There two problems with that, ferrous. One is that I have had a very, very serious life-long medical condition that I was born with. So serious that less than 20% of people born with it survive childhood. I made it through most of my life very well for someone who has this, but for the last 6 years or so it has kind of taken over. I have had skin cancer 6 times in the last decade, for example, and can no longer go out into sunlight. I live like a vampire, hiding from the sunlight. Because of this, and many other problems associated with it, I have been forced to work only part time (at night) for the last 6 years. It's almost as though my life half-ended about 6 years ago. So I don't make very much money anymore, in fact I barely get by with all the restrictions I have now. So I can't afford to hire a programmer.

Even if I could, I don't see how a simple prototype of a basic empire building game (the game I have for that) that has none of my special magic in it is going to help, It would be no different than games anyone else might make. And I would spend a lot of money for the same exact reaction I always get. Doing the Cold War game as that prototype, it could certainly show some things that have never been seen before... but getting even to that point would be, I am sure, significantly more work that a typical prototype. So it would cost even more, when I haven't had spare money for 4 years now.

So I can't afford to do that, and if I could it would probably cost twice whatever it is you are imagining it would because I would have to get the Event Cards in my cold war game functioning. That is the simplest demonstration of Rube that I can conceive. And, besides that, the design document for the Cold War game already IS that prototype. It's all in there already anyway.

Is this weapon balanced in a general sense, or is there a fatal flaw that must be corrected to avoid a serious game killing balance issue? What is the issue? And what is the solution to that issue? This really is very basic and simple stuff that, if you have an understanding of the combat environment, is obvious. That's why I need to ask SFB players not to answer, any of them would know the answer. Even the novices.

hm... There's a few issues if set in a realtime game.

1. The DPS calculation of the ship varies extremely depending on range, which means it's worthless on any ship that can't close a distance/is trying to target a smaller ship

2. It means that the ship with that weapon's only viable move is to get as close as possible to it's targets (make a bee-line towards them).

3. If a ship knows that weapon is being used, it can simply run in the opposite direction and use a weapon that should work with IDF like missiles

The simplest solution would be to allow the ship to charge shots to make the range falloff less severe. This means that the ship has to charge shots, and make sure they hit to get decent DPS without running straight at the enemy.

That's actually a very good answer. Your knowledge displayed here is on the right path, but quite a bit behind the curve. Technically, the correct answer is to be found within what you have said... but at the same time, "true root cause" of the problem is not understood. You are all around it, while very clearly not aware of the overall concept at play. For example...

Your point one is half correct, and half "dangerously incorrect" and will lead you to create more balance issues. This weapon needs to be on a slow ship to be balance, not a fast one.

Your point two can be true, but this is most often used as a stand-off weapon. A close attack is devastating, but uncommon.

Your point three is the one that is on to the actual problem, but far away from identifying what the true source of the problem is.

But your knowledge, wherever it is coming from, is on the way to the answer. That is sure. Maybe in 10 years or so, if you used ships like this, you would be there. That's about how long it took us, anyway:-)

Wrong, Oberon. It has nothing to do with SFB, and everything to do with reality and physics of the situation. This applies to all space combat in all games, and in reality really, and is not specific to SFB. As Conquestor already showed... he is half way to the answer, and he doesn't know SFB.

Actually there is One True ACM of Space combat, exactly as there is with real world aircraft. These laws apply to reality, not SFB. I recognize SFB specific issues. For example The Kaufman Retrograde applies to all space combat, and is the true source of this seeking weapon problem I have asked about. You can find out the very basics of what that is (it is actually a very complex subject that has been contemplated for decades) by searching for it, then finding my thread on Stardock's Star Control forums that will come up called "Map Size and The Kaufman Retrograde" and has my "Kavik_Kang" handled associated with it. It's on the first page when I search.

This is just one example of the "Laws of 2D ACM" that always apply in any situation or game no matter how you design it.

It's funny you should mention that, Ferrous, because that is actually my end plan here. I plan to give this a try again for at least a year, maybe two. And if that doesn't work, I am going to just make a web site with everything I've got for the PDU on it. Timeline, game summaries, design docs, everything I've got... and just leave it there and forget about. That actually is already the endgame plan here:-)

Ok. I took the time to think about this for a while because I want this thread to remain constructive. So I've realized that I should take the time right now to explain the limitations I am faced with in making the starship simulators actually function well and create a believable and immersive experience. There is nothing “magic” about it, and the situation is so complex that I can only make it happen in a very primitive way. This should illustrate a lot about what I am talking about when I say how complex this “open space” type of combat is to create a believable experience for the player, and for it to function well as a combat environment.

Oberon, your reaction too me is the same one I have always received from your world. So you are certainly in the majority in your opinion. So I would really like to ask you, since you say you've even read my blog, what it is that has you completely convinced that you are the expert here, and I don't know what I am talking about. I have been completely immersed in this for about exactly 30 years. This knowledge was accumulated over a period of 70 years beginning with Avalon Hill, or 40 if you only want to count SVC's “second generation of Avalon Hill” the Star Fleet Universe. Over that time, there have probably been about 250 staff members. I am among the most well known, and one of only 4 to have ever actually worked at Task Force Games. Most members of the SFB Staff have been doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers, game designers and military officers. There was a scientist from NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs, that Colonel from US Space Command. Or how about the Director of Threat Integration of the US Army. Look up that title, see what his job is. He probably hasn't had much time for SFB since around Sept 11th 2001, I would imagine, but he was once a member of the SFB Staff as well and is still active in gaming when he can be. He and I actually get along pretty well, too. These are the kinds of people who spent 40 years creating this “2D space combat ACM”. My “colleagues”. So what is it that has you so convinced that we don't know what we are talking about, and you are the expert in this discussion. I really would like to finally hear an answer to this question.

There are no direct sequels in my universe, except for these three starship simulators. There are a lot of reasons for that. The player has never played a game that works like this, and they've never seen a space ship anywhere near this detailed or sophisticated before. This is “next generation SFB designed specifically as a computer game ship”. [To make SFB player laugh... “It's even got freaking special sensors!!!”]. So there is a huge amount that the tutorial, and first few hour leg of the adventure game where there can't be any combat yet, must teach them. How to command a starship in my universe. Moving, shooting, using mines, using “missiles”, using scanners and sensors, electronic warfare... That's really more than enough for their first time commanding a starship, and it's not much. The next game, after they had 40-60 hours of practice with this, and all the voice/menu commands needed to make what you want to happen actually happen, then I can add more to this. One of the biggest limitations is actually what you can teach the player their first time out in a game that doesn't work like any game they have played before.

I already mentioned that this only works for 1v1 combat. There is a whole lot more than that it can't do in this first version. This version fights in only the most basic of ways. There are no advanced maneuvers or complicated fighting styles in this game. The next game would add greatly to the helm commands available in this game. This first game uses only the base, core, tactics and nothing more. There isn't even an Emergency Deceleration command because so much is missing from the “full reality” that ED is not even needed, it would serve no purpose. As primarily an adventure game, and not an endless series of repetitive fights, there aren't actually a whole lot of fights over the course of the entire game. They happen fairly regularly, across three different “races”. Each has 2 types of ships, one a little more powerful than the other... but they fight the same way. Then there will be a half dozen or so unique ships and bosses spread out across the game. This is necessary, the player can handle only the most basic of tactics their first time out. The second game will add much to all aspects of this. You can't just say “Oh, I have a cool ship to add” because all of the ships are designed in every way specifically to “dance” with the player's ship in specific ways. The AI of this game can only handle the few most basic tactics that are being used so far, but this will appear to be a miracle to the modern gaming audience. The enemy captains will appear to be downright clever, they don't know about all the other stuff that is missing. From their perspective... nothing is missing from the combat environment.

The second game is in a different variant. It's still a heavy cruiser (like Enterprise), but it is a different variant of a heavy cruiser that adds a whole new dimension to the second game in addition to all the new things added making the combat environment more complete. I said their were missiles in the first game, and there were, but not really. This game primarily adds missles, fighters, and other 3 or 4 race types/fighting style. It greatly expands helm commands to support this. In a true missile environment the ship needs to be able to do 3 new maneuvers just to have the defensive options it needs to deal with the various threats the missiles might become. There are several other new helm commands as well. The Operations station also becomes more detailed in it's control over the Internal Bay (Shuttle Bay), which is used for a lot more than just shuttles in this version. In the third game the new types of ships/fighting styles would be the “tricky and advanced” ones like cloaking or displacement (teleport) devices. Still, even in the end, and the farthest I intend to even take this... this is all a magic trick. It's all illusion. It is a sliver of a complete system with a still very limited varierty, in the grand scheme of things, of ship types, weapons, and ship systems that could exist in this type of game. The player doesn't notice this... we do have 9 primary races and lots of unique ships in the end, but what the player never knows is that is all it can handle. That cool ship they'd like to see in the game, the game probably can't handle it. It is, in the end, very very limited.

What mistakes? I've explained too you where you have been mistaken. I have not at all acted like you are personally attacking me. Not one bit. You are speaking too me as though I know nothing of the subject, and you are an expert I should be listening too. I was only wondering what you are basing that on. On what everyone in your industry has been basing that assumption on right from the beginning. Your response is exactly the response I always get... and then I am the one accused of being arrogant. I still wonder what that is based on. This isn't all in my head, I've had this same conversation for the last 20 years. I'm still trying to figure out where you feel that if what I say, with 30 years of experience at a very high level of this specific subject, does not "square with what you know" that you feel justified in assuming that I am the one that must be wrong, and you must be right. You just did it again right now, so what are you basing your conclusion that you must be right, and I must be wrong on? Does that make sense to you, that if we disagree about this specific subject that it is more likely that you are right?

As for "prototypes". Ferrous. I said it in the last post to you, but didn't really explain it. The thing that makes little sense too me about spending a lot of money to make a prototype of the cold war game is that that "prototype" would amount to a small fraction of what already exists in the game design document. This is one of three of the strat wargames that could be made as a board game. And this is the one that would make the best board game, and loses the least in the conversion. They can't feasibly be made as board games, or I would have long ago, the days of their being a market for a $800 "Axis & Allies x20" are long gone, nobody would buy them today. But the cold war game is pretty much a very sophisticated board game as a computer game... with some computer game thrown on top that can't exist in a board game to make it even better as a computer game. So the design document is actually a full playable game already. It doesn't make a lot of sense for my goal to be to spend thousands of dollars I don't have on a fraction of what already exists as a "prototype".

I'm going to work on another short thing like the limitations I face with the starship simulators, except this one about some of Rube's limitations that I have to work around. I think those are good subjects, at least hinting at the fact that this is not wishful thinking or me fooling myself. This really is the "3rd Generation of Avalon Hill". 70 years of evolution of a common core system of game design for representing real time. "Moments of time containing reality", the "3rd generation" description of it. This all wound up falling too me through an accident of history, through my position on the SFB Staff and resulting knowledge level of this work, and my very young age among those people that left me as one of only a very few who might have carried this on into the modern gaming era. The Pirate Dawn Universe is the final work product of hundreds of designers over a period of 70 years. That really is what it is.

And I have to wonder how an industry that claims to take its history so seriously could possible see no problem at all that it is incapable of so much as even taking a look at something like this. This doesn't raise anyone's eyebrows that you may have a tiny little flaw in your system somewhere? Where something like this is completely uninteresting too you, and you can find no reason to even take a look at it? That sounds perfectly like things are firing on a cylinders too you, does it?

In my world, I would have thought of that as a problem. And suggested to John that maybe he take a look at what this guy was talking about...