Re: A stalwart bastion of bachelorism:
> I don't see where there's a big deal with this Ramming stuff. I feel
Actually I don't have a problem with the mechanics of the ramming rules, just
the idea of a crew of relatively normal people deciding on a death or
glory charge - which with some players happens with monotonous
regularity if they're losing... From that viewpoint I do have a hassle,
because it seems really unrealistic from the viewpoint of what a normal
commander would do in a battle.
Of course the simple solution is to get some other players, but they're far
and few between here.
> And finally...as with any other rule, the ramming rule can be just
Ignoring rules is fairly easy with those listed in More Thrust, but if they're
in Full Thrust you'd really have to both agree before the game, in my opinion.
Regards,
> I don't see where there's a big deal with this Ramming stuff. I feel
I see that as being reflected in the roll of a '6'. Could enhance the rule to
say each ship is limited to 1 attempt in a given game. That way if a ship
fails it's roll to make the attempt, it can no longer make another attempt the
rest of the scenario.
> And finally...as with any other rule, the ramming rule can be just
Agreed that both should to agree to it, BUT, Jon does specifically say in the
FT rulesbook "...if you're not happy with a rule or system, throw it out and
use your own..." Which gives you leave to drop rules in the FT book, too. I'd
be more on the take that both have to agree to *use* a rule rather than not.
Mk
In reply to A stalwart bastion of Bachelorism:
> I see that as being reflected in the roll of a '6'. Could enhance the
I agree that limiting to one attempt per ship is a great modifier that would
slow down that sort of stuff.
> Agreed that both should to agree to it, BUT, Jon does specifically say
It's sort of a hard call there. What I've found, in practice, is that most
players I've seen play or tournament rules I've read use all of FT and from MT
the rules about C batteries firing and fighter endurance. For that reason I'd
really feel you'd both have to agree if you're throwing something out of FT.
But I guess the main reason I mentioned it was we have someone here who does
it with monotonous regularity. Now that's probably our problem more than FT's
but that extra line you suggested for rules would go a long way towards
reducing this sort of thing.
Regards,
Hi All
On the subject of ramming, I think the 6 is too low a generic chance, on a
ship where presumably the helm can steer it without the rest of the crew being
able to know for sure what is happening, all you need is
discipline/fanaticism/fear of being deemed a coward among the bridge
crew. I have just come back from Japan where I visited the cemetary with the
shrine to the 47 ronin (who all killed themseleves on the order of the
government after carrying out an illegal revenge killing on an official who
had caused the death of their master) and the war dead shrine in Tokyo which
is mostly glorious suicides, mass suicides (or 'final attacks' which amount to
much the same thing) and acts of selfless death of one sort or another by
people who
obviously needed to roll 2-6 to attempt to ram.
If you have a culture conducive to such behaviour it gets down to economics
and logistics / repair costs + time, crew replacement availability +
time, if you have 'plenty more where that came from' or the repair takes so
long a ship is useless there is no reason not to have a doctrine based on the
ram for the few survivors of a heavily damaged ship if they are so culturally
conditioned as to believe it its the right thing.
One off games have trouble making such distinctions fairly. I recall one
(confession time here) SFB campaign where I sacrificed one of my fleets three
dreadnaughts to blow a gap through a defensive position and allow the capture
of an alien homeworld - when defeat, with few losses, was the
alternative. National pride, the need to maintain an aura of invincibility and
economics all made it the right decision. The racial heroes were all deified
:). This decision would not be made in a points balanced non campaign, non
scenario game.
In reply to Aden Steinke:
> If you have a culture conducive to such behaviour it gets down to
I tend to agree that if there is some sort of tactical doctrine or alien
philopsophy behind it, fair enough. Of course the trouble with ramming is that
you have another crew trying to avoid you, hence the mechanism which seems to
work reasonably well. From that viewpoint I'd say the mechanics are fine.
If you tend to look at the nations who have done these things in recent times
you tend to have lone individuals doing it eg. kamikazis and Islamic suicide
bombers in trucks full of explosives. In a way this makes sense
-
after all why have thirty people in a truck when you can have thirty
trucks... Craig Mitchell's rules are interesting - it's probably
reasonable that given ideal cirucmstances if an average ship was going to
attempt a suicide ram they'd evacuate most people and do so with a skeleton
crew. This is a bit of a problem because generally speaking the average crew
isn't prone to doing something like that, and a ship manned with a special
purpose skeleton crew doesn't perform well in normal combat because there are
not enough of them to man guns etc. Consequently, in my opinion, you get to
the stage where you have small, dedicated ships (eg. torpedo fighters) or the
very occasional ship in an extreme situation going down in a death or glory
stunt. I personally think for the average navy it shouldn't be the rule.
Regards,
Looking in historical records you will find that Europian ship's have rammed
their foes when it was in their best interest. For example a cruiser ramming a
Torpedo Boat, A destoyer ramming a submarine, etc. When the larger ship has
little to lose, I'm not so sure the rationality of the rules apply...
> Looking in historical records you will find that Europian ship's have
And HMS Dreadnought sank a U-boat by ramming! Also, the DD, HMS
Glowworm, ramming the CA Hipper, and suicide attacks such as Jervis Bay v.
Adm. Scheer, Rawalpindi v. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, a DD escorting Glorious
v.
S & G all show that suicide attacks are perhaps more common than we'd tend to
think. However, while I agree that a larger vessel is more likely to attempt a
ram, I'd rationalise that a clear enough size advantage to encourage ramming
will be a greater incentive to avoid being rammed, and will also be associated
with an advantage in terminal maneuvre by the smaller ship, so there's no
reason to make ramming easier.
I rather like the "single heroic ship" idea posted here- it avoids a
ram-fest at the end of every battle, while still allowing some
"wide-screen"
over the top behaviour.
Cheers
In reply to Phillip Pournel:
> Looking in historical records you will find that Europian ship's have
I agree there are some circumstances, however, when ramming has been used as a
commonplace tactic then general assumption has been that you only ram the ship
when you are likely to survive the experience eg. monitors with torpedos on
the ends of probes in the 19th C, galleases in Renaissance, Triremes etc
before then. As you've mentioned when you're the larger ship it can become an
option. Quickly doing the sums in FT it becomes reasonably safe to ram someone
when you have four times the remaining damage boxes they have. Interestingly
enough, I've always wondered what are the effects
of armour on/for rams?
The main reason I mentioned it is that the only place I've seen rams have
typically been as 'suicide' rams. To me a suicide ram takes a lot more
motivation than a 'survivable' ram, and they seem to be pretty bad form to me.
It is possible that there should be a lower modifier to do a survivable ram as
opposed to a suicide ram maybe a 4 on a d6, versus the 6 for a suicide ram.
However, it seems to me that in a situation like the one I normally see
suicide rams in (and let's face it they don't work that often anyway), the
normal player would probably be more likely to scuttle his boat and keep his
reasonably experienced crew in a campaign. Scuttling rules...hmmm.
Regards,