Smaller ships taking more damage from bumps is flawed for one reason, the one I mentioned upthread:

Bumps don't represent collisions, they represent the stress on the hull from AVOIDING the collision.

Ships die when they collide with each other, but that doesn't mean suddenly taking your ship through a 45 degree turn is consequence-free.

This is just like X-Wing, where bumps don't represent actual collisions, and the reason you don't get an action when you bump is because you're frantically wrestling the controls to AVOID hitting the other ship - but smaller ships have more stress-resilient frames and don't take damage.

If anything, in a more 'realistic' system, smaller ships would take LESS damage from bumps, because more compact means more maneuverable and more stress resistant... but we don't want that. At ALL.

I've been wargaming for a quarter of a century, and as far as space fleet battle systems go I've played Starfleet Battles, Full Thrust, Battlefleet Gothic, three versions of Battletech's space system, a deranged attempt to use Traveller, and even a homebrew system I made where you built the ships out of Lego and different parts had different attack/defense/speed values and you had to have a certain number of 4x2 bricks to power each set of... never mind.

In all, I find Armada to be pretty good. Not the most 'realistic' (that'd be the latest iteration of Battletech in the Strat Ops book, but I won't bore you with why and you'd probably be bored playing it!), and the most crucial complaint I have is the imprecise measurement and the clumsiness of the main maneuver tool (that and how strong Intel is, dammit, it makes fighter screens almost totally worthless and turns the fighter minigame into "Kill the Escort, kill the Intel"), but overall...

It FEELS like Star Wars fleet battles should. Ships hammering at each other as their shields go down and back up, fighters as both crucial weapon and vital shield, over-the-top colorful characters in command that change the very nature of how their fleets play...

If it didn't have such a bigfoot initial pricetag, I'd love recommending it to more people.

3 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

how strong Intel is, dammit, it makes fighter screens almost totally worthless and turns the fighter minigame into "Kill the Escort, kill the Intel"), but overall...

Yup. Thats where I sit.

2 minutes ago, iamfanboy said:

a homebrew system I made where you built the ships out of Lego and different parts had different attack/defense/speed values and you had to have a certain number of 4x2 bricks to power each set of... never mind.

I've said for a while now that Lego needs to make rule books for a table top mini-fig game. I could really see that being a lot of fun even if it was made kid friendly with super simple rules.

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Yup. Thats where I sit.

I think Intel should be the subject of the next nerfing - maybe it should only make ships it's physically touching Heavy, maybe it should grant a limited number of allies "Grit+, the ability to ignore engagement" - but as far as complaints go, it's not nearly as bad as a lot of other fleet battle systems I've played.

2 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

I've said for a while now that Lego needs to make rule books for a table top mini-fig game. I could really see that being a lot of fun even if it was made kid friendly with super simple rules.

Well, I was a 13-year-old boy when I created the system (and probably would have been beaten up a lot but for my tendency to go into literal berserker rages!) and it was a lot of fun. Too bad my entire and only rulebook was lost when my mother gave away my Legos while I was in the Navy... almost twenty years and it still pisses me off.

1 minute ago, iamfanboy said:

Well, I was a 13-year-old boy when I created the system (and probably would have been beaten up a lot but for my tendency to go into literal berserker rages!) and it was a lot of fun. Too bad my entire and only rulebook was lost when my mother gave away my Legos while I was in the Navy... almost twenty years and it still pisses me off.

I like to send my parents links to Ebay items that I used to have that they threw out so that they can see what they cost now. Lego however was one of those things that they did keep and now my nephew has a bathtub size storage container full.

Am I allowed to state that I think Intel is fine, relay is fine, ramming is fine, objective choice is fine, and how squadrons work now (simpler is better) seem fine to me? OP can have his opinion, as can everyone, but for a simple enough system that people can get a game in with, I like how it is.

This thread is making me feel like I should take Ketsu Onyo out for a spin. Except, I'm not really running into problems with killing Intel myself (133 points of Turbo Ties fixes that problem), so it seems kind of unnecessary.

Just now, geek19 said:

Am I allowed to state that I think Intel is fine, relay is fine, ramming is fine, objective choice is fine, and how squadrons work now (simpler is better) seem fine to me? OP can have his opinion, as can everyone, but for a simple enough system that people can get a game in with, I like how it is.

Why wouldn't you be allowed to? What do you think this is, the X-Wing subforum, where anyone with a slightly different point of view is immediately urinated on from ten different directions? Unless it involves the Sun Crusher, in which case that person deserves it.

And don't get me wrong. The 'problems' I have aren't big things, or even medium things - they don't break the game or make it unplayable, just inconvenient, annoying, or boring. It's just that they COULD be better. Even if perfection is only an attribute of the Divine, that does not free us from the obligation to strive for it in all things.

20 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

I think Intel should be the subject of the next nerfing - maybe it should only make ships it's physically touching Heavy, maybe it should grant a limited number of allies "Grit+, the ability to ignore engagement" - but as far as complaints go, it's not nearly as bad as a lot of other fleet battle systems I've played.

Well, you hit my big complaint. NERFS!!!

Personally, I would rather see a counter added to the game than have an existing component nerfed. Nerfs just leave a bad taste in my mouth, and useless cards in my collection. As it is I need to check the Nerf PDF anytime I build or look up an old list, just to see if the Nerf has retroactively neutered my plan. It is a pain in the ****! You want to Nerf something, then F-ing print a card, and put it in an expansion pack! I'm not even asking for free replacement cards. I just want them available when the Nerf goes into effect. I shouldn't need a PDF to tell my what the cards in front of me actually do!

No more NERFS! Fix Intel, by giving me a Squadron or upgrade that cancels it, not by changing Intel, so I have something else to look up...

At least X-WING got some new cards in the new core. Armada, we get something else to look up.

Ok, I'm done for now.

Snipe is what they added to the game to combat Intel. It works and you have to use it if you want to kill Intel. Removing Intel entirely would bring us back to the days where a token squad force could tie up any number of squads long enough to run over the carrier group. It's a fine line of Intel being too powerful and no Intel allowing an easy way to lock down lots of squads.

This is why you often see Jendon and Saber squadron. Empire's only Snipe squad is Saber.

EDIT: With Flotillas, it's possible that removing Intel won't make carrier groups super vulnerable to MSU, since they can "scatter" all over the map and are hard to kill, and can use Relay. Who knows?

my only complaint is the Tournament Stucture and scoring

Since I'm always loathe to provide "complaints" without "Solutions"....

My main complaint is competition in slots .

The solution is time and development . Shifting the Meta and providing alternatives. Since an alternative choice in one slot can make follow-on slot choices just as important, if not more so.

For the longest time, ECM was king in Defensive. There was little to no reason to change to anything else. Then Triple Tap Demo and RBD made a shot of it. And the prolification of Avenger (where no Defensive Retro really helps) and Bombers (where other Defensive retros help more) are taking a lot of its shine off, which is good.

Same for Gunnery Teams. For the longest time, that was all you saw... But now Boarding Teams/Engineers and Flight Controllers are pushing some competition with that slot, and I am convinced that when we get some really awesome critical effects that recquire discarding of dice (since they'd be even more powerful), then Fire Control will see a look in, too.

Contrast with teh competition in the Officer Slot. For both sides, that competition is hot depending on your build... I wish every slot was like that. Filled with Difficult choices.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Since I'm always loathe to provide "complaints" without "Solutions"....

My main complaint is competition in slots .

The solution is time and development . Shifting the Meta and providing alternatives. Since an alternative choice in one slot can make follow-on slot choices just as important, if not more so.

For the longest time, ECM was king in Defensive. There was little to no reason to change to anything else. Then Triple Tap Demo and RBD made a shot of it. And the prolification of Avenger (where no Defensive Retro really helps) and Bombers (where other Defensive retros help more) are taking a lot of its shine off, which is good.

Same for Gunnery Teams. For the longest time, that was all you saw... But now Boarding Teams/Engineers and Flight Controllers are pushing some competition with that slot, and I am convinced that when we get some really awesome critical effects that recquire discarding of dice (since they'd be even more powerful), then Fire Control will see a look in, too.

Contrast with teh competition in the Officer Slot. For both sides, that competition is hot depending on your build... I wish every slot was like that. Filled with Difficult choices.

I have a big variation of that same principle: Its odd to say this, but - opportunity cost choice is very important... yet, what is more important is that choices are not about the most efficient or most meta-countering, and are instead required by being able to satisfy different objectives, other requirements than simply "solving" the game in its most efficient state.

While most choices do end up becoming based on efficiency (even adding 1 strategic to a squad is because you get more points from it than say adding another Bwing), there are certain cases that something different drives opportunity cost choice:

Playstyle - when an upgrade radically changes the flight pattern and choices and set up of the list that it is an alternative to the other most effective method.

Out-of-battle requirements - Say if the game had a patrol mode you had to do to gain resources, then this is two game modes you need your list to do well in.

An example of this is in Starcraft micro - certain players would learn how to use and nano-second real-time control a certain set of units. It became a signature, it became a personal meta to play around. It rewarded personal practice, and countering said person's style.

Example 2 is like a role-play game where the Dwarf learns to fight with a pickaxe. Yes, a sword is much better for combat, and he CAN use a sword, but for either story or carry-load reasons, he typically has a pickaxe in situations of self-defense.

A non-example: Slaved Turrets vs Enhanced Armaments in Arquitens. Yes, this changes the flight play style, but largely this is a cost efficiency question: since trying to Ackbar slash with the small ship Arquitens tends to be much more dangerous, and the opportunity does not present itself much.

Right now, most choices in this game are finding out which upgrade is the most efficient and work well with the play style of the list, as opposed to being a choice that completely alters the play style. This is the fundamental issue of balancing only through point costs.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Since I'm always loathe to provide "complaints" without "Solutions"....

My main complaint is competition in slots .

The solution is time and development . Shifting the Meta and providing alternatives. Since an alternative choice in one slot can make follow-on slot choices just as important, if not more so.

For the longest time, ECM was king in Defensive. There was little to no reason to change to anything else. Then Triple Tap Demo and RBD made a shot of it. And the prolification of Avenger (where no Defensive Retro really helps) and Bombers (where other Defensive retros help more) are taking a lot of its shine off, which is good.

Same for Gunnery Teams. For the longest time, that was all you saw... But now Boarding Teams/Engineers and Flight Controllers are pushing some competition with that slot, and I am convinced that when we get some really awesome critical effects that recquire discarding of dice (since they'd be even more powerful), then Fire Control will see a look in, too.

Contrast with the competition in the Officer Slot. For both sides, that competition is hot depending on your build... I wish every slot was like that. Filled with Difficult choices.

I would agree with this. Another way I would put it, if there are multiple viable options, you are now optimizing your fleet for your specific mission set/playstyle, even as someone else can load out similar ships for a different synergy to fit their style.

57 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I would agree with this. Another way I would put it, if there are multiple viable options, you are now optimizing your fleet for your specific mission set/playstyle, even as someone else can load out similar ships for a different synergy to fit their style.

And in addition, with more options it's harder to predict WHAT your opponent will do.

If you see a Gladiator, you know it's a Demolisher and will probably try to triple-tap you at some point. If the other title was better, like "You may remove one dice from your attacking pool to add a blue dice set to Accuracy" or something like that, THEN you'd see some variety in what Glads do on the battlefield.

Lack of variety and competition in upgrades is BORING, and a game should NEVER be boring.

16 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

And in addition, with more options it's harder to predict WHAT your opponent will do.

If you see a Gladiator, you know it's a Demolisher and will probably try to triple-tap you at some point. If the other title was better, like "You may remove one dice from your attacking pool to add a blue dice set to Accuracy" or something like that, THEN you'd see some variety in what Glads do on the battlefield.

Lack of variety and competition in upgrades is BORING, and a game should NEVER be boring.

We definitely need more titles, I would like more unique squads as well. We are starting our next CC and we are borrowing from a user here (sorry I forget who - totally want to give them credit) and we are building out 9 fleets (soon a 10th) per side for each admiral and we are requiring the use a of a title on each ship, but there are only a few and really only a few that really worth taking, so many bland titles most are not worth the cost.

On 9/28/2017 at 7:25 AM, cynanbloodbane said:

Well, you hit my big complaint. NERFS!!!

Personally, I would rather see a counter added to the game than have an existing component nerfed. Nerfs just leave a bad taste in my mouth, and useless cards in my collection. As it is I need to check the Nerf PDF anytime I build or look up an old list, just to see if the Nerf has retroactively neutered my plan. It is a pain in the ****! You want to Nerf something, then F-ing print a card, and put it in an expansion pack! I'm not even asking for free replacement cards. I just want them available when the Nerf goes into effect. I shouldn't need a PDF to tell my what the cards in front of me actually do!

No more NERFS! Fix Intel, by giving me a Squadron or upgrade that cancels it, not by changing Intel, so I have something else to look up...

Wow, can't believe that I missed this post...

The power creep in X-Wing can be directly attributed to an unwillingness to nerf properly . TIE Phantoms were almost unbeatable except by PWTs when they first arrived, and it was almost half a year before they finally corrected that. In that summer, people found the power of arc-dodging PWTs, which were 'nerfed' by the introduction of Autothrusters - which led to the dominance of high PS arc dodgers like Soontir Fel, which were then 'nerfed' by the introduction of GOOD bombs, which are going to be 'nerfed' by...?

And this isn't even touching on the Jumpmaster 5000 situation, where it's survived three 'nerfs' and is still one of the top ships because they refuse to nerf the ACTUAL problem (too cheap with too many upgrade slots), so it's dominated the game consistently since its release almost two years ago .

Well, the actual ACTUAL problem is that everything prior to wave 6 is overcosted by 1-5 points, (and some Wave 6 and 7 is, like the Punisher!) so the only X-Wings you see are piloted by Biggs Darklighter, the only TIE Fighters you see are stolen by Sabine, and while Darth Vader may be making a resurgence every other iconic ship (A-Wings? B-Wings? Interceptors? Y-Wings? Falcons?) or pilot (Wedge? Soontir? Chewie? Tycho? Mauler Mithel?) are flown by chumps actively trying to lose.

Compared to that hot mess, Armada is a haven. At least I can bring CR90s and X-Wings to the table and not worry about losing to "New Toy! Available for only $19.99!" which I barely even recognize as being Star Wars.

Armada has one major advantage that most of the other FFG games do not, Objectives. In the end, you can actually change the rules of the game by adding objectives, which can morph the rules of the game into something completely unrecognizable. This means that instead of using upgrades and new ships to alter the meta, which anyone can take, you can make dynamic and unpredictable changes. Lessons were learned from CC, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some objectives dropped from competitive play when we get another set (looking at you most wanted).

The bidding debate has long been one of the more interesting ones in Armada. Some bid to go first, some bid to go second, and some thinking bidding is dumb. So expanding this debate with more objectives would be interesting, and less intrusive than rules changes.

None of the above even considers the idea of adding new mechanics to the game setup, which was kind of attempted with the Interdictor to (almost) no avail.

In the longer term, FFG probably would have been better served to print all cards with no costs on them, and created their own fleet builder app. Very few people build their fleets on paper. This would allow costs to change on cards without reprints. Effectively solving the entire nerfing problem. Interesting mental exercise, what would it do to the meta if an unarmed transport cost 20-22 instead of 18? an Interdictor 80-85 instead of 90?

On 9/27/2017 at 10:49 AM, iamfanboy said:

Smaller ships taking more damage from bumps is flawed for one reason, the one I mentioned upthread:

Bumps don't represent collisions, they represent the stress on the hull from AVOIDING the collision.

Ships die when they collide with each other, but that doesn't mean suddenly taking your ship through a 45 degree turn is consequence-free.

This is just like X-Wing, where bumps don't represent actual collisions, and the reason you don't get an action when you bump is because you're frantically wrestling the controls to AVOID hitting the other ship - but smaller ships have more stress-resilient frames and don't take damage.

If anything, in a more 'realistic' system, smaller ships would take LESS damage from bumps, because more compact means more maneuverable and more stress resistant... but we don't want that. At ALL.

...

I see two things with this, first bumps may or may not represent collisions, as some ships are build tougher than others. I know that this is not real life and we are not talking WWII naval, but that is where a lot of the stuff for it comes from. You have ships that were built to ram, and others that did ram and did not even know that they hit the other ship. So I can see it being both some it is the stress from avoiding the collision, other it is the damage from the collision. As for the small ships taking less damage that is just not the case all the time, (I would even say most of the time). A smaller ship may be more maneuverable and stress resistant, but of all the ships released to date the GR-75 would be the least stress resistant (and it is the smallest) by being a cargo ship it is going to be more open, and built to a more open and less sturdy but able to fit more cargo.

1 hour ago, CDAT said:

I see two things with this, first bumps may or may not represent collisions, as some ships are build tougher than others. I know that this is not real life and we are not talking WWII naval, but that is where a lot of the stuff for it comes from. You have ships that were built to ram, and others that did ram and did not even know that they hit the other ship. So I can see it being both some it is the stress from avoiding the collision, other it is the damage from the collision. As for the small ships taking less damage that is just not the case all the time, (I would even say most of the time). A smaller ship may be more maneuverable and stress resistant, but of all the ships released to date the GR-75 would be the least stress resistant (and it is the smallest) by being a cargo ship it is going to be more open, and built to a more open and less sturdy but able to fit more cargo.

Ships haven't been designed to ram since ancient triremes during Roman times. Somewhere between 100 and 150 thousand people lost their lives in maritime collisions during World War II. It was NEVER done intentionally, and almost all of them were 'friendly' collisions; WWII ship combat was point blank if you were half a mile away, let alone close enough to kiss.

You're conflating two different concepts: damage resistance and stress resistance (I mean, the game does too, but they are two different things!)

The difference in DAMAGE resistance between a large ship and a small ship is easy to explain - a bigger ship can not only carry more armor, but also has more compartments and emergency bulkheads in case of breaches, carries more guns so it's harder to neuter, and so on.

Stress resistance...

Okay, grab an empty soda can and crush it. It reaches a point where you can't crush it any further, yes? If someone wanted to, they COULD reinforce the inside of the empty soda can to the point where you couldn't crush it to begin with, but it would take a lot of materials (or, ya know, not drinking it in the first place!)

Now, stress is an interior force, not an exterior force, so this isn't an EXACT approximation, but smaller ships are inherently more stress-resistant. If a speedboat, a destroyer, and a carrier were moving at the same speed (50 MPH) and turned in a tight-but-doable radius for the speedboat, everything inside the destroyer would be thrown violently around, and the interior of the carrier would be shredded from the forces involved.

Or to take that soda can analogy, throwing it against a wall would be imperceptible on the crushed can, put a ding in the empty can, or make the full can absolutely EXPLODE.

Or the kind of turn that an X-Wing could laugh off would be hard for a YT-1300, damaging for a CR90, and ruinous for an MC80.

That's why bumps in X-Wing don't do damage for representing the "evasive action" situation (Oicunn excepted because he's awesome), but do that damage for larger ships. We just don't stage the damage down for smaller ships for evenhandedness and simplification of rules.

As a side note, intentional collisions in the Battletech universe were one of the most common ways for authors to dispose of that pesky category of interstellar combat ship once they became unfashionable to said authors. We used to joke about how "Fox Corvettes were the most expensive fire-and-forget missile that the Federated Suns ever developed", so many of them died at ramming speeds.

1 hour ago, iamfanboy said:

Ships haven't been designed to ram since ancient triremes during Roman times. Somewhere between 100 and 150 thousand people lost their lives in maritime collisions during World War II. It was NEVER done intentionally, and almost all of them were 'friendly' collisions; WWII ship combat was point blank if you were half a mile away, let alone close enough to kiss.

You're conflating two different concepts: damage resistance and stress resistance (I mean, the game does too, but they are two different things!)

In before @Gilad Pellaeon !

*puts on professorial glasses*

Technically, the late 1800's saw a revival of ramming as a tactic, as armour development outstripped gun development and naval theorists looked for alternative ways to sink ironclads (since cannon rounds just bounced off the armour of the day - see Monitor vs Merrimack).

The thinking extended into the 1880's, when HMS Polyphemus was launched with a torpedo ram bow.

But as gun tech improved the idea was abandoned and yes, future "ram bows" were intended to affect speed, not tactics.

What @iamfanboy says about stress is very true - ships designed with highly stressed hulls were viewed as more prone to failure (like HMS Hood, with heavy guns at the ends of a very long hull).

*removed professorial glasses (purchased from the local dollar store)*

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

1 hour ago, Maturin said:

In before @Gilad Pellaeon !

*puts on professorial glasses*

Technically, the late 1800's saw a revival of ramming as a tactic, as armour development outstripped gun development and naval theorists looked for alternative ways to sink ironclads (since cannon rounds just bounced off the armour of the day - see Monitor vs Merrimack).

The thinking extended into the 1880's, when HMS Polyphemus was launched with a torpedo ram bow.

But as gun tech improved the idea was abandoned and yes, future "ram bows" were intended to affect speed, not tactics.

What @iamfanboy says about stress is very true - ships designed with highly stressed hulls were viewed as more prone to failure (like HMS Hood, with heavy guns at the ends of a very long hull).

*removed professorial glasses (purchased from the local dollar store)*

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

3 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

Ships haven't been designed to ram since ancient triremes during Roman times. Somewhere between 100 and 150 thousand people lost their lives in maritime collisions during World War II. It was NEVER done intentionally, and almost all of them were 'friendly' collisions; WWII ship combat was point blank if you were half a mile away, let alone close enough to kiss.

You're conflating two different concepts: damage resistance and stress resistance (I mean, the game does too, but they are two different things!)

The difference in DAMAGE resistance between a large ship and a small ship is easy to explain - a bigger ship can not only carry more armor, but also has more compartments and emergency bulkheads in case of breaches, carries more guns so it's harder to neuter, and so on.

Stress resistance...

Okay, grab an empty soda can and crush it. It reaches a point where you can't crush it any further, yes? If someone wanted to, they COULD reinforce the inside of the empty soda can to the point where you couldn't crush it to begin with, but it would take a lot of materials (or, ya know, not drinking it in the first place!)

Now, stress is an interior force, not an exterior force, so this isn't an EXACT approximation, but smaller ships are inherently more stress-resistant. If a speedboat, a destroyer, and a carrier were moving at the same speed (50 MPH) and turned in a tight-but-doable radius for the speedboat, everything inside the destroyer would be thrown violently around, and the interior of the carrier would be shredded from the forces involved.

Or to take that soda can analogy, throwing it against a wall would be imperceptible on the crushed can, put a ding in the empty can, or make the full can absolutely EXPLODE.

Or the kind of turn that an X-Wing could laugh off would be hard for a YT-1300, damaging for a CR90, and ruinous for an MC80.

That's why bumps in X-Wing don't do damage for representing the "evasive action" situation (Oicunn excepted because he's awesome), but do that damage for larger ships. We just don't stage the damage down for smaller ships for evenhandedness and simplification of rules.

As a side note, intentional collisions in the Battletech universe were one of the most common ways for authors to dispose of that pesky category of interstellar combat ship once they became unfashionable to said authors. We used to joke about how "Fox Corvettes were the most expensive fire-and-forget missile that the Federated Suns ever developed", so many of them died at ramming speeds.

So I did a quick search and came up with more than 15 times that ramming was used as an attack, not one of them was done accidentally, and none were blue on blue, so you might want to check your facts before you get up on your high horse. Is it a good tactic no, will it damage or destroy the one doing the ramming, maybe. On the other hand if you are much larger it is also possible that you would take less damage from ramming than trying to execute extreme maneuvers to not hit. Now if you want to know my thoughts on ramming in the game, I do not like it, but just saying your high horse facts are not true. Now reading what I had posted I can see that I made it look like I was saying that all ships in WWII were made to ram, that is (as was pointed out) wrong.

1 hour ago, CDAT said:

So I did a quick search and came up with more than 15 times that ramming was used as an attack, not one of them was done accidentally, and none were blue on blue, so you might want to check your facts before you get up on your high horse. Is it a good tactic no, will it damage or destroy the one doing the ramming, maybe. On the other hand if you are much larger it is also possible that you would take less damage from ramming than trying to execute extreme maneuvers to not hit. Now if you want to know my thoughts on ramming in the game, I do not like it, but just saying your high horse facts are not true. Now reading what I had posted I can see that I made it look like I was saying that all ships in WWII were made to ram, that is (as was pointed out) wrong.

Ah, yes, nothing more dangerous than someone on the Internet with the dread fear of being wrong , doing just enough research to make themselves feel better without getting any more context.

Less than thirty ships destroyed out of literally three thousand combat ships sunk during WWII, and you want to call it a 'tactic'? That's 0.01% of combat losses. There were more combat ships lost to accidental ammunition explosions.

There were NO ships built to ram in WWII - the most common idea was reinforced keels to let destroyers run over subs, fielded by the British, and even THAT did so much damage to the destroyers that they officially discontinued the idea in 1943, and resulted in possibly two subs destroyed for the cost of a year in drydock.

Your laserlike focus on this (lest you be, gasp, incorrect about something on the Internet) also fails in another important respect: When are ramming tactics EVER used in the Star Wars universe? Even in the EU, it's rare, and we've seen two canon examples, both of which result in ships dying immediately : the second ISD over Scarif in Rogue One, and the Interdictor/captured Quasar Fire in the season finale of Rebels season 3. These reinforce my points:

1) Collisions result in ships dying

2) Armada bumps cannot be actual collisions if they only deal one damage

3) Therefore, they have to be something else

4) The stress on the hull from avoiding collisions is the logical choice.

(The Lightmaker was more gently nudging the first ISD over Scarif, so it's less a collision and more an involuntary thruster movement.)

"High Horse"? More like "Actual knowledge". I was mostly just trying to give you a bit more information, in case you were mistaken or mixed up with some of the stuff from the 1870-1900 period when ship armor was better than ship guns. But now I officially know you have no real knowledge to contribute on either real naval warfare or made-up Star Wars warfare. Sad, really.

1 hour ago, iamfanboy said:

Ah, yes, nothing more dangerous than someone on the Internet with the dread fear of being wrong , doing just enough research to make themselves feel better without getting any more context.

Less than thirty ships destroyed out of literally three thousand combat ships sunk during WWII, and you want to call it a 'tactic'? That's 0.01% of combat losses. There were more combat ships lost to accidental ammunition explosions.

There were NO ships built to ram in WWII - the most common idea was reinforced keels to let destroyers run over subs, fielded by the British, and even THAT did so much damage to the destroyers that they officially discontinued the idea in 1943, and resulted in possibly two subs destroyed for the cost of a year in drydock.

Your laserlike focus on this (lest you be, gasp, incorrect about something on the Internet) also fails in another important respect: When are ramming tactics EVER used in the Star Wars universe? Even in the EU, it's rare, and we've seen two canon examples, both of which result in ships dying immediately : the second ISD over Scarif in Rogue One, and the Interdictor/captured Quasar Fire in the season finale of Rebels season 3. These reinforce my points:

1) Collisions result in ships dying

2) Armada bumps cannot be actual collisions if they only deal one damage

3) Therefore, they have to be something else

4) The stress on the hull from avoiding collisions is the logical choice.

(The Lightmaker was more gently nudging the first ISD over Scarif, so it's less a collision and more an involuntary thruster movement.)

"High Horse"? More like "Actual knowledge". I was mostly just trying to give you a bit more information, in case you were mistaken or mixed up with some of the stuff from the 1870-1900 period when ship armor was better than ship guns. But now I officially know you have no real knowledge to contribute on either real naval warfare or made-up Star Wars warfare. Sad, really.

Well this is my last post on this, I am not in "dread fear" of being wrong, if you read my post I said I was wrong on parts, so this must be you projecting. Tying to cover for when you said.

5 hours ago, iamfanboy said:

...It was NEVER done intentionally, and almost all of them were 'friendly' collisions; WWII ship combat was point blank if you were half a mile away, let alone close enough to kiss.
...

Then you get all defensive when I point out that had you even done a little research (as in a simple internet check) you would have found that you are wrong. I never said it was a good tactic, or even approved. I did not say that it was used lots, or how effective it was. I was just saying that it was done intentionally, and there are plenty of documented cases where it was not blue on blue.

1 hour ago, iamfanboy said:

...

"High Horse"? More like "Actual knowledge". I was mostly just trying to give you a bit more information, in case you were mistaken or mixed up with some of the stuff from the 1870-1900 period when ship armor was better than ship guns. But now I officially know you have no real knowledge to contribute on either real naval warfare or made-up Star Wars warfare. Sad, really.

The problem with this is if you were trying to give information you had an epic failure as you were wrong. So it looks like you were saying that someone was in "dread fear" of being wrong, but it was not the guy who said that he was wrong about the ships still being built to ram, it was the guy who said that it never happened intentionally and all that. It is true that I do not know much about the expanded Star Wars universe and it is also true that I was not a Navy Pilot, but in my twenty years in the military I did spend some time on the water, and we did had boats collided with each other, some took damage (from little to lots), but some did not. So as I said I am done here, as I am not going to continue fighting with you, say what ever you want I would just suggest you check your "facts" first, but to each there own.