Ramming Damage
 

I tried to find an answer and couldn't, so here it is.

How is ramming damage calculated?

The inspiration for this question has the following set-ups.
Both races have standard B,LS,CQ,6ion engines, no shields.
My ship: Frigate with 1 Cobalt3, 3 PDC2, 260HP
Enemy ship: Destroyer with 3 CSM2, 1 supply, 305HP

1> With no previous damage to either, both get destroyed. Why? the 300 damage from the warhead should almost completly destroy his ship leaving 5 HP. My 260 HP Frigate should have survived imo.

2> After a different ship of mine destroyed all of his components but his B, LS, CQ. (30hp total), I rammed with my undamaged ramming ship. Again both were destroyed. WTF?WHY? My ship certainly should have survived, as he only had 30 HP before ramming.

So I am obviously thinking this should work a different way than the programmers set it up. Cobalt warheads are expensive, they should work better than they do.

I know in a ramming situation, I will take some damage. But given the two above situations, total loss seems wrong to me.

[ February 03, 2003, 18:13: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

If your ship has a warhead, IIRC it will automatically be destroyed when it rams, whether the enemy is or not - warheads kind of blow up you know and they're not fun to be around http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Ramming Damage
 

First of all, a ramming ship has a certain amount of damage it can generate. This is based I believe on the structure of the ramming ship. In the stock game, the target ship takes 100% of this damage amount, and the ramming ship takes 60% of the damage amount. These two numbers can be modified in the settings.txt file.

Putting on a warhead greatly increases the damage amount you ship does to the target. But it also increases the amount of damage done to your own ship if you remember your ship takes 60% of that number. With a warhead you can very easily give more damage than your own ship can sustain, especially a small ship like a frigate. 60% of a Cobalt Warhead 3 by itslef is enough to kill your frigate, without even counting 60% of the structure of your own ship.

Even if 100% of the damage your ramming ship can do is way more than the total comps left of the enemy ship, your ship still does the total amount of damage. It's just that the extra damage is wasted. And your ship still takes 60% of the total damage, It doesn't take the amount of damage that it takes to kill the enemy. As far as I know the size of the enemy ship or the structure of the remaining components have no effect on the ammount of damage your ship sustains. Only the size of your own ship and whether or not it has a warhead on board.

Geoschmo

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure that is neccesariy true. For a small ship it would be, but I believe a large enough ramming ship with warhead can survive the impact. Although much more heavily damaged than it would be without the warhead to be sure.

[ February 03, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Not really sure what these mean, but from settings.txt:

Ram Ship Source Modifier := 60
Ram Ship Target Modifier := 100

I think it means that the ramming ship sums up its mass and warhead (if any) strength and compares it to the target's mass and then the source ship takes 60% of damage from the mass of the target while the target takes 100% of the damage from the source.

Or does it mean something else entirely?

[edit: Whoops, Geo already described this. ]

Slick.

[ February 03, 2003, 18:53: Message edited by: Slick ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Thanks Geo. So the warhead damage is not calculated first, then the mass vs mass. Kind of like how shields were added to unit HP (pre 1.84).
See, I thought the warhead damage calculated first. I would rather see the warhead with a .5 or 1 range with only one use allowed. (MOD?)
Captain: Ramming speed
Con: Speed attained Sir
Captain: Release warhead coasting clamps and prepare to alter course.
Weapons: The ship was not destoryed Sir.
Captain: Do not alter course and proceed with the ramming. This beast must not reach the fleet.

That is how I kinda pictured it going down. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Oh well.

So based on the numbers, the AI took 560 damage, and I took 336 damage.

What about if I had damaged components. Is the mass from those deducted from the ramming damage done? I assume it is, but not 100% sure. That goes for a lot of things in this game.

[ February 03, 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Geo http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Recently, I had my colony ship ram another. Mine was set on "kamakazi" and was destroyed but the other survived to colonize a planet. It was a surprise to me as I thought "All things being equal, if a ship should survive, it should be the attacker based on the 100/60). I can't remember if the other colony ship tried to run away or not, but it didn't try to ram.

So, could it be the other way around? Like the attacker takes more damage. Or could there something that changes the algorithym of damage so that the attacker is occasionally destroyed.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

tbontob. I have seen that too. Had a ramming colony ship gets destroyed ramming a lighter ship ship too.

Thats is why I was thinking about maybe modding the warhead to a range 1, use 1. At 1000 minerals each, you should get more benefit than it gives.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Originally posted by couslee:
See, I thought the warhead damage calculated first. I would rather see the warhead with a .5 or 1 range with only one use allowed. (MOD?)

You can't mod a true one shot weapon, but you can mod one with a 30 reload rate. Not sure if that would do exactly what you want, but it might come close.

What about if I had damaged components. Is the mass from those deducted from the ramming damage done? I assume it is, but not 100% sure. That goes for a lot of things in this game.
This is a good question, but I have no idea.

Geoschmo

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That supprises me. Other components have the "may only be used once" or "destroyed after use" ability. this wouldn't work on the warhead? shame.

Edit in: Of course, it would have to be repaired afterwards, indicating a "replacement" warhead installed.

[ February 03, 2003, 20:00: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Except for one game, I have been playing the standard non-modded 1.78 game.

But now I remember, the colony ship which was destroyed was in The Great Experiment II and the players colony ships were modded to allow them to have greater range. And it was my colony ship vs the AI's. Could a modded colony ship have skewed what should normally have happened?

Re: Ramming Damage
 

The default values in settings.txt favor the target, not the rammer.

I think the main reason for this, and for making ramming warheads expensive and not very powerful is balance, and the fact that the ramming mechanic isn't very realistic or fair. Since the current mechanic makes it pretty easy to ram even faster ships (or drones or even FIGHTERS), ramming has to be disadvantaged some other way, or it will become a better strategy to build lots of ram ships than to invest in real weapons and sensors and stuff.

IMO, reducing the damage from ramming is a hack solution, but I also think it is far better than letting ram ships dominate. Ideally, the ramming mechanic would actually make sense. It wouldn't be automatically successful, and would be impossible or nearly impossible to ram faster or more maneuverable targets, especially fighters.

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">PvK, are you saying that it is the reverse and it is the rammer who is likely to take 100 damage and the defender 60?

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Ok, now I am confused. Can anyone post some math that shows how mass (rammer and rammee), warhead strength, and the settings.txt entries add up?

Also, what happens if 2 rammers meet? I would guess that the one to move Last is the rammer. But what happens if the rammee has a cobalt warhead? Is it similar to drones in that it would not explode but only add mass to its ship?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif
Slick.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The only favorable thing for the target I read is shields work for the target, but not the attacker.
And considering the cost both mineral wise and KT used is balance enough IMO. A fleet of ramming ships would be very expensive to build.

The way I would mod the weapon is this (I know very little about modding, so don't go nutso if I say something that won't work):
Range: 1
Ability: may only be used once
Cost: maybe increase it 150%-200% (2000 minerals)
Mass: double it to 100kt
**damage resistance: leave at 50, or reduce to 20 or 25

If too powerfull, reduce the damage done from 100, 200, 300 per level to 75, 150, 225 (-25%).

Instead of veiwing it as a hard mount ramming warhead, view it as a detachable ramming warhead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As it is now, they are useless. Why even have them in the game when you get better ramming numbers using cheap-*** armor.

**Late edit: lots of cross-posting and speedy replies.

[ February 03, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Aha, I was all wrong.

The tonnage of the other ship does matter, and the advantage from settings does go to the target.

The rammer gets damage equal to 100% of the structure of the target. The target gets damage equal to 60% of the structure of the rammer.

So a smaller * ship ramming a larger ship will always be destroyed. A larger ship ramming a smaller ship will not be destroyed. It might not necesarily destroy the smaller ship though on the first ram. It depends on the size difference between the two.

And it does appear, but I am not certain yet, need to test it more, that only intact comps are factored into the damage. Not positive either how the warhead is factored in, but I will let you knwo if/when I figure it out.

Geoschmo

*EDIT: Smaller and larger are not technically correct. Since a ship can be smaller and have more strutcure since armor and other comps can have more structure then they take up in space. The critical number is structure not size.

[ February 03, 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Slick.
It appears the damage rating of the warhead is added to the damage total (300+50kt). If the target ship has a ramming warhead, only the mass counts (50kt)

And I seriously doubt the settings.txt are mis-worded. attacking and target are not going to be confused. (unlike some of the other .txt wordings. lol)

Re: Ramming Damage
 

On a side note. WOW at all the replies and views. I am glad I asked this question.

Thanks to one and all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: Ramming Damage
 

I am fairly certain that only current HPs (not max HPs) are factored into the damage. If a ship has 20 damage, but no destroyed comps, it will do 20 less damage when it rams (or is rammed).

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it's not misworded. But that didn't stop me from misinterpreting it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Me either. I mis-understood it too. I just did another quick test not using the ramming ship
I attacked
He took 60% of my HP in damage
I took 100% of his HP in damage
Damaged components are not included, only remaining HP are used.

warhead test will have to wait until I get a ship hardy enough to survive the above +300. I fear it adds 300 damage to each ship. but no idea until it can be tested.

Edit in.
That stinks. If your ramming, your are hitting nose first and structural planning would be used to make that the most resistant to impact (we have bumpers on cars,eh?) When your ramming, you could be doing a corner ram at the engines, or a broadside. you would cause more damage than you would recieve. I think the setting are backwards, but that is just my opinion.

[ February 03, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Ok, A few ideas leap out at me:

1) A ramming warhead weapon mount that adds a lot of structural tonnage to absorb damage to the rammer. This only makes sense since a ship designed for ramming would have a reinforced bow.

2) Warheads change damage type from normal to "skips all shields." Only armor would count like vs mines.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

couslee, if you want it to work the way you describe, simple change your settings.txt file.

However, to repeat what I said before, in case you might agree, in my opinion it is a lesser evil to have the settings the way they are, than to have to live with what would happen if they were equal, or reversed. The real problem here is not the damage levels, but the fact that ramming is automatically successful, and has almost nothing to do with speed or maneuverability. You should not be able to ram fighters and faster ships with another ship. The only thing allowing this to happen is the turn-based movement system. In reality, if a slower or equal-speed ship tries to ram an enemy ship that does not want to be rammed, it will have a very hard time succeeding, because the target will simply alter course to avoid the ramming maneuver. Without any reasonable way to avoid ramming, it would be both unrealistic an unbalanced for ram ships to do equal or more damage to their targets. Untrained cheapo ships with armor would be smashing elite expensive ships left and right. This is already quite possible - I have lost many elite expensive ships to ram ships with no training and less speed than mine.

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Actually, if you consider the speeds involved ramming is ridiculously under-powered. I have changed both of the ramming damage modifiers to 300 percent in my personal config. I suppose that means that you could build a fleet of rammers and rule the galaxy -- if your race is suicidal enough. But it seems only logical to me that only a very large size difference would make it possible for one ship to survive ramming or being rammed.

Maybe I should mod one of the AIs to build lots of rammers just to see what would happen... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

This does make drones more powerful, btw.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Sure, if spaceships collide directly, it would do massive damage. Again, the problem is they wouldn't collide, unless the rammer was suicidal, and faster and more maneuverable than the target. The turn-based combat and the weapon ranges and damages make it pointlessly easy to ram.

Not to mention the balance issue that suddenly cheap ships can wipe out expensive ships.

Maybe there are some sci-fi explanations where ships really would be so easy to ram, and crews really would be willing to commit suicide that way, so elite weapon-armed ships would be a foolish design, and ships full of organic armor would reign supreme. The thing is, I wouldn't really want to play such a game, at least not for very long.

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

PvK,
I certainly can understand your PoV. If it was real time combat, you would be partially correct. However, Say two ships are nose to nose in combat, and one ships decides to proceeded with a ram. It will have some element of supprise by begining it's progress to ram first. The target ship would have to turn around before engaging it's faster engines, allowing even more time for the ramming ship to get closer. You make it sound like the faster ship can do an insta-turn and wisk itself to saftey. Doubt that.

But this is turn based combat. And in such, the faster ship can move into firing range and shoot at a target, while the other ship just sits there. This is being just as unrealistic. If your big expensive experienced ship is comming at me, it's ok for me to just sit still while you get your turn at advancing and taking your shots, with no chance to move out of your weapon's range. But it's not ok if you have to sit there while I get my turn? That is kind of one sided. So the faster ship argument in full of holes imo.

What is unbalanced is the total damage dealt during ramming. In a no friction setting like space, I would think that a collision would have more of a pushing effect than the damage caused by movement resistance (tires on the road, gravity, ect). I think perhaps a more realistic amount would be to have damage based not on the total mass, but around 20% of the total mass. To represent glancing blows and targets being pushed away. This could be done by tweaking down both numbers to 20. The target ship should NOT get an advantage when being rammed. It does not have the benefit being the ship that begins the maneuver, and in turning to move away from the approaching ship it exposes is wearker structural sides. If anyone should get and advantange it should be the attacker. And just because my ship is small means nothing against a massive ship who's design is less armored to allow for multiple weapons. If I am driving a rocket designed for the purpose of ramming, I would drive straight through the massive ship like a McDonalds restaruant. So the whole 100%kt/60%kt total mass determined ramming damage is unbalanced and unrealistic. (of course, as I have said before, the only realism that truely applies is that it somes on a pLastic disk and breaks if folded)

Also, if the warhead was modded to a one use/one range weapon, I may not have to resort to the final effort of ramming. And if used correctly, would become a damaged component and not included in the ramming damage calculation.

If only damage was turned way down for both sides, then adding 300 damage to both ships using a Cobalt3 warhead the way it is now would make more sense and be more balanced. So maybe modding the warhead is the wrong approach. Maybe the base ramming damage is what really needs to be fixed. That would also slow down the "swarm of rammers" you are concerned about.

And being able to ram fighters is silly.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif why bother with ANY weapons when you can build a flying steel I-beam

[ February 04, 2003, 04:46: Message edited by: couslee ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

From the Baron
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">...you should end up with a cloud of super-heated plasma. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are no holes. The argument is that the whole thing is unrealistic, both for the faster and the slower ships. I see no holes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't really think it's THAT inconsiderable.
Imagine a bunch of canoes out in the middle of the ocean. The Nimitz comes along and lays a direct course through the canoes.

Odds are the people in the canoes aren't going to have a good day.

For an easier comparison, look at a Borg cube. It's huge compared to most any other starship, but I'd bet it wouldn't have trouble ramming most of those smaller ships.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't really think it's THAT inconsiderable.
Imagine a bunch of canoes out in the middle of the ocean. The Nimitz comes along and lays a direct course through the canoes.

Odds are the people in the canoes aren't going to have a good day.

For an easier comparison, look at a Borg cube. It's huge compared to most any other starship, but I'd bet it wouldn't have trouble ramming most of those smaller ships.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Nimitz can only ram canoes because it is much faster than they are, so much so that they essentially aren't moving. Try having the Nimitz ram a flock of speedboats. (Not to mention, ram fighter planes.) Better still, try having the Nimitz do what ships can do in SE4 - ram dozens of fighters at once, and have them have no chance to evade, or even to split up so only one gets hit.

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If your ramming is going to destroy my ship, it is going to be extremely high priority for me to maneuver my ship so that you never get a chance to ram me. If my ship is as fast as yours, and as maneuverable, you will never get in this position. If I am "nose to nose" with you, that was a fatal error on my part.

Actual ship captains (and aircraft pilots, car drivers, etc), even non-military ones, make avoiding collisions a very high and constant priority.

Quote:

But this is turn based combat. And in such, the faster ship can move into firing range and shoot at a target, while the other ship just sits there. This is being just as unrealistic. If your big expensive experienced ship is comming at me, it's ok for me to just sit still while you get your turn at advancing and taking your shots, with no chance to move out of your weapon's range. But it's not ok if you have to sit there while I get my turn? That is kind of one sided. So the faster ship argument in full of holes imo.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you want ramming to be an equal element of combat to ranged weapons, perhaps so. Personally, I enjoy an emphasis on ranged weapons. Part of the problem is that the distance a ship can move in one turn, and its weapon range, are pretty close in the standard unmodded game. If I move into effective direct-fire range, you may be able to ram me as your next move. If tactical movement per turn were smaller compared to weapon range, it'd be a little less unbalanced. When letting the AI manage battles, the situation gets much worse, because I end up having to have all my ships set to Max Weapons range if I want to avoid exposing my ships to potential overrun by ram ships.

Quote:

What is unbalanced is the total damage dealt during ramming. In a no friction setting like space, I would think that a collision would have more of a pushing effect than the damage caused by movement resistance (tires on the road, gravity, ect). I think perhaps a more realistic amount would be to have damage based not on the total mass, but around 20% of the total mass. To represent glancing blows and targets being pushed away. This could be done by tweaking down both numbers to 20. The target ship should NOT get an advantage when being rammed. It does not have the benefit being the ship that begins the maneuver, and in turning to move away from the approaching ship it exposes is wearker structural sides. If anyone should get and advantange it should be the attacker. And just because my ship is small means nothing against a massive ship who's design is less armored to allow for multiple weapons. If I am driving a rocket designed for the purpose of ramming, I would drive straight through the massive ship like a McDonalds restaruant. So the whole 100%kt/60%kt total mass determined ramming damage is unbalanced and unrealistic. (of course, as I have said before, the only realism that truely applies is that it somes on a pLastic disk and breaks if folded)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well that could be an interesting sort of game, I suppose. Galley warfare in space. I think it would be the exception, though, rather than something for the default game settings.

Quote:

Also, if the warhead was modded to a one use/one range weapon, I may not have to resort to the final effort of ramming. And if used correctly, would become a damaged component and not included in the ramming damage calculation. If only damage was turned way down for both sides, then adding 300 damage to both ships using a Cobalt3 warhead the way it is now would make more sense and be more balanced. So maybe modding the warhead is the wrong approach. Maybe the base ramming damage is what really needs to be fixed. That would also slow down the "swarm of rammers" you are concerned about. And being able to ram fighters is silly.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you could certainly change the settings to 20% and add some range-one weapons. It sounds like it could be an interesting mod. SE3 Ripper Beams used to be potent range-one weapons...

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

[quote]Originally posted by PvK:
[quote]Originally posted by MacLeod:
[qb]

Quote:

Originally posted by couslee: The Nimitz can only ram canoes because it is much faster than they are, so much so that they essentially aren't moving. Try having the Nimitz ram a flock of speedboats. (Not to mention, ram fighter planes.) Better still, try having the Nimitz do what ships can do in SE4 - ram dozens of fighters at once, and have them have no chance to evade, or even to split up so only one gets hit.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes but remember in stock SEIV, everything has the same speed. So the larger ones would actually have an advantage, the smaller ones would have to move farther to dodge it.

I'm not saying it should be simple for a 900kt dreadnought to ram a 15 kt fighter, but it can happen.

Admittedly, SEIV is quite a bit flawed in the guarunteed hit ramming, I'm just disagreeing that a large ship should be so incredibly incapable of ramming very minute ones.

As another example, I can ram a gnat with my hand. The gnat is pretty damn fast, but when I think for a bit and use the significantly larger size of my hand as an advantage I can hit it.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

I'll agree that you can hit a gnat. Give the gnats equal intelligence to yours, the knowledge that you're out to kill them, the awareness of your position and abilities, and networked communication, and I doubt that you would be able to smash an entire swarm of them in a single blow before they can move out of the way. That's how SE4 fighter-ramming works. If it changes so only one or two are killed at a time, then fine. I can see a 800kt ship hitting a couple of 15kt fighters, provided that they get too close.

I agree that the source of the problem is that combat movement tends to equal maximum range (or at least maximum hittable range) at all tech levels. ISTR that negative combat movement bonuses don't work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Increasing weapon range would take away an advantage of seekers. AIs would also waste shots/supplies firing at range 15 with 1% chance to hit.

Maybe bonus movement shouldn't be counted towards combat movement. How much will a solar sail help you maneuver? You need something with thrust in combat.

[ February 04, 2003, 14:53: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Even if I assume for a moment that the unmodded game's abstract movement system is to be taken literally, it still doesn't mean that units with the same max speed have the same maneuverability or acceleration. A fighter might manage a 2G turn, but do that to a capital ship, and even "the starship Enterprise" with its artificial gravity systems would have the crew flying.

Ok, so you could assume everyone in your ships are strapped down for combat, or they have really powerful and adaptive artificial gravity, and the ships are all actually capable of being just as maneuverable as fighters... mhmm ok whatever. One can certainly dictate such things, and tweak whatever they like via modding. I just think it's a long ways off from the sci-fi I've seen (can't remember a fighter ever being rammed by a ship in any sci-fi I've seen, and very few ship-ship collisions), and also that it requires some fancy explanations compared to what my knowledge of physics, naval history, other games, imagination, common sense, etc includes.

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, the Enterprise accelerates at something greater than 10,000g when it's working properly, so I don't think 2g is too much of a problem.

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Apparently it does a better job at compensating for straight-ahead than it does at cornering, as witnessed by leaning crew memebers during sharp turns, and the time it takes to actually turn the ship around.

PvK

Re: Ramming Damage
 

Treknology can't be taken literally in any sense. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This reminds me of an interview Patrick Stewart did about the new movie. He was talking about the new hydraulic soundstage they used and how for the first time in the Trek genera the crew didn't have to shake themselves around to simulate the ship manuvers. Somehow I find that utterly hysterical. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Ramming Damage
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There's also the show Frakes hosted near the end of TNG where they discussed the history of the show. He explains how they shook the camera and the cast jumped around to simulate hits. Then he jumped off to the side and it looked exactly like the bridge was shaking.