Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Aurora Suggestions => Topic started by: Thundercraft on December 01, 2015, 09:10:38 AM
-
There really isn't much on the wiki about ramming. But in the How to identify invaders (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7597.msg76935#msg76935) thread it was mentioned:
IIRC every non-player race can use their ships to ram.
I think it's rather unfair that any NPR can use ramming, but players can not. What's the deal? It's one thing that NPRs don't have to worry about fuel. But they all get to use a tactic that we can't? Just because?
It's going to be an attack of last resort for most players, probably only used if you have nothing to loose. Say, after a ship is out of missiles and there's no hope of or point in retreating. Besides, isn't the accuracy of the maneuver terrible? And you're probably going to loose the ship, so it's a very costly, one-shot deal.
Ramming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramming) is a valid, time-honored tactic. It was commonly used in antiquity, such as by the ancient Romans and Greeks. During WWII naval ships often rammed other vessels. And it was not only used in naval warfare, but in aerial warfare as a last-ditch tactic when all else had failed.
-
Agreed. On more than one occasion I wanted to fly a heavily damaged ship right into the enemies bridge.
TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE
-
A thought occurred to me. If players do eventually get the option to use a ship to ram, I think it would be neat if the player could also issue a command just prior to the maneuver to "Evacuate". It would be similar to "Abandon Ship" in that it would launch life pods, but I imagine the commanding officer (and/or a couple of the bridge crew) must remain behind. The game effect might be that it launches most of the crew in life pods, but the weapons and such become unusable (due to lack of crew) and ramming would be one of the few options left.
-
To quote the Wiki.
There are reports about some of the more irresponsible alien races out there performing ramming attacks. Needless to say, humans and other civilized races are prohibited from such behavior.
Also; I would build a ramming fleet and conquer the galaxy by simply headbutting the crap out of all the aliens.
-
Somewhere on here, I don't remember where, Steve explains it in a post. Something about it just doesn't work for the engine.
-
Presumably because you could just make seriously overpowered fighter sized ramming missiles and destroy much larger more expensive ships very cheaply.
-
Probably more to do with the movement mechanics than anything else. With 5 second turn increments your target will have changed position by the time you reach the initial interception point or something of the sort I suppose.
-
I know your own civvy freighters will defend themselves by ramming sometimes. Always good for a laugh.
Though, i dunno on existing ramming how damage is even calculated, or the toHit chance works.
-
Not all NPRs will ram. It depends on their racial characteristics.
Reason for players not being allowed to ram is that it is an exploitable tactic. NPRs will only ram as a last resort (no weapons) and if their characteristics allow it.
-
I'll admit that I have already heavily thought about how I would exploit such a mechanic.(http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_razz.gif)
Good thing the barkeep stopped handing out to me.
-
I can crank up ways to exploit it even without thinking too hard.
Make 1mt ship that is nothing but engines, fuel, armor and shields, turn shields on, RAM EVERYTHING. 1000+ damage means nothing if it's absorbed by shields.
So, it's probably a good thing we're unable to ram.
-
I ran test games where I put megaton sized conventionally armed ships up against various spoilers, ramming can easily bust through 100 armour layers without a problem :(
-
I'll admit that I have already heavily thought about how I would exploit such a mechanic...
I can crank up ways to exploit it even without thinking too hard.
The definition of 'exploit' is to "make full use of and derive benefit from", such as to harness or utilize. There's nothing wrong with exploiting a good tactic. That's called "strategy" or using your head. However, it is something else entirely to exploit a bug, a loophole, or a broken game mechanic, particularly if it would hurt game balance.
To quote the Wiki...
I would build a ramming fleet and conquer the galaxy by simply headbutting the crap out of all the aliens.
Presumably because you could just make seriously overpowered fighter sized ramming missiles and destroy much larger more expensive ships very cheaply.
I ran test games where I put megaton sized conventionally armed ships up against various spoilers, ramming can easily bust through 100 armour layers without a problem :(
Reason for players not being allowed to ram is that it is an exploitable tactic. NPRs will only ram as a last resort (no weapons) and if their characteristics allow it.
That reason makes perfect sense. I'll admit: It makes me glad that players can't ram.
However, this is unfortunate as ramming used in moderation could make for wonderful flavor to roleplaying. I'm sure SteelChicken and myself aren't the only ones who find it at least a little appealing.
The real problem is not ramming itself. Rather, it's that ramming seems way too powerful and too exploitable. Maybe it should not do nearly so much damage? Maybe, just like NPRs will only ram as a last resort and if they have no weapons, the player could only issue a ram if they have taken a lot of damage (at least 85?) and originally had weapons, but have nothing left?
Or, maybe, player ship ramming could be possible, but left out of player control? Maybe there'd be a small and random chance for it to occur when certain conditions are met (i.e., damaged vessel and/or out of weapons/missiles)? Maybe even with a campaign option to turn ramming on or off?
This ramming discussion reminds me of the Suggestion: AMM doesn't need warhead (http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=7000.0) thread:
It seems counter-intuitive to me that a missile getting hit by a 2. 5 ton object moving at 50000 kilometers per second relative to itself does not blow up, even if that 2. 5 ton object is just a chunk of metal with no explosives inside. Therefore I suggest that for the purposes of shooting down missiles, your anti-missile missile needs 0 warhead.
This reasoning seems sound at first glance, particularly since KEIs or Kinetic Energy Interceptors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_Energy_Interceptor) are a real-life thing.
But, as someone pointed out, doing so would cause problems...
[This]...would promote smaller and even higher amounts of AMMs.
I would prefer going the other way around and giving ships with thicker armor 1 point of damage absorption so that AMMs don't scratch them.
Aurora doesn't need even smaller and more missiles going around IMHO.
And another pointed out that missiles probably do not actually collide with each other and the AMM just gets "close enough for the warhead to go off." Also:
...Trying to intercept something going 20000km/s while being relatively tiny is going to be very hard...
I think ship ramming could be viewed in a similar light. Granted, a ship is much larger than a missile. But it would still be difficult when moving at several thousand km/s, particularly since the target would try to avoid the impact. At 5000 km/s, a ship would pass 1 km of distance in 0.0002 seconds, assuming a stationary target. Humans can't react that fast. And with two ships approaching each other at 5000 km/s, that effectively becomes 10000 km/s.
Similarly, while pure kinetic damage would go up with increased speed, at the same time, the increase in speed should make it more difficult.
Perhaps, like AMMs, ship ramming shouldn't be about an actual impact, but getting close enough for an explosion? Engines do have an Explosion Chance (http://aurorawiki.pentarch.org/index.php?title=Basic_Ship_Creation#Designing), which is "the percentage the engine will blow up if damaged, causing a secondary explosion." Maybe when NPRs get desperate enough to "ram" they might self-destruct or rig the engines to overload when the computer senses a close proximity?
-
Ugh.
I ran test games where I put megaton sized conventionally armed ships up against various spoilers, ramming can easily bust through 100 armour layers without a problem :(
I wanted to show you the logs of 2mt ship just absorbing all the damage by shields, but they're gone.
The definition of 'exploit' is to "make full use of and derive benefit from", such as to harness or utilize. There's nothing wrong with exploiting a good tactic. That's called "strategy" or using your head. However, it is something else entirely to exploit a bug, a loophole, or a broken game mechanic, particularly if it would hurt game balance.
It's not a good tactic, it's cheesing. A big 'I WIN' button no matter how you try to balance it.
The real problem is not ramming itself. Rather, it's that ramming seems way too powerful and too exploitable. Maybe it should not do nearly so much damage? Maybe, just like NPRs will only ram as a last resort and if they have no weapons, the player could only issue a ram if they have taken a lot of damage (at least 85?) and originally had weapons, but have nothing left?
Make 1mt ship with armor, shields, etc. and one gun, apply manual damage to gun, apply manual damage so it reaches 85, turn shields on, RAM EVERYTHING.
Damage reduction will make trying to use ramming as last-resort option pointless.
Besides, it's needless complexity for rarely-if-ever-used feature (that isn't implemented).
Or, maybe, player ship ramming could be possible, but left out of player control? Maybe there'd be a small and random chance for it to occur when certain conditions are met (i.e., damaged vessel and/or out of weapons/missiles)? Maybe even with a campaign option to turn ramming on or off?
Just no. No, I don't want my ships to suddenly ram enemy. Who would want their ships to suddenly ram enemy?
I think ship ramming could be viewed in a similar light. Granted, a ship is much larger than a missile. But it would still be difficult when moving at several thousand km/s, particularly since the target would try to avoid the impact.
That's why ramming works less on fast targets: they dodge. There will be attempts, but not always successful.
Maybe when NPRs get desperate enough to "ram" they might self-destruct or rig the engines to overload when the computer senses a close proximity?
Maybe not? Exploding engines tend to take down ships they're placed on, not nearby targets. And, unlike missiles, ships have a lot of armor, and sometimes shields.
-
I'm thinking if ramming were balanced it should basically become a case where armour itself becomes a weapon and is only applied to amour, or maybe only does minimal damage through the breech.
The chance of ramming should be based on speed difference, only a significantly faster ship should be able to ram somewhat like boarding action.
Ramming obviously should favour the heavier ship( maybe this is debatable, but I think it is obvious), so....
Perhaps randomly pick a point on the attacking ships armour to use for damage calculation, a blunt pyramid is generated based on the armour depth of the defending vessel.
Imagine a ship with 5 layers ramming one with 3 layers, the "impact zone" will be a pyramid 3 wide at the tip, 5 layers deep so 35 armour in total is removed from the attacking ship ( or perhaps more advanced armours have a slight chance of partially surviving the impact).
The defender then takes 35 damage, applied as a cone of the same dimensions, so 11 damage to first layer, 9 to next layer, 7 to the next layer, then finally 8 damage gets through to the ship.
Very underwhelming but perhaps accurate unless you want to take into account actual impact energy, which would of course be based on impact speed and would rightly be extremely high damage.
Maybe a simple multiplier, twice the damage if attacker is twice as fast?
It's not looking good for the idea that a heavily damaged ship could ram as a measure of last resort, but really if a ship has severe armour damage and isn't particularly fast of course it wouldn't really be able to ram.
Then again interception speed and distance needs to be taken into account anyway, a ship can't ram unless it's going to intercept within the next 5 second intercept.
-
My stance on everything in a game with serious realistic simulation ambitions is that nothing should really be prohibited in the end. Realism over everything, - nothing should be barred out, unless it is still under construction or just too ambitious to achieve.
So the reason why ramming is rightfully left out at the current state is that it is unrealistically powerful. Actually, if you consider the trans-newtonian "infinite acceleration/force" physics to be real, it might even be realistic, in that context. But clearly that is not intended this way, and probably the consensus would be to have a simulation of just classical naval battle ramming, which the game simply can't give at this point.
However, this could be fixed by just adjusting the ramming rules until they fit the simulation that was desired. The shield thing that GreatTuna complained about could for example be left out (shielding should maybe just be able to intercept usual weapon caliber attacks, not ship or asteroid sized threats), and then you could make successful ramming much more difficult the smaller the target vessel is compared to your own. These two rules combined would effectively and well explained ban these dreaded ramming leviathans before they arrive for example.
That would still leave the 100-ton+ sized vessel ramming problem; no idea how to deal with that yet, but there might be a way if the thinking keeps going. Hmm, maybe reduce ramming damage the smaller your ramming ship is compared to the target ship, so there manifests an exponential drop that makes anything that is factors below the target basically a waste of resource to sacrifice.(so you would only crash the fighters when they are lost anyway, like it should be)
- Your ship too large => Hitting very unlikely
- Your ship too small => Hitting likely, but does only insignificant damage
What would stay is a zone of slightly below and slightly above mass neighborhoods for each ship where ramming seems to be an appropriate tactic. That could maybe still be exploited, because a specialized ramming design could here potentially still sort out vastly more tech savvy opponents at little cost if the engine is halfway appropriate.
A little mitigating counter could be that shock damage could be more severe when appropriate ramming damage has been received, so hitting a near-equal or larger opponent is very likely to destroy you, even when using "all-armor" specialized ramming designs.
..Just keep thinking, there might be a way to make it fair altogether, and I would hate the classic naval tactic being banned just because people (like me) would abuse it.
The chance of ramming should be based on speed difference, only a significantly faster ship should be able to ram somewhat like boarding action.
I agree with speed being a major factor in hit chance, but if there is nothing done about it being the sole dominant factor, we will only get the specially manufactured metal blocks with rockets that would currently result from the game rules, and not the nice last resort tactic that actually needs rendering.
It's not looking good for the idea that a heavily damaged ship could ram as a measure of last resort, but really if a ship has severe armour damage and isn't particularly fast of course it wouldn't really be able to ram.
If you are getting destroyed anyway, you don't care how much armor damage you already sustained. ;)
Of course, if your ramming ship has really become slower than the enemy, then the only way to really do the maneuver is to have him fail at moving away soon enough, or maybe having him encircled with a couple ships, so he can't avoid them all. The trick in those types of situations would be to spot a future loss soon enough as a captain, so you initiate the maneuver before it is too late.(some difference to naval can probably not be overcome when no momentum or bearing is involved in the potential tactic crafting)
///
I thought about an alternative rule set to the one above that could also make ramming more fair:
- Your ship similar or large => Shock damage starts much earlier, and will likely destroy your ship even when the enemy was puny and cheaply constructed in comparison (+ your 100 armor layers won't help you too)
- Your ship too small => ..Yet, damage falls of exponentially via the size-to-size comparison from before, and when too small for shock damage to trigger, ramming does achieve too little to be economical as a clean war tactic.(still does at least something in lost cases ofc.)
It kind of brings back the leviathans this way, because they could simply become so large that most ships you encounter fall under the "too small for shock damage" threshold, but I still figure this set better than the other, because I find to hit penalties due to size very difficult to justify scientifically in this computer-precision navigation age.
I feel there must be a better way to do it still, that just has it all.(and not require Aurora to introduce any lofty extra calculation while doing it)
-
An extremely less complicated response to the "it can be exploited" reasoning (if that was the sole reason): We have SM mode already. Anyone that wants to pretend to ram a ship can make it happen anyway but it just takes more effort than it should and is left to the imagination of the player to determine the outcome.
-
I have one idea that's pretty simplistic, just consider the rammer as a missile, use standard missile intercept and hit chance mechanics.
Then it's entire remaining armour becomes a single warhead impact. The ship is then destroyed.
Should be sufficiently balanced but still exploitable if you wish.
-
Why not make it a SM option order only then?
Then it's very clear it's not intended as a mainstream or balanced strategy, but only for special role-playing situations that require it?
I mean no one is complaining that we can use SM to add 100 times industry or a massive fleet, so "exploit" can't apply. SM options is just something that's supposed to be tools to facilitate role-play and make the game setup and execution easier?
-
At least make civilian captains not willing to ram. It's annoying in multi-empire starts on Sol when the the civilian ships ram PDCs and ships.
-
Sorry for reviving a thread, but at least it's been only two months. Anyway..
How about for ramming attempts, make it absolutely necessary that the ship's captain be able to maintain a higher initiative rating than their target to actually make a hit? And by that I mean make it so that the task group attempting to ram has to be able to occupy the same space as it's target when the turn resolve, otherwise the ram fails automatically.
I'm not sure if I remember it correctly, but I remember having had enemy ships attempt ram me from mid-beam ranges. For a game where a big part of one weapon's potential is being able to be used point blank, that sure isn't very fun.
Alternatively, we can remove ramming entirely, and all NPR naval ships mount one or two Plasma Carronades by default, including missile and non combat ships. Or gauss cannons. This will give them much more appropriate close-range firepower that they should have, rather than being a warpspace barely-sub-c ballistic projectile. And limits the nastiness of, say, fighters who try to ram.
-
I personally like the idea of being able to order a ram, but mostly for some RP ideas that I'd like to do eventually.
As for it's implementation and all the above discussion?, I'll leave that to you experts. But I thought that it could be an order to be given, which is decided based on things like initiative, captain traits and stuff.
-
It might be unpopular but why not take it out of the players hands?
Make it a function of the captain of the ship's stats? If he is within a 5 second increment of the enemy, and all of the weapon systems on his ship are disabled or destroyed then he has a % chance to ram the enemy ship.
Call it a Glory stat or someting. xD
-
It might be unpopular but why not take it out of the players hands?
Make it a function of the captain of the ship's stats? If he is within a 5 second increment of the enemy, and all of the weapon systems on his ship are disabled or destroyed then he has a % chance to ram the enemy ship.
Call it a Glory stat or someting. xD
Nah. Taking control away from players, even when logical roleplay wise is the height of bad video game design.
Really, if you're afraid of exploits, make ramming less powerful and more damaging to the attacker than to the defender (lots of shock damage?). Ramming shouldn't be something you survive, and only a desperation mode. The chances the shock damage would trigger a chain reaction and make everything blow up is too big for even dedicated ramming ships to work. Yes, naval battles used to have ramming as a genuine strategy rather than a desperation mode. Before we stuck nuclear plants in warships.
On the other hand, being able to take down enemies with higher tech with the surprise effect doesn't seem like a bad narrative to me. If they have superior tech, they should be faster or able to shoot you down before you reach them if prepared, so I don't see the problem.
Of course, the overwhelming size of space and the speed of ships make any attempt highly unlikely to succeed if the target is moving. But what about ramming a station? Or crashing on a planet to take down stuff?
If we conclude ramming is impossible, NPC shouldn't be able to use it. If we conclude it's possible, players should. Worrying about exploits in a game with a readily available 'cheat' mode seems unreasonable.
-
the problem is specialist ramming bullsmeg - perhaps even commercial ships. Players have absolute mind control over their ships and don't actually care that their men die.
-
To be honest, I feel there's less of an attempt at realism and more of an attempt to port wet navies (age of sail to cold war, what fits does not depend on tech level but on designs&doctrine) into space. And ramming has been a part of naval warfare for a surprisingly long time (e.g. Glowworm vs. Admiral Hipper, and relative gun range was much longer in WW2: ~30min to cover the distance instead of ~1min in Aurora).
Consistency is the keyword rather than realism - many systems are open-ended and allow the player to find their niche, leading to a large variety of viable doctrines. I think it works much better than a system obsessing about realism.
-
the problem is specialist ramming bullsmeg - perhaps even commercial ships. Players have absolute mind control over their ships and don't actually care that their men die.
Banning it for commercial ships isn't hard. Dedicated ramming is a problem because there is no morale or political implication to crew losses. The only thing players have to consider is the economic viability of the manoeuvre. Making sure ramming isn't always successful and exposes the ramming ship should help.
Consistency is the keyword rather than realism - many systems are open-ended and allow the player to find their niche, leading to a large variety of viable doctrines. I think it works much better than a system obsessing about realism.
I definitely agree with you here. The game already goes against realism with transnewtonian physics, and as such, focusing on consistency and good gameplay is more important. But ramming is a consistency problem since NPR can use it.
-
To be honest, I feel there's less of an attempt at realism and more of an attempt to port wet navies (age of sail to cold war, what fits does not depend on tech level but on designs&doctrine) into space.
Point of information: The ultra-long missile ranges (compare to beam weapon ranges or even system size) were NOT motivated by the ultra-long SMM ranges (compared to gun ranges or even ocean size) of cold war wet navies. They came out of Steve's drive for internal consistency within the game. Prior to the change, the "physics" of missile engine power levels and fuel consumption was completely unrelated to that of ships. Somewhere in there when Steve introduced gunboats/FAC and fighters, he came up with a "power level" model for engine physics - there was a quantized spectrum of power levels (commercial engines at the lowest end; missile engines at the highest) that traded power/engine ton for fuel consumption. I can still remember the post where Steve said that he'd done the math and it ended up giving ultra-long missile ranges. In fact, I think I remember this being where fighter engines came from - he was working on gunboat engines, and found that there was an empty power level in the progression (Commercial, Military, Gunboat, XXX, Missile) and he realized that the XXX engines made sense for fighters. The observation that this was very similar to the introduction of ASM in post-WWII wet navies came from that discussion, not the other way around.
Note that this engine mechanic is the one prior to the current one (where Steve removed the quantization/differentiation).
Personally, I think it's more a case of convergent evolution and familiarity than emulation. I think everyone thinks it's reasonable that the logistical and psychological challenges in space navies will be very similar to those encountered in age of sail wet navies, which is basically long travel times to remote destinations and the need to carry cargo between them. So wet navies make a good model and source of ideas to use when considering game mechanics. And the 2D vs. 3D thing is just because handling 3D UI is just too relatively hard to do when 90% of the mechanics/strategies/tactics will be the same in both cases.
John
-
I don't think there is a problem with the last ditch ramming that this conversation seems to be focused on. The problem is if players are allowed to ram a completely unrealistic tactic comes up as a great idea. You would be able to build cheap ships that do massive ramming damage. Doesn't matter if the ship survives or not since it doesn't cost much to make. One of the things that makes that tactic so unrealistic is the fact that in the game crew is just a resource number, just like how many litres of fuel you have. Me as a person have no reason to care if I send 210 Terran Confederation Navy sailors to die every time I ram something, what I care about is I have 10 ramming ships and I better hope they don't have 11 ships to ram. However in that previous example, I just sent 2,100 people to their death because it was more resource efficient to do that than build a proper warship. In real life that would have such huge major consequences that no one would seriously consider that in any time except abject desperation. In Aurora there is no such consequence and no way outside of maybe extreme new mechanics to implement any consequences so there is nothing stopping me from something that arises simply because its a game.
-
The morale aspect depends entirely on the culture. And if we'd expect bigger losses in a conventional fight, it's debatable whether it's a moral problem.
-
I would just say it wouldn't be a bad thing to add if it was outside of the player control.
For example,you watch your exploring ship getting hit, its has no weapons, you about to say "Yep, he dead"
Suddenly the message in the log appears
TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO DIE!
And suddenly your ship rams something to go out in style.
would make a great role playing moment.
Sorry for the necro
-
I don't like that players can't ram and that NPR's can. If we're all agreed that it'd be too exploitable for players to be able to ram, I'd prefer removing the NPR's ability to ram as well--I don't think it really adds that much to the game.
-
I don't like that players can't ram and that NPR's can. If we're all agreed that it'd be too exploitable for players to be able to ram, I'd prefer removing the NPR's ability to ram as well--I don't think it really adds that much to the game.
I'm in agreement. If this could really possibly leave NPR ships too defenseless, then all you'd have to do to fix it is make sure all NPR ships except for specialized FAC or smaller such vessels are equipped with a single, armored, turreted laser or particle beam or railgun or something. Maybe even plasma carronade.
That way you can expect depleted missile ships or carriers to at least pose a measurable threat when out of ammo/parasites, without turning them into a supervessel-ending KKV supertorpedo that can engage from rather arbritrary ranges (why oh why is a ship with lower speed and worse initiative interception rating able to ram-engage a ship that should be able to kite it out? Argh)
-
I think ramming should be limited to he spoiler races, after all ramming is basically a naval tantrum, a game spoiler if you will.
-
I did not expect this thread to still be going.
But it is interesting how players are divided on this. Some are arguing that ramming should never be allowed because it is too exploitable, while others argue that it should be allowed as long as it is nerfed so as to be difficult to exploit. Some agree that it is unfair that NPRs can ram when players can not, but insist, instead, that ramming be removed entirely - even by NPRs.
Nah. Taking control away from players, even when logical roleplay wise is the height of bad video game design.
Really, if you're afraid of exploits, make ramming less powerful and more damaging to the attacker than to the defender (lots of shock damage?). Ramming shouldn't be something you survive, and only a desperation mode.
I agree. Absolutely. Some players might like such a mechanic where ramming would randomly initiate without player control. But the rest of us would hate such a system.
It does seem, though, that most of us can agree that ramming would have great roleplaying potential.
And, as I wrote some time ago: I think it would be difficult to exploit if the player could only issue a ram if the ship has taken a lot of damage and/or it originally had weapons, but it now has nothing left.
Or, as others have suggested, one could make it an SM-only option. I don't see how anyone can complain about it being SM-only, because we can already use SM mode to play god with our game.
-
Frankly, I feel this whole exploit discussion to be misguided. Exploits from a player's perspective only have an effect if the player chooses to use them. Worrying how something is or isn't exploity, and curtailing, cutting or not implementing features that could be good for gameplay, based on that, is a waste of dev time.
-
I did not expect this thread to still be going.
But it is interesting how players are divided on this. Some are arguing that ramming should never be allowed because it is too exploitable, while others argue that it should be allowed as long as it is nerfed so as to be difficult to exploit. Some agree that it is unfair that NPRs can ram when players can not, but insist, instead, that ramming be removed entirely - even by NPRs.
I agree. Absolutely. Some players might like such a mechanic where ramming would randomly initiate without player control. But the rest of us would hate such a system.
It does seem, though, that most of us can agree that ramming would have great roleplaying potential.
And, as I wrote some time ago: I think it would be difficult to exploit if the player could only issue a ram if the ship has taken a lot of damage and/or it originally had weapons, but it now has nothing left.
Or, as others have suggested, one could make it an SM-only option. I don't see how anyone can complain about it being SM-only, because we can already use SM mode to play god with our game.
Clearly, the best way to go about it is to make a ship where it's only weapon is the highest cost-density and cost-value object on the ship, and make sure the ship has slightly less MSP than needed to repair it.
Have it float about and experience maintenance failures until the weapon breaks. Bring it in for overhaul without repairing the object. Ramship developed. :P
I do concur with the idea that it should be SM only, yeah.
-
Okay, so once i had this:
1. I enter some wormhole with 2 frigates, and there is some alien mothership and 13 meson fighters on the other side waiting.
2. They destroy 1st frigate and heavily damage 2nd (all weapons out), and i'm like meh the're all dead.
3. But then, 2nd frigate rams the mothership by itself (i haven't given any orders to them whatsoever).
4. Last thing i get from that system is some log like "Bandit has armor of at least 20" and "bandit is streaming atmosphere".
So i guess player can ram?
-
Okay, so once i had this:
1. I enter some wormhole with 2 frigates, and there is some alien mothership and 13 meson fighters on the other side waiting.
2. They destroy 1st frigate and heavily damage 2nd (all weapons out), and i'm like meh the're all dead.
3. But then, 2nd frigate rams the mothership by itself (i haven't given any orders to them whatsoever).
4. Last thing i get from that system is some log like "Bandit has armor of at least 20" and "bandit is streaming atmosphere".
So i guess player can ram?
Are you sure the Bandit didn't ram you? They will do that.
-
No, i'm not sure who rammed who to be honest. Moreover it was last year or something, so i vaguely remember that fight in details. It is possible that bandit rammed me, probably. It's just i was sure that my frigate done that, because he had no weapons, and why would enemy ram? But, as i said, now i'm not so sure.
-
No, i'm not sure who rammed who to be honest. Moreover it was last year or something, so i vaguely remember that fight in details. It is possible that bandit rammed me, probably. It's just i was sure that my frigate done that, because he had no weapons, and why would enemy ram? But, as i said, now i'm not so sure.
The AI pretty much rams as it pleases, really, if I'm not mistaken.
-
They bloody love it, actually. Certain races do it all the time as soon as they have half of an incomprehensible reason to.
-
The only good rule I've seen for ramming in space combat was the one from Attack Vector Tactical, where, if you want to ram, you have to give a speech. If the other players find it sufficiently stirring, you can ram, with the explicit intention of making ramming rare and memorable. I can't see any way to implement that, and frankly, ramming doesn't make much sense when you look at the math. Overall, I'd prefer nobody was able to do so, or at the very least if the hit chance was greatly reduced.
-
The only good rule I've seen for ramming in space combat was the one from Attack Vector Tactical, where, if you want to ram, you have to give a speech.
Different situation. This is not a tabletop wargame. And, unless I'm mistaken, a majority of Aurora games involve a single player against computer NPRs.
Have you read all three pages of this thread/discussion? I ask because you seem to be overlooking some important points and counterpoints which were brought up.
- Ramming has tremendous story potential for roleplaying. You can't deny that.
- Ramming should not be something that you survive. It's a bold sacrifice.
- There is historical precedent for naval ships and aircraft to ram an enemy out of desperation.
- What prevents Steve from seriously gimping ship ramming so it's not very exploitable?
- What would be wrong with making player ship ramming an SM Mode option?
...with the explicit intention of making ramming rare and memorable. I can't see any way to implement that...
Making ramming "memorable" is up to the players' imagination and/or ability to write a good story. However, I think we can all agree that it needs to be rare. That would help make it more memorable. Anyway, if a lot of ramming is going on, then it is obviously being exploited.
As for the how: Just make the cost/benefit ratio low such that ramming isn't very tempting. Though, if it was restricted to SM-Mode, I think the temptation of using it becomes a moot point. As others pointed out, we can already using SM Mode to play god with our games.
Most community games would probably forbid ramming. But, if it was allowed, I would imagine that the player wanting to ram must convince the moderator/players, probably by giving good reasons (e.g., a ship heavily damaged and no weapons left) and a willingness to roleplay it.
...frankly, ramming doesn't make much sense when you look at the math.
Tell the NPRs that, then, because they ram all the time. As I asked in my OP: Why do NPRs get to ram, while players can't? That's neither reasonable nor believable.
Which math are you referring to? If you are referring to the difficulty of ships in the vastness of space, traveling at insane speeds, hitting another ship, consider: Missiles in Aurora do this all the time. Consider the difficulty of an AMM trying to impact (or approach within close proximity of) an enemy missile. Granted, missiles may be a lot more maneuverable than a ship. But they're a heck of a lot smaller, too.
...If this could really possibly leave NPR ships too defenseless, then all you'd have to do to fix it is make sure all NPR ships except for specialized FAC or smaller such vessels are equipped with a single, armored, turreted laser or particle beam or railgun or something. Maybe even plasma carronade. That way you can expect depleted missile ships or carriers to at least pose a measurable threat when out of ammo/parasites, without turning them into a supervessel-ending KKV supertorpedo that can engage from rather arbritrary ranges (why oh why is a ship with lower speed and worse initiative interception rating able to ram-engage a ship that should be able to kite it out? Argh)
Good points. And these suggestions sound reasonable to me.
-
Somewhat on a tangent. In Astra Imperia, each race has four attributes; Willpower, Aggressiveness, Xenophobia, and Arrogance. To ram, the ramming ship must roll under Willpower and Aggressiveness. Both values are 1-100. If both of these checks succeed, then there is a chance to hit based on the tonnage of the target ship/250,000.
The chances are fairly minimal, as each hex is 30,000km in size.A lot of empty space to hit a relatively small target.
-
Different situation. This is not a tabletop wargame. And, unless I'm mistaken, a majority of Aurora games involve a single player against computer NPRs.
I'm well aware of that. The point was that it's a rule which enforces ramming as rare and memorable.
Have you read all three pages of this thread/discussion? I ask because you seem to be overlooking some important points and counterpoints which were brought up.
This has been going around every year or so since I got here.
- Ramming has tremendous story potential for roleplaying. You can't deny that.
- Ramming should not be something that you survive. It's a bold sacrifice.
- There is historical precedent for naval ships and aircraft to ram an enemy out of desperation.
- What prevents Steve from seriously gimping ship ramming so it's not very exploitable?
- What would be wrong with making player ship ramming an SM Mode option?
I don't like ramming from an aesthetic POV, and I suspect that player ramming would become ludicrously overpowered or totally useless. Yes, some people will exploit it from a good, solid roleplaying standpoint. Others will just want to ram things. I ran a multiplayer game with new players recently, and I believe two of the three asked for ramming. As for historical precedent, ramming has been very rare for the past 150 years, with the exception of the Kamikazes, which are probably better modeled as merely fighters approaching within 5-second range of their target before firing. The bomb was an important part of their damage, and they were much smaller and much faster than their targets. Significantly more so than fighters are to most capitol ships in Aurora.
Making ramming "memorable" is up to the players' imagination and/or ability to write a good story.
And for the players who just want to ram things?
However, I think we can all agree that it needs to be rare. That would help make it more memorable. Anyway, if a lot of ramming is going on, then it is obviously being exploited.
How do we make it rare, though? If it's weak enough that it doesn't make sense to use it often, then how many times have you encountered a situation where it would be useful at all? I've been playing for 6 years, and I can't think of a single case.
Tell the NPRs that, then, because they ram all the time. As I asked in my OP: Why do NPRs get to ram, while players can't? That's neither reasonable nor believable.
I'd agree, but I'd rather take away the NPRs ability to do so than give it to the players. (For that matter, I think that the ability to ram is an interesting point in favor of the NPRs being very different from the players. I believe it's only the spoiler races that do so, although I could be wrong.)
Which math are you referring to? If you are referring to the difficulty of ships in the vastness of space, traveling at insane speeds, hitting another ship, consider: Missiles in Aurora do this all the time. Consider the difficulty of an AMM trying to impact (or approach within close proximity of) an enemy missile. Granted, missiles may be a lot more maneuverable than a ship. But they're a heck of a lot smaller, too.
Yes, that's pretty much it. The ships are very fast and can turn on a dime. That makes them really, really hard to hit. I'd assume that missiles are specially designed to deal with this. Ships aren't.
Size doesn't really enter into it. If we take AVT density (250 kg/m3), a 10,000 ton ship can be modeled as a sphere 42 meters across. If I try to ram one ship of this size with another, I gain an extra 21 m of impact radius relative to a point missile. (This leaves aside the nature of the missile's fusing, which I believe is a proximity fuse, giving the missile a greater 'impact' radius than this number would suggest.) The target gets an extra 4.2 microseconds of breathing room to dodge while the missile is crossing that radius, but only if the missile is only capable of 5,000 km/s (or 5 kkm/s more than the target, if in a tail chase). So far as we're concerned, ships are point targets relative to their ability to dodge.
-
It's not only spoilers who ram. Any race can do it. I had a community game ruined by civilian ships who decided to ram the enemy ships, despite both factions being humans on Earth and non-NPR.
My opinion might be coloured by that experience but I wish that ramming went away completely or at least restricted to the spoilers only - perhaps a specific ship type, not all of their ships, either.
-
It's not only spoilers who ram. Any race can do it. I had a community game ruined by civilian ships who decided to ram the enemy ships, despite both factions being humans on Earth and non-NPR.
My opinion might be coloured by that experience but I wish that ramming went away completely or at least restricted to the spoilers only - perhaps a specific ship type, not all of their ships, either.
I believe civilian ships are still able to.
-
Thinking about the possibility of specialised ramships, I actually wouldn't mind if this were a potential tactic (presumably more common amongst hive-minded aliens etc... or a fleet of ramshackle Ork vessels ;)) - but it would need some safeguards to prevent it being all-powerful.
Perhaps something like this:
Any ship wanting to ram another must be in the same position in space as its target
Ramming takes place at the end of the increment (so after the defender has fired all its weapons)
A ship attempting to ram cannot fire its own weapons and counts its speed as 1 km/s for targetting purposes (as it's not manoeuvring evasively at this point so is easy to track)
The ship attempting to ram rolls attack with its speed vs the target's speed (as per missiles)
The ramming ship is automatically destroyed by the attempt, whether it hits or not (could be handwaved away by saying that ramming is getting close enough to catch the other ship with the blast and then detonating your reactors, rather than hull-to-hull contact)
This would keep ramming available as a last-ditch attack, whilst making it too unreliable and expensive to use regularly. As for the ram-ships... a massive block of armour and engines is going to stand out like a donkey's danglies on both Active and Thermal sensors, and will have relatively few HP so will be vulnerable to shock damage. If that ship can make it through the ASM envelope, then the AMM envelope, then the Beam envelope... I think it's earned its attempt to ram!
-
Maybe you would also need a Prow component weighing in like 2.5k/5k tons or so.
-
Maybe you would also need a Prow component weighing in like 2.5k/5k tons or so.
That means designing a ship to ram. Would you design all your ships with a Prow, just to have the option to ram? And what about NPRs and civilian ships that want to ram?
Also, the existence of a Prow component suggests that a ship utilizing it is expected to survive impact. But most voices here insist that ramming should destroy the ram ship, making it more difficult to be "exploited" as a strategy to make the game easier. They want to limit it to something rarely done out of desperation.
I ran a multiplayer game with new players recently, and I believe two of the three asked for ramming.
Easy. Just stipulate a "no ramming" rule for your multiplayer games. Community games often state some rules in the OP of their main/FAQ topic.
I don't like ramming from an aesthetic POV...
And you're not the only one who does not like ramming. But some of us greatly desire the option for a player ship to ram.
I understand that player ramming is a matter of personal preference. And I understand the concerns about balance, et al. What puzzles me is how some players are so against this. Even if it was added, how would it impact your games? This is not rhetorical: I'd really like to hear a response.
Aside from multiplayer games: How does the way other players play their single-player campaigns affect you? IMO, how they play and what they find fun is their own business.
There are some players who dislike certain types of strategies or weapons. Perhaps they don't like lasers or rainguns. But that is no reason to tell other players that they can't use them in their single-player games or the multiplayer games they run or participate in. And if you're running your own multiplayer game, you could stipulate a rule to forbid them.
And for those of you asking to remove ramming entirely, NPRs and all, consider: Why not post a suggestion in the Suggestion thread to have a "ramming" setup option to disable or enable it with a click? That way, ramming is still available to the rest of us.
...I suspect that player ramming would become ludicrously overpowered or totally useless.
How is player ramming so different from any number of other new features or suggestions made by players? It sounds like you lack confidence in Steve's ability to balance new features. Worst case scenario: It is unbalanced when initially added. But then, a patch or two later, it gets fixed.
So far as we're concerned, ships are point targets relative to their ability to dodge.
Not necessarily. Like TheRowan and others suggested, it may only require getting in close and then quote, "detonating your reactors, rather than hull-to-hull contact."
I'd assume that missiles are specially designed to deal with this {turning on a dime}. Ships aren't.
Imagine two aircraft, with one trying to ram the other. And the rammer has superior speed and maneuverability. The ram target will try to destroy the rammer with weapons (assuming it has any), outmaneuver, or flee. Assuming the rammer isn't crippled or destroyed, the ram target won't be able to avoid it, due to having inferior speed and maneuverability. The rammer may miss the initial attempt, but the target can't outrun and it can't avoid forever.
The scenario would be similar if it was two naval ships instead of aircraft. Anyway, computer-controlled ships can ram, so the argument is moot.
...I think that the ability to ram is an interesting point in favor of the NPRs being very different from the players.
Computer opponents are able to utilize a basic strategy that human players can't. And the only plausible reason I hear is... because players could exploit it?
It bothers me when computer opponents have all sorts of major advantages heaped on them to make up for the AI. In my book, that at least suggests flawed game design. Granted, few games have AI which can match human players on an even playing field. And I can ignore AI advantages when they're done behind the scenes. It's a necessary evil. But this advantage is rather in-your-face and hard to ignore.
Also, I have yet to hear a good argument against making player ramming an SM option. If you don't like it, then just don't use it.
-
Would you design all your ships with a Prow, just to have the option to ram?
Doesn't the Imperium of Man?
-
Easy. Just stipulate a "no ramming" rule for your multiplayer games. Community games often state some rules in the OP of their main/FAQ topic.
You miss the point. It's a very obvious newbie trap, which will spawn innumerable threads here. I'd rather not.
If Steve had infinite time, I wouldn't mind him adding ramming too much. But it's way down the list of things I'd like him to work on, and I argue against it because of that.
Not necessarily. Like TheRowan and others suggested, it may only require getting in close and then quote, "detonating your reactors, rather than hull-to-hull contact."
Why on any planet would someone design their reactors to be detonateable? Also, the math on that doesn't work. Ramming currently does much more damage to the target than exploding reactors do to a ship.
Imagine two aircraft, with one trying to ram the other. And the rammer has superior speed and maneuverability. The ram target will try to destroy the rammer with weapons (assuming it has any), outmaneuver, or flee. Assuming the rammer isn't crippled or destroyed, the ram target won't be able to avoid it, due to having inferior speed and maneuverability. The rammer may miss the initial attempt, but the target can't outrun and it can't avoid forever.
"The target can't avoid forever" can be read as "well, if you have a 1% chance, and arbitrarily many chances, you'll eventually get a hit." The chance is pretty low, depending on how your assumptions are structured.
The scenario would be similar if it was two naval ships instead of aircraft. Anyway, computer-controlled ships can ram, so the argument is moot.
There are certain things that, as implemented, don't make much sense. Ramming is one.
Computer opponents are able to utilize a basic strategy that human players can't. And the only plausible reason I hear is... because players could exploit it?
The Japanese during WWII were able to use a basic strategy that the US didn't even believe was possible early in the war. Clearly, history is implausible.
Also, note that I thought that only the spoiler NPRs could ram at the time. I'd be in favor of restricting it to them.
-
Why on any planet would someone design their reactors to be detonateable?
To not let the enemy gain intelegence about your designs or acces to sensitive documents on board (similar to how German U-Boats sank themselves if they were about to be captured).
There are certain things that, as implemented, don't make much sense. Ramming is one.
Or like how ships in space move at a constant speed with engines on, ships can accelerate many thousands of km/s within the span of a few seconds, the mass of additives (cargo, fuel, ordinance, etc) is not added or taken away as they are loaded/expended, etc. Just because they don't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Also, note that I thought that only the spoiler NPRs could ram at the time. I'd be in favor of restricting it to them.
Or even restrict it to specific spoilers, like just the big bugs and the crazy robots, as the extra galactic, genocidal maniacs would love their lives too much.
-
To not let the enemy gain intelegence about your designs or acces to sensitive documents on board (similar to how German U-Boats sank themselves if they were about to be captured).
Scuttling charges are generally sized to blow open the hull, not blow up violently enough to do damage to nearby ships.
Or like how ships in space move at a constant speed with engines on, ships can accelerate many thousands of km/s within the span of a few seconds, the mass of additives (cargo, fuel, ordinance, etc) is not added or taken away as they are loaded/expended, etc. Just because they don't make sense doesn't mean it doesn't work.
The first two are taken care of by technobabble. The fixed-mass thing is annoying, but can be justified with a bit more technobabble. (The ship's displacement is fixed by the size of the trans-newtonian field generators, and they can't be adjusted outside of yard hands, so it effectively acts as if it was always at its maximum displacement.)
Or even restrict it to specific spoilers, like just the big bugs and the crazy robots, as the extra galactic, genocidal maniacs would love their lives too much.
That would be even better.