Ship ramming

Ships have like some auto no-collide thing. So far all my ships just go over or beneath the ships in their way. If my Dunov* Support Cruiser wanted to go somewhere, and my Kol was in the way, the dunov would just glide underneath it.

A flash-booom explosion would be nice. Or like one of those chain-reaction explosions. First one part of the ship has a small explosion, then another part, then all of a sudden.. BOOM! Huge explosion as the whole ship just completely is destroyed.

A feature that would be nice is "Core Overload." It should be an option for all ships except fighters/bombers, where the ships give off splash damage (the radius and magnitude would be based off a of a ratio to the ships size) at the cost of losing the ship.

no, its simply too unbalanced
/\
||
dev's words, not mine.

I sorta like the anti-ship collision system as it is...

ship collision? unbalanced?

the only thing that's unbalanced is the reasoning of the dev who said that. my understanding is that if you attempt to create a game that contains elements of real strategy you need real physics and real-to-life dynamics.

certain things that are, for logistical reasons, added in or taken out.

now, i'm not dogging on SINS, i'm just trying to make a statement. ship collisions would, in no possible way, be unbalanced. first of all, it'd be ruinous to sacrifice your ships needlessly. secondly, if a capital ship is so damaged that a kamikaze attack is viable, it would be safe to say that the ship is near destruction such that the owner would consider ramming it down the orifices of the enemy.

it's not unbalanced. period.

if a developer thinks it can't be implemented, for whatever reason, i'd like to know specifics instead of the bland 'it's unbalanced'.

...i'm just trying to give feedback. if it's only to be met with unreceptive ears, what's th point of having a beta?

I suppose it could be allowed without being unbalanced.

The side that resorts to ramming should incur a temporary massive fleet penalty to weapon fire rates, accuracy, ship turn rates, repair rates and maybe even control problems. This would reflect the crews knowing that their commanders are trying to sacrifice them. There would be riots on the ships and crew members leaving their stations to try and abandon ship in space pods.

Or maybe ship costs for new ships could be increased by 4X to reflect that nobody wants to serve under a commander who likes certain death tactics.

Now I bet those who want ramming in the game don't like the idea of their ship crews actually objecting to being sacrificed. Well, if you ask for the realism of ramming, you should expect the realism of people objecting to certain death.

well, considering the decision is made on the bridge/command deck, there really wouldn't be much choice to those others after the command crew have decided.

the crew would know they'd be accelerating, but to where? there's no idea.

al this assuming the ship's captain hasn't first issued the abandon ship command.

you don't need the entire crew to steer into an enemy capital ship. it's not a death tactic. it's called being innovative, you've issued the order to abandon ship because your vessel is about to be destroyed...hmm, might as well put a brick on the gas pedal and jam the steer wheel so you take the other guy out too.

Hmmm, so you think you can teach/tell your commanders that ramming is a great tactic to use, and the there won't be leaks to the media or civilians about it? Do you think other enlisted men won't hear about it? Do you think the surviving ship crews won't say anything about what they see happen during battles? While in battle, do you think when you radio a ship to ram a target, your other ships won't hear your transmission? Do you think other empires won't report these intercepted transmissions for propaganda value? Hehe.

Matty_P, you ask for and talk about realism, and then you try to deny it when it doesn't suit your wants. Dude you can't have it both ways.

Also, there will be a reaction on the Bridge and Engineering when the captain of a damaged ship tells the crew to ram an enemy ship instead of trying to withdraw from battle. They might very well kill the captain and offer their surrender to the enemy.

Would you like ships that you issue ram orders to randomly either obey the order or surrender to the enemy? That is real!

Would you like the Bridges and Engineering on ships ordered to ram have a random chance of having a battle royale, and lose or have reduced control and abilities? That is real!

Would you like to order a ship to ram a target over the radio waves (that all your other ships can hear) and have the rest of the fleet be demoralized (which would lower their ability)? This is real!

Would you like ships cost many times more to build because nobody wants to serve under you because of your suicidal tactics? This is real!

Hold on JSInvader, Matty_P is saying that 'realistically' the crew can abandon ship prior to ramming and that the enemy will happily pick them up and give them a life of luxury....THAT is Matty_P's concept of REALITY!

I suppose you could say that 'realistically', your ship's crew could abandon ship just prior to impact...but the enemy commander might not be so inclined to pick them up after a battle. Let's face it, you probably used the ram command because the battle wasn't going well for you. So you likely rammed because you were going to lose anyway and the enemy now holds the battle zone.

So, REALISTICALLY, an enemy commander would see that instead of sensibly surrendering, you tried to do as much damage as possible before being taken out. IF I were that enemy commander, and you had just sacrificed a lot of lives and equipment just to do a bit more damage to me, I certainly wouldn't be picking up your crewmen. I would be using them for target practice instead. It isn't like you have any care for your men, so why should I?

If I can bombard entire planetary civilizations into extinction, do you think I will pick up your suicidally aggressive crews?

However, if you had just surrendered your ship, or even scuttled it prior to abandoning ship, I would certainly accept your surrender and take on your crew as prisoners (I would even give them a bonus if they had left the ship intact).

So, when you issue that RAM order to the bridge crew/Engineering crew, they will KNOW that they are all going to die because of it (even if they manage to escape the ship in time).

That is when all the horrible things JSInvader talks about in his post occurs as bridge/engineering crews riot, fleet morale/effectiveness is lost and ship prices increase because nobody wants to serve.

It's not that we aren't accepting new feedback, it's just that this has already been debated.

It eventually came down to this:

If you attack an enemy, and completely counter his tactics, outmaneuvering him utterly, victory seems certain, but then he crashes his ships into yours so you end up with a draw. Not balanced.

i'm not advocating ship ramming as the norm for tactical operations, it does, however make sense that if a ship is so severely damaged that it cannot withdraw from combat the crew, if it hasn't abandoned ship yet, would make the sacrifice of trying to turn the tide of the battle anyway they can.

and what is this talk of propaganda and leaks to the media when popular opinion enters nowhere else into the dynamics of SINS. it's a game about war, and when at war people do desperate, even crazy things. it's unfair for you to emphasize ramming a ship as a suicide tactic where one culture might view it as a noble sacrifice. it seems your far above the consideration of how a different culture might view it.

in terms of perspective, it seems I'm the only one who can possibly picture individuals wanting to die in the service of their empire. And, that's only if the crew isn't ordered to evacuate. it also seems to me that a ship that is facing a collision with another vessel would be far more desparate to bring their guns to bear on the incoming heap of metal rather than the escape pods of the enemy vessel. and what's to say the evacuees don't have allied ships that can pick them up before withdrawing?

you guys did nothing but make a load of baseless stipulations, and quite frankly, it proves to me how unreceptive you are to criticism. i'm the consumer, i paid to be in this beta when i bought my pre-order and i have the right to make any criticism or comments i feel to do so.

Bingo! Give Stratteggi a supersized cookie...unless he is into healthy eating, in which case make it a regular garden salad with house dressing.

So Matty_P, if you want ship collision = draw type tactics because you think they are realistic, then you are looking at the wrong game.

Besides, it isn't like ship collision tactics would actually represent realistic space combat anyway. Let me give you a little lesson (lecture ) on what REALISTIC warfare in space would be like (based on present day and near future technologies).

For one, you can't hide from your opponent in space because your ship emits a huge heat signature that is easily detected over hundreds of thousands of kilometers (although mines/bombs that have had a long time to cool to close to background might be effective against stationary targets or if you know exactly where they will be). Still, radar in space will also be pretty damn effective without any atmospheric interference to deal with.

In fact, one of the most difficult problems for space travel is how to get rid of the heat build up in your ships because a vacuum doesn't transfer heat well (think of a thermos full of coffee). So power plants that use steam turbine technologies (such as nuclear power plants) probably aren't going to be used in space anytime soon (no easy way to turn the steam back into water AND get rid of the heat). As is, we are stuck with solar power and what are basically nuclear batteries....which isn't all that bad since we don't have to power huge super death beam weapons.

Secondly, most battles would occur at crazy long ranges. Offense would be with missile attacks. Now, there are different types of present day warheads we could use, such as nuclear, shrapnel or powerful X Ray Laser Beams (powered by nuclear warheads).

So, particle beams are out since it is impossible to keep same charged particles together over a long distance, there is also a bad effect on your ships total hull charge, and finally the beam would require huge power that needs a huge power plant for which we can't get rid of the heat.

Plasma weapons are basically like guns that shoot steam...and are about as useless as well.

Projectile weapons (either propellant or electromagnetically powered) have huge effective ranges and punch, but would only be useful as space siege weapons. It would simply be too hard to hit a moving/dodging target at 500 000 km. You basically would have to throw out an unrealistic amount of fire to stand even a small chance of hitting anything.

Anyway, I can't think of any other weapon systems right now.

Defense would consist of evasive maneuvers (a small correction in target trajectory would force incoming missiles to use huge amounts of fuel to compensate). Point defense systems such as laser and projectile weapons would also be used. Laser PD would suffer from low power, huge power requirements and the need to get rid of heat build up, while auto guns would be a bit short on range.

Here is something that usually makes people sad about realistic space combat. Strike Craft in space will not happen. It is way too fuel intensive to send a craft hundereds of thousands of km to attack something and then come back (especially if there are ANY maneuvering corrections along the way). It is infinitely better to send a missile/drone weapon that is meant as a 1 way device.

So, does realism still look like a lot of fun to play? Well, maybe for a nut job like me, but most people would not buy a realistic game like described above. I mean, people like their graphics, explosions and sound effects. Games need to cater to what people want.

lets see

1/800 hp ship collides with 800/800 345/345 shielded ship... both explode and die...

yeah, completely ballanced.

like the deathstar isnt unbalanced!

excuse me for saying this, but your definition of unbalanced is very, very narrow.

It is just that Matty_P is so aggressive and negative in his posts that it really makes you want to go against what he wants....unless he is using reverse psychology on us all and he actually wants a totally unrealistic game.

....Alright, let's show him. We'll include ramming and make this game as realistic as possible. lol

Matty, have faith that Ironclad will include a bit of what you mentioned wanting in your other posts (probably not ramming though). Also trust that they will allow modders to create a lot of the rest that you want (although I am still not sure there will be ramming even for modders).

So, have faith they will provide for the basic gamers AND realism gamers like ourselves. Their game engine is already (or once was) set up to handle the things you've asked for in your posts. It shouldn't be hard for them to allow modders to bring removed stuff back to life.

No ship ramming! Leave it out, end of story!

Ship ramming would be a cheesy kill. It is tantamount to what I use to do in TFC by having my engineer run into a middle of the enemy holding a gernade, getting killed but taking out 4 or 5 enemy at the same time. Funny when you are goofing around but annoying as an actual tactic.

Sorta like in BSG when the Pegasus took out 2 Basestars by ramming the first one, exploding then a huge chunk of it took out the 2nd one...

It was super cool to watch, but in a game it would be super frustrating.

...that's one of the most influential instances of ship ramming i have ever seen! BSG rocks!!

...it makes me tingly.

but anyway, I'm here to apologize if i've been a meanie pants. Sorry guys, but I really want ship ramming. I've come to accept the fact that it might be unbalanced, but that still doesn't change my desire for it.

Ok, all political considerations aside, ramming would be bad for game play and unbalanced for two reasons that I can think of. One Stratteggi already said:



The other is that is would highly favor the TEC. The TEC are the economic powerhouses and will have a lot of ships as compared to the other races. This is balanced by the fact that the other races have stronger ships. But if the TEC outnumber the enemy 3 to one (but need 6 to 1 to actually win) then what is to stop them from just ramming every last one of the enemies ships? They would win with an inferior (in terms of firepower) force and only lose about 1/3 of their ships doing it.

that was a most excellent space battle, 1 Battlestar took out 3 BaseStars, I also was very tingly!

I personally liked the atmospheric jump the Galactica did during the battle. That was cool.

you don't give an order of this mag. in secret

you tell everyone to begin with that the standing orders are if the ship is so damaged that it can not run or fight then it is to ram an enamy ship in hopes of taking it out. by this time most of the crew will be dead and the engines barely if at all on line.

propeganda from the enamy would be small

the crew of the ship will thought of as heros

and everyone will know that you will do whatever it takes to win a war


one group of people who would use this on a regular bases would be the klingons

no i would not issue this kind of order

we currently have a laser when it is fired up has to be shielded or it can take out a sat. in orbit.

this laser is not a weapon it is designed as a test engine

as far as what you can't or can do is a matter of time

the origanil guns where not effective but over a couple of hundred years we have what we have now

Hey danielost. Okay, we are still on the realism of ramming topic, are we? So then let's talk reality.

First up, if you tell everyone that a standard tactic is to ram enemy ships and kill yourselves doing it, do you think people will be lining up to enlist? Look at what is happening because of Iraq. That war is no where near being a sure death situation (like ramming ships would be), but look at the plunge in the numbers of people enlisting; all because of a small (but visible) percentage of casualties. It seems most people feel that being alive is better than being a dead/maimed hero.

That is why I said that a side that likes ramming 'sure death tactics' should have more difficulty getting volunteer crews. So, do you see why I said the ships that Empire builds should cost more because it would be more difficult finding suckers...I mean crew members?

Also, a crew that knows they are about to die might fight at less than 100% effectiveness. Since they know they are going to die anyway, they might pay less attention during training. Also, since you go through ships so often, it isn't like you would have any veteran crews.

The lack of highly experienced crews in the long term would also mean less experience to share with new recruits = less effective training = less effective fighting capability.


As for my comments on modern weapon systems in space, you missed the part where I said using "present day and near future technologies".

As for your laser weapon/engine, how are you going to supply the power and get rid of the heat on your space ship (using modern or near future techs)? Once you've figured it out, patent your tech and sell it to NASA. You'll be rich.

it isn't my engine it is nasas

as for volenteers the only army that is completely or nearly completely volenteers is the american army



however before the ships gets to the point of no choice that same crew will give max ability so that the ship doesn't end up that way

and you missed the point where i said it was a last resort and the point where i said that i wouldn't give such an order or standing order

damn you, grossly overstating media!

yeah... its so nice to be in America, where at least everythings done for me

still, its not exactly easy to force men to give up their lives.

well you did say it was a commonplace tactic.

still, the commander might do it to martyr himself, but if people are doing it left and right... whats the point?