PDA

View Full Version : Collison Damage too Harsh?



Zarathud
01-31-2014, 11:14
We actually found the damage from collisions with friendly ships to be too harsh. We know the rule is there to encourage friendlies to have proper spacing and maneuver carefully, but when enemy ships are mixed in at close range sometimes a collision with a friendly is really unavoidable. We had two friendly SoLs collide in a game last night and each took 5 [B] tokens, causing significant damage to both ships (e.g. one had 4 damage boxes filled from the hit), which seemed harsh.

We were thinking of reducing the damage due to friendly collision, maybe some reduced combination of [A] and [C] counters if you collide with an equal or smaller burden ship, and some reduced combination of [B] and [C] if you collide with a larger burden ship.

Thoughts?

The Royal Hajj
01-31-2014, 11:28
We just drop the damage altogether. I understand the reasoning behind the rule, but causing damage to only friendly ships is just odd.

One alternative might be to require the colliding ships to each start moving again with backing sails, followed with battle sail and finally full sails. Actions would of course have to be planned to move back up in sail levels. That could seriously mess up your maneuver plans and put you in a very bad spot with the enemy, but would not actually take you out of the game.

Zarathud
01-31-2014, 11:38
That is actually a really good idea, plus if you add in the entanglement rules, that is another potential "penalty" that doesn't need to be supplemented with damage.

David Manley
01-31-2014, 12:08
We just drop the damage altogether. I understand the reasoning behind the rule, but causing damage to only friendly ships is just odd.

True, but then there are quite a few "oddities" that are in the game in deference to the "game" nature of SGN.

Applying no damage and checking for entanglement is a good compromise. Maybe even checking for mast damage (since masts going by the board is the obe piece of relevant damage that one occasionally sees recorded in the logs of ships involved in collisions (maybe draw an "A" chit for each ship and apply a broken mast result if one is drawn, otherwise return to the bag)

The Royal Hajj
01-31-2014, 12:39
Yeah, there are some oddities :rum: But this one has a super simple fix.

Another good idea David.

7eat51
02-01-2014, 00:18
I like the alternatives posited here. In the fall, I saw two same-sided players pretty much decide the engagement by sailing into each other long before making contact with the enemy. We all had a lot of fun with it, and it is probably one of the best game-memories we have from that night, but it made the rest of the game feel like you were just running out the clock - the result was inevitable.

Пилот
02-01-2014, 04:54
...
Applying no damage and checking for entanglement is a good compromise. Maybe even checking for mast damage (since masts going by the board is the obe piece of relevant damage that one occasionally sees recorded in the logs of ships involved in collisions (maybe draw an "A" chit for each ship and apply a broken mast result if one is drawn, otherwise return to the bag)
Seems like good solution



We just drop the damage altogether. I understand the reasoning behind the rule, but causing damage to only friendly ships is just odd.

One alternative might be to require the colliding ships to each start moving again with backing sails, followed with battle sail and finally full sails. Actions would of course have to be planned to move back up in sail levels. That could seriously mess up your maneuver plans and put you in a very bad spot with the enemy, but would not actually take you out of the game.
&

That is actually a really good idea, plus if you add in the entanglement rules, that is another potential "penalty" that doesn't need to be supplemented with damage.

In this way, in some situations, ship could suffer more damage than from the collision itself. And David's idea gives space to the risk of being collided (big enough to avoid such situations), but not necessary to happen.

fredmiracle
02-01-2014, 06:14
I like the entangling approach because it seems to introduce the right kind of embarrassment disincentive to running into your teammates. It's one thing to stoically accept your damage tokens and try to fight through it, but it's another to be literally stuck together, unable to move, and drawing chits to see when it ends. You'll work hard to be avoid attracting that kind of attention to yourself :wink:

Пилот
02-02-2014, 14:21
Unless you want to tie your opponent!

Jack Aubrey
02-02-2014, 14:26
It is not too harsch, it is ok. A collision can make a lot of damage on a sailship at this time...:pray:

Beowulf03809
02-03-2014, 10:15
We currently are not playing with Collision Damage most of the time. We have a couple players that are using it and when I saw it in action this weekend it came up when a newer player misjudged a move. If I followed things correctly the result put some measurable damage on the SoL but basically did in his Frigate. It really had a bad effect on the rest of the game for him as a result. It does feel like SOMETHING should be there as a little more discouragement than just a normal 'bump' but the current version is pretty tough.

Once we start using full Actions then the requirement to reset your sails is nice, and maybe even combine that with the "draw a chit and check for Mast damage". In the mean time I'll have to look at the entanglement rules. Thanks for the suggestions!

:rum:

Пилот
02-09-2014, 12:56
While reading very good AA report made by keithabarker, something occured to me. Maybe collision could be allowed only if at least one ship is uncontrolled (taken aback) or poorly controled (at least one mast broken), and only between friendlies.

Avi
02-10-2014, 00:19
I think collision damage should be reduced and graded both by burden and by angle of hit.

Head on to side should cause much more damage to the receiving party.
Rear ending by a heavy ship to a light ship should cause damage in some proportion to burden and "speed"
Glancing blows could cause no damage but use some entangle rules or maybe sail damage.

In any case both friendly and enemy collisions should cause damage.

BUT above all collision should not be automatic when bases touch -
There should be some allowance for both parties to try to evade collision.
Emergency manoeuvres and luffing of sails are possible IF at least one party wishes to do it.
maybe something like the boarding mechanism were any evading party also suffers sails setting reduction
and a turn away from the other ship.
If both evade they may end up side by side with reduced sales - what a nice set up for a very close broadside :cannonboom: :pistole::swordright:

Diamondback
02-10-2014, 03:26
Avi raises good points... also, it should be indiscriminate between friend and foe, aside from maybe a deliberate ram doing more damage to the ram-ee.

Пилот
02-10-2014, 06:13
I believe that actual rules just average the damage, and that such variable damage covers different situations.
Avi's approach is good one, if more elaborate collision rules are wanted (I'll probably stick to reduced collision rules). Deliberate ramming is something that actually doesn't belong to the period (being very rare, and not the rule). But, if one chooses to play that way, some mechanism should discourage deliberate ramming. Problem is, there are always people who are going to bend the rules to their benefit, without caring much about spirit of the game.

Diamondback
02-10-2014, 06:18
True... a deliberate ram, unless you massively outweigh your target (see WWII destroyers vs. subs and motor torpedo-boats) is pretty much a desperation tactic by a captain who's made up his mind that his ship and crew are dead no matter what and want to cause as much damage as possible on their way to the hereafter.

My recollection, though, is that the law of the sea even back then was "when a ship sinks, whatever flag she sailed under, all nearby must render whatever assistance possible to rescue survivors," though our naval veterans may want to cross-check me on that.

fredmiracle
02-10-2014, 06:38
It wasn't a tactic that was used, and it seems clear that given how the ships were built, the rammer would suffer more damage than the ram-ee. Plus I'm not convinced either ship would suffer all *that* much damage--these ships are moving a few miles an hour, often less when you consider relative movement, and they had lots of spars and sticky out bits above decks to help cushion the blows. The main carnage was probably to masts and rigging, as David M. pointed out. I fail to understand the eternal fascination with this subject...

csadn
02-10-2014, 17:48
And for god's sake, remember: "Ramming Speed" Is *NOT* synonymous with "full power until impact"....

Andy Blozinski
02-10-2014, 20:56
For collisions, I'm thinking on going for the entanglement aspect and/or having both sides draw 3-4 counters from the chain shot bag and only count sail/mast damage.

7eat51
02-10-2014, 21:49
I fail to understand the eternal fascination with this subject...

I think this stems, in part, from the newness of the game, and the limited playing experience we have.

When I run games targeted toward new players, I will refrain from collision damage the first time or two it occurs. Having seen collision damage greatly impacting a demo game, I do not want the situation to arise where a player effectively takes him(her)self out of the game while trying to learn maneuvering, and getting a feel for the game. An advanced game, one that assumes a decent level of experience, is a different matter, entirely.

fredmiracle
02-10-2014, 22:14
I think this stems, in part, from the newness of the game, and the limited playing experience we have.

True, although I know the "desire to ram" came up frequently in the A&A naval forums as well. It is a fact that WW2 destroyer captains often did seek to ram submarines when they could (although their admirals always chewed them out about it). And there was the famous apparent case of Glowworm. But at the best of times it generally didn't go all that well for the rammers, and it's not like it happened much--even if you were trying to ram, you'd almost inevitably get sunk first (see e.g. Glowworm).

And yet every few months, even now, there's a new set of house rules offered for battleship-bumper-cars. Whatever floats one's boat I suppose. Millennia of oared boats ramming into each other in the Mediterranean apparently have left a lasting impression on the collective subconscience...



When I run games targeted toward new players, I will refrain from collision damage the first time or two it occurs. Having seen collision damage greatly impacting a demo game, I do not want the situation to arise where a player effectively takes him(her)self out of the game while trying to learn maneuvering, and getting a feel for the game. An advanced game, one that assumes a decent level of experience, is a different matter, entirely.

I'm definitely sold that it's both a good gaming practice for beginners, and more realistic to not apply the damage as written. I like the entanglement idea, the sail-damage idea, and the "emergency maneuver/reduce sail" idea. These all make a lot of sense. Have to see what combination feels most right.

Diamondback
02-10-2014, 22:17
I think with tin-cans and subs the thinking was "if you breach the pressure hull, their choices become Surrender or Die."

fredmiracle
02-10-2014, 22:22
I think with tin-cans and subs the thinking was "if you breach the pressure hull, their choices become Surrender or Die."

It was certainly effective. It just meant that the destroyer was done with protecting that convoy and in drydock for a few months afterwards.

From the strategic point of view, high command felt this was a bad tradeoff, and that the destroyer captain was in the "driver's seat" at that point and should have been able to sink the submarine, or at least neutralize the threat, without damage to his own ship.

Things probably did not look that simple out in the ocean though. And I get the sense that what was really going on is that destroyer captains were supremely frustrated by the hide-and-seek games they played with subs, and if the opportunity presented itself they were always going to go for the jugular and strategic considerations be damned...

Gunner
02-11-2014, 01:39
I also dropped the friendly collision rule. That rule might be realistic on the Pacific Ocean, but to me it doesn't make much sense on a 26"x39" mat using two card movement and wind change.

Pseudotheist
02-11-2014, 17:44
One alternative might be to require the colliding ships to each start moving again with backing sails, followed with battle sail and finally full sails. Actions would of course have to be planned to move back up in sail levels. That could seriously mess up your maneuver plans and put you in a very bad spot with the enemy, but would not actually take you out of the game.
This is a great idea! I don't know why it wasn't incorporated as part of the standard rules for being Taken Aback, actually (without the action requirement).

AlyssaFaden
02-14-2014, 22:08
We dropped the collision damage also after two games. We keep the entanglement chances plus then you have to back sails to get away from eachother. This alone is a penalty enough for the collision we have found.

Craig
03-07-2014, 00:26
We dropped the collision damage also after two games. We keep the entanglement chances plus then you have to back sails to get away from eachother. This alone is a penalty enough for the collision we have found.

I've been playing with the entanglement risk as the only penalty. It seems to be working fine; there's been no rash of indecorous hyper-close formations in response.

The justifications we use for the lack of enemy ram damage (fended off, cushioned by spars and bowsprit, the ship is smaller than the base, last-second manoeuvring, etc.) all apply just as well to friendly collisions. The risk of entanglement is enough to stop captains from casually bumping their ships into each other.

Even if you were to include it, the ram damage as per RAW is wildly excessive. A couple of chainshot chits maybe, but five close-range ball chits? No way.

--
Craig

AlyssaFaden
03-09-2014, 17:28
I've been playing with the entanglement risk as the only penalty. It seems to be working fine; there's been no rash of indecorous hyper-close formations in response.

The justifications we use for the lack of enemy ram damage (fended off, cushioned by spars and bowsprit, the ship is smaller than the base, last-second manoeuvring, etc.) all apply just as well to friendly collisions. The risk of entanglement is enough to stop captains from casually bumping their ships into each other.

Even if you were to include it, the ram damage as per RAW is wildly excessive. A couple of chainshot chits maybe, but five close-range ball chits? No way.

--
Craig

Exactly, exactly. I've also found that it's way too easy to end up in a situation where neither ship can legally move as per the rules :bleh:

DeRuyter
03-10-2014, 14:16
I've been playing with the entanglement risk as the only penalty. It seems to be working fine; there's been no rash of indecorous hyper-close formations in response.

The justifications we use for the lack of enemy ram damage (fended off, cushioned by spars and bowsprit, the ship is smaller than the base, last-second manoeuvring, etc.) all apply just as well to friendly collisions. The risk of entanglement is enough to stop captains from casually bumping their ships into each other.

Even if you were to include it, the ram damage as per RAW is wildly excessive. A couple of chainshot chits maybe, but five close-range ball chits? No way.

--
Craig

Here is my solution used in a recent convention game:

1. Risk of entanglement.
2. Loss of speed/momentum, ie; start next turn on backing sails.
3. If you collide while at Full sail you take one "C" chit for rigging damage.

If an odd situation comes up like Alyssa mentioned we just play that the ships have sailed past each other.

Eric

Andy Blozinski
03-10-2014, 19:31
Here is my solution used in a recent convention game:

1. Risk of entanglement.
2. Loss of speed/momentum, ie; start next turn on backing sails.
3. If you collide while at Full sail you take one "C" chit for rigging damage.

If an odd situation comes up like Alyssa mentioned we just play that the ships have sailed past each other.

Eric

Amazing...minus the "C" chit, that's what I was contemplating on the way to work this morning. I think I'll add the "C" chit into it.

Craig
03-10-2014, 20:39
Amazing...minus the "C" chit, that's what I was contemplating on the way to work this morning. I think I'll add the "C" chit into it.

I like the sail damage; if I was introducing that, though, I'd apply it to all collisions, friendly or hostile.

Good to have a reason to avoid full sail in combat, though. I've been using "double damage for sail hits if target is at full sail when hit" (i.e. Lose the ability to use full sail after a single sail damage instead of needing two).

--
Craig

DeRuyter
03-10-2014, 20:48
I like the sail damage; if I was introducing that, though, I'd apply it to all collisions, friendly or hostile.

Good to have a reason to avoid full sail in combat, though. I've been using "double damage for sail hits if target is at full sail when hit" (i.e. Lose the ability to use full sail after a single sail damage instead of needing two).

--
Craig

Right I wasn't clear on that point - My house rules apply to any collision, or in the case of sail damage to the ship that has full sails up. I like your extra sail damage chit for shooting as well.

BTW - Are those your feet up in the rig of the HMB Endeavor?

Eric

Craig
03-10-2014, 21:10
BTW - Are those your feet up in the rig of the HMB Endeavor?

9333

Yup. :-)

Foremast watch, Thursday Island to Darwin. Major fun.

--
Craig

Craig
03-10-2014, 21:25
BTW, see below for a video tour. Facebook links, but they should be publicly visible:

Mastvid https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150334505334973

Deckvid https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150340775849973

--
Craig

DeRuyter
03-11-2014, 10:16
Yup. :-)

Foremast watch, Thursday Island to Darwin. Major fun.

--
Craig

Very cool. Nice to see another tall ship sailor. Here is the ship I used to sail on SV Kalmar Nyckel Dutch pinnace in Swedish service, original built 1625. I had to pull foc'sle watch, as one of the lookouts, as you can see in the shot below.

93369335

Eric

Craig
03-12-2014, 01:20
Very cool. Nice to see another tall ship sailor. Here is the ship I used to sail on SV Kalmar Nyckel Dutch pinnace in Swedish service, original built 1625.

Lovely; I like the lookout platform out on the bowsprit...

Endeavour's only a replica, but she's accurate from the mess deck up. And they salvaged a bit of the ballast that the original dumped after they hit the reef; it's now tied to a mast on the mess deck.

I'm going to use this as an excuse to post some more pics. :-)

On the yards

9339


1st Officer Dirk with a decorative backdrop

9340


Whee!

9341

--
Craig

DeRuyter
03-12-2014, 08:37
Lovely; I like the lookout platform out on the bowsprit...

Endeavour's only a replica, but she's accurate from the mess deck up. And they salvaged a bit of the ballast that the original dumped after they hit the reef; it's now tied to a mast on the mess deck.

Craig

That's actually an interesting feature used primarily to set the sprit tops'l (which you can see being set in the second photo). It is like a mini fighting top. Kalmar Nyckel is the only replica ship in the US with a sprit tops'l. I believe the Batavia and soon the Zeven Provincien in the Netherlands also have them. You can clearly see the evolution in sail plan from the 17th to 18th century in these photos.

Eric

Ken H
03-18-2014, 10:19
We played with entanglement alone as the possible reprecussion of a collision and it worked fine.

With two pairs of 3rd rates squaring off the Brits had lost one and the French had one crippled. The healthy French was turning through the wind and had one hourglass when the wind shifted right into his face and drove him backwards into his crippled brethren. Both were entangled with their facings separated by 10-15 degrees. The Brit made use of the entanglement to get astern of both. Two turns of fire later the former healthy ship exploded from the fires aboard taking out her entangled mate in the explosion.

fredmiracle
03-18-2014, 22:13
We played with entanglement alone as the possible reprecussion of a collision and it worked fine.

With two pairs of 3rd rates squaring off the Brits had lost one and the French had one crippled. The healthy French was turning through the wind and had one hourglass when the wind shifted right into his face and drove him backwards into his crippled brethren. Both were entangled with their facings separated by 10-15 degrees. The Brit made use of the entanglement to get astern of both. Two turns of fire later the former healthy ship exploded from the fires aboard taking out her entangled mate in the explosion.

Good report--it seems like a positive sign that a rule is working when it produces interesting "war stories"