Federation Commander

[DorianGray]

I've mentioned this somewhere else but,

Why can't ADB use ship designs from the Star Trek series? Such as the Klingon bird of prey? I believe it would be better than the sized down F5 frigate with seems similar to the full sized D.

Also, I don't know if anyone ever played the PC games StarFleet Commander series but they had MUCH better designs for the Gorn and Orions. They had several unique designs that could be employed.

All the best.

[Sllarr]

ADB does not have the license for the ships from the movies and TNG series. Just for TOS and animated series.

As for original designs, like in the SFC game you mentioned , I agree that it couuld be done and some of the designs are extremely dated at this point.

I guess that one major factor is that we are talking about 30 years of Star Fleet Battles. These designs have been around for a long time and a radical change at this point could please some FC newbies (like you and me) but could disrupt the canon already stablished for the Star Fleet Universe, with the very coherent background, technical info and correlations between the various games.

But I have to admit one thing. Initially I really did not like some of the ship designs, but currently I am working on my minis and reading the background material on the Captain's Logs I have, and they start to grow on you ...

[Steve Cole]

In theory, we could invent a new Gorn ship that doesn't look like any existing Gorn ship in SFB (as long as it doesn't look like something somebody else owns). However, that would violate one of the basic concepts of how we think the universe works, that all Gorn ships look like Gorn ships. One bubble, two bubbles, three bubbles, they're all instantly recognized as Gorns. Wide bubbles, round bubbles, long bubbles, they're all instantly recognized as Gorns.

All Klingons, in our view, should be instantly recognized as Klingons, so everything has two engines (with extra engines under the ship), long neck, wide rear hull, deckhouse on center back edge of the rear hull, etc.

It's just a design philosphy, and one that is firmly rooted in reality. Go look at the Graf Spee, Sharnhorst, and Bismarck (the German ones from World War II. not the ones in SFB/FC). They all look like they came from the same place, they just have two or three or four turrets. The US battleships from Michigan through Pennsylvania all look more or less alike, as do the last few classes look more or less alike.

So, in the end, our philosophy is that all Gorn ships SHOULD look like Gorn ships (bubbles and two over-under engines), all Klingon ships SHOULD look like Klingon ships, all Tholian ships SHOULD look like Tholian ships, etc. [The Hydrans are an exception, but even they have lots of ships that look in groups. The CL, CM, CA, CC, BCH, all clearly come from the same mindset, even if they look nothing like the destroyers or frigates.] In the end, you asked why we did it this way, and our answer is "because we think it should be this way" and you asked us to do it another way and our answer is "we don't think that would be right, so we're not going to do it."
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[DorianGray]

Fair enough!

Anyway, I appreciate very much Steve Cole's good work.

[Dan Ibekwe]

Another reason for standardised design is to make life easier for crew when they transfer between ships.

An example from the real world...

In the early '60s the Soviet Navy were holding a large exercise in the Arctic ocean north of Murmansk. At the end of the exercise, in worsening weather, each ship had to call the exercise co-ordinators for permission to return to port.

One submarine requested permission; it was granted, but the boat did not acknowledge the signal. She failed to return, and after a brief but intense search was listed as lost with all hands. I public, the Soviets used their standard 'explanation' for a submarine disaster (a collision with a foreign submarine), but in reality were more worried about the possibility of a design fault or deliberate hostile action by the US or Britain.

Each year following this, the Soviets sent ships in the summer months to look for the wreck. After eight or nine years they were successful; the sub was raised and returned to shore to find out what had happened.

The boat was undamaged; there was no evidence of collision or attack and the crew appeared to have drowned at their posts.

Then someone noticed that the forward escape hatch was open. The hatch was operated by a large wheel, meant to be used two-handed; the steel wheel was found to have been bent and twisted by the desperate efforts of a rating to close the hatch; his corpse was found still clutching at the wheel.

The hatch mechanism was not jammed...even after years on the seabed, it still functioned perfectly.

The sailor had died - and flooded the submarine - by trying to turn it the wrong way.

It was surmised that the boat had been running on the surface when she sent her last signal, and since conditions were deteriorating, the order had been given to close hatches and dive.

The boat was what NATO would describe as a Foxtrot-class; the unfortunate sailor had recently transferred from a smaller Whiskey-class submarine, where the hatch wheel *did* turn the other way.

Standardisation has its benefits.

[DorianGray]

That's a pretty extreme example. Submarines are extreme hazard.

In World War II, I mean there were pretty radical differences from a Escort Frigate to a Battleship to a Aircraft Carrier.

Anyway, in the Star Trek universe TNG + there were pretty radical differences in ship desgins from the Romulans (Nemesis)to the Federation. (Defiant)

[djdood]

Spacecraft are more of an "extreme hazard" than even submarines. Massive energy discharges, hard vacuum, and radiation tend to be harsh on people and equipment.

Actually, a WW II Escort and Battleship look *very* similar in general form. The change is mainly in scale. They both have military-style hulls, raised bridge superstructures, turreted-weapons, portholes, smokestacks, etc. Fundamentally the same shapes, just bigger or more of them.

In the Star Trek universe TNG + there were pretty radical differences in production designers, none of whom were engineers.

Personally, I thought the Defiant only very superficially looked like a ship from the same fleet as the Enterprise. It was also inconsistent in it's own detailing (note the windows on the underside, in the hull undercuts). It's too small to have that many windows/decks there, unless they are there for gerbils.

The Bird of Prey didn't look very Klingon either, because it wasn't supposed to (the "bad guys" in ST-III were going to be Romulans, until the producers changed their minds well into production).

I'm thankful that the SFU isn't changed to satisfy "story of the week" dramatic needs.
_________________

[Rick Smith]

DJDood beat me to all the points I was about to make, plus some.

You will have to face it eventually Dorian...no matter how much you want your favorite ships from the motion pictures or from The Next Generation or from Voyager, etc., etc. you will probably never see them for Federation Commander unless you make up and use your own rules in private. I think it has been said before, ADB doesn't have the rights to anything past The Original Series with Kirk, Spock and the gang and The Animated Series, which introduced the Kzinti.
_________________

UPFY

[Mike]

This brings up an interesting question. Though the names/characters of Kirk, Spock, etc. from TOS are not part of ADB's license agreement, can the ship name Enterprise be used? Ever?

I recall seeing Enterprise listed as one of the Federation's ships in a list in an ADB publication. Could the Enterprise be referred to in a fiction piece, for example, as "The Big E" or something like that? And without mentioning any of the names that the license forbids to mention? Could an officer in a story mention that (s)he served aboard The Big E or honed his/her navigation skills while serving there?

Is the actual license agreement spelled out over on the Legacy site, or is it kept private?

[Steve Cole]

Paramount does not want us doing fiction about the enterprise. They reluctantly agreed that if we print a list of ship names, it has to be included, but that's about as far as they will go.

There are a lot of ships in the fleet; I think good stories can be done without "the big E".
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[Seth]

Can Paramount use any elements from the Star Fleet Universe such as the Hydrans, ISC, ETC?

[Steve Cole]

Not without our permission, which we would happily give (if they give us a favor in return).
_________________
The Guy Who Designed Fed Commander

[Scoutdad]

Would a massive letter writing campaign to Paramount convince them to add Lyrans to the next ST movie do any good???
_________________
Commander, Battlegroup Murfreesboro
Department Head, ACTASF

[Maxtype]

There are already a lot of great stories in the SFU about some great ships. In my mind,The Big 'E' is having her adventures,but just read about The Death of the Star Cougar,the Return of the Darwin,or the USS Macedonia facing "The Art of Duty".

I don't just play the SFU, part of my heart lives there,with those brave man and women of all the Fleets and Empires.
_________________
Please Captain,not in front of the Klingons.

[Sgt_G]