SGO: Hopefully the core elements of SFC1 will at worst be left intact - but I need to ask: are we going to see any changes to what I would consider the strong points of SFC?

Josh: I agree that the core of our game is very strong. We only want to add things that improve or streamline current controls. One such feature is adding the ability of tractor beams to rotate enemy ships after you catch them. These are the types of additions that we feel can be polished to act more like they did in Starfleet Battles. There are many examples of this throughout Empires at War.

a) graphics - SFC1 was already stunning, any intent to implement some of the newer feature sets of the newer graphics cards like EMBM, dual head display, T&L, FSAA, etc?

Josh: We have talked to some of the card makers on this subject but nothing is final yet. I would like to say however that the graphics engine has been greatly improved through the hard work of Sean Dumas our graphics programmer and our very talented art team. There are 3 major things to look for: Damage textures show battle damage to all the ships in the game adding a visual clue to you and your opponents about the status of ships. Luminosity maps will bring that movie like quality to our ships. The glow of the ships engines, weapon effects, sensors, and internal and external lights makes the game incredibly beautiful. Lastly we have added Dynamic lighting to realistically show the effects of Suns and weapon effects.

b) The score and sound effects of SFC1 were nearly unbeatable, will the same team be used for SFC2?

Josh: We whole-heartedly agree! Ron Jones should be back to give us even more of his great music. Taldren's Sean Dumas will be making sure that we get the right mix of music to enhance the mood even more in the sequel

c) the ship control and handling was pretty intuitive already in SFC1 - any changes planned here to the interface or the HUD? I don't think there are any more keys left to hotkey.... :)

Josh: We will of course be adding and streamlining where we can. We do plan to include even more hot keys in SFC2 to facilitate users of voice command software like Game Commander.

d) There were already a plethora of ships to choose from, will there be more for the classic/current races?

Josh: YES! You can never have too many can you? However we are making sure that when we add a ship it has a reason and isn't just filler.

SGO: got any new unreleased screenshots? We promise to know the difference and not mispost Mirak as ISC and vice versa! - please bury us in pictures! :)

Josh: Sure! I've passed you 5 of the hottest new screenshots to date for your readership to feast on.

SGO: It looks from the screenshots I've seen that damage will be applied as a skin patch, rather than a new skin - is that the case? Will players be able to fly a Fed CA that's NOT the NCC1701 Enterprise?

Josh: We have been facing this question since SFC1. We would like to do as you describe but it would take a lot of work that could be used in other areas. The damage textures are a global file that affects many ships. In the case of the Federation ships we would have to make hundreds of unique textures that would have to be placed on the fly or create an editor that would dynamically make a bitmap that would then be applied. For players that would rather see different names they can feel free to back up their art files and make changes directly to the ships bitmap.

SGO: environment: Any ideas toward a persistently deformable environment? For example, blowing up an asteroid and it stays floating around in chunks? What about dynamic environments - billowing/changing nebulae, comets racing across the playing area, etc?

Josh: Most of the terrain in SFC is rather large and wouldn't be easily deformable. However we are still looking at additional terrain features that could potentially have new effects and tactical challenges to the player.

SGO: One of the biggest and best strengths of SFC1 was its openness to customization by players. This had its up and down sides, however. On the one hand, some of us have effectively been playing with Mirak ships for some time already :), but on the other, I think everyone had the experience early on of running into someone flying a FF with Phaser 4's and invincible shields, too. The MPlayer solution - a "mod" room and a "no mod" room is a good short-term answer, but fails when I - who may have modified my spec file so the space monsters are tougher on the solo missions - want to fly a stock ship against a stock ship. So how do you leave the system open for player modification, but make it MORE secure to prevent unacknowledged or surreptitious modifications?

Josh: We DON'T want players to lose that ability at all. What we want to do is add extra security and flexibility to the way people play their games. There will defiantly be extra security for online play for the Metaverse.

SGO: One of the most interesting implications to online play is the opening of the SFC universe to a massively multiplayer persistent online game. Could you illuminate this a little more for us please? Is this going to be a purely human/human thing, or do you have the chance to run into an AI opponent captaining some freighters that you are raiding behind enemy lines?

Josh: We are very excited about this portion of the game and will be giving out more details about it when it's closer to release. I can say that the universe will be live 24hours a day and you will always find opponents whether they are human or server controlled. Characters will also be stored on a server for security reasons.

SGO: There are a few different systems out there being developed (many around the original F&E game) for closed campaigns set in/around the General War - will the game have the ability to offer a closed, user-defined MMPOG, or will it only be the single online environment offered through WON?

Josh: We plan on offering several different play options. These range from the General War to the War of Pacification. We would also like to add even earlier start dates. We will be happy to take user input on additional scenarios to run after release.

SGO: Personally, I despise the Kaufmann Retrograde as a weasel-tactic suitable only for cowardly Fed captains :) but given the intent to at least generally measure with SFB yardsticks, will "reverse" be an option?

Josh: This is one area that we have not adopted the SFB standard. We are looking into this area but we don't like the look of ships flying at high speeds backward. We have compensated the Federation player that relied on backwards movement more by giving them a better hit chance with proximity photons. So far we like this compromise. As for letting people run their own servers, we will have to see what the demand is for it and look at the question again.

SGO: The boarding party mechanic in SFC1 was a little unpredictable (when will it drop my shield to send my teams?) and I found boarding parties to be used far more frequently (excessively so, in my opinion) in SFC than SFB. I don't have a better solution, but I'm wondering if you have thought about this facet, and have any planned changes? What about assigning boarding parties to guard vital things like heavy weapons, transporters, and shuttle bays?

Josh: Boarding parties were VERY effective in SFC. To compensate in SFC2 we have incorporated a new rule. If you do NOT set any boarding parties to attack enemies, your marines place themselves on defense therefore giving your ship increased survivability to such attacks.

SGO: To continue with that last thought: With SFC1 you hewed pretty close to SFB canon in terms of what was implemented and what gameplay effects you were striving to achieve. Now you have a basically successful system that really gives you some creative license to look at SFC1 and see what SFB functionality worked or didn't, and change what you need to. Any thoughts on this?

Josh: I agree. That is why we have added the boarding party rule. There are many more such improvements and you'll have to wait to see what they are when the game is released ;>