doublenot7
Mongoose
No ramming rules, what gives?
ACTA:SF Ramming?
- Thread starter doublenot7
- Start date
Greg Smith
Mongoose
There is no ramming in the Star Fleet Universe. Something to do with warp fields, IIRC.
doublenot7
Mongoose
The warp explanation is fine, except what about all the battles at impulse speed? Though not "Star Fleet Universe" ships certainly rammed in the realm of Star Trek. Regardless of any explanation, it is unchangeable fact that any two movable objects are capable of collision.
I was just wondering why the absent rules anyway, wondering if that is something to come or not. If it is something just won't happen, fine. It just seems like something missing IMHO in any naval type rules.
I was just wondering why the absent rules anyway, wondering if that is something to come or not. If it is something just won't happen, fine. It just seems like something missing IMHO in any naval type rules.
In star Fleet Battles, the hexes are 10,000 kilometers on a side while the ships are almost all less than 500 meters... many are many smaller than that.
Two small units in such a large volume would have a hard time actually lining up for a ram.
And as stated earlier, all SFU combat is assumed to take place at warp speed and the warp bubbles will "slide" past each other if they come in contact thus preventing a ram.
And since ACTA: SF is modeled on SFB / Fed Comm nd there is no ramming allowed in wither of those games, it's not allowed in ACTA: SF either.
And to further explain Dal's comments about freighters and immobile bases... Even that truly isn;t a case of ramming another vessel. Instead, the freighters engines are intentionally overloaded and it'spre-set to an intercept course with the base station and then when it getst o point-blank range; the warp engiens overload and explode. The damagetothe base occurs from an anti-metter explosion occuring just a few hundred meters off the stations hull.
Two small units in such a large volume would have a hard time actually lining up for a ram.
And as stated earlier, all SFU combat is assumed to take place at warp speed and the warp bubbles will "slide" past each other if they come in contact thus preventing a ram.
And since ACTA: SF is modeled on SFB / Fed Comm nd there is no ramming allowed in wither of those games, it's not allowed in ACTA: SF either.
And to further explain Dal's comments about freighters and immobile bases... Even that truly isn;t a case of ramming another vessel. Instead, the freighters engines are intentionally overloaded and it'spre-set to an intercept course with the base station and then when it getst o point-blank range; the warp engiens overload and explode. The damagetothe base occurs from an anti-metter explosion occuring just a few hundred meters off the stations hull.
doublenot7
Mongoose
So the other ACTA series (Noble Armada, B5) also have no ramming?
I thought suicide frieghters had explosived loading in the cargo bay. I don't recall anything about setting the engines for overload. And with such tiny engines, it wouldn't be much more than a Pop! when you want a BOOM!scoutdad said:
By the way, Tony, you're letting your brain run faster than your fingers can type again. I am neither the world's best speller nor best typists, but geez man, you make me look great by comparison. :?
If you wanted to have ramming in your own games it would be very easy to put in - either the NA or B5 version
The NA version is much easier to pull off but you would require to set a Ram value for each ship. B5 is harder to attempt - CQ check to even attempt (unless crippled), but the damage inflicted is based on the starting damage of the actual ships.
If I get time later I post up the B5 rule so you can have a play if you fancy it
The NA version is much easier to pull off but you would require to set a Ram value for each ship. B5 is harder to attempt - CQ check to even attempt (unless crippled), but the damage inflicted is based on the starting damage of the actual ships.
If I get time later I post up the B5 rule so you can have a play if you fancy it
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
Suicide freighters don't ram, the hold is packed full of atomic bombs (according to the FC rulebook), and when it gets close enough to its target, it blows up. "Close enough" in this case is still far enough away that no defensive fire is possible, unlike a drone or plasma torpedo. If you wanted to simulate this in ACTASF, you could probably use the existing ship explosion rules with a small or large freighter. The target must be immobile, however.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Please no ramming, no ramming.
The big ships have a hard enough time without having to face frigate fleets doing suicide runs. This is SFB based on the SF verse, lets leave the ramming to the ancient naval games where people row ships towards each other. None of the races in SFB field suicide troops so why should they use suicide ships, even the Klingon prison ships had elite security teams on board to keep the prisoner crew in line and they may be happy to have prisoners die but not themselves. This isn’t later versions with the death happy Cornish pasty head klingons.
It was bad enough with the Shape shifters pet troops and then the icicle people from Deep Station 9 (names withheld to avoid any actual mention of series outside the SFB license :roll: ).
You just know that someone will field a Klink fleet of E4s just to ram people, even if its a crew check that means for every 2 E4s one will make the check and they just swing round and try again. :roll:
Lets keep at least some tactics rather than headlong suicide charges with peoples cruisers and DNs being wrecked by a couple of frigates launching ram attacks.
Speaking as someone who may well be fielding a lot of fleets best described as un-manoeuvrable I don’t want to have battles reduced to third or fourth turn the enemy ships get behind the terrain I am hiding behind, I maybe crush some of them and then watch my biggest ships torn apart by rams I cannot stop. Since they will be movement they may well happen in the movement part of the turn which means I may not even get to fire before my ships die.
Its bad enough against the Drone chuckers. Please just say no to ramming.
The big ships have a hard enough time without having to face frigate fleets doing suicide runs. This is SFB based on the SF verse, lets leave the ramming to the ancient naval games where people row ships towards each other. None of the races in SFB field suicide troops so why should they use suicide ships, even the Klingon prison ships had elite security teams on board to keep the prisoner crew in line and they may be happy to have prisoners die but not themselves. This isn’t later versions with the death happy Cornish pasty head klingons.
It was bad enough with the Shape shifters pet troops and then the icicle people from Deep Station 9 (names withheld to avoid any actual mention of series outside the SFB license :roll: ).
You just know that someone will field a Klink fleet of E4s just to ram people, even if its a crew check that means for every 2 E4s one will make the check and they just swing round and try again. :roll:
Lets keep at least some tactics rather than headlong suicide charges with peoples cruisers and DNs being wrecked by a couple of frigates launching ram attacks.
Speaking as someone who may well be fielding a lot of fleets best described as un-manoeuvrable I don’t want to have battles reduced to third or fourth turn the enemy ships get behind the terrain I am hiding behind, I maybe crush some of them and then watch my biggest ships torn apart by rams I cannot stop. Since they will be movement they may well happen in the movement part of the turn which means I may not even get to fire before my ships die.
Its bad enough against the Drone chuckers. Please just say no to ramming.
I don't think anyone is suggesting its going to be the official rules - merely if someone wants to have a play with the rules and ram a few ships - he can explore the option.
As I mentioned B5 vs NA ramming is very different - in the former - its actually quite difficult to pull off - you need to make a CQ dependant Special Action to convince your crew before you can even attempt the actual ram which is a second opposed CQ check. Its normally crippled ships trying to do something before they die..........
Its not the automatic choice in B5 rules, in fact far from it, and added a great deal of fun to many of the games I have played.............
As I mentioned B5 vs NA ramming is very different - in the former - its actually quite difficult to pull off - you need to make a CQ dependant Special Action to convince your crew before you can even attempt the actual ram which is a second opposed CQ check. Its normally crippled ships trying to do something before they die..........
Its not the automatic choice in B5 rules, in fact far from it, and added a great deal of fun to many of the games I have played.............
tneva82 said:Da Boss said:
Just be careful if you add the ramming rules you don't inadvertently create Myrkwyrm syndrome
It could result in that I guess but we have found its only really used on ocassion rather than as a given for some ships. Having to make 2 CQ checks to make it work does make it harder in B5 than in NA.
Garth: You're right.
It's a hold full of explosives... not a warp overload.
Sorry. I was beginning to type the response when my better half reminded me that we needed to get going (as she stood there tapping her foot waiting for me to sign off the computer) and I let my fingers get the best of me.
It's a hold full of explosives... not a warp overload.
Sorry. I was beginning to type the response when my better half reminded me that we needed to get going (as she stood there tapping her foot waiting for me to sign off the computer) and I let my fingers get the best of me.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
scoutdad said:Garth: You're right.
It's a hold full of explosives... not a warp overload.
Sorry. I was beginning to type the response when my better half reminded me that we needed to get going (as she stood there tapping her foot waiting for me to sign off the computer) and I let my fingers get the best of me.
Type faster, having your SigOth slam the lid of your laptop down while your fingers are still there HURTS :shock:
doublenot7
Mongoose
That is pretty close to what we were considering for a house rule on ramming:
CQC to initiate the ram; opposed CQC to successfully have collision; damage to each vessel equal to 1/2 starting damage rating.
Those I play with are not the types to organize a ramming fleet, it is more something for extraordinary circumstances.
CQC to initiate the ram; opposed CQC to successfully have collision; damage to each vessel equal to 1/2 starting damage rating.
Those I play with are not the types to organize a ramming fleet, it is more something for extraordinary circumstances.
