Accidental Ramming

[Shadow4ce]

While there has been a time or two I've laughed with/at my opponent during some astoundingly hysterical moves involving holding one ship over top of another, I am not a fan of including "ramming" rules for another reason than that of center-point issues, namely thus:

• Ships are moved one at a time in this game, whereas in RL they move together at the same time. The ship you just rammed with the ship you are moving is not really there, as in RL it was moving as you were and I'm quite certain, absent really crappy weather at night and drunken crews, ships on the same side were pretty adept at avoiding one another even during evasive maneauvers.
• Which also brings up a ship having declared "Evasive" as an action is still moved in a straight line with normal turns per the rules, thus illustrating ships in this game have the ability to maneauver in miniscule increments Port & Starboard while still proceeding ahead. (This supports the earlier comments of several folks who bring up the ship is only represented by the "center point" of the model).

All of which basically means that while I think it would be a fun rule to include for those hysterical dilemnas some of us put ourselves into when it is our turn, the fact we move our little ships one at a time and the models are actually taking more space on our table spacially next to each other than they did in RL, I vote we leave "Friendly Ramming" rules out in interest of reality, game-speed, and ease of play. 8)

Now, if there are any Japanese Destroyer Captains who wish to ram little wooden PT Boats of Future Presidents of the United States of America...

Game On! :lol:

 

[DM]

Having seen the inept manner in which most wargamers manage to manoeuvre their ships and their innate inability to keep their ships at reasoable spacings (myself included on occasion) I think the inclusion of ramming rules would bring many games to a rapid conclusion due to mass-collisions! (Come to think of it thats how most of the age of sail games I've witnessed or been a party to have ended - for some reason players just LOVE to drip linear tactics and engage in a free-for-all!!!!)

 

[Jhary]

Strange in the new suplement are rules for kamikaze airplane but a lot of people are afraid about ramming an Submarine with an destroyer.

 

[DM]

Probably because there were many, many more attempts to ram ships with aircraft than there were attempts to ram submarines with destroyers

 

[DM]

Seen in another place, a graphic example of why COs were ordered NOT to ram enemy subs:

Planes from the escort carrier Card detected two surfaced U-boats and guided destroyers in to attack. One of them, the Borie chased and caught the U-405 on the surface in a heavy storm. The skipper of the U-405 elected to stay on the surface and shoot it out with the old "four-piper". The gun battle was ferocious and lasted almost an hour; the U-405 managed to hit the Borie twice, once amidships and once on the bridge. The Borie hit the sub's conning tower several times and badly damaged it. Finally, the Borie's skipper decided to ram and drove in on the sub at 25 knots, hitting aft of the conning tower, and breaching the pressure hull, but not sinking it. The two vessels were locked together for at least ten minutes while the two crews battled it out with rifles, pistols, even flare guns and sheath knives. The U-405's conning tower was set afire and the fire could not be extinguished. Eventually, the destroyer was wrenched apart from the sub by the mountainous seas, but in sliding off the sub, sustained damage to it's port side, which caused the forward engine room to flood.

The sub, though mortally hurt, managed to get underway and attempted to escape into the stormy darkness. Borie, also heavily damaged, kept tracking by radar and launched torpedoes at the sub, but they missed. Again, the Borie attempted to ram, but was unable to hit the wildly evading sub. In desperation, the U-405's skipper turned to ram the Borie, but the Borie turned away and fired a depth charge pattern that badly shook the sub and stopped it's charge. Turning once again to the attack, Borie's gunners got their main battery on target and obliterated the subs mangled conning tower. This proved to be the end of the sub and the Germans began abandoning their vessel.

The Borie, however, was mortally damaged. Progressive flooding in the bow and forward engine room, aggravated by the stress of the storm, overcame all damage control efforts. The next evening, with two other destroyers standing by, the Borie's crew abandoned the battered destroyer. During the transfer of her crew to the other destroyers, three of Borie's officers, and 27 crewmen were lost.

 

[Jhary]

The history books are full of events where orders don´t do ***** and the captains of the ships exacly done then what was forbidden.

 

[BuShips]

I'd tend to "steer away" (pun intended) from adding collision rules to VaS. For naval games that delve into more intricate detail, I can see including it. For a game such as VaS that is intended for quick play, it just adds more complexity.

Also, the way in which VaS movement is written does not give a defending ship the ability to attempt to move out of the way, as it is not "activated" at the same time that the opposing player who is attempting to make a ram attempt (other than an added "dodge" roll). I'd see more of a reason for using such a rule if movement was pre-plotted (thus play being more drawn out) and multiple players were running ships of the same side (or even individual ships).

If it were to be added, the following questions would probably need to be considered-

The mass and speed of each ship, and how the impact angle would need to be considered against the former factors in transferring the collision energy. What final damage (based upon the previous three factors) is done, and how it would be applied fairly. Whether the ramming ship "sticks" to the other ship or whether they might separate (this would be determined from the impact angle I suppose). For any ship that remains afloat after such an event, what sort of localised damage was done (flooding, speed limitation, rudder jamming/turning circle widened (etc.).

Maybe you just get a damage die based upon your priority level and then apply that to the "other guy". Thus a Tribal DD (Patrol) rams a Bismarck (War). The tribal gets one DD against the rammed KM ship and the Bismarck gets to fold up the bows of the Tribal with 5DD in return for the favor. This might be for ramming attacks delivered on the bow/stern. For Port/Starboard "T-bone" attacks you could go 2x or 3x the number of dice, as above.

Really though, with the sea-scale of the game not being 1:1, I don't see it as being a huge oversight.

Also, if you allow deliberate rams, do you include same-side collisions? How do you handle that (passing within so many MM of the centerpoint)?

 

[juggler69uk]

MUSINGS on collisions
If you want to have collisions they you should have both deliberate and accidental.

To that effect you should allow overlaps of bases, and, after ALL ships have been activated, any that are still overlapped are a "possible" collision

How to determine a "possible" one way could be :-
If a ship wants to avoid a deliberate collision roll equal or under its turning ability, agile -1 to die, +1 if other ship is more agile or has better turning

Otherwise add turning score for both ships and roll equal or under it to avoid a collision

Damage could be to roll your number of armour dice (target armour -1), crit on a 5 or 6 (+1 to roll if large target), +1 damage point if moved into large target in multiples of 2". Note side to side collisions dont get the bonuses.

Anyway these are only musings not a proposal so take or leave as you wish