BC3K Manual Preview Released!
Derek Smart
I did some more work on the manual today and decided to release a preview
version of it. PREVIEW is the operative word. I have not checked it, outlined
it nor done any grammatical checks. There was a problem converting to Adobe so
I had to disable the screen shots. This version covers ALL the important things
you need to know and has 22 out of 32 chapters completed. It is 117 pages. You
will need to download the Adobe Acrobat reader. A full version with screen
shots, schematics, maps etc, will be included with the first D patch due out
sometime this month.
You asked for it, here it is. It's work in progress. Please, no more, "where is
the manual?" queries. If this preview doesn't answer all your questions, then
I've done a very bad job. I wrote this manual single-handedly from the ground
up to cover EVERYTHING I know about the game. I am not a pro at manuals and I
hate documentation. Perhaps I can get someone to volunteer to lay it out, check
it, etc at a professional level once I have all the context in.
There is something that I have said all along. This manual is updated for the D
patch and beyond. Somethings may work differently than in C5.3. I have made a
note of this where ever I can. Somethings in C5.3 may not appear in the manual
(such as some tacOPS unit orders), this means that they are no longer in the
game.
You can download the manual at www.bc3000ad.com in the ftp area of the CARGO
BAY
Your comments are always welcome.
Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
Battlecruiser:3000AD
UIN: 158435
"Some are born to win...others are born to lose
if you plan on losing here, you'll wish you were never born"
- Supreme Commander, Galactic Command
BC3K: Battle Zone, the internet multi-player environment for BC3K
coming soon to www.3000ad.com. Be there!
For more info on Battlecruiser:3000AD jack into www.bc3000ad.com
Media contact: John Stegenga, bc3000a...@mindspring.com
pat_lundrigan
In article <33e3da79....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, dsm...@pobox.com
(Derek Smart) writes:
>I did some more work on the manual today and decided to release a preview
>version of it. PREVIEW is the operative word. I have not checked it, outlined
Looks like the Demo manual from the CGW with a few extra chapters.
Why not have a patch so the demo owners can upgrade to Manual Ver 1.1 D?
///////////////////
Pat Lundrigan
meg...@msn.com
//////////////////
Derek Smart
On 4 Aug 1997 11:49:42 GMT, Pat Lundrigan wrote:
>In article <33e3da79....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, dsm...@pobox.com
>(Derek Smart) writes:
>
>>I did some more work on the manual today and decided to release a preview
>>version of it. PREVIEW is the operative word. I have not checked it, outlined
>
>
>Looks like the Demo manual from the CGW with a few extra chapters.
So? The manual that shipped with the demo was the manual in progress. Besides,
it's different in a lot of ways. Besides, who cares? If those who play the game
think that it's adequate, which they think it is, why should I give a shit what
detractors think? What, you think releasing the manual was to make new friends?
Gimme a break, haven't you learned _anything_ Pat?
>Why not have a patch so the demo owners can upgrade to Manual Ver 1.1 D?
That's the idea.
Derek Smart
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 17:21:10 +0100, Jonathan Normington
<rep...@souragne.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Derek Smart recently wrote:
>
>>>Why not have a patch so the demo owners can upgrade to Manual Ver 1.1 D?
>>
>>That's the idea.
I was being sarcastic.
Ken
Jonathan Normington wrote:
>
> Derek Smart recently wrote:
>
> >>Why not have a patch so the demo owners can upgrade to Manual Ver 1.1 D?
> >
> >That's the idea.
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Normington
> http://www.souragne.demon.co.uk/
Why don't you get off his back. At least he released something and is
still working on this. More than most developers do for buggy
games.Lighten up a bit.
Jonathan Normington
pat_lundrigan
In article <33e6def5...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, dsm...@pobox.com
(Derek Smart) writes:
>On 4 Aug 1997 11:49:42 GMT, Pat Lundrigan wrote:
>
>>In article <33e3da79....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, dsm...@pobox.com
>>(Derek Smart) writes:
>>
>>>I did some more work on the manual today and decided to release a preview
>>>version of it. PREVIEW is the operative word. I have not checked it,
outlined
>>
>>
>>Looks like the Demo manual from the CGW with a few extra chapters.
>
>So? The manual that shipped with the demo was the manual in progress. Besides,
>it's different in a lot of ways. Besides, who cares?
At this point in time, I would say that very few people care, one way or the
other.
>If those who play the game
>think that it's adequate, which they think it is, why should I give a shit
what
Hmmm, so the people who play the game already think the manual is adequate, so
they must already have it. I sure could have used it months ago when I was
trying to play the game. A day late and a dollar short. Or should I say 230
days late and 11 chapters short?
>detractors think? What, you think releasing the manual was to make new
friends?
Well, making friends was never one of your strong points.
>Gimme a break, haven't you learned _anything_ Pat?
Yes, I learned that after deleting BC3K and the demo from my hard drive I now
have a lot more free space. Also, a funny thing, ever since then my PC seems
to run better. The mouse is more responsive. The monitor seems more
colorfull. The speakers put forth such fantastics sounds, it's as if I were in
that Skyranger (been playing XCOM1 lately). In fact it just like my PC were
cured of some debilitating disease.
>
>>Why not have a patch so the demo owners can upgrade to Manual Ver 1.1 D?
>
>That's the idea.
Maybe I should have put a little :} after that. Are you REALLY planning to
have A,B,C etc patches to a demo?
Mark Asher
>On 5 Aug 1997 20:03:45 -0500, cas...@ksu.edu (Charles A Smith) wrote:
>>Now that the "manual" is out, would anyone like to purchase my copy of
>>BC3K for $10 plus priority shipping?
>>
>>Chuck
>>cas...@ksu.edu
For $10 you can send it to me and I'll drive it to a landfill and
chuck it in. Aw hell, I'll do it for $5.
Mark Asher
Timothy Gaastra
>>
>>>That's the idea.
>
>I was being sarcastic.
>
Timothy Gaastra