Hi David,
Having great fun with version 5.0 so far! :)
However, I think the rule "no ammo = defeat" should be changed. I've had several situations where I would have been able to defeat my enemies by ramming them into the ground after using up my ammunition. Also melee-only ships are not possible this way.
Cheers
I agree. With my old ramming ships, I had to stick on a rifle to prevent auto-loss, but with the new dedicated battering rams, that should be changed. After all, melee ships are fun!
I love "melee". Ramming isn't as simple as just flying into someone's ship - that will just mess you up. And there are various "melee" techniques, not just ramming. However, I find that "melee" combat works well as a technique used with normal ships as opposed to having dedicated melee ships - I tend to use melee with grenade ships, pushing enemies into the ground while bombing them and avoiding most of their weapons.
Still, dedicated melee ships ARE fun and I agree that out-of-ammo isn't a good reason to end a battle.
I also find a ship should be disqualified when it is both out of ammo and have no way of moving, but not if only one is true.
Also, if ships on both sides still have ammo but have no methods of moving I feel the battle should still continue if they are in range of each other, and otherwise it should end in a draw.
Well if it is capable of moving, then it's ok that the battle doesn't terminate - because it is still capable of ramming combat, which is kinda the point.
I think defeat should only occur if a ship is a.) completely unmaneuverable AND doesn't have any ammo left or b.) if it is destroyed. If you can still use the pure weight of your ship alone to damage the enemy, you shouldn't be defeated imho.
As long as you are still able to fly, you are able to make damage, so you are - technically - able to fight. So as long as you still have a maneuverable ship, you shouldn't count as defeated. But these are only my two cents.
I think it shouldn't be dependent on certain equipment decicions like battering rams at all - the brute force of weight works also to make devastating ramming attacks after all. The ship is a weapon per se, even without weapons on it, if you use it's weight appropriately. So in my opinion the criterium for game over should be if your ship is completely unmaneuvrable (or without anny sailors left) AND without ammunition supply. Everything else doesn't feel like a proper defeat for me: A grounded ship can still be able to use it's weapons - and a ship that has used up it's ammo supplies can still cause damage without conventional weapons... But I repeat myself ;)
Yeah, @Graf_Melty, but here's the thing: We need a sort of compromise between almost never losing because of the (completely viable, btw) ability to crush things with your weight, and losing as soon as you run out of ammo. What I am suggesting is to count battering rams as within the class of "weaponry"; If your "weaponry" (guns & rams) is disabled, then you either lose or run away, with fleeing likely only working if you can move & you still have supply ports, but no working weapons.
as:
- Out of ammo? - You can ram them to death with rams or just hull
- Out of Coal? - You can ground and keep on shooting
- Out of Crew? - Well, your stuffed...
But, do you say it has to be no crew left? or is there a minimum? (so you dont have ships laying around fighting fires with one man crews...)
I think that CastleMan2000 is correct with the Rams being counted as weapons however would the loss conditions be more logical if it was just unable to move and out of ammo because at that point there is nothing the ship can do (with the exception of boarding)
I think that the fight shouldn't end until one side has no more maneuverable ships left.
For example, Player A has three ships and player B has two. Eventually, each player only has one ship left, and they're both out of ammo. But they can still ram each other, so they should be allowed to.
Victory conditions can check any of these:
1) Ship is out of coal (if it has no sails) -- Defeated
2) Ship is grounded and can't get up AND is out of ammo -- Defeated
3) Ship has lost all cockpits OR has lost all crew -- Defeated (but could be boarded and captured)
4) Ship is destroyed -- Duh, not a defeat. Tactical self-vaporization
And possible some more, but this system would allow players to use the burnt-out, ammo-less, husks of their ships duke it out in melee.
"[...]but this system would allow players to use the burnt-out, ammo-less, husks of their ships duke it out in melee."
That's what I mean - brutal desperate fights with nothing more than the sheer force of weight and gravitation. To use every part of your ship to wreak havoc before sinking down into oblivion!:D
Ok, allow me to use a example I've had right now: I managed to get my enemy's ships to be either boarded or immobile. Two of my ships are in splendid condition, and the enemy ships pose no threat anymore. They are just sitting ducks with no way to react. But as their armor eats up much ammunition (and as they seem to have at least one single weapon and a tiny bit of ammunition left), I finally don't have ammo left - and bam! Defeat! That's ... frustrating. I should still be able to malm them to death from above imho.
If all your Airships would be defeated by the currend v6 rules, but you still have a ship which still can move and have a ramming bow, you get same timer, when you don't have any time left , you lose the battle
Well, I'd put a timer, let's say, 5min. This would solve all the problems around ramming ships, + fleeing seem a better idea than waiting. if the battle is over the player with the most ships or the most ships with weapon wins.
Warrant Officer
Hi David, Having great fun with version 5.0 so far! :) However, I think the rule "no ammo = defeat" should be changed. I've had several situations where I would have been able to defeat my enemies by ramming them into the ground after using up my ammunition. Also melee-only ships are not possible this way. Cheers
Lieutenant
I agree. With my old ramming ships, I had to stick on a rifle to prevent auto-loss, but with the new dedicated battering rams, that should be changed. After all, melee ships are fun!
Captain
I love "melee". Ramming isn't as simple as just flying into someone's ship - that will just mess you up. And there are various "melee" techniques, not just ramming. However, I find that "melee" combat works well as a technique used with normal ships as opposed to having dedicated melee ships - I tend to use melee with grenade ships, pushing enemies into the ground while bombing them and avoiding most of their weapons.
Still, dedicated melee ships ARE fun and I agree that out-of-ammo isn't a good reason to end a battle.
I also find a ship should be disqualified when it is both out of ammo and have no way of moving, but not if only one is true.
Also, if ships on both sides still have ammo but have no methods of moving I feel the battle should still continue if they are in range of each other, and otherwise it should end in a draw.
Aerial Emperor
I know where you're coming from, but what about this ship design?
It doesn't run out of fuel, so a fight with ships like this never terminates. :/ I guess I could add a system to agree on a draw?
Captain
Well if it is capable of moving, then it's ok that the battle doesn't terminate - because it is still capable of ramming combat, which is kinda the point.
Warrant Officer
I think defeat should only occur if a ship is a.) completely unmaneuverable AND doesn't have any ammo left or b.) if it is destroyed. If you can still use the pure weight of your ship alone to damage the enemy, you shouldn't be defeated imho.
Commodore
If your ships are out of ammo and they aren't ramming ships, you could still have them fly to the reserve and retreat.
Aerial Emperor
So the issue with terminating fights is what happens if there's a multiplayer fight and no-one wants to surrender?
Commodore
Count down timer?
Captain
Well, if there is a multiplayer fight, no one wants to surrender and they are still capable of fighting, where's the problem?
Warrant Officer
As long as you are still able to fly, you are able to make damage, so you are - technically - able to fight. So as long as you still have a maneuverable ship, you shouldn't count as defeated. But these are only my two cents.
Lieutenant
I think that if you have a battering ram, then the loss condition would be loss of movement; for guns, no ammo.
Warrant Officer
I think it shouldn't be dependent on certain equipment decicions like battering rams at all - the brute force of weight works also to make devastating ramming attacks after all. The ship is a weapon per se, even without weapons on it, if you use it's weight appropriately. So in my opinion the criterium for game over should be if your ship is completely unmaneuvrable (or without anny sailors left) AND without ammunition supply. Everything else doesn't feel like a proper defeat for me: A grounded ship can still be able to use it's weapons - and a ship that has used up it's ammo supplies can still cause damage without conventional weapons... But I repeat myself ;)
Lieutenant
Yeah, @Graf_Melty, but here's the thing: We need a sort of compromise between almost never losing because of the (completely viable, btw) ability to crush things with your weight, and losing as soon as you run out of ammo. What I am suggesting is to count battering rams as within the class of "weaponry"; If your "weaponry" (guns & rams) is disabled, then you either lose or run away, with fleeing likely only working if you can move & you still have supply ports, but no working weapons.
Commander, Engineering Corps
Shouldnt it really just come down to crew?
as: - Out of ammo? - You can ram them to death with rams or just hull - Out of Coal? - You can ground and keep on shooting - Out of Crew? - Well, your stuffed...
But, do you say it has to be no crew left? or is there a minimum? (so you dont have ships laying around fighting fires with one man crews...)
Midshipman
I think that CastleMan2000 is correct with the Rams being counted as weapons however would the loss conditions be more logical if it was just unable to move and out of ammo because at that point there is nothing the ship can do (with the exception of boarding)
Warrant Officer
I think that the fight shouldn't end until one side has no more maneuverable ships left.
For example, Player A has three ships and player B has two. Eventually, each player only has one ship left, and they're both out of ammo. But they can still ram each other, so they should be allowed to.
Victory conditions can check any of these:
And possible some more, but this system would allow players to use the burnt-out, ammo-less, husks of their ships duke it out in melee.
Warrant Officer
"[...]but this system would allow players to use the burnt-out, ammo-less, husks of their ships duke it out in melee."
That's what I mean - brutal desperate fights with nothing more than the sheer force of weight and gravitation. To use every part of your ship to wreak havoc before sinking down into oblivion!:D
Warrant Officer
Ok, allow me to use a example I've had right now: I managed to get my enemy's ships to be either boarded or immobile. Two of my ships are in splendid condition, and the enemy ships pose no threat anymore. They are just sitting ducks with no way to react. But as their armor eats up much ammunition (and as they seem to have at least one single weapon and a tiny bit of ammunition left), I finally don't have ammo left - and bam! Defeat! That's ... frustrating. I should still be able to malm them to death from above imho.
Commander, Engineering Corps
How about This:
If all your Airships would be defeated by the currend v6 rules, but you still have a ship which still can move and have a ramming bow, you get same timer, when you don't have any time left , you lose the battle
Lieutenant
Well, I'd put a timer, let's say, 5min. This would solve all the problems around ramming ships, + fleeing seem a better idea than waiting. if the battle is over the player with the most ships or the most ships with weapon wins.