Beef #1: Ramming

[dmm]

WOW, is this a great game! Only played the demo so far. Intend to buy. But, as an American I demand my right to complain. So here goes:

Ramming combined with heavy shields unbalances the game. Fortunately (?) the Combat AI can't grasp the concept, even when you tell it that your fleet's strategy is Kamikaze. However, in Tactical mode, you can easily defeat much better (bigger, more advanced) ships with a fleet of kamikazes.

IMHO, MM has modeled warfare correctly -- suicide tactics are indeed extremely effective, as we have seen from WWII and from truck bombs in the Mideast. The problem, though, is that (in the real world)it is difficult to get recruits for suicide missions, and that's the aspect of reality that is missing. To model that, suicide ramming should only be available as an option to elite units, or to units that are close to destruction anyway, or to forces that are severely outgunned.

But that still doesn't stop someone from building large ships equipped almost entirely with shields/armor and sending them into battle with the sole intent of ramming the enemy into oblivion. The Greeks and Romans used to do almost exactly that, and it isn't necessarily a suicide tactic, so my previous suggested rule doesn't apply. But to prevent large armored rammers from unbalancing the game, I would suggest that ramming should not always hit. There should be some sort of "maneuverability" calculation. It should be easy to ram a carrier with a fighter, but difficult to ram an escort with a dreadnought. Using just size and speed would help gameplay and would be easy to implement in the code, but ideally there should also be technology addressing maneuverability.

Also, fix the AI so it understands what Kamikaze is.

[Taqwus]

Officer's log --

Strange. No other word suffices to explain this... strange ship design. Have our Fleet Engineers gone insane? While the _Hammerhead_ may be a large ship, she bears no weaponry, for her structure is largely armor plating, shield generators, and propulsion systems. Horrible rumors abound about how we are to be used, but surely those deserve little credence.

I would have asked the Captain, but he did not appear to be in a talkative mood after reading his confidential briefing; instead, he turned pale and retired to his cabin.


;-)

Hmmm. If the AI used engine-destroying, or, alternately, armor/shield-bypassing weapons (Time weapons [both], Shard cannons [bypass armor], etc), then it might be able to slow down the rammers sufficiently.

Alternately, right now repulsor beams don't seem that useful, because their range is so short compared to other weapons, and thus even after the push the enemy will likely still be close enough to shoot you. But... if there were opportunity fire (say, crews/Master Computers can respond with unfired weapons to approaching ships -- perhaps with probability based on crew experience or MC level), then repulsors might be able to force an attacker to expend more MPs to close.

Emergency propulsion systems would also seem to be a good candidate for an auto-fire for avoiding a ram.

FWIW, crew loyalty could be useful in discouraging silly rams, as well.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

[General Hawkwing]

I agree. Ramming is often overlooked in combat. Also, a good tactical player will never let a ramming ship get close enough to ram. Wave after wave of rammers will fall to well armed (distance weapons) fast ships. Kind of like the Frank knights versus the English longbow.

[Baron Munchausen]

Yes, the total _certainty_ of hitting your target with ramming is a bit unbalancing. There should be some sort of probability based on relative size and speed of the ships, and the crew experience. For that matter, there ought to be a probability of hitting with boarding parties. Surely they can miss once in a while and be left floating in space?

[Psitticine]

Well, I don't think they're fired out like human cannonballs.

"BLast! Missed again! OK, Private, into the tube, and try not to throw off my aim with that panicked flailing!"

I hadn't given it much thought but I'd been assuming some kind of boarding tackle was being employed. It certainly should have a chance to miss/not grab properly/whatever, but things haven't struck me as being particularly unbalanced as they are.

That's with boarding, that is. As for ramming, I agree there should be a chance for the targeted ship to dodge and that basing it on comparative speed and agility would be the way to do it.

I usually use ramming as a way for those ships which are obviously not going to make it another turn to get a bit of pre-emptive revenge on their opponents. I've thought several times about how illogical it is for a ship which is down to its Last sputtering drive unit to be unfailingly able to successfully close and ram into a fully mobile enemy.

I do like the fact that the amount of damage a ship has taken is considered in how much damage it does when ramming, however.

[Baron Munchausen]

Grappling? You think they can bring one full-sized ship that close to another and actually physically restrain an enemy ship? If you think ramming is difficult, explain how they can approach that close under combat conditions and NOT collide? That's even more incredible an idea than the transporter. I was assuming that they had something akin to "assault shuttles" or if those are added to the game later with greater than 1 square range then "assault pods" would be the default. A small "vehicle" akin to a fighter with just enough fuel and life support to make a short run at the enemy ship. The marines would be wearing full space suits, of course, but could hook into the pod's resources during the trip. If you get there and manage to grapple the enemy ship somehow, then you'd have equipment to try to cut your way inside. Or maybe it would have shaped charges built into it's structure to bLast a clean hole. That's why the component is destroyed on launch. Those little assault pods are disposable.