Mitchell

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Wasn't there another thread dealing with this very subject? Why'd you create a new topic? Yes, I believe there was one concerning the 'basics' early on, but I couldn't find it again - plus, I thought it would be interesting to discuss alternative (and specific) tactics, not simply the stock advice on how to deal with intruders... Please don't court martial me - I'm having great fun playing BCM and I've watched a couple of interesting battles between my marines and various interlopers. I am curious what other people think of this aspect of BCM and how they handle it... Now, if I could only arm my AE with a ZS10 and hop on that turbo-shaft down to Deck 3, I'd show those insurgents a thing or two... [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mitchell ]

My tactics so far regarding intruders: 1. Always have a few Marines "searching" - rotate groups of 2 to 4 to keep fatigue from building too high. 2. If intruders board, power down the launch bay and send a team of Marines to the launch bay and another 'toward' the bridge. Assign additional marines to 'search'. 3. If/when you get notification of sabatauge damage, send a team of marines toward the affected section of the ship (assuming you can figure out where that is... . This seems to work if the number of intruders is small. What works for you? [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mitchell ]

I've read all the advise I can find searching these boards, what's available in the manual, and the docs from BC3000AD et al, but am still wondering what tactics work best for other players in practice when it comes to dealing with those pesky unwanted guests who always seem to show up at the least opportune times... One piece of advice I found interesting related to protecting your AE by moving him/her to locations away from the intruders. This sounds good, but how does one know which way 'away' is? I can infer something of the ship's layout from the systems distribution among the decks available through the Logistics computer, but it seems that I, and the vessel's commander, ought to know a little more about the actual layout of my ship ( )? In the original BC3000AD (and/or in the associated docs - I cannot remember for certain), the sections of the ship were displayed schematically on the representations of the decks shown through the Logistics computer - but not in BCM. Maybe this is because there are so many different ships now? Either way, short of experimenting by watching personnel move step-by-step in PerScan to learn how my ship is laid out, does anybody else know the 'floor plan'? [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mitchell ] [ 11-29-2001: Message edited by: Mitchell ]

If it's like previous versions of BC3000AD then armor matters, but only locally. That is, you can have a hole punched 100% of the way through an area covering just 10% of its total (reducing you to 90% armor), thus exposing the softer hull and internal systems in that area. Systems like launch bays can be especially vulnerable because they are, out of necessity, among the most outlying sections of the ship. If you have bandits on your tail continuously blasting away at a particular section of your ship, as can often happen when you're concentrating on some other target, the one attacking you can more easily hit you in the same spot repeatedly, reducing the armor (and hull) there to a point where internal system become vulnerable. As you twist and turn to follow your target (at least for me ), hits are more likely to be distributed around different parts of your target, so you might see armor reduced by a much greater percentage before the hull and internal systems become damaged. I haven't tried this yet in BCM, but in BC3000AD you could take one of your own FC out and blast away at a specific spot on your CC and watch just what I described above happen. That is, total CC 'armor' will be reduced only slightly (5% - 10%), but you will then start to damage the hull, then the systems located in that section of the ship. All-in-all very cool, IMHO - I sure hope it still works this way .

Oh yes you can! (ROFLMAO) quote: BCM DOES RULE!!!

Well, it's an exploit all right, so I try hard (:-)) not to use it... The SC has a pretty good track record with things like this, though, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something's done about it before MP or BCO comes out (in single player you're only cheating yourself if you use it...). I can also see, though, where it makes sense that larger ships are associated with longer jump transit and (especially) recharge times. It does make it hare, though, to keep up with that Diplomat in the 1st ToD mission, so I have to send my FC's to escort him instead. SC, I wonder if it would make sense to have the jump transit and recharge times depend on the larger of the two ships - the tower or the towee. That would keep the concept of larger ship / longer time intact but also kill the exploit. Thoughts anyone, or am I being stupid again?

It's cool that we now have the option to (role) play as a member of one of these castes, not to mention all of the ship choices. The appendix entries on castes referred to in this thread look virtually the same as the caste definitions used with the scripting tools back in 1996, and I expect they are still intended primarily as a guide for how NPCs of those castes are and should be scripted to behave. These castes DO play an important role in the scripts already included in the campaign ToD's - look at the role of the "Diplomats" in the very first scenario (very similar to the 2nd ToD mission in the original BC300AD). I do understand that the original question concerned why a Palyer could choose such a career when many of its functions, as described in the appendix, were not (yet) supported in the game. But, I have to wonder, why would anybody want to colonize a planet in a real-time game??? Maybe BCO will support this, but this isn't Civ or MOO or SEIV - colonization takes years or even decades - I'd be bored stiff . The point is that seeing explorers and colonists while flying around adds to the feel of the game, and having to do things like escort, protect or evacuate them makes for interesting mission scripts. So, you can sign on as an explorer and explore the galaxy to your heart's content, but it's difficult for me to imagine how a real-time game like BCM could support something like a single player 'colonizing' a new planet...

Another excellent example of the realism and depth of the BCM universe, IMHO. And more forgiving than it needs to be - 'realistic' could mean that you're a** is flattened against the bulkhead as you emerge from hyperspace whilst careening through a planet to a station on its opposite side... Try setting the autopilot on any decent flight sim for a GPS approach to Aspen airport - gets you up close and personal with a few of teh Rockey Mountains... It goes where you point it, so make sure you know where you're pointing it

For over 5 years now you've been right there for us, SC - WTG! After I d/l-ed the updated NavData archive and applied it the patched version worked fine. Thanks to you, too, Cmdr Nova - always a big help... Now, where were those Gammulans....

Problem after patch: Opening video plays, then the main menu screen comes up. From the main menu, trying to go to either IA or Tutorial sends me back to teh desktop. I can select "New", but when I hit "Accept" I am returned to the desktop. everything worked fine before the v1.0.0.1 patch. I've tried uninstal, reinstall - works - then apply the patch -> same problem. I am usinq DirectX 8.1, and just re-downloaded from the MS site and applied again to make doubly sure. Any ideas? System Specs: AMD 1.2 GHz CPU 512Mb RAM 72Gb HDD Creative sound blaster Live 5.1 DirectX 8.1 OS WindowME NVIDIA RIVA TNT2 Model 64 Pro MX Video Card LAN Card (3Com) DVD ROM 32x/8x CDRw MS inteliMouse Saitek Cyborg USB Joystick Until this glitch, this is a great release - long live BC3000AD!