Ramming Damage

geoschmo · #1 February 3rd, 2003, 10:17 PM

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 ]

couslee · #2 February 3rd, 2003, 10:20 PM

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)

couslee · #3 February 3rd, 2003, 10:23 PM

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

Thanks to one and all.

Fyron · #4 February 3rd, 2003, 10:28 PM

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).

geoschmo · #5 February 3rd, 2003, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by couslee:
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)

No, it's not misworded. But that didn't stop me from misinterpreting it.

couslee · #6 February 3rd, 2003, 11:19 PM

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 ]

stecal · #7 February 4th, 2003, 02:14 AM

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.