Topic: T bombs in SFC3 ?

[Ravok]

 Does anybody out there know why transporter bombs are not used in SFC3? They come in handy in some tactical situations.
 And why can't Romulans drop mines in cloak? I always thought this was one of their specialty's?
 Neither one of these make any sense to me?  

[Magnum357]

I think I heard at the time Taldren was designing SFC3, Activision didn't like some of the aspects of the older SFC titles.  They thought SFC1 and SFC2 (both of which where based on SFB rules) that they did not "Feel" like Star Trek and more like "Star Wars".  So they told Taldren too get rid of many aspects of the older titles (like T-Bombs, fighters/PF's, etc.).  Also, since many of these features where exclusive too SFB and not seen in any of the TNG/DS9/VOY shows (and SFC3 was too be based in the TNG era) that they wanted too stay "Cannon".  

[nx_adam_1701]

hahahaha, they wanted to stay cannon, where are the Peragrine Fighters at, jk


adam out

[Ravok]

 Good point Adam!!!! It seems awfully (selective?) Cannon to me    

[FFZ]

  In the final battle of the Dominion war, I seem to remember Sisko leading in a number of Federation fighter squadrons.  

[Ravok]

 Now come to think about it the Makis ( Hope i spelled it right!) use to use them didn't they?  

[nx_adam_1701]

He did thats why I mentioned it, I mean adding fighters to the SFC3 would be interesting, sometimes the game feels alittle boring, because skirmishes, single player i mean, are only up to 5 is it, no more, I prefer 10 or 15 enemies, fighters just add the illusion of a battle, alot more weapons flying around
adam out

[nx_adam_1701]

yup, and its Maquis, but yup your rite, I loved those episodes, Maquis really turned things around, just thinking of those little guys compared to Galors and Keldons, really make me think sometimes its not the ship, its the crew that counts, I remember that episode where the Maquis disabled an Excelsior Class Ship, in the badlands, i mean thats pretty impressive, acouple of Raiders and Peragrines, very interesting


adam out

[FFZ]

   Runabouts are really just big shuttles, and they were in DS9 from the start.  

[Ravok]

 Yea it was!! and it brought much needed depth into the fight senes,  

[NannerSlug]

you dont know how bad i wanted tbombs.. or any player for that matter.

[Ravok]

 Adam i just had to add this it really does show you it is the crew and not necessarily the ship. One of my favorite episodes is when Sisko get underneath the Neg Var with the Attendant in it and basically kicks the crap out of it!!
 When it comes to cannon in ST i think they forget DS9 too much and it ticks me off.  

[Daew Anahos]

Quote:
 Adam i just had to add this it really does show you it is the crew and not necessarily the ship. One of my favorite episodes is when Sisko get underneath the Neg Var with the Attendant in it and basically kicks the crap out of it!!
 When it comes to cannon in ST i think they forget DS9 too much and it ticks me off.  

Actually, it was the mirror O'Brien aka Smiley and mirror Bashir kicking mirror Emperor Worf's arse.

The episode ("The Emperor's New Cloak") was centered around Quark and Rom trying to rescue the Grand Negus from the alternate universe. It was a classic.

/done nitpicking    

[SSCF_LeRoy]

Quote:
   Runabouts are really just big shuttles, and they were in DS9 from the start.  

TNG era PFs

[nx_adam_1701]

Yeah you are rite, Sisko actually just piloted the ship, and obrien had the tactical position, but its true, alot of people knock DS9 because they think the defiant is too powerful or unrealistic, but who cares if she is, the pointed is that the crew are experts, i dont care if they fly a runabout, they still rock

adam out

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 you dont know how bad i wanted tbombs

Yeah, too bad they dumped Star Fleet Battles......ain't it Nanner.  

[NannerSlug]

i stand firm in my belief that it was a good thing. the problem is that there was not enough attention to detail. to get a real trek game, you must break the rules of sfb.

but that is another topic for discussion.

that is the good thing about sfc3 - it brings us sooo close to a cannon trek game. if they could have only added in a few things that are there now.. like the firing arcs.. there is such thing and cutting too much of the meat out.

[frazzle]

After a bit of thought, fighters have been in  a few episodes. They appeared in TNG's 'The First Duty', an that DS9 episode.

And the Defiant rocks  

[Bonk]

Perhaps it could be written into mission scripts, if the scripting API can be tricked into it? Much like Karnak has done in the beginnings of the GAW scripts for OP by using existing ship systems for other purposes, enabled by the mission script.

I am thinking of getting a copy of VC++6 now that it is affordable (i.e. old) to see if I can figure out this scripting stuff myself. If there is hope of adding seeking weapons, t-bombs, fighters and EW back into the game this way, I may just dig out my severely underutilised copy of SFC3. That will take a lot of time but I do want to try it out sometime...

(p.s.: Does the SFC3 scripting API use VC++6 like OP or does one need a newer (more expensive) version of VC++?)  

[Magnum357]

Are you nuts dude!!!  Do you realize how tough it is too crack source codes?  Not impossible, but you have too be one damn good programmer too do it.  Also, I'm not sure if Taldren would like the idea hacking into their source codes.  I suppose Taldren would not mind if you did it for free, but if you cracked the source code I'm sure Taldren and Activision would be very unhappy as its their engine and they don't want anyone possibly stealing their work.  Watch your head if you do accomplish this very difficult goal.

As for what language, I would guess SFC3 might have been built in VC++6, but its very possible that they used VC++.net.  If they used the latter, VC++6 would be almost useless too you.  

P.S.  Just for the record, I prefer VC++6 and VB6 over the .net languages.  The old languages take only a fraction of the resources and you can do most of the same stuff anyways.