View Full Version : Collision Example #2
Andy Blozinski
11-01-2013, 22:17
2) The ship with the highest burden moves
......... until its base touches the second ship,
then stops.
3)The second ship moves.....until its base touches
the first ship, then stops.
OK, soooooo....after the first ship is moved, it is touching the second ship. The second ship is supposed to move until it touches the first ship, but...it starts out touching. This means it's impossible for the second ship to move at all because it starts its move meeting the criteria that ends its move.
It doesn't make sense for this example to exist as the diagram violates the rule.
RichardPF
11-01-2013, 23:09
2) The ship with the highest burden moves
......... until its base touches the second ship,
then stops.
3)The second ship moves.....until its base touches
the first ship, then stops.
OK, soooooo....after the first ship is moved, it is touching the second ship. The second ship is supposed to move until it touches the first ship, but...it starts out touching. This means it's impossible for the second ship to move at all because it starts its move meeting the criteria that ends its move.
It doesn't make sense for this example to exist as the diagram violates the rule.
I wonder if the word collision is really inaccurate and what they really meant was something closer to "impediment to movement".
In the example, the ship on the left moves until it gets to the ship on the right.
The ship on the right does impede the ship on the left and stop it's movement.
The ship on the right, although touching the ship on the left, not really impeded and so can still move.
The Royal Hajj
11-02-2013, 06:05
What Bruce said.
Andy Blozinski
11-02-2013, 06:58
Yes, but look at the diagram. If you use the "it's not impeded" logic, then why was the second ship stopped ever? It started out with its corner touching. It would have to drag touch along this corner to move, then it ends up touching the opposite corner, suddenly the situation that existed before gets re-interpreted from not impeded to impeded. I'm just not seeing where any of this makes sense.
RichardPF
11-02-2013, 12:00
Yes, but look at the diagram. If you use the "it's not impeded" logic, then why was the second ship stopped ever? It started out with its corner touching. It would have to drag touch along this corner to move, then it ends up touching the opposite corner, suddenly the situation that existed before gets re-interpreted from not impeded to impeded. I'm just not seeing where any of this makes sense.
I would agree that the "retouching" impediment in the third image is borderline and might have been done better.
But to do that might have required the introduction of a third ship.
I would guess that the writer might have felt that would have complicated the situation too much.
RichardPF
11-02-2013, 12:14
There is another interesting part to the collision rules on page 25 in a section called: Collision Between Friendly Ships
(This is part of the standard as opposed to the basic rules).
I did not see a reference to damage from collision between opposing ships from any collision situation at any level of the rules other than the Optional Entanglement rules (p35)
Andy Blozinski
11-02-2013, 12:54
There is another interesting part to the collision rules on page 25 in a section called: Collision Between Friendly Ships
(This is part of the standard as opposed to the basic rules).
I did not see a reference to damage from collision between opposing ships from any collision situation at any level of the rules other than the Optional Entanglement rules (p35)
That's the way we've understood it to work. Ramming an enemy ship doesn't get you anything but entangled. Ramming your own guys only causes damage. We're guessing it's rules steering for a few reasons.
Pseudotheist
11-03-2013, 05:59
Read step 2 closer:
Check if it is possible to place the ship on top of the maneuver card:
a) If yes, then do so. Then, slide the ship on the table so the black line on the rear of the base follows the path of the movement line on the card.
b) If no, just slide the ship so that the top of the line on the front of the ship’s base follows the path of the arrow on the card.
Basically, if there is room to fit the maneuver card on the table, the rear of the ship should overlap the movement card; if not the front of the ship should overlap.
Andy Blozinski
11-03-2013, 07:31
Read step 2 closer:
Basically, if there is room to fit the maneuver card on the table, the rear of the ship should overlap the movement card; if not the front of the ship should overlap.
What does this have to do with Example#2 from page 14?
Edit: OK, I think I got it. I think example #2 needed one more sentence of explanation to be clear.
Pseudotheist
11-03-2013, 08:10
What does this have to do with Example#2 from page 14?
Everything. It's only the reason for the example. When the lower burden ship prepares to move, the first step is to lay out the maneuver card. That maneuver card does not overlap any ship. Since the base and the maneuver card are the same size, "it is possible to place the ship on top of the maneuver card". This means that the collision will happen forward of that point on the movement track. In effect this is basically giving the smaller ship the opportunity to get out of the way of the incoming larger ship.
fredmiracle
11-03-2013, 16:14
I have to say that, although I read the collision rules and they made sense at the time, they also seemed like one of the most clunky elements of the game--requiring a lot of thought to "get," and then quick to "lose" again when you haven't played in a few days. Maybe there was no way to make it better, but it's a shame it's not more elegant.
Of course it's hard to really internalize the rules when you don't have the goods in front of you. Hopefully once I've played it out on the table a few times it will seem natural.
Andy Blozinski
11-03-2013, 17:36
I have to say that, although I read the collision rules and they made sense at the time, they also seemed like one of the most clunky elements of the game--requiring a lot of thought to "get," and then quick to "lose" again when you haven't played in a few days. Maybe there was no way to make it better, but it's a shame it's not more elegant.
Of course it's hard to really internalize the rules when you don't have the goods in front of you. Hopefully once I've played it out on the table a few times it will seem natural.
The problem with example #2 is that it doesn't correctly explain what is done. A step by step example is supposed to go step by step what you are supposed to do. This is a 4 step movement and they only list 3 steps.
Step 3 states "The second ship moves". This is not correct. They completely skipped the step where you pick up the ship and change its starting position from the beginning of the card to being completely on top of the card. Todd's statement was "It's only the reason for the example." is why this is a bad example. They completely missed the step that is the whole reason for this example to exist.
I get it now and it's simple to me, but this is a badly written example in the rulebook.
I am working on a new collision handout. The one I posted used images from the rules. The images are too busy, not very clear, for a quick look during a game (in terms of graphics), and not as helpful as I would like them to be. We had a collision at Rock-Con that went beyond what the rules covered in terms in explaining what to do. We made a group decision based on what seemed reasonable, to everyone's satisfaction. I will try to have a fist draft completed before the weekend, Andy. During your game, if you experience non-obvious collisions, i.e. obvious as how to handle them, let me know. We can incorporate them into a subsequent draft.
Pseudotheist
11-03-2013, 20:25
We had a collision at Rock-Con that went beyond what the rules covered in terms in explaining what to do.
Can you elaborate?
Can you elaborate?
I am currently working on drawing out various collisions and how to resolve them. The one mentioned above will be among them. I think it will be an example of a picture painting a thousand words, but basically it entailed one ship (A) starting in contact with another (B), and after the other ship (B) moved (having the burden/attitude advantage), the first ship (A) would have remained in contact during its entire move. We decided that both ships would have nudged each other a certain way, ending up sailing alongside each other based on the chosen maneuvers. This is where those running games would benefit from practicing different collisions, and be prepared to make judgment calls when necessary. If too much time is spent deliberating, it will take the wind out of the other players' sails, if you will.
RichardPF
11-03-2013, 20:38
I am currently working on drawing out various collisions and how to resolve them. The one mentioned above will be among them. I think it will be an example of a picture painting a thousand words, but basically it entailed one ship (A) starting in contact with another (B), and after the other ship (B) moved (having the burden/attitude advantage), the first ship (A) would have remained in contact during its entire move. We decided that both ships would have nudged each other a certain way, ending up sailing alongside each other based on the chosen maneuvers. This is where those running games would benefit from practicing different collisions, and be prepared to make judgment calls when necessary. If too much time is spent deliberating, it will take the wind out of the other players' sails, if you will.
Does Ares have a process for updating official rules or would anything that goes beyond clarification of existing docs need to be classified as "house rules"?
This is a crude example of the type of document I am working on:
7462
Does Ares have a process for updating official rules or would anything that goes beyond clarification of existing docs need to be classified as "house rules"?
I am not sure. I imagine given that the game is being released for the first time, Ares might set up some type of errata or living rule section on its website. I would think once folks start playing the game, the need for rules clarification or modification would be high. Maybe Keith, David, or someone working closely with the company can answer.
RichardPF
11-03-2013, 21:09
This is a crude example of the type of document I am working on:
7462
I think that is a great way to set up the diagrams!
It includes just the information that you need to describe the situation without anything that would cause clutter.
Thanks, Bruce. I will keep posting them, and after I receive feedback and make adjustments, I will clean them up and post them in the files section as a download.
I think that is a great way to set up the diagrams!
It includes just the information that you need to describe the situation without anything that would cause clutter.
I agree. Excellent work Eric.
Thanks, Bruce. I will keep posting them, and after I receive feedback and make adjustments, I will clean them up and post them in the files section as a download.
Look forward to these files.
Pseudotheist
11-04-2013, 04:38
Does Ares have a process for updating official rules or would anything that goes beyond clarification of existing docs need to be classified as "house rules"?
Ares released an FAQ & Corrections document for Wngs of Glory; I assume they'll do the same for this game.
We had this one from FlatCon as well was a bit of a disaster. The cards each ship played are touching them, and in this particular case was a bit more confusing as both of the French ships (bottom 2)had the same Burden (3 I think). Reasonably sure that the English ship (the one with the card in front of it) had a lower burden than the other two.)
7465
If I remember correctly the English ship moved first butted against French ship 1 (which hadn't fired yet. Once that had happened French 1 could lay its card and its final position would not bump against French 2. With him out of the way French 2 could advance to his location. (which may have been butting against English or perhaps slightly past as I think French 2 had the green windage).
Not sure if it was the most "simulation-y correct" interpretation, but it kept the captains of all 3 ships playing instead of being stuck one spot blasting people with cannons to free themselves for the rest of the game (we were not using boarding rules). So IMHO was the "correct" interpretation for gaming enjoyment.
David Manley
11-04-2013, 07:10
"Head-ons" are one of those situations where some degree of interpretation is required I think
This is a crude example of the type of document I am working on:
7462
Great idea Eric. Even I can understand it.:beer:
I'd like to see a whole reference book of scenarios with your diagrams and explanations.
The Royal Hajj
11-04-2013, 12:16
I agree the wording is not very clear for the second example, but we are not actually following the rules for the beginning on this subject:
OVERLAPPING DURING MOVEMENT
If, due to their chosen maneuver, two or more ships would move so that, at the end of the movement, their bases overlap, movement is not executed in the normal way.
That part of the rules is important to working out collisions. Now for example #2:
http://sailsofglory.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=7467&d=1383591639
The second ship advances along its movement arrow until its base touches the first ship, then stops.
You we swap out the word touches, with overlaps (over lapping bases are what cause collisions, not touching bases), we can easily see how ship B would move normally up until the point it would overlap the base of ship A. Look closely at maneuver it was trying to preform... a 90 degree turn using the middle arrow. That move would make it overlap Ship A.
The rule that Pseudotheist points out (using the front or rear line on the base) is to maintain the radius of the turn as best as possible.
Ship B is stopped because it overlaps ship A. If we use the term touches, once two ships come into contact, neither ship could move for the remainder of the game.
Andy Blozinski
11-04-2013, 19:39
Eric, you should include a quickie summary section of the differences in the effects when friendly or enemy collisions happen.
Eric should be watching the Bears beating up the Packers :pray: right now.
Eric should be watching the Bears beating up the Packers :pray: right now.
It is the game of the regular season. 14-10 in favor of the Bears at present.
Andy, I will do so. How are things shaping up for the weekend?
Ed and Eric?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIXYAXwvC44
Andy Blozinski
11-04-2013, 20:31
It is the game of the regular season. 14-10 in favor of the Bears at present.
Andy, I will do so. How are things shaping up for the weekend?
I really liked Keith's idea to have a card box for the players to store unused planning cards in so they wouldn't get scattered about. I found a little rigid cardboard box at Hobby Lobby that looks like it will function both as a card stand and for later storage of the cards, smoke markers and counters. I only bought one just to check it out. If I can get confirmation the production cards are the same physical size, I need to pick up a bunch more for this weekend. I have my old 6'x6' blue hex mat I'll use for this demo until I get the good stuff in from the Kickstarter.
When the rules .pdf first came out, I was really damned tired at the time and rushed through them. I'm trying to go back over stuff more slowly and repeatedly so I can make sure to be a useful rules authority to the players. That's why I suddenly came up with my question on collision example #2 just recently. Looking things over with a more conscious eye has made me realize I did not order enough stuff for my future demos. I should have got more wind attitude indicators, for instance.
This will be interesting because I didn't get a chance to play a practice game. I'll be doing this cold turkey just like the players. I'm going to keep it pretty simple, but I want to include sail settings and probably boarding. Despite the fact that boarding isn't exactly the best thing to do, I've noticed from other sailing ship convention games that players are disappointed if they don't at least have the option to board. One part of the grappling rules comes down to a coin toss, but counters are used. I think I'll use a foamy die roll for that. When using dice at conventions, I prefer to use foamy dice because they never hurt minis and dice always find their way around the table to cause mayhem.
Ed and Eric?
Classic. Thanks, Bobby.
You gotta love this:
7470
This will be interesting because I didn't get a chance to play a practice game. I'll be doing this cold turkey just like the players. I'm going to keep it pretty simple, but I want to include sail settings and probably boarding. Despite the fact that boarding isn't exactly the best thing to do, I've noticed from other sailing ship convention games that players are disappointed if they don't at least have the option to board. One part of the grappling rules comes down to a coin toss, but counters are used. I think I'll use a foamy die roll for that. When using dice at conventions, I prefer to use foamy dice because they never hurt minis and dice always find their way around the table to cause mayhem.
Boarding? You're braver than I was. We used sail settings, allowing folks to change one step each turn. We didn't use crew actions or anything like that - simply make the change if desired. Keeping it simple is a good way to go, especially since most folks have never played before. If you feel overwhelmed before the game begins, start very simple, and add rules as the game progresses. I started without the card delay to give players a chance to familiarize themselves with movement and wind. After six or so turns, we added the card delay. That seemed to work out well.
RichardPF
11-04-2013, 21:36
Classic. Thanks, Bobby.
You gotta love this:
7470
Maybe I'm the last one to know about these but...
I don't care who you are that's funny right there.
RichardPF
11-04-2013, 21:41
This is not exactly on the topic of collision example #2, but I was wondering if those who have run demo games have kept track or have an estimate of how many turns the games are lasting?
Classic. Thanks, Bobby.
You gotta love this:
7470
Never seen the cheese grater head before...love 'em.
At Rock-Con, we played for 3.5 hours, after going over the rules. The scenario ended a bit prior to the slot ending time, but everyone wanted to continue, so we did. Once we started playing the delay card, things slowed down a bit, as people were less sure of their upcoming moves. With four-on-four and merchant ships, there was action on most turns in terms of combat. Near the end, as things were spread out more, turns moved more quickly because of less combat. All-in-all, I guess around 20 or so turns.
As soon as the games ended, I realized I didn't take pictures, record thoughts, moves, etc. I was so focused on running the games, that time slipped by. I believe that will change with more experience.
Ed and Eric?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIXYAXwvC44
Godda love dem Bears :rum::drinks::beer:. 2nd string quarterback beats 2nd string quarterback.
Maybe I'm the last one to know about these but...
I don't care who you are that's funny right there.
Never seen the cheese grater head before...love 'em.
Same here. That's why I had to share it. Brave souls.
27-20 Da Bears
Godda love dem Bears :rum::drinks::beer:. 2nd string quarterback beats 2nd string quarterback.
McCown is a local boy from Jacksonville, Texas, just down the road from Tyler. He was quite well known when HS QB in these parts.
Since we are already discussing collision questions in this thread, i didn't want to start another for a short question and answer.
Ever since Erins Hurricane Report I wondered about a special situation which arose there. How do you treat perpendicular collisions with stationary ships (e.g. those run aground). Obviously, the initial hit is easy to resolve. But how do you proceed. In the following turn it might be possible that by playing the planned card the moving ship will end up on the other side of the stationary ship. So the ship will have miraculous morphed through the other. Do youl allow this movement or do you stop the other ship next to the other. If the latter, do you have other solutions to resolve the situation (like kedging).
The Royal Hajj
11-05-2013, 09:11
If you play by the rules as written, two ships can "pass" through each other if their final position does not have their bases overlapped. In most cases, one could free a ship from this situation in a couple of turns. On the rare times it can't be done, I would allow the player to play the number 2 taken aback maneuver after X number of turns, This would represent the ship's boats pulling it off the other ship.
I wonder if this is akin to the plane/peg/collision situation in WoG. Given scale, the ships need not have to represent taking up the actual space taken up by the ship bases, so what might seem like morphing, wouldn't have to be. I think I will consider the audience when determining how to handle situations like the one you mentioned, Sebastian. Some players will be looking for greater realism than others. I will adjust accordingly. As long as it is clear, to the best of the game master's ability, how such situations will be handled at the beginning of the game, players can make tactical maneuvers accordingly.
I will include the situation you described in the handout on collisions. In fact, I will do it next. Let me know if I capture the situation as you envision it.
Thanks Eric for the reply.
I know that the scales of the map/base and of the ships do not match. So there are two ways to treat this situation. One could assume, that the ships never actually hit each other and the rules provided are simply for resolving the situation. On second thought this might be the original intention. Although under this assumption, one could replace the model with a face down manouver card until the overlapping situation is resolved (or would this interfere with boarding operations, since the contact phase would be much shorter). Working out who is entitled to shoot on whom should be pretty easy under such close conditions.
Assuming an actual collision is taking place, one could employ Erins kedging rules.
I think I'm in desperate need of the fleet to arrive and stop thinking over theoretical problems.
David Manley
11-05-2013, 16:57
Real ship handlers had more movement options than are allowed by the cards. At the very least you could back sails and move astern, then bear off. I'm of the opinion that looking at the ships as they are positioned and then moving one or both the minimum distance needed to allow subsequent movement is the way to go.
Since we are already discussing collision questions in this thread, i didn't want to start another for a short question and answer.
Ever since Erins Hurricane Report I wondered about a special situation which arose there. How do you treat perpendicular collisions with stationary ships (e.g. those run aground). Obviously, the initial hit is easy to resolve. But how do you proceed. In the following turn it might be possible that by playing the planned card the moving ship will end up on the other side of the stationary ship. So the ship will have miraculous morphed through the other. Do youl allow this movement or do you stop the other ship next to the other. If the latter, do you have other solutions to resolve the situation (like kedging).
Sebastian, is this the initial position, as you envision it?
7480
Sebastian, is this the initial position, as you envision it?
Hi Eric,
That is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks for picturing it so nicely.
Hi Eric,
That is exactly what I had in mind. Thanks for picturing it so nicely.
Great. I assume, then, your concern was ship A moving "through" ship B, ending up on the other side, by playing a straight at full sails, for example. I will go ahead and work this out with ship A making that maneuver and ship B working through a maneuver that still places it in ship A's way.
The Royal Hajj
11-07-2013, 07:22
Lets try and keep this thread on topic sirs. I've broken off the scale and one card movement discussions to a separate thread (http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?1731-Game-scale-and-alternative-movement-options).
Thank you.
@Eric
That actually was my concern. And you don't have to work on a maneuver for ship b since it is grounded and won't move for the remainder of the game.
@Bruce
If this is consensus I'm perfectly happy with it. In other historic table tops, figures also doesn't represent actual individual soldiers but masses of troops (e.g. Field of Glory: four 15mm figures = about 250 soldiers regiment). It only disallows you to block the movement of the enemy deliberatly. Like the french if they would have executed the Aboukir Battle according to the book. But then, it's a game and not meant to simulate every situation ever encountered by any sailing vessel.
I am getting back to the collision handouts this week. Here is a problem suggested by Sebastian:
Original Position - both ships touching with Ship B run aground:
7748
Position after Maneuver - Ship A executing a straight with a shift to the right:
7749
The question is, can Ship A execute that maneuver using RaW?
Here are some thoughts to initiate this conversation. The rules state that if at the end of a maneuver, the ship bases overlap, the players must follow a specific procedure (Collisions) for resolving movement. In this case, at the end of the movement phase, the two ship bases would not overlap. However, it would require Ship A moving through Ship B. Does this make sense? Normally, when executing collision-related maneuvers, the turn ends when the "second" ship works through its maneuver and makes contact with the first ship. In this scenario, Ship B - the first ship - has the highest burden and fastest attitude to the wind, however, it is run aground and cannot move. Ship A - the second ship - would start its maneuver, immediately making contact with Ship B's base. If the bases do not represent the actual space the ships are taking up on the water's surface, and, therefore, Ship B could theoretically pass through Ship A without making contact, then why the ceasing of movement when bases touch, and not when the actual ships touch, something akin to base-to-peg collisions in WoG? What thinking would ensure internal consistency or coherence?
Once we have a consensus on how to handle this situation, I will make a handout, accordingly, one that will include text explaining our rationale.
Andy Blozinski
11-25-2013, 17:19
In this case, at the end of the movement phase, the two ship bases would not overlap. However, it would require Ship A moving through Ship B. Does this make sense?.
There is no collision as per the rules.
The question is, do the rules make sense in this situation? For example, the rules state that when two ships are passing each other head on, a collision can be avoided if the bases won't overlap at the end of the turn; I believe this assumes they maneuver sufficiently to avoid a collision. In this situation, one ship is, essentially, blocking the other ship, being unable to move. Does the end-of-turn non-overlapping rule apply? If so, why? Does it make sense in light of the actual scenario? What are the implications for other scenarios?
Andy Blozinski
11-26-2013, 05:28
Here's the problem...
It makes sense if they're going head on. It doesn't seem to make sense when they are perpendicular. At what angle do you plan to draw the line? Are you going to bring protractors to the game?
David Manley
11-26-2013, 06:37
It makes sense when both are moving as well, not when one is immobile. In a real situation the CO of the moving ship would back sails and bear off to starboard to avoid to minimise the effects of any collision. I game terms I'd resolve a collision then, unless they were entangled, move the mobile ship the minimum distance to the right so that a future forward move would avoid the casualty.
As I wrote before, I do see that ships do not actually cover the size of the base and thus can avoid a collision perpendicular or not. If this is consensus and all players will stick to this rule, then so be it. Then the collision rules are only there to resolve the situation.
I do not see any difficulties in sticking to the rules in open water scenarios. Yet however, if we are talking about coastal scenarios, applying these rules does neglect viable tactical maneuvers. You cannot place your ships in a way to challenge the enemies access to some portion of the battle field. The french tried this at Albukir by forming a line which should have denied the British to break through the line and fight them from both sides. It failed due to poor ship placement, yet it was an applied tactic.
Maybe this situation is special and I have to house rule this.
fredmiracle
11-26-2013, 10:36
Without having actually played the game, my sense is that all these collision rules are largely an artifact of the large/thick bases--i.e., not simulating anything in particular, so much as answering the practical question of what to do when they start bumping into each other.
In that case, allowing ships that don't want to grapple every possibility to avoid contact seems like the right call.
applying these rules does neglect viable tactical maneuvers. You cannot place your ships in a way to challenge the enemies access to some portion of the battle field. The french tried this at Albukir by forming a line which should have denied the British to break through the line and fight them from both sides. It failed due to poor ship placement, yet it was an applied tactic.
The Aboukir example is interesting, but of course it didn't prove practical. And in that case, according to Wiki, part of the plan involved cables strung between ships. That definitely seems to be bringing it into scenario special rule territory
Playing devil's advocate, a series of ships strung closely together near the coast would still be a barrier. It would not be an impenetrable barrier, but if the mobile ships misplay their upcoming maneuver cards, or take mast damage, or the wind changes in the interim, they can still end up colliding with enemy ships, or hitting the rocks on the other side of the line, etc.
Naharaht
11-26-2013, 20:59
What about a collision changing the direction of movement of the ship that was hit? This would be greater when a heavier ship hit a lighter one.
It makes sense when both are moving as well, not when one is immobile. In a real situation the CO of the moving ship would back sails and bear off to starboard to avoid to minimise the effects of any collision. I game terms I'd resolve a collision then, unless they were entangled, move the mobile ship the minimum distance to the right so that a future forward move would avoid the casualty.
After the initial collision, something like this?
7795
Nightmoss
01-03-2014, 19:07
I finally had a chance to read the Basic Rules this evening and while the diagrams in the manual and explanations here concerning collisions go a long way to making things clearer I'm really missing the pictures Eric had put up as further examples of what can occur. I hope that these do come back soon?
I do have one quick question/confirmation of the overlap/collision rules, which I expect is obvious, but I'll ask anyway. If one or both ships are required to play a taken aback move and end up overlapping bases you still follow the burden rules and back tracking of movement, correct?
Thanks!
Andy Blozinski
01-03-2014, 19:32
I finally had a chance to read the Basic Rules this evening and while the diagrams in the manual and explanations here concerning collisions go a long way to making things clearer I'm really missing the pictures Eric had put up as further examples of what can occur. I hope that these do come back soon?
I do have one quick question/confirmation of the overlap/collision rules, which I expect is obvious, but I'll ask anyway. If one or both ships are required to play a taken aback move and end up overlapping bases you still follow the burden rules and back tracking of movement, correct?
Thanks!
Yes. I think ultimately the burden thing was just a choice to resolve a situation. You have to decide one way or the other and stick with it. They chose higher burden. It doesn't matter if you're going forward or reverse.
Nightmoss
01-03-2014, 19:50
Yes. I think ultimately the burden thing was just a choice to resolve a situation. You have to decide one way or the other and stick with it. They chose higher burden. It doesn't matter if you're going forward or reverse.
Thanks. It's logical, but it never hurts to confirm another example of collisions that could occur in close quarters movement.
Hi Jim,
When resolving a collision, burden takes precedence over attitude to wind, regardless of direction. If burden and attitude are the same, choose randomly. So in your example, highest burden moves first, or, if equal, randomly choose.
It makes a bit of sense when one thinks about momentum and collisions in very simple terms. In the case of sailing ships, mass would have a greater impact than velocity given that the potential differences in ship masses are significantly more than potential differences in velocity, momentum equaling mass times velocity. So, in essence, the more massive ship will be more determinative of the subsequent directions and velocities of both ships. Consider an NFL linebacker walking into a running 5 year-old child. Though the child has a higher velocity, the mass of the linebacker compared to the mass of the child overshadows the velocity difference, and becomes the primary determinative of the resulting directions and velocities of the two individuals. If both masses are the same, then the higher velocity would take precedence. I assume something like this was behind the designers decision, but I readily acknowledge I could be completely off the mark.
I'm glad you found the drawings helpful. Now that I have received our shipment, I will continue to work out collisions and taken aback maneuvers. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.