StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My brother in law just gave me the game Bridge Commander. Is it a good game? Your opinion please?

If I'm gonna play anything related to star blech, I'm gonna play SFC.

Star Trek games have been suffering from a long curse. They all tend to be of low quality, though Elite Force broke the curse.

EmperorMing wrote:If I'm gonna play anything related to star blech, I'm gonna play SFC.

I do own SFC and I do like it alot, just thought some of you all would have got this game before me and know whats up.

SFC and Elite force are the two ST series games that are done very well. Elite force for the great action, SFC for the great starship action.

Bridge Commander is "relatively" realistic, but it could be more so. From the looks of it, it is fairly easy to mod the ships already in the game. Well, if you were really interested, you could mod the ships to be capable of using all the weapons systems we see. 15 torpedo tube Akiras, massive torpedo volleys from the Nebula, almost a near constant stream of phasers from a Galaxy, pure death from a Sovereign, not a whole lot of weapons, but VERY powerful weapons for a Warbird, etc...

Some games have medicore gameplay, but their value is derived from their modability. IIRC, Bridge Commander can be modded in such a way.

Stand-alone, Bridge Commander is so-so: you will probably say "hey, cool!" to the pretty graphics, and then after awhile you'll start to wonder how Totally Games could so completely fuck up the GCS.

The first and most glaring error is that the only phasers to be found are on the saucer module. The second is that the torpedos have a maximum salvo roughly equivalent to that of a Constitution class (4 at a time, or 2 for the aft tube) and they take forever to reload.

Power management is a step backward from Klingon Academy; instead of being able to control individual systems' power levels, you have four very generalized groups of Weapons, Shields, Engines, and Sensors. So if you have a freshly disabled (or worse, destroyed) phaser bank sitting there doing nothing, you can't turn that phaser bank off.

Torpedo control took one step forward and two steps backward; the torpedos will now track targets for about four seconds, but the launcher will now only shoot straight ahead, forcing you to jockey a 3.5 million ton GCS into a firing solution. There's also moronic torpedo "spreads" which result in maybe half your torpedos hitting.

Your ship will only fire on one target at a time, so smaller ships ganging up on a larger ship have the advantage in that a ship can only focus on one combatant at a time.

Bridge Commander has a minimal selection of starships compared to Klingon Academy. A couple dozen at most, and about half a dozen starbases. (point for BC; they actually put in a full size starbase like Starbase 74)

"Wingman" command (for the instances where you can actually tell friendly ships to do something) is hideously slow and inefficient. Shameful for a dev team noted for their work on the X-wing series.

The game does have perks and it is fun to play, especially with mods to add ships that should have been in there (like a Defiant) as well as improve existing ships (making the GCS look and act proper).

What really irks me is that in a FAQ they said they wouldn't be changing the ships from how they were seen on the show... and then they went and changed them.

What websites have the good BC mods?

http://www.3dactionplanet.com/bridgecommander/

That has a fairly active set of forums... you'll need their sticky'ed threads regarding the "mod installers" and "packagers" to use some of the stuff that you download off of

www.bcfiles.com

That's really all you need, I think.

I play with the ISD model that's out for it.

Uraniun235 wrote:Stand-alone, Bridge Commander is so-so: you will probably say "hey, cool!" to the pretty graphics, and then after awhile you'll start to wonder how Totally Games could so completely fuck up the GCS.

The first and most glaring error is that the only phasers to be found are on the saucer module. The second is that the torpedos have a maximum salvo roughly equivalent to that of a Constitution class (4 at a time, or 2 for the aft tube) and they take forever to reload.

Erm.. every time we see the E-D fire a torp salvo, its ALWAYS only 4 torps at a time.

Torpedo control took one step forward and two steps backward; the torpedos will now track targets for about four seconds, but the launcher will now only shoot straight ahead, forcing you to jockey a 3.5 million ton GCS into a firing solution.

I've never seen a torp fired from the E-D track anything.

There's also moronic torpedo "spreads" which result in maybe half your torpedos hitting.

Seems true to the series. See "Booby Trap"

Poe brings up an excellent point. It seems that in terms of PURE CANON, Bridge Commander may be the most accurate ST game ever made!

I still remember the utterly stupid assertions made in the TNG manual about the torpedo tubes ... something ridiculous like 20 in one salvo or some such nonsense.

Of course, Totally Games did go a bit overboard- like I know we've never seen any other phaser strip on the E-D fire but they ARE there.

Poe, we have seen 5 torpedoes fired at once instance on the GCS. The GCS can fire its torpedoes in a spread, or NOT (as in rapid fire them in a straight line against a target). BC gives you a pathetically small aim area, which in TNG the torpedoes could fire relatively off angle compared to the GCS.

Then there is the fact that the NCS is given fewer forward torpedoes then the GCS IIRC, which is incorrect. The NCS has duel forward launchers of the same size as the GCS, so it can fire at least double the forward torpedoes.

TNG BOBW shows that a GCS can fire 6 phaser blasts in less then 2 seconds, which IIRC is not represented in BC.

True Alyeska but were they full power blasts? If anything the BC phaser blasts remind me of the shot taken by the E-D against the Duras sisters BoP in Generations.

Vympel wrote:True Alyeska but were they full power blasts? If anything the BC phaser blasts remind me of the shot taken by the E-D against the Duras sisters BoP in Generations.

Those phasers blasts were against the Borg, and it wasn't the same as the rapid fire frequency changing blasts done at a later point.

IMO the GCS has three basic phaser settings. Extremely rapid fire shots (as in up to 4 shots per second from a single emiter). Standard .25 to .5 second phaser shots with a refire of .5 to 1 second. Heavy phaser blasts with extended fire time (1 second) with a 6 second refire on that array.

So Totally Games basically hamstrung the Galaxy-class; but with canon justification for it (except for removing the other phaser strips- the NERVE)

Vympel wrote:So Totally Games basically hamstrung the Galaxy-class; but with canon justification for it (except for removing the other phaser strips- the NERVE)

They hamstrung the GCS by removing some of its capabilities. Its like watching someone fire an M16 and then make a game with the M16 only being able to fire single shot. Thats only partially accurate.

Totally Games should have done this.

The B5 space sim game that WAS going to be made was going to do this. Make the single player game as realistic and UNBALLANCED as possible. If that means Minbario Nials will absolutely shred Starfuries, well thats realistic. However for multi-player the ships will become more ballanced.

They should have made the ships as "unballanced" as realism would show and then design missions around those capabilities. So, the Akira can fire from 7-9 forward torpedo launchers? So what? Just pit it against a whole shitload of enemies. Got the Venture variant of the GCS with insane amounts of phasers? Pit it against a couple of Warbirds. Got a Sovereign that is pounding the crap out of stuff with its QTs and PTs and Type-12 phasers? Let it go against a Negh'Var. Someone flying the Defiant like a fighter and having a blast? Try putting it up against 2 dominion Heavy Cruisers.

Make the ships as real as possible so people can experience the fun. Imagine having a GCS and firing a 10 torpedo shot (wait a while for reload of course) while then firing phasers almost constantly to take advantage of the downed shields. Imagine taking a Nebula or Akira and using their mind staggering torpedo volley's to tear through enemy ships. Imagine taking the Defiant and being able to manuever with ease and fire torpedo bursts and PPC shots.

Then for multi player, you can either keep the realism on, or turn it off depending on the hosts wishes.

Lord Poe wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Stand-alone, Bridge Commander is so-so: you will probably say "hey, cool!" to the pretty graphics, and then after awhile you'll start to wonder how Totally Games could so completely fuck up the GCS.

The first and most glaring error is that the only phasers to be found are on the saucer module. The second is that the torpedos have a maximum salvo roughly equivalent to that of a Constitution class (4 at a time, or 2 for the aft tube) and they take forever to reload.

Erm.. every time we see the E-D fire a torp salvo, its ALWAYS only 4 torps at a time.

Torpedo control took one step forward and two steps backward; the torpedos will now track targets for about four seconds, but the launcher will now only shoot straight ahead, forcing you to jockey a 3.5 million ton GCS into a firing solution.

I've never seen a torp fired from the E-D track anything.

There's also moronic torpedo "spreads" which result in maybe half your torpedos hitting.

Seems true to the series. See "Booby Trap"

1) Poe, go watch "The Survivors". What's that? Six torpedoes in a salvo? Yes indeed.

"Yesterday's Enterprise"...
"Dispersal pattern Sierra... and fire."
*FIVE torpedos are shot at the BOP*

2) "Genesis" - Worf fires a torpedo spread using a new program he has devised. One of the torpedos suddenly veers off on a new direction.

3) Saw it; what about those "assimilators" they were talking about? Seems to me they were trying to destroy more than just the antique battlecruiser, but also the surrounding trap mechanisms.

And again, watch "Yesterday's Enterprise"; dispersal pattern "sierra" seemed accurate enough against the K'vort.

0 for 3.

1) Poe, go watch "The Survivors". What's that? Six torpedoes in a salvo? Yes indeed.

I WILL have to rewatch that. When I've seen the E-D fire a "full-spread" I've never seen more than four torpedoes. That included Survivors AND Booby Trap, AND TBOBW. And Defiant's full spread is only three (Worf orders a full spread in that episide where he's brought up on charges for destroying a civilian ship, I believe)

"Yesterday's Enterprise"...
"Dispersal pattern Sierra... and fire."
*FIVE torpedos are shot at the BOP*

I'll see if I have that on the DVDs. Even if true, then BC isn't the travisty you're making it out to be. Four seems like the standard spread, unless you say "sierra" I guess.

2) "Genesis" - Worf fires a torpedo spread using a new program he has devised. One of the torpedos suddenly veers off on a new direction.

You've got to be kidding me. How does a torpedo guidance malfunction translate to homing in on a target???

3) Saw it; what about those "assimilators" they were talking about? Seems to me they were trying to destroy more than just the antique battlecruiser, but also the surrounding trap mechanisms.

THat's not the order Riker gave. He said all tubes, and the target was the battlecruiser; nothing else.

And again, watch "Yesterday's Enterprise"; dispersal pattern "sierra" seemed accurate enough against the K'vort.

Is 'sierra" a standard "full-spread" command now?

0 for 3.

I think you'll have to recalculate those, Mr. Spock.

Just thought I would point this out.

Lord Poe wrote:You've got to be kidding me. How does a torpedo guidance malfunction translate to homing in on a target???

So, when torpedoes are fired directly at targets, you admit that the torpedoes still have a guidance system. Guidance system = Homing Torpedo

Just a little thought. Full Spread might not equal Fire All Weapons.

And Poe, the fact that we have seen the E-D fire more weapons then BC shows clearly indicates that BC did not give it full capabilities. Limiting it in BC because "thats standard" would be like having a F-15 game that doesn't let you break Mach-1 because they don't usually fly that fast.

Alyeska wrote:Just thought I would point this out.

Lord Poe wrote:You've got to be kidding me. How does a torpedo guidance malfunction translate to homing in on a target???

So, when torpedoes are fired directly at targets, you admit that the torpedoes still have a guidance system. Guidance system = Homing Torpedo

That's what Worf's lines were. But again, I've NEVER seen a torpedo fired from the E-D home in on ANYTHING. Do you have a reference?

Alyeska wrote:Just a little thought. Full Spread might not equal Fire All Weapons.

Probably not. But I have to point out: Why weren't the aft torps fired in "Booby Trap"? Riker ordered "all tubes"!

And Poe, the fact that we have seen the E-D fire more weapons then BC shows clearly indicates that BC did not give it full capabilities.

I won't dispute that.

Limiting it in BC because "thats standard" would be like having a F-15 game that doesn't let you break Mach-1 because they don't usually fly that fast.

I think you're misrepresenting my statement. As far as I've seen, a "full spread" of torpedoes equals 4, as BC represents. Nothing about saying "sierra" came up, though, which may be something different.

Lord Poe wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Just thought I would point this out.

Lord Poe wrote:You've got to be kidding me. How does a torpedo guidance malfunction translate to homing in on a target???

So, when torpedoes are fired directly at targets, you admit that the torpedoes still have a guidance system. Guidance system = Homing Torpedo

That's what Worf's lines were. But again, I've NEVER seen a torpedo fired from the E-D home in on ANYTHING. Do you have a reference?

Then again, how often have wee seen them miss with the E-D? Given that the launcher can adjust the direction that the torpedoes are fired on, they generally don't have to home in on anything. Kinda like the old aim/fire missiles on the original flight of the Tico-Cruisers. It aimed its missile in the direction it was going to be fired and that made it seem to fire in a straight line.

Lord Poe wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Just a little thought. Full Spread might not equal Fire All Weapons.

Probably not. But I have to point out: Why weren't the aft torps fired in "Booby Trap"? Riker ordered "all tubes"!

And Poe, the fact that we have seen the E-D fire more weapons then BC shows clearly indicates that BC did not give it full capabilities.

I won't dispute that.

Limiting it in BC because "thats standard" would be like having a F-15 game that doesn't let you break Mach-1 because they don't usually fly that fast.

I think you're misrepresenting my statement. As far as I've seen, a "full spread" of torpedoes equals 4, as BC represents. Nothing about saying "sierra" came up, though, which may be something different.

Well, what us fans are angry at is that we can't use the full firepower of the GCS. If you had a simulator that let you fly an ISD, wouldn't you be pissed if it only gave you HTLs and missile launchers, but left out the MTLs and LTLs?

OK, I've spent a couple hours playing the thing and I'm glad I didn't buy it. It is pretty cool graphicaly although the people look creepy, but the game play sucks..... It envolves alot of sitting and watching what happens on the screen, then every once and a while you push a button and then continue watching the screen. Combat is alright but could have been better, and the interface is rather clumsy. You spend too much time with people hailing you and taking up time on the main viewer when it could have been done with audio only.

All in all its some what fun, but I wouldn't spend 40 to 50 bucks on it.