important for positioning purposes.

But really, if a tactical or science officer, ever in an episode, said, "system XXXX is non-responsive, Captain!" or "XXXX is offline, Captain!" or "they're targeting our XXXX, Captain!" then I better be able to target those systems in the game and attempt to disable them. If not, I don't know why they are bothering to make a "Star Trek" game at all. They may as well make a generic space flight MMO where they can do whatever they want with it.

-Macheath.

[LordDave]

Dont worry guys.

When told this is going to be fun... ship combat. and guys that I KNOW hate pvp tell us they really have a blast at it. The ship combat is going to be covered.

Anything less then subsystem combat would be sooooooo 90's I dont think we are going to see anything that crappy...

I would also like to see more on this.

Im sure you will have star/port. fore-aft. impulse/warp/and all manner of weps. Im sure power will be a major commodity in the game. Im sure we will all find out self's spinning plates.

expect BC like system targeting.

I expect Legacy style targeting except with a drop-down menu instead of having to wait until you get a "perfect lock" then move your mouse to the sub-system.

[Swordopolis]

I have been thinking the same. It will probably come out for the Nintendo Wii actually. Where you only need 3 buttons to play. "A-button to FIRE" "movement pad" "B button to shield transfer." Then just giggle your hand quickly at your pelvis to move faster.

Hooray for paranoia!

[Beaver8]

I hope the answer is "yes" to all of these questions.
ME TOO!

To be able to disable a ship, rather than outright destroy it, is of the utmost importance to those playing Starfleet. Starfleet has never expected a captain to simply destroy an enemy vessel on contact, that's not how the Federation operates. If my Federation superiors insist that I destroy every vessel I come across in a mission, I will be pretty disappointed in the dev team.

-Macheath.

Disabling another ship in PvP could be a grief tactic. You want to try your hand out in some PvP in your toys R us vessel, then some giant mega bamf guy comes along, destroys your impulse engines, blows up all your weapon systems, destroys your sensors and warp engines then goes away. You sit there beatten down trying to repair systems, then he comes back 3 minutes later to destroy your systems again. Where would it end. I guess self destruct and don't go back lol

In a war though starfleet captains aren't going to simply disable an enemy ship and let them come back to bite them in the rear a week later, they are going to destroy them. There could be the arguement that they aren't in full blown war yet but we all know it's just a matter of time before they are.

[Swordopolis]

Disabling another ship in PvP could be a grief tactic.

Disabling ships definitely sounds like more of a mission tactic than an open warfare/PvP tactic.

[LordDave]

Disabling ships definitely sounds like more of a mission tactic than an open warfare/PvP tactic.

What about if your fighting a group with a support ship. Rather then spending the time destroying it, you simply disable it's engines and let it sit there, unable to help it's team while you blast the other guys.

[Swordopolis]

What about if your fighting a group with a support ship. Rather then spending the time destroying it, you simply disable it's engines and let it sit there, unable to help it's team while you blast the other guys.

I was thinking more along the lines of rendering the whole ship useless rather than merely taking out a single system.

[Reinkaos]

Heh, I'm imagining a PVP scenario where you have to disable and tow an enemy vessel back to your space, kinda like an STO capture the flag. :confused:

[Rynar123]

The enemies in startrek always wanted to capture the vessel and take it back to their space as a trophy. That would be a cool concept for PVP and I'm really hoping for more detailed tactical command b/c being klingon i'd like to have a cloaking advantage during engagement or withdrawal if the system has not been damaged and of course the ability to repair ( hopefully faster w/ better crewman) .

[Beaver8]

The enemies in startrek always wanted to capture the vessel and take it back to their space as a trophy. That would be a cool concept for PVP and I'm really hoping for more detailed tactical command b/c being klingon i'd like to have a cloaking advantage during engagement or withdrawal if the system has not been damaged and of course the ability to repair ( hopefully faster w/ better crewman) .

Unfortunatly they always hit self destruct and abandon ship so that doesn't work.

[jhem99]

Do Klingon ships have self-destruct?:confused:

[Marytha]

Dont worry guys.

When told this is going to be fun... ship combat. and guys that I KNOW hate pvp tell us they really have a blast at it. The ship combat is going to be covered.

Anything less then subsystem combat would be sooooooo 90's I dont think we are going to see anything that crappy...

I would also like to see more on this.

Im sure you will have star/port. fore-aft. impulse/warp/and all manner of weps. Im sure power will be a major commodity in the game. Im sure we will all find out self's spinning plates.

Wow you seem certain that it will be fun, because they told us. Look, guys tell me things all the time, usually to get in my pants, these guys are trying to get in my wallet. I don't believe people because they said something.

Guys you KNOW who hate pvp think the pvp is good? That's great, that should make the people who like PvP cringe. also, PvP between friends and workmates is -totally- different than with the general public.

Trek is sooooo 90s so that's not really out of character.

You're sure we'll these things, I mean if you KNOW these guys aren't you playing it already?

Marytha

Don't believe what you read.

[Trsmash]

I would like something like on Star Trek Bridge Commander but with a little expansion.

The main thing that I liked about combat on Bridge Commander was the fact that you could target particular sub systems on a vessel easily. For example, you could target the weapons array of an enemy vessel in general or you could target their aft torpedo bay specifically, or shield generators and so on. That I thought was pretty cool. And when you targeted these particular araes a little target would show up on the enemy vessel so if you were manually firing you could target it which I thought was brilliant (it gets boring letting the comp do all the firing for you).

[renderpix]

I would like to see BOfficers be able to act from preset options. We're going to have them, make use of their skills. Be it pull downs it will still give the effect your in command of a bridge crew.

Same effect as pets in wow but you will just have more than one. Making multi-tasking tactical an easier experience allowing for more content where tactical is concerned. They said it would be like Star Trek right? ;)

Tactical officer preset to target after shield are down. until then shield damage option can be changed during battle.

Weapons
Impulse drive
Warp Core
Specific shield
Special Weapon

Be able to give the Helmsman manuver commands

tack on specific shield
preset tactical moves library
Escape vector
Impluse speeds

One reason that has been given for the simplified tactical is that it will take too much effort to control and keep up with or a steep learning curve to compete. If BOfficers did part of the tactical then it would reflect what happens on a bridge of any Star Trek vessel with the commander giving orders. What else are the BOs going to do just watch and give + to the dice calculator :rolleyes:

Too Automated you may think but replay what happens on the bridge of Enterprise Picard does very little except give orders. And you always have the option to go manual if you can handle the multi-task

[renderpix]

Wow you seem certain that it will be fun, because they told us. Look, guys tell me things all the time, usually to get in my pants, these guys are trying to get in my wallet. I don't believe people because they said something.

Guys you KNOW who hate pvp think the pvp is good? That's great, that should make the people who like PvP cringe. also, PvP between friends and workmates is -totally- different than with the general public.

Trek is sooooo 90s so that's not really out of character.

You're sure we'll these things, I mean if you KNOW these guys aren't you playing it already?

Marytha

Don't believe what you read.

I like you thinking, experience in hearing the buffed up sales pitch or pick up line on the wallet ;)

Think PvP between family, you should hear my son yelling at me from the next room when I'm ganking his battleship :eek:

[adonils]

I'd want the full blown gamut of being able to target specific ship systems, and then have to repair such systems. There was an old Startrek ripoff game called "Rescue" that had Kigon's, Fengi, Rulans, etc. I believe the systems were:

Warp Core
Impulse
phasers
torpedos
transporters
long range sensors
short range senors
holodeck
tractor beam
communications


I would love to see some interesting combat where you'd have to manage combat without a view screen/combat screen. Having to prioritize what gets fixed first. Even if the holodeck could have some morale factor so that you don't flat out ignore it. Especially since starship combat shouldn't take 3secs. Each encounter should be it's own ordeal. Imagine crossing the neutral zone and knocking out any opposing ships Comm systems so that they can't send a distress call to the invincible NPC's. I'm am seriously hoping the combat is detailed. I'd like you to choose whether you want to focus on one target or maintain multiple targets.

[Loekii]

Hooray for paranoia!

I think they said similar quips on AoC, TR, PoTBS, Vangard Onine on the Development Forums. Wonder how that worked out for them. ;)

Given that most games fail, are crap, or just fall way below expectations -- and virtually never exceed expectations, I really don't get the idea that STO will be any different, especially given the lack of concrete evidence to the contrary.

[adonils]

The worst part is that there is such potential. There hasn't really been much released in this genre in a while (I haven't played SW), but EVE Online doesn't do starship combat justice.

[renderpix]

The worst part is that there is such potential. There hasn't really been much released in this genre in a while (I haven't played SW), but EVE Online doesn't do starship combat justice.

I agree with you whole heartedly that Eve did not give justice to starship combat. Most everything else is above board and exceptional 3D movement. because of the lack of intutive combat and the clash and bash combat is one of the tiny reasons I left. STO is a flip from Eve where combat is concerned. :D

[LordDave]

Sorry to bring up a 3 day old topic, but I realized something...

In the shows you don't hear the captain say "Target their aft Torpedo Tubes" or "Disable their port Phasers". It's always "Target their weapons array and fire".

So if STO did a simple damage system, it would be in line with what we hear on Star Trek.

[Loekii]

I would like to see a more advanced system.

I think it adds tactical value to the game compared to a simplistic combat system.

I also would like to see being able to damage engines and slow your target, rather than having to fully destroy the engines before they stop racing about at Impulse 10.

[renderpix]

Sorry to bring up a 3 day old topic, but I realized something...

In the shows you don't hear the captain say "Target their aft Torpedo Tubes" or "Disable their port Phasers". It's always "Target their weapons array and fire".

So if STO did a simple damage system, it would be in line with what we hear on Star Trek.

glad you did, it's a good point, where targeting is concerned.

[Loekii]

Sorry to bring up a 3 day old topic, but I realized something...

In the shows you don't hear the captain say "Target their aft Torpedo Tubes" or "Disable their port Phasers". It's always "Target their weapons array and fire".

So if STO did a simple damage system, it would be in line with what we hear on Star Trek.

I am pretty sure that has been a case where they targeted a specific weapon slot, as well as independent parts of a system go down, instead of an all or nothing relationship (ie we lost Aft Blank).

[adonils]

I would like to see a more advanced system.

I think it adds tactical value to the game compared to a simplistic combat system.

I also would like to see being able to damage engines and slow your target, rather than having to fully destroy the engines before they stop racing about at Impulse 10.

I like this idea, as it'll take more strategy and slow combat down. You wanna go on a rampage, boot up GTA.

[SeanNewBoy]

Maybe i missed it but has anyone considered that advanced targeting may be level/upgrade related. That is to say:

Tactical options for lvl 1 officer on starter ship with no bo = shoot or dont shoot.

Tactical options for max lvl officer with top notch bo on tactical = bounce aft phaser off 2 asteroids to hit enemy on opposite side of ship, skipping off an anomoly to pass unhindered through shields.

[LordDave]

Maybe i missed it but has anyone considered that advanced targeting may be level/upgrade related. That is to say:

Tactical options for lvl 1 officer on starter ship with no bo = shoot or dont shoot.

Tactical options for max lvl officer with top notch bo on tactical = bounce aft phaser off 2 asteroids to hit enemy on opposite side of ship, skipping off an anomoly to pass unhindered through shields.

Hmmm... that's... an interesting take on it.

[renderpix]

Maybe i missed it but has anyone considered that advanced targeting may be level/upgrade related. That is to say:

Tactical options for lvl 1 officer on starter ship with no bo = shoot or dont shoot.

Tactical options for max lvl officer with top notch bo on tactical = bounce aft phaser off 2 asteroids to hit enemy on opposite side of ship, skipping off an anomoly to pass unhindered through shields.

ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!!

OMG Engineering & Science BOfficer would need to be involved to do something with the deflector array to skip a phaser off of an anomaly. What were you thinking? :eek:

Sorry could not help myself, your post helps break up the seriousness of the issue and made me laugh. Had to read ot read it a couple of time to realize you were joking about the bank shots..... lol :p

I do hope that BOfficers offer more depth in tactical to bring up the what we know of existing gameplay up a couple of notches to make it a better experience by letting them take over what I would consider BOfficers would do to begin with, carry out orders related to their expertise in their areas of command.

[Loekii]

I like this idea, as it'll take more strategy and slow combat down.

I really want to see situations where captains have lost SOME of their weapons, and have to figure out how to make that work -- win a battle with some of your weapons down.

I find that to be a the other side of the tactical game, that is often over looked -- how to play damaged, when the odds are against you, etc.

[ElJoker]

I would really like to see a system like Star Fleet Command (or its successors, Empires At War, Orion Pirates) where you can increase/decrease shields, target specific weapons with either transporter marines (need a shield down to get them thru) or by targeting systems with your weapons. Also like to see the ability to repair weapons on the fly, and charge them up to a specific percentage, like phaser banks set to 80% for example. Hopefully, it will have Hold/Repel tractor beams that you can set to a certain strength (Repel would need to be equal to or greater strength than the tractor that is holding you in order to break the hold and get away).

Really I am hoping for an updated Star Fleet Command game, and anyone who has ever played that will agree, it was set up the right way.

I cant believe there are no StarFleet Command players out there that won't back me up on this.

Such a shame, as SF Command was an awesome strategy game

[LordDave]

I cant believe there are no StarFleet Command players out there that won't back me up on this.

Such a shame, as SF Command was an awesome strategy game

It had it's moments and I enjoyed the game.
But Bridge Commander trumps it.

[Loekii]

I cant believe there are no StarFleet Command players out there that won't back me up on this.

Such a shame, as SF Command was an awesome strategy game

As a Star Fleet Battles vet, I agree.

[renderpix]

I cant believe there are no StarFleet Command players out there that won't back me up on this.

Such a shame, as SF Command was an awesome strategy game

Nope Bridge Commander much better game. As for transporter bombs.... please... lol. I know I do the canon thing but the only reference to bombs were the nukes that the Romulans would drop in the path of enemy ships like in the case of the Enterprise in TOS. In that episode it was referred to as a Romulan tactic. The only other reference to transporter bombs I can think of where space is concerned it Star Gate and we don't wanna go there do we..... :p

[LordDave]

Nope Bridge Commander much better game. As for transporter bombs.... please... lol. I know I do the canon thing but the only reference to bombs were the nukes that the Romulans would drop in the path of enemy ships like in the case of the Enterprise in TOS. In that episode it was referred to as a Romulan tactic. The only other reference to transporter bombs I can think of where space is concerned it Star Gate and we don't wanna go there do we..... :p

And when Janeway beamed a torpedo into a borg scout ship.

[renderpix]

And when Janeway beamed a torpedo into a borg scout ship.

AAAHHH, don't remember that one..... lol

Ya I guess it could be fun if at least they also included beaming over marines to kill red shirts :eek:

or allowed the classic dropping nukes in the path of you enemy while cloaked :p

[bjwalle1]

I would really like to see a system like Star Fleet Command (or its successors, Empires At War, Orion Pirates) where you can increase/decrease shields, target specific weapons with either transporter marines (need a shield down to get them thru) or by targeting systems with your weapons. Also like to see the ability to repair weapons on the fly, and charge them up to a specific percentage, like phaser banks set to 80% for example. Hopefully, it will have Hold/Repel tractor beams that you can set to a certain strength (Repel would need to be equal to or greater strength than the tractor that is holding you in order to break the hold and get away).

Really I am hoping for an updated Star Fleet Command game, and anyone who has ever played that will agree, it was set up the right way.

-------

I agree, Star Fleet Command was set up perfectly for ship systems and combat, but it always seemed to lack some genuine depth to AI players and a depth to combat due to it being set up on a 2-D aspect where you could only fly around, but not above or below. That made it too easy to predict the other opponent.
I hope to see a bit of a merge of SFC and Bridge Commander. I thought Bridge commander was set up great to just that the game was too short and online play was way too limited.

Warp drive should be used as a tactical move just like in SFC. If someone can kill me easily I want the ability to make some space and reform my strategy even if that is just run like a mad man!

[bjwalle1]

As a Star Fleet Battles vet, I agree.

Ill back you up lol,
but the game still lacked some depth. I did love the concept of the game and how they produced it, but I continually got bored of it while playing. Just seemed to lack diversity in ships of enemys or something??? Mabye more aggressive AI factions would have helped it, but the AI never seemed very smart : (

Thats why the online thing will work the best with PvP, Im just supprised that it has taken this long for it to come out.

[bjwalle1]

I cant believe there are no StarFleet Command players out there that won't back me up on this.

Such a shame, as SF Command was an awesome strategy game

lol just had to say I do.. SFC was a great game!!! I liked the ship to ship stategy, but if I played it too long it got old to me.. : ( for some reason. There just was not enough to do in the game except blow ships up or bases..

I think if they added a basic hand to hand/ first person in that game it would have been the best. but they forgot.. Planet missions are a huge part of ST, with out them your just floating around in space shootting each other... I like ship battle so dont get me Wrong!!

I just mean there needs to be some thing to break up the repitition of floating in space!!!! Your traveling in space for a reason, lol not just for space combat... Where were the catastrophes and the suns exploding in near by systems? Nothing to think about or challenge your decision making process. Just find bad guy and kill !

Im excited about the STO reference to random missions while exploring and being contacted by starfleet while you are exploring space. Random PvP news, Economic news, and missions regarding your region would be great.

[jhem99]

I'd rather not get too immersed in gaming. My wife means more to me than .... (you know)

[bjwalle1]

I'd rather not get too immersed in gaming. My wife means more to me than .... (you know)

lol I would hope so!

Hopefully you dont have to consider choosing between the two.. lol Sounds like your on a leash lol
jk

[MichaelAngelus]

Personally, I think they should have it two ways.

First way, be the simple Click and steer, click and shoot way that im prociving they are going to release with (Similure to Legacy...gods hope im wrong)

But the second way I would prefer would be actaully going to the consol inside your ship and activating it. Activating Tatical consol would allow for things like coordinate locking. Activating the science concole would allow for a much more detail scan of the area or the vessle infront of you. Activating the Nagagation console would allow for better poileting of your ship.

Granted USE of the consoles would be a little more difficult and hard to master, but their use would only be to enhance your gameplay, and not be made a nessessary requirement. Not to mention, it could help open things up to serving on a friends ship for a while. (Him taking tactical, you taking the helm and opening some whoop-### on your enemies)

Eh...my 2 strips of gold pressed Latinum

Ensign Angelus

[ElJoker]

Well, I am glad some old SFC'ers came out and said their peace about the game, makes me feel better as a vet
SFC guy. Regardless if you agree or disagree with me, I still hope to see a well thought out, all around fun game to play :D

[Mozcol]

I live for complexity, if the systems are too simple then (at least for me) I lose interest fairly quickly. I\m really hoping theres more than what anyone could come up with as "basic mechanics".