Collision Example #2

[7eat51]

I am getting back to the collision handouts this week. Here is a problem suggested by Sebastian:

Original Position - both ships touching with Ship B run aground:



Position after Maneuver - Ship A executing a straight with a shift to the right:



The question is, can Ship A execute that maneuver using RaW?

Here are some thoughts to initiate this conversation. The rules state that if at the end of a maneuver, the ship bases overlap, the players must follow a specific procedure (Collisions) for resolving movement. In this case, at the end of the movement phase, the two ship bases would not overlap. However, it would require Ship A moving through Ship B. Does this make sense? Normally, when executing collision-related maneuvers, the turn ends when the "second" ship works through its maneuver and makes contact with the first ship. In this scenario, Ship B - the first ship - has the highest burden and fastest attitude to the wind, however, it is run aground and cannot move. Ship A - the second ship - would start its maneuver, immediately making contact with Ship B's base. If the bases do not represent the actual space the ships are taking up on the water's surface, and, therefore, Ship B could theoretically pass through Ship A without making contact, then why the ceasing of movement when bases touch, and not when the actual ships touch, something akin to base-to-peg collisions in WoG? What thinking would ensure internal consistency or coherence?

Once we have a consensus on how to handle this situation, I will make a handout, accordingly, one that will include text explaining our rationale.

[Andy Blozinski]

In this case, at the end of the movement phase, the two ship bases would not overlap. However, it would require Ship A moving through Ship B. Does this make sense?.

There is no collision as per the rules.

[7eat51]

The question is, do the rules make sense in this situation? For example, the rules state that when two ships are passing each other head on, a collision can be avoided if the bases won't overlap at the end of the turn; I believe this assumes they maneuver sufficiently to avoid a collision. In this situation, one ship is, essentially, blocking the other ship, being unable to move. Does the end-of-turn non-overlapping rule apply? If so, why? Does it make sense in light of the actual scenario? What are the implications for other scenarios?

[Andy Blozinski]

Here's the problem...
It makes sense if they're going head on. It doesn't seem to make sense when they are perpendicular. At what angle do you plan to draw the line? Are you going to bring protractors to the game?

[David Manley]

It makes sense when both are moving as well, not when one is immobile. In a real situation the CO of the moving ship would back sails and bear off to starboard to avoid to minimise the effects of any collision. I game terms I'd resolve a collision then, unless they were entangled, move the mobile ship the minimum distance to the right so that a future forward move would avoid the casualty.

[Hobbes]

As I wrote before, I do see that ships do not actually cover the size of the base and thus can avoid a collision perpendicular or not. If this is consensus and all players will stick to this rule, then so be it. Then the collision rules are only there to resolve the situation.

I do not see any difficulties in sticking to the rules in open water scenarios. Yet however, if we are talking about coastal scenarios, applying these rules does neglect viable tactical maneuvers. You cannot place your ships in a way to challenge the enemies access to some portion of the battle field. The french tried this at Albukir by forming a line which should have denied the British to break through the line and fight them from both sides. It failed due to poor ship placement, yet it was an applied tactic.

Maybe this situation is special and I have to house rule this.

[fredmiracle]

Without having actually played the game, my sense is that all these collision rules are largely an artifact of the large/thick bases--i.e., not simulating anything in particular, so much as answering the practical question of what to do when they start bumping into each other.

In that case, allowing ships that don't want to grapple every possibility to avoid contact seems like the right call.

applying these rules does neglect viable tactical maneuvers. You cannot place your ships in a way to challenge the enemies access to some portion of the battle field. The french tried this at Albukir by forming a line which should have denied the British to break through the line and fight them from both sides. It failed due to poor ship placement, yet it was an applied tactic.

The Aboukir example is interesting, but of course it didn't prove practical. And in that case, according to Wiki, part of the plan involved cables strung between ships. That definitely seems to be bringing it into scenario special rule territory

Playing devil's advocate, a series of ships strung closely together near the coast would still be a barrier. It would not be an impenetrable barrier, but if the mobile ships misplay their upcoming maneuver cards, or take mast damage, or the wind changes in the interim, they can still end up colliding with enemy ships, or hitting the rocks on the other side of the line, etc.

[Naharaht]

What about a collision changing the direction of movement of the ship that was hit? This would be greater when a heavier ship hit a lighter one.

[7eat51]

It makes sense when both are moving as well, not when one is immobile. In a real situation the CO of the moving ship would back sails and bear off to starboard to avoid to minimise the effects of any collision. I game terms I'd resolve a collision then, unless they were entangled, move the mobile ship the minimum distance to the right so that a future forward move would avoid the casualty.

After the initial collision, something like this?

[Nightmoss]

I finally had a chance to read the Basic Rules this evening and while the diagrams in the manual and explanations here concerning collisions go a long way to making things clearer I'm really missing the pictures Eric had put up as further examples of what can occur. I hope that these do come back soon?

I do have one quick question/confirmation of the overlap/collision rules, which I expect is obvious, but I'll ask anyway. If one or both ships are required to play a taken aback move and end up overlapping bases you still follow the burden rules and back tracking of movement, correct?

Thanks!

[Andy Blozinski]

I finally had a chance to read the Basic Rules this evening and while the diagrams in the manual and explanations here concerning collisions go a long way to making things clearer I'm really missing the pictures Eric had put up as further examples of what can occur. I hope that these do come back soon?

I do have one quick question/confirmation of the overlap/collision rules, which I expect is obvious, but I'll ask anyway. If one or both ships are required to play a taken aback move and end up overlapping bases you still follow the burden rules and back tracking of movement, correct?

Thanks!

Yes. I think ultimately the burden thing was just a choice to resolve a situation. You have to decide one way or the other and stick with it. They chose higher burden. It doesn't matter if you're going forward or reverse.

[Nightmoss]

Yes. I think ultimately the burden thing was just a choice to resolve a situation. You have to decide one way or the other and stick with it. They chose higher burden. It doesn't matter if you're going forward or reverse.

Thanks. It's logical, but it never hurts to confirm another example of collisions that could occur in close quarters movement.

[7eat51]

Hi Jim,

When resolving a collision, burden takes precedence over attitude to wind, regardless of direction. If burden and attitude are the same, choose randomly. So in your example, highest burden moves first, or, if equal, randomly choose.

It makes a bit of sense when one thinks about momentum and collisions in very simple terms. In the case of sailing ships, mass would have a greater impact than velocity given that the potential differences in ship masses are significantly more than potential differences in velocity, momentum equaling mass times velocity. So, in essence, the more massive ship will be more determinative of the subsequent directions and velocities of both ships. Consider an NFL linebacker walking into a running 5 year-old child. Though the child has a higher velocity, the mass of the linebacker compared to the mass of the child overshadows the velocity difference, and becomes the primary determinative of the resulting directions and velocities of the two individuals. If both masses are the same, then the higher velocity would take precedence. I assume something like this was behind the designers decision, but I readily acknowledge I could be completely off the mark.

I'm glad you found the drawings helpful. Now that I have received our shipment, I will continue to work out collisions and taken aback maneuvers. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on them.