 June 2, 2008 - 1:26am | I always recognized, and most of the time used, the original KH concept of starship decks being perpendicular to the ships axis but never gave it a lot of serious thought. From an earlier discussion in another topic's explanation about ADF using hard science examples, this placement of decks makes a lot of sense. However, I would like to try and reconcile this if possible with the common sci-fi media concept which often uses a horizontal to axis deck arrangement much like that of modern millitary naval craft. I hope the community can help me out with some thought provoking discussion here. Can horizontal deck placement be used? If so what hard science would be needed or support this (conventional or speculative)? How are atmo capable vessels with perpendicular deck placement effected by flying horizontally when operating in atmo?, and finally thoughts on why most artistic depictions seem to be of horizontal deck placement and how to reconcile to keep with the continuity and spirit of the game's vision. Thanks meet me at the new topic to discuss. |
June 6, 2008 - 9:59am | water landing could work, do you think it would incorporate some kind of flotation device like the early apollo command modules did. It would seem though that when everyone unstrapped from their seats, (perpendicular deck model) that if the vessel was on its side in water in a normal gravity environment, everyone would fall to the room wall below them. I don't think the ship could land on water vertically. So parallel/horizontal decks would be a must for this kind of landing. |
 June 6, 2008 - 10:57am | water landing could work, do you think it would incorporate some kind of flotation device like the early apollo command modules did. It would seem though that when everyone unstrapped from their seats, (perpendicular deck model) that if the vessel was on its side in water in a normal gravity environment, everyone would fall to the room wall below them. I don't think the ship could land on water vertically. So parallel/horizontal decks would be a must for this kind of landing. The main ship in the books I read was shaped like a medicine capsule, long and ovoid. It had outriggers that kept it from rolling over in the harbor. I cant recall if the outriggers doubled as landing gear or not. The book described the Captain cutting engines a few feet above the water and how it would plunge underneath for a few moments then come bobbing to the surface on the outriggers. Most ships could make water landing, but dry landings had issues with thrust flipping the craft and the ground just not being strong enough to support it. Not to mention that actuall landing pads would be torn up from the plasma exhaust. Primary thrusters were at the rear of the craft, with secondary thruster banks on the bottom so it would stay horizontal while landing. the ships would not use the harbor for runway type landings and takeoffs. Speculations: The fuel tanks (aka water tanks) might have been arranged as ballast tanks but I cant recall if that was really mentioned. I think the outriggers were extandable, stored within the main hull and extended after atmospheric entry. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
June 7, 2008 - 11:23am | Thank you, I knew that I had seen that in the rules somewhere and was certain that I had not lost my recall completely though it has been many years since I have read the rules cover to cover. Mostly I just reference rules I don't remember as they come up in game play or in advance when I know Im gonna throw something juicy at the players thats gonna require a lot rules checks (Muhuhahahahahaa)! Ok great discussion everyone I would like to move the discussion about Starship landing to a new thread though. I think we could get into some really good discussion about that and I think it would be a worthy project for the Frontiersman magazine, though it plays bearing on the hull configuration and deck configuration I would like to get back to our original discussion about perpendicular vs parallel deck configurations (pro & cons) and to a general curiosity poll of whoes using what and why. |
 June 7, 2008 - 12:24pm | I agree with you AZ. I don't see any reason for the big ships to have to land on the surface of a planet. I was just say that from a engine thrust perspective, it is possible. Structurally you would need some massive landing gear and it would be like droping a skyscraper down on to the surface. On the topic of why I use parallel decks, it is because it requires the least amount of "future tech" or "fantasy tech" if you prefer. I have always envisioned Star Frontiers as relatively "low tech" when it comes to science fiction. No fusion, no artifical gravity, laser pistols and atomic drives are fairly new tech (hence their larger price tag relative to other items), etc. FTL travel was a total fluke, not some advanced scientific discovery and star travel was dropped into the laps of the races. I see Star Frontiers as not much more advanced than what we have today but with FTL travel, good medical technology, more efficient starship engines and a few other minor techological advances. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 June 7, 2008 - 7:21pm | Well, personally I don't think I subscribe that all HS ships regardless of size should be atmospheric capable. Sure I agree with misjump scenario and crash situations but having a battleship able to land on a planet under its own power and then lift off again is not a direction that I would go in unless the planet was extremely low gravity or low atmosphere. Technically it would have to be both low grav and low atmosphere. Very low. And ditto to any and all ships capable of streamlining, I have maximum hull sizes in my game for that as well (HS:5 max for 1G worlds). As far as the actual need for bigger ships to land, well I'm on the same page: no real need for it and even moreso for fleet/warships. About the only thing I can think of for such a need would be an uncivilized/uncolonized world, in which case such vessels should already have a compliment of landing craft anyways, such as the host vessel that the Eleanor Moraes attached to in the Beyond the Frontier series modules. After all, no ship commissioned for such exploration duty should leave port without the means to contact discovered worlds...it's like sending a warship without any weapons to meet inbound Sathar craft. For some reason I seem to remember that the original boxed set had some kind of rule reguarding Assault Scouts being the largest landing capable warship. You'll find that stuff in the construction section near the beginning of the KH Campaign book. Can't recall the exact page but it's early on, I want to say on the Hull Specification Chart page for the assault scout and the Chem Drive description for HS:5 max system ships (or the actual "Landing on Planets" page shortly after the drives section). water landing could work, do you think it would incorporate some kind of flotation device like the early apollo command modules did. It would seem though that when everyone unstrapped from their seats, (perpendicular deck model) that if the vessel was on its side in water in a normal gravity environment, everyone would fall to the room wall below them. I don't think the ship could land on water vertically. So parallel/horizontal decks would be a must for this kind of landing. Yep, definitely a decks parallel arrangement is more preferred for such landings. Bouyancy would be the primary design key, the ventral side of the craft would have to be "boat shaped" per se. Flotation devices could be an auxilliary item...as any deflation would otherwise cause sinking ships LOL |
June 7, 2008 - 10:29pm | Great discussion everyone! While I am not knocking anyone for choosing to allow large ship landings in their campaigns and developing whatever tech they want needed for it (artificial grav, etc) I think I will steer clear of it in anything larger than HS 5. The only exception I would consider would be a detachable lander or command module (kind of like the Nostromo in aliens). Drive section would remain in orbit during operation and may have a secondary bridge for such operations. I remember see-ing several designs incorporating assault scounts attached to exploration ships that operated in this manner or in a similar manner. So far in the poll, it looks as if parrallel to axis is pretty popular. |
 June 14, 2008 - 5:04pm | When running Traveller, I use parallel decks. SF, however, has always been perpendicular to thrust axis. It's honestly more realistic. One of the few areas where SFAD/SFKH is more realistic than Traveller. I've seen a few perpendicular designs for Traveller, too, most pretty big. A few other games and sci-fi settings use perpendicular decks, too... Albedo (Comic/RPG) very realistic. Ship book from Chessex is OOP, but one of the most realistic ship systems in any RPG. Babylon 5 (TV series) used mixed designs... EA ships are perpendicular, everyone elses parallel... Heavy Gear and Jovian Chronicles (RPGs) perpendicular except for a few landers. Battletech (game line) uses perpendicular. Dual drives on aerodyne ships... a large thruster parallel to decks for combat and landing, and smaller long duration drives perpendicular to them for touchdown and long duration transit. single drive systems on the spheroids, which are essentially perpendicular. Allen Dean Foster's Flinx of the Commonwealth (novels) also used perpendicular. McCaffrey's Ship who Sang series is perpendicular as well. |
 June 17, 2008 - 4:04pm | Actually Arimis while most of the decks in Battletech's ships are perpendicular to the axis, even on the dropships. A few of the dropships most notably the aerodyne dropships are parallel, dropships like the Leopard. This is only because the Leopard flies like a plane in an atmosphere and it's design was influenced by the anime Crusher Joe and his ship the Minerva. I knew there was an Albedo RPG but didn't know it went as far as to have a ship book. I must look into this. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
June 17, 2008 - 6:36pm | First off, spell the name right... Aramis... Second, in battletech, specifically Dropships and Jumpships, MOST of the dropships areareodynes. only about a third of the designs are not. So common this is, that it gives a couple pages over to discussing the issues of thrust and the issue of parallel thrust. (I've played BTech since 1985...) |
June 21, 2008 - 3:59pm | The name misspelling was a typo. I don't type very well and mistakes will pass my eyes sometimes. I no longer have my Battletech books, but I only remember a few of the aerodyne dropships. Most I remember were the big sphere ones, because let's face it. You're going to get more troops and vehicles into orbit and down on the ground in those, while most aerodynes will require a fixed airfield and runway. I think some of the Battletech novels even went into those details. Dropships like the Union class were prefered because they could land almost any where vertically and leave after they've unloaded. Making those dropships with that deck arrangement far more common and useful. From my experience with Battletech at least, we'd rather used the spheres than aerodynes. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 June 22, 2008 - 6:19am | I used to play BattleTech with about a dozen people. We played out of the Mercenary's hand book. And, we used the Dropship manual for more and better dropships than what came with any of the other books. We stopped playing in 1992. The game started to get to silly as far as the new books coming out. The people at FASA said they didn't like our new equipment we came up with, but they sure put them in the game with the wrong credits. These came after the playtesting stage so we new they were not to overbalanceing. I would like to do the same here. The most battlemechs the areodynes could carry was six. The sphereiods could carry upto thirty six and some troops with support vehicles. The only time we used the aerodynes is on diversionary raids to throw off the enemy. As far as gravity, they never mentioned any artificial gravity of any kind just a small mention of inertia gravity or gravity wells from planets. Allthough, the novels do mention zero gravity some. |
 June 22, 2008 - 12:10pm | My understanding(derived from the MechWarrior novel Hunters Of the Deep)is that most grav comes from acceleration and centripetal force on a single deck on large JumpShips. My personal fave DropShip is the Excalibur-class(the largest type, capable of carrying a combined-arms regiment), such as Gus Clancy's Tyrannos Rex.... "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
June 22, 2008 - 7:36pm | Never really could get into the battle tech game system, too many rules, too complicated game play, great stories and a very interesting universe. I picked up a copy of the game for mech resources to use in my Star Froniters game. While I could appreciate the detail of game play, it almost seemed like you needed a slide rule to play a session. With all the calculations on heat sinks, energy allocation, mechanical issues it took way too long to get playing. I liked the approach that warhammer 40k took to its model wargames, there was an ultra simple rules set for those who wanted to paint up some minis and get to playing and there was the complicated rules sets for those who really wanted to get into the minute details. Great discussions everyone, it is really been interesting to get everyones feed back, Even when we disagree on issues or rules everyone has been great about being mature on these discussions. Which makes for some really thought provoking discussions which even when I dont agree I still consider and it sometimes inspires me to consider other directions. Please keep posting your ideas for or against the use of perpendicular decks in KH and reasons why so we all can continue to discover more interesting facets of this great game. |
