Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Question of the day

 

Ramming penetrating holes - realistic or not?

Based on the shape of the hulls and bows we now believe that rams should not happen and should just damage the bow for the ramming ship. Even if the speed is high the damage based on ship models should be above the waterline for all vessels.

 

Thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem with ram is that ppl can buy a cheap grey conny and ram firstrates. in reality probably both where going to sink.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a gameplay perspective, if rams don't cause penetrating leaks below the waterline, what is my motivation not to simply ram everything, all the time, as though I were sailing a trireme or something? This would be a rageboarder's dream come true.

 

From a real world / historical perspective, hulls could certainly be stove in by a collision with another boat, a rock, etc. and this collision could definitely result in penetrating leaks and the loss of the ship herself.

 

I feel like, right now, that leaks from rams are strong enough such that you can't just ignore them, but not so strong that some accidental bumping is going to prove fatal.

 

Seems about right to me.

Edited by Sansón Carrasco
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add a new crew shock and tie it to morale system. Make your crew-mates unhappy with you ramming another vessel - to a point where you can get crew shocked "for days" if you stack too many morale debuffs.

 

As for balancing rams through damage - there is always going to be the bad, there is no good choice. Either you end up with ram'n'grab fest for boarding or you end up with gray torpedoes of ships.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a gameplay perspective, if rams don't cause penetrating leaks below the waterline, what is my motivation not to simply ram everything, all the time, as though I were sailing a trireme or something? This would be a rageboarder's dream come true.

 

 

My thinking is that it should not happen and should just destroy the bow for the ramming ship (causing leaks)

but i think there are no under water holes after a ram

maybe i am missing something

 

ZaeTAgh.png?1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question of the day

 

Ramming penetrating holes - realistic or not?

Based on the shape of the hulls and bows we now believe that rams should not happen and should just damage the bow for the ramming ship. Even if the speed is high the damage based on ship models should be above the waterline for all vessels.

 

Thoughts?

 

I agree,

For it to create leaks, the bow should be shape like this...witch is not very realistic

73776991.jpg

 

 

 

It would also resolve the fact that too often PB transform into ramming fests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact would bend the hull, fracturing the planking and creating leaks underwater.

 

I think rams are fine the way they are, if you're not careful you can sink from them, but they're not so pointless that it turns into bumper cars action.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that over a certain speed the energy of the ram is transported through the hole hull shape. Because of that planks can move and generate leaks.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact would bend the hull, fracturing the planking and creating leaks underwater.

*snip*

That´s exactly what I think would happen.

 

My biggest concern about "ramming" is, if I cross/sail over a sunken wreck where my ships actually only hits the masts and the rigging of the sunken wreck causes leaks ingame now. I don´t think that is realistic at all.

 

PS: Why did you put upgrade in game which decrease the damage/holes you get from ramming?  (Survival Handbooks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramming is balanced atm, its not so strong that a single ram will sink you, both ramming and the rammed ship getting water, Bigger ships have a higher dispose rate of water (more crew) means if oyu ram a bigger ship you will have longer water in oyur belly, makes you slower can lead the rammed ship to escape, also ramming ship often loose their bowsprit, of corse if oyu get rammed by 3 ships, then you either bucked up alot by getting into a really bad wind or they hada very good positioning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ramming damage stays ingame, do you have any plans on implementing visual feedback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I do not like about ramming is that, if ramming causes leaks, people will ram themselves to death. (especially traders) It came to a point where you have to desail or demast pretty much every trader player, if you try to turn them into the wind, they will make sure to give you a ram and sink themselves. It turns the capturing proces into a very tedious cat&mouse game, where you can either not get close to or far away from a trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The target should be making bad idea ramming , by any number of people , and given that we do not mind our pixels sailors life nor even most ships the only solution -IMHO- is making the effect over the target weaker (even than historical) but retaining heavy damage on the rammer.

 

So punishing rammers (high velocity bow impacts) with underwater leaks (as said by others this is also not  unhistorical, as a strong impact on the prow will severely damage its full structure).

 

but cahnging board impacts to minor leaks over the flot. line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like ramming and the tactic is abused. Put the damage and the ramming ship and this tactic will end. Ramming was not a real world tactic in this era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the attackers bow would disloge all the complex curves breaking away causing leaks for the attacker, Im not entirely sure if it would affect the rigging and masts with the amount of force that has come to a hault. You could throw in rigging damage to ultimately stop players wanting it ram as it would destroy their bow and if rigging is involved would just make them vunerable, the sides of ships were specifically built with all the cross members and dense planking that it wouldnt affect them much unless it was like a connie vs a cutter :P

So it would all come down to the size of the ship ramming up against the size of the victim and the angles involved it would be worse for the attacker more then the defenders and this was why it was fairly uncommon to happen unless going in for boarding instances and they were more glancing blows at low speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think turning leaks from ramming off is a good idea for testing. We could disable them for a week or two and check the results.

 

In my opinion it's a good idea. Instead it should do some damage to ships armour/planking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just make the rammer receive substantial damage to his bow and the one getting rammed receives minimal. No leaks. So kinda punish the rammers who try to exploit it and makes you plan your moves to avoid ramming frendlies.

 

On the other hand, leaks caused my ramming could be tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Depends on the intense of the ramming. If it is at high speed the rammer should loose at least his foremast additionally to a destroyed bow, bowspriet and some leaks due to destroyed structure of frames, knees and planks.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is that it should not happen and should just destroy the bow for the ramming ship (causing leaks)

but i think there are no under water holes after a ram

maybe i am missing something

ZaeTAgh.png?1

This isn't what a bow is shaped like. Look at a model and draw your own conclusions.

It's true that the main impact will be above water for both vessels, though. It's my guess that the rammer would suffer from leaks that were impossible to repair on the fly. The bow timbers have very fragile, complex design where they meet the stem. If the victim suffered from crushed planks, the leak could be stopped normally (still much more difficult than with shot holes).

But I think the main consequence of ramming should be changed to loss of multiple masts.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't what a bow is shaped like. Look at a model and draw your own conclusions.

It's true that the main impact will be above water for both vessels, though. It's my guess that the rammer would suffer from leaks that were impossible to repair on the fly. The bow timbers have very fragile, complex design where they meet the stem. If the victim suffered from crushed planks, the leak could be stopped normally (still much more difficult than with shot holes).

But I think the main consequence of ramming should be changed to loss of multiple masts.

 

it is a schematic depiction but the main impact will be above water

because the ship is made of wood, and they are both in the water the destruction of the upper bow part will soften the impact by destroying the bow part of the colliding ship and pushing the other ship. By the time underwater part collides with another ship most energy will be lost and/or will be transferred to pushing momentum.

 

all unsecured items on decks will be affected (incl crew), but i don't think there will be a lot of devastating underwater holes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramming attacks in the Age of Sail were very rare because captains did not want to lead with their chins. The bow was one of the structurally weakest parts of a wooden warship. And the sides of the warship were the strongest. Ramming the bow into the side risked damage to the attacker. 

The bow of a wooden ship is a complex bit of joinery. The forefoot of the bow has to attach to the keel at a sharp angle. The side planking has to join to the forefoot and the ribs that give the sides of the ship its strength don't provide much support to the forefoot. 

 

Looks pretty solid but the planking, ribs, strakes and forefoot have all been bent into complex curves and a collision could dislodge them in an area that was very difficult to get to to make repairs. A hole in the side of the ship, particularly the nice round hole cannonballs made, was easy to get at and fix. Also the water pressure on the hull was greatest on the bow (obviously) and any leak there would let in more water. 

 

https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-872e67b8a42f9ae237f9829b68f2799a?convert_to_webp=true

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all unsecured items on decks will be affected (incl crew), but i don't think there will be a lot of devastating underwater holes. 

 

The masts would certainly be affected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I think the main consequence of ramming should be changed to loss of multiple masts

 

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we make ramming punish the rammer more heavily than the ship getting rammed, then the "shoot for leaks x ram for victory" tactic might be weakened somewhat.

On the flipside, it would make capturing traders even more difficult, as many of them - in addition to throwing their cargo overboard - will ram their attacker to try and scuttle their ship.

If we soften or reduce the penalty for ramming, we address both of those issues but then we encourage a "bumper boats" style of gameplay which will introduce its own set of ahistorical tactics.

 

On a certain level, I think we just sort of have to live with some combination of the above realities and try to balance the ramming mechanic so that skill - in shooting and sailing - is given preference as much as possilbe over gamey tactics.

 

I still feel we're pretty much there, but as a privateer, reducing the penalties for ramming will certainly benefit me, and will they help alleviate the issue of SOLs (or whatever) getting Connie-kazied. So, sure, what the heck. Although I still think they're pretty OK as-is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...