Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Starships "landing" on planets
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dave
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 82
Location: Canton, NY

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:56 am    Post subject: Starships "landing" on planets Reply with quote

This is a "To Ask the Question Why?" about 2D5b. I'm posting here rather than Rules because I am not asking about the mechanics per se.
What I am curious to know is if "landing" on a planet or asteroid is limited to actual physical landing or also incudes a station keeping close orbit. Landing a Fed CA on a planetary surface presents obvious suspension of disbelief issues. Having the same starship parked in low geosynchronus orbit does not. Also having the "landed" ship parked in a low orbital spacedock or similar facility does not violate suspension of disbelief.

Of course it could be that as 2D5 notes that docking and landing procedures are usually scenario driven that "landing" is actual physical landing and is limited to shuttlecraft and starships with appropriate design (landing gear).

I have no problem allowing any starship to "land" once, it's taking off again that could be problematic. Twisted Evil

Just some idle musing about the "reality" behind the game mechanics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ravenhull
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Mobile, AL

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Starships "landing" on planets Reply with quote

dave wrote:
This is a "To Ask the Question Why?" about 2D5b. I'm posting here rather than Rules because I am not asking about the mechanics per se.
What I am curious to know is if "landing" on a planet or asteroid is limited to actual physical landing or also incudes a station keeping close orbit. Landing a Fed CA on a planetary surface presents obvious suspension of disbelief issues. Having the same starship parked in low geosynchronus orbit does not. Also having the "landed" ship parked in a low orbital spacedock or similar facility does not violate suspension of disbelief.

Of course it could be that as 2D5 notes that docking and landing procedures are usually scenario driven that "landing" is actual physical landing and is limited to shuttlecraft and starships with appropriate design (landing gear).

I have no problem allowing any starship to "land" once, it's taking off again that could be problematic. Twisted Evil

Just some idle musing about the "reality" behind the game mechanics.


Star Fleet Battles has extensive rules about what ships can and cannot land on planets. For example, most Orion ships can land and take off a will, while the troop carrier version of the Fed Old Light Cruiser could land, but needed a lot of help getting back up, and most ships having the 'controlled crash' option only. In the case of FedCommander, they were trying to reduce the rules load by just giving a blanket allowance, rather than having players having to check ship descriptions and annexes and such.
_________________
NOLI UMQUAM VIM TURBARUM STULTORUM DEPRETIARE.

Donovan Willett, USS Alabama
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
dave
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 82
Location: Canton, NY

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I definitely prefer the simplicity of the FC approach here.

Considering the vulnerability of a landed starship I don't expect to see one very often without a very good reason.

The mental picture of a Fed CA parked on the ground with a long boarding ramp is a "cute" one though...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Voyager show pretty much wiped out the need for distinction on this when Voyager itself landed on a planet.

Also, realize that for game purposes a ship lands on its side. So don't think on this too hard.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DrFaustus
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I seem to remeber in some notes that where published that originally (in star trek) the intetion was for the ships to be able to land, but that would prove too expensive to do well so got dropped/little use.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dave
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 82
Location: Canton, NY

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember reading that as well. Starship/shuttlecraft landing on planet=expensive special effect. Crew members beam down to planet by transporter=cheap special effect. Then they added a shuttlecraft anyway when a script/story required it.

Several storylines that depended on malfunctioning transporters could have been resolved by the use of shuttles.

Starships landing on their sides - watch that gravity change when exiting...it's a doozy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starfury
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 295

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starship landing on a planet = Crash Landing

Simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
toltesi
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:54 pm    Post subject: Lands on its Side?!?! Reply with quote

Laughing

I'm sorry, but lands on its side? Come on...how? Everyone would be walking on the walls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ravenhull
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Mobile, AL

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:09 am    Post subject: Re: Lands on its Side?!?! Reply with quote

toltesi wrote:
Laughing

I'm sorry, but lands on its side? Come on...how? Everyone would be walking on the walls.


And when they are in a party mood, they land it on the back and play Lionel Riche songs....
_________________
NOLI UMQUAM VIM TURBARUM STULTORUM DEPRETIARE.

Donovan Willett, USS Alabama
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:47 am    Post subject: Re: Lands on its Side?!?! Reply with quote

toltesi wrote:
Laughing

I'm sorry, but lands on its side? Come on...how? Everyone would be walking on the walls.

Well, I did say to not think on it too hard. Wink

The problem is that is the only way to make the game mechanics without making new rules. Eh, it is what it is.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
toltesi
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Lands on its Side?!?! Reply with quote

mjwest wrote:

The problem is that is the only way to make the game mechanics without making new rules. Eh, it is what it is.


Ahh, now I get it...sorry for being a bit slow to see the rationale behind your post.

I also agree with you completely in the spirit of keeping FC "playable".

Thanks for clarrifying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pinecone
Fleet Captain


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 1865
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remeber, if the need came they could activate artificial gravity Wink .
_________________
Doomed to live in secret since discovering that the Air Force Tapes were a fantasy... Embarassed

"Your knowledge of my existence must be punished" Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1929
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pinecone wrote:
Remeber, if the need came they could activate artificial gravity Wink .

The ship lying on its side would count as such a need, in my book Wink
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mike
Captain


Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 1526
Location: South Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But "artificial gravity" only works inside the ship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1929
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
But "artificial gravity" only works inside the ship.

Yeah, that's what I meant; if it's lying on its side the they'll need the ship's gravity to override the planet's gravity and thereby stop the swimming pool spilling into the theatre. Well, on Fed ships, anyway Wink
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group