Accidental Ramming
- Thread starter Reaverman
- Start date
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
There are no ramming rules I can remember...
Wulf
Wulf
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Destroyers were built with ramming U-Boats in mind. A good proportion of the U-Boats lost in WW2 were sunk by ramming. Also, HMS Dreadnought became the only battleship to ever sink a submarine by ramming a German U-Boat in WW1.
Surely there are rules for ramming? How could you leave it out of the game? :?
Surely there are rules for ramming? How could you leave it out of the game? :?
Reaverman said:
All valid comments, but ramming is not included in the basic book.
Maybe (if you are vocal enough about it) it would be included in an update at a later time?
IMO it has no place in the game. This is a game on a fleet level and not so much on the individual ship. (OK, on a Patrol level game it is more on Destroyers vs Subs lvl..)
I like the balance between detail and abstraction as it is right now...
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
It's also something very difficult to resolve visually, considering the difference in ground scale to mini scale (and, indeed, the variability of mini scale!)DM said:
Wulf
It might be worth adding as a rule that only affects ships of the same side, so as to penalise sloppy manoeuvring. Apart from Glowworm I can't think of many deliberate attempts by warships to ram enemy surface vessels during WW2. Subs were occasionally rammed but these attacks were generally almost as dangerous for the ramming ship, which would inevitably be heavily damaged and required to head home for repairs (contrary to popular belief, destroyers and corvettes weren't designed with ram bows to sink submarines 
)
)I can’t think of any at the moment apart form Glowworm either. Subs were rammed on occasion, and this was seen as a possible last ditch tactic. However, the practice was frowned upon by higher commands as the damage done to the escorts tended to take them out of action for long periods of time and this was not seen as being worth it.
It was a possible option available, but until we know the way in which subs are employed in the game it’s a bit difficult to judge how important, or not, the absence of ramming might be.
It was a possible option available, but until we know the way in which subs are employed in the game it’s a bit difficult to judge how important, or not, the absence of ramming might be.
Just thought it would be worth mentioning;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_%2891%29
http://www.npr.org/programs/re/archivesdate/2002/jul/index.html
http://www.royal-naval-reserve.co.uk/lost.htm
http://www.desausa.org/action_damaged_timeline.htm
These are just a few, collisions that occured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_%2891%29
http://www.npr.org/programs/re/archivesdate/2002/jul/index.html
http://www.royal-naval-reserve.co.uk/lost.htm
http://www.desausa.org/action_damaged_timeline.htm
These are just a few, collisions that occured.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
I don't think collisions and accidental 'ramming' should be included thanks to the 'ground' scale. Like ACtA, only the centre spot actually represents the ship, and realistically this should be virtually microscopic!Reaverman said:
Wulf
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
So, subs - the most likely target for a ram - about a mm or two (to mix scales)?DM said:
Wulf
Just a moment the argument fleet action has only one small problem each counter model is one ship. so they coud collied. its not fleet action where one model/Counter is the hole fleet. its not alowed to stack counter on each other why not when they can´t collied with the other? after the rules i have to circle around the model of an other ship its not allowed to drive true it.
Similar threads
- Question
