MATANZA Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Agreed. I wouldn't even think about ramming something that's not few classes lower then I am. Edited February 16, 2015 by MATANZA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim DeGrim Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Focus on game mechanics: at the moment, ramming is viable, and there is no deterrent or penalty for it. Nor is it "against the rules" (imagine trying to enforce that one! Trying to prove intentional vs. Accidental). So, add value with recommendations of how the mechanic should work, while finding a balance that is *somewhat* forgiving for those of of less skill where minor collisions occur. Signed, Your Local Talentless Hack, Whom Does Not Care About His Crew, And Must Be A Horrible Person of Low Character (really!?!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaaru62 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 ha ha folks, I found a bug / exploit. don't worry I already reported it so it can get fixed. I can ram at high speed without catastrophic flooding and only minor damage. I majorly upset a Santisima driver by ramming him 3 times in short order. by the time I sunk he had 80%sails no front armor, 50% side armor, no repairs and weathervaned. my team mates finished him off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preserved_Killick Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 It sounds like when two ships make contact both should suffer damage. Specifically, the ramming ship should suffer more than it currently is in game. I'd imagine IRL battles the risk of losing spars and yards was too great to make ramming feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The problem with the ramming ship taking all the damage are the cases where ships purposefully put themselves in a position to be rammed that cannot be avoided. On two occasions recently I was in an ST and an enemy purposefully ran in front of me to cause me to lose my bowspirit. You can definitely tell when it is on purpose because they make a beeline straight for your bow. One was an enemy brig and I almost Capsized him. I had him stuck under part of my bow for about 5 minutes and pushed him along without him able to do anything. Hopefully he learned his lesson. The other was a cerberus, who I fired a broadside into, he then turned around and went straight for my bowsprit, then after that did the same thing to our Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Reality is that throughout history in land or sea battles 20% casualties in any engagment was considered mind blowingly high. One side will almost always break and run or surrender before 20%. Most gamers do not appreciate this at all because they are used to one side being completely wiped out because computer sprites can be made to die without a care for life every time. Cccomputer troops have no morale thus in call of duty everybody is a heroe wandering deep behind enemy lines. Real captains did not give orders that their men could see gave them little chance of survival. I am interested to research this however. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeheil Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Reality is that throughout history in land or sea battles 20% casualties in any engagment was considered mind blowingly high. One side will almost always break and run or surrender before 20%. Most gamers do not appreciate this at all because they are used to one side being completely wiped out because computer sprites can be made to die without a care for life every time. Cccomputer troops have no morale thus in call of duty everybody is a heroe wandering deep behind enemy lines. Real captains did not give orders that their men could see gave them little chance of survival. I am interested to research this however. This is true(ish)....on land (take say almost all of world war I, Crimea and various sieges in WW2) there is often very little choice but to stand...and fight a war of attrition. War in any form is horrendous for those at the pointy end (Only the dead now the truth of war), if we made simulators that truly reflected historical military engagements I doubt they would be considered entertainment...let alone games. The misery, grief and brutality wouldn't draw an audience (at least I hope not). Games are fundamentally there as entertainment. They give us a chance 'to be in them movie'....not 'to be in the war'. So to expect a gaming general to have the same concern as a military leader is a little naive. Montgomery, close to death, said the thing he feared most was explaining to his maker why he sent so many young men to their deaths. So, yes, it would be great if we could create a game that provides for the tactical acumen necessary to win a military simulated event...but it is...at its core a game...played from the comfort of your computer table, while you sip a cup of sugary water and forget about your pesky work/school trials and tribulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naxos Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Just though about the current major causes of anger and hatred in game Friendly fire (very rare) Kiting (every now and then) Demasting (happens often but people are getting used to it) Ramming (no1 reason, especially team ramming) Ramming will just vanish in open world so we can be optimistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elysion Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 You can bet this sort of thing would have happened if the conditions were what they are now. Currently we are 'simulating' battles where its clear there is no surrender. If escape were possible, if there was some alternative to kill or be killed then people would behave differently, but i dont think ramming as a last ditch effort is unrealistic if you know that if your side doesn't win then everyone on your side is dead. So you ram, jump in the water, and hope someone on your side is left at the end to pick you up. As far as realism... If this game were 100% realistic, or any game for that matter, you can bet that over the course of hundreds of thousands of battles the strategies derived would not reflect reality. Failure is the best teacher and in reality you dont often get to fail too many times in war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elcid Barrett Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The problem can be solved by adding realism, which according to a current poll on the forums most people want. Ramming would not have been done historically because of the chance of hull damage but more than that, the risk of damage to the masts. If they were to add a possibility of having your masts go by the board due to sudden deceleration (some formula based on speed, size, mast damage etc) then it would make the game more realistic, and drastically reduce intentional ramming. That said, we are still in beta and playing combat with no consequence. Getting angry about it is pointless. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prater Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 What would stop an enemy brig from putting himself in front of an enemy Santisima to completely demast himself and the Santisima? Brig for a Santi, that is a good trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 What would stop an enemy brig from putting himself in front of an enemy Santisima to completely demast himself and the Santisima? Brig for a Santi, that is a good trade. For ramming damage the tonnage of the ships should be a big factor. A yacht sailing into a frigate? Goodbye yacht. A brig trying to stop a 1st rate? Goodbye brig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim DeGrim Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) What I propose, if not too difficult to code: We know (err, suspect) that there is to be some form of prestige / honor / admiralty type of rating. It has been expressed that it is unrealistic to (A) allow your ship be destroyed, ( B )to have all your crew killed, and ( C ) that surrender was more realistic. Possible: Implement a reputation lose if your demise was a sink as a result of bow damage? Loss of reputation from inept sailing ability. Possible: Have a crew loss as well (for any sink I suppose) Possible: To have loss mechanics that make surrender (which is coming) vs. sinking preferable (eg, cost to replace ship...versus diplomatic negotiations for release of vessel at lower cost). Until then EDIT: Where this gets tricky is where there is an obvious ship size differential...eg, A Victory runs over a Privateer. We all know what's going to happen. and the Victory is not likely to sink. How would you treat that ram? Fair game..."cuz bigger ship"? Edited February 17, 2015 by Grim DeGrim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elysion Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Staying in lines and any ship that comes out of the enemy line gets focused on (be in more of a curve than a line, so multiple ships can focus fire). And if worst comes to worst you send even a smaller ship to intercept the brig. Ill remind people that naval strategy in this period is not very complex. The famed 'crossing the t' was actually more of a reckless rush, nelson got lucky, but it was precisely this sort of reckless behavior that ended up giving you the advantage over the more timid traditionalist aproach. Its precisely because these ships are so big and expensive that committing them to an all or nothing battle was avoided. As long as you still had your fleet it remained a threat that had to be delt with, so withdrawing and losing the battle but keeping your ships was a far better option than risking it all. But when its already all or nothing you are forced to act boldly. You can bet that in a back to the wall sun tzu style death ground you would see smaller ships trading themselves for bigger ones. Ill also remind people that the really big unmaneuverable ships were very rare. First rates and second rates were flagships and often not the run of the mill out there in the middle of everything where they are vulnurable type affairs. Realistically for a brig to get close to a ship with no hope of maneuvering away it would have to contend with many escorts, and if someone saw a suicidal enemy making a straight line to their flagship they would, as a matter of honor, move to intercept it themselves. The problem with arguing about ramming historically is that there is just not enough history to do it from. Its already been said most naval engagements were left as non decisive because decisive engagements were rarely forced. The only historical thing that should come into it is what would, historically, happen if a ship colided with another ship. Now i fully agree that mechanics should exist to discourage this. If we want realism then sure, add mechanics to support it, dont just complain about ramming when its the smartest option and truly indicitive of what would happen in a desperate situation. Allow people to gain something by retreating.. allow them to retreat! Let people strike their colors or something and not lose as much as they would by sinking. Im not sure the morale loss of not backing down from a fight would be as high as people think however. Ill remind people that prebel gained favor of his crew for not backing down from what was thought to be a superior oponent. Lastly, id like to point out a problem that exists in video games. In reality the main constraint is materials. You can only build so many ships, and its usualy not a problem to crew the ships that you can build. Its reversed in video games, if you have factional warfare then the limiting factor is usualy the number of players you can bring to the fight. The 'high end' composition of a fleet will probably have much more weight to it. As i already said, first rates were usualy flagships. Realistically in a massive engagement between say, 60 ships there might be 1 or 2 per side. What do you think things will look like in the game? Of course its possible for the developers to make the open world economy such that each nation could only really afford to field a limited number of these ships, and the majority of ship of the line players will be in 3rd and 4th rates their entire career. I myself wouldn't even mind such a setup, in fact i think it would add a lot to factional warfare if you actually had such a thing. But how many people would complain? What i mean by bringing this up, is that the brig for a santi trade is a lot less plausible when there is only one santi, and everyone on that team knows where it is, and its considered something you really want to support and protect. If half the team is in the top of line first rate however then yeah, you essentially have a gigantic non maneuverable brick of a line that is vulnurable to smaller boats... which is perfectly realistic because thats exactly what happens in reality when you have a very unmaneuverable section. Just as ships loaded with explosives or set on fire may have been used to break blockades.. so to did torpedo boats counter the battleship. Big ships can be vulnurable to little ships, its always been. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elcid Barrett Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 What would stop an enemy brig from putting himself in front of an enemy Santisima to completely demast himself and the Santisima? Brig for a Santi, that is a good trade. Fair point, and that is always the problem in any game or simulation. You are not actually standing on the deck of that brig with the Santissima bearing down on you. If you were then human instinct would dictate the encounter far more. In a game it is about the math of the encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim DeGrim Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Could one argue that there was a form of ramming? They called it a fire ship, where they purposely took a vessel, and set it on a collision course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I'm not some kind of ship engineer, but I think that ramming some smaller vessel like schooner with a frigate would do much damage for the bigger ship. It was never done. Think about it... You and 200 men (not to mention all the enemy who you wouldn't want to kill if you didn't have to) sat in the middle of the ocean with only the ships keeping you afloat. Why on earth would you risk a collision where you could cause irreparable damage to both ships, risking the lives of not only yourself and your crew but hundreds of others? You would never do it. Games are fundamentally there as entertainment. They give us a chance 'to be in them movie'....not 'to be in the war'. Your argument is undermined by the fact that we even try to replicate factual scenarios in computer games. If it wasn't necessary, we wouldn't do it. So to expect a gaming general to have the same concern as a military leader is a little naive. So why were the total war games so popular? Was it because players didn't want "the same concern as a military leader" or the contrary? If we were playing Rayman or Super Mario we would happily overlook flawed-physics but that this game attempts to recreate actual historical scenarios would hint that there should be an element of realism to it. If ramming wasn't a viable tactic then it shouldn't be in game. It's not even up for debate. I've used this argument before but I'll use it again... We're all here playing a game about sailing ships, not just because we want entertained, but because we want to entertain ourselves by re-enacting an interesting time in history. If we didn't they could make the ships look like bathtubs and we could sail those around. Or fly them, since physics doesn't matter either... I'm sure the devs have an idea about discouraging ramming, it wouldn't even be hard. The fact is they probably haven't gotten round to dealing with it properly yet. What would stop an enemy brig from putting himself in front of an enemy Santisima to completely demast himself and the Santisima? Brig for a Santi, that is a good trade. What stopped them doing it in the 1700's? Firstly, I would imagine a brig would have little impact on a ship the size of ST, it would be like a car on the train tracks. Secondly, what would the brig be doing fighting a ST in the first place? The ST would simply smash it to matchwood with one broadside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim DeGrim Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I've used this argument before but I'll use it again... We're all here playing a game about sailing ships, not just because we want entertained, but because we want to entertain ourselves by re-enacting an interesting time in history. If we didn't they could make the ships look like bathtubs and we could sail those around. Or fly them, since physics doesn't matter either... What stopped them doing it in the 1700's? Firstly, I would imagine a brig would have little impact on a ship the size of ST, it would be like a car on the train tracks. Secondly, what would the brig be doing fighting a ST in the first place? The ST would simply smash it to matchwood with one broadside. Personally....I play for the entertainment. And the difference between the 1700s and the game, one was reality and the other is a form of entertainment. But.... I did make a post with suggestions that might fit your ideal game, and make it closer to reality. Edited February 17, 2015 by Grim DeGrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Quote Agree with everything on topic ..but ... The famed 'crossing the t' was actually more of a reckless rush, nelson got lucky, but it was precisely this sort of reckless behavior that ended up giving you the advantage over the more timid traditionalist aproach. There was a lot of suggestion by 1805 that unless you wanted an indecisive battle you had to force the issue and get close. There was a man called John Clerk Eldin who wrote on the subject (particularly in his Essay on Naval Tactics) and since you mention Prebel, I bet this article will be of some interest to you. - http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/c/charles-morris-man-letters-numbers.html Nelson will have been well aware of the above and wouldn't have needed Clerk to tell him he needed to get close as soon as possible. He'll also have been well aware of the writings of another reference in your post, Sun Tzu, who said "know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss." Nelson knew the ailed force was not of the same standard as the British fleet, he knew they could risk sailing right at them because once they were in close, it was a forgone conclusion. He wasn't lucky beyond the fact he was born British and not French or Spanish. Im not sure the morale loss of not backing down from a fight would be as high as people think however. Ill remind people that prebel gained favor of his crew for not backing down from what was thought to be a superior oponent. That's because Prebel effectively won the 'conflict'. If he was smashed to splinters by a 74 SOL and forced to surrender, I bet the crew who would have lost limbs and shipmates in the process of gaining nothing wouldn't have taken it so lightly. Edited February 17, 2015 by SueMyChin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueMyChin Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Personally....I play for the entertainment. And the difference between the 1700s and the game, one was reality and the other is a form of entertainment. But.... I did make a post with suggestions that might fit your ideal game, and make it closer to reality. Yeh, me too but, as I'm sure you'll agree, it's more entertaining when it's closer to the reality though (back to bathtubs vs sailing ships). The key is to only add realism that doesn't detract from the entertainment... I don't think we'll have a problem convincing everyone that the removal of ramming wont detract from the entertainment though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 That's because Prebel effectively won the 'conflict'. If he was smashed to splinters by a 74 SOL and forced to surrender, I bet the crew who would have lost limbs and shipmates in the process of gaining nothing wouldn't have taken it so lightly. Luckily there was no danger of getting savaged by a 74, since the British ship was apparently only a 32-gun frigate in reality. They just called out the name of an SoL commanded by a renowned captain as a ruse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallCandy Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 This game has some serious multiple personality disorders. Everyone tries to bring up realistic, and how ramming was (admittadly) on the decline in the time period we are sailing in. And that is the end all be all. But then they say a big ship should just run over a little ship, no harm no foul. In every vessel you are sailing in this game, your crew is in a constant struggle to keep the first rule of boats in play. That rule is that the water stays mainly on the outside. In every vessel you are sailing here, you are in a wooden planked vessel held together by spit, determination, and a type of caulk made with oakum and pitch. Every time your vessel shifts in the wind, the boards bend and stretch, and you start leaking. When you raise your sails and catch the wind, the boards shift, move, creak, and you start leaking. When a wave hits you, the boards shift, creak, and you start leaking. Any sort of T-bone ram is going to be an absolute disaster to both ships involve, at a minimum taking both out of combat. That is your reality. Now for the reality of naval combat at the time. Ramming was on the decline. Outside of then the USS Constitution fought the HMS Guerriere, Fireships (As Grim pointed out) Harbor defense galleys, wich were still fitted with rams. The battle of Lissa (in 1866) and the resurgance of the ram in that part of history. And given that the opinion of the forum seems to be that any sort of boat touching is a ram.... A large portion of vessels captured in battle wich did not lead with the enemy vessel striking, given that a controlled side to side collision was one of the more common methods of enacting a boarding operation. Now: Why did ramming fall to the wayside? For primarily two very important reasons. #1) Most battles at the time started the engagement at a mile or more. For my metric friends, roughly 1.6 km plus. That is a lot of distance to cover going with your bow (one of the weakest, and least armed areas of the ship.) straight at the enemy broadsides. #2) Money. One of the primary objectives of naval combat in the era was not to sink the enemy ship, but to capture it, take it as a prize, ransom it's officers, and swim in boatloads (Haha! Pun!) of money. That is a lot harder to do when you have ripped a large gaping hole in your enemies vessel that is quickly filling with the stuff that you want to keep on the outside of the boat. But in a sort of conclusion, ramming was not an invalidated tactic, it just became much harder to enact effectively, especially given you wanted to force your opponents bow into your side, and did not see as much use simply because of other doctrinal changes in warfare and shipbuilding. As I pointed out, a T-bone collision would be a disaster to both ships involved, but admirals at the time would consider that a wise trade depending on the ships, and that ram would be carried out under the command of officers that could be court-martialed by even taking a meal with the crew. It just did not come up that often. So please, please, please. Don't sit here on your high horse, and tell me I am some sort of scrub, and that Grim is some sort of scrub. Simply because we outplayed you. Especially if I survived that ram. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileus Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 So please, please, please. Don't sit here on your high horse, and tell me I am some sort of scrub, and that Grim is some sort of scrub. Simply because we outplayed you. Especially if I survived that ram. In a storm match, me and an enemy navy brig got separated from our peers in a duel. It quickly became obvious the guy wasn't so great with aiming in the storms, whole broadsides flying over my ship or falling short - so I locked on his side and we were exchanging broadsides with clear advantage on my side. It took a while, having to manually fire the cannons and all, wasn't the fastest of dances. After quite a bit the guy drops his sails and stops. Thinking little of it I kept my course and kept pounding, pretty sure the guy just gave up. And when he springs to action under full sails, it was too late when I realized he lured me into a position where he can ram me. I survived, sunk him, but was pretty irritated. I am still very irritated, because I should commend the guy on this maneuver, he outplayed me fair and sound. And thanks to him, I'm now looking closer at the sails of any enemy I am locked into duel with, and more importantly use my own speed to force them into the position I want them in. The guy who rammed me not only outplayed me, but allowed me to improve my game and devise few new tricks. The whole situation made me look rather differently at the whole ramming thing.If you can (and you can!) ply around it, the only person you should be angry at after a ram is yourself ^w^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greybuscat Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I think regardless of your stance on rams, arguing about it in chat is probably the most obnoxious "tactic" any player can choose. And I say this as someone that's exchanged some direct, but profanity-free words with someone over their choices in a battle. It's freaking rude. Ruder than team ramming, more rude than playing poorly or selfishly, and I, for one, feel childish and a little embarrassed for having succumbed to it in any way. As for when ramming is smart (maybe "not-dumb" is a better, if less polite choice), the answer is going to be different from situation to situation, and captain to captain, but it's all moot as team deathmatch is the only game mode we have at the moment, which drastically changes the math involved. In light of that, getting upset about it, or judging a person's skill and personality on whether they've rammed someone or not, is particularly galling behavior. I can't even say "it's just a game," because the game isn't finished yet. I think I'd go as far as saying that for anyone getting mad about rams, and judging people over it, that it probably says more about you than it does about the players that have rammed you. And personally, I'd sail with a person I can stand to be around over even the best player. EDIT: I know that not everyone was being absurd about the situation, but I didn't want to start naming names and shaming people. You know if you look down on anyone and why. tl;dr Freaking out and getting nasty about rams is worse for everyone than the actual ramming, and ruins any chance of establishing a player consensus on the matter. Edited February 17, 2015 by greybuscat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeheil Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I concede that from a historical standpoint 'wind powered vessels' would not (almost could not) RAM to sink an opponent. Most of the 16th/18th century doctrine was to capture (marines) the opponents vessel should one side not break from the initial 'line dance'. However, the Spanish...tricky buggers that they were.,..would often 'ram' as a way of boarding...forcing their prow over an enemys decks and breaching them at that point for close/hand to hand combat. So perhaps for historical purposes the damage model should be heavily reduced and more of a rigging entanglement...ease of boarding model be kept. However, I wont concede that in a gladiatorial combat environment such as team death match arena, where damage models are implemented that mean as a dying move you can severly damage/wreck your foe by ramming them....then I would say...RAM THEM. Edited February 17, 2015 by Jeheil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now