I know this has been suggested before, but I can't get it out of my head. There is such a wealth of data and ships for this game that it could take years to produce just the stuff from HW and HW: Cataclysm alone. And unlike games like Freespace and Wing Commander, it isn't fighter-based, and it is sufficiently different from ACTA to be interesting. Several groups have attempted to make their own, and the general consensus is that the best system would be something like SFB- more detailed than ACTA, but still playable with a fleet.
Homeworld
- Thread starter catbarf
- Start date
Slightly Norse John
Mongoose
If you consider SFB as 'playable with a fleet', then your standards are either really high or really low, give me some time to work out which 
There was an ACtA conversion, it was lost in the great purge, and I thought it was good enough as far as it went- but largely pointless. The whole point of Homeworld was that it was a computer game, with beautiful backdrops and three dimensional positional play with a diverse fleet, the resoure and construction aspect was a strong sideline- but as far as I recall, the ships had nothing resembling critical hits, or degradation with damage.
I know if I saw this on a shelf, I'd look at it, think about it, decide it couldn't give me what I wanted from the game, and pass it over.
There was an ACtA conversion, it was lost in the great purge, and I thought it was good enough as far as it went- but largely pointless. The whole point of Homeworld was that it was a computer game, with beautiful backdrops and three dimensional positional play with a diverse fleet, the resoure and construction aspect was a strong sideline- but as far as I recall, the ships had nothing resembling critical hits, or degradation with damage.
I know if I saw this on a shelf, I'd look at it, think about it, decide it couldn't give me what I wanted from the game, and pass it over.
Well, I meant a game more complex than ACTA, but less so than SFB, so you could have fleets but keep it nice and detailed. I see the basis of your argument saying that Homeworld isn't special, but then again, what does Babylon 5 have that makes it so unique (from a wargame standpoint)?
Slightly Norse John
Mongoose
Not so much unique as better, and not perfect; remember the decimalisation arguments, for one thing. What it has in greater degree than most other systems is a community, and a circulation. It's a fast, simple tactical game that aims for playability over realism, and that by and large provides a decent small scale fleet game without too much paperwork.
The catch is, Homeworld isn't a tactical game, it plays out on the operational level. You give your instructions to ships and the computer carries them out. Not having to do the micromanagement is one of the chief charms of it- and there was no internal detail on the ships whatsoever. SFB was, probably still is, all about the micromanagement. To do Homeworld, I'd want a game much less complex than that, and probably less complex than ACtA, but with a richer range of campaign options.
The catch is, Homeworld isn't a tactical game, it plays out on the operational level. You give your instructions to ships and the computer carries them out. Not having to do the micromanagement is one of the chief charms of it- and there was no internal detail on the ships whatsoever. SFB was, probably still is, all about the micromanagement. To do Homeworld, I'd want a game much less complex than that, and probably less complex than ACtA, but with a richer range of campaign options.
In the past, games have all to often been divorced from their roots, and converting Homeworld to a tactical level wouldn't be so much of a stretch. True, some things would need to change (like the AI tactic with capital ships of 'line up and shoot') but you could still keep it similar enough to Homeworld to gain off of the licence, but make it better 
.
.Similar threads
