Archive Part3
From BeginWiki
Archive Part1 Archive Part2 Archive Part3 Archive Part4 Archive Part5 Archive Part6
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1163 DATE/TIME: 10-01-88 12:21am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Communications THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Well, guess what. We used to have impulse engine in the game but
we removed them for two reasons. This first and main reason was
that we were using the Desmet C compiler which only allowed for 64K
of code space maximum and we wanted to add more interesting features.
The second reason was that when you are going warp 1 it helps you
about as much as not moving so why bother. It was implemented such
that once you reached you desired speed you only needed the impulse
power to change your speed. But as I said, it was a waste of code
space.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1164 DATE/TIME: 10-01-88 12:35am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM HACKWOOD PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: everything THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
As far as playing ship files against each other... in the planning
stages is BSL. The Begin Strategy Language which would allow you
to write the strategies each nation fights with. BSL is actually
a seperate compiler that would be available to registered players.
Any comments? Ideas?
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1166 DATE/TIME: 10-01-88 3:56pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
Have you ever considered allowing the Orion ships (or anybody, for
that matter) to ram other ships? As it stands, the Orions tend to
self-destruct fairly often as an offensive maneuver, but it's not
usually effective, since their suicide bombs aren't really huge. So
if they're going to show a predilection to kill themselves in an
attempt to destroy the other guy, ramming would be much more effective.
ÿ
Allowing ramming would also make everyone be much more careful
about those close in phaser battles. It would also present a new
strategy without changing the essential balance, which should make
Glenn happy.
ÿ
Another idea would be to give the Orions really BIG suicide bombs.
This might not work to well, however, since they'd end up blowing up
ally ships as well as enemy ones.
ÿ
You've probably seen the suggestions that the Orions have some
kind of special probe. I think this idea has some merit. I think the
only way to make the Orions more competitive is to give them a special
offensive punch. As it stands now, the only thing the Orions can do
well is run. Their shields are poor, as are their phasers. They have
to attack in groups to have any chance at all. One on one, and
they're going to lose.
ÿ
How about this? How about a "stealth" probe for the Orions only?
This probe could (and probably should) be much faster than ordinary
probes. Say warp 10 or so. And also have a much smaller warhead to
compensate for its advantages somewhat. The trick would be, other
ships would have only, say, a 10% chance of detecting the probes
presence in the first place!
ÿ
I just thought of that one, and I'm not sure if I like it or not.
But I definitely think the ramming idea has some merit, as well as
adding a touch of obvious realism.
ÿ
What do you think?
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1168 DATE/TIME: 10-01-88 8:09pm
FROM : ERIC CRISP RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Boarding parties THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
You could always position the captured ship between you and your enemy
and just generally annoy the enemy with the other ship...
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1170 DATE/TIME: 10-02-88 2:44am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Ramming would be interesting. The only problem is that it would slow
down the program. Right now there are no checks for collision for
faster play. Adding the checks for ship collisions would require over
150 more range checks per cycle when there are 18 ships. This would
be noticable on most machines without math co-processors.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1175 DATE/TIME: 10-02-88 9:16pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom
I suppose there's not much about ramming to say if the computing
time would increase that much. A pity. I think it would be a really
nice addition.
ÿ
Speaking of speed, by the way, have you had a chance to run Begin
on a 386? My machine at home is a 286, but I'm lucky enough to have a
386 at work. It doesn't have a math co-processor, but with an 18 ship
game, it still completes a round in about half a second, even with
dozens of torpedoes in the air. It's incredible how quickly you get
spoiled by that kind of speed. I used to think my machine was fast.
And I suppose it is. But that 386 really flies! It's the trivial
little things that I've gotten so used to. Like going into my word
processing program to work on one of my programs. Tell it to retrieve
the file, hit return, and a 50k file is up and ready in about as much
time as it takes to blink!
ÿ
Anyway, if you haven't tried it, you ought too.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1180 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 6:40am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I don't feel that it's necessarily a bad idea at all...I'm just afraid of
evloving the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" mentality....I feel that the purpose
could be better served by allowing ships to be designed by the players,
so that you won't initailly know how many phasers, torps, etc. are
available (this assumes a "Fog of War" approach), only the size and
approximate shielding...
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1182 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 6:56am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I am against ramming as a tactic, because of 2 reasons...1) Space is
VAST-mind bogglingly vast, and these ships are fighting at loarge
distances. Just how easy would it be to ram, anyway? (Try hetting to a
dingle-digit range with any ship in any battle) 2) If ramming is easy, it
will certainly be abused.
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1183 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 6:59am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : ERIC CRISP PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Boarding parties THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
How about "hit-and-run" raids by boarding parties against specific
systems once one of the enemy shields goes down? Of course, you would
have to drop shieds as well, probably in phaser range, so it would be
risky, asn their defenders could still kill or capture your BP's...
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1186 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 8:00am
FROM : BRYAN DONALDSON RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Status Incoming Display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Once those torps leave the tubes, they don't care if it friend or foe,
they'll blow. It's possible that grouping torps will not be feasible(sp?),
But it might save some trouble later. However, if you've got 6 ships in
a wad, and they all fire their torps at the same target (or multiple
targets in a wad themselves), effectively those torps will have the same
target (within the limits of proximity fuses).
Now if your escorts move into the line of fire, they'll take the enemy
torps, (or yours), even if they aren't the original target. It doesn't
matter who the target is, just whether ANY torps will hit you. (I get
really peeved when my allies pound on my shield 6.)
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1187 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 8:12am
FROM : BRYAN DONALDSON RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe, % drop on shields should be difficult to calculate, unless you
bracket it by minimum and maximum proximity.
Bryan
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1188 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 1:49pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : BRYAN DONALDSON PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Bryan,
Granted, there would be difficulties in showing the potential shield
drop on the Status Incoming, but it sure would be handy, wouldn't it?
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1190 DATE/TIME: 10-03-88 6:48pm
FROM : TOM HACKWOOD RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: everything THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Oh! Ooh! I can't wait. Let me think about it. Be assured that
I will give ideas!
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1194 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 5:29pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Don't think that's possible since we wouldn't know how "HARD" the
incoming fire is going to hit. i.e. the proximaty is unknown in the case
of some torps and the loss of energy involved in the plasma torps.
Probes as well... we wouldn't know the prox. or time fuse if any.
Glenn.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1197 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 5:49pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Yes I can tell that you don't agree.
I do NOT think the game is balanced now. TWO FED dreadnoughts can defeat
an entire fleet of ROM ships. And I do mean the entire fleet.
In the scenario you described I don't understand why the interceptors
are not getting hit by plasma torps. They can not outrun them. If there
are 6 ROM ships then how are the Interceptors going to get to shoot their
banks unless they let the torps hit them? If the torps hit them then it
will only take 2 or 3 to go thorugh a shield on an interceptor.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1198 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 5:57pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Ramming is certainly a possibility. They have to get close enough to ram
first of course though.
One on one I don't think it would work but certainly two on one it might
work.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1199 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 6:00pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : ERIC CRISP PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Boarding parties THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Thant's true but then you wouldn't be able to shoot at the enemy ship
either. Of course if you were on the defensive it would be useful but
then the enemy ship would shoot at it and kill the crew you beamed over.
Then you are right back where you started except now your own damage
control is less efficient.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1200 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 6:03pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
You wouldn't have to check all the time. Only if a ship were TRYING to
ram would it be necessary to check for it. Otherwise we could assume that
the two ships are not going to hit each other.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1201 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 6:06pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
RAMMING...
I think we need to assume that there is a command RAM which would follow the
enemy ship and close on it. Otherwise yes it would be impossible to ram.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1202 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 6:09pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : BRYAN DONALDSON PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Status Incoming Display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
STATUS INCOMING.
I know that torps will hit any target. Did you notice in my
status incoming display that one of the entries was fired from another
fed vessel at mark 180 !!!
I still want to know who fired that torps that are abotu to hit me !!
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1203 DATE/TIME: 10-04-88 11:59pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
I didn't say the game had TOTAL equality, I said it had BASIC
equality. And my point was that the changes you suggested would bring
that BASIC equality even more out of whack.
ÿ
The Interceptors aren't getting hit by plasmas because they're
dropping probes when they run to blow up the plasmas (this is a tactic
that I use quite often when I'm fighting Romulans). When they're
within phaser range, the Romulans generally don't fire their plasmas
because the resulting explosion is going to hurt them as badly as the
other guy. Before you jump on that one, remember I said GENERALLY.
ÿ
And the only way two Fed DN's are going to beat a fleet of
Romulans (I assume that fleet is made up of 16 ships?) is by running
away. They can't get in the middle and mix it up or they'd be
crucified. And they'd better be dropping those probes to blow up the
plasmas or they'll still buy it.
ÿ
But, yes, 2 DN's CAN win. Doesn't it make sense that they should
be able too? Only the Romulan Frigate can keep up with them, and they
can't forever because they have a lower cruise. So the DN's can just
cruise along, dropping probes to blow up the plasmas and pick the
ships off one by one with their torpedoes.
ÿ
I agree that the game is not perfectly balanced. I don't agree
that the suggestions you made would improve the balance. But I'll
admit that I'm hard pressed to say just what would!
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1204 DATE/TIME: 10-05-88 12:00am
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
I saw your message to Tom saying that you wouldn't have to check
all the time about ramming, just when someone was trying to. This
would make the idea workable, but I can't help but feel that it would
take some of the fun out of it. Why should you only be able to ram
when you're TRYING to? If it's possible at all, shouldn't it be
possible by accident? When I suggested it, I was thinking that as
well as adding a new tactic, it would also make the close in battles
much more exciting, because you'd have to be a lot more careful about
your helm commands to make sure you didn't accidentally run into the
sucker!
ÿ
Of course, Tom shot that down by mentioning how it would slow
things down. I really like the general concept, and your idea would
make it work, but still....
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1208 DATE/TIME: 10-05-88 9:29am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Balance....There are several reasons why the game isn't "balanced", even
assuming you don't run & shoot (The Kaufmann Retrograde)...1. The players
are better tacticians than the computer. True, the code gets tougher with
each new version, but it still has a few blind spots, such as having a
ship fire ALL of its phasers at a single plasma torp, when 2 or 3 would
suffice to kill it, or not holding one phaser bank in reserve when in
close action to blast probes, erc....2. The Romulans and Orions have, by
and large, lousy ships compared to the Federation and Klingons. Maybe we
could give them some "upgraded" vessels, or introduce the Tholian and/or
Gorns (both known to have warships in Star Trek) or even the Kzinti
(shaky if we are trying to stick with the original Star Trek. The Kzin
were creations of Larry Niven, and at some point one of the cartoon Star
Trek episodes used a plotline based on "The Soft Weapon" by Niven - an
excellent story that had Kzin as its protagonists).
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1209 DATE/TIME: 10-05-88 10:32am
FROM : JORDAN ARCHER RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
The question is why is the game not balanced now? Is it because the
federation ships are to powerful or is it because the romulan stratagy is
not the best. How do you beat the Romulans? I know the answer to that,
and the problem is their strategy, not the ships. The solution to this
is to make the ships play smarter.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1211 DATE/TIME: 10-05-88 12:03pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike,
I don't know about Jordan, but I have played the Romulans against
the Feds. One Bird of Prey against 9 Dreadnoughts and 8 Heavy
Cruisers. I've played the scenario maybe a dozen times and have won
about three or so. Each win was by running the hell away, changing
course about 45 to 80 degrees to avoid their torpedoes. I would
concentrate fire (probes and plasmas) on one ship at a time, closest
first. Eventually, I would pick them off one by one until I was
shooting at a ship that was very close to the main pack that was
howling along after me. When he went, they all went.
ÿ
That's one of the nice things about the Romulans, in that you very
rarely just damage a ship. You usually destroy it.
ÿ
No doubt many will not have a great deal of respect for this
strategy, but consider the "real life" situation. Just what the hell
is that Bird of Prey supposed to do? He doesn't have a chance if he
tries to close. There's just too many torpedoes to deal with.
ÿ
The only reason the strategy works (sometimes) in the first place
is (and this point has been made before) that the computer controlled
ships allow themselves to become bunched up. I think it's slightly
irrevelant to say, "well, if they take the time to split up, they'll
never catch the enemy ship". No decent commander (computer or
otherwise) is going to allow his fleet to get into a situation where
if one dies, they'll all die.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1212 DATE/TIME: 10-05-88 7:11pm
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
What the Romulans need is simply a cloaking device. Now, what would
be a nice gimmic for the Orions?
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1213 DATE/TIME: 10-06-88 5:00am
FROM : BRYAN DONALDSON RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Perhaps better than ramming would be tractoring an opponent, then
self-destructing. It's a lot easier to figure, although the tractors
would have to be added.
Bryan
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1215 DATE/TIME: 10-06-88 6:48am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
How about tractor beams to grab those annoying probes and either hold
them immoble, or "drag them to death" by running at high speed. Better
yet, why not put a limit on how many probes a ship can have active at
once (perhaps due to a limited number of control channels ?), then give
the Orions a really fast high-damage probe. This might restore some
parity to the Orions, but I think that the main thing for the Orions
would be to give them some convoys or freighters to pick off...
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1217 DATE/TIME: 10-06-88 9:21am
FROM : JORDAN ARCHER RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
In playing one Federation Dreadnought against 17 Romulans you win by just
running and keeping out in front of them. They will then line up behind
you and you can fire torps and hit some in the line. Also when they fire
they will sometimes take out their own.
I have played the other side of the coin. 1 Romulan against 17
Federation, and have not defeated all of the federation, but I have
killed many. This is done the same basic way, but it seems to help to
weave side to side a little.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1218 DATE/TIME: 10-06-88 9:14pm
FROM : GORDON HAFF RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Since I started the Fog of War discussion, I guess I should say
what I would visualize in it.
1) Configurable (degree selectable) would be nice
2) Here's what I think you would typically KNOW about an enemy
ship: It's basic potentialities (e.g. max nominal warp,
weapons systems, weapon load times, shield strengths)
3) You should be able to SEE (i.e. sensors) but not know for
certain (some sort of random factor?) Shield strength (
would know this pretty well), damage (some idea)
4) What I can't see you knowing in any great detail - engine
temperature, battery status, damage detail down to
individual tubes or percent function on a shield
How does that sound?
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1219 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:17am
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GORDON HAFF PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Gordon,
I'm not sure that I'm wild about the Fog idea to start with,
although I can see why you support the idea.
ÿ
But, assuming for the moment that it were to be implemented, lets
look at how it would work. As the game stands now, what is telling us
the information that we can currently see? Obviously, the sensors. I
personally have no problem with the idea that the sensors are
sensitive enough to determine things like warp temp and so on.
Remember that we can do some pretty incredible things in the sensor
department TODAY, so think what we'd be capable of in the 23rd
century! Also remember that the series gives several examples of the
sensors picking up things like warp temp, etc.
ÿ
The only thing I can see that would prevent the sensors from being
able to tell us the information is if they were blocked, and the only
thing I can see to block them is the shields.
ÿ
So how about this? You can't see a thing on the enemy ship
except his shield strength unless or until one of his shields is
either down or at a very weak percentage (say 20% or so). Another
factor that could be thrown in is that perhaps the weak shield needs
to be facing you.
ÿ
How does that sound?
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1221 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 1:38am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FED TORPS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I can't remember if the Enterprise ever did continously fire torpedoes.
Did they in the episode where Kirk lost his memory and the asteroid was
tumbling toward the world he was on (with the Indians)?
I know they repeatedly fire phasers, don't remember about torps or not.
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1222 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 7:41am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Sure, our sensor type equipment is great, but so are our Electronic
Counter Measures. I would expect warships to have the best in sensor
screening. Also, consider the distances involed here. Should I really
be able to tell the difference between a charged and uncharged phaser
bank at 30000 km? Besides, not knowing everything adds more of a challenge
by adding uncertainty and unpredicability.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1224 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 8:56am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Just one comment on all those scenarios...
The strategy of running away and dropping probes would not be a
viable one if the number of probes a ship could carry was limited.
After thinking about the fact that probes have warp engines even though
they are small and cheaply built, there cannot be an unlimited number of
them on every ship.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1225 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:00am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
What about on the way in ? How do the Interceptors dela with the Plasma
torps as they APPROACH the ROM fleet (6 ships)?
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1227 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:06am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
RAMMING...
I don't think we can ram by accident simply because space is so VAST.
(That was someone else's comment as well). Remember in reality we are
dealing with a 3 dimensional galaxy. We should not take advantage of
a two dimensional one just because that's what we are using.
To "accidently" run into another ship does not seem to logical.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1229 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:22am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Yes a cloaking device would allow them to get close without getting
plastered. Then there torps would be more effective.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1230 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:23am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : BRYAN DONALDSON PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tractor beams
Yes that would be a possibility. Of course they would have to be close
to use them, and they would get pounded by the ship trying to get away.
Also, the tractor beam system could also be damaged in the battle.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1231 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:27am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
The Orions...
Well what would be a good thing for space pirates to have ?? Hmmmmm.
Come on everybody... what should pirates have ?
Onr thing that pirates never have is GREAT ships. They could not be
expected to take on a cruiser class vessel..
Seems to me that pirates should be attacking and capturing freighters.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1232 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:33am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : GORDON HAFF PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Well, I agree mostly. I think that you would be able to detect engine
temperature but not engine damage. Individual torps or banks perhaps,
if the damage were visual on the outside of the ship. So a random factor
there would be good. I don't think you should be able to scan and detect
the percentage of charge on their weapons but I do believe you should be
able to detect if the weapons system is fully charged and ready to fire.
The power graph/distribution reading would change.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1233 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:38am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Blah boo hiss.
Don't like the sensor vs. shield idea though there may be some reason
to justify it. It just seems a bit distasteful.
Now that I consider it, it may be the same reaction that many have when
they first hear the proposed changes to all the weapons systems !!!
Glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1234 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:42am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Sensors...
I do think that sensors should be another item that can be damaged though.
Glenn.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1235 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 9:44am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : ROB GREENBERG PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FED TORPS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Rob,
I don't think they ever repeatedly fired torps. The were NO torps fired
in the episode you mentioned.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1237 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:19pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Please remember that I was only trying to give a broad example.
But as to your question, at warp 12 you can cover a lot of ground
real fast. So all you have to do on the way in is juke one way or the
other to make the plasma miss on its first attempt, and then by the
time it turns around and catches up, it's not going to be very
powerful anymore.
ÿ
I'm not saying they wouldn't get hit at all. I'm just saying that
they would be able to absorb what did hit them in the relatively short
time it would take to get into phaser range.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1238 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:20pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Never say never. I agree that the chances of ACCIDENTALLY ramming
a ship are extremely low. I merely submit that if ramming is
incorporated, then the POSSIBILITY of accidental ramming must exist.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1239 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:20pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Do you really think tractor beams are a good idea? I'm not sure
that I do. For one thing, only the big ships are going to have the
power to spare to really use them effectively against other ships.
And the only purpose I can see in using them against other ships is to
push them out of phaser range. Again, something only the big ships
would be able to do, and then only against small ships. I suppose
they could use them to keep a damaged ship WITHIN phaser range, but I
don't think I quite see the point in that, if the other guy is already
damaged.
ÿ
Another possibility is using them against probes. Here's why that
doesn't make sense. If your ship's not damaged, it would be much
easier to run away. If your ship is damaged to the point where
they're sending probes against you, you probably aren't going to have
the power to use the tractors anyway.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1240 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:21pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Please articulate. WHY don't you like the sensors vs. shields
idea? It seems very logical to me.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1241 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:22pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joey,
Yes, our sensors are great as well as our ECM's. That's just my
point. The obvious representation of ECM in Begin are the shields.
So unless a shield is damaged or down, the sensors are essentially
useless. As far as distance goes, I have no problem with the sensors
being able to pick up the information that they do at 3000 or 30000.
This technology is designed for SPACE, which is a very big place!
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1242 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:23pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Agreed. No ship should be able to carry an "unlimited" number of
probe warp drives. But the numbers should be so high (particularly on
the larger ships) as to be essentially infinite. Once again, don't
make the penalty be the NUMBER of probes. Make the penalty be in the
PRODUCTION of probes.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1243 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 12:23pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
I agree. The sensors should definitely be able to be damaged.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1244 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 3:14pm
FROM : TOM HACKWOOD RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: BALLANCE THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
In reading the various messages (in partucular the last 20 or so)
it becomes that the game does need some work. I for one don't
think that a Federation DN should have much of a chance versus
8 Romulan Frigates. Two Federation DN's should have a small
chance. Three should be about even. The problem is that the
stratagy of having everyone bunch up is making the game a bit
too easy. In real life the Romulans (or any fleet action at
any time) is that they are going to stay close enough together
to communicate and to maximize firepower. They are not going to
stay so close together that when one guy blows up, that they
ALL blow up. If the fleet commander is still living after such
a fiasco, he should be court-martialed, and then drawn in quarters
by the survivors of the battle.
.
In thinking about ECM/Sensors, I think that if there are sensors,
it makes sense (no pun intended) to have ECM. I don't think it
should be the shields. ECM should be seperate, either a type of
probe (such as a decoy or jammer), or a jamming function of the
communications console. Shields are shields.
.
As for damage to a ship, yah. Blow up a sensor! Fry those
circuts! Kill the communications! What?!! I can't hear you!!
.
tom
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1249 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 7:35pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM HACKWOOD PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: BALLANCE THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
Well, I don't agree that a "shield is just a shield". Why should
a shield just protect against weapons? Look at what a shield actually
does. It puts out a barrier in space, more specifically an ENERGY
barrier (so everybody who was just about to mention that a stone wall
can stop a rock but not a radio beam, hold your horses!). That energy
field should be able to be "tuned" to various frequencies, to block
not only physical items, but just about anything else as well.
ÿ
Somebody help me out here. I KNOW there are some series
references to times when Spock couldn't scan something because they
were shielded, but I can't remember specific ones.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1250 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 11:07pm
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin Modifications THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Both of your ideas are great! They make sense tactically, and they have
their own built in restrictions --that's what keeps the challenge, and
the fun.
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1251 DATE/TIME: 10-07-88 11:13pm
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FED TORPS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
There is some difficulty in taking examples straight from Star Trek and
putting them into Begin. Usually, there's no problem, but almost every
ship system has been "inaccurately" or inconsistently portrayed in one
instance or another. Take for instance your example of the Fed Photon.
Yes, it blew up a freighter with a single shot, but in a different
episode, Nomad hit the Enterprise with a bolt equalling the force of 400
photon torpedoes (according to Spock, whose judgement I trust, although
I'm not sure of the exact figure)! In Balance of Terror, Kirk fired
"proximity phasers," whatever the hell they are (they looked like
photons). In another, a single phaser blast destroyed a Klingon
Battlecruiser (it was already disabled, but really...).
My point is, if something from Star Trek will enhance Begin, use it.
If it will throw the game balance out of wack, ignore it, or justify it
out of the game. I don't think a Fed "doomsday torp" would make the game
more fun. It would take all the challenge away (at least for the
Feds...).
DAC
P.S. Did you know Roddenberry screwed up his original basis for the warp
theory? The five-year mission would have to be more like 50 or 500
years if he forced himself to be consistent with his earlier episodes.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1259 DATE/TIME: 10-08-88 10:47pm
FROM : TOM HACKWOOD RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: BALLANCE THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
A shield is just a shield. It was designed to keep both physical
objects and energy 'doo-dads' from damaging a ship/starbase/etc.
ECM is a different matter. The physics (whatever they may be) to
block or divert weapons could be different from whatever physics
are involved in sensors.
ÿ
I do admit that there are instances where Spock couldn't get a
sensor reading though a partcular shield. But then, I also think that
the Federation would develop special sensors to nullify the ECM
by both the Klingons and the Romulans. By the same token,
both the Klingons and the Romulans would have scanners capable
of reading though the Federation's defensive shields.
As for precident of having both the shields and the sensors
ECM being seperate, look at the Romulan Cloaking device. It is
a totally seperate piece of hardware. In addition, SFB has ECM
seperated from shields.
ÿ
I don't say that sheilds CAN'T prevent sensors from taking accurate
readings, but I feel that shields are shields, and that ECM belongs
in the realm of communictions or the science section.
ÿ
Tom
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1260 DATE/TIME: 10-09-88 5:29pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM HACKWOOD PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: BALLANCE THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
WHY is ECM a different matter? You obviously feel that ECM and
shields should be separate, but you really don't provide any reasons
why shields couldn't do the job. You admit there are series examples
of shields preventing scanning, but then you go on to say that the
individual nations would have sensors to defeat enemy ECM, and
vice-versa. Now you're really on to a whole new subject, which would
require a ton of hashing out, which means that ECM wouldn't have a
chance of getting into any new version very soon. Whereas, if shields
are used as ECM, then implementing it would be extremely simple,
requiring practically no code at all.
ÿ
It simply makes sense to me that shields prevent scanning. You
comment that SFB splits shields and ECM. I can't comment on that as
I've never played the game. However, you try to justify splitting
shields and ECM by comparing the Romulan Cloaking device. I don't
really feel that that is a good analogy. That system doesn't try to
PREVENT scanning, it PRODUCES an effect that makes the ship virtually
undetectable AT ALL. It also consumed almost all of their power,
preventing them from firing weapons. So it makes sense that something
that does all that and uses that much power should be a separate
system.
ÿ
So my feelings boil down to these simple factors:
ÿ
1. Shields as ECM are logical, having many precedents.
2. It would be easily implemented into the game.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1262 DATE/TIME: 10-10-88 7:51am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: GENEAL IDEAS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
1. ECM & Shields : I don't know why, but I agree more with Glenn than with
Joe. For some reason I find the "shields are ECM" concept distasteful.
I feel that there should be seperate Sensor systems that provide both
data collection and ECM. Just one persons opinion.
2. Cloaking devices for Romulans : I agree that they would be real nice.
How would they work? If I am fighting a Romulan, and he activates his
cloak, does he disappear altogether, or can I still tell generally
where he's at (just not accurately enough for a firing solution). What
about the Romulan captain? Seems to me that if a cloak is to be
effective, he will HAVE to reduce his active sensor emissions, perhaps
going to passive sensors only. This would reduce/hamper his scanning
range or effectivness as well.
3. Damage Allocation : A couple of observations here. First, assuming
that we have Sensor systems, how will damage effect them? Reduce our
range, perhaps, or limit our gathered information, or both? Also,
remember that if your sensors are reduced to 0% (all sensor systems
destroyed), you will be effectivly blind. At distances of 20000 km or
so you can't just look out a porthole to determine where the enemy is!
Care should be taken to insure that an otherwise fairly healthy ship
doesn't have all its sensors shot off until it's essenÿûtially a hulk
anyway. Second, it seems to me that Reactors are probably delicate
pieces of equipment. Poking a hole in one would almost certainly shut
it down altogether (at least I would want my ship to automatically take
any damaged reactors off-line!) rather than simply reduce its output.
It would come back on-line when repaired to 100%. Should this be
implemented, it would probably necessitate larger batteries (or more of
them).
4. New Versions : Just as an aside, is a 3-D version of Begin still being
considered ? I realize that it would be an order of magnitude harder to
program, and even harder to play, but it sounds VERY interesting. Ditto
fo the Play-by-Modem version.
Hope all of the above kicks off a new round of discussions, whether you
agree with me or not. 'till further on...
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1263 DATE/TIME: 10-10-88 9:49am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: GENEAL IDEAS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
The play-by-modem version is still being considered but probably not
the 3-d version. There are three main disadvantages to 3d. The
first is that it is hard to visualize what is going on. This is
mostly because of the second reason, it's very hard to display a
useful understandable picture. The last and maybe most important
reason for not making it 3d is the extra number of computations
would make playing on a machine without a math co-processor nearly
unplayable. It would be unplayable on an 8088 without an 8087.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1265 DATE/TIME: 10-10-88 4:40pm
FROM : TOM HACKWOOD RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: BALLANCE THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
You mention that there is precedent for having shields be ECM.
Please enlighten me on them.
The Romulan Cloaking Device prevents scanners from detectingthe
ship using the device. I figure that the view screen on the bridge
is utilizing the scanners, as well as some sort of a visual device,
television for example. The Cloaking device prevents the effective
use of scanners.
As to WHY shields and ECM are seperate, here is one. Shields are
ment to prevent damage to the ship. They absorb energy, and prevent
solid objects from physically hitting the ship. Durring a battle the
shields are constantly taking energy and doing whatever with that
energy. If a shield goes down, the Captain is still going to want
to use ECM...if for nothing else to attempt to hide fact that a shield
is down.
If a shield is down, then there won't be any ECM. If a shield is
damaged, the ECM is damaged. Proper design of a ship (star or not)
that is expected to be in a battle and take damage requires both
redunancy and independence. Sure a radar can direct a gun, but if
the radar is down, the guns can manually be operated. If a gun
is inoperable, why should be the radar be out?
Tom
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1266 DATE/TIME: 10-10-88 9:27pm
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: orions THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
How about some sort of ability tht would involve high speed and vast
energy supplies... I'm thinking of the episode, "Journey to Babel" where
the Orion suicide ship kept coming at the enterprise and hammering at it
until a couple of shields were just about gone. Each time the orion made
a pass, the Enterprise would fire and miss (too fast to lock on?) and
each time the Orion would slam them with phasers (the same as the Fed's
had, but they kept hitting where they wanted to hit --the weak shields).
Spock also mentioned something about an extremely high energy utilization
curve, which could be converted to Begin in the form of very powerful
(and very unstable) warp engines, which could make the Orion extremely
tough for a short time, but a sitting duck if it doesn't win quick...
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1267 DATE/TIME: 10-10-88 9:53pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM HACKWOOD PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: BALLANCE THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
I don't believe I said there is precedent for shields acting as
ECM, only that I feel it is logical that they do so.
ÿ
I have no argument with the Cloaking Device being a separate
system. Something that CREATES AN EFFECT of such magnitude would
logically be an independent unit.
ÿ
You say that "shields absorb energy". I agree. What is the
active component of sensors? Must it not be energy in some form? If
shields absorb the energy created by physical objects, such as
torpedoes, why should they NOT absorb sensor energy?
ÿ
Has anybody really thought about the consequences of ECM yet? Ask
yourself what major benefit you receive by being able to scan at will,
as the game is at present. For myself, the major benefit is knowing
on which turn his tubes are loaded, so I'll know when to make a sharp
course change. Of course, the computer won't forget when YOU fired
last, so he'll know when your tubes are loaded again, so ECM wouldn't
hinder him in this respect. Seems to me that the whole concept of ECM
would work out to be a sweet deal for the computer, not the player.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1276 DATE/TIME: 10-11-88 11:07am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: ALL the mail THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Hey guys,
Don't know about you but I would like to see the subject of the message
be something other then GAME BALANCE every time. I will try to use the
"enter a message" command to enter messages of different subjects instead
of just tacking on comments to existing replies.
Maybe we could all try. I think it would make the mail a bit cleaner.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1282 DATE/TIME: 10-12-88 4:19pm
FROM : LARRY MAYO RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: game balance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Kzin are cool. If SFB has 'em, why cant we? But how you gonna simulate
the Drone Mass attack
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1290 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 4:35pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: ECM THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
On the subject of ECM...
ECM should not be part of the shield system. If a shield goes down
that should not imply that your ability to "JAM" the enemy's sensors
should also be lost.
I think there are several reasons why the shields are not the same as ECM.
1. The frequencies of the energy beams are different then those of the
sensors.
2. The power levels are drastically different. It could be that a shield
will ignore a signal that can not damage the ship.
3. Ships can still communicate when the shields are up. This implies
that communication frequencies are NOT affected.
If ECM is implemented, then I still believe that the sensors should be
able to detect whether or not the enemy ship's banks are ready to fire
or not. You can not determine the level that the banks are at. This is
the way it is now. The reason for this is that these weapon systems have
external ports into space and this could be a means of detecting changes
in the energy levels aboard an enemy ship.
Also, ECM is another system which could get damaged in battle.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1291 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 4:46pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Shields vs. sensors THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
I guess the reason I don't like the shields vs. sensors idea is that
I think the "ECM" system should be separate the shield system. I don't
think they should be intertwined.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1292 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 4:48pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: 2 int vs 6 war eagles THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
I think we have talked this one to death. We are not covering any new
ground here. We simply have a different opinion about the effect of
changing the ROM shields and or fed weapons. I do not believe that we
will ever settle this unless we could play test the scenario. I would
love to do this however it is not currently possible.
Just to clarify my position... I do not see how an Interceptor can jink
out of the way of 6 plasma torps. If I were the Roms I would concentrate
fire on one ship at a time. I think the intercepter would get plastered
in the 2 or three passes.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1293 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 4:54pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Sure there is a possibility of accidental ramming, but we are playing
/ simulating a 3d universe in a 2d game. We only want to include things
that enhance the game, not detract from it.
I suppose if accidental ramming wa that important then we could use a
pseudo code similar to...
If the distance between ships is less than 2, then there is a 1% chance
of a collision.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1294 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 5:00pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Yes I think tractor beams are a good way of giving a ship the possibility
of locking onto a ship and then hanging on to get closer. As suggested
by Bryan Donaldson ( I hope that's right ) one good reason would be to
self destruct. In this case it would be used as an offensive weapon.
In order to discuss tractors, we really need to dicuss what the power
requirements would be, the effective range of the beam, and how much can
a beam hold. AS a minimum the power should be the equivalent of charging
several banks, tha range should be a minimum of one half the banks range,
and a beam should be able to hold the mass of any ship.
WHY??? Becuase in space there is no weight, only mass. This means that
unless you are trying to accelerate, there is no stress on the beam. If
you want to accelerate slowly, you should be able to drag any ship along.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1295 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 5:08pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Draining anti-matter out of the engines to make probes is a fine idea.
I still think that a ship can not carry hundreds of little warp engines
around to power the things. We need to consider the minimum size of a
warp power plant. Well who knows what that is since we don't have any
such thing these days. But I would at least imagine it to be larger than
the size of the charge of the probe.
I think a good size would be 1 meter long. This would suggest that
carrying these things will in fact take up a significant amount of room.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1296 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 5:14pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FED TORPS THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
David,
I do not want the feds to have "doomsday" torps.
What I would like to see and would appreciate a discussion of is a torp
which is 300% of its current value the first cycle after it is armed,
200% the next cycle and 100 after that.
After a range of 12000 or so ( how ever many cycles that is ) its value
should fall off to 50% or so.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1297 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 5:17pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TORPS THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Everyone,
I still like my idea about carrying a number of torps say 20 - 50 which
are already charged and can be loaded in two cycles. After these torps
have been fired then the charging of torps would be required.
Torp chrging would take perhaps 10 to 15 cycles instead of the current
5 cycles and/OR torp charging would require a larger amount of power then
it does now.
The point of this is to force the captain to be a little more conservative
in an energy starved universe.
Also, carrying precharged torps has the precedent of returning to a star
base to reload/rearm/refurbish ships systems. I don't think starships
were mean't to be self sufficient in a war scenario. Perhaps in a peace
time scenario it would be appropriate.
Comments??
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1298 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 5:24pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: ROMULAN CLOAKING DEVICE THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
ALL,
I think a cloaking device would be a real balancing weapon for the roms.
If such a device were implemented, It would mean that they would be trying
to hide. This means there shields have to be down while they are cloaked.
If they are moving, then there is a way of tracking that general motion.
We should be able to detect the general bearing of the cloaked ship,
IF it is close and IF it is moving at warp speed. The faster it moves
the greater the possibility of tracking it.
Firing into space in the general direction would have some chance of
hitting the ship.
This would allow the rom ship to get in close, drop its cloak, raise
shields and fire plasma torps. The plasma torps would work well given
the close range. Also, since they are cloaked they have no shields and
are vulerable. This is their "Achilles heel".
Comments?
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1300 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 10:55pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: 2 int vs 6 war eagles THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
You're right. No sense talking it into the ground anymore.
(MAYBE three interceptors!)
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1301 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 10:56pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Am I to take it, then, that you feel that accidental ramming would
detract from the game? I don't. Personally, of all the things that
have been brought up recently, I think ramming has the most chance of
adding tension and excitement to the game. But that would ONLY be
true if accidental ramming were possible.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1302 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 10:56pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
We're kind of working on our own here, as the series gives only
one or two examples of tractors ever being used. It seems to me that
tractor beams would require an ENORMOUS amount of energy to effecively
hold another ship. It seems logical that to hold a ship in place,
much less DRAG it anywhere, that the tractor must put out as much or
more energy then the warp engines of the ship being tractored. If a
warp engine puts out, say, 100 units of energy in an attempt to move
the ship in a specific direction, then it seems clear to me that the
tractor must have an equivalent amount of power to hold it, less to
just slow it down, and more to drag it in the opposite direction.
ÿ
Now you can argue that 100 units of warp energy does not
necessarily translate into 100 units of thrust. I'll even agree with
that argument. But you're still going to have to match what the
actual thrust turns out to be.
ÿ
This, of course, means that the big ships are going to be damn
hard to tractor unless they're seriously damaged, whereas the big
ships are going to be able to tractor an undamaged small ship
relatively easily.
ÿ
Also, only the Romulans have the battery capacity to draw
that much
energy for more than one or two cycles, which means that you're going
to have to:
ÿ
1. Increase the power supply fairly drastically.
ÿ
or
ÿ
2. Draw the energy straight from your warp engines, and there goes
your speed.
ÿ
This shouldn't be interpreted as an argument against tractors. I
kind of like the idea, actually. But, if you accept the basic concept
of what I say above, it will mean that they will have to be used quite
selectively.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1303 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 10:58pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Another subject which we just can't agree on. Fine. I accept one
meter. Say one meter long and a half meter in diameter. That means
that if you have a room that is 10 meters square and 3 meters high,
that you can store approximately 1200 probe engines. I can live with
that!
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1304 DATE/TIME: 10-13-88 10:58pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: ECM (Fog of War) THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I've realized that people may think I support the idea of ECM
since I've been discussing it so vigorously. Let me correct this
misconception.
ÿ
I don't.
ÿ
If it was going to be instituted, then I have said that I thought
the shields should be the operative system. I still support this idea
because of the simplicity of it, but Glenn Ironhat has come up with an
argument against it that I find difficult to counter, i.e.
communications can get through the shields, so why shouldn't sensors
be able to as well?
ÿ
I just don't see that the basic concept of ECM would add all that
much to the game. When the ships are undamaged, it seems to me that
any advantages ECM offers would be mainly to the computer's benefit.
When the ships ARE damaged, odds are pretty good that you won't be
able to jam effectively anyway.
ÿ
Just say no to ECM!
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1307 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 7:59am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
OK, you can store 1200 mini-warp engines (and I assume the same number of
warheads in the next room). However, can you afford to buy that many for
each ship? Seems to me that warp engines in general wouldn't come out of
gumball machines...While this isn't in the scope of the purley tactical
nature of the game, perhaps we could set the number of probes per vessel
during the game set-up, from say, 10 to infinity. That way, we make
everyone happy.
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1311 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 1:04pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joey,
I think the warheads should be drained from the warp engines. As
to probe engines coming out of gumball machines, my point is that it's
not realistic to put an arbitrary limit on the number of probes
available, since, if you accept the dimensions Glenn and I were
talking about, you could store a great many in a small place.
ÿ
As for having the user decide on the number of probes available,
you would have difficulty comparing one game to another if you did
that. No big deal, I admit, but I'm afraid I oppose anything that
places a limit of any kind on the number of probes.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1316 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 4:58pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Unless accidental ramming was extremely RARE, then yes, I think it would
detract from the game.
REASON... In real space ACCIDENTAL ramming would be very unlikely.
Therefore in the game/simulation it should also be extremely unlikely.
Otherwise, more importance will be placed on this then it deserves.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1319 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 5:06pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
You are stating your argument from the point of view that the purpose
of the tractor beam is to hold another ship in place against the power
of the ships engines.
That is not my reason for having them at all. IF I were to lock tractors
onto another ship in order to pull my the ships closer together (for
whatever reason) then you only need to have enough power to drag a vessel
along. I would not be using my engines to try and pull against the other
ship. I would be trying to get closer to the other ship and would not be
concerned with holding it in place.
Regarding precedent and trying to hold a ship in place against its
engines, recall two episodes. The corbomite maneuver where the Enterprise
was towed and then broke away from the tractor beam.
The second was in The Next Generation where the Enterprise held a ship in
tractor beams so as to limit its field of fire.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1320 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 5:19pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
I could live with that too. But I don't "like" carrying so many probes.
Perhaps something else could be worked out like your idea about the
antimatter draining the warp engines.
EXCEPT I don't like that idea either.
Talk to you later.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1322 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 8:48pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
My point is simply this: if ramming is possible, then accidental
ramming should be possible. Otherwise, I don't think it should be
instituted at all.
ÿ
I don't think accidental ramming would occurr unless you were
EXTREMELY careless. How often have you seen the range between two
ships get down into double digits?
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1323 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 8:49pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Either I wasn't clear, or you didn't read my message very
carefully. In order for you to stop a ship cold, your tractor beam is
going to have to be equal in power output to the target ship's warp
engines. To drag him towards you the output of the beam will have to
be greater, and to just slow him down will require less. This all
assumes, of course, that the target ship is attempting to move away
from you. But then, if he isn't, you probably wouldn't be using your
tractors at all, would you?
ÿ
The only place to draw that kind of power from as the game stands
now is from your own warp engines. And then, since the power is being
diverted, your own speed is going to be cut to almost nothing.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1324 DATE/TIME: 10-14-88 8:50pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
I think we've probably killed this one too. I notice Tom and Mike
have been quite silent about this, and other issues as well. Have
they already made up their minds what they are going to do, or do they
just not want to inhibit discussion by having the game designers
expressing opinions? I suppose the latter is probably the case.
Anyway, what say we leave it to them at this point?
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1345 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 11:00am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
I got your point. Mine is this...
Whether the ships are close together or not, accidental ramming should
be a rare occurance. Having the ships within double or single digits
is a rare yet I have done so at least once. WHEN two ships are within
say 2 units distant of each other, even then should ramming be only a
small probability BECAUSE space is really 3D and to compute the
probabiltity of ramming with only 2 D would not make it realistic or
practical.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1347 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 11:07am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Well I understand what you said... It may be that my message was not
clear...
What I am saying is that once you lock onto a ship with a tractor beam,
you can essentially disengage you engines and "hang on". You could use
the tractor to pull your ship closer to the other ship, not the other way
around !! This would allow you to get closer to the other ship.
Does that make sense ??
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1349 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 11:11am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: PROBES THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
Well actually I think that your idea does seem to be workable. I would
want
to put a lot of thought into how much is the engine power affect to fire
one probe and how fast does it regenerate etc. But I think your idea
is a good solution.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1351 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 11:17am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: distance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
What is the physical unit of measure in Begin ? Meters, Kmeters or ??
Thanks, Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1353 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 4:27pm
FROM : TOM HACKWOOD RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Ramming THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I don't like the idea of ramming. Since the game is basically played
at warp speeds, and the navigational computers on starships are
so muched advanced than what we are used to, I think that ramming would
be downright impossible if one ship is attempting to avoid the ram.
In addition, 'warp' not only means speed of travel, but also the state
of the space around the ship. Since ships are 'warped' into a different
sort of space/time, I think it is possible that ships can never EVER
touch another ship if both are 'warped'.
I don't have any logical reasons as to WHY, as the game is supposed to
be played with ships using alien (to us 20th century types anyway)
science and technology. The fact of the matter is: I don't want
to ram, or worry about being rammed.
Tom H.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1355 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 5:24pm
FROM : LARRY MAYO RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM HACKWOOD PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Ramming THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Star Fleet Battles, a similar board game (that incidently I SELDOM loose,
even against the national champion of 1985, locally based) agrees with
you. The game states that ramming is not possible, even when you are in
the same hex. Im sure the logical argumenets you give are the reasons
that they have made this rule.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1359 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 9:19pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
I'm beginning to be sorry that I brought this up, as no one seems
to really like the idea besides me! I understand your point about 2D
vs. 3D, although I don't really agree with it. What if it was a 3D
game? Ramming would still be possible. I don't understand why since
it's only a 2D game, that fact alone negates the possiblility of
ramming.
ÿ
But regardless, I don't think I'm going to berate this one any
longer.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1360 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 9:20pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
Hmmmm...now I understand. Seems to me that somebody is going to
have to come up with some specs on this one. Your idea sounds
workable, but surely there must be some penalty somewhere. Target
ships warp temp could rise, maybe.
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1361 DATE/TIME: 10-17-88 9:20pm
FROM : JOE TROUBA RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM HACKWOOD PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Ramming THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
I have a feeling that you feel about ramming the same way that I
do about Fog of War.
ÿ
I'm not going to argue with your reasoning, mostly because it
makes a lot of sense. I would only repeat a warning that I gave
dozens of messages ago, i.e., it is dangerous to the game to tie
yourself to reality too closely.
ÿ
As I mentioned to Glenn I., I think I'm going to leave this one
alone for now. Nobody else besides myself seems to like the idea!
ÿ
Joe
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1363 DATE/TIME: 10-18-88 9:32am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
I will answer your question then we can drop the ramming subject.
Since we are dealing with a 2D game, the equations to compute a
collision will give a higher probability of of a collision occurring
then then the true probability which would exist in a 3D game.
Hence doing the collision equation in 2D would create an unrealistic
chance that a collision could occur. That's why I suggested adding
a fudge factor to the equation which was simply that IF the 2D
equations showed that a collision HAS just occurred, THEN generate a
random number giving a 1% chance that a collision has in fact occurred.
It would be a kludge, but I could find it acceptable.
In any event I still would prefer ramming only if one ship was attempting
to do so.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1365 DATE/TIME: 10-18-88 9:40am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : LARRY MAYO PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: "BEGIN" THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Larry,
I think the game is called Begin, so that we could call ourselves
Beginners !!!
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1366 DATE/TIME: 10-18-88 11:23am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: distance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Anything you want it to be. How about Microns (Remember Battlestar
Galactica)?
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1378 DATE/TIME: 10-19-88 1:46pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: distance THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom,
Well the reason I was asking was to be able to think reasonably about the
effective range of certain systems. Perhaps sensors should be able to
report things like the enemy engine temperature only at a close range.
What would the effective range of a tractor beam be? What determines the
range of phasers? I see where arbitrary units allows some flexibility.
That way you need only deal with the relative numbers and how they affect
different systems.
Kilometers seems to be the most reasonable. I thought that you might have
determined the unit of measure and then simply left it out of the game
display.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1387 DATE/TIME: 10-21-88 9:50am
FROM : ERIC CRISP RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: RAMMING THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Possible to ram yes, probable no.....
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1402 DATE/TIME: 10-24-88 6:38pm
FROM : ALMA WETZKER RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin Thoughts THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Hello All!
.
I am trying one more time to enter a message before garbage takes
over and disconnects me.
This is a list of what my opinions are (Tom, and Mike asked). These
are only opinions but I think I have fairly sound reasons for them. I
have tried to present some of those reasons, but I am always open to
suggestions.
.
RAMMING -
.
I am not real sure about the concept of ramming in begin. It
certainly is a viable game tactic but the chances should be small, even
if trying. I would like to add a quote from one of my favorite space
game systems (Starwar 2250):
"Anyone who tries to ram a ship that is not hulked out, is just
plain crazy and deserves what is going to happen to him!"
Resolution was simple: Take the structural damage points of both
vessels, and subtract the smaller from both vessels (with appropriate
systems damage applied to each).
.
PROBES -
.
I can see no reason to limit in any way the number of probes.
Simply because some purists consider the tactic of runing and dropping
probes "cheating", is no reason to try to exclude it from the game. If
you don't like it, DON'T USE IT!!! I have won scenarios where all I had
was engine. (Probes come back faster than any other weapon system.) If
I can stay out of the way of incoming torps long enuf to get mine back,
I have a chance of winning.
.
May I sugest another solution. Change the way odds are calulated
and end resultant scores are figured to something closer to "even".
When I take on a ship rated my equal, and blow it away while only taking
shield damage, I expect a much better score than I have been getting.
.
GAME BALANCE -
.
I have seen many sugestions for changing Begin into either SFB or a
ST recreation based on someones interpretation of what is logical and
consistant in the series. If you want a game where each race has an
advantage over another try SFB with ISC, Neo-Tholian, and Andromidan
heavy ships. You have to include all three races or there is no play
balance. (or better yet, play Diplomacy!)
.
The major weapon systems seem to be roughly equal in begin, (except
the ROM warp 12 probes) why change them?
.
I can't see ECM being introduced without ECCM rearing its ugly head.
Begin is NOT a power starved ship situation. The limiting factor in
Begin is command entry. One command per cycle is very limiting and
makes for some very hard choices sometimes. Your options are move OR
shoot, and then wether ofensive OR defensive. Seldom both. I feel that
that is what makes Begin unique in the space game arena. It can
certainly keep the games short. (Ever play SFB?!?)
.
Why should a new system or capability invoke a special penalty when
it eats one command every few cycles? If it is permanent until
canceled, that is something very different.
.
CAMPAIGN GAME -
.
I would love to see some sort of campaign game instituted in Begin.
That is where captured ships come into play. Reinforcements whithin a
scenario would also be nice. Fixed positions (Bases) in space would be
interesting. They would need very long range phasers and bigger torps.
.
TRACTOR BEAMS -
.
All a tractor needs to pull is the mass of the ship running it. The
operating ship shouldn't even need to operate engines. The other ship
could of course easily burn out his engines trying to pull the mass of
both ships. That and suicude explosions are all I can see tractors as
usefull for outside of a campaign game. (Ships that suicide seldom have
power for life support much less tractors)
.
How about a Tractor-Repulsor beam? Two tractor beams operating 180
degrees out of phase shaking the hull of your enemy apart every round
until lock-on is lost?
.
THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -
.
A "Tactical" display for getting a better idea of angles and spacial
relationships. (Possibly graphics. The BGI should help there)
.
Add some more races with unique weapons. SFB would be best I think
for weapons and races.
.
I would love to see hydrans with their fusion technology in Begin.
.
Add Fixed supply points with and without Offensive capabilities,
along with non-combat ships. (Bases, Tankers, Freighters, Planets, etc.)
.
Campaign games with fixed or user generated scenarios.
.
Change the rating system or scrap ratings entirely. Let your
measure of accomplishment be the warm feeling you get when your opponent
releases all of his potential energy in one expanding cloud of gas.
(No, I don't have a better idea for ratings, sorry)
.
INCOMING!!!!! I don't care so much who fired it, as what it is.
Glen's display looked pretty good.
.
Face a shield to an enemy and keep it between me and him. Perhaps
an added argument to pursue and elude.
.
I would like to be able to allocate a phaser or two to defensive
fire. Lock it onto the nastiest incoming beastie and let it track that.
I would still like to control fire. (I know that means that I eat torps
that close through my phaser range and detonate, but I still want to
inflict damage on the enemy too. This is more for plasma torps that
come outside the bearing of my phasers on the firing ship.)
.
The ablility to beam over to another (dead) ship and fix something
before you die. (salvage and/or capture for campaign games)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to suggest that the Fed torps are more powerfull than
the Klingons in the game as it currently stands. Take a Dn against a
Rom War Eagle, Close and fire all tubes when the torps will end up
within about 50 of the (undamaged) WE. The Fed will BLOW UP the WE
while The Klingon will do 3 - 4 hull hits.
.
-- Alma --
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1412 DATE/TIME: 10-25-88 10:03pm
FROM : GORDON HAFF RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: FOG OF WAR THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Shields could certainly be envisioned as blocking reliable sensor
data. I guess that my primary objection to the current scenario
was the overall precision of the information obtained. I think
it's also important to note that some information can be inferred
such as firing readiness (assuming that we know the capabilities
of the attacker up front - a good assumption given intelligence).
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1418 DATE/TIME: 10-27-88 9:22pm
FROM : GORDON HAFF RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: SENSOR READOUTS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe Trouba mentioned something in one of his messages about "fog of war"
giving the computer an advantage because it would remember when you had
last fired your weapons and hence would know how loaded your weapons
were. I made a statement before, which I'll repeat. Scanning aside,
your computer should be capable of "remembering" that same information
about your simulated opponent. Barring random load cycles because of
damage which doesn't exist in Begin, you should therefore always know the
status of your opponents weapon systems. This is something you could
know if you bothered to keep track of it, therefore I think that your
"sensor computer" should keep track of it for you.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1421 DATE/TIME: 10-28-88 10:02am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : GORDON HAFF PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: SENSOR READOUTS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Gordon,
That is something that I did not think about but you are correct. Our
own ships computer should tell us if enough time has elapsed that the
other ship is now ready to fire.
However this assumes that his weapons systems are on automatic recharge
after firing. Due to power distribution levels, this may not be the case
at all times.
I think that since the ship's weapons systems have physical accessY˜•�ÿ
to the outside of the ship, i.e. they have to have ports to shoot through
that it should be feasible to scan the ship and know whether or not a
weapon is charged/loaded and ready to fire.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1422 DATE/TIME: 10-28-88 10:09am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Star Bases THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
To: everyone,
Something that I would like to see in version 2.0 is a star base
scenario. This means a planet which has been outfitted to be a star base,
which then has to take on an entire fleet of enemy ships.
The star base would be complete with triple shielding, and photon
batteries that could rip through enemy shields to the hull with two hits.
( This is another bid for doomsday torps !!!! )
Of course the disadvantage to the base is that it can't move.
The base would be able to fire in all directions independently of course.
Got to go, more later...
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1423 DATE/TIME: 10-28-88 10:19am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Reinforcements THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Everyone,
Another thing I would like to see added to a fleet battle is the
appearance of reinforcements to your and the enemy fleet as the battle
progresses. So you set up a battle with 3 dread. and 4 cruisers on each
side or so, but the dreadnoughts show up at different times during the
battle because they had to be called in as reinforcements.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1424 DATE/TIME: 10-28-88 11:04am
FROM : BRYAN DONALDSON RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Another possible use for Tractor Beams ...
In SFB, if a ship under tractor fires ANY weapon, that weapon will hit
the Tractoring ship. If tractors are implemented in this manner, you
could use a smaller ship to nullify a larger enemy ship, (however
temporarily). This will probable result in the destruction of the
tractoring ship, but the temporary respite from the enemy ship may be
enough to warrant the sacrafice.
a
Bryan.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1425 DATE/TIME: 10-28-88 11:13am
FROM : BRYAN DONALDSON RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOE TROUBA PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: ECM (Fog of War) THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Joe,
The computer will remember whatever they tell it to remember. If they
(the programmers, I'm lousy with names) don't program the computer to
remember when you've fired, then the enemy cannot take that into account
when planning his tactics.
I think the fog of war idea is a good one. The commanders in naval
combat seldom knew exactly how much damage the enemy sustained, or what
weapons aer ready to fire. (Just assume the worst, until data tells you
otherwise.)
Bryan
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1430 DATE/TIME: 10-30-88 7:40pm
FROM : LARRY MAYO RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Star Bases THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I won't tell you how, Glenn, but this may be a feasible scenario soon.
Keep tuned to this Bat-Channel for updates.....
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1431 DATE/TIME: 10-31-88 12:17pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : BRYAN DONALDSON PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: TRACTOR BEAMS THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Bryan,
That is interesting that any weapon would then be a sure hit if a ship
were being tractored.
I wonder if it could make sense that the ship that is using the tractor
could also score hits with it's weapons?? This would mean that torps
would always score hits for both sides.
I haven't thought about this one much, I wonder if that is something
that would even be sensible.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1432 DATE/TIME: 10-31-88 12:22pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : BRYAN DONALDSON PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: ECM (Fog of War) THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Bryan,
I did not bring up that point on the actual programming of game functions
because I thought it was a given.
If it makes sense to implement a tactical computer which could give us
battle information, then both sides should have it.
Actually I think maybe we should have the computer do some of the
work for us. That is what the STATUS INCOMING display is all about.
.
Also, This is something else that can be damaged in battle.
Glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 1434 DATE/TIME: 10-31-88 12:28pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : LARRY MAYO PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Star Bases THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Oh goody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Archive Part1 Archive Part2 Archive Part3 Archive Part4 Archive Part5 Archive Part6
