============ OGRE/GEV list, May 10th (Last: May 7th) ============= ===== Sensitive OGREs and supportive Infantry From: Eric Jome ===== Death of a Fencer? From: Tony Reynolds ===== World War From: "Devir Livraria Ltda." ------------------------------ From: Eric Jome Subject: Sensitive OGREs and supportive Infantry > [Have you heard of IR sensors? (Disturbance in air patterns noted. > Probable cause is respiration of large mammal. AP attack advised.) you going to tell me an Ogre has complete coverage with an IR sensor sensitive enough to detect a moderately shielded person (thermal suit built today and commonly available) and yet have those same sensors survive near direct atomic blasts? face it, few if any tanks or armored vehicles have ever survived long in the battlefield without infantry support... and the idea that a single vehicle could effectively invade or stomp an opposing military is kinda silly. Ogre is a great tank game. perhaps the best wargame i have played. but like a lot of speculative fiction or pseudo science, it doesnt hold up very well under scrutiny. best to invoke "suspension of disbelief" and fire away... eric ------------------------------ From: Tony Reynolds Subject: Death of a Fencer? Well, I was looking through the archives the other night, and I came across the hypothetical shooting match between a Fencer and 20 GEVs. Part of the discussion was about the Fencer's secondary guns. I was looking at the Ogre Book and at the Ogre Minis rules. It turns out that in the Ogre Book, a Fencer has 4 secondaries, but in the Ogre Minis rules, it has only 2. So, was this a rules change or a mistake? Tony ----- [The two possibilities are not exclusive... Against a fencer use "Super-Fuzzy" 40 LGEVs and 30 single point infantry squads. The infantry is only allowed to stack when they're adjacent to the bot. Kill the missile racks then the threads. -HJC] ------------------------------ From: "Devir Livraria Ltda." Subject: World War > erk, Henry! come on. WWIII and world war in general is gone... a > thing of the ugly imperial past. wars today are fought with tariffs and > terrorists, no tanks and megatons. anyone capable of large scale war > today has too much to lose to start one... and this situation will not > change in fifty years let alone 12. Hmmmm. Didn't the European left say something remarably similar to this right before WWI? I agree, MAYBE world war has gone the way of the dinosaurs. But to make that wide-ranging a statement merely based on things as they now stand is a bit short-sighted. I don't think we're going to see a real humdinger, nuke-tossin' blow-out sometime soon, but I also don't think it's impossible for something to happen 50 years down the road. Ask yourself this simple question: 10 years ago would you have predicted the fall of the Soviet empire and its client states? I remember arguing with a bunch of ROTC cadets in a university history course in 1985. They were firmly convinced that the USSR was here to stay. I sustained that the Soviet system was on its last legs. The ROTC guys thought I was a deluded liberal dupe... History rolls on. The one thing we know for sure is that whatever empire is on top today won't probably be running things a century from now. War will probably always be seen by states as a tool to remedy unacceptable political situations. Most wars of the last 100 years occured because the states involved were firmly convinced that they had no choice BUT to go to war. Clausewitz and Machiavelli (SP?) aside, most governments don't rationally decide to start wars. Rightly or wrongly, they almost always feel that they've been pushed to the limits of their tolerance before they call out the troops. Rarely is the decision to go to war based on cold, rational thought and planning beforehand. Thad ------------------------------ Henry J. Cobb hcobb@io.com http://www.io.com/~hcobb All OGRE-related items Copyright (c) 1997, by Steve Jackson Games.