Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

This was brought up in another thread, but I have seen little discussion on this tactic.

Has anyone used this very much? sTrategies? Is it worthwhile?

Thanks,

Ken

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

IMAO, no, not since they changed the ramming rules.

The warheads are just too expensive to be cost-effective, except in rare circumstances.

Ramming does have some advantages. If your enemy has such huge ECM superiority that you can't hit him with direct-fire weps, and such heavy PD that you can't get him with fighters or seekers, then ramming may be your Last resort.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

It is quite a viable strategy actually. When programming my AI's for the few shipsets I have made/are making I make the Colonizers all have the 'ram' strategy. The first thing a colonizer usually encounters is an escort when it goes thru a wormhole. The colonizer will ram and usually survive with most comp intact, the escort will usually have most/all weapons destroyed. Instead of the colonizer running/being destroyed it now lives/destroys alot of the time.
Then there is the case of the heavy carrier that has a shipbuilding component and builds fighters with xplosive warheads, basicly uses them as 'missiles'. Nasty in combat when you get hit with heavily shielded large fighters with kamakazie warheads, really makes point defense earn its pay.
I have seen a few other shipsets use the 'ramming colonizer' ploy, at least the Rage did it to me a few games back, surprised the hell out of me, I was ready to board and they just smashed me flat! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Even a non-warhead ship does some ramming damage (not sure how much), so you can either be a target or just ram instead, I have even used this target as POINT DEFENSE, just try using a ship with good shields/armor and ram your way thru a cloud of fighers, 'boooommmm', no more fighters!(good when point defense hasn't been researched/added to ships).

Just my thoughts........someone else will probally think of something I didn't http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

------------------
"The Empress took your name away," said Chance.
Owen smiled coldly. "It wasn't hers to take. I'm a Deathstalker until I die. And we never forget a slight or an enemy." -Owen Deathstalker.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

I have used ftrs as kk's loaded with warheads
and when in fair to large Groups they have take out a dreadnaught. The only drawback is that once the group hits, their gone. So if you use this tactic you would need a number of kk Groups of ftrs along with supporting ftrs or ships. 25-30 or more ftrs in a group. As for ramming ships I have done this a number of times and once in awhile they do some damage but not very often, but if you have no other option and you know your going to lose your ship, what the hey, take the shot, you never know.

just some ideas mac

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

for fighters, isn't it more effient to use those one shot rocket packs?

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Ramming warheads on fighters do 2 to 3x the damage. Both only work once in combat.

Ramming means you have to rebuild, though.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

My idea was to make long-range "smart" missiles out of fighters; make a 1 KT size and a component that flies and rams. But it never did even a half of the rated damage- though I *was* only testing it against shields..

Phoenix-D

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

A while ago ramming was very powerful, it worked on a 1 to 1 damage ratio. If you have two ships (no shields), one is 800kT, the other 700kT, and the 700kT rams the 800kT, the 700kT was destroyed and the 800kT drops to 100kT... Now I believe it is only 40% (with the above example, the 800kT would drop to 520kT), and both ships can survive a ramming attempt (not quite sure how that works though).

Ramming is still a viable strategy at certain points, such as the colonizer example given, or if you have Organic Tech. A ship loaded with Organic Armor will usually destroy a ship of the same size class, and have enough left over to completely regenerate in a few combat turns. The ship warheads are, IMO, largely useless. The kamakazi fighters look interesting, I'll have to try that out http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Will:
A while ago ramming was very powerful, it worked on a 1 to 1 damage ratio. If you have two ships (no shields), one is 800kT, the other 700kT, and the 700kT rams the 800kT, the 700kT was destroyed and the 800kT drops to 100kT... Now I believe it is only 40% (with the above example, the 800kT would drop to 520kT), and both ships can survive a ramming attempt (not quite sure how that works though).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

on a guess, the 800kT takes 40% of 700, or 280, and the 700 kT takes 40% of 800, or 320.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Don't bother with the fighters, the warheads don't work- at least on shields.

I modded the Kamakaize Warhead to do 8000 damage (showed up in the box as 8k). What did the fighter do when it rammed? 6.

EDIT: just did the same with normal and emissive armor. Same damage.

Just did ANOTHER test. Reduced damage to 200. Same result- 6 damage. Are warheads not working correctly?

Phoenix-D

[This message has been edited by Phoenix-D (edited 07 May 2001).]

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Here is an idea for you;
Since the drone pictures are not being used. I added a new ship to the ship construction. I called it ram ship and set the requirements to be computer core and armor. I have not finished tested them yet since I just got done setting them up.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

FYI, if you ram and both ships survive, then both ships will occupy the same "square", not really that important but an interesting side note... as this means the restriction that ships can't occupy the same "square" is imposed rather than an integral part of the hardcode.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

In one of my current games, back when I was losing 2-3 technologically inferior destroyers for every enemy light cruiser I was crippling, I designed a suicide escort with nothing but the requied control sections, engines, and a Cobalt Warhead. I didn't think that design would survive to close with its target, so I tried adding armor and point defense to a frigate Version. The frigate would have cost more than my front line LCs, and the destroyer Version that added another weapon was more expensive than my first cruiser design! Obviously, I never actually built any of these. By the time I'd researched fighters, my casualties were more managable, so I haven't tried a kamikaze design for them yet.

------------------
Cap'n Q

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Sounds like the kamakazi and ramming rules need some work. I hope MM is listening.

In a perfect game, all available technologies should have viable strategies...

Ken

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

IMO ramming is a valuable strategy. Another topic is the cobalt warhead. In my experience if you use the cobalt warhed on a ramming ship both ship get destroyed. I am not sure if that's always the case, more testing would be needed. But I think the high cost of the cobalt warhead makes this not a very attractive weapon. You probably get a better deal with a lot of armor on a ramming ship.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>my experience if you use the cobalt warhed on a ramming ship both ship get destroyed.<hr></blockquote>

Nope. That's not always the case.

I've been doing some testing yesterday and my conclusion is that ramming ships are just too expensive. Same goes to the fighters - a large fighter with 2 kamakazi warheads will cost you around 650 minerals depending on your design, and it did only 18 damage each! How many will you need to take out a line Barium class DN of mine with 3000 shields?

Edit: Just did a ramming test with my line coloniser and it did only 186 damage, destroying itself in the process. That's hardly a dent in my DN's shield!

[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: CW ]</p>

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
My idea was to make long-range "smart" missiles out of fighters; make a 1 KT size and a component that flies and rams. But it never did even a half of the rated damage- though I *was* only testing it against shields..

Phoenix-D<hr></blockquote>

This is using a fighter as a substitute drone. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Drones use ramming as their main form of attack. They are essentially cruise missiles. Once you have drones I think you'll not bother with kamikaze ships or fighters.

But remember, the percentage of damage caused by ramming, to both the target and the rammer, is settable in SETTINGS.TXT like so many other things. I've set my ramming damages VERY high (300 percent for both) because realistically you should not expect to survive collison at the speeds represented in space combat. This makes ramming very effective, but also invariably fatal unless there is a HUGE size difference between the ships involved. It does make drones more powerful, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Wow, I didn't know you could change the ramming values. Thanks for the info.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Well, the problem I had with ramming is the warheads never did anything, i.e. the ship without the warhead did as much damage ramming as the ship WITH the warhead.

Phoenix-D

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

In my experience the cobalt warheads work. If you put several Typ III on a ship you can do quite a lot of damage! But I always lost the attacking ship even if its destruction potential (of the cobalt warheads) was greater than the target. And the cost of the cobalt warheads is too high. I reduced it to 100 minerals and 200-400 radioactives for level I-III.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Here's a quick Q: Do destroyed components on the ramming ship count for ramming damage?

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Just out of curiosity, has any progress been done in making this a more viable strategy?

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Taqwus:
Here's a quick Q: Do destroyed components on the ramming ship count for ramming damage?<hr></blockquote>

According to my observation (Version 1.49): No.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Odd, that. Perhaps they should -- well, at a reduced rate (70%? 50%?); armor may be mangled, and weapons non-functional, but a fair bit of the mass might actually remain. Ramming as a Last "Oh heck, we're going to die anyway" move might be a bit more meaningful then. Close-in space combat might be made a bit nastier, then...

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

I had the impression that the ramming damage done was based on hull size, and the components (other than warheads) only affected how much damage the ship could take, not how much it caused.

[ 16 December 2001: Message edited by: capnq ]</p>

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Odd, that. Perhaps they should -- well, at a reduced rate (70%? 50%?); armor may be mangled, and weapons non-functional, but a fair bit of the mass might actually remain. Ramming as a Last "Oh heck, we're going to die anyway" move might be a bit more meaningful then. Close-in space combat might be made a bit nastier, then...<hr></blockquote>I'd reccommend adding the warhead weapon to engines then.
You need movement to ram anyways, and the faster you're going, the harder you will hit!

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>I had the impression that the ramming damage done was based on hull size, and the components (other than warheads) only affected how much damage the ship could take, not how much it caused<hr></blockquote>Hitpoints remaining * settings.txt modifier + warhead Ratings.

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

OK, correction:

The ship-based warheads work; fighter warheads do not.

I gave a fighter a modded warhead with 8000 damage..rammed a ship with 4k total hitpoints. The ship lost a grand total of 16 shield points. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Phoenix-D

Re: Ramming/Kamakazi tactics
 

Well, we've discussed this a lot, but that was a long time ago. To sum up (old-timers feel free to correct me):

We were divided on the issue of damage. Some felt that a head-on collision should obliterate both vessels. Others pointed out that collisions wouldn't necessarily be head-on, and that getting rammed from the rear might not do any damage at all. Everyone agreed in the end that modeling the damage "properly" would require keeping track of so many things (speed, heading, facing, supplies, etc.) that it would require a complete overhaul of combat. So I think the standard 40% number was a compromise. But that is moddable, as has been pointed out, so I think MM tried to accomodate people in this case.

OTOH, most people agreed that ramming should not be automatically successful, and that smaller and/or faster ships should have an advantage over relatively larger/slower ships in initiating or avoiding a ram. This has never been implemented, much to my annoyance. The annoyance is because it is such an easy code change, so I feel that MM has been unresponsive in this case.

As far as shields go, people were split. Some felt shields should either count, or not count, for both ships. Others liked giving the "ramee" an advantage, and came up with a techno-babble justification. Again, it would not be hard for MM to make this moddable, but it isn't.

As far as warheads go, they are obviously way too large, expensive, and ineffective. Compare them with a self-destruct device, which always blows up both ships, even if the SDD was on an escort and the boarding ship was a mothership. (Of course that's a ridiculous example, but that's the point.) But warheads are moddable, so again, no complaints there.

In the midst of all of our arguing about realism, some people tried to make the case that, after all, SEIV is meant to be a game and that play-balance is sometimes more important than realism. Hopefully those compromisers have left the forum forever! (Just kidding. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )