============ OGREverse list, Nov 29th (Last: Nov 28th) ============= ===== Special infantry From: "Duncan McEwen" From: Fish Flowers From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker From: "Andrew Walters" From: Stephan Beal From: dwtulloh@zianet.com From: "Hunt, Kirk (Tucson)" From: "Francisco J. Cestero" ===== GEV Infantry Counters From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker From: Fish Flowers From: "Duncan McEwen" From: "Andrew Walters" From: Trey Palmer From: Stephan Beal ===== Where are the mega factory complexes? From: patrick.odonnell@materna.de From: Trey Palmer ===== Repainting old miniatures From: Steve Jackson ------------------------------ From: "Duncan McEwen" Subject: Special infantry Hey gang, Just wanted to return my comments on the new stuff that Mr. Jackson brought up here. I am very glad to see that these issues are discussed in public first. Thanks Steve! >From: Steve Jackson >1. Engineers. Anybody got any problem with the way they appear in Ogre >Miniatures? As I am at work, I don’t have the rules handy. Overall they seem ok to me. I look forward to these type units. >What if we start with the Ogre Minis rules, but say that any time Militia >move, whether on their own or riding, they become "unready" (flip the >counter to the Unready side). > Militia also become unready if they undergo a D result. A D removes >one strength point from a militia stack, and leaves the others unready. Good similar to Disabling rules. > Unready militia cannot move on their own, or mount a vehicle. They >can continue to ride a vehicle if they are already on it, or they can >dismount (but remain unready). I like the unready stuff. Simple rules. A good thing for Ogre. This also simulates that they must set up their weapons, where an armored trooper can just carry and fire his. > Unready militia fire at half strength. I agree with HJC that they should only fire in overruns. Much better than having half attack strength, especially since most infantry are in groups of 3. (Can two 3-squad units fire for 3 unready or for combined of 2? Overrun only makes this moot.) I also don’t feel that Militia should get double strength in an overrun. They don’t have the computer enhanced reflexes of the Armored Inf. Just a thought. >The effect here, if I have typed what I intended, is that militia on foot >can move every other turn. If they stand still for a turn, they can use >their weapons for full effect. Otherwise, they are at half strength, >whether because they are panting from a run, or because they are >disorganized from getting off a vehicle, or because some of them just got >nuked. Actually it looks like move every turn but not fire at full strength with out holding still for a round. I think what you have written would work better if Militia were not allowed to fire except when overrun when unready. That way they can force march across the field but won’t be combat effective until they have a chance to “dig in”. It is not the 1” movement exactly from the minis but I still think it makes sense. Also, if Militia is not doubled in overrun the human wave will be less effective and very costly (as it should be.) > [I like the unready militia bit, except for fractional attack >strengths. How about simply restricting them to firing in overruns? >(Also, they become unready at the end of their move, after overruns...) Agreed > Also, your phasing is a wee bit off. Simply state that militia are >checked at the end of their movement phase, those that moved are flipped >unready and the unready ones (who didn't move, naturally) are flipped over >to ready. They would alternate moving and firing then. This seems to create too much book keeping. I like what Steve wrote about all getting ready at the same time at the end of the fire phase. Basically what I am trying to say is that militia can move every turn if they want but then could not fire at all (except in overrun) until they hold still for a turn. Getting disabled also stops their movement and fire. How about some HW counters? Maybe just a missile counter labeled 3/4 that you can stack under a squad of infantry. Each squad can carry one missile. If a stack of squads is hit, give them the benefit of the doubt that no missiles are lost until there are more missiles than squads. (i.e. 3 quads with two missiles left get hit and lose 1 squad. No missile is lost. This leaves 2 squads and 2 missiles. Hit again for one squad, 1 missile is also lost leaving 1 squad and 1 missile. Just a simple thought. You could also add special HW infantry counters if you want to represent the cost of targeting equipment. However I prefer that the extra targeting stuff is part of the missile and just plugs into a standard suit. Less book keeping. (Again, a good idea.) ----- From: Fish Flowers Subject: Special Infantry > [I like the unready militia bit, except for fractional attack > strengths. How about simply restricting them to firing in overruns? > (Also, they become unready at the end of their move, after overruns...) We all know your dislike for militia, Henry, but this still seems a bit harsh. The morale factor notwithstanding ("It's bad enough you want me to fight that _thing_, but now you want me to get right next to it? Piss off."), in theory militia carry the same weaponry as normal battlesuited infantry; restricting them to overrun combat only seems a little off. How about this: Militia come in platoon counters only. Front side ("Ready") is Attack strength 2, back side ("Unready") is attack strength 1. Otherwise treat them exactly as Steve has it. This resolves a number of issues. It easily solves the fractional-attack problem, represents the poorer C3 capability of militia (platoon units instead of squads), and shows their increased vulnerability (a D wipes out an entire platoon, ouch) and poorer firepower per man. ----- [Sorry, what I meant to say is that militia would only be able to fire at range on turns that they didn't move. This would help represent in the board game the very limited strike range of three inches they have in the minis. -HJC] ----- From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker Subject: Special Infantry >1. Engineers. Anybody got any problem with the way they appear in Ogre >Miniatures? Nope. >2. Militia. I've read the notes here. I see the point of those who think >militia should not move, but that's not terribly interesting . . . and if >an Ogre were coming at me, try to KEEP me from moving . . . The "unready" concept, in terms of both movement and combat, works just fine, but I'd consider something more descriptive in the name. Disrupted, disorganized, or even pinned might be better terms. Schoon ----- From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Special infantry I like the idea. It prevents assaults by Militia, since they'd have to walk up to you and then wait before firing. This puts them in the defensive role, where they belong. You don't mention any changes to the infantry rules for overruns or terrain. I would think they'd get the same bonus for terrain, because despite their lower ECM (already reflected in reduced defense strength) there's less about them to detect, so they'd be hard to hurt in woods, cities, and rubble. I would not expect they would be as effective as powered infantry in overrun, though. Perhaps they're only doubled, as Ogre weapons, instead of tripled, like infantry (I'm NRBH, so forgive me if I have a detail wrong). Now that I ponder the idea of an inexpensive unit to build defensive lines that can be shot up but can't be cheaply overrun, I really like the idea. I'd love to see a description of their loadout for GURPS Ogre. Do they wear BPC flack vests? NBC suits? What's a man-portable, low-grade ECM box cost? I'll have to go back and check the book again. That wouldn't actually make a bad campaign. Andrew ----- [Infantry is only times two in overruns, but times four against Militia in OGRE Minis. -HJC] ----- From: Stephan Beal Subject: Special infantry Engineers: cool beans. Militia: I really like the ideas about unreadiness, etc., _except_... it's going to have us looking far more at the individual pieces than on the overall game. I tend to go with the idea that no non-Ogre custom units require any addional bookkeeping, except in some special cases which can be kept track of with the counters themselves, like Missile Crawlers. GEV's biggest strength (IMO) is the ease with which is it played (experienced players typically don't need a rulebook or CRT, for example). I do like the Militia ideas, but I would prefer to see them specifically be optional or part of an Advanced version of GEV (Not in non-minis Ogre: see below). Okay, not "Advanced" as in unit construction rules which are compatible with GURPS Vehicles, but Advanced as in "non-Ogre units which require some special paperwork or extra attention." The long-debated "missile tank which carries two Ogre missiles, and it's move increases by one after firing them both" would be a good candidate for inclusion into such rules. Then again, it could well be argued that this is just Ogre/GEV with lots of optional rules thrown in, and perhaps just Optional Rules entries for them would suffice. Or perhaps introduce them in a Shockwave-like supplement, but not in the mainstream rules. Thinking about the GURPS "character-only" books like 'Wizards' and 'Warriors', I can easily imagine an Ogre/GEV expansion called "Re-reinforcements: Infantry & Armor" , which would probably fit quite easily into a Shockwave-sized expansion. This would also allow the bundled shipment of maps which might have some tweaks to make them more suitable for the newer units (man, I can't wait for Ogre Battles!). This also makes the units available without cluttering up the mainstream rules, potentially confusing new players. I think people (okay, adults with jobs, anyway) are generally put off by first-time play if it's going to take them hours and hours to learn the rules. As far as for the "classic" version of Ogre, I would really hate to see Militia introduced there - infantry are not terribly useful in the original game (okay, I'm open to flaming there, I'm sure), and militia would be somewhere near Completely Useless under those rules (especially with no overruns allowed, and a militia range of 0, as proposed by some). In a nutshell: Engineers, yes. Militia, not in the mainstream rules, but perhaps in a supplement. Or let's let the People of Florida decide, shall we ;)? There's my 0.02 Euro. ----- Stephan Beal ----- [(Only Europennies? That's cheap. :) Speaking of Europe, does anybody else find it odd that the UK is rushing to join the European Rapid Reaction force just when the cross channel hovercraft are being retired from commercial use? (How many tanks can you carry on those anyway?) -HJC] ----- From: dwtulloh@zianet.com Subject: Special infantry What about having unready Militia pass a 'morale check' before they can become ready again? In all probability, many members of the militia have never undergone fire before and so they'd be scared stiff after having suffering the effects of their first micronuke attack. You could also have two different 'grades' of militia - green and 'hardened'. Green militia would have to perform the morale check while hardened militia would not. Dan ----- From: "Hunt, Kirk (Tucson)" Subject: Special Infantry Steve (and folks) here's my take on this >2. Militia. I've read the notes here. I see the point of those who think >militia should not move, but that's not terribly interesting . . . and if >an Ogre were coming at me, try to KEEP me from moving . . . Agreed >What if we start with the Ogre Minis rules, but say that any time Militia >move, whether on their own or riding, they become "unready" (flip the >counter to the Unready side). Militia must be ready to mount armor, and become unready WHEN they dismount (or somehow survive losing their ride.) > Militia also become unready if they undergo a D result. A D removes >one strength point from a militia stack, and leaves the others unready. Agreed > Unready militia cannot move on their own, or mount a vehicle. They >can continue to ride a vehicle if they are already on it, or they can >dismount (but remain unready). Agreed > Unready militia fire at half strength. Unready militia can only fire in an overrun. (Possible: One attack per unready stack. See *** below.) > At the end of your own fire phase, flip all UNREADY militia to >their normal state. Agreed > Militia cannot use their weapons while riding vehicles. Agreed (Without powered armor, militia spend a LOT of time and effort just trying to hang on.) Exception: Seated IN APC armor. Units above normal APC carrying capacity keep EVERYBODY from firing. >Who first suggested the every-other-turn move? I think it was Henry, somewhere in the distant past... >The effect here, if I have typed what I intended, is that militia on foot >can move every other turn. If they stand still for a turn, they can use >their weapons for full effect. Otherwise, they are at half strength, >whether because they are panting from a run, or because they are >disorganized from getting off a vehicle, or because some of them just got >nuked. *** An alternative to half strength accounting is to allow each unready stack to have ONE shot, reflecting the likelihood of SOMEBODY (probably the one Gung Ho, Rambo type) in the outfit pointing the right way at the right time... An idea I put out some time ago: Zero defense strength. Zero defense strength units (trucks, lawyers, soft command posts, private residences) use ONE to calculate defense and are vulnerable to anti-personnel weapons. "D" results count as "X." (You could also double armor weapons against Zero D targets.) This rule prevents "automatic" kills, but makes it very likely you'll score against a soft target. (A 2-1/2 ton truck MIGHT surface a spray with an M-16 or even a LAW, but is almost certainly dead meat if you use a Dragon or 120mm shell.) ----- From: "Francisco J. Cestero" Subject: Special Infantry As this is my first post to this board I'd like to start by introducing myself. Hi, I'm Francisco Cestero, an on-and-off-again OGRE player for these past I-forget-how-many years. I started to receive posts from this mailing list for the past month and I've reviewed some of the archives. I'm very glad to see that Mr. Jackson is a regular poster on this list, I'm very glad to be here! Now to what prompted me to speak up. Personally, I'd like to see militia done away with. It's more than just the Militia-In-The-Hovertruck tactic. That could be fixed by tweeking the cost values. Instead, for me it's more fundamental than that, the technology described in the OGREverse is so overwhelming that I just can't see militia as a viable force on the battlefield. Playing OGRE with militia is like playing a game about the Gulf War with rules that make allowances for units such as spearmen, lancers, and longbow men. Sure, such units could have been deployed there, and I suppose they could be modeled in game mechanics terms, but what's the point I wonder? To me, the OGREverse is a cold, hard world where just about everything that could go wrong -- in a social sense -- has gone wrong. It is a world of cold logic and cold steel (or BPC, as the case may be). In a game that sets such a tone, I think it's more in-character that the nation-states of that era either invested in the new technology of battlesuits, or they got plowed under by those who did. It would explain the small number of mega-states as well as the totalitarian feel of those few that are left (they didn't have a militia to protect their civil rights! Or, they DID, but those were wiped out by the government troops equipped with battlesuits). Yes, the counter-point is: all the above may be true, but what about giving players the option of using lots of cheap units versus a few expensive ones! Well, you've already got that built into the game. Both in terms of swarms of LGEVs and LT Tanks and OGREs versus swarms of conventional units. The whole basis of OGRE is one of a few big units versus swarms of cheaper units. Militia is just more of the same: even more numbers of even cheaper units. I'm not sure the game gains much by something like that. Do militia add enough to the game to justify the new rules and record-keeping ("did I move them this turn, or didn't I?") that would be needed to model them? In my opinion, the answer is no. Getting rid of militia would also keep the KISS philosophy of OGRE intact. Some specialist Infantry are in order, no question, but militia (and the refurbished 20th Century tanks described in Miniature OGRE) are -- obsolete, no better than cannon fodder, and we shouldn't model them in the game any more than we model a greek phalanx in games of WW2. We don't even model WW1 tanks and aircraft in WW2 games. How many refurbished WWI tanks _did_ we deploy to the Gulf anyways? The difference there in tech is 72 years. Between now and the Final War is what, 80 years? I really feel that given the description of the technology used in the Final War, butt-nekid infantry running around with whatever they can carry and even firing the most powerful railguns that don't rip their arms off, are still about as useful against OGREs as horse-drawn war chariots would be at the Battle of the Bulge. Swords and arrows may be as deadly today as they have always been, but there is more powerful weapons now, and you either re-equip your forces, or you die. The battlefield has always been cruel to those who keep trying to fight the last war with the last war's equipment. I'm sure that many of you have thought of something along these lines and could go on in even further depth, I just wanted to voice my opinion and hope that it is given some consideration. If we're going to add new units to OGRE, lets add ones that are in keeping with the overall "feel" of the game. Thank you for any response! --Francisco ----- [Why is the defense in OGRE required to take infantry units, when they're lousy against OGREs? The game balance answer is that the infantry help set the pace of the game, instead of it being a pure fuzzy wuzzy crapshot of 25 GEVs taking the first shot and winning or losing by the fifth turn. But the real answer lies in the theme of the game universe. Keith Laumer's BOLOs are the heros of his stories. Man's creation reaches back into Man's history for the greatness he has forgotten. The first OGRE scenario looks a lot like the first BOLO story. The lone cybertank charges alone into a hornets nest of conventional units, but there is one element in the game that wasn't in the book, the Command Post. The OGRE's objective is to disrupt the enemy planning directly by assassinating the leader of the enemy force. OGREs are the villians of the OGREverse and the heros are those puny humans who die screaming under the treads, but collectively stop the beast. A Bolo is a tool that extends man's reach while an Ogre is a monster that eats him. It's that triumph of man over machine that requires that unpowered infantry be allowed and the mental image I have is some twelve year old boy crouched by the side of the road with a one shot rocket, hardly daring to breathe while he waits for the metal beast that destroyed his world to turn the corner. -HJC] ------------------------------ From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker Subject: GEV Infantry Counters >Any comments on this? > > >From: Dave Morse > > > >3 squads = 3 silhouettes, > >2 squads = 2 silhouettes, > >1 squad = 1 silhouette. I'd say that this would be a good idea. Some of the young gamers these days don't understand tactical symbols, even those as straightforward as infantry or armor. The change would help - albeit in a very small way - broaden the games appeal. Schoon ----- From: Fish Flowers Subject: GEV Infantry Counters > Keeping three little sticks looking like little men of different types > on those little counters is going to be real fun. ASL manages somehow... Still, you make a good point. It's easier to represent differing kinds of infantry using standard military symbology than it is to show slightly differing models of battlesuit. I think it ultimately comes down to a matter of taste. One possibility might be to use depictions for standard INF, but keep the variant infantry types as symbols; newbies will probably only be playing scenarios with standard infantry anyway. Fish. ----- From: "Duncan McEwen" Subject: GEV Infantry Counters Ok, my take is that this would remove some of the classic flavor from Ogre. I do agree that this would bring things more inline with the armor. I guess it can go either way. I do sort of favor the old X box for the reasons HJC mentions. Engineers can be an X box with a big E, Militia can have an M, Heavy Weapons can be HW, etc. On the other hand, the name of the unit type normally goes below the picture so it might work out ok. I think I just said I don’t care… On a related note, will new Combine counters have different silhouettes? Although that would be cool, I think it could be confusing to new players. “Why does your Hvy Tank look different from mine?” (Or different from last print run.) No need to use different silhouettes for each type of inf. Look at Marines vs. Inf. (I agreed with you before I thought about the names being under the picture.) Thanks, Duncan McEwen NA Combine ----- From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: GEV Infantry Counters Torn. It is odd to use the NATO symbol for one unit type and not the others. But the figures wouldn't be to scale with the other units anyway, and would be so small as to be elongated dots. I've seen many other games with human figures on counters, but they were always either serious-but-dull (remember SPI's Strike Team Alpha, the giveaway game?), or exciting-but-cartoony. Ogre's artwork has always been very serious, gritty, non-exagerated; that's something I like very much. If you think you can do interesting and serious in a 3/16" figure, cool. But I think I lean toward the abstract symbol. While we're on the topic, since I never know when to show up, it would be nice to put the little anchor on the Marine counters, and the little E on the combat engineer counters, so they can be distinguished without having to squint at the little mock-computer font text. I would mention that the counters could be larger, but that would make it hard to deny that I need glasses. But its noticeably tougher to play with very small counters. Probably nothing we can do about that, except play with miniatures! Andrew ----- From: Trey Palmer Subject: GEV Infantry Counters > From: Steve Jackson > Any comments on this? See Henry's comment as well. Mine is that the X in the box is the traditional symbol for infantry in TOE's. Might mention that in a future printing somewhere. Also, Franco Cnestra's website has something like that - and it has the problems mentioned above. ----- From: Stephan Beal Subject: GEV Infantry Counters BLASPHEMY! (just kidding) I agree completely with Henry on that one. If you really want the 3-little-men, simply print out the infantry counters from Cisco's site: http://www.users.qwest.net/~fjcestero/ He's done exactly that, and it looks good. The Official SJG counters don't have the "pixelized effect" which Cisco's counters do, of course, which makes them look more professional, though. Cisco's counters look really, really good, but the pixels show enough to not make them usable as a drop-in-the-box replacement for production-quality shipment. Besides, the X does have a significance: it's an official military symbol for infantry (NATO? U.S. Army? I dunno.). ----- Stephan Beal ------------------------------ From: patrick.odonnell@materna.de Subject: Where are the mega factory complexes? Trey Palmer and Patrick O'Donnell both continued the where are the factories, and here's my two cents. .> And then John Murdoch Robertson replied ... *...economically starved metropolotian areas, to bolster economies ...* ..> AND Sethkimmel added. *... Anywhere that there was/is high tech airspace and/or naval complexes ...* ...>Then Mr. Cobb piped in. *... these things eat all sorts of inputs like there's no tomorrow,...* All very good points. BUT, (you knew that was coming right?) there is a certain submarine *Foundry/Factory/Repair yard* in the States that is located up a river in a certain state. The Barge thingy still holds here. It is NOT located in a town. Where do they make nuclear weapons in the States? In the middle of downtown Detroit? You want to build the world's most terrible killing machines in mass. You want to load each one down with Tac Nukes and other such nasties (which also need to be built somewhere ... probably somewhere near by for efficiency's sake. *Just in time* manufacturing methods are going to have to come into play here due to costs alone). And now you want to tell me that it is going to be located in the old *Auto building sector* of Detroit? Ok. I guess ... if that is the way you want to play it. It is your world. Just let it happen. Best, Pat ----- From: Trey Palmer Subject: Where are the mega factory complexes? > From: john murdoch robertson Pittsburg, Jersey City, Norfolk, and Havanna, with minor ones built in York, Birmingham or Liverpool, Warsaw, > Kiev, Madrid, Sarajevo, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Coppenhagen, > Antwerp and Hamburg. > Now if both sides had been neck > and neck as the race to total death had been as usual, then the > supercomputer AI's that ran the respective regular mega-factories would > realise what they and their counterparts were making, and their names were > at the top of the hit list, they might get togher and say, screw that, > after 30 years of working for the humans, they learned that survival was > paramount, and made a computer virus that was so mean, any accessable > non-AI computer was deadmeat, enter the brave new world. Interesting. Parallels my thoughts on a Reign of Steel Ogre crossover. > From: Sethkimmel@aol.com Interesting... > Anywhere that there was/is high tech airspace and/or naval complexes (in the > NA for example: Wichita-Boeing, St. Louis-Gen. Dynamics?, Long > Island-Grumman, southern Calif.-all of the Above,plus Northrup...:-),Newport > News Va. and Groton Conn.,etc.). No doubt one could do this for the Paneuros > and Nihon as well... And means Biloxi, MS with Ingalls and Freda Goldman Halter is a likely candidate as well. > [My take is that these things eat all sorts of inputs like there's no > tomorrow, and so they get placed in the center of transport grids where > there's some hope of keeping them fed. -HJC] So, you'd need a massive road, rail, canal or port complex to feed these beasties - areas already likely to attract industry. To build and ship the Ogres, you'd want river/canal/ocean access as well as Ogre right of ways - places of unmodified ground where they can roll to muster points without devastating the local road network. Hmm. Build a bridge over something broad enough to pass two Ogres. Interesting image that. Getting back on topic - using your criteria as well as the inputs of others, it looks likely that the cities mentioned in earlier posts are likely to host mega-factories, or at least near mega factories. Thanks folks! ----- [Hopefully you don't mean Pittsburg, CA, my company just moved there and I know OGREs are tough, but they're not that tough! -HJC ;-] ------------------------------ From: Steve Jackson Subject: Repainting old miniatures Another paint stripper that works well is PineSol! Whatever you use, work where spatters don't matter, and watch for little pieces being loosened by the brush and flying away. Steve Jackson - yes, of SJ Games - yes, we won the Secret Service case Learn Web or die - http://www.sjgames.com/ - dinosaurs, Lego, Kahlua! The heck with PGP keys; finger for Geek Code. Fnord. ------------------------------ Henry J. Cobb ogre@sjgames.com http://www.io.com/~hcobb All OGRE-related items Copyright (c) 2000, by Steve Jackson Games.