Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mobow213

Ramming and blocking does it need to be changed

Recommended Posts

I think ramming doesn't necessarily represent ramming: that'd probably cause more than 1 damage to a ship. In my head it represents them pulling up to avoid each other and maybe just scraping past, all while spamming their batteries onto the opposing vessel. The 1 damage per side to me is just an abstract illustration of that concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snip- wouldn't it depend on the size of what you are hitting. If a CR90 hits/is hit by a ISD- surely the CR90 would take the more catastrophic damage, while the ISD would take meh damage .....

It would. The results are applied against the opposing ship.

 

I still prefer the base rules of 1 damage card each, but the house rule allows for people who get really bent on the base rule an option.

They still both take dmg. In my rule. And it could effect you planned movement also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as it irks me the thought of ramming each other in space, there really is no simple solution to change it, so it is what it is.

 

Otherwise you would need a whole section on ramming on purpose, covering how it works, how ship sizes effect the ram, how speed effects the ram, a specific order to complete a ram maneuver, a counter order to evade a ram maneuver it would be a real headache.

 

So they picked the cleanest solution, collisions happen if you cannot move sufficiently to clear a ship base, elegant and simple.

Having talked with ine of the designer at star wars celebration last year. I got a feeling they really didnt plan on folks ramming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this thread a lot. It's got everything. It's got hostile drunken posts, hostile responses, lemming-like don't ever question the God-creators of this game because they've nailed every mechanic and Lyraeus because no thread would be complete without him. One thing it doesn't have? Actual functional possible fleshed out solutions. So let's go step by step.

1. Does it need fixing?

The best I can say about it is that it's an adequate abstraction. The worst, it is the worst mechanic in an otherwise brilliantly devised and executed game.

2. Can it be fixed?

It's important that any solution be an improvement and practical. I believe both can be satisfied.

3. What is the solution?

Glad you asked. Here are my thoughts on a simple and effective fix.

"If a ship cannot clear another ships base entirely with its movement the two ships overlap. For a ship vs ship overlap each ship takes a damage card. If one ship has a smaller base that card is dealt face-up. For ships of the same size deal a face down damage card to each." This represents the likelihood that a smaller ship suffers more from a collision than a larger one. It doesn't require anything more than a simple size comparison.

"After damage cards are dealt the moving player chooses the side over the overlap or its opposite (if the overlap was a side impact) or the front or back (if the overlap was front to front or front to back). In the case of an overlap which contacts two zones the moving player chooses which to use for placement. The non-moving player then places the ship parallel to the chosen side, front or back anywhere along his ships base (similar to how squadrons are moved when ships overlap them). The bases must be touching. Overlapping ships may only fire at each other from a single firing arc. All line of sight and firing arc rules still apply"

This is my concept for ramming. It requires no additional game pieces, measurements or calculations. Compare sizes of ships, deal damage cards, rammer chooses a side, rammee chooses location on the touching side, no taking advantage to double arc off the collision. It's still somewhat of an abstraction but less so. It takes into account size differential. It will all but eliminate the four turn can't get away bumper cars in space. Thoughts? Anyone want to help playtest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. What is the solution?

Glad you asked. Here are my thoughts on a simple and effective fix.

"If a ship cannot clear another ships base entirely with its movement the two ships overlap. For a ship vs ship overlap each ship takes a damage card. If one ship has a smaller base that card is dealt face-up. For ships of the same size deal a face down damage card to each." This represents the likelihood that a smaller ship suffers more from a collision than a larger one. It doesn't require anything more than a simple size comparison.

"After damage cards are dealt the moving player chooses the side over the overlap or its opposite (if the overlap was a side impact) or the front or back (if the overlap was front to front or front to back). In the case of an overlap which contacts two zones the moving player chooses which to use for placement. The non-moving player then places the ship parallel to the chosen side, front or back anywhere along his ships base (similar to how squadrons are moved when ships overlap them). The bases must be touching. Overlapping ships may only fire at each other from a single firing arc. All line of sight and firing arc rules still apply"

 

 

I see you put a lot of thought into your answer but i'm not a fan. I like the rules the way they are. Whether you see collisions as an abstract of them grinding into each other while the rest of the conflict carries on or not the rules work fine. If people can always guarantee slipping past to the opposite hull zone there would be less need to plan movement and speed carefully, and that's what i have a problem with.

 

As has already been mentioned, proportionally smaller ships suffer more damage anyway, although a face up sounds Dodonna good!

 

I've lost sight of why the anti rammers hate this mechanic, is it realism? is it getting their ship stuck? is it the damage (or lack of)?

 

I think i'm going to stop commenting, i don't feel this idea deserves attention because i'm firmly in the pro ramming mechanic party. No offence to any anti ramming mechanic people out there.

Edited by Rhinehard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make it harder to estimate with precision more than one measurement at a time with only one ruler. If Distance 1 is X cm, I'll always know if my fighter can engage an enemy (except for Speed 5 squadrons) because I can measure the Y cm movement distance, and plainly see the remaining X cm.

Similarly, if each movement tick distance was Z cm, I could use the range ruler to estimate the distance I can travel (and the range bands from that point) with much higher accuracy.

By making every unit of measure a slightly different standard they reward people with excellent visual awarenesses.

It adds complication without adding any complexity, and is totally redundant in a game that allows pre-measuring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How preposterously self important to think you can decide which aspects of a game are too abstract.

How conceited to think you can decide which opinions are 'worthy' of posting on the board. Some people don't like the ramming mechanic. If you disagree with them, then feel free to engage in a conversation with them, and if you don't care about the issue then feel free to not read a thread that explicitly states it will discuss the ramming mechanic. But don't come waltzing in here and tell everyone they're self important for having an opinion on the rules of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? When a small object hits a large object is the damage proportionally on the small object?

When a small cannonball hits a large frigate which takes the greater damage?

A lot of you need basic physics lessons.

Right, like when a rowboat crashes into an aircraft carrier and sinks it.

Someone needs a physics lesson, yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why? When a small object hits a large object is the damage proportionally on the small object?

When a small cannonball hits a large frigate which takes the greater damage?

A lot of you need basic physics lessons.

Right, like when a rowboat crashes into an aircraft carrier and sinks it.

Someone needs a physics lesson, yes...

 

If that rowboat is going sufficiently fast (and holding together, of course) then the Carrier will definitely take damage. Try throwing a bullet at something, then try firing a bullet at it: the difference in those two tests is not the size of the projectile, but the speed.

 

The analogy is basically a Speed 4 CR90 hitting an ISD. Sure the CR90 will take more damage, proportionally, but the ISD will definitely not be unscathed. Perhaps there should be a change to the overlapping rules to represent speed and size, but that is simply adding complexity for a very small nudge towards real physicality,

 

 

 

Edit: Thinking about it, the CR90 does take more damage proportionally. So yeah...

Edited by Pilot no55389

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, like when a rowboat crashes into an aircraft carrier and sinks it.

Someone needs a physics lesson, yes...

 

I, personally, would love to have some physics lessons. Such as on these enormous, billion-ton vessels travelling faster than light.

Or them firing visible laser beams that travel at sub-light speeds.

Or how they turn in the vacuum of space like ships turning in water, but with their only visible means of propulsion on the rear, and no side- or retro-thrusters to facilitate such manoeuvres.

Or LIGHTSABERS, how do they work?

Ooh, ooh, or the Force?

 

Please, teach me the secrets of physics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and no, physics have no place in Star Wars)

 

This. If you wanted to bring physics into it, then I should be able to declare my CR90 is jumping to hyperspace and colliding with your ISD, so you can go ahead and remove it from the table.

 

I would think of the ramming rules more representative of a ship slamming on the breaks to avoid a collision and the damage is from the stress on the ship's hull. Or they rake each other at point blank with their batteries, doing extra damage. And a bigger ship slows down to try and keep a smaller ship from getting in too close and reaching its blind spots.

 

I would also think of them as the simplest option that isn't overly burdensome.

Edited by reegsk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To make it harder to estimate with precision more than one measurement at a time with only one ruler. If Distance 1 is X cm, I'll always know if my fighter can engage an enemy (except for Speed 5 squadrons) because I can measure the Y cm movement distance, and plainly see the remaining X cm.Similarly, if each movement tick distance was Z cm, I could use the range ruler to estimate the distance I can travel (and the range bands from that point) with much higher accuracy.By making every unit of measure a slightly different standard they reward people with excellent visual awarenesses.

It adds complication without adding any complexity, and is totally redundant in a game that allows pre-measuring.

You can't premeasure with the maneuver tool, right? Each distance size is a little different so that you can't know the exact engagement distance of any squadron (I got boned on an alpha strike back in Core coming up millimeters short.)

It's fine to disagree with me, and one standard would be kind of convenient here and there, but let's not pretend like your proposed change has only positives and no negatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this thread a lot. It's got everything. It's got hostile drunken posts, hostile responses, lemming-like don't ever question the God-creators of this game because they've nailed every mechanic and Lyraeus because no thread would be complete without him. One thing it doesn't have? Actual functional possible fleshed out solutions. So let's go step by step.

1. Does it need fixing?

The best I can say about it is that it's an adequate abstraction. The worst, it is the worst mechanic in an otherwise brilliantly devised and executed game.

2. Can it be fixed?

It's important that any solution be an improvement and practical. I believe both can be satisfied.

3. What is the solution?

Glad you asked. Here are my thoughts on a simple and effective fix.

"If a ship cannot clear another ships base entirely with its movement the two ships overlap. For a ship vs ship overlap each ship takes a damage card. If one ship has a smaller base that card is dealt face-up. For ships of the same size deal a face down damage card to each." This represents the likelihood that a smaller ship suffers more from a collision than a larger one. It doesn't require anything more than a simple size comparison.

"After damage cards are dealt the moving player chooses the side over the overlap or its opposite (if the overlap was a side impact) or the front or back (if the overlap was front to front or front to back). In the case of an overlap which contacts two zones the moving player chooses which to use for placement. The non-moving player then places the ship parallel to the chosen side, front or back anywhere along his ships base (similar to how squadrons are moved when ships overlap them). The bases must be touching. Overlapping ships may only fire at each other from a single firing arc. All line of sight and firing arc rules still apply"

This is my concept for ramming. It requires no additional game pieces, measurements or calculations. Compare sizes of ships, deal damage cards, rammer chooses a side, rammee chooses location on the touching side, no taking advantage to double arc off the collision. It's still somewhat of an abstraction but less so. It takes into account size differential. It will all but eliminate the four turn can't get away bumper cars in space. Thoughts? Anyone want to help playtest?

Seemed OK until you started talking about replacing the rammer on the other side of the rammee. I think that would cause too many problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love me some Armada.  Let's not get too carried away, though.  Thinking about game tweaks and house rules is fun.  That's all it is. 

 

If I had been allowed to write the rule, I would think way, way back to my days with Car Wars.  Now THERE were some ramming mechanics.  Rear-end, head-on, or T-bone collision?  What was the difference in speeds of the two objects, etc.  Move the rear of the mid-sized vehicle 1/4 inch in the direction away from the collision per 10 mph.   It was hilariously complicated and part of a pretty fun game. 

 

But, I like how Armada stays on the simplistic side of things.  I think if I was going to tweak Armada for a house rule, the first thing I would do away with is the auto face-down damage card.  Instead, I would use black dice to represent the force and unpredictability of the collision.  Then, I would assign a number of black dice inflicted per ship size. 

 

Fighter = One black die inflicted if no shields present

Small = two black dice inflicted

Medium = Four black dice inflicted

Large = Six black dice inflicted 

 

So, a CR-90 rams an ISD.  The corvette inflicts two dice on the ISD, while the ISD inflicts six on the corvette.   The corvette disintegrates (as it should), but not before a chance to seriously damage the ISD, and maybe end it if conditions were right. 

 

A VSD with front shields down and only one damage card remaining gets rammed in the control tower by a lone x-wing.  (It could happen!)

 

An ISD moving at speed 3 collides head-on with Home One, also going speed 3.  Ca-rash!  Six black each!  That might encourage better piloting...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with moving the rammer around the rammee is that it can be gamed far too much.

Here is a great example.

My CR90 is going to ram your ISD's front arc. With moving my CR90 onto the other side, my mistake turns into my fortuitous advantage.

Oh! Demolisher just attacked with its left arc and then rammer the Assault Frigate pushing itself to the other side where all the shields were just taken from and shoots with its right hull zone.

Now elects look at the implications of this in a tournament setting. How do you determine the angle, placement, etc while maintaining a streamlined and easy to rule follow through?

To make it harder to estimate with precision more than one measurement at a time with only one ruler. If Distance 1 is X cm, I'll always know if my fighter can engage an enemy (except for Speed 5 squadrons) because I can measure the Y cm movement distance, and plainly see the remaining X cm.Similarly, if each movement tick distance was Z cm, I could use the range ruler to estimate the distance I can travel (and the range bands from that point) with much higher accuracy.By making every unit of measure a slightly different standard they reward people with excellent visual awarenesses.

It adds complication without adding any complexity, and is totally redundant in a game that allows pre-measuring.
Rough premeasuring I hope you mean.

You can't use the maneuver tool outside of the activated ships determine course step so exact premeasuring is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But, I like how Armada stays on the simplistic side of things.  I think if I was going to tweak Armada for a house rule, the first thing I would do away with is the auto face-down damage card.  Instead, I would use black dice to represent the force and unpredictability of the collision.  Then, I would assign a number of black dice inflicted per ship size. 

 

Fighter = One black die inflicted if no shields present

Small = two black dice inflicted

Medium = Four black dice inflicted

Large = Six black dice inflicted 

 

So, a CR-90 rams an ISD.  The corvette inflicts two dice on the ISD, while the ISD inflicts six on the corvette.   The corvette disintegrates (as it should), but not before a chance to seriously damage the ISD, and maybe end it if conditions were right. 

 

A VSD with front shields down and only one damage card remaining gets rammed in the control tower by a lone x-wing.  (It could happen!)

 

An ISD moving at speed 3 collides head-on with Home One, also going speed 3.  Ca-rash!  Six black each!  That might encourage better piloting...;)

Careful with that idea. First off it would not be an attack so defense tokens could not be used. . .

I personally would love to throw 7 CR90 B's with engine techs and SW-7 Ion Turrets at an ISD if it meant 28 black dice and upwards of 42 hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't premeasure with the maneuver tool, right? Each distance size is a little different so that you can't know the exact engagement distance of any squadron (I got boned on an alpha strike back in Core coming up millimeters short.)

It's fine to disagree with me, and one standard would be kind of convenient here and there, but let's not pretend like your proposed change has only positives and no negatives.

You can pre-measure with anything. The only limitation with the maneuver tool is that once you place it on the table, then you have to follow through with that maneuver. You can hold it 1mm off the table to see where the ship will end up though.

The benefits to having three different measuring types, which all have a right end and a wrong end, is just so incredibly frustrating and adds (effectively) nothing to the game. Sure, the guy with incredible visual acuity might get a bonus, but is that something we want to penalise players for? Oh sorry pal, you wear glasses so you get punished?

IMO it's got nothing to do with game-play. All FFG games have their own special dice and their own special rulers, so that they can all be played straight out of the box without needing to buy some D6 or tapemeasures like you do with other games. It's just one of their gimmicks, and in this case I think it's a massive pain in the ass. They should have just bit the bullet and used CMs for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't premeasure with the maneuver tool, right? Each distance size is a little different so that you can't know the exact engagement distance of any squadron (I got boned on an alpha strike back in Core coming up millimeters short.)It's fine to disagree with me, and one standard would be kind of convenient here and there, but let's not pretend like your proposed change has only positives and no negatives.

You can pre-measure with anything. The only limitation with the maneuver tool is that once you place it on the table, then you have to follow through with that maneuver.

I would. Not be so sure. . .

Page 9 in the Rules Reference Guide under Premeasuring

"The maneuver tool can be placed and adjusted freely during the “Determine Course” step of executing a maneuver to assist in determining a course. A ship is not committed to a course until the guides of the maneuver tool are inserted into the ship’s base."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits to having three different measuring types, which all have a right end and a wrong end, is just so incredibly frustrating and adds (effectively) nothing to the game.

On your BFG kick again?

Ok in all seriousness, the different measuring types actually with custom dice make the game FAR easier to pick up than something using a tape measure. This means more comprehensive demo game, easier to draw people in, and something unique in a genre filled with tape measures.

It also adds depth to the game by not making things super simple. This. Means skill is important.

Sure, the guy with incredible visual acuity might get a bonus, but is that something we want to penalise players for? Oh sorry pal, you wear glasses so you get punished? IMO it's got nothing to do with game-play.

Read above. You are wrong get and just choose to delude yourself to believing otherwise.

Having played BFG (which was an imbalanced mess and is no longer a supported game), Firestorm Armada (which was decent but bloated), and Halo Fleet Battles (decent game, wierd squadron rules). I can safely say that until Dropfleet Commander comes out that Armada is at the top of the game.

All FFG games have their own special dice and their own special rulers, so that they can all be played straight out of the box without needing to buy some D6 or tapemeasures like you do with other games. It's just one of their gimmicks, and in this case I think it's a massive pain in the ass. They should have just bit the bullet and used CMs for everything.

Why should they conform when obviously they system works? Imperial Assault? Huge seller. X-Wing? Dismantling the "company-that-shall-not-be-named" a bit each month. Armada? Destroying sales records for the age of the game.

Sorry but no other "CM" based game can say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Premeasuring

"The maneuver tool can be placed and adjusted freely during the “Determine Course” step of executing a maneuver to assist in determining a course. A ship is not committed to a course until the guides of the maneuver tool are inserted into the ship’s base."

Thank you, I meant you cannot premeasure with the maneuver tool at any time. You certainly can during the determine course step - but that's not the only time it would be nice to use. Thanks for helping with that clarification, I misspoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After playing a game today, I realize that ramming also serves another vital purpose - it keeps the game going.  Tonight I castled three VSDs in the corner of my setup area right next to the station for Contested Outpost. My opponent came at me full bore with an Empire Variety Pack (ISD, VSD, GSD, RDR). The GSD and ISD got there fast and started bumping my VSDs. However, if there were some sort of "pop through" or "slide to the side" rule, the game would've ended. . .fast. If ships popped through, his GSD and definitely his ISD would have rammed, popped out the far side then flown off the table. There would have been no way possible to turn in time. If ships were slid to the side, my VSD would have been rammed by the ISD and pushed over, then again by the GSD and pushed off the table.

 

The alternative (in the pop through scenario) would be to get to range one and slam on the brakes, but that's extremely difficult unless you're traveling at speed one already, and that also means you give up your ability to use defensive tokens. If I crashed into my opponent and popped out, now I'm behind the enemy facing directly away with Victories, meaning I'll never turn around in time to get that front arc back around.

 

I would love to see some house rules that address this, but I feel like you would have to change so many game mechanics to make it work. It would also make black dice completely useless, because by the time you get to use them, you're either going to ram or be rammed and your opponent will be behind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would also make black dice completely useless, because by the time you get to use them, you're either going to ram or be rammed and your opponent will be behind you.

I agree with everything you say right up to this point. You know that you can use black dice without ramming, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can, but it makes it much more difficult. You're looking at a max of a single shot unless you circle around to the side and get yourself into the perfect position to fire into the flank then maneuver behind. It would take several turns to get there but only allow for two or three rounds of shooting, tops. And if you're flanking Rebels, you're going to have a bad time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current mechanics bother me mostly because a small ship can be trap a much larger one. If there was some sort of damage scaling such that small base= 1 damage, medium = 2, large = 3 it would not only be more realistic, it would mean you wouldn't have the gamey effects of a small base holding up a large base all game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...