Micro Foundry Archive
From BeginWiki
These archive pages contain the contents of the Micro Foundry Begin discussion forum from March 1988 through October 1990.
Many thanks to Randy Gordon-Gilmore for keeping a copy of this archive.
Archive Part 1 Archive Part2 Archive Part3 Archive Part4 Archive Part5 Archive Part6
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 18 DATE/TIME: 03-30-88 3:00am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin History THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I am feeling a little wordy tonight so how about a short history on Begin.
Mike and I wrote and completed Begin in 1984 when I was living in
St. Louis. Minor bug fixes and the shareware message are the only
changes made since then. We had many more ideas for the game but we
were stopped by the Desmet C compiler.
The compiler available from Desmet at that time allowed a maximum of
64K code and 64K data. When we hit 64K of code we stopped, probably a
good thing or we never would have had a finished version.
After I moved to Michigan in 1985 it was decided to place a demo of
Begin on the bulletin boards as an ad. The demo program was named
ShipDemo.ARC and it had all the features of the full program except
you were allowed to enter only status type commands. When you hit
return your ship would decide what to do on it's own and you went
along for the ride.
Then in 1987 I moved to San Jose and it was now decided to turn Begin
into shareware, this is Begin V1.5. If you downloaded version with a
Bloomfield Hills Michigan address, it is a version that was placed on
a BBS by an unscrupulous buyer of the original release.
Finally we have set up the Micro Foundry BBS in hopes of receiving
more feedback than we have through the U.S. postal service (I don't
like writting letters either).
Now we have converted Begin to Borlands Turbo-C (Large Model) and we
are looking forward to adding some of the long awaited features. How
many new versions we may produce will depend on how much interest
there is out there in BBS land.
- Tom
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 125 DATE/TIME: 04-03-88 3:22pm
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin Strategy THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Hello fellow Beginners:
My name is Mike Higgins. Many years ago, I wrote the first strategy
code for the enemies in begin. The old code is showing it's age,
however, and it is time for a completely new stategy routine. As you
may have read elsewhere, Tom and I are designing a new language that
will be used to define strategies for the enemy ships. The compiler
for the language is complete, and now the interpreter and strategy
code are being written.
At this time, I would like to ask that you leave messages here
regarding the best tactical ideas you have come up with while playing
Begin. The best of these ideas could end up as routines in the new
enemy strategy (of course your allies will benefit as well).
Feel free to describe holes you have found in the enemy thinking
(they can be SO dim-witted at times) and the ways you exploited them.
The idea is to make new strategies that are complex but easily
modified to fit the current battle situation. Closing all the
"holes" in the strategy will also be important.
By the way, if requests or ideas are recieved fast enough, some of
them may end up in V1.6. I already have a few surprises in mind for
that version to tide people over until the new strategy is complete.
So, please help out by giving your ideas, suggestions and impressions
of the current enemy strategy and possible future strategies.
Thanks,
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 199 DATE/TIME: 04-13-88 1:24am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : ROB GREENBERG PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin 1.6 THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
The name Begin comes from the Latin word meaning...no just kidding.
The game is called Begin because that is what the version on the
HP 2000 minicomputer was called.
Why was that version called Begin, you ask. Well, because that
version was actually five programs chained together so it would
fit on the HP2000. The names being Set1, Set2, Set3, Set4 and
the part you actually ran first, Begin. The original name was
something else but we renamed it to keep it hidden from prying.
So, why didn't we rename it when we wrote a new much expanded
edition for the PC? Because "Begin" is it's name, that's why.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 611 DATE/TIME: 06-27-88 1:59am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin Bugs THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
The current bug list for 1.6 is as follows:
- Fleet command displays garbage if all allies have
been destroyed.
- Check for invalid escort chain does not work and may
crash the program.
- It is possible to confuse the flagship setting in
setup by selecting and deselecting ships.
Does anyone know of any others?
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 620 DATE/TIME: 07-01-88 1:24am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin idea list THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Well, I finally cleaned out all of the hundreds of old Begin message
and have compiled a list of all the suggestions (45 to be exact) that
all of you have made over the last three months.
This entire idea list (both parts) is also available as IDEA1.ZIP in
the Clockwork Software file area.
Suggested new features for future versions of Begin: (Part one)
1) Player designed Strategy, Ships, Nations etc.
2) Graphics display rather than or in addition to the text display.
One or more adapters: VGA, EGA, CGA, Hercules?
3) Popup display windows.
4) Preemptive Multitasking.
This allows continuous strategy and movement computation as
well as unprompted command input. Multitasking also makes the
game seem to run faster since your thinking and typing time is
interleaved with other processing. Most often the enemy has
completed their strategy decisions before you have finished
entering your command.
This idea would most likely require a major rewrite. This one
also happens to be my favorite. We have a "hacked up" multi-
tasking version made from Begin V1.4 but it was only to see
what it would be like. A rewrite maybe a good idea anyway
considering the scope of some of the ideas in this list.
5) Multiplayer by modem.
Direct two player and/or more than two through BBS? This is
also one of my favorite ideas. It seems that all the ideas
I like the best also require the most work.
6) 3D universe.
How would you make an understandable display? Is it worth
slowing down the game just for 3D computations?
7) More than two nations during a single game.
Romulans allied with the Klingons?
8) More nations, ships, etc. (Part of player designed...)
9) Other types of ships. (Part of player designed...)
Tankers, Freighters, etc.
10) Save/Restore game.
Is this needed now or only if some major new feature are added
which lengthen time needed to play a game?
11) Addition of planets, bases, etc.
12) Loadable/Saveable fleet configurations.
This would allow quick setup if more ships are involved. You
may have favorite fleets depending on the scenario.
13) Actual missions to complete.
Such as capture enemy tanker, Deliver freighter to planet,etc.
Any other suggestions?
14) Multigame campaigns.
Your crew could improve as they fight each campaign. How
about a single score that is computed for a set of missions?
15) Ship Log.
Keep track of all major game events in range of player ship,
positive and negative. Your score would be adjusted when you
transmit a log with enough positive events to headquarters.
Also the log could be kept after the game to trade with other
players as evidence of an exceptional game.
16) Ascending player rank.
For what purpose? During a single game or over multiple
games?
17) New command input features.
Such as: Mouse, Function keys, Cursor keys, Command macros,
etc.
18) New rating system.
Suggestions?
19) Display odds during setup.
Changing the rating system will effect the odds computation.
20) More end game messages.
Suggestions?
21) Status/chart for objects other than ships.
Display course, speed, etc. of objects such as probes.
22) Warning/display for immediately dangerous objects.
23) Full screen position display.
Toggle small position display to/from full screen.
24) Record of all ships maneuvers.
Allows you to ask what moves an ally or enemy has made.
25) Multiturn commands. e.g. Zigzag, Angle shields, etc.
Maybe one outstanding command per bridge crew member?
26) Limited cargo. Torps, Probes, etc.
This would make all ships be more "sure" of their shots since
they would have a limited supply. Of course resupply at
planets/bases.
27) Other cargo. For Tankers, Freighters, etc.
Capturing other enemy ships with some or all of their cargo
would be worth more points. Maybe there could be usable cargo
such as dilithium crystals.
28) Boarding parties.
This could allow you to capture a ship for points or to use.
You could also send a crew into dead ally ships for repair.
What would keep an enemy from self-destructing to prevent
capture? Could you only beam-in if one or more shields are
down?
29) Some other weapon to make pirates good at board ships.
Pirates need some "gimmick" to make them more interesting.
30) Distress messages.
Allows you to request that other ally ships be sent to your
defense.
31) Limit to scanning/chart range.
This means you would lose track of enemy ships if they got too
far away from any ally ship. This feature is needed if it is
possible to meet ships later in the game.
Sorry, only 150 line message are allowed in Wildcat! if there is a
way to change this I couldn't find it. Read the next message
for the remaining ideas.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 621 DATE/TIME: 07-01-88 1:29am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin idea list (Part 2) THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Here are the rest of the Begin ideas that would not fit into the
first message.
This entire idea list (both parts) is also available as IDEA1.ZIP in
the Clockwork Software file area.
Suggested new features for future versions of Begin: (Part two)
32) Allow transporter/sensor damage
33) Directional damage/weapons/sensors
This means that a hit on the ship would only damage systems
near the hit. Of course these systems would also be
directional. Example: Front phasers could only fire forward.
34) Allow other than six shields on ships.
Dreadnoughts should have maybe eight where as interceptors
only one.
35) Commands to configure damage control.
This would allow you to select what's most important to
repair.
36) New shield control with shield re-enforcement.
Have you ever looked at the shield status? Too complicated!
It needs to be overhauled. Also commands to allow energy to
be diverted from somewhere to reenforce damaged shields.
37) Ship armor in addition to shields.
38) Cloaking devices.
For the Romulans of course. What are the limitations. It goes
without saying that they cannot fire when cloaked.
39) Drones/Shuttles.
Small Semi-Intelligent attack drones/shuttles.
40) Anti-Drones/Anti-Probes.
Probes that chase and destroy other probes.
41) MIRV Probes/Drones.
Exploding them creates multiple warheads.
42) Point-Defense phasers.
Very close-range weapons for defense against torpedoes/probes.
43) Enveloping Plasma torpedoes.
They cause damage all shields.
44) Tractor Beams.
Useful for capturing ships. Maybe captured ships must be
towed to a base or planet for credit.
45) Desqview aware (for those of you with a 386).
Keeps Begin from hogging the whole machine.
Whew! That was tiring... Comments, suggestions?
By the way... the contributions were doing great for about two weeks.
They now seen to have stopped. Keep those checks and ideas coming, as
you can see, there is plenty of work to be done. :-)
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 622 DATE/TIME: 07-01-88 2:28pm
FROM : MARTIN WATERHOUSE RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin idea list (Part 2) THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
After looking throught the huge list of suggestions, I only have one
in addition to promotions (and I assume demotions) for successful or
unsuccessful campaigns. How about individual commanders that gain
experience for each of their vessels under your command. You could
demote them and promote lower ranks. I.E. always state a commander and
second in command for each vessel (perhaps other ranks too). Give
them promotions/demotions, posting to other ships. They could be
killed in battle (if not too careful or facing unsurmountable odds),
shot as deserters, they might even mutiny and attack their own fleet!
You could also give them medals and other orders of merit in addition
to amassing their experience and rising in rank. Perhaps the game
should start with one minimal vessel with you as commander. You have
to "generate" a couple of junior officers and and all of you will
gain experience together. Eventually, as you get promoted, they can
take their own commands and have their own junior officers and so on.
Their experience profiles (provided you don't get them killed) would
be valuable variables on deciding conflict outcome. You could even
give them personality traits and physical characteristics .... boy am
I going on originally all I was going to say was ... you can get
medals as well as increases in rank.....
Martin
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 636 DATE/TIME: 07-06-88 1:35am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I too use scanning range to figure out what torps are doing. But it
is time consuming and awkward to do often, and it's still very hard
to tell the course a torp is on. A "Status Incoming(?)" command
would clear that up. As for knowing which group of torps or probes
was which, well, the display + status should clear up most
problems. Besides, any ship with enough stuff coming at it to be
confused even with the aid of such a command is in serious trouble
regardless of whether the captain knows every detail about the
dozens of weapons coming at him or not.
I do like the idea of an automatic warning when a torp comes within
one turn's movement. It simply makes sense for things a crew should
be watching for and reporting.
As far as AUTOMATICALLY shooting incoming torps, I can rationalize
the idea of having a crewmember dedicated to such defensive acts.
This idea would, however, greatly lengthen each game, as decisive
hits become harder to come by (logically, if we get to use the
command, the enemy gets to too, remember), especially if turning and
firing banks defensively would no longer take up a turn. However,
due to the limited number of phasers and coverable arcs, I really
don't think this would be used too often unless point defense
phasers were added.
While I'm on this whole idea of scanning and torps and probes and
such, I thought of another handy command. How about a RANGE ZOOM?
It would work like this: "range 200 2000 50" This command line
would set the range at 200, then increase it by 50 every couple of
seconds until it equalled 2000. Now that would help show a picture
of what's going on! Other examples would be: "range 10000 200 -100"
(set range to 10000, then step backwards 100 until 200), "range 200
1000 2", (set range to 200, then step up to 1000 by two's). Players
could use their Pause key to stop it at crucial points if they
wished as well.
And now for a selected list of suggestions and more(!)
comments concerning the summarized begin 2.0 suggestions...
2) Graphics display rather than or in addition to the text display.
-all I have is CGA. If 2.0 skips to ega or vga, I could see
an added full screen text display toggle for we unfortunates
without ega or vga.
4) Preemptive Multitasking.
-Being able to make orders as fast as you could type would
certainly be intense!
5) Multiplayer by modem.
-How about multiplayer locally (without the computer playing
one side)?
6) 3D universe.
-would be a definite pain in the ass. Think of these
problems: Would shields have to be added? How about all
those extra calculations and the extra run time? Phaser
and torp arcs, courses and headings would all be extremely
complicated. Every facet of the game would have to be re-
worked.
7) More than two nations during a single game. Romulans allied
with the Klingons? -Yeah, could be interesting,
tactics-wise.
9) Other types of ships. (Part of player designed...) Tankers,
Freighters, etc. -this would be a must in any kind of
campaign addition.
10) Save/Restore game. -I'd like to see this ASAP.
11) Addition of planets, bases, etc. -I'd love to play the Khan
nebula battle... No scanners (only display) No lock ons.
Shields at minimum level... What a dog-fight! Terrain adds
lots of tactical implications. My favorite SFB battles
are those including interesting terrain.
13) Actual missions to complete.
-lots of potential here. A group of missions could easily
be strung together in a campaign of sorts. Ideas of
promotions and such mentioned elsewhere could all find
their place here. I have many SFB examples.
15) Ship Log. -Would be interesting to see how others fight...
21) Status/chart for objects other than ships.
22) Warning/display for immediately dangerous objects.
23) Full screen position display.
-see above.
24) Record of all ships maneuvers.
-would be extremely useful with graphics used to plot out
the action.
25) Multiturn commands. e.g. Zigzag, Angle shields, etc. Maybe
one outstanding command per bridge crew member?
-Sounds like a great way to handle it.
26) Limited cargo. -Probably needed for probes.
28) Boarding parties. -increase score for capture instead of kill?
31) Limit to scanning/chart range. -would make things interesting.
32) Allow transporter/sensor damage. -NASTY, (ergo, fun)
33) Directional damage/weapons/sensors
-This is a lot like SFB.
35) Commands to configure damage control.
-VERY handy.
36) New shield control with shield re-enforcement.
-often critical to survival.
38) Cloaking devices. -Require tremendous power? I have complete
SFB rules on cloak if you want to know more...
Hope that helps...
DAC
P.S. Something to change in the computer's strategy: Ships bunch
up too much. When one blows up, it's too often like the fourth of
July. I got a 224.27 by getting kamikazied by 9 klingon DN's and 8
BC's (I took a Fed DN against them for a lark). I didn't even have
to Self-D to get them... Dumb Klingons...
cc: Mike Higgins
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 638 DATE/TIME: 07-06-88 1:55am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Thanks for responding to the new ideas list. One initial comment
I have is that you think save game is important even for the
current version. Many people seem to agree with you. I don't
understand this. Do you play many senarios that actually last
that long? Would you feel like picking up where you left off
after a day or two? Would you remember all the senario details?
Save game seems very important if campaigns and other such options
were added but in the current version??? All you people must be
right, maybe I just don't have the patience for such long battles.
more later...
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 639 DATE/TIME: 07-06-88 8:27am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Reinforceable (sp?) Shields THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Well, I guess reinforcable shields win the contest. Now, how do they
work? I would guess that you can only reinforce them at the expense
of other shields. That would mean that only one shield could be
reinforced at a time and it would make all the other shields weaker.
Of course, this is not a lot of fun for playing -- maybe you can
reinforce any or all shields and it just takes more energy. This is
probably what people had in mind.
So, do you just say "rein 1" and then shield 1 is stronger? To be
reasonable, there has to be SOME penalty for doing this -- or else why
aren't they that strong to begin with? Perhaps it takes LOTS of
energy. Maybe ships only have enough power to reinforce 1 shield
when the game starts?
I still like having to rob the other shields, though -- if you can
just use lots of energy to reinforce any shield, then the ship's
builders should throw in more reactors so that they can be reinforced
all the time.
Can shields be reinforced beyond normal strength? Or does
reinforcement just restore them to full working condition?
I know I kind of rambled in this note, but please respond with the
way you envision reinforceable shields working.
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 647 DATE/TIME: 07-08-88 12:11am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0 THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
The latest points of interest...
1)Saving Games. It's just plain handy. A save game feature allows you
to continue a particularly interesting game even if you have to leave
the computer for some unexpected reason. Also, if a game took much
longer than expected (i.e., you are doing well against incredible odds),
you might want to save it and resume it later when time is available.
A successful game against a large number of ships can take up a great
deal of time, and it would be handy to break up that huge block of time
into, say, noon hours and such.
2)I like the idea of reinforcable shields taking strength from other
shields. That would keep things interesting in a multi-enemy game...
In SFB, the only limit to shield reinforcement is the total amount of
energy that a ship has available. However, there is ALWAYS a shortage
of energy --you can never do everything you want to do! Everything
takes energy, and the captain must choose which option(s) are the best
choice. For instance, in SFB, a Fed Heavy Cruiser just cannot maintain
high speed while charging all weapons and heavily reinforcing a shield.
(by the way, in SFB, reinforcing a shield does not affect the other
shields strength). Also, reinforcing a shield in SFB is not energy
cheap. For comparison, to arm a phaser costs one energy point. A
close range phaser shot hits for about 7 points of damage. It would
an equivalent amount of shield reinforcement (7 points of energy) to
absorb those 7 points of damage. Also remember that the captain must
successfully predict which shield is about to be hit. The enemy can
always hold fire until the next turn, and since (in SFB) shield
reinforcement lasts for only the turn it is allocated, the enemy has
a chance of hitting an un reinforced shield next turn. Despite all of
these drawbacks, shield reinforcement is common in SFB. It is the
"catch-all" of excess ship energy, and it is almost always used when a
ship knows that a plasma is coming.
3)"Incoming Display" chart headings... I'll call back later with more
on that.
G'day, eh?
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 672 DATE/TIME: 07-14-88 12:06am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: scores and "status incoming" THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom:
I agree with Mike Benolkin. A clean victory should deserve a
higher score than a mixed victory/death --Especially since I
think all those scores above 200 are earned by multiple
explosions in a pack of enemies. I know I mentioned this
before, but I'm going to repeat it because I think you may
want to know that the 200+ score can be easily reached by
accident as well as by suicide. I got a score of 224.27 when
I took a single fed Dreadnought against 9 Klingon DN's and 8 BC's.
I didn't even try to kamikaze them, I tried to outrun the main
pack, picking at whoever was nearest while simultaneously trying
to maneuver the nearest klingon into his allies' torpedoes. It
was working until I lost some engine and suddenly found myself
in the middle of a long line of klingons. I was using probes for a
mine field behind me, and when one of the klingons phasered one,
a large number of my torps, their torps, my probes, and their ships
blew up in sequence until we were all dead. The explosive radius
of each destruction must have overlapped and caused the chain reaction.
Again, I think one way of preventing this, by the way, is to
add a strategy that prevents such bunching up when a large number
of ships is going against one or a few. That would also
counter my strategy of leading the nearest klingon into a pack
of his allies' torps, since the torps would be coming in from
many different directions instead of one. The way things exist
now, it is actually easier to destroy all the enemies in the
scenario I just mentioned than in my favorite "ultimate challenge"
scenario: 1 Fed HC Vs. 5 Klingon BCs.
But back to a previous topic: The "Status Incoming"
command. I thought of a few column headings, and here they are.
WEAPON(S) -probe or weapon type.
NUMBER -number in that group.
COURSE -of weapon.
BEARING -from you.
RANGE -from you.
TIME -since launch. (NOT fuse time, which should be unknown)
SHIP -ship that launched the weapons
DISPERSION -of torps. Handy with the SHIP column. 6 torps at
45 degree dispersion from a ship 20000 away could
thus be ignored, for instance.
I hope that's helpful, added comments from anyone are encouraged...
g'day
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 673 DATE/TIME: 07-14-88 2:39am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: scores and "status incoming" THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
You are right when you say something needs to be done about
the bunch up problem. The only thing is that it is a little
bit more difficult than one might think. For example, if
all the enemy ships are in a bunch but you turn and run, the
added time of them trying not to bunch up simply puts them
farther behind in the chase. I'm not saying something
shouldn't be done, only that it may have other implications.
Mike is the strategy expert and you should probably direct
these ideas at him.
I also agree that a new scoring system needs to be put in place.
The current scoring was originally added as an after thought
because we felt we needed an endgame display. We needed something
to put on it and so we made up the odds scoring. It is a very
simple scoring method that simply compares the condition of
each side at end game with the condition of each side at the
start. Maybe the program should keep track of who actually
inflicted what damage and use this information for scoring. The
only thing is, in a real battle does it matter who did what? Isn't
the only important thing the outcome? Maybe not. In any case
a new scoring system needs to be implemented.
On your weapons chart, it looks fairly straight forward to add
except for "time since launch" and "dispersion". All devices
only keep track of the remaining timefuse so we would have to
add the time elapsed. Dispersion is more difficult since torps
fired in this manner are actually seperate torpedos and their
"co-torpedos" are not kept track of. Other than this it would
be a very simple addition.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 710 DATE/TIME: 07-20-88 4:59am
FROM : DAVID JACOBSON RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Well, I just sent in my $15 contribution for Begin. I am in support
of version 2.0 and the modifications that were posted. I DO HOWEVER
feel that another possible addition my be looked into. Like a
previous user stated, The Kzinti race might be an interesting
addition as would the Tholians and their web. I think if the user
(of the game) could configure other ships and new fleets and save
these, then this "other race(s)" interest would be solved.
Personally, I would like to add a Romulan Dreadnought or an Excelsior
class Battleship to the Feds. I suggested and data file that
accompany the Begin program that contained the configurations for the
ships and would be accessed during the opening configuration of Begin
with the ability to build ships in the configuration and add them to
current fleets or create new fleets. I know that this makes the odds
calculation difficult but if the odds are calculated on the basis of
the configuration of the ship (ie, power, weapons, energy production,
warp maximums, etc.) then this wouldbe accounted for in the new
configurations.
An interesting idea?
Thanks for a great prog
David T Jacobson
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 731 DATE/TIME: 07-25-88 1:00am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: User Designed ships THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
With all of these very good ideas coming in lately concerning
user designed ships, I wonder if you may have been thinking
much about ways to implement the idea. A bell went off in my
head when I ran across my old Car Wars game today, and I
thought I'd stick my two cents in again.
Car Wars uses a simple to learn yet difficult to master
system of purchasing a combat vehicle from the chassis up.
There are three limiting factors: money, space, and weight.
The first is simply an agreed upon amount that all combatants
must use to shop for parts. The latter two depend on what
chassis you buy. Simply, a larger chassis has more space and
can carry more weight. A player would opt for a smaller
chassis if he preferred maneuverability, acceleration, or
would like to save money on a cheaper chassis to buy better
weapons and defenses.
All other options beyond the chassis take up the limited
space or weight or both, and all cost money. The best weapons
and defenses cost the most, and often take up more space.
Engines take up a great deal of all three of these limiting
factors, but they also come in a large variety. Almost all
vehicles are outfitted with armor, which costs more money
with each point added, but mainly weighs lots.
The trick to vehicle design, of course, is to get the
best balance within the restraints you are faced with.
Mission goals are important to keep in mind here. A hit and
run mission, for instance, requires a vehicle that can zip
in, punch hard, take a bit of damage, and then zip out.
The parallels to begin would not be too hard to make.
Chassis size: DN -> HC -> DD -> FR -> IN
Engines: orion -> klingon -> fed -> romulan
Weapons: Lots of variety here. (same in Car Wars)
This opens up a whole lot of room for growth
without causing too much hassle with the main
program. Consider...
Phasers in varieties of power and range.
Probes in more variety, including those warp 30
low yield "kzin drones" someone mentioned.
Defenses: Shields don't quite make the transition from
armor. Perhaps adding shield generators as
pieces of equipment (and can be damaged)?
Miscellaneous: Batteries and reactors can be low
cost/weight/space alternatives to engines, but of
course are not as versatile. A transporter may
be very cheap in all three areas, but some may
be stingy about purchasing one. Other new
equipment could be similarily included --any
suggestions out there?
As for the first limiting factor I mentioned, money,
either that can be used, or else some form of "construction
points" system based on combat worth.
I hope this is of some help!
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 732 DATE/TIME: 07-25-88 1:26am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: User Designed ships THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I have been somewhat interested in player designed ships since the
first version of Begin. Internally every ship is simply a single
data structure filled out with the appropriate values. It takes
all of a few minutes to add a new ship class to the game. Adding
new torps, probes and nations is just as easy as long as you don't
want to invent a new attribute, which requires new code.
To allow player designed items requires, as you have stated, that
there must be some limit or cost for creating each ship, torp, etc.
The idea of financial cost is a new idea that we maybe could use.
Each player has a total number of $ they have to build their fleet
with each ship system having it's own advantages and disadvantages.
In the mean time, we could very easily add a few new ship classes,
nations, torp and probe types, etc. Of course they cannot be to
much different using only the available attributes. If you or
anyone has any exact specifications for new "things" we will put
them in. Just check the library computer on current items to see
what the available attributes are and give us a "library computer
entry" for each of your new items. They could be part of V1.65
which we are going to ship with the Advanced Strategy Manuals.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 750 DATE/TIME: 07-28-88 10:04am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Here is how I envision shield reinforcement to work...
Shields are reinforce by the amount of eu that are not being consumed
elsewhere to charge banks, load tubes, or maneuver. Therefore spare
energy comes from the reactors, batteries and the warp engines. How
many times have you heard Kirk say "warp power to the shields?"
When warp power is diverted to shields, then maximun warp speed is
reduced proportionately to the amount of eu diverted. Safe cruise
speed would be reduced as well. Conceivably you could burn out the
warp drive moving at warp 1 if you were trying to reinforce all the
shields with damaged reactors.
Some limits to reinforcement...
Any one shield can only be reinforced to 60% (maybe 80%) of its full
strength level. So if shield 1 is at 38%, it can be reinforced to 98%
maximum.
The ships total power output will determine if the ship can reinforce
shields and continue to charge weapons systems and for how long. This
Ò#þ·ýDð¨L�–63
Something happened to my line there...
anyway... This will mean that the dreadnoughts can stand and fight the
longest which is as it should be. That's why they were built !! To
win battles.
Once shield reinforcement is installed it will make the batteries far
more important. The way the game is now, if you are relying on
battery power, you will probably be dead in a couple more turns anyway.
...
The command should work somewhat like this...
REIN 1 2 3 This will attempt to reinforce shields 1, 2, and 3 by
dividing the available power evenly between them.
REIN 1
REIN 2
REIN 3
This will reinforce shield 1 to full strength, then shield 2 to full
strength and then shield 3. The difference is that shield 1 has priority.
Shield 3 gets reinforcment only if there is enough power to first
reinforce shields 1 and 2.
Power to reinforce the shields should come from the warp engines last
since we still want the ship to be able to maneuver if needed. Perhaps
when maneuvering, shield reinforcement power will come heavily from the
batteries. Then they can be recharged when the ship stops moving (if
ever).
My last comment is shield regeneration. The shield generators still
provide the base shield deployment capability. So the base shield
level will still regenerate as before. As the base rate comes up, the
shield will draw less power from the reinforcement. e.g. shield
1 is at 60%. It is reinforced to 100%. The additional 40% comes from
the reactors. In the next cycle the shield regenerates to 61%. It now
requires only 39% of its power from the reactors to maintain the 100%
level.
The last issue I think is what happens when a reinforced shield is HIT?
I think the hits should be allocated against the shield generator base
proportionally. i.e. A shield at 40% is hit and falls to 20% whereas
a shield that is at 40% reinforced to 100% receives the same hit. That
shields generator will get knocked down to 32% and the reinforced value
of that shield will now be 92%.
...
This means that reinforced shields will fall slower which is correct.
Also it means that reinforced shields can be maintained at 60 % until
the warp drive burns up. Is this ok?? I think it is. If not
an alternative would be that a shield can be reinforced only as much as
the shield generator is capable of maintaining the shield. e.g.
A shield at 50% can be reinforced to 100% But a shield at 40% can
only be reinforced to 80%. A shield at 10% can only be reinforced to
20%. That might work better !!
Comments anyone????????/
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 753 DATE/TIME: 07-29-88 12:44pm
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Thanks for your detailed explanation. Do I understand correctly,
that a shiel cannot be reinforced beyond 100%? But, if a shield is
reinforced even without being damaged it will be harder to damage?
Please clarify your ideas on these two points for me. I think that
you have described a workable system and it gives Tom and I something
to start from (or adopt intact).
Thanks again,
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 754 DATE/TIME: 07-29-88 12:48pm
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : ROB GREENBERG PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I was thinking that maybe there should be a limit on probes (a high
one, but a limit). I think that probes are little "ships" that
are manufactured somewhere. (Unlike torpedoes, that are just energy).
I know that they have shown "torpedo cases" on the Start Trek Movie,
but that didn't convince me. Anyway, if there is some mechanism to
torpedoes, I would hate to have to worry about it. (I mean, I
would hate to have the enemy ships have to worry about it).
How many probes would be a reasonable number -- 25?
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 758 DATE/TIME: 07-30-88 3:48am
FROM : PATRICK MCCURDY RECEIVED : YES
TO : ROB GREENBERG PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Probes THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Rob,
I totally agree!! I love to probe the hell out of the enemy when I am
outnumbered and being chased. I generally try to torp/probe/torp/probe/
manuever/reload probes - repeat. I think it would be great if probes
were autoloading. I also DON'T like the idea of a limit (no matter how
high) on probes.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 775 DATE/TIME: 08-01-88 2:47am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
How many probes are a reasonable number?
That depends on your thinking.
Are just Kzinti ships going to get probes? (I recommend this).
If just the Kzinti ships are going to get probes, I would make probes
their main weapons, with phasers being secondary.
If probes are their main weapons, I would adjust the number of probes to
the size of ship. Small Kzinti ships might only have 1 launcher, but
could hold around 30 probes. Medium size Kzinti ships might have 2 or 3
tubes and could hold 50 or 60.
Large Kzinti ships might have 6 tubes and have 180 or 200 probes.
Before you impose limits on the number of drones, keep in mind that
almost all of the drones launched will not hit. If 4 are launched at the
same time and 1 is detonated by a phaser shot, all 4 are lost
*permanently*.
Try playing a game running a Federation Heavy Cruiser or Dreadnought and
see how many photon torpodoes are fired throughout a game. Are you still
sure you want a ship limited to 25?
Remember, all I'd have to do is fire 1 phaser per round to detonate
incoming drones. As long as I fired my phasers 1 at a time, I couldn't
be hit. (That is, assuming the Kzinti was firing 1 at a time. He
wouldn't want to fire more or they'd just be blown up together.) So,
all you have to do is keep 1 phaser charged and you could close on the
Kzinti ship. At close range, of course, his drones aren't going to do
him any good.
Just a thought,
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 779 DATE/TIME: 08-01-88 4:26pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Regarding the number of probes... I think it should be much higher like
100. I guess it depends on how you envision a probe. I always thought
of it as a big magnetic bottle filled with antimatter.
Though I admit I haven't considered its method of propulsion yet.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 782 DATE/TIME: 08-01-88 4:41pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike,
To answer your two questions...
Yes a shield canNOT be reinforced beyond 100%. That would burn out
the shield generator because it is not big enough to project that much
energy out into space.
..
I am not sure if I understand your other question but this is what
I think you mean...
A shield cannot be reinforced beyond 100% period. If shield 1 is at 100%
and if you enter the REIN 1 command, then shield one will be in
reinforcement mode. However no energy will be drawn from the rest of
the systems until after that shield has been hit. It will receive the
normal amount of energy drain that it would have if it were not
reinforced. However on the next cycle that shield will automatically be
reinforced since the command has already been issued. Then it would be
harded to damage further. But the first hit will be as an unreinforced
shield.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 783 DATE/TIME: 08-01-88 4:50pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: New command THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
It would be nice to be able to tell the helmsman to "maintain this
distance from the (shipname).
A second command also necessary and handy would be to order your
ship on a heading which brings shield 3 to face the enemy ship.�*¸ò¥¾tÿ
I got dropped again !!!!!
This is like PURSUE brings shield one to face the enemy ship.
..
I will have additional comments later.. I am working on the
STATUS INCOMING display. I also think that is important.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 786 DATE/TIME: 08-02-88 7:58am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I guess 100 probes wouldn't be unreasonable. I always envisioned torps
to be the magnetic bottle -- I think of probes as little ships, covered
with pipe, wires, sensors, and peices of old plastic models like in the
movies.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 787 DATE/TIME: 08-02-88 8:02am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Yes, those were my questions. About the second point -- that means if
my shield is damaged, it is actually better for me because I can
reinforce it and make it get damaged slower. Perhaps if you reinforce a
100% shield, it should still get the slower damage bonus.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 790 DATE/TIME: 08-02-88 9:47am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
It would not be better for you if your shield were damaged because it
would get damaged
less. (that should be a comma up there. I haven't tried to edit messages
yet).
Because NOW you HAVE to use ship's power to reinforce the shield. This
almost definitely will mean a battery drain or slowing down (unless your
in a Dreadnought).
I think from the point of making it work in the game...
You cannot reinforce a full shield because the shield did
not consume ship's power during that cycle. So from the point of
ship's power we would be getting a cycle where the ship could
generate lots of extra power without it costing anything. e.g.
The ship has full shields and ALL shields are reinforced. So far
no power is consumed fro reinforcement. Now the ship is surrounded
by probes. They all go off... Since it was not costing the ship
any power that cycle to reinforce the shields... how could it
reasonably reinforce all the shields so that they received
less damage then an unreinforced shield.
I don't know... How do you think that would work? I just don't
think the shield generators can project or channel more energy through
them than 100%. I also don't think the power transfer could be
instantaneously converted from warp or battery to shield energy.
The generator needs to convert the battery power to shield energy and
then this energy has to be projected out into space.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 792 DATE/TIME: 08-02-88 10:08am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
On the subject of probes...
What powers those things ??
I thought of them as a big charge and a small engine which was
propelled by the energy in the charge. If probes travel at warp 2
then they need energy to move faster then light and to accelerate
when following objects.
I thought that the charge in the probe should decrease as the probe
travels through space.
This would discourage people from using the technique of running away
and laying probes behind you.
I have used that technique as well but I do not believe it to
be very realistic.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 793 DATE/TIME: 08-02-88 11:29am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I think that is a good idea. Probes could use up their explosive charge
as they travel. You should also be able to vary their speed, then, to
make them use less energy. Or even make them go 0, then they would be
like mines.
On the shields -- now I think I understand. Reinforcing the shield back
to 100% makes it damage slower simply because the shield is at 100%!
I was thinking that the act of reinforcing would make the shield damage
more slowly.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 797 DATE/TIME: 08-03-88 12:53am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I kind of like the idea of being able to reinforce a shield beyond the
100% level. If I am about to fried by a plasma torpodoe, I'd like to be
able to say, "Divert all available energy to shield 1!"
To make this balanced, you'd have to get rid of most ships' excessive
energy levels, otherwise it'd be, "Channel 200 energy units into the
front shield to soak up the 4 incoming Plasma Torpodoes!"
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 812 DATE/TIME: 08-08-88 9:03am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Actually I am replying to the shield comment, but I like the idea of
variable speed probes as well.
I don't necessarily think that all empires should have all
technologies hence all weapon types.
Shields...
I think you understand what I am saying also but I was confused when I
read your mail.
The base shield generator strength is damaged more slowly when a shield
is reinforced becuase the shield is getting extra power from the ship.
Therefore the power it takes to absorb a hit it divided proportionately
between the shield generator and the reinforcement power. A shield at
100% cannot be reinforced, therefore it receives the full effect of a hit.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 814 DATE/TIME: 08-08-88 9:15am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : ROB GREENBERG PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Rob,
If you are about to be hit by a plasma torp you should be ok if your
shield is at 100% to begin with. If it is not at full strength then
the shield can be reinforced to 100% but not beyond that.
I see the shield generator as a projector capable of projecting energy
out into space. If the shield is hit then it's energy field out in
space is weakened. It can be strengthened by allowing it to build back
up (regenerate) or by reinforcement.
When reinforcing the shield, the shield still cannot project more energy
out into space then what it was orginally designed for. This would be
the 100% level.
I think if everyone thinks that shields should be reinforcable beyond 100%
then there should be a penalty for doing so. First there should be a
time limit becuase the shield generator is overloaded and could burn out.
Second the cost of overloading the shield would be that the shield needs
a recovery time. This would be a time when the shield would be up at less
then 100% say 90% until it could "cool down". To keep this simple it
could simply be the regen time.
Tour comments are invited !!
oops !! I mean Your comments!
Glenn
cc: Mike Higgins
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 816 DATE/TIME: 08-08-88 9:30am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Here is what I think the STATUS INCOMING display should look like at
a minimum...
TIME TO
IMPACT WEAPON BEARING MARK RANGE FROM SHIP
3 MKVII(6) 180 180 8000 Constitution
2 plasma(2) 3 3 6000 Condor
6 KLLP 235 235 4000 Asp
3 DNK 165 165 4000 Phantom
..
This display will show all incoming fire that is currently going to
IMPACT this ship. By turning some of these entries may disappear.
It may also be true that by turning some new entries may appear.
.
This should work as the CHART command, i.e. you should be able to see
what the incoming display looks like for any ship, and it should not take
a turn to use the command.
.
Comments... Glenn.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 817 DATE/TIME: 08-08-88 9:38am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: empire technologies THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike,
What is the logic of having the romulon shields regenerate so quickly?
If all empires do not have equal technologies which I agree, then should
shield reinforcement be given to all ?
glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 818 DATE/TIME: 08-08-88 6:19pm
FROM : BRAD MCELHANEY RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Gentleman, Im new to this fasinating game and have another! suggestion
in addition to the 3 pages I sent with my contribution - what self
respecting pirate commander wouldn't grab and recondition any ships
he could get his hands on. I believe that when a human chooses the Orion
option he should get a choice of any ship by any maker. I mean if I were
able to capture a Fed DR it sure would be nice to go among the sheep and
create havoc on an unsuspecting foe - after all "WE ARE ALL ONE BIG HAPPY
FLEET" according to the infamous Khan. Thanks again for the best
simulation of a simulator I have seen to date.
cc: Tom Nelson
Mike Higgins
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 822 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 12:23am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: shields THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I really like Glenn Ironhat's and everybody else's ideas about
shield reinforcement. --Especially the way that the bigger ships
will be able to do more of it than the smaller ones (It only
seems right that it should be so).
I have an addition to Glenn's command syntax that allows more
control for the player as to where the energy is coming from
and how much is to be reinforced. With such control, a player can
use battery power when other sources are near their limits, thus
easing the strain on the old warp thermometer, for instance.
Anyway, how does this look?
REIN 1,2,3 40-100-40 batt
which means: reinforce shields 1, 2, and 3 with 40, 100, and 40
energy units, respectively, from the batteries.
This is a pretty complex command statement, but I wanted to
show the most complex form in order to give everybody out there
some more inspiration for other ideas about the subject.
There could, of course, be a simpler command form for less
picky captains. Take this example:
REIN 6 50
which means reinforce shield 6 with 50 points of energy. This
energy would come from the reactors and engines, and, if necessary,
from the batteries, using the same protocol as other ship systems.
As usual, feedback is encouraged!
On other aspects of the reinforcement topic, I think the
reinforcement should last only a single cycle, making it a very
costly and thus less frequently used tactic (Think about this: if
a shield could easily be reinforced by tremendous amounts, wouldn't
it always be? Then reinforcement would be standard and shields
would be invulnerable. On the other hand, large ships with excess
power can hold out against a smaller ship by pumping in extra power
when it was needed while it's opponent would be rightly outmatched
in the "excess power" struggle. This seems to make sense to me on
all sides)
G'day, eh?
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 823 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 12:25am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Probes. The discussion keeps getting more interesting. On the one
hand, they are a very useful weapon, and often mean the difference
between victory and defeat. On the other hand, their use in Begin
is far more frequent than in any of the Trek source material, and
the purist in many rebels against this. It's no wonder we keep
trying to fiddle with probe rules when we really aren't at ease
with their existence, but feel equally attached to them as well.
There is a close parallel to this in Star Fleet Battles, the game
I (and others) have mentioned on this board before, includes two
related weapons: Transporter Bombs, and mines.
TB's and Mines had their origins in single episodes of Star Trek.
The mine is basically a large nuclear warhead which is released
from the ship and just sits there until a ship comes close and hits
it. It was used as a desperate move by the Romulan commander in
"Balance of Terror." In SFB, mines were initially only used by
Romulan War Eagles.
Transporter Bombs probably had the same basis as the probes in Begin
have. TB's (I think) were based on an episode which showed the crew
beaming an anti-matter bomb out of the ship and to some target.
As SFB evolved and grew (some might say to an overgrown extent),
a minelaying class of ship was invented, and TB's were redesignated
"small mines" while the nuclear mines were labeled "large mines".
All races began using mines more frequently.
Now, back to my point. TB's and mines being excellent deterrants
against pursuers, players tended to over-use them to the extent
that limits had to be put upon their use to keep the game on track.
Limits were placed on the number of TB's a ship carried (12), and
beaming them out required dropping a shield. Later, using TB's
would cost a player victory points. Minesweeping rules were added.
In the end, a whole slew of rules were added to a game in order to
restore a balance of "atmosphere" that was almost ruined. This is
the track I think probes are on in Begin.
I have a number of ideas to prevent such an escalating problem:
1)reduce the number of probe launchers on each ship to 1.
2)reduce the number of available probes to a "common sense" number
for a weapon that is only used in last ditch defense, say, 5-15,
depending on the class of vessel.
3)do not make probe reloading automatic.
4)take away the motive power of the probe. It would just sit where
you drop it like a mine.
5)reduce any other "frills" a mine wouldn't have that probes do
have now.
I don't write this as a totally anti-probe rap, but in concern for
the flavor of Begin. I use probes a great deal myself, but I always
feel better about a victory when I do it without probes.
Anyway, I thought this alternative direction on the probe issue
might be worth considering by the playing public....Comments Anyone?
Oh, by the way, since I'm basically chucking the probe as an
offensive weapon out the window, I think I'd better pass along an
alternative for the Kzinti fast-probe-with many launchers idea.
Why not just add drone launchers --They could not only be more
directly what the Kzin use, but serve the purpose probes are being
used to do now. The difference is that the probes are primarily
defensive while the drones would be primarily offensive.
There should still be limits on their numbers, but much higher,
say 4 drone launchers with 10-20 drones each on a cruiser.
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 826 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 7:57am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
On the Status Incoming Display...
Now I see what you mean. There is more information presented
than I was thinking of. The game doesn't keep track of who fired
a torpedo. It wouldn't be too difficult to add, though.
Well, what does everyone think? I guess the ship's computer should
easily be able to come up with this information. I assume it calculates
what will hit you IF you maintain the same course and speed.
Does everyone like it?
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 827 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 8:11am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: empire technologies THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Well, the Romulans just happened to develop different shield generators.
They regenerate fast, but they are easily damaged.
No, I don't think that everyone HAS to have shield reinforcement.
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 829 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 1:15pm
FROM : MARTIN WATERHOUSE RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: probes THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I think that probes (composed of finite matter) should be limited to
the amount of let's say a metal like that of a ship's hull. If you run
out or need to replenish your probe supply then you need to either use
your own hull!!!!...or go grab some wreckage from a recent battle ....
or transfer/capture from other ships!
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 830 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 2:59pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike et al,
The status incoming display shows what will hit you IF you maintain
the same course and speed. Changing one or the other may cause some
items to go away AND also some new items to show up !!
Also, in the case of probes, the impact time could change if you should
change course. If you were to elude the probe at a speed faster then
the probe is going, I think the probe should still be displayed but the
TIME TO IMPACT would be left blank. Could you do that ??
The reason for showing probes tracking you but that won't be able to
catch you is so that you don't waste time turning into a direction back
towards an enemy probe.
glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 831 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 3:06pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
As far as capturing ships...
I think ALL nations should have that capability ! I don't know if
it would be used much though unless you are thinking about a
campaign game, because it probably wouldn't do much good to blast a
ship to pieces and then board it and start making repairs !!!
glenn
cc: Brad Mcelhaney
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 833 DATE/TIME: 08-09-88 3:14pm
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: reinforce shields and hurry !! THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
David,
Thanks for your comments...
I have a comment on your idea. I think the way that;઄ïÿ�d
my line got dropped again. Don't understand it...
I think the way that battery power works i.e. it drops very quickly when
it is being used, that it might be better to allow the ship's
computer ( the game program logic) to decide where to get the power from
to reinforce shields. Warp power would be used last so as not to deter
movement as much as possible.
If the amount of power to a shield IS going to be an option, than I would
like to see the default value to be whatever value is required to bring
the shield up to full strength.
.
I don't agree with the idea that it should last for only one cycle or
that it should be excessively costly.
The ships should be designed to channel power wherever it is needed
during battle. I think perhaps we should be able to channel warp power
into the phaser banks for more powerful phasers in the same way that we
want to use shield reinforcement. I think we should wait to see how
shield reinforcement works out first though.
If we are not overloading the ships shield generators, and we are
slowing down or not charging our weapons on that cycle then I think
that is enough penalty for reinforcing the shields.
No ship would be able to just sit there with reinforced shields and
hold out against another ship that was firing at it. ( Unless its a
Dreadnought vs. an escort in which case the escort captain deserves
to get blown up for being stupid.)
What do you think ??
glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 838 DATE/TIME: 08-10-88 1:39am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin shield reinforcement THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I guess the difference in our thoughts about how shield generators work
boils down to this: You feel that the shields are already working at
100% of maximum output.
I, on the other hand, coming from the relatively energy starved universe
of Star Fleet Battles, feel that the shields are at full only because
they are getting all of the energy that the ship can supply while it is
busy moving, charging weapons, etc.
I've always felt that the generators could produce stronger shields
simply by greatly increasing the energy supplied to them.
Why do I think of them this way? As I said earlier, partly because
that's how Star Fleet Battles does it. Partly because that's how Star
Trek seems to work it.
Several times Kirk shut down all unnecessary items on the Enterprise to
deliver more warp power to the shields.
In 'my' universe, that's the penalty for shoving enormous amounts of
power to the shields -- no more running away at Warp 9 while
simultaneously charging 8 Photon torpodoes and 6 phaser banks.
In short, you have so much energy and it's up to you where you spend it.
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 839 DATE/TIME: 08-10-88 1:49am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: shields THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I had always thought that shield enforcement should last only for a
single cycle.
>> If a shield could easily be reinforced by tremendous amounts, wouldn't
it always be?
My answer is, "Yes, if you are satisfied to sit there immobile, doing
nothing but reinforcing 1 or 2 shields."
The secret seems to be do reduce the energy from each ship so that it is
precious.
As a Captain, I don't particularly care whether the energy for my shields
is coming from Warp Drives, batteries, generators, or oarsmen. I
definitely like your second command syntax better.
It also seems to me that my suggestion would be simpler for players and
for Tom and Mike to program.
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 840 DATE/TIME: 08-10-88 1:59am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
It's an interesting idea, but what about the common situation (for me) of
the enemy firing tons of torpodoes at me?
In the mean time, I'm taking wild evasive action, trying not to get blown
to pieces.
It seems to me that the command wouldn't do much for me then -- except
possibly tell me when I won't be hit by the incoming missiles anymore.
That's something that my computer should really be able to tell me anyway.
I guess it would be useful....
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 841 DATE/TIME: 08-10-88 2:02am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Rather than the Orions having captured enemy ships, I would rather see
them outfitted with captured enemy devices -- such as Romulan Plasmas,
drones, MKVII photon torpodoes, etc.
Of course, each ship could be customized and each weapon (according to
scarcity) would have a certain point value. Plasma torpodoes, for
example, should be quite rare. (The Romulans don't usually surrender
their ships -- they blow them up).
This would make the Orions *vastly* more fun to fight against. When you
charge into combat, who knows what will come shooting back at you?
Also, right now the Orions need major rennovations. Let's face it -- any
other race can easily beat the crap out of the Orions without working up
a sweat. The only way to get a decent fight out of them is to fight
17 of their largest ships with 1 or 2 ships. 30% of the enemy is going
to run away anyway.
What it boils down to is that the Orions aren't much fun to fight --
compared to what they'd be like if they had a mixture of enemy
technologies on their ships.
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 842 DATE/TIME: 08-10-88 2:11am
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: blowing up... THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
You know, I just realized something about Begin that has been bothering
from the first time I played it.
It boils down to this -- ships get blown up too easily. Almost every hit
on a ship damages something vital inside of it.
What I think is badly needed is lots of 'hull' to soak up some of the
damage. This would have several interesting side effects.
Getting one or two shots into a ship with downed shields wouldn't
necessarily blow it up.
That ship would still be there firing back (or at a minimum, turning a
new shield to the enemy).
It would help relieve the very silly situations which crop up in Begin
now -- one ship facing 17 enemy ships and blowing up half (or all) of
them.
What I'm proposing is *not* simply loading up all of the ships with tons
of excess 'hull' damage so that they can't be damaged.
What I'm suggesting is that the larger ships have more excess hull
(right?) to soak up damage with. Each shot should do some damage to hull
and some to critical areas.
I mean, come on, there's a lot more to the Enterprise than warp drives,
phasers, and torpodoes, right? There are lots of living quarters, decks,
hallways, research labs, auxiliary control areas, etc, etc.
Shouldn't they have a chance of being hit, too?
Of course, something like a Plasma Torpodoe would still heavily devestate
a ship with downed shields...
Comments, anyone?
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 843 DATE/TIME: 08-10-88 2:48am
FROM : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) RECEIVED : YES
TO : ROB GREENBERG PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: blowing up... THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
As I started to read your comment I was going to disagree about having
a stronger hull to absorb more hits. You idea that some damage would
happen to other ship area which we don't care about changed my mind.
If I think of these "hull hits" which don't show up on the damage report
as actually making my bathrooms explode, it makes more sense.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 852 DATE/TIME: 08-11-88 9:21pm
FROM : ROB GREENBERG RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: blowing up... THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Yeh, could you imagine a Klingon Dreadnought with *no* working bathrooms?
Almost as funny as beaming a transporter room full of tribbles onto their
bridge!
Rob
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 853 DATE/TIME: 08-12-88 12:03am
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: shield reinforcement THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Glenn,
My reasons for having shield reinforcement last for such a short time
(1 cycle) are several. Here's a couple.
First, and probably least complicated, is simply to keep the
game from taking several hours to play. As it is now, a skilled
player can dodge torpedoes indefinitely, yet all the while
striving unsuccessfully (mostly) for his own first crippling strike
against the enemy. --remember, the enemy would get to reinforce his
shields too, and thus all combats would take much, much more time to
finish. The time it would take to make a decisive blow would be much
longer, and almost all less than decisive blows would be quickly re-
paired by damage control. Especially with Klingons.
Second, the point I made earlier about why aren't ships' shields
always provided with god-like reinforcement --it simply isn't practical
or economical for the ships' energy to be used that way. i.e., the
shields (unreinforced) are as strong as they can be made without
resorting to inefficient and wasteful energy levels. However, in the
heat of combat inefficiency and waste can be tossed out the window in
favor of keeping the ship safe from impending doom, and so such
reinforcement becomes tacticly useful in crucial moments. One could
always add to this basic idea the idea that if such shield reinforce-
ment were not temporary, the shield generators would burn out,
although I think there's no need to go that far.
On other comments: Yes, the penalty of not moving around much
and not charging weapons would be pretty devastating by itself, but
remember that threatening volleys do not come around very often
unless you're facing a fresh romulan plasma torp, a salvo of eight
photons, or fighting a large number of ships (in which case con-
centrated fire will blow the hell out of a totally reinforced shield
anyway and a wise captain would rather stay mobile/harder to
concentrate fire on) and so the "reinforcement alternative" will
really not come up often enough to totally disrupt other systems'
energy use. On occasion, though, it will. Say you're cruising at
maximum warp (and have been for some time) --you don't want your
engines to go critical in trade for a safety cushion on one shield.
That's one reason I added the choice of allowing the player to
choose which source the energy would come from...sometimes you
WOULD need to draw power from the batteries, but usually you would
not be that picky.
You also bring up the idea of channeling warp energy into other
ship systems for added punch, like phasers. In SFB, that IS possble
with photons (and some other heavy weapons). It also works on the
basis that the "extra energy for extra punch" principle works, but is
less effecient. For instance, a photon can be charged with 100%
more energy than the norm and the result is a torp that can do 100%
more damage, but with many added restrictions os range, holding them
without firing them, etc. That may be an interesting addition.
As usual, though, in what seems to be the shape of things to
come, the shortage of ship energy when faced with the many alterna-
tives it can be used for will leave the player with the ultimate
decisions over whether to reinforce, cause extra damage, move faster,
or whatever. Part of what makes SFB fun is that since there are so
many ship systems to power, and not enough energy to go around, you
spend a great deal of time each turn choosing which systems you want
to use and anticipating what systems the enemy is going to use
against you. The strategies involved multiply.
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 856 DATE/TIME: 08-12-88 9:57am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : TOM NELSON (SYSOP) PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: blowing up... THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Tom, and Rob,
I always thought of hull hits that did no real damge but killed a few
crew members as the type that blew up the recreation room or something.
I think that the bigger ships should be built stronger and therefore
would be more able to handle hull hits without falling apart.
glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 867 DATE/TIME: 08-13-88 4:02pm
FROM : DAVE REYNOLDS RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: status incoming display THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I think Glenn has a good idea there... and the display looks good too! I
often have wondered while playing if I was gonna get HIT by a torp or if
it was going to barely miss me!
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 911 DATE/TIME: 08-23-88 12:06pm
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Random notes THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Hello, everyone, I was in Canada for a week, eh, so I haven't been
answering the mail. Here are some hot items:
1. Shield re-enforcement rules are being finalized and Tom and I
will agree on them soon. Of course, conflicting ideas represented on
the board will have to be resolved one way or the other... If we play
our cards right, we can offend everyone!
2. Lots of people have commented on allies shooting their own friends...
Well, they could be more cowardly about shooting when there is a
possibility of someone in the way, but that would result in only
the closest person firing at a target. Really, since you can't
predict where all your allies are going to travel (they could change
course at any time), you pretty much just have to check for
clear shooting when you fire. Rest assured that the never hit their
allies on purpose, the ally has moved into the way since they fired.
I would venture to say that hitting your friends is not common, and
it is better to gang-up fire on a target and risk hurting your friends
than to fly along uselessly without firing.
3. Where is that manual??? Please don't call the lawyers yet, all the
text is gathered and written and it is being formatted.
Mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 915 DATE/TIME: 08-24-88 11:09am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: allies shooting themselves THREAD : NO
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike & Tom,
Just a quick comment on that subject...
I think it will not be such a problem/disaster with the STATUS INCOMING
display !!! hint hint.
glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 916 DATE/TIME: 08-24-88 11:12am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : NO
TO : ALL PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Enemy strategy THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike & Tom,
After reading some of the comments about holes in the enemy strategy and
closing them I have a concern to express.
.
What is the goal here ?
If the eventual goal is to have the computer play a perfect game then
who would want to play against it ? This would mean that the biggest gun
or largest fleet would have the only chance of winning.
I don't think that would be a whole lot of fun.
It is my thought that you close all the holes in the enemy strategy that
you can find, and then purposely and randomly select a fault in the enemy
strategy to play against.
This would mean that part of the game becomes determining your
opponent's weaknesses or tendencies and exploiting them. I think this
should alway be part of any battle, game, or simulation. Superior force
does not always win, superior strategy and tactics is a big player.
Comments ??
Glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 918 DATE/TIME: 08-24-88 11:59am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Begin 1.6 THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I'll vote for reinforcable shields....they could really change the
strategy of the game. I ahve been playing BEGIN for almost a year now
after having picked it up on some BBS in CA, but until now (v1.6) had no
idea where I could send the shareware contribution (my version had no
such information)...expect my 15 bucks shortly...BEGIN is fantastic.
As a suggestion for the next version, try having the enemies use their
probes more often...they tend to be my primary weapon in many cases.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 919 DATE/TIME: 08-24-88 12:24pm
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
One thing I find annoying is that it is to easy to run from the enemy
while dropping streams of torps & probes, making the enemy fight "uphill"
all the way.
This could be rectified by either having directional torps/phasers, or by
setting certain misson objectives (such as havig to defend a planet,
capture a freighter, etc.) that won't let you race halfway to the next
star system while your enemies chase you...
JB
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 928 DATE/TIME: 08-26-88 11:11am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Enemy strategy THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
On a perfect strategy -- Don't worry, I am sure we could never create a
perfect strategy. The only goal is to remove glaring deficiencies that
cause them instant death. Think of this as evolution. Playing against
an atificail limitation in the enemies thinking soon gets very boring, so
changes in the strategy are necessary to eliminate these limitation and
start people looking for new ones!
mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 931 DATE/TIME: 08-26-88 11:14am
FROM : MIKE HIGGINS RECEIVED : YES
TO : JOEY BROWNING PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Yes, that is probably the worst thing about the game -- running makes it
too easy. I think you are right, though. There has to be some good
reason not to run -- otherwise it's just too attractive of a tactic.
mike
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 940 DATE/TIME: 08-29-88 9:17am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: Enemy strategy THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
Mike,
I agree with you until the point is reached where there are no new
holes in the enemy stategy. Then I think the game becomes less fun
to play because you need superior firepower in order to win. From
what you have said and what I can imagine, you are probably a long
way from a strategy without any holes in it.
I still think it a subject to be aware of for the future.
glenn
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 941 DATE/TIME: 08-29-88 9:24am
FROM : GLENN IRONHAT RECEIVED : YES
TO : MIKE HIGGINS PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I can see running away when it's one dreadnought against a whole fleet
of enemy ships. I don't understand why you would want to run away
when its one on one. My favorite scenario so far has been one fed
destroyer VS one klingon dreadnought. Now I have one that scenario
with no damage two times out of about 35 games. One time I ran and
probed the enemy and he destructed. I was lucky. The only other
clean victory was by going in and mixing it up. I used every weapon
I could including a lot of manuevering to constantly protect myself.
Most of the other games were evenly split between getting blown up and
blowing each other up.
The point I am making is if you want to play the game then why are you
running away ? Get in there and shoot it out. It's more fun.
That should say... Get in there and shoot it out.
glenn I.
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 945 DATE/TIME: 08-29-88 9:29pm
FROM : DAVID COULTHURST RECEIVED : YES
TO : GLENN IRONHAT PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
I like to choose the type of scenario that I want to play, and then
constrict myself by the rules I set down at the start. In most cases I
say, "no running away. If you run, you lose, because the planet you were
guarding just got razed..." There is one situation I keep running
during because that's the whole idea,
(oops) ---surviving. I have a little Kobiyashi Maru simulation a la Star
Trek 2. I run a fed heavy cruiser and the klingons have 3 battle
cruisers. You can run all you want, but the klingons are faster than
you. Eventually you find yourself facing allthree cruisers. That is,
unless, you can wear them down before they get to you. I have played it
many, many times, and I win outright about 50% of the time now.
Sometimes, though, I get nuked early. It's really challenging. I've
tried it a couple dozen times against 4 BC's, and have yet to win. Try
it out, it's probably one of the few instances where running is
tactically and ethically correct!
DAC
===============================================================================
MESSAGE: 946 DATE/TIME: 08-30-88 7:48am
FROM : JOEY BROWNING RECEIVED : YES
TO : DAVID COULTHURST PRIVATE : NO
SUBJECT: begin 2.0, suggestions THREAD : YES
FOLDER : B, "Begin/Clockwork Software"
One thing thaI would like to see would be some "fixed point" (such as a
planet, base, star, asteroid, etc.) so that I could determine just how
far I have "run". This would also allow me to set myself the objective of
"guarding the planet, etc.". Secondly, how about a cumulative timer of
the number of cycles that have passed since the beginning of the
scenario... this would allow me to impose a time limit on myself and
consequently make a given scenario more challenging.
Archive Part 1 Archive Part2 Archive Part3 Archive Part4 Archive Part5 Archive Part6
