tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99962604511527341.post6848145972057968508..comments2024-03-18T05:20:50.047-07:00Comments on I Live with Cats: More IroncladsDavid Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06229259148925201182noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99962604511527341.post-68661339479764001362012-01-01T22:18:28.948-08:002012-01-01T22:18:28.948-08:00Nice models and report. Sounds like a lot of fun....Nice models and report. Sounds like a lot of fun. All the best to you for the 2012!Prufrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17659918463589870423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99962604511527341.post-46782895254557754922012-01-01T19:43:48.574-08:002012-01-01T19:43:48.574-08:00What we discussed was keeping the successful ram a...What we discussed was keeping the successful ram at 8+ but subtracting the speed order of the target vessel from the number of inches moved straight with a min/max range of -2 to +5. That gives an advantage to hitting a slower ship and a disadvantage to hitting a faster one. I'm not sure how it actually works out, though. I think it might go too far towards making ram attacks impossible.David Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06229259148925201182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-99962604511527341.post-74304404829619726972012-01-01T12:57:50.625-08:002012-01-01T12:57:50.625-08:00It sounds like the rule modifications worked out. ...It sounds like the rule modifications worked out. I'll be interested in seeing them in action at Drumbeat. One thing to think about with ramming is raising the number for a successful ram (I think it is 8+, modified by the distance moved straight). If you bumped it up to 9+ or 10+ there would be more glancing blows and fewer catastrophic rams.Dave S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02165409020913057971noreply@blogger.com