High Guard: Ramming?

[rinku]

Dogfight rounds are 6 seconds, not 6 minutes.

6 seconds of acceleration at 10ms^2 gets you up to 60m^s, 216kph

And the vectors are changing constantly, so you're unlikely to build up a big vector over multiple turns unless trying to disengage and pursue.

Oh! Late thought on this subject... booster rockets. Get that reaction drive kick in the pants to hammer home the hit! G-Loc is not a major concern...

 

[MasterGwydion]

Dogfight rounds are 6 seconds, not 6 minutes.

6 seconds of acceleration at 10ms^2 gets you up to 60m^s, 216kph

And the vectors are changing constantly, so you're unlikely to build up a big vector over multiple turns unless trying to disengage and pursue.

Oh! Late thought on this subject... booster rockets. Get that reaction drive kick in the pants to hammer home the hit! G-Loc is not a major concern...

My bad. I used 1 minute, not 6 seconds. Oops!

 

[rinku]

I made the same mistake initially when I was working it out, but I caught myself before I posted it.

But if we're talking about non-dogfight collisions (which will generally only happen with a target that is not maneuvering) absolutely those and higher velocities are possible, even expected.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Endie]

Ultimately, this question was about deliberately crashing one ship into another, at a decent closing velocity, while at skimming speed in the turbulent depths of a gas giant’s atmosphere. It’s a phenomenally, suicidally stupid idea. It’s one where, even if the players think it’s a jolly wheeze, their characters wouldn’t countenance it for a second.

 

[MonsterX]

Pretty much, although for VERY large mass differences you would probably see the larger ship mostly remain intact. Consider a hypervelocity round that hits a heavily armoured tank, where the crew are in several armoured compartments. Tank is crippled, maybe the crew are all dead, maybe some are just wounded or stunned. Worth noting that something like a Tigress should be able to survive direct hits by nukes; kamikaze rams by fighters would not be unheard of you, would think. But 366,666 hull points counts for something.

Dogfight ramming is only going to be at velocities in the 500-1000kph range, as I think I demonstrated. Certainly 5D or 6D mutual damage feels about right to me.

running some quick back of the napkin calculations suggest a 100 ton Scout ramming at 100km/s would produce 50 billion joules of energy which is something like 120 shells from a battleship's main guns.

That actually gives kind of a workable amount a starship kamakazi - you could expect to do damage, but not destroy battleships except with other big ships. Also, as you suggest above, it would be impossible to hit if the other ship and more thrust and doesn't want to be hit. It might even be a challenge if they other ship has less thrust.

Of course, ships can get much faster than that if they want, but the faster you move, the harder it is to set it up.

 

[Condottiere]

In psychology, the "YOLO" mentality (You Only Live Once) refers to a modern expression of the Carpe diem philosophy, emphasizing a live-for-the-moment attitude that prioritizes immediate pleasure and experiences without excessive concern for future consequences. While it can encourage boldness and personal growth by pushing individuals beyond their fears, it is also linked to potential recklessness and irresponsible behavior when taken to extremes, leading to immediate gratification over long-term self-control.
Positive Aspects
Embracing the Present:
YOLO promotes living in the moment, making the most of experiences, and enjoying life to the fullest.
Personal Growth:
It can encourage individuals to step outside their comfort zones, try new things, and face the unknown with a sense of authenticity and personal growth.
Internal Locus of Control:
A genuine YOLO attitude can shift an individual's sense of control inward, empowering them to make their own choices rather than being dictated by external factors.
Counteracting Regret:
The philosophy suggests living life in a way that minimizes future regrets, encouraging actions that lead to a more fulfilling existence.
Potential Pitfalls
Recklessness:
An extreme interpretation of YOLO can lead to impulsive and irresponsible actions, prioritizing immediate pleasure without considering potential negative outcomes.
Contrasting Self-Control:
The YOLO mindset, with its focus on immediate desires, can be seen as contrary to self-control, which involves delaying gratification and considering future consequences.
Short-Term Gratification:
A one-sided focus on the present can lead to neglecting important future planning and goals in favor of temporary satisfaction.
Psychological Connections
Scarcity Principle:
The concept of YOLO is related to the scarcity principle, as the inherent finitude of life makes it more desirable. Research shows that reminders of death can make people more aware of life's scarcity, influencing their choices.
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory:
This theory explains how people choose to allocate their time and energy when they perceive something, like life, as scarce.
Rebellion and Authenticity:
The YOLO mentality can have an alluring, rebellious quality that challenges societal norms and encourages individuals to express their true selves, even if it goes against the expected path.
(PDF) YOLO and Self-Control - ResearchGate
07.08.2025 — Many adolescents and young adults are enthusiastic about. the concept of YOLO (You Only Live Once ; Drake, 2011, track 1...

ResearchGate

YOLO, FOMO, & the Consequences of Teen Slang - Newport Academy
05.06.2019 — The Origin of YOLO “You only live once” (YOLO) is a modern version of the Latin phrase Carpe diem, meaning “Seize the da...

Newport Academy

The Science of FOMO and YOLO - Michael Rucker
30.10.2017 — While YOLO could be frowned upon by those who consider themselves 'mature and responsible', the concept does have potent...
Michael Rucker


AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

 

[MonsterX]

Ultimately, this question was about deliberately crashing one ship into another, at a decent closing velocity, while at skimming speed in the turbulent depths of a gas giant’s atmosphere. It’s a phenomenally, suicidally stupid idea. It’s one where, even if the players think it’s a jolly wheeze, their characters wouldn’t countenance it for a second.

desperate times, desperate measures

 

[Endie]

desperate times, desperate measures

Stupid party, suicidal measures, more like. The referee should allow essentially no chance of survival. The kindly one will tell the players “your characters know that’s only useful if you’re happy to die as well.”

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

our scenario calls for low velocities. You don't have a full ship's turn to get velocity up. You say they are allowing the other ship to come in, so initial vectors are roughly matched, with the small ship having a cautious positive velocity in your general direction.

Why do you say low velocities? There are two different situations- ramming during a dogfight and ramming during normal ship turns. The rules accommodate both situations.

Page 62 and 63 of the Companion lists damage from falling objects of starship size. It's in meters fallen, but you could use Delta-G instead.
Thus A small starship does 1D6*G. A Medium ship does 2d6*G.

Yes, that aligns with what I described (since the Companion doesn't use dtons, just nomenclature)
The damage also has a multiplier x10 to convert from spacescale to groundscale.

 

[Arkathan]

Why do you say low velocities?

The OP was talking about two ships in similar vectors, with the smaller approaching to dock (so not going "fast") just before the larger springs into action.
Without a full six minutes of acceleration, the relative velocity of this scenario's ram is "low."

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, missiles have default interception at acceleration/ten.

And, I would assume, the target would be doing it's best to avoid them.

 

[MonsterX]

In theory, missiles have default interception at acceleration/ten.

And, I would assume, the target would be doing it's best to avoid them.

acceleration is not the relevant variable for collision damage. Relative velocity is.

Acceleration is a relevant variable for hitting an evading target though.

With missiles it is entirely possible they would be able to do significant damage just ramming the target, but they are kind of small - dozens of kilos rather than tons, and won't necessarily be moving THAT fast - fast in terms of how we perceive fast, but not fast like a spacecraft might be if it has been accelerating for days. So unless the missile has a high velocity imparted by the ship it is launched from, it probably gets its damage dice from the warhead and not from impact.

 

[Condottiere]

Then you'd need to factor in sensor range, and the ability of the rammer to intercept a mobile rammee, since, if detected early enough, can just move out of the way.

Solid shot damage depends on where the vessel is hit, and what direction it takes.

If you manage a down the throat, or, up the kilt, hit, you can destroy everything down the length of the target.

In naval warfare during the Age of Sail, raking fire was cannon fire directed parallel to the long axis of an enemy ship from ahead (in front of the ship) or astern (behind the ship). Although each shot was directed against a smaller profile compared to firing at the target ship's broadside and thus more likely to miss the target ship to one side or the other, an individual cannon shot that hit would pass through more of the ship, thereby increasing damage to the hull, sails, cannon and crew. In addition, the targeted ship would have fewer (if any) guns able to return fire.

 

[rinku]

If the ramming scenario the OP mentioned was during gas giant skimming, it's actually pure Vehicle combat scale anyway. Skimming ships are only moving at orbital velocities at most and atmospheric effects apply.

If it was an Air/Raft ramming a Ship, scale difference apply and damage would be 1/10 to the ship but x10 to the Air/Raft. But two ships should just apply the vehicle scale damage dice to each other as the same amount of ship combat scale dice. The only advantage a larger ship has in that situation is more hull points.

 

[rinku]

Then you'd need to factor in sensor range, and the ability of the rammer to intercept a mobile rammee, since, if detected early enough, can just move out of the way.

Solid shot damage depends on where the vessel is hit, and what direction it takes.

If you manage a down the throat, or, up the kilt, hit, you can destroy everything down the length of the target.

In naval warfare during the Age of Sail, raking fire was cannon fire directed parallel to the long axis of an enemy ship from ahead (in front of the ship) or astern (behind the ship). Although each shot was directed against a smaller profile compared to firing at the target ship's broadside and thus more likely to miss the target ship to one side or the other, an individual cannon shot that hit would pass through more of the ship, thereby increasing damage to the hull, sails, cannon and crew. In addition, the targeted ship would have fewer (if any) guns able to return fire.

Thank you, David Weber.