Re: Change to the ramming rule in general...

**Damonte** · 10-31-2008, 04:13 PM

Damonte would just like to point out that this discussion is exactly that... discussion. It is not a deciding debate on the fate of this rule.

Any formal suggestions to change the rule should be properly and politely crafted and go through the formal channels.

**Catman1975** · 10-31-2008, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by pred011586

Not allowing ramming at all, in any situation I feel takes away some of the tactical situations you can have. For instance, if I'm an APC and I see a PAC tank with it's side to me up against a wall, I'm going to EMP it and ram it into the wall so that it can't turn towards me. I don't see why an act like this should be illegal. Sure it's risky, the driver might be a recon or an engineer and come up and kill the APC, but if we're going to be forced to play chicken**** and not take risks then I'm going to sit very contently in the UCB and twiddle my thumbs until my team wins or loses every round.

Seriously??? Come on!!! And not being able to run suicide FAV's takes away some tactics also, but do we allow that? NO!

An APC is not designed to take on a tank, if you're driving around with no ground support you have no initiative to take on a tank! Either emp it and run or emp it so your engineers and support troops can get out and the support can get an emp lock and the engineer can start taking it out with a Pilum. We're supposed to play this game as if it was a real life on the line, yes I screw around and I may throw a lot of tickets trying to get a flag or take a point, but you don't go around ramming for the sake of ramming.

To play devil's advocate what are you going to do once you have him pinned? Ram him until you explode, oops there's a suicide for you!

And also, you say not taking risks is a chicken**** tactic, I can take a risk by running headlong into a full squad of 3rd member with my knife out, that's a risky tactic, but a dumb one, just like ramming a tank with an APC. TG is about teamwork and realistic tactics not about doing something that is going to get you killed and calling it a tactic.

Plus having no ramming at all brings about confusion on things like pods, which are built to withstand the results of ramming, and in fact is tracked statistic in the BF2142 Stats screen. Obviously it's intended purpose is primary rapid troop deployment, but also secondary as a sort of Anti-Air defense mechanism for the Titan.

Exactly there is a statistic for pod ramming, last I checked (well actually I didn't check, but I've never heard of one) there's no stat for ramming with the APC. No "Tanks killed by APC ramming" or "Tanks destroyed by ramming tanks" stats etc.

**Smachin007** · 10-31-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Aumen1

However the year is 2142 and only a few remaining strongholds remain; therefore it would seem logical that drastic times would require drastic measures.....? We are not playing 2008 Iraq. We are playing 2142 EU vs. PAC.

Okay so what you are saying is that a governing body at any time is going to tell its army that it is OKAY to beat on their million dollar machines in a way that is not needed because of the drastic times they are in. I very highly doubt that.

**Lorax74** · 10-31-2008, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by pred011586

Simple.

Ramming with a tank is ok. In all situations.

No, it is not.

**rage4order** · 10-31-2008, 05:07 PM

I want to caution everyone to keep this civil and respectable or the discussion will be over, thanks.

**Reaperassault** · 10-31-2008, 05:10 PM

don't make me pull out my phone and call the ban hammer

**Poncherello** · 10-31-2008, 05:29 PM

running headlong into a full squad of 3rd member with my knife out, that's a risky tactic

You're right Cat, that is awful risky for the 3rd. With your ninja reflexes it's like Bruce Lee against a bunch of paraplegics in wheelchairs.

**jazy2** · 10-31-2008, 05:38 PM

If there is an engy repairing an APC and I'm passing by in an FAV and see him I would ram the engy rather than shoot him. Even if I ram the APC during this. The ram in this case would be a result of the kill not an attack on the vehicle. An unfortunate side effect if you like. I'm not talking a full speed ram neither.....just enough to ensure the kill.

I would run the engy down rather than shoot him as it gives me an instant kill and removes his chance of taking a bullet or two then just entering the vehicle and reversing the roles with me now being vunerable.

Any damage done to the FAV or APC could be healed up with his own kit once I've killed him and reversed off his body.

Would this be considered wrong.....or just a grey area???

**pred011586** · 10-31-2008, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Catman1975

To play devil's advocate what are you going to do once you have him pinned? Ram him until you explode, oops there's a suicide for you!

Keep him pinned up against the wall! By continuously holding 'w' neither you nor the tank will take any damage from the contact, but the tank will be unable to turn to face you. If your support ground troops are paying attention, they'll be able to come up and disable the tank.

Here's a possible in-game situation for this.

Location, Belgrade, Statue:

EU has two squads defending Statue. PAC is shelling Statue from a distance to keep everyone's head down so a PAC squad can advance without worrying about incoming rockets as much. One of the EU squads has access to an APC and is hidden from the tank. In an effort to disable the tank and give their squad a tactical advantage, the SL of the squad with the tank orders a flank attack on the tank. The APC loads up with the squad and goes around the back way to flank the tank. Upon arriving the APC driver sees that the tank is up against the wall behind ruins.

If you just emp the tank and let your squad pod out and try to get behind it, you won't be able to emp it again before it turns around and starts to mow down your squad. Whereas if you emp it then RAM it into the wall, the tank can no longer turn around, and do to the shock of suddenly having the APC ram into it, the driver will stop focusing on Statue and focus on a more local scope to protect itself.

The first situation results in the tank's ground support (assuming there is some) making short work of the engineers attempting to take out the tank and the APC's position being compromised and now you're position has been compromised. By pinning the tank up against the wall you take the entire group by surprise, even if they have a PDS, and even if the tank notices the APC barreling down the hill towards it from the edge of the PDS's range, the tank simply does not have a powerful enough engine to accelerate fast enough to avoid the impact of the APC. The sight of the actual collision itself will throw the entire squad into panic mode, your squad in the APC can make short work of the tank's ground support with the gun turrets then hop out blow up the tank. Of the two options, the second results in less risk of death, and higher rate of success than trying to snipe it with pilums from a distance.

I don't see why tactics like this should be illegal. I've yet to hear a good reason why ramming with heavy armor is illegal other than "it just is". None of the heavy vehicles take a huge amount of damage from ramming, so it's not a suicide tactic, have you ever tried ramming a wall going full speed in a tank? Try it, the vehicles are built pretty solid.

To counter point your idea of running at a 3rd squad with a knife drawn, that's a completely different situation entirely. That's pretty much a guaranteed death on your part, ramming the PAC tank into a wall with an APC is disabling the biggest gun that your target has. Making the rest of the skirmish safer for ground troops all around.

I appreciate that the admins are looking into this, and sorry for the profanity, took me awhile to re-read my post and actually find what you were talking about. =(

If the admins do rule that ramming with heavy ground armor is illegal, could we see the reasons why?

I see this being just as easy to moderate as no ramming at all, with anything, and also takes into account the ramming with pods. Which are pretty much built for it, and should be allowed, in my opinion.

*EDIT*
Just read Damonte's post on top of this page, what exactly are the proper channels for requesting a rule change? I thought threads here were the proper channels, if I should be handling this some other way, please let me know and I'll gladly make my case there.

*EDIT AGAIN*
Wow I missed the entire page other than Catman's post apparently.

If we want to get into the cost of the tank and whether said government would warrant the use of such an expensive piece of equipment for ramming, then I'd like to bring up this issue. This war, unlike past wars, is over group SURVIVAL, WW1, WW2, and subsequent wars were faught mainly over conflicting ideas. The losing side of the war in BF2142 dies. All of them. They freeze to death, or will simply starve to death if the cold doesn't kill them. This is a war over the resources necessary for survival. Losing this war is not an option for either side. I don't see a problem with potentially sacrificing a 3 million dollar tank to give you, your friends, your family, your race a higher chance of survival. If 3 million seems too much, I'd like to add that this war in Iraq we've had for a long time now has an estimated cost of 3 TRILLION dollars*.

* Gotten from this book from my Sociology course: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion.../dp/0393067017

**DrBeat** · 10-31-2008, 05:58 PM

I always thought that ramming was off the table because it is more often then not a suicide tactic?

**MDFubar** · 10-31-2008, 08:05 PM

OK, Let me weigh in on a few things here:

First, the tank(we won't discuss any other vehicles at this time) is a multi-million dollar vehicle and can NOT be replaced as quickly as the game would have you think. To properly engage Tank vs Tank, keep your distance and use cover just as you would with infantry. You should never be close enough to read the serial numbers on the enemy armor! He who has the best aim, wins! Shoot and move, rotate the tank or the turret while moving. You shouldn't be alone, this is a teamwork game and you should have infantry support. Having an engineer in your tank will give you an extra gun. It really sounds like we could use a basic armor course............(hint).
Ramming is ramming and from an admin point, it becomes very hard to distinguish what is wrong and what is right when you start making exceptions. So the rules tend to be simple, simple to understand from a player's point of view and simple for an admin to cover and decide if the rule is being broken.
Second, this is a good discussion and as Damonte said.....it is just that. The points made about ramming to allow it........think about them on other terms. Would it be ok to allow TK's because you need ammo and the support guy is ignoring you? NO!
The discussion on pods is still going on in with the admins and your input on that is very important, it truly does matter what your opinions are........at least until we make a decision.(just kidding).

**Vortex421** · 10-31-2008, 08:07 PM

Maybe I'm missing something here, with all this talk of futuristic costs and mindsets and the like, so let me back up and get an answer to a question.

What is "ramming"? According to dictionary.com, ramming is defined as:

Verb
10. to drive or force by heavy blows.
11. to strike with great force; dash violently against: The car went out of control and rammed the truck.
12. to cram; stuff: They rammed the gag in his mouth.
13. to push firmly: to ram a bill through the Senate.
14. to force (a charge) into a firearm, as with a ramrod.

Now, with this definition in my mind, let me look here for a second. Ramming an FAV into an object implies that it moves at high speeds to it's target, yes? Ramming a gunship into a tank implies the same. In both cases, you are hitting an object (tank, APC, etc.) with the intent of doing enough damage from the kinetic impact to destroy said object.

The example of two tanks is not one that I would classify as "ramming" (though, bear in mind the caveat that I am not an admin, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn last night). The example given above of tanks pressing against each other in an effort to get the high ground and derail one another is maneuvering - there is no high speed collision or impact - there is no transfer of kinetic energy from the impact.

Am I wrong here? Did I miss something?

**MDFubar** · 10-31-2008, 08:13 PM

You did not sleep at a Holiday Inn, therefore you post is null and void!

**Vortex421** · 10-31-2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by MDFubar

You did not sleep at a Holiday Inn, therefore you post is null and void!

Well, crap! What if I sleep in one tonight?

**pred011586** · 10-31-2008, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by MDFubar

Second, this is a good discussion and as Damonte said.....it is just that. The points made about ramming to allow it........think about them on other terms. Would it be ok to allow TK's because you need ammo and the support guy is ignoring you? NO!

I don't see how that's at all similar, just like knifing your own commander because he's not responding, I can understand the ruling against that.

Maybe the discrepancy here is in the definition of ramming as Vortex kindly pointed out. Would my APC vs Tank in my post above, if reported to the admins, be taken as ramming with a warning/ban/whatever given to me (assuming I'm the APC driver)? If not then I fear I am overreacting, and over analyzing this. Otherwise, this is something I really think doesn't make much sense at all. My alternatives in that situation is to either let the tank continue to shell my team, or to play to the tank's strengths. By using the plan I've stated above I'm playing to the tank's weaknesses, a strategy I would be commending my squad for, not reprimanding.

Thread Tools

Display