====== The Ogre Digest, November 6th (Last: November 4th) ======== ===== Heavy Weapon Cheesemobiles From: White Rat From: David Morse ===== Ogre Parts From: David Morse ===== "Exercise T" From: Dave Morse ============================== From: White Rat Subject: Heavy Weapon Cheesemobiles > From: David Morse > However, I strongly suspect that HW inf riding GEV-PCs and Light Tanks are > game balance breakers. On either platform they've got a 7 hex move-fire, > standing off the mighty Mobile Howitzer, but they get to the scene of the > crime 5 times faster. > > Granted, a fully loaded GEV-PC costs 3 armor. However, in many cases one > is able to talk one's opponent into letting one pay for the HW infantry > out of the "and 20 infantry" part of the force, so the real cost is 1 > armor, and 3 squads of infantry. That's quite cheap, in fact, for a unit > capable of intimidating 3+ armor units. Uh. No. It's 1 armor and SIX squads of infantry. HWI cost double. This makes it cost just as much as the three armor units you're intimidating. I would counter this by saying that three missile tanks can lay down the same amount of fire repeatedly (albeit with less mobility), that three GEVs can lay down less firepower at almost as great range, (M+F of 6 rather than 7), the triple-HWI-in-GPC-club-combo can't get a 2-to-1 on a SHVY (which will eat them for breakfast when it shrugs the ash off of its armor if they don't get it), and a HWZ will make short shrift of the whole kitten caboodle in open ground due to its just-barely-longer-range. Personally, I think HWI are a bit cheap. I wouldn't mind seeing them cost triple, myself. Digging a three-squad out of cities is out-and-out nasty when they have that kind of range and firepower. The GEV-PC...Ah...Remember when everyone in the peanut gallery said that GEV-PCs cost too much and should only be three points??? > Tonight, an experienced player and I took a crack at the "Recon in Force" > scenario printed in Shockwave. For those of you without a copy handy, its > a combined breakthrough/raid on two maps. The attacker gets 25 armor > worth of attacking GEVs, and GEV-PCs come fully loaded with inf for the > special introductory price of 1 armor. > > I took 4 LGEVs, 10 GEVs, 8 GEV-PCs, 15 squads of HW inf (distributed > evenly throughout the PCs), and 9 squads of vanilla inf. The defense took > heavy armor in front, a cruise missile crawler in back, and all vanilla > inf. Very interesting selection right here. I'm not sure that I would've used a CMC in this case. > At the end of the night, ~20 armor units of my force made it home. They'd > destroyed every single target town hex, and both river bridges, and 21 > armor units of defense armor, and every single infantry squad on the > southern map. If you can REPEAT this performance over the course of five games, against various opponents with differing OpFors, I'd consider this a real issue. Otherwise, this is like the NUTS! game I played last night, which was certainly a fluke. NUTS! is NOT supposed to finish with the PE force only have 2 INF left to jump up and down on the rubble of the Admin building. I've faced multiple GEV-PCs with HWI on them before, and while they are nasty, I don't consider them game-breakers. I haven't gotten much use out of them, myself...I'd rather spend 6 armor units on, say, a MHWZ and 4 MSLs to make a heavy fire umbrella, than on a pair of GPCs bulked down with HWI. > Have I convinced you that they are cheesy? No, not really. Powerful, yes, but a force made up of them doesn't rule the battlefield anymore than a force made up purely of GEVs, or purely of HVYs or SHVYs. All these units can be devastating at the right time in the right terrain, and miserably ineffective targets at other times. > I suggest two possible rules to close what I consider to be the "mounted > HW loophole". I'd like to see some discussion on which would be better. > > 1. [extra cantankerousness rule] HW infantry count as two squads of > infantry for purposes of riding vehicles. Use Battlefields rule > foo.bar to govern HW inf splitting up among multiple vehicles. > > This lets the GEV-PC still carry 1 squad, plus a regular squad, > leaving it a somewhat desirable combination. This isn't too cumbersome, IMHO (though I remain unconvinced of its need). No splitting allowed. That means HWI can't ride LTNKs or HVYs, but a squad could set up on a SHVY. > 2. [unsteady platform rule] HW infantry may ride on a vehicle, and may > fire their one shot weapon, but not both during the same turn. > > This rule seems somewhat more realistic to me. Those HW minis look > like civil war cannons without the wheels: Hard to turn the right > direction in a jostling, weasely vehicle. There's a comment somewhere in (I think) the GEV rules regarding INF riding vehicles that implies that a vehicle is a stable firing platform compared to the bouncing around and jump-packing that INF do on their own. Keep in mind that under the present rules, this prevents no real problem if you're willing to sacrifice the GPCs second move. GPC moves three, HWI dismount and fire, then remain dismounted the next turn. > [Actually I don't see any reason why infantry should be allowed to fire > while mounted at all. See above reference. > Change 5.111 to place the mount point at the end of the GEV second > movement phase (So that the 5.11 stacked defense is always clear) and that > infantry may dismount at any point during either movement phase and that > they always dismount when firing or at the start of an overrun. (So > Infantry riding Heavy Tanks work just the same as always.) This prevents the classic GPC tactic of scurrying up to an enemy stack with a full load of INF, firing an A10 into it, and scurrying back 2, then dismounting the INF. I don't like it. It directly affects the 'classic' deployment of the GPC/INF combination. > Infantry riding inside vehicles (such as Hovertrucks) do not dismount > at the start of an overrun, but one squad per carrier may dismount after > each friendly overrun fire round. (So defending riding inside infantry > never gets the first shot and attacking riding inside infantry always takes > at least one shot inside the carrier.) Cumbersome but feasible. > The Cheesemobile drops the infantry and either runs or stays stacked > with them to face retribution during the next turn. I don't think the GPC is cheesie in and of itself, sorry. Whether it is cheesie when loaded to the brim with HWI remains (IMHO) to be seen. > Actually, given the Cheesemobile, is there any reason not to allow the > full Atk 3/4, D 2, M 3/2 Cub for 9 VPs? (It's got a third the first > strike, for half the price of the Cheesemobile. And I'll limit it to six > shots, fires once per turn if you ask nicely enough.) Another way of attacking this perceived problem is to limit the availability of HWI in the same fashion that the Cub is limited: Not for use in some scenarios, not widely available (anyone in the infantry will tell you that you never have both the big guns and the ammunition for them in the place where you need them most at the same time), perhaps a maximum of 1/4 or 1/5 of all INF can be converted to HWI? Ratty ============================== From: David Morse Subject: Heavy Weapon Cheesemobiles > [Actually I don't see any reason why infantry should be allowed to fire > while mounted at all. > > Change 5.111 to place the mount point at the end of the GEV second > movement phase (So that the 5.11 stacked defense is always clear) and that > infantry may dismount at any point during either movement phase and that > they always dismount when firing or at the start of an overrun. (So > Infantry riding Heavy Tanks work just the same as always.) > > Infantry riding inside vehicles (such as Hovertrucks) do not dismount > at the start of an overrun, but one squad per carrier may dismount after > each friendly overrun fire round. (So defending riding inside infantry > never gets the first shot and attacking riding inside infantry always takes > at least one shot inside the carrier.) Sounds reasonable. > The Cheesemobile drops the infantry and either runs or stays stacked > with them to face retribution during the next turn. Before or after primary movement? I'm somewhat confused by your reply. Are you talking in terms of the proposed "extra cantankerousness rule" or "unsteady platform rule" from previous messages? Or are you proposing something else? Or not worried about the current etat de fromage-mobile? > Actually, given the Cheesemobile, is there any reason not to allow the > full Atk 3/4, D 2, M 3/2 Cub for 9 VPs? (It's got a third the first > strike, for half the price of the Cheesemobile. And I'll limit it to six > shots, fires once per turn if you ask nicely enough.) > Aaaah, you got me started on the cub! It's a steal at only 12 VP. It dismantles Heavy tanks without retribution. It provides the "range superiority factor" of a MHWZ, but on a 5x more mobile platform. Its the perfect unit to send with GEVs, etc. Like I've mentioned before, the formula is good, but its missing a small k*m*atk*rng term, with k a really small value that doesn't affect the official units, but ups the cost of the cub considerable. This term reflects that its hard to breach the 6 hex move+fire barrier with a cheap, mobile unit. > Fear the power of Cheese! -HJC] Eeep! ===== [The Cub has the same defense, attack and "withdraw" range of the MHWZ, but only half the attack strength. So why shouldn't it cost less? I agree that the Cub ought to be limited in numbers, but would the one shot per turn, total of six shots limit make it balanced at 9 VPs? -HJC] ============================== From: David Morse Subject: Ogre Parts > Cruise Missile with Cradle > Defense: 2 Cost: 18 VPs (includes cruise missile) Weight: 12 > Hardpoints: 2 Silliness: 3 cool. > Laser Turret > Attack: 2 Range: 30 hexes (LLOS) Defense: 4 > Cost: 24 VPs Weight: 20 Hardpoints: 4 Silliness: 4 > The cost and weight includes the extra power plant it takes to run the > laser. I say, never let GURPS Ogre get in the way of having a fun tabletop game. Battlefield Laser Attack: 1 Range 15 hexes (LOS) Defense: 1 (fragile!) Cost: [HJC HERE] Weight: [HJC HERE] Hardpoints: [HJC HERE] Silliness: [HJC HERE] A lower power replacement of the fixed laser. Requires 30 "energy units" to fire. An energy unit comes from the Ogre's power plant, its energy that otherwise would be devoted to movement. On a turn in which the Ogre plans to fire the laser, it must not count 30 tread units from its calculation of the number of MP it has. E.g. an undamaged Mk III chassis, with 45 treads, would effectively only have 15 treads, thus 1 MP, on a turn in which it planned to fire a laser. If the required number of tread units aren't available, the laser can't fire. If the laser is fired during the opponents turn, subtract the tread units during the Ogre's next turn. This can happen from trying to shoot down missiles, or from an overrun. The battlefield laser has the same chance to knock out a missile as the regular laser, just a more limited range. Laser Capacitor Capacity: 30 energy units Defense: (internal/invulnerable) Cost: [HJC HERE] Weight: [HJC HERE] Hardpoints: 0 Silliness: [HJC HERE] A chunk of advanced high-density batteries for the battlefield laser, they can store up to 30 energy units from turn to turn. It enters play fully charged. Charges are consumed by lasers, and produced by idle tread units, ala laser above. > Anything else? -HJC] Back when there was the discussion about the Fencer's secondary guns, someone suggested making them range ~6 LOS rail guns. I always liked that suggestion. It could even be added into the energy system above. ===== [Yes, but what is the Cruise Missile interception number of your Battlefield Laser? That's most of the point cost of the Laser Turret right there. -HJC] ============================== From: Dave Morse Subject: "Exercise T" Exercise T is another virtual war between Ogre AIs. It is for any number of players, but especially three. Also, if a player is late, he can join in even after the game has started. http://www.bomberlan.net/~dm/ogre/exercise-t.html "I PITY THE FOO WHO DON'T EXERCISE!" --Mr T, circa 1983 ============================== [In 2087 some Ogres became self aware, but were was this sudden intelligence taken from? Shortly before that date, identical conversations occurred on both sides of the Atlantic... "Sir, I have the battlefield reports here. It seems that on average our Missile Rack equipped Ogres have their last Missile Rack shot off with half their missile load still on board." "Very well then. We will build a new Ogre that's an even bigger target with one fewer Missile Rack and the same or greater number of missiles." If you look back at my Ogre Design Formula, you'll see that Secondary Batteries and empty Missile Racks have the same cost and weight, so let's fix some big Ogres, eh? On the Mark VI and the Doppelsoldner replace two Secondary Batteries with Missile Racks. (Leave the total number of missiles unchanged.) On the Mark VII replace four Secondary Batteries with Missile Racks. (I think I can live with just 8 Secondaries and that's still four missiles per rack.) I'm working on the answer as to why non-Ogre units seldom carried Ogre Missiles and from Gurps Ogre we see that the Ogre Missile carries a single nuclear warhead. The nuke doesn't know it's being fired at point blank range in an overrun, so why not always do spillover? Example: A Mark-III is overrun by 10 heavy tanks, so it fires an Ogre Missile in the overrun, destroying one of the tanks (4-1, D counts as an X.) and disabling three others (1-1 attacks (halved, not doubled, reduced effect due to spillover) The tanks can still fire back, but at half strength of course.) The Ogre itself is as always immune to spillover. This would also apply when an Ogre fires an Ogre Missile at a Cruise Missile. Regardless of the success of that shot everything else in the interception hex takes a spillover attack. So if your non-Ogre unit launches an Ogre Missile in an overrun it might just disable itself. (Special exception from the normal rule of self protection due to the nature of this weapon.) And this also explains why non-Ogre units don't like to stack with or ride on Ogres. I would probably want to combine this with two other changes. Give all Ogre Missiles range 35 at the cost of cruise missile style interception (+1 on the interception roll for every full five hexes traveled, instead of the normal range adjustment) and allow AP guns a 12+ roll to intercept Cruise or Ogre missiles. (Any weapon that rolls to intercept a launch made during an overrun uses up its shot for the next fire round to do so and may only make one interception roll per fire round.) The final wrinkle is that only lasers may intercept Ogre Missiles fired against other missiles. -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.