Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite?

[FireSoul]

Ah.. that one. Ok.

-- Luc

[Karnak]

Quote:
  Originally posted by Nanner:
last time ajtk.. my only point in responding to you is simply this: there were many factors to why sfc3 has not sold as well as people had hopped - you cannot pin it on any single thing. just as if i were to sit here and say (if sfc3 was successful) that the sole reason for its success was the rule change. that just is not true. most people bought/buy sfc because a) its trek and b) its the best game out there pitting trek ships against each other. it really is that simple.

Games like Battlefield 1942 were voted PCGamer's game of the year for 2002.  They did not need a movie to help it along.  Similarly, Ensemble Studios has sold a gazillion copies of their RTS Age of Empires series with their latest version, Age of Mythology, bringing in sizeable revenuse to bulge Microsoft's coffers.  Why?  Because, Bill Gates stuck with the same basic RTS formula for all the games.  Even LucasArts paid for the rights to use AoE's RTS model for its Clone War campaign game last summer. This is why Age of Empires series lives on even after doing 3 releases in,  I think, 4 years, about the same time period of the SFC series.  You build a niche product that sells and you stick with it.  This is  why MS never needed demos to get people excited about their games.  I certainly don't remember a demo for AoM.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nanner:
See.. if rule sets where the ONLY reason for sfc rise/fall, then you fail to talk about is the success/ lack of financial success of Orion Pirates. It was a stand alone expansion pack which actually comes to the closest to emulating sfb.. i do not see many people playing it while it is superior to eaw in every aspect.

regarding marketing, etc.. it could have been bill shatner or patrick stewart and it probably would have flopped - period. this goes much deeper than what you think.

that said, however, if you were to do your marketing research - you will find that the people with demographics lean toward the tng - like it or not. i am by far a tmp person more than tng (do not try to equate tng/tos with sfb/nonsfb rule sets - that is false.. im talking about trek - not rule sets) and i even realize it.

if you stick your head outside of this community and look around at other games and what takes to drive/ build them - it is simple economics that regardless of what rule set, there are issues. (there are more people playing total annihilation now than sfc2 - and TA came out a couple of years before sfc2 - and thats not talking about games like rainbow 6 or even mech warrior 3 or 4).

finally.. its not so much being antisfb as it is saying that things can be improved on.. if that is antisfb - then hey, ill wear that badge proudly simply because sfb is not sacred scripture or text. its an evolving rule set which may work great for pen and paper stuff.. but many, many things change or need to be changed.. or can be improved on with the use of a computer.

if you like 100% pure sfb straight up with no adaptations, then i do recommend www.sfbonline.com (i think thats it). the fact remains, that even with sfc1/2/op, there is more different with it and sfb than similar. why? because the game is of realtime nature.

one last thing about this "poll" regarding scientific and nonscientific..  i would say that this forum represents a skewed segment of the population - just as most any forum does. this is a fact, not opinion. so before anyone takes anything from it- i would caution against it. that would be regardless of the results.

so ajtk - please vent your anger some where else.  the "fact" is, there are many, many things that effect the situation.

 

Excuses made to hide the problem will never solve the problem.  Based on your track record in the CIC regarding Drone-G rack/SFC3 issues, and, on these forums, you have yet to grasp this principle.    

[jdmckinney]

I posted this elsewhere in response to something Nanner mentioned regarding OP. I think it has some weight in this thread, as well.

---------------------------

OP's status is not solely due to "politics." If the D2 had gotten reasonable patches (show of progress, not full-fledged perfection), people would likely have stuck with it. At one point, there were 3 "major" servers trying to share players and schedule around each other: The Triangle, Slave Girls, and Rook's Tavern. The admins were making headway, but most of the time the campaigns would degenerate into flamefests because of the speed bug and the inability to reliably take and defend territory. This has not changed one bit in a year.

Off topic: why is it apparently such a sore spot with Taldren when OP's D2 comes up (or an ignored topic, at least)? Is it that they feel unjustly ridiculed for the lack of D2 fixes? Is it that some of the criticisms, though harsh, are spot-on about Taldren dropping the ball and failing to keep a promise? Is it that they just don't want to discuss a dead project? Let's get to the heart of this ugly thing. If there were progress being made on OP D2, people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up. Can we at least agree that more could have been done? Is there any hope more WILL be done?

"Politics" aren't the real problem with OP. X-ships can't be blamed for everything, though they were certainly a lighting rod. People bashed SFC3 much the same as they did OP, yet people are enjoying it. OP has a set of major flaws that need to be addressed. Until then, it can't be fairly judged as a success or failure. I, for one, am convinced it has a dedicated following based on the reactions to the OP+ shiplist and Evil Dave missions, yet almost universally everyone says they don't play it because of the D2 bugs. There's more potential there if only the D2 got some decent attention.

------------------------------

That said, I think OP would have sold more copies if its D2 had been fixed inside of a year. I am certain a number of people who adopted a "wait and see" attitude about it, much as they have with SFC3, would have ended up buying OP if its D2 could support the sorts of campaigns people want to play. That's one thing I think Taldren and/or their publishers have failed miserably at: looking at what is popular in D2 campaigns and enhancing those aspects for OP and SFC3. In many ways, D3 is a step back in that respect, even while it steps forward in others.

[NannerSlug]

you have some good points nomad.. i think that several are valid - however i do believe deep down that it was those lighting rods or excuses which some people used as political whipping post to not support OP and do what ever. i remember the discussion very vividly about why some people would "never touch op" (many were are the same who oppose sfc3 in many form) - even though at the time of release the code base was by far more stable. remember all the post about the community splitting and what not?

some people can argue that op being a stand alone could have effected the end result.. but again, like battlefield 1942 or spearhead (Both were stand alone expansion packs to a degree - yes, you had to have the older copy - but the installation and price of these expansion packs were the same as the game its self) prove other wise that the business model can work.

who knows.. maybe there is somthing for the sales of op which none of us know or understand about it. i do know that within the sfc realm that as with any game - you make it what you want it to be. i believe that if people wanted to make op work (just as you and the other people who ran op campaigns did), it could have happened. (that is where the politics comes in)

one other issue about the whole OP patch process.. taldren was working on sfc3 during the last few months.. anyone think that their efforts were on patching and developing sfc3 and that the op patch had to be on hold until sfc3 was to a certain point? that is my bet regarding taldren.

finally, karnak - the reality of the matter is i understand the process about g-racks, etc  too well. i understand the implications of what many were trying to pull in the name of sfb. (hence my problem with rules lawyers)

[DiggityDank]

Quote:
finally, karnak - the reality of the matter is i understand the process about g-racks, etc  too well. i understand the implications of what many were trying to pull in the name of sfb. (hence my problem with rules lawyers)  

LOL, the king of the instigators talks of other folks 'pulling' stuff...
Oh My Freakin' God that is too funny!

[NannerSlug]

yeah dank.. i am the one instigating stuff.. yup.. uh huh.. thats me.

::rolls eyes::

i operate on 2 premis

a) never make an argument personal
b) only respond - do not start threads.

thanks.

[DiggityDank]

Quote:


i operate on 2 premis

a) never make an argument personal
b) only respond - do not start threads.

thanks.

You must be very proud of yourself.


Oh I was thinking of the past...

Commando ships, 'minimaxing' (still laughing over that one), etc...
Most of these 'comments' led to nerfing of the Klingon shiplist.  
This happened as a result of posts you started.  

Hehehe, Keep on rollin' 'em bud

[jdmckinney]

Nanner, I totally accept that Taldren had (and has) better things to do (read: paying work) than patch the OP D2. However, purely from the standpoint of the OP players/admins pre-SFC3, we tried and tried to make it work, but kept running into the same basic problems we couldn't solve without a D2 patch. The frustration level was sky-high for all concerned, and contributed to the early exit from this community of several key players whose contributions are sorely missed.

In a perfect world, OP D2 would have worked fine out of the box. In a not-so-perfect yet desirable world, Taldren would have gotten paid to fix it by a year ago. In the real world, nobody got what they wanted, except maybe the people who wanted to see OP fail, though even they probably were hurt by the mess in the long run.

So, what it comes down to for many who have struggled on in hopes that OP D2 would someday be fixed is we just want to see what Taldren could do with it given a chance. It may never be all it could be, but it could be pretty solid given a bit of effort.

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
Oh I was thinking of the past...

Commando ships, 'minimaxing' (still laughing over that one), etc...
Most of these 'comments' led to nerfing of the Klingon shiplist.  

Keep on rollin' 'em bud  

nice to see the topic moving off hand - but hey, ill give a stab at this to make a few points/ corrections.

becareful.. do you really want to know where that term came from? somone might not (the original person who posted that statment). then again, maybe they do not care. (which im not saying it untrue, because it what was occurring with the exploitation of transporters, etc was/is a statment of fact - which gets into the intended design of the game and or campaign - which is essentially in the hands of the server admin).

how were the ships nerfed in the first place? you cannot tag any single (or multiple) item to any one person. the person(s) in charge of what ever decision has a mind of their own to make what ever decision. if there is an issue with a specific decision - then you need to take it up with a specific server admin if that is the case.

if you are talking about design issues with the game - again, it is foolish to think that any one person can dictate any decisions (save the designers them selves) as there are many, many things to consider. (most of which involve the designer's intended function for said weapon system, race or ship design)

in either case - those same rules which i mentioned applied. in none of the cases you mention was anything directed toward any person(s), but in fact particular issues.

at that point it is upto you and whom ever else what path you wish to take. if you wish to continue personal attacks against my self and being grumpy - that is somthing i cannot control.

thanks.

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
 In the real world, nobody got what they wanted, except maybe the people who wanted to see OP fail, though even they probably were hurt by the mess in the long run.

So, what it comes down to for many who have struggled on in hopes that OP D2 would someday be fixed is we just want to see what Taldren could do with it given a chance. It may never be all it could be, but it could be pretty solid given a bit of effort.  

i agree with this in principle.. but i think you guys are underselling your selves. you guys did great work with what you had (which is what i was elluding to about making it work).

for the record (and back on topic).. here are my preferences in games..

SFC3
OP
SFC1
SFC2 (at the bottom mostly due to the poltiical nature).

good luck in the future. i hope to see a resurge in OP personally.

[Karnak]

Quote:
Originally posted by Nanner:
finally, karnak - the reality of the matter is i understand the process about g-racks, etc too well. i understand the implications of what many were trying to pull in the name of sfb. (hence my problem with rules lawyers)

Well, this how I see things from the perspective of someone that only started playing EAW seriously since last summer and come from a non-involved race, the ISC.

1)  G Drone Racks Issues:
Nanner and other get into a debate about G racks and suddenly out of nowhere an "instense" dislike for the Feds arise that put a stigma of Fed players everywhere. So, either a)  the Feds were trying to keep a weapons advantage or b)  All the non-Fed players don't know what they are talking about.  Sound to me like they were trying to "pull" some fairness into the game over your objections.  If you need an example on how the G rack will be fixed in dyna play then you should take a look at Dizzy's upcomming SG3 dyna when it comes out.

2)  SFC3:
Nanner starts ragging on D2 about a month ago and suddenly the whole Fed community is up in arms and we got fleets leaving the CIC en masse.  Looks like the "feet did the walking" on that argument.

Nanner, next time you post, use detailed, concrete and material facts, not abstract assertions in your "smoke and mirrors" show.

thanks,
 

[LongTooth]

good luck in the future. i hope to see a resurge in OP personally.  



There wont be one if the OP d2  is not fixed

[NannerSlug]

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by Nanner:
finally, karnak - the reality of the matter is i understand the process about g-racks, etc too well. i understand the implications of what many were trying to pull in the name of sfb. (hence my problem with rules lawyers)

Well, this how I see things from the perspective of someone that only started playing EAW seriously since last summer and come from a non-involved race, the ISC.

1)  G Drone Racks Issues:
Nanner and other get into a debate about G racks and suddenly out of nowhere an "instense" dislike for the Feds arise that put a stigma of Fed players everywhere. So, either a)  the Feds were trying to keep a weapons advantage or b)  All the non-Fed players don't know what they are talking about.  Sound to me like they were trying to "pull" some fairness into the game over your objections.  If you need an example on how the G rack will be fixed in dyna play then you should take a look at Dizzy's upcomming SG3 dyna when it comes out.

2)  SFC3:
Nanner starts ragging on D2 about a month ago and suddenly the whole Fed community is up in arms and we got fleets leaving the CIC en masse.  Looks like the "feet did the walking" on that argument.

Nanner, next time you post, use detailed, concrete and material facts, not abstract assertions in your "smoke and mirrors" show.

thanks,
   

a) g-rack issue.. this was a no issue which i had never heard of issue out of now where there becomes a  political movment (and that is exactly what it was) to change them or alter them to "reflect the true sfb state" regardless of what the real out come/ effects are (the game is not sfb and altering or removing them to pacify certain sects is no more than a move to hamstring federation ships in the real-time environment). the "fairness" is rather subjective (as all balance is) - however between the rapid hex-flipping nature of the d2 and the style in which missiles dominate the game at the time - any such change cripples. if there were other issues which truly needed addressing - it could have been done on a server level.

to make it simple karnak - there was no need to request a change for g-racks in the first place. the stigma should have never been put on anyone - even my self for standing up against somthing as opinionated and political. the impacts of such a change are HUGE and do in fact cripple feds. the main (and only) issue were escorts - which simply needed a bpv bump to reflect their combat effectivnness

2) sfc3: my post stated the fact of differences between the two dynaverses in a thread that BASHED sfc3.. (funny how no one remembers that).

the two dynaverses were designed differently - sfc3 was designed with more pvp and less hex munching. like it or not, d2 is designed to avoid player vs player confrontation. i can flip more hexes if i avoid you and fight the ai than engaging you. d3 was designed where the persons have to engage the other or run scan missions which run longer than a simple death drag.

lastly - only 2 federation fleets "left" the cic - and in my view, the decision had already been made and again, there was a lot of political undertone.. and you ignore/ do not even mention the purpose of why it was created in the first place - that is to simply have a place for people to discuss stuff.. if those fleets desire to move - that is their wish and i wish nothing bad - but i have seen some of the things posted which was simply untrue.

i find it very amusing that for the most part people who play sfc3 can enjoy what ever game they desire.. however many who are left and refuse to try play sfc3 not only refuse to play it - but bash and harrass sfc3 crowd? dont believe me? read the d3 forums for your selves. much of the negative post about sfc3 comes from sfc2 people who have continually bashed the game calling it everything from "twitch" to "smiplistic."

in short.. anyone who stands in the way of certain elements of the eaw crowd get hung from their thumbs and their personalities raped (that is a strong but accurate description). this is why i abhore sfb/  do not wish to return to the eaw rule set. because of the arrogance and manipulation which that rule set seems to bring. (it did not in sfc1 - but somthing happened around the 2.006 patch where everything went political and was a power struggle to screw the other guy).

if you want to know/ understand partly of why what remains of the sfc community is disintegrating (and it is - much to everyone's shergrin) - that is a good place to start.

i have checked my facts, thank you.

no i do not keep a sheet or email copies like im sure some people do.. but then again, i do not go on an 11 page rant slandering someone either. funny thing is, ive seen some of you slander the main person responsible for most of the fixes in sfc. Thank God they see past that.

[Zenister]

Quote:
There wont be one if the OP d2  is not fixed  

indeed..OP is my pick for favorite of the series..it just doesnt live up to the expectation due to glaring bugs..

[KBF-Dogmatix]

Quote:
komodo is right on all points.

Kieran, op was what the community made it. there were by far more bugs with eaw than when op came out. this was a conscience decision by many in the eaw community to snub op.  there might be a bug or two left in op, but nothing that could be over come if people wanted to embrace it and use it - but they decided not to. the decision to dump op was purely political. of course what i find funny to some degree is that op is more sfb like than eaw ranging from maulers to k-fx arcs. <shrug>

as far as the "immersive universe SFB ". i can almost garuantee with out a doubt there has been more written about trek than sfb. go to any book store for the past how many years and you can find on the self dozens of star trek books. just as with OP, however, it is what people decide to put into it.

does "sfb" have a good back ground with an intriguing story and missions- you bet! but that does not make it the lone game (let alone trek) with such a back ground.. nor does it mean a game cannot be successful without such a back ground. it is simply one of the things which make that particular game unique. it does not mean that its rule set is any better (or worse) than any other rule set. in fact, i would argue that if you looked at the bigger picture that many people might argue differently as there have been other successful trek games (although not many).

for what its worth,  i do look at the facts - i simply do not put blinders on and keep an open mind to what makes a good game.  however, that conflicts some  people's perceptions, such as your self - more than likely because of differing back grounds, demographics and what we look for in a good game. end of story.
 

Heh...I could go the "wrong again..." route as you seem to like to, but I won''t.


There are some cool things about OP...extra weapons, ships and arcs (Klingon boom arcs are a big plus in my book ), but the main reason OP's D2 has basically died and never really caught on in the first place is because of the DV2 bugs caused by the wacky cartel implementation.  I'm certain that if those problems didn't exist and neutral co-op wasn't a problem...almost everyone would be playing on OP dynas and EAW dynas would be a faded memory by now.  

The looooooooong delay in OP patch pipline is another major reason for OP dying the slow death and/or never catching on.


There are quite a few people who play EAW who would have fought tooth and nail to get people to play OP dyna had someone bothered to fix the glaring problems that ruin OP dyna play.  That said, there were some very cool OP campaigns that saw a very nice turnout...turnout rivaling the best EAW campaigns (at times).  These campaigns flourished despite all the problems with OP.  I wonder how much more popular it could have been if anybody could have been bothered to FIX THE FREAKING GAME.


Frankly, I think an SFC3 demo might have hurt sales.  I'll bet many people who bought it out of curiosity (and have since shelved it) wouldn't have bought it at all.  I think anyone who was going to buy it in the first place has probably already bought it.


 

[Julin Eurthyr]

Nanner:

I'd love to have an OP campaign where Admins / RMs can correct the following issues.

Let me see /  know, in game the DV of a pirate hex.  You know, how many missions I need to do so I can flip the hex to my pirate race...  (note, the in game stipulation.  It may be possible to extract that information and put it up on a web-map, which doesn't help people with one computer...)

Fix the "Federation" advantage of being abie to adjust their game speed.  I do complain about the pirate ability to do the same, however, since all pirates have it, no side is disadvantaged...

Other OP issues, such as the patrol bug & inability to run coop missions in neutral space may be adjustable by mission scripts.  Still, the above two remain...

Until then, let's not believe that a proper, fully functional OP Dynaverse server could be played without major issues please.

Oh, it would be nice to not have a reliance on pirates to determine the ability for an empire to control space.  However, if it is decided that, bacause the name of the game is Orion Pirates, then I (and probably the rest of us OP fans) shall live with it.  

[Holocat]

Well, I can't resist jumping in today, so what the heck:

I haven't, until recently, wrote very much on these boards at all.  However, I do remember the heyday of OP, and sfc1 before it.

The people that state that the D2 problems in OP made it frustrating to the point of unplayablity are correct.  It even stymied alot of fun in single player, given that the missions you ran seemed to do more harm than good.  Nothing was more frustrating than coming out, victorious and bloodied, from a heated battle to discover that your incredible and valiant effort had managed to HURT your empire.  It really rankled me when that happened.  I did not know at the time that this was the cartel bug, but it struck with a ruthlessness that took me to my wits end.

What some others have said about the political tensions on these boards and among the players themselves is, from personal experience, far, FAR more true than many are willing to see.  The D2 bugs were frustrating, yes.  But what truly repelled me from the game, way back then, was the incessent and nonstop political rambling that happened.  Drone-G racks.  X-ships.  Interfleet politics.  Spying. Witch hunting.  On both GSA and the Dynaverse, at one point it got so bad that I couldn't go *anywhere* without being accused of SOMETHING in less than a day.  The whos and whens are pointless details;  What ultimately mattered was that for every person that got on to the Dyna or GSA, two left because they were either disgusted with the 'community' or run out on rails, irrespective of whether they had done something or not.

I remember those witch hunts very well, and take them very personally.  I was able to prove my innocence back then, but the atmosphere so disgusted me that after the third major incident, I left and never looked back.

I have begun to enjoy SFC again, after some time, and even tried GSA a couple times again.  There were never more than four people with OP at any point in time, but they were a better cut of person than the dozens of self-rightous blowhards that populated the game before.  It had lost its fanbase almost entirely, I saw, but I saw that as more of a relief than a disappointment.  

In this personal case what the few have been saying is true;  I was repelled because of the politics, and not because of D2.

The somewhat subjective truth,

Holocat.


 

[Cleaven]

Quote:

There are quite a few people who play EAW who would have fought tooth and nail to get people to play OP dyna had someone bothered to fix the glaring problems that ruin OP dyna play.  That said, there were some very cool OP campaigns that saw a very nice turnout...turnout rivaling the best EAW campaigns (at times).  These campaigns flourished despite all the problems with OP.  I wonder how much more popular it could have been if anybody could have been bothered to FIX THE FREAKING GAME.



 

The mind almost boggles. If the OP-D2 was merely difficult to work with, like the EAW D2 is, then we would all be playing OP-D2. If all the effort that went into OP servers could have been used to make a functioning server better, instead of a broken system barely playable, then everybody would have been clearly convinced of the necessity to move on to OP, because it would be much more enjoyable. Instead OP-D2 was not just an uphill battle (like EAW) but an assault up a cliff in a blizzard.  

[Holocat]

 

Quote:


 Instead OP-D2 was not just an uphill battle (like EAW) but an assault up a cliff in a blizzard.  

I'm canadian.  An uphill battle in a blizzard is too bad.

Yes, I voted for OP,

Holocat.

[ragamer]

Well from the SP POV answer is clear:

SFC2:EAW

Why?... Because of content... pure and simple... Number of WORKING DIFFERENT MISSIONS... You may think.. but OP has
more missions... But all the bugs just cripple it... I'm making this analysis base on ACTUAL status...not on vague
rumors of new patch or whatever.

From DYNA POV?... To be honest... I'm quite dissapointed with it... It just another way of online matches (with even
additional bugs...) I think that there is little difference with a GSA ladder (unless of course you like painting things
blue ).

- On the TNG vs ToS issue:
Nanner, It's true that this poll tells: "The ppl who visit this forum prefer SFC2:EAW", but... What do you think that
the "new TNG blood" could think of this new SFC3 game?...

- On the "Demo prior to release could have boosted the sales":
Demo?... The actual SFC3 is a DEMO itself compared to the amount of content of previous SFCs. Again this new title
have a "Let's paint the universe" scheme DYNA with even MUCH LESS mission variety... And SP experience?... The average
player can finish ALL the original missions in about 10 hours (Of course with ADMIRAL difficulty)... Do you still
think that this SFC3 can be EVEN CALLED a FINISHED SFC series game?. What could Taldren show in their DEMO?... A buggy
software... nothing else... Activision couldn't take that risk because they know that pressing a developer with tight
deadlines is the better way to cripple a game with bugs... They thought (Activision) that the NEMESIS film could attract
some trekies into the series... Well I haven't seen the film, I'm a SW fan, but looking at the commentaries... A phrase
that very good friend of mine told me after seeing "Insurrection" (another one that I didn't see) come to my mind: "The next
trek film will be released directly to video"... So the Activision option was like "Docking your boat to the Titanic
looking for a safe place to rest"

- On the review "jugdement":
The only reliable info that you can extract from a review is a fair estimation of the graphical look of a game and
the presence of mayor bugs... The rest?... Just subjective information... To have a good review, the reviewer need to
have some "Game Industry History" knowledge to be able to compare... And seriously... Most of the reviews are HEAVILY
biased toward sponsors because they are a POWERFULL tool to create expectations... and thus increase sales.

Don't be fooled by my commentaries... I like SFC series and I recognize that Taldren is doing a good customer support...
But their released products since EAW are in a descendant quality tendency... And I'm very critic with Taldren to accept
the conditions under they had to develop OP and SFC3 because they were draconian... Maybe they couldn't avoid them
(they had bills to pay) but at the end they agreed to reuse their EAW engine in 2 partial products that, beside the
new graphical content, doesn't contribute with anything new to the series. You can argue that SFC3 included ship
customization to the serie... But what's the point in customization if the role of your ship is always the same because
missions are always reduced to "kill something and survive". The overall customization option is reduced to an optimization
of the loadouts done by the Dyna Aces (in SP with the dumb IA, you don't even need to think which loadout to use) that
get published on a web site for the noobs to use... Coupled with the drastic reduction in tactical options (i.e. Streamlining
Interface concepts... a.k.a. Dumbing the game down) you have the results in the actual D3... Where you can see things
like the "non trek looking" AMM filled MINE BOAT and weirdness like that.

As a conclusion... SFC series with EAW dyna concept is and should be DEAD. If Taldren wants to refloat the series to
turn it again a profitable project, IMHO, they should remade Dyna to a REAL strategic battleground where ships and fleets
need to change based on the STRATEGIC GOAL they want to achieve.


AJTK... You are my man/woman... It's good to find some1 that has some objective thinking around.




P.S. As usual, excuse me for the length and barbaric english.