I find ramming to be by far the worst aspect of the game. Not because ramming is possible but because it's often unavoidable and worse, the situation can persist for a number of turns.

It (IMHO) reduces the otherwise excellent game to blocking maneuvers and ramming avoidance. I see it's going to get much worse with the forward arc Liberty.

Soo.. whilst I don't expect any official change to the rules, I will be playing with an alternative and I would like to ask for feedback on what you think will work best.

1) Remove ramming all together, just displace the smaller ship by the minimum necessary and let the smaller ship choose if there is a choice

2) Allow ramming as written but also displace the smaller ship as above

3) #2 and allow a ship to spend an evade defence token to avoid ramming damage

4) Something else entirely

I don't agree with your assessment of ramming as I think for a lot of ships it is avoidable, minus maybe the MC80 Home One. Navigation commands are your friend, and can keep you out of a block.

I also admire your attempt to come up with alternative rules, but your suggestions seem to heavily favor small ships, which I think has some balance issues. Oh my MC30/Gladiator/Corvette/Raider is displaced?! Cool, I'll just move it here and oh would you look at that double arc I now have?

Hmm ramming.

The worst thing of the ramming rulles is that a single Small ship can block the path for a large ship.

An ISD or MC80 would obviously suffer some damage running into a Raider or CR90. But to be stopped cold by them is ridiculous, they would for real just plow on, pushing the smaller ship aside.

My suggestion would be, that the larger of the two ships will be able to overlap the smaller and the smaller would then be placed in base contact next to the large one. as if it was a squadron. but it has to be placed on the side facing of the large ones base it overlapped the most, with its own facing that overlapped the large one facing it.

Both ship will still get damaged, but this whole blocking and preventing the other side ships moving forward, will be gotten rid of.

In short the two ships facings, facing each other, will dictate where the smaller ship is placed.

just my 2 pennies

Do you then points change Large ships appropriately, since they can plough through smaller ships now? It gives a definite incentive to take them....

What about Medium Ships?

They're Larger than small ships, but smaller than Large ships..... So clearly they would need to get a points penalty for being able to smash smaller ships out of the way... But not as much as a Large ship, since Large ships can move them........

...

What about Ships with the slot to equip Engine Techs... Do they get penalised for simply having the slot, or do you penalise Engine Techs itself to rebalance the way that ramming will be working now?

...

I don't generally have an issue with ramming, i do think engine tech is a bit odd, as I see the damage being caused by both ships red lining everything with crazed deceleration and high G moves to avoid a hit (as if they did it the reality would be both go boom). In this context engine techs just seems a bit odd, although as a game mechanic it's ok.

I do agree where it does not work well is with large base and speed 2 ships getting stuck, it's seems a bit unrealistic.

I stil have no issues seeing ramming as a realistic (for Star Wars) depiction of two large ships grinding and rubbing as the pass, or full on ramming, in the case of the nose to nose stuck. It really come down to how you visualise the events on the table.

Could it have been more realistic? Sure. Would any other system have slowed the game more? Yes.

I dont expect FFG to change it, but I do expect it to become the most house-ruled part of the game.

Personally, I would have preferred a debris field mechanic for ship destruction, with templates included with each ship, but we cant have everything.

Being able to use an evade to negate ram damage (on both ships) would be interesting, but still any change to a core mechanic is going to alter the points efficiency of a lot of the game.

Nope, still just fine as a mechanic. Take more navs and drive better.

It's pretty hard to find two ships stuck in a truly inescapable nose-to-nose ramming scenario that neither player wants to be in; if you and an opponent do, you need to take a step back and figure out what you did to get yourselves there and how to either fix it or take advantage of it in the future. Because in this case, the mechanic truly is just punishing poor flying, much like flying off the table does.

So, people are upset becuase they don't plan navigate commands or plan out moves?

Nope, still just fine as a mechanic. Take more navs and drive better.

It's pretty hard to find two ships stuck in a truly inescapable nose-to-nose ramming scenario that neither player wants to be in; if you and an opponent do, you need to take a step back and figure out what you did to get yourselves there and how to either fix it or take advantage of it in the future. Because in this case, the mechanic truly is just punishing poor flying, much like flying off the table does.

Yes because we all know that each of the four edges of the table is lined with an invisible Death(star) laser ray, that is permanently switched on like an electric fence, and will incinerate any ship or squadron, that would dare to leave the thunderdome cage of death.

So, people are upset becuase they don't plan navigate commands or plan out moves?

No, it's because the idea of maneuvering with the intent of ramming or avoiding a ram is so pervasive in the system that it doesn't match with what most people feel should be the experience of being a fleet commander in a space battle. This game is an experience game. It's trying to give people the experience of commanding a Star Wars armada. While there are obviously a lot of abstractions, people want the core decision making to propel them towards what it would feel like to be Admiral what's-his-face at the battle of whatever. It's not that people don't intuitively understand that maneuvering to be in an enemy ship's weakest arc makes sense. Of course it does. But, due to the short ranges inherent in the game, that brings ramming and blocking into the limelight in a way that, I would argue, just doesn't feel right. There are, after all, no Star Wars battles from the films (that I recall) in which a ship's captain intentionally rammed another in order to physically prevent that ship's movement.

It's that the game encourages you to strategically block (aka ram) certain ships at certain times as a primary tactic. Fleets are designed with this tactic in mind. It's just another tool in the toolbox and if you're flying without that tool available, you're behind the eight-ball.

I for one would welcome some sort of change or adjustment that would address that dissonance between what I see in the movies and what I see on the game table.

Nope, still just fine as a mechanic. Take more navs and drive better.

It's pretty hard to find two ships stuck in a truly inescapable nose-to-nose ramming scenario that neither player wants to be in; if you and an opponent do, you need to take a step back and figure out what you did to get yourselves there and how to either fix it or take advantage of it in the future. Because in this case, the mechanic truly is just punishing poor flying, much like flying off the table does.

Yes because we all know that each of the four edges of the table is lined with an invisible Death(star) laser ray, that is permanently switched on like an electric fence, and will incinerate any ship or squadron, that would dare to leave the thunderdome cage of death.

I'm not sure what your point is. This is a game, and as such requires certain concessions to reality. "Stay in the play area" is one.

Even so, it's not such a terribly unrealistic mechanic. If you have to, tell yourself that you're part of a larger fleet action and have been constrained by your commander to limit your flight envelope to certain parameters as an organizational tool, or because there is a civilian traffic lane nearby, or a subspace rift, or <insert excuse here>. This is consistent with real world military action, in which aircraft are very commonly restricted to operate only within a well-defined airspace or face potentially significant consequences. Maybe your ships aren't destroyed by leaving your AoR, but instead removed from your command for failing to follow orders.

So, people are upset becuase they don't plan navigate commands or plan out moves?

No, it's because the idea of maneuvering with the intent of ramming or avoiding a ram is so pervasive in the system that it doesn't match with what most people feel should be the experience of being a fleet commander in a space battle. This game is an experience game. It's trying to give people the experience of commanding a Star Wars armada. While there are obviously a lot of abstractions, people want the core decision making to propel them towards what it would feel like to be Admiral what's-his-face at the battle of whatever. It's not that people don't intuitively understand that maneuvering to be in an enemy ship's weakest arc makes sense. Of course it does. But, due to the short ranges inherent in the game, that brings ramming and blocking into the limelight in a way that, I would argue, just doesn't feel right. There are, after all, no Star Wars battles from the films (that I recall) in which a ship's captain intentionally rammed another in order to physically prevent that ship's movement.

It's that the game encourages you to strategically block (aka ram) certain ships at certain times as a primary tactic. Fleets are designed with this tactic in mind. It's just another tool in the toolbox and if you're flying without that tool available, you're behind the eight-ball.

I for one would welcome some sort of change or adjustment that would address that dissonance between what I see in the movies and what I see on the game table.

So your entire argument boils down to "It was never in the movies". You do understand how silly that is right? By that logic, ISD's should cost 50 points becuase there was a movie that had a ton of them in a single scene, or we could go with squadrons able to suicide ships when their shields are down becuase it was in a movie. Want me to continue?

This has been stated in many threads over this forum. This is a game. There are limitations and considerations when designing a game. FFG knew that, saw what bumping does in X-Wing and made rams. It's not about preventing a ship from moving though that is something they figured would occur. No, it is about adding in a method for people to build fleets that will allow them to have a multitude of options and designs to choose from.

Ramming is a thing, I used it today and stopped MC80 in its tracks. That is a strategy. What you want is to take away those types of strategy, you want to take away a punishment for bad commanding and moving. Sorry, I like the difficulty of this game. It makes it a challenge

I find ramming to be by far the worst aspect of the game. Not because ramming is possible but because it's often unavoidable and worse, the situation can persist for a number of turns.

It (IMHO) reduces the otherwise excellent game to blocking maneuvers and ramming avoidance. I see it's going to get much worse with the forward arc Liberty.

Soo.. whilst I don't expect any official change to the rules, I will be playing with an alternative and I would like to ask for feedback on what you think will work best.

1) Remove ramming all together, just displace the smaller ship by the minimum necessary and let the smaller ship choose if there is a choice

2) Allow ramming as written but also displace the smaller ship as above

3) #2 and allow a ship to spend an evade defence token to avoid ramming damage

4) Something else entirely

I would say that my experience is very different, I can not remember the last time I rammed someone. It is hard to remember the last time I was even in black dice range of another ship, so ramming is something that is done mostly on purpose from what I have seen.

Hmm ramming.

The worst thing of the ramming rulles is that a single Small ship can block the path for a large ship.

An ISD or MC80 would obviously suffer some damage running into a Raider or CR90. But to be stopped cold by them is ridiculous, they would for real just plow on, pushing the smaller ship aside.

My suggestion would be, that the larger of the two ships will be able to overlap the smaller and the smaller would then be placed in base contact next to the large one. as if it was a squadron. but it has to be placed on the side facing of the large ones base it overlapped the most, with its own facing that overlapped the large one facing it.

Both ship will still get damaged, but this whole blocking and preventing the other side ships moving forward, will be gotten rid of.

In short the two ships facings, facing each other, will dictate where the smaller ship is placed.

just my 2 pennies

I kind of like this, but just to keep it simple I would have the larger of the two ships make it full move, and the smaller of them would then be placed touching in the same orientation that it was. So in effect the smaller ship gets pushed back, not 100% realistic but it is a game and this stops the little ship from blocking a larger (not sure this is really an issue but).

This is not a ram?

This is not a ram?

Not intentionally...

Oh wait, that happens in Armada too.

So, people are upset becuase they don't plan navigate commands or plan out moves?

No, it's because the idea of maneuvering with the intent of ramming or avoiding a ram is so pervasive in the system that it doesn't match with what most people feel should be the experience of being a fleet commander in a space battle. This game is an experience game. It's trying to give people the experience of commanding a Star Wars armada. While there are obviously a lot of abstractions, people want the core decision making to propel them towards what it would feel like to be Admiral what's-his-face at the battle of whatever. It's not that people don't intuitively understand that maneuvering to be in an enemy ship's weakest arc makes sense. Of course it does. But, due to the short ranges inherent in the game, that brings ramming and blocking into the limelight in a way that, I would argue, just doesn't feel right. There are, after all, no Star Wars battles from the films (that I recall) in which a ship's captain intentionally rammed another in order to physically prevent that ship's movement.

It's that the game encourages you to strategically block (aka ram) certain ships at certain times as a primary tactic. Fleets are designed with this tactic in mind. It's just another tool in the toolbox and if you're flying without that tool available, you're behind the eight-ball.

I for one would welcome some sort of change or adjustment that would address that dissonance between what I see in the movies and what I see on the game table.

So your entire argument boils down to "It was never in the movies". You do understand how silly that is right? By that logic, ISD's should cost 50 points becuase there was a movie that had a ton of them in a single scene, or we could go with squadrons able to suicide ships when their shields are down becuase it was in a movie. Want me to continue?

No, that is not my point. My point was in fact written in the very first sentence to which I then expanded upon with the following sentences. I call these paragraphs. My points is that ramming as a dominant strategy does not enhance the experience that the game, I believe, is trying to create. I also agree with you that the game, is in fact a game. It's an abstraction sure enough. I in fact said so, in my post. Thank you though for pointing it out again. We can at least agree on something.

In response, I could boil down your point to: I have formed strategies for the way things are and I like it. So there!

But, that's not the helpful either. It has nothing to do with what your strategies are or what mine are. The simple question is, is a meta that in a good part revolves around ramming a good thing? I think no. I think it works against the narrative they are trying to convey and in fact reduces strategies. I think more maneuvering and not less, is a good thing. I think the prevalence of ramming detracts from the narrative of a player commanding his star wars fleet. The existence of ramming is fine. It's fun actually. I'm talking about how crucial it has become to the game. It is, I believe, more center stage than it really ought to be. That's all. You obviously disagree and that's okay. I hope you can at least grasp what I'm getting at though. Considering the number of responses in this topic, I think I may not be the only person with this feeling. Feel free not to use hyperbole in your response.

For the record, I enjoy Armada very much and think it's a great game. I just think it could be a little better.

Formed strategies based on how hey are. Sure I have. I don't have direct control over he game, your faction of people who dislike the system are few and so it is unlikely to change. In fact, you seem to be looking at it from one aspect and that is blocking. That is not the only thing that can occur, you can ram yourself, on purpose or accidently, thus creating a level difficulty in movement. You actually have to plan your move.

Let's me give you a bit of reference. The Space Combat of Star Wars is based off water based naval combat. Dog fights are based off of actual airbase dogfights. This means that combat in Star Wars is handled mainly in a 2d setting. This was showing in the movies, books, and other media.

Let's move into the point shall we. What do you think would happen if a Destroyer sized ship in on water blocked a Battlecruiser sized naval ship? Do you think the Battlecruiser would just keep moving?

Now, the crux, you say Armada could be better, how? How can you change the system but keep the consequences, strategies, and balance in check. How would you change this without compromising these things?

Oh if your meta revolves around ramming, I am sorry. I don't have that issue, the people who focused on that soon learned that I am not going to play into that game. I countered by stringing their units out and forcing them to come to me. It is a simple tactic but it takes practice to implement. Oh and toss more navigation commands in. You would be surprised what you can dodge with a single click.

I'd actually say that more than ramming, I feel blocking is more of how this has occurred. Smart players block their opponent, and the only effective way to do that in Armada is to block with a ship. and I find that to be perfectly OK. That takes a certain level of skill and practice to perform consistently.

If you mean ramming as in "here's a dozen TRC's playing into your side, no defense tokens for you" then wow that's something else entirely and frankly, I suspect that it is something that can be countered by a combination of smart maneuvering and upgrade selection.

I'd actually say that more than ramming, I feel blocking is more of how this has occurred. Smart players block their opponent, and the only effective way to do that in Armada is to block with a ship. and I find that to be perfectly OK. That takes a certain level of skill and practice to perform consistently.

If you mean ramming as in "here's a dozen TRC's playing into your side, no defense tokens for you" then wow that's something else entirely and frankly, I suspect that it is something that can be countered by a combination of smart maneuvering and upgrade selection.

The lowly Navigate command. A strong command that can get ships to fit into places that they normally could not.

The real issue with the ramming mechanics is that it makes navigate far more powerful than all other commands in most circumstances. Is this a good thing? Who knows.

Repair a hull, or dodge a ram?

Get an extra attack dice, or get a double arc?

Activate Squads, or ... nah that one is still good.

The real issue with the ramming mechanics is that it makes navigate far more powerful than all other commands in most circumstances. Is this a good thing? Who knows.

Repair a hull, or dodge a ram?

Get an extra attack dice, or get a double arc?

Activate Squads, or ... nah that one is still good.

The real issue with the ramming mechanics is that it makes navigate far more powerful than all other commands in most circumstances. Is this a good thing? Who knows.

Repair a hull, or dodge a ram?

Get an extra attack dice, or get a double arc?

Activate Squads, or ... nah that one is still good.

All he commands are good but they have their own place I think. Navigate commands SHOULD be the most powerful becuase Navigating is what many people consider the most important aspect of the game there is. It is a skill that needs to be mastered and refined constantly and thus the most important aspect of the game should be backed by the most powerful command.

Nah, it would be better if all 4 commands had great utility. Me, I'm taking Navigate most of the time.

I'm on the side that ramming doesn't feel quite right in the way it has been abstracted in the game, especially given the 3D aspects of space.

I'll concede a better suggested alternative doesn't spring to mind - so not that helpful I know. In all games I like to mentally process what is being abstracted and that helps with my enjoyment of the game. In ramming "double-taps" the beep-beep-beep of a reversing truck is what springs to mind before it rams again... not quite Star-Warsy or Space Battlesy for me.

OK, two things, first a question how many have ramming happen all the time? In my area it does not happen much, we have one player who does about 90% of the rams, and most of the time it was not his plan. Second I think that the Navigate command is the least useful one of all of them (unless you have no squadrons), at least for my play style.