A little bit of game history...

I am bored here at work, babysitting an empty TSA-monitored warehouse.  From my "what are your top 5 games" thread I know a lot of you are big fans of Master of Orion and, obviously, so are the people who make Galactic Civilizations.  So, even though it is off topic, I figured most of you would be interested in this story... and I am one of a very few people who actually know this story.  I can't tell the end of the story, you'll just have to use your imaginations as to how it ends, but I can tell the story of where Master of Orion actually came from.

The story of Master of Orion begins with the formation of the company you know today as New World Computing... I bet you weren't expecting that, were you?  In the late 1980's a group of Commander's Edition SFB Staff members led by a former SFB national champion named Jon van Canaghem left the SFB Staff to form a computer game company with the sole purpose of producing the games of the Star Fleet Universe as computer games.  They did this with the knowledge and cooperation of Task Force Games, the publishers of the Star Fleet Universe.  They made a couple simple games, such as the classic "Nuclear War", while trying to arrange their ultimate goal of making the SFU games.  Unfortunately, Paramount ultimately told them that they would never, ever allow computer games based on the Star Fleet Universe to be made.  Paramount had never authorized the Star Fleet Universe (Majel Roddenberry did during the "dead years" between the cancellation of the original TV series and the first movie... it's a long story) and was adamant there would never be any Star Fleet Universe computer games.  New World Computing then made a deal with TFG for the rights to make a computer version of a board game we had in the design phase at that time called "King's Bounty" and, in a move that was far ahead of its time, TFG and New World Computing ultimately did a simultaneous release of a board game and computer game together.  During the making of King's Bounty the guys at New World were inspired to make Might & Magic... and the rest, as they say, is history.  And yes, ultimately both Might & Magic and Master of Orion arose from the same set of circumstances.

Of course, the news that Paramount had told New World Computing essentially "you'll make a Star Fleet Universe game over our dead bodies" was, as you might imagine, a hard blow to the SFB Staff.  In fact, it was unacceptable to the some members of the SFB staff.  Steve Cole's SFB Staff is the original such organization.  Steve Cole literally invented the modern method of making games that most game companies use today when he created the SFB staff in 1978 operating through the US mail.  Much like his game, SVC is the Rodney Dangerfield of the gaming world... "he don't get no respect".  He is "the father of modern game design" and he practically invented the process by which games are made today.  There is a big difference between the SFB staff and its distant descendants of today such as this "founders program".  The SFB Staff was far, far more serious than it's modern day descendants.  I am a rarity among SFB Staff members, chosen purely for my natural game design abilities.  Most SFB Staff members have some type of alphabet soup associated with their names... doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, and military officers.  The SFB staff included scientists from JPL and Lawrence Livermore, a 2-star Marine Corps General, and an Air Force Colonel from US Space Command (really, no foolin').  This is the group of people they told could never have a comupter game version of their favorite game.

You'll have to use your imaginations from this point, because you won't ever find anyone that will be willing to finish this story for you, but this is where Master of Orion ultimately came from.  This is where it began.

 

47,368 views 47 replies
Reply #1 Top

...and maybe now you also find it a little comical that right now, at this very moment, an entire dev team is spending millions of dollars and working on a game that they have no idea what it is, where it came from, or what it is supposed to even be.  I'm always willing to give good betting odds that a new MOO game will suck, any takers?   :-)

 

Reply #2 Top

I think I mentally blocked that there was a MoO4 game. Your post undid that. Gee, thanks. :(

I'm glad it's getting a 75% approval on Steam. It needs to die and go away. MoO2 <3

Reply #3 Top

MOO2... the revision...

If you look in the credits of MOO2 you will find "Special Technical Advisor: Eric Hyman".  He is the Buffalo Bills of the Star Fleet Universe.  He made it to the final game in the national championship tournament 4 times... and lost 4 times.

 

Reply #4 Top

Oh yeah, most of you probably don't recognize "King's Bounty".  You know it by the name used on subsequent versions... Heroes of Might & Magic.

 

Reply #5 Top

I played King's Bounty back in early 90s on 286. Those were the times...

Reply #6 Top

I played the original Star Control II on a 286/12.5... a speed demon game machine at the time, haha.

 

Reply #7 Top

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 6

I played the original Star Control II on a 286/12.5... a speed demon game machine at the time, haha.

I played SC1 on an 8088 (PS/2 Models 25). I played Wing Commander on that too, and that pushed it....

Worlds of Ultima: Martian Dreams was the last hurah for that old PC. When WC2 and U7 came out, I upgraded to a 486 DX!

Reply #8 Top

Quoting IBNobody, reply 2

I think I mentally blocked that there was a MoO4 game. Your post undid that. Gee, thanks. :(

I'm glad it's getting a 75% approval on Steam. It needs to die and go away. MoO2 <3

 

Eh, the approval ratings don't really do much in the long run. Just like how metacritic means very little when there's almost no regulation of mule votes.

Reply #9 Top

Quoting IBNobody, reply 7


Quoting Kavik_Kang,

I played the original Star Control II on a 286/12.5... a speed demon game machine at the time, haha.



I played SC1 on an 8088 (PS/2 Models 25). I played Wing Commander on that too, and that pushed it....

Worlds of Ultima: Martian Dreams was the last hurah for that old PC. When WC2 and U7 came out, I upgraded to a 486 DX!

My first computer was a Franklin 1100 when I was like 11 or 12 years old.  I really wanted a Franklin 1200 because it had 2 disk drives which made life much easier before hard drives.  It also had a 300bps modem and I was like the guy in Wargames and spent lots of time looking for BBSs and playing the door games and being a "pirate":-)

 

Reply #10 Top

Something Volusianus said in another thread reminded me that, of course, there would be more than a few aspiring game designers in a thing like this founders program.  Since we are in between updates I thought I'd provide something interesting to read until there is more Star Control to talk about.  So here is some more game history, this time the *real* reason that the old "hobbiest" board game industry died from the perspective of someone who was working in it when it happened.  Almost everyone assumes that computer games killed it, but that isn't what happened.  Computer games would have eventually killed the hobbiest board game industry 5-8 years later, but they didn't get a chance too because the hobbiest board game business inadvertently committed suicide before computer games got the chance.

First, we need to define what the "hobbiest games" were.  Before the commercial computer game industry existed there were 3 basic categories of games.  There were the "classic" (which you might also call "ancient") games such as Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, and most card games.  Many of these games are so old that in most cases we don't even know who made them or where they actually came from.  In the earliest days of the 20th century a new category of games emerged, these were the "family" games.  These were games such as Monopoly, Risk, Life, Stratego and children's games like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders.  Then in the late 1940's some WWII veterans wanting to make games about the war created the first "hobbiest" games, almost all of which were based on WWII, and created the game company Avalon Hill.  For about 20 years Avalon Hill was a unique phenomena and were essentially the only people who made what would later become known as "hobbiest" games.

Then the generation raised on Avalon Hill games, a small but significant audience of what was then a somewhat rare hobby, began taking the basic idea of more complex games like Avalon Hill's and applying it other ideas that weren't necessarily the "counters on a hexmap" format of "their father's" generation of Avalon Hill games.  It began in the mid-1960's and by the early 1970's there were many hobbiest games and game companies.  This was the beginning of the "golden age" of the old hobbiest game industry which lasted from the early 1970's to the early 1990's.  Three games quickly emerged during this early period that would dominate and the market and serve as the crutches that kept the entire industry alive.  Some called them "The Big Three" which had a dual meaning.  They were the most financially successful of the hobbiest games and, not coincidentally, they were also the largest of the hobbeist games in terms of volume... the number of products available for each.

"The Big Three" were Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader (Avalon Hill), Star Fleet Battles (Task Force Games), and Dungeons & Dragons (TSR).  These three games were the basis of the retail success of the entire industry, and the industry could not exist without them.  A typical hobbiest game store in the 1980's looked something like this.  One entire wall of the store was D&D and TSRs other games.  Another entire wall of the store was SFB and TFG's other games.  In the middle floor area there were 4 isles, 3 of which were the games of Avalon Hill some of which dated back to the late 1940's.  What little space was left in the story was devoted to "all other hobbiest games".  This "balance of power" lasted for about 20 years, throughout an entire generation of gamers.  Then, in the early 1990s two games came along that upset this long standing situation.  Warhammer 40k (Games Workshop) and Magic: The Gathering (Wizards of the Coast).

There was a precursor of this... the Milton-Bradley Gamemaster Series.  Axis & Allies, Fortress America, and Shogun.  These games were hobbiest games, but at the same time were also family games in a way too.  They sort of sit on the fence between the two... and, compared to the traditional "black & white" hobbiest games like The Big Three, these games had stunningly high production values.  But these games, carried in stores like Sears and Target, were not really in direct competition with the hobbiest games like Warhammer and Magic would be and had little impact on the industry.  Warhammer 40k and Magic: The Gathering, however, was an entirely different matter.  They were sold in the same stores as the old school hobbiest games, and were therefore in direct competition with them.  And the old "black & white" hobbiest gamers too which visuals and color were irrelevant too in a game were turning 30 and 40.  The new generation of gamers who were looking for something more than Monopoly or Risk were drawn to the high production values and pretty colors of Warhammer 40k, and it began to steal the potential "Big Three" audience of new younger gamers away from the traditional, largely colorless, classics.

Then came the #2 blow of the 1-2 knockout punch that took down the hobbiest game industry.  Magic: The Gathering.  Remember that typical retail store of the 1980's that was largely filled by The Big Three and the other games of those companies?  Well, they ordered the new phenomenon of Magic and put it on a tiny little shelf under the glass at the cash register... and it out-sold all of The Big Three combined.  The new generation of potential Big Three players were all playing Warhammer now, few younger people took up any of the Big Three games anymore, not even D&D.  The owners of these stores assessed the situation, and realized they would make a lot more money if the rest of their store space was devoted to things that sold more like Magic than Advanced Squad Leader.  And, almost overnight, most of the hobbiest game stores became novelty stores that sold things like whoopy cushions, levatrons, and lava lamps.  Many kept a limited selection of games, like Magic and high quality chess sets, but the retail distribution network of the hobbiest game industry was gone and the new generation demanded production values far exceeding what companies like Task Force Games and Avalon Hill knew how to meet.  We were game designers, not artists, and saw no way to remain in businiess.  It would simply cost too much to produce what this new generation demanded.  And this was how the old hobbiest board game industry ended, with two self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head.  Computer games had nothing to do with it, although they certainly would have had a similar effect 5-8 years or so down the road.

If you are interested in these old "hobbiest" games, here is a list of ones you might want to try.  These are not what I consider to be the absolute best ever, or the most complex.  These are the games of the old hobbiest game industry that I believe have best passed Sid Meier's test and have stood the test of time.  These are the ones I think modern gamers, raised on modern games, might still appreciate.  I'll say in advance, if you are looking for the most complex game you can possibly find there are only two real candidates... Advanced Squad Leader and Star Fleet Battles.  Now on to the "popular" ones:-)

 

1. Axis & Allies (Milton-Bradley GameMaster Series) - This is the obvious #1 choice here considering that it's popularity has never waned and has remained consistant pretty much since it was first released.  In fact, most of you have probably already played this game at least once when you were younger.  It has achieved a status almost akin to Monopoly or Risk and most Americans have probably played this game at least once by the time they reach 20.

2. Acquire (Avalon Hill) - I talked about this game here before, it is a game design lesson in minamalism within game design.  As a game... it is the only game of the modern era that belongs in the "classics" category.

3. Supremacy (Supremacy Games) - Very colorful, nice pieces... amazingly awesome gameplay.  Similar to Milton-Bradley GameMaster Series games but created by a very small one-man-show company who only ever made this game.  There are two versions.  There original that I am recommending here which as a 2-page leaflet of rules, and far more complex version called "MegaSupremacy" that is one of my personal favorite games of all time and has a 100 page rulebook.

4. Shogun (Milton-Bradley GameMaster Series) - Have you ever played one of those games about feudal Japan and the era of the Shogunate?  This is the original.  Similar production values to Axis & Allies.

5. King's Bounty (Task Force Games) - King's Bounty makes the list on gameplay alone, it's production values are not of the same caliber of the other games on this list.  TFG was, alongside Avalon Hill, the most "old school" of the old school game companies and never made a game that would be considered "pretty" by today's standards.  However, if you like Hereo's of Might & Magic you will like this game in spite of it's "old school" look.  There are significant differences between King's Bounty and HMoM, but much will be familiar as well and it is a very good game in it's own right.

 

Reply #11 Top

You know, the only one out of that list that I haven't played extensively is Shogun :P Fortress America is actually one of my favorite boardgames of all time. Before I discovered my love for video game design and coding, I had aspired to create boardgames. (That's probably ultimately why I'm so drawn to things like X-Com and all things Firaxis.)

Reply #12 Top

Fortress America is certainly another one that has passed Sid's test well, but it has a single significant flaw that makes it a harder game to recommend.  There was an old adage among board game designers "you won't be there to answer questions when the player opens the box and tries to learn the game, everything they need to do that themselves has to be in the box."  Fortress America breaks this rule, everything needed to learn it and have a good game to play is not in the box because the rules contain a game killing flaw... the American lasers are way too powerful and they practically can't lose if you play the game as the rules are written.  While a single, simple house rule will correct this problem and instantly transform it into a totally awesome all-time classic of a game... the fact remains that you have to explain all of this to recommend the game to someone.  It's been a long time, and I can't remember what that house rule was, but if you look on internet I am sure it is one of the things about the game that is fairly prominent and easy to find.  With this one change, definately, Fortress America is one of the all-time greats.

For those unfamiliar with it, it is probably best described as "Red Dawn: The Game".  If you've ever seen the movie Red Dawn, Fortress America is a very similar situation to the one portrayed in that movie.  It has production values that are more than acceptable to even today's gamers, in fact the little "hovertanks" and helicopters are just as cool today as they were 30 years ago when the game was first released.  All three of the Milton-Bradley GameMaster Series games are some of the best board games ever made in terms of both gameplay and production values.

 

Reply #13 Top

I should also point out that three primary genres of computer games trace their heritage back to "The Big Three".  All RTS games can trace their line back to Advanced Squad Leader.  All "energy allocation" games, "system display" games, and most space ship games, can trace their lineage back to Star Fleet Battles.  And, of course, all RPGs can trace their lineage back to Dungeons & Dragons.

As an example, I've mentioned here before that I don't like space ship games like Homeworld and Sins of a Solar Empire.  I see them as more of a Rube Goldberg Abacus, the most expensive and complicated way of counting to 100.  One of the reasons I dislike these games is that they aren't really space ship games, they are ground combat games painted to look like space ship games.  Or, said another way... they trace their lineage back to Advanced Squad Leader, not Star Fleet Battles.

 

Reply #14 Top

How "big" were The Big Three?  I've realized that modern gamers have no concept of this and would be very surprised.  You young whippersnappers (I've always wanted a reason to say that!) know of the concept of an "expansion" for a game, and probably assume that these old games "had a few expansions".  These are rough guesses, but probably pretty close...

If you had everything for Advanced Squad Leader you would have about 1,000 pages of total material coming from about a dozen different products.  It probably cost you about $600.

If you had everything for Star Fleet Battles you would have about 2,500 pages of total material coming from about 30 different products.  It probably cost you about $1,500.

If you had everything for Dungeons & Dragons you would have about 5,000 pages of total material coming from nearly 100 different products.  It probably cost you about $3,000.  (But D&D was almost entirely story where ASL and SFB were almost entirely rules and play-aids).

If you wanted miniatures for SFB or D&D, all of them... Probably tack on another $1,000 for SFB and $4,000-$5,000 for D&D.

This is how "big" The Big Three were.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and that's in 1980's money...

 

Reply #15 Top

Eh, my problem with things like SoaSE and Homeworld is they don't go BIG ENOUGH for me. There's so much more there, like a Crusader Kings meets Theater of War in Space with actual space combat a la submarine battles. But that scope is so huge I don't think any company would dare even touch that. I know Paradox is doing something similar to that soon, but I'm holding judgement on that until I see it and play it myself.

Reply #16 Top

...and, I just can't resist, sometimes pride just gets the better of you.

As I mentioned earlier, Steven V Cole is the "father of modern game design" and practically created the process by which games are made today.  You've never heard of him before, because both he and his game are the Rodney Dangerfield of the gaming world.  "They don't get no respect."  Star Fleet Battles is the second most influential game in the history of games second only to Dungeons & Dragons.  Almost every space game you've ever played was influenced by the Star Fleet Universe by a large degree, either directly or indirectly.  Any game that features "energy allocation", that's Star Fleet Battles.  Any game that uses "system displays", that's Star Fleet Battles.

There is no better example of the Star Fleet Universe being the Rodney Dangerfield of the gaming world than Master of Orion.  It's one of the most beloved games in the history of the computer game industry, and nobody has any idea that it is essentially the Star Fleet Universe (A blending of Star Fleet Battles, Federation & Empire, and Civilization).  It's not like this is hidden well or anything.  Anyone who has played SFB instantly recognizes Master of Orion as the Star Fleet Universe.  I mean, come on... It's even called "Master of Orion".  Two of the races of the Star Fleet Universe... "The Masters" and the "Orions".  It's not like this is some kind of big secret or anything, it is "smack you in the face" blatantly obvious.  And yet, nobody has ever noticed this?  It's just astounding too me, it really is.

Even in Star Control you have Hellbore Cannons (the primary weapons of the Hydrans of the Star Fleet Universe), the Airilou (You see them as UFOs, but really they are the Andromedans of Star Fleet Battles), and the Ilwrath (a very specific and, at the time SC was made, unique ship within the Star Fleet Universe, a Romulan Falcon Mauler).

Anytime any game contained any hint of D&D everyone knew it, but when a game contains elements of the Star Fleet Universe it is like some big secret or something.  Steve Cole made what might be the best game of all time.  It has certainly been one of the most influential, and continues to be to this day.

[Steps down off of soapbox...]

 

Reply #17 Top

I don't think you understand the scope I'm going for. The scope I'm referring to is so absurd literally noone would ever in their right mind ever actually try to make it and succeed. Right down to what underwear my goddamn officers are wearing :P (that is, of course, out of millions of individuals). Superfluous? Of course. Satisfying? Immensely. 

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Volusianus, reply 17

I don't think you understand the scope I'm going for. The scope I'm referring to is so absurd literally noone would ever in their right mind ever actually try to make it and succeed. Right down to what underwear my goddamn officers are wearing :P (that is, of course, out of millions of individuals). Superfluous? Of course. Satisfying? Immensely. 

There are some very old ideas for games that would be ridiculously complex to actually achieve.  The *real* concept that Wright used as the basis for the game that you know as Spore is a good example.  The *real* concept there was to use scientific modeling (what you know as "Wright's style" but is actually just a book he once read... I read it too) to represent evolution beginning at the cellular level.  Doing this for real would be impossibly complex, which was always kind of the point of the example.

Another would be a game where there is a single world, and all types of individual military simulators (Tanks, Planes, FPS Soldier game, Subs... everything) playing in the same game.  The problem there is that by the time you get to the 3rd game... the first is already out of date and you've still got like 20 more to go.  Another amazing game idea that simply cannot exist in the real world.

 

Reply #19 Top

Oh yeah, one last thing about Master of Orion.  There is no mystery as to why it is so totally awesome and clearly one of the best computer games ever made.  In reality Master of Orion is a collaboration between Sid Meier (Civilization) and Steven V Cole (Star Fleet Battles, Federation & Empire).  The greatest computer game designer of all time, and the greatest board game designer of all time.

How can it be so great... How could it possibly not have been?  That would be a better question.

 

Reply #20 Top

...and speaking of Federation & Empire, here is the cover art.  This is a very interesting bit of game trivia... does anyone notice anything unusual about this image?  Anything at all?

[Don't answer if you are an SFB player, most of whom know this.]

 

EDIT:  WARNING!  As a modern gamer you expect to play "the full campaign" in a game like this.  SVC doesn't play by the same rules as other game designers, even his contemporaries.  Things like how hard a game might be to learn, how big it is, or how long it takes to play are generally not considered during his decision making process.  His games are made for people who don't care about these things, and would instead prefer the most detailed and complex portrayal of the subject matter.  How this most impacts F&E is that this game brings new meaning to the term "play time".  It is generally played in "scenarios" and the "General War" represented in this game is broken into about 8 different scenarios that are most commonly played by players of this game.  There is a "full campaign".  If two players meet every weekend to play for 8-hours, they might be finished in about a year.  Know this before buying this game.  If it still interests you, then know that there is software available for playing this game online against others who know how to play it and forums to arrange those meetings.

An original concept of this game was that it would also serve as a scenario generator for SFB and F&E battles could be resolved with SFB.  This has pretty much never been done because, for example, playing the full campaign using SFB to resolve all of the battles... any reasonable play time estimate would be counted in decades.  Are you starting to get that "Master of Orion" vibe yet? ;-)

 

Reply #21 Top

The fact that it deliberately smacks of "VUX Intruder demonstrating its infamous early warp-in tactical combat advantage against an Earthling Cruiser"?

:thumbsup:

Reply #22 Top


^ You mean against Star Trek Enterprise?  ;)

Reply #23 Top

If you look more closely at the Federation ship you'll see a 3rd warp nacelle in the middle.  It's not a Heavy Cruiser (Enterprise), it is a Dreadnaught.  A fleet command ship.  F&E is a strategic level game so command ships are shown.  That's not what you are looking for though, there is something very interesting about this art that I would bet the artists at Stardock, if they are reading this, have already noticed.  It's a lot harder for the untrained eyes of us mere mortals to see, it was years before SFB players noticed this.

I'll give this a day or two before I tell you what it is, I'm interested in seeing if anyone can see it.

 

Reply #24 Top

While we wait to see if anyone can see what is hidden within the F&E cover art, I figured I'd throw out something else that might be of interest to aspiring game designers...

The most recent heavily SFB-inspired game is Faster Than Light.  I thought I would explain exactly what it is about Faster Than Light that makes it such a popular game.  The design of Faster Than Light is actually sheer-genius, and is almost certainly not fully appreciated.  Star Fleet Battles rests on a foundation of 4 fundamental concepts that were the initial basis of the entire game system and have remained unchanged through nearly 40 years of expansion.

1) The Energy Allocation Form

2) The Ship System Display

3) The Damage Allocation System

4) Mass-Based Proportional Movement

Faster Than Light uses the first two of these, and eliminates the 3rd and 4th.  Why is this such an act of genius?  

The Damage Allocation System is the primary generator of play time within the game, the thing that most adds to how long it takes to resolve a turn.  This is replaced by what is a little-used optional rule within Star Fleet Battles called "Directed Damage" which means that the firing player chooses what system he is shooting at and therefore no "damage allocation" is needed.  This removes the lengthy time it can take to resolve damage within this system.

The Mass-Based Proportional Movement System is the primary source of complexity within Star Fleet Battles.  Part of what this system does is create what many believe is not possible, even though it has actually existed for over 40 years now, a "real-time board game".  The fact that SFB is a real-time board game is precisely what makes it so complex.  The design of Faster Than Light removes the primary source of SFB's complexity with this single act, and replaces it in the most simple of ways possible... the more power you put to engines, the higher your "evasion rating" is.  There isn't even any movement at all.  This single thing removes 90% or more of the complexity of the SFB game system.

This leaves ONLY the heart-and-soul, the two primary things, of what made SFB a dominant game in the hobbiest game market for nearly 20 years.  It is absolute, sheer genius and a great lesson for any aspiring game designer to understand.

BTW, if you want to do better at FTL, the single best piece of advice would be to not think of the energy you provide to engines as "fully powered", that misses the point.  In FTL power to engines is an abstract representation of movement and speed, as you already know if you understand the above.  Never feel obligated to fully power it, and never be reluctant to take power out of it to use something else at the right moment.  You aren't supposed to always have the engines fully powered, it isn't power... it is movement and speed.

 

EDIT:  Very funny.  As another example of the Star Fleet Universe being the Rodney Dangerfield of the gaming world... go read the wiki entry for Faster Than Light which, not surprisingly, manages to make no mention of SFB in spite of going into great detail of which games inspired FTL.  Very, very funny stuff:-)  FTL is, literally, the closest thing to a Star Fleet Battles computer game ever made.  Very, very funny stuff:-)

***EDIT AGAIN: I absolutely had to add this after finishing the thread, it's just too good... Why does this situation seem to remind me about that old saying about a million monkeys with a million typewriters eventually writing the collective works of William Shakespeare?  :thumbsup:

Reply #25 Top

...and I'll also throw in a well-known incident from the past that most SFB players are aware of that serves as an excellent example of how complete of a game SFB actually is.  And a little about where you've heard about SFB before without realizing it.

Back when Star Trek III: The Search for Spock was released a lot of SFB players noticed everything that happened in the movie was already represented in the game.  Even the ending.  At the end of the movie Kirk tricks the Klingons onto his ship, blows it up, and winds up on the bridge of the enemy ship and in command of it.  This had actually been a rule in SFB already, a "Legendary Captain" had a 1% chance of doing this whenever his ship is destroyed for many years before the release of the movie.  The explanation for this within the rules... "Don't ask how he did it, that's why he's a legend."

Although Star Trek has used many things from the Star Fleet Universe in the past, this was more likely a matter of SFB being so complete that it already had the situation covered because it was TNG that fairly regularly honored SFB for some unknown reason, in ways that only SFB players would notice.

The most famous is probably that Steve Cole is actually the creator of the term "warbird" for Romulan ships.

And, of course, the episode "Peak Performance" that is a tribute to SFB from beginning to end and even features a character, "Cole-Rami", that is an overblown caricature of Steve Cole written and casted by someone who clearly knew him.  The SFB references never stop in this episode, and the entire plot is an SFB scenario called "Practice, Practice, and Then What?"  The only things non-SFB players are likely to notice are Picard saying "...and so ends the Entperise's first Star Fleet Battle Simulation" as the ship sails off to the sunset, and the forced dialog about Cole-Rami that might seem odd too you without understanding why.  "Cole-Rami" is from a race that is so respected for their strategic abilities that they have never been challenged in combat, to which Worf replies "Then the reputation is meaningless".  I have always thought those who weren't in on the "other" story of this episode might think those lines were forced and out of place.  They are references to the fact that Steve Cole famously does not play SFB (which is part of the reason he created the SFB Staff), and to his most well-known qoute "The only valid test is combat, the only valid result is victory" (attributed within the game to SVC's alter-ego within the storyline, Klingon Grand Admiral Ardak Kumerian).  [I bet this gives you an idea of where my online handle comes from...]

There is another full episode from the Star Fleet Universe, the one where Captain Maxwell crosses the Cardassian border and pre-emptively attacks them because he is convinced that the Cardassians are preparing to invade the Federation.  This is the original historical scenario of the Star Fleet Universe (SH1.0) The Surprise Reversed that was one of SVC's original scenarios that came with the original game.

As an example of one of the more subtle ways they would honor SFB, in the DS9 episode where they "Forrest Gump" the tribble episode there is a re-creation of the brief scene of the Enterprise and the Klingon Battlecruiser outside of the station.  The reason they didn't use the original scene for this when doing the Forrest Gump thing was obvious to SFB players... these are not the Enterprise and the Klingon ships you know from TOS, these are the Star Fleet Universe versions which are subtly but significantly different than the versions from the original show.  The ships in the original show were "flat" and plain.  The SFB versions evolved from this with subtle things that make them look much better like ridges, hull plating seems, and other slight artistic enhancements that make them instantly recognizable to SFB players as our versions of those ships.

TNG also used a lot of terms from SFB like "emergency deceleration", and seemed to use SFB to choreograph scenes to make sure that what was being said on screen matched the reality of the situation.  Most SFB players recognize most of these things.

I don't think anyone, even SVC, knows exactly why TNG chose to regularly honor SFB in hidden ways, but there is no question that it did.

 

EDIT: I had to add this one, because they are so immensely popular within the SFU that I don't want to be smacked in the head next time I go to a convention for leaving them out:-)  In Enterprise, they used what is a favorite race of the SFU among many of its players.  They are best described as "the other Federation", the one on the opposite side of what we call the "Alpha Octant".  The race that was a collection of races and one of them was an aquatic species that was always in the tank... They don't re-run it often, I can't even remember what they called them, but who they really are is the Intersteller Concordium.  There, now the back of my head is safe.  :-)