Armor is better than warheads - Page 2

Psitticine · #11 September 27th, 2000, 04:29 AM

You can conceptualize something like a ramming prow with deflector field tech, if'n you like. An extension of repulser field and/or shield technology could be used to project a tightly focused "force field" ahead of the ship that could soak up incoming kinetic energy before it impacted the hull itself. If you want it one-shot, just say it burns out in the process and requires repair before becoming operative again.

It makes a bit more sense then a "superball" substance that would absorb the physical impact and yet not make the ship invulnerable to normal kinetic-based damage.

I agree that it isn't really realistic that anybody could survive a ram at the speeds involved, but I also agree that it is better to just ignore that and enjoy the space opera flavour!

Sultan · #12 September 27th, 2000, 07:51 AM

Well the game is based on starfire. In starfire the engines also protect the ship by giving off a field of some sort (been a while). This is the reason that a missle with a nuke on it doesnt just totally destroy a ship with a direct hit (in starfire that is) if it has an engine and why mothballed ships go up with one nuke. Rammings the same way. Just an artifact from the board game

E. Albright · #13 September 29th, 2000, 04:32 PM

Umm... No one's mentioned the nastiest trick you can pull as far as ramming's concerned. To wit: yesterday I was playing the .56 demo, and was at war with the red-shipped lizards. I'd an outpost colony in one of their systems with perhaps 10 weapon platforms and 4 Escorts in orbit. They attacked with 4 Cruisers & 1 L. Cruiser. Later that same turn they repeated the effort with 5 L. Cruisers. I lost one Escort and 2 weapon platforms.
And my point is? The escorts had no weapons on them, just 6 engines and 3 Organic Armor III's. They'd charge the Cruisers as they approached the planet, and if they got targeted by a large volley of missles, they'd run from them 'til they ran out of fuel. This would usually leave me with 2 Escorts free to wreck havoc. They'd each ram a Cruiser, and then run to avoid the L-mount beam weapons from the crippled ship or its brethern. In a round or two, their armor would have regenerated, and they'd be ready to help the weapons platforms clean up the remenents of the enemy fleet. I don't even want to get into what my Cruisers could do to enemy vessels...
If you want to see something frightnening, start a game at high tech (and as Organic), and design a nasty Battle Station, and a Cruiser that's nothing but OA & Engines (ECM helps too, and brings the design to an even 500kt). Then go to the simulator, and charge the BS with the Cruiser. It can rarely survive a single impact, and the Cruiser won't even wreck all its armor. Furthermore, unless the BS has weapons which skip armor, the Cruiser'll probably be at full strength when it hits, regardless of batteries of Massive-mount weapons... (Note: if you make the BS an OA beastie, I'll not attest to the vericity of the above...)

Psitticine · #14 September 30th, 2000, 01:11 AM

quote:
Originally posted by ealbright:
They'd each ram a Cruiser, and then run to avoid the L-mount beam weapons from the crippled ship or its brethern.

Err, the damage done by ramming is supposed to be the amount needed to destroy the more fragile vessel. Have you been encountering instances where both ships survived a ramming? If so, you might want to forward that info, plus a saved-game file, to MM for bug-stomping.

Psitticine · #15 September 30th, 2000, 01:19 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Sultan:
Well the game is based on starfire. In starfire the engines also protect the ship by giving off a field of some sort (been a while). This is the reason that a missle with a nuke on it doesnt just totally destroy a ship with a direct hit (in starfire that is) if it has an engine and why mothballed ships go up with one nuke. Rammings the same way. Just an artifact from the board game

I've played Starfire (dunno why I ever stopped, come to think of it) but I'd forgotten that tidbit. It's an interesting idea and it certainly does make reconciling this part of the SEIV game rules with a bit of realism a lot either.

E. Albright · #16 October 1st, 2000, 08:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Psitticine:
Have you been encountering instances where both ships survived a ramming?

As of .56, it is possible to ram ships and have both survive. This appears to be a feature. Both ships will inflict their current damage resistence in damage to the other; however, the defender (and only the defender) will have this damage applied to its shields before any components are hurt. Makes sense, really: as far as the defender's shields are concerned, the other ship's just a big ballistic projectile...

An example: Cruiser A (S 0, DR 3800) rams Battle Station B (S 3920, DR 1500). Both vessels will survive. They will be as follows:
A: S 0, DR 2300
B: S 120, DR 1500

Hence, if the rammed ship has a greater combined shield value and damage resistence than the rammer's damage resistence (but its DR is less than the rammer's DR), both ships will live.

[This message has been edited by ealbright (edited 01 October 2000).]

dmm · #17 October 2nd, 2000, 04:59 PM

ealbright:
If that's true, that's a bug! It doesn't make any sense otherwise. In your example, A inflicts 3800 damage on B's shields but only takes 1500 damage itself (instead of taking 3800 damage and being destroyed).

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 02 October 2000).]

E. Albright · #18 October 2nd, 2000, 08:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by dmm:

If that's true, that's a bug! It doesn't make any sense otherwise. In your example, A inflicts 3800 damage on B's shields but only takes 1500 damage itself (instead of taking 3800 damage and being destroyed).

If that's considered a bug, it's worse than that. I'd say if shields should be factored into the amount of damage inflicted, the rammer's shields should protect it. As it stands, if Cruiser A (S 1400, DR 720) rammed Battle Station B (S 3920, DR 1500), the Cruiser would be very dead, and the BS would be nigh unscathed.

A: dead (presumably S 1400, DR -780)
B: S 3200, DR 1500

I don't have a real problem with the way shields work now as far as ramming's concerned, but if things worked the way you suggest they should, then the rammer's shields should both inflict damage (right now no shields inflict damage in rams) and protect the rammer.

Of course, I'm of the school of thought which holds that if one ship can survive a ram, both can...

dmm · #19 October 2nd, 2000, 11:01 PM

Either shields should stop a ramming ship or they shouldn't. In StarTrek, for instance, shields stop most everything. In Dune, as a counter-example, shields stop energy and high-speed physical weapons, but not low-speed physical weapons (thus allowing hand-to-hand combat between two shielded people). MM can decide how they want to do it, but they have to be consistent or else it's dumb.
Contrived example: A has 50 S, 200 DR
B has 150 S, 150 DR
A rams B. One of 3 results should occur:
1) Shields count. A is gone, B has 0 S, 50 DR.
2) Shields don't count. B is gone, A has 50 S, 50 DR.
3) Shields absorb damage but can't inflict it (really wierd but possible). Then you'd have
A has 0 S, 100 DR (150 damage)
B has 0 S, 150 DR (150 damage).

But ealbright is claiming that the result would be
A has 0 S, 100 DR (150 damage)
B has 0 S, 100 DR (200 damage)
which doesn't make sense. It isn't consistent. There's just no rationalization for having one ship inflict more damage than the other. It violates Newton's Third Law.

No, wait! It's worse than that. I see that now ealbright is claiming that the rammer's shields don't help at all, so the result would be
A has 50 S, 50 DR (150 damage, all to DR)
B has 0 S, 100 DR (200 damage, 150 to S and 50 to DR)
which would also violate the principle of relativity -- somehow the physics of SEIV knows who is the rammer and who is the rammee.

Somebody please tell me this isn't true!

[note added later by dmm: Aargh! I tried it. It's true! If I ram a ship with just engines and shields into an _identical_ ship, the rammer is destroyed while the rammee just has shields reduced. Please, MM, fix this! It's a really stupid bug!]

[This message has been edited by dmm (edited 02 October 2000).]

E. Albright · #20 October 3rd, 2000, 01:08 AM

quote:
Originally posted by dmm:
No, wait! It's worse than that. I see that now ealbright is claiming that the rammer's shields don't help at all, so the result would be
A has 50 S, 50 DR (150 damage, all to DR)
B has 0 S, 100 DR (200 damage, 150 to S and 50 to DR)
which would also violate the principle of relativity -- somehow the physics of SEIV knows who is the rammer and who is the rammee.

The only ad hoc justification (all right, lame ad hocjustification) I could come up with for this was something along the lines of shields dampening impact, so you'd have to imagine the rammer dropping its shields to allow all of its momentum to impact onto the opposing ship (or its shields), w/o having something which would impact & then yield as it fell. Of course, even this is really stupid if you're using a shield-heavy rammer ("Drop the shields so we'll impact at 150kt instead of at 290!" "Aye, aye, Cap'n!").

All right, I'll recant. It's a bug. It's too bloody goofy having a double standard about shields. But I'd really prefer them to not inflict damage... I get some odd satisfaction out of the possiblity of having both ships survive impacts...