===== [sjgames-illuminator] RPGnet Review of Ogre Battlefields From: Steve Jackson ===== "Medium" Revetments From: Steve Jackson ===== Comments on Naval Ogre Variants From: "Andrew Walters" ===== Fox Hunt From: Michael Powers ===== More OGRE Humor From: Kevin Walker ===== More Ogre Names, and a bit of 'future history' From: Michael Powers ===== Hometown maps From: Todd Zircher From: "William Spencer" From: Michael Powers ===== AP weapons that can attack armor From: Michael Powers From: "Andrew Walters" From: Kevin Walker ===== Fencer poll From: Stephan Beal From: Inire From: Kevin Walker From: "Imre A. Szabo" From: "Duncan McEwen" From: Dave Morse From: "Andrew Walters" From: Michael Powers From: largecardriver5@webtv.net (e.w.markle) From: Servitor@aol.com From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" ===== List Archives and the new OGRE Book. From: Servitor@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Jackson Subject: [sjgames-illuminator] RPGnet Review of Ogre Battlefields SJ Games Daily Illuminator ( http://www.sjgames.com/ill/ ) February 12, 2001: RPGnet Review of Ogre Battlefields -------------------------------------------------------------- There's a favorable review of Ogre Battlefields ( http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/products/battlefields ) on RPGnet ( http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_3746.html ). The reviewer, doing his job, points out the things he would have LIKED to see. I dropped him a note to tell him he'll be REALLY happy with the next set of maps :-) -- Steve Jackson ( http://sj.sjgames.com/ ) ------------------------------ From: Steve Jackson Subject: "Medium" Revetments >From: Michael Powers >Armorcast has a pack of 'Vehicle Emplacements' available for >miniatures roughly the size of the Ogre miniatures. I've got a set. They're very nice. I even painted mine. Yes, they're not quite the ideal size (though everyone's idea of ideal size might be different). We are thinking of casting up some of our own with a Last War look. Imagine logs, rubble, earth, and vehicle hulks all piled into shape and then sprayed with BPC . . . 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. ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Comments on Naval Ogre Variants I don't like them. The Ogre system was developed to simulate a particular kind of combat, and does a great job. But greatness in one area doesn't mean adequacy in another area. Naval ships a hundred *years* ago routinely engaged each other at ranges longer than the Ogre map. The ranges in Ogre are larger limited by detection and location, not by weapons ranges, and at sea there is a lot less to hide behind or scatter radar. The IR background is lower and smoother. You can see farther and shoot farther, and one is *is* likely to be decisive, at least as far as combat ability. So I don't think assigning ranges and hull points to new unit types is going to do it. I know I'm being curmudgeonly, but it just stops feeling right, which is very quickly followed by disbelief. One factor that hasn't been considered, as far as subs go, is the *amazing* degree that water carries concussion. I'm not sure BPC, which is quasi-ablative anyway, would protect a sub against the astonishing concussive power of an underwater nuclear charge. I've lost my notes, but there was a nuclear depth charge from the sixties with a 500 or 1000 pound equivelent yield that was supposed to destroy subs within a *kilometer*, or maybe it was two. In any case, that means that if a HVY can put a shell or two with a hex or two of your location you're dead. Oh, and since it doesn't have to get a lock on you, its range is doubled. One turns worth of firing blind and you've killed anything nearby. Subs could no longer rely on having an unclear location. Subs would have to be so stealthy that no on knows they are *there*. That means not firing any weapons, to say the least. Torpedos could *certainly* take out GEVs. They simply detonate right under them. Not a lot of armor underneath, and in any case they'll be thrown in the air and likely come down on their side or back, effectively out of the fight. Carriers tend to be light on defenses, and DDs heavy on defenses. Then you surround your Carrier with a bunch of DDs, so that threats can be attacked before they get close to the carrier. Depth charges are unnecessary for the reasons noted above - every shell is a depth charge, with plenty of explosive power to destroy underwater targets. Why have one you can drop when one that you can fir a couple of miles is so much more flexible? You can use it for surface targets or shore bombardment, and it does away with all that pesky manuevering for position. All this being said, opposed landings are very interesting, and someday we should get some good rules for them. Perhaps the carriers can be fixed off board and we can just game the various types of GEVs coming ashore. We will need some larger GEVs than can carry HVYs, though, since I don't go anywhere without them. We don't need to game the ships, we need to assume that the landing side has achieved localized sea superiority (since they wouldn't land otherwise). Bombardment can be handled with existing, though controversial, cruise missle rules. ----- [There already exists in the OGREverse weapons equivalent to the proposed nuclear depth charges, they're carried by Cruise Missiles. The problem with NOT having ships on the board is what then keeps the defender from taking an all GEV force and mixing it up so closely with the hovertransports that Cruise Missiles would simply finish off the attackers? Naval units will force the defenders inland, for a more "balanced" scenario with a greater mix of unit types in play. -HJC] ------------------------------ From: Michael Powers Subject: Fox Hunt *Do the Heavy Weapons infantry have 'hypersmart' missiles? (That is, can they attack the sub when it's underwater?) If not, then what are they useful for? (I don't have Shockwave; are they better at intercepting cruise missiles?) Same with the LGEVs, I suppose, considering that they don't have weapons that can 'shoot through' water. *Do depth charges attack a specific system, or do they merely damage 'Hull Points'? *Are torpedoes restricted to attacking things that are 'in the water' (ships, GEVs, and swimming infantry) or can they attack infantry sitting on ships? *Can ship and submarine weapons be 'disabled'? Or is this read as 'no effect', as for Ogres? *Do torpedo attacks create spillover fire against surface targets? i.e. if a torpedo hits a ship and damages its Structure Points, is there a Strength 2 attack against all the ship's components and any infantry that are 'above decks'? *The ships and the sub have Structure Points. Can engineers plant mines on them? (For example, the Marines could destroy the sub's torpedo tubes and AP, and then the Marine Engineers could drop a mine onto it if there aren't enough left to overrun it to death anytime soon.) This could be a fun 'double blind' scenario if you could come up with decent rules for detection. The Combine player could scatter out GEVs to confuse the sub as to which were dangerous GEV-PCs and which were merely hovertrucks; also, the sub might get confused between the carrier and the cruiser and attack the wrong one. Meanwhile, the ships must figure out where the sub is located, either by sending out scout units (GEVs) or by dropping infantry into the water (assume that they can 'see' further underwater, though this makes them vulnerable to attack by the sub.) -- Michael Powers Graduate Student, GWU/JIAFS NASA Langley Research Center (757) 864 4457 -- m.t.powers@larc.nasa.gov ----- [Yes these Heavy Weapons squads can engage submerged targets at half strength, even if their suits can't swim. The depth charges act like a standard 6 point attack, but can only be used against submerged targets at their "zero hex" range. The ship and sub weapons are disabled or destroyed as a side effect of overall damage to the unit, they do not count as seperate targets. Torpedos are conventional attacks with spillover. I'm starting to think that they only do spillover against GEVs. Engineers can mine the sub, but they'd kill it faster with their usual weapons. (Given the level of damage it'd take to knock all the weapons off in the first place.) I'm working on a revision using the Landing Craft from Killing Zone, which Steve has kindly allowed the use of. (I'm going to modify them a bit though, the old kind was too nukable.) -HJC] ------------------------------ Subject: More OGRE Humor From: Kevin Walker > [Hellbores? Hellbores? We don't need no stinking directed energy > weapons! > > Unlike California, we've got nukes. -HJC] Okay... I'll try a few... * Roads? Where I'm going I don't need roads! * Speak softly but carry a big nuke. Kevin Walker sage@chartermi.net ------------------------------ From: Michael Powers Subject: More Ogre Names, and a bit of 'future history' Well, I guess I'll have a go... Megaton Man (after the comic character invented by Don Simpson) Congratulations! (i.e. "you made it close enough to be able to read this!") Collateral Damage I'm A Feature (programmer axiom "That's not a bug, it's a feature") Samson (the archetypal really strong guy who kills himself to destroy the enemy, and creates massive destruction) Lawgiver (known for playing "I AM THE LAW!" at high volume through its external speakers) Rocket Scientist (on a Fencer--all those missile racks!) Evil Otto (after the 'Berserk' video game character--an unstoppable monster that chased after your player, and had the form of a bouncing yellow smiley face.) Mass _AND_ Maneuver I Break For Nobody (Pun on the 'I Brake For...' bumper stickers) Schlock Mercenary (after my favorite comic strip -- www.schlockmercenary.com ) Live or Memorex? (on a sentient Ogre) Historically, I'd say that the early Ogres weren't officially 'named'--they may have had slogans painted on by maintenance crews, but the thought of an Ogre as an individual 'personality' instead of just a generic military unit didn't arise until the advent of the Mark III. At this point an Ogre was a significant enough force by itself to warrant a little more 'respect', and they started getting names at the factory. While they were never 'officially' named, nobody tried to stop the builders from naming them--likely because the builders _did_ ultimately control what Ogres did. Later sentient Ogres came up with names for themselves; these were as likely to be nonsensical or childish as they were to be clever. You might see a Mark V with 'XY46BAS@1!' painted on its flanks; you could also see a Vulcan named 'Scotty'. Some Ogres took names like 'Eat atomic flaming death, meatboy, while your puny weapons bounce off my invulnerable hide!'. And these phrases were quickly painted onto the Ogre, because when a 300-ton tank armed with nuclear weapons says it wants something--particularly a name like THAT--it gets what it wants. There wasn't as much 'nose art' on Ogres, though; while a second-line unit or National Guard Ogre might be so decorated, the frontline units took so much punishment that they were seldom even painted beyond a spray coat of primer. The various paintjobs we see on Ogres are probably either units that haven't been in combat yet, units that are expecting a parade or review, or just holotank embellishments on the grim reality. -- Michael Powers Graduate Student, GWU/JIAFS NASA Langley Research Center (757) 864 4457 -- m.t.powers@larc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ From: Todd Zircher Subject: Hometown maps > [Henry J. Cobb] > I can just see a supplement or website where everybody submits a > color map with a note as to the location of their home and a few > scenarios over the local terrain. Yeah, I can see how that would work out for central Oklahoma. Park a laser tower at one end of the map and watch everyone scurry for the river bed and city hexes. It would be like trying to simulate the LA highway system with GEV units. ;-) -- TAZ ----- From: "William Spencer" Subject: Hometown maps > [Hellbores? Hellbores? We don't need no stinking directed energy weapons! > Unlike California, we've got nukes. -HJC] You know, I pass one of those "Santa Cruz: Nuclear Free Zone" signs every day on the bus to the University, and I always wondered how they enforced that one. I mean, if I've got a nuke in my pocket, you don't wanna mess with me, know what I'm sayin'? Course, if I've got a laser you don't wanna mess with me either. It's just easier to avoid. If the power's running, but that's another story. > [I can just see a supplement or website where everybody submits a > color map with a note as to the location of their home and a few scenarios > over the local terrain. I like it, I like it. People living in an area can always give little details that an out-of-towner (stater, nationer) would miss. That's why the AADA Road Atli were fun. Someone do it, 'twould be very cool. > Nope, they'll move north from South California, which they already own > half of anyway. -HJC] They own North California, or South California? ----- From: Michael Powers Subject: Hometown maps > Personally I'm not afraid of any Nipponise OGREs crossing over the >Golden Goat bridge. Have you seen they way it shakes in a stiff breeze? Did you ever read "Rolling Hot", from the Hammer's Slammers series? > Nope, they'll move north from South California, which they already own >half of anyway. -HJC] Maybe they'll just build the Ogres right there... -- Michael Powers Graduate Student, GWU/JIAFS NASA Langley Research Center (757) 864 4457 -- m.t.powers@larc.nasa.gov ----- [Oh don't be silly, that's not a real tank. It's a prop for that new Soni Megacorp movie: "The Invasion of LA". -HJC] ------------------------------ From: Michael Powers Subject: AP weapons that can attack armor I don't like this idea, without making the Ogres hugely more expensive. Considering that most 'conventional' units have to come within two hexes to shoot at the Ogre, they'd be within the move-fire range of the AP guns. So you're effectively giving a Mark III another pair of Main Batteries to shoot at things. You're also vastly increasing Ogres' ability to deal with 'swarm' attacks, which is one of their few 'soft' areas. Also, in an overrun, a Mark V would get an extra TWENTY-FOUR points of firepower. That can't be cheap. I'd say that if you really want to have your AP guns shoot things, then allow them to fire at armored units, but only during an overrun, and they don't get double strength when doing it. i.e. I could shoot my AP guns at a HVY for 1 attack strength each, or at infantry for 2 attack strength each. This represents the fact that they dump out so many rounds that at close range the likelihood of a 'golden BB' shot is high, even though the rounds have no hope of penetrating the armor. -- Michael Powers Graduate Student, GWU/JIAFS NASA Langley Research Center (757) 864 4457 -- m.t.powers@larc.nasa.gov ----- From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: AP weapons that can attack armor Any changes here are likely to require long reaching revision, and I'm not sure there's much to gain. I'd prefer to think that any opportunistic use of APs against targets other than infantry are factored into the rule that Ogre weapons have doubled attack strength in overruns. ----- From: Kevin Walker Subject: AP weapons that can attack armor I like the concept a bit, however if you allow them to be used in overrun situations you then have an inconsistency in that APs have a 1 hex (2" range). Thus you end up with a weapon that has one set of conditions from one range (overrun) and another another set of conditions at another range (at 1 hex / 2"). Since no other weapon I can think of has a situation like or close to this I'd be hesitant to add in "special" circumstance like this that requires a new ruling. Call me a KISS specialist... ;-) Kevin Walker Horizon Concepts, Inc. Macintosh / Windows Development sage@chartermi.net ------------------------------ From: Stephan Beal Subject: Fencer poll > From: Steve Jackson > > ...a question out here - those who have played this unit, > do you think I should . . . > > - Leave it alone - 2 secondaries, 150 points As a semi-traditionalist, I'd vote for this. The Fencer has always been my favorite Ogre, alongside the Mark IV, but it does peter out rather quickly once it's racks are hit. > - Cut the point value to, say, 125, so a Fencer plus 4 armor units is > about equal to a Mark V Second-best answer, I think. > - Consider those two big guns to be *main* batteries, giving the > Fencer a bit more punch and, more important, another hex of attack > range? I think that would really increase the nastiness-value of the unit, in the same way that upping the SHV to D5 did for that unit. ----- From: Inire Subject: Fencer poll worth is really relative, innit? When i was playing what seemed like a lot of OGRE minis, i _loved_ the Fencer and didn't bat an eye at its cost: the missile racks made it all worthwhile, and a situation where I was using the secondaries had probably gone badly into the defensive realm anyway. Having said that, lowering the cost or having Mains wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least....;-> dang. gonna hafta stop lurking and start playing this game again...DAMN YOU, Steve Jackson! :-D ----- Subject: Fencer poll From: Kevin Walker > - Leave it alone - 2 secondaries, 150 points at 150 or 140 ;-) this is the least of my favorite options. > - Cut the point value to, say, 125, so a Fencer plus 4 armor units is about > equal to a Mark V A good idea. My second favorite. > - Consider those two big guns to be *main* batteries, giving the Fencer a > bit more punch and, more important, another hex of attack range? I like this option best. With the lack of secondaries this still make the Mk IV less able to handle damage than that of a Mk IV. To balance it out (if needed) one might consider pushing it up to the 150 point level (just a quick guess here, I've done no stats testing or play-testing with this change yet). Kevin Walker sage@chartermi.net ----- From: "Imre A. Szabo" Subject: Fencer poll If you use the Cisco points method, the Fencer comes out to 225 Cisco points, the Mark V comes out to 271 Cisco points. Mark V 150 / 271 = 0.5535 Fencer 140 / 225 = 0.6222 This suggest the Fencer is over priced. A just price would be: 0.5535 * 225 = 124.5375 Ogre Miniture Points. For comparison, the Cisco iFencer (from yours truly) cost 239 Cisco Points and has the two secondaries replaced by two main batteries. Why? Those guns on the miniture look to big to be secondaries... 0.5535 * 239 = 132.2865 Ogre Miniture Points I prefer the Fencer with 2 main batteries costing 130 points. Cisco method Ogre creator is available at Stephan Beal's web site: http://byoo.rootonfire.org/ ias ----- From: "Duncan McEwen" Subject: Fencer Poll Henry, Here is my responce to the Fencer Poll. Is there a way to get non digest forms of this group? Have you thought about migrating to a yahoo group setup? I use that for all my Star Wars stuff and am very pleased. Just a thought. Thanks, Duncan First off, let me say that I rarely have played with a Fencer. When we did, it was the old 4 gun version. Second, let me say that I have recently been looking at unit sizes and such and have some points on the Fencer. (Watch for a follow up to my Tread Unit post.) First off, the Fencer is its current version is similar to a Mark III. This can be seen from a comparison of Ogre GURPS Size data, Number of Tread Units, and overall armament. Here are the comparisons. Mark III/Legionnaire Tread Units 48, Volume 90,686 ft3, weight 1,889 tons, Size Class 7, 8 AP, 1 MB, 4 SB, 2 EM Fencer Tread Units 48, Volume 72,605 ft3, weight 1,666 tons, Size Class 8, 8AP, 2SB, 4 MR Mark III-B Tread Units 48, Volume 94,637 ft3, weight 2,071 tons, Size Class 7, 8 AP, 2 MB, 4 SB, 4EM Based on this I would say the Fencer is much more of a Mark III cost unit, probably less than a MK III-B and maybe exactly 100 points like a MK III. In addition, I recommend that the size class be adjusted down to class 7. (More on that in another post.) The alternative is to change the SB to something else, but I think I would rather see it cheaper based on the GURPS info on size. Thanks, Duncan McEwen NA Combine Ogre Engineering Dept. ----- [Steve is well aware of the Yahoo groups, and as before I would not presume to compete with a seperate official list. -HJC] ----- Subject: Fencer poll From: Dave Morse 4 secondaries gets my vote. One idea is to give fencers a point cost as similar to MkVs as possible, to keep the scenerio variations permutationally profuse. Imagine an Exersise K where each player could choose among MkV, MkIV, and Fencer. Imagine the poor Esprit de Corps of (2-secondary) Fencer AIs when they realize how superior their MkIV rivals are. 95% same guns and 33% faster. Its enough to make a P.E. entity want to defect, I tell ya. ----- From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Fencer poll The Sherman entered Europe with a 60mm gun only to find that this wouldn't penetrate the armor of the larger German tanks (I guess these tanks were too heavy to move to Africa, where the Sherman did okay with the 60mm). So, later Shermans had a 75mm gun. This *also* wouldn't penetrate the armor of the heavier German tanks, but by then the Germans were out of gas so it didn't matter. For greater variety and historical flavor, I'd complicate the issue by suggesting we pick a year determine point values for the Fencer-SB and the Fencer-MB (better names would be good), respectively manufactured before and after a given date. Since the guns don't look exactly like either Combine weapon, no modification to the minis are necessary. I don't want to complicate Ogre, but military vehicles do tend to have a lot variations (eg M16A-1), and there are little hints of this in the Ogreverse and I think it adds. ----- From: Michael Powers Subject: Fencer poll My vote goes to knocking the points cost down. Failing that, replace the secondaries with a 'Fencer Main Battery' that's 3/3, d3. (SHVY guns, basically.) I just don't like the idea of a tank running around with TWO mains AND _FOUR_ missile racks. Why would you need a Doppelsoldner if your original designs were this badass? For the game world, claim that the original Paneuropean Ogre doctrine used cybertanks as long-ranged support vehicles rather than as frontline combat units; thus all the missiles and long-ranged but not-as-powerful guns. It was decided that this wasted the Ogre's abilities, and that the Combine designs really put the Ogre concept to its most efficient use; thus rather fewer Fencers were built than other designs. -- Michael Powers Graduate Student, GWU/JIAFS NASA Langley Research Center (757) 864 4457 -- m.t.powers@larc.nasa.gov ----- From: largecardriver5@webtv.net (e.w.markle) Subject: Fencer poll Steve, Give the Fencer an option of adding the extra 2 2'eds. Should be some spares in the box with the 'swimming tower'. Fencer alpha- 4 2eds. Fencer beta- 2 2eds. Ed ----- From: Servitor@aol.com Subject: Fencer poll My vote is for that. However, there is no reason why they can't be BOTH. If a player wants his fencer to have 2 secondaries, then 125pts. Personally, I think 120pts is better, but the various OGRE construction algorithms, including my own, don't agree with me. (Note: Is the Fencer's peculiar design outside the normal accuracy range of the algorithms? Or do I just stink with Fencers?) But if a player wants them to be main batteries, *POOF*, they're mains, with the Fencer then costing 140pts. As long as your opponent understands which model of Fencer you're using (original, or up-gunned refit as I would refer to them). Somebody has already pointed out to me that the guns actually look more like gauss cannons than the traditional "howitzer" style Ogre guns. How about trying this out to see if it makes the Fencer "worth" it's original points: Fencer Railguns: A3, R6, D4. Uses LLOS rules. Obviously, such a Fencer would be vulnerable in close terrain, but would easily be able to swat at anything but a HWZ in open terrain no matter what it's targets did. GEVs would no longer have a field day after removing a line of treads and a couple of racks. best, John Hurtt (Servitor@aol.com) ----- [I would take that even further. By engaging in a crash design effort, rather than walking their OGREs up from Heavy Tanks, the Paneuropeans made a major miscalculation about the strength of OGRE armor. Those two big guns in front are Howitzers, Atk 6/6, D3. The Fencer justifies the 150 point price tag, but is tactically challenging to use. After some field reports the Paneuropeans realised their mistake and later models carried smaller guns, but many more of them for a much greater total defensive strength. -HJC] ----- From: Sean Bayan Schoonmaker Subject: Fencer poll I responded on the Pyramid boards, but I'll do so again here. This choice is my preference: >- Cut the point value to, say, 125, so a Fencer plus 4 armor units is about >equal to a Mark V Schoon ----- From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" Subject: Fencer Poll > - Consider those two big guns to be *main* batteries, giving the Fencer a > bit more punch and, more important, another hex of attack range? Even more important, a higher defence factor so it takes more to KO them. ------------------------------ From: Servitor@aol.com Subject: List Archives and the new OGRE Book. Whilst digging through Henry's archives, I stumble across a comment I made in 1998 about... well, just read: <> <> I was referring to the original OGRE Book. Although many of the articles transferred from the first printing to the new book, the excellent article by Mike Lazich, "Ogre Meets Starship Troopers" or "Pardon me, but your treads are on my neck" didn't make the cut. Which is a pity. I figure there's got to be a lot of copies of Avalon Hills' Starship Troopers floating around out there. Still, I can understand why, since it (ST) is out of print currently. Now that Hasbro has purchased AH and is putting out quality wargames under their banner (like the excellent "BattleCry" and "Axis and Allies, War in Europe"), I wonder if they will consider a reprint/upgrade of ST. Hopefully, it will still be compatible with Ogre using Mike's rules. And for those of you who have an original copy of the first Ogre Book, yes, I remember the next (last) article. Don't even get me started on Boppers... best, John Hurtt (Servitor@aol.com) ----- [Yes, all that crossover material got cut. Hey Steve, could you post the missing articles on the web someplace? -HJC] Henry J. Cobb ogre@sjgames.com Archives at http://www.io.com/~hcobb All OGRE-related items Copyright (c) 2001, by Steve Jackson Games.