Federation Commander

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Starship landing on a planet = Crash Landing

Simple.

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

toltesi wrote:

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....

toltesi wrote:

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.

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

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.

Remeber, if the need came they could activate artificial gravity .

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

The ship lying on its side would count as such a need, in my book

But "artificial gravity" only works inside the ship.

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