This is just a quick Idea I had, and felt like I should get out: Usually ramming ships are horrible against ground targets, so if defenses could take out all of your ships with weapons, then you're pretty much screwed. A downwards-facing ram (or whatever you want to call it) could just be like the normal rams, or wider/longer and downwards facing. You could ground your ship above a building and pretty much crushing it.It could also be used to get rid of floating islands that block the way to the enemy by crushing them. Thanks for taking the time to listen to my little idea.
I bid thee farewell
So my vague plan about downwards ramming is that I want to make it a "special move" for some ship captains when those get introduced. :) There's also gonna be bombs soon, which will shift the tactical situation of ships vs buildings again...
That sounds so cool! Thanks for the feedback ;)
Hmmmmm... I don't know. Honestly, it seems like a pretty bad idea to me. You see, ramming and physical combat is a part of the strategy. Ramming forward is pretty efficient against building, but also exposes you to enemy fire. Adding downward rams would remove a portion of strategic thinking and planning, while allowing for more mindless bashing into ships. Besides, higher ground offers a strategic advantage. Boarding troops benefit from being above the ship because they fall downwards, grenades get thrown downwards, flamethrowers are semi downward oriented, and in case of ships, you can get above a ship to make them unable to hit you with their weapons and smash them into the ground or a building if your ship is heavy enough. Adding downward ramming to that would be an overkill. Ramming is fine as it is, imo.
I think ships aren't at a disadvantage because of that. Yes, building don't require certain modules that allow for mobility, but they also lack all the higher ground benefits the ships have. Downward rams would be an overkill.
Now, more upwards coverage, as long as it's reasonable, would be pretty good and bring a bit of balance if not overdone to the point of upwards facing weapons being as strong as horizontal ones. I feel weapons that face upwards should be less powerful because balancing. And having equally powerful coverage possible in all direction takes away interesting strategy aspects.
Captain, Engineering Corps
I find that a very effective strategy is to land on top of an airship and weight it down while my guns fire at it. If there were to be a downward ram I think it would be quite balanced as long as you couldn't have a forward facing ram at the same time. Personally I like it because it would fit my play style and maybe people should have a higher service ceiling if they want to avoid being hit by a ram from above.
I find it's a bad idea for that very reason - even without it, there are many advantages to being above other ships, such as being able to land on them, forcing them downwards, avoiding some of their weapons fire and being able to shoot them with grenades, flamethrowers and such. Downwards facing rams added to that would porbably unbalance the game, even if the possibility of a forward facing ram is disabled.
Commander, Engineering Corps
What if we just expanded also on the weapon mounting? having fire arc's change depending on how its mounted? so if a lone Rifle is put on the top of a ship (without anything left/right of it) then the fire arch is 180 degrees, sweeping form left, up and then to right.
And if its put hard against something either left of right, then this impacts the same on the arc, so if somethings to the right, then it can only fire up and left.
Downwards ramming is already possible, just with the ground command, I do it a bit when im out of ammo...