====== The Ogre Digest, November 27th (Last: November 26th) ======== ===== Ogre Minis Scale From: Darren Breland ===== Missile Racks in Overruns From: "Paul Chapman" From: Darren Breland ===== Mark IV miniature From: "Paul Chapman" From: "Powers, Michael T1" ===== mailing lists From: Dave Morse ===== Underwater Ogres From: Sethkimmel@aol.com ===== Missile GEVs in action. From: Darren Breland ===== GEV Scenario Contest From: David Morse ===== Laser AA Systems Today From: Darren Breland ============================== From: Darren Breland Subject: Ogre Minis Scale I am not sure if I posed this question here or not, I had in the forums with limited response. Who here enjoys the scale of Ogre Minis? I am talking about play on an open surface, not the Hex map version which all of us minis purists know isn't REAL miniatures. :-) First the Cons of the scale: 1) Board scale is WAY out of proportion with mini size.. they are two entirely different things which leads to a LOT of confusion. 2) Ranges and movement are too short for the minis size (INF attacking an Ogre must practically be standing on TOP of the fig to be in range and don't even talk about Overruns... sheesh!) 3) Minis get all clumped together. This makes movement difficult with large numbers of minis 4) Ogre is too big for the scale. 5) When playing on a large surface (sheet of plywood), it takes forever to get into engagement range. An hour of boredom followed by 15 mins of excitement. Pro's 1) Ability to play on a small table or surface 2) hmmm... #1 is all I got...sorry. Keep in mind we like to use lots of terrain and play on a 4'x8' plywood sheet of which the first foot of each side is used for papers, off-field figs (dead pile), and beer, so effectively it's a 4x6 field of play. For our needs, the Cons outweighed the Pros so on our Friday night game we introduced a new, radical, and complex solution... we doubled the scale. Game play changed instantly. Now GEV's that took 3 turns to get into engagement range are now blazing away in 1. Artillery takes on a whole new significance (yes, even the MHWZ gets to shoot!) and spillover teaches you spacing techniques (don't forget to double the blast templates ). Also, when assaulting an Ogre, the figs no longer look like a California traffic jam when you have 6 figs ganged up to get in their shots. It was a blast, the games went faster, we used more of our playfield and more units engaged sooner plus we actually got to show the effectiveness of infantry. A bloodbath and we loved every minute of it! There is nothing that can be done about the mini's 1/285th size being way out of proportion with the board. A GEV at 150MPH would move 185ft(!!!) in a 4 minute turn. We would need a gymnasium for a "to scale" game. So we kept the 4 min turn and tweaked the board size. Next we might try shortening the turn length to adjust for the board scale.. but that might raise some un-forseen technical, logical or philosophical problems that may affect the stability of the known universe so we'll prob stick with doubled scale for safety. Anyone else have any comments, experiences, or suggestions with the mini's scale? ===== [Ogre Minis, page 4 suggest changing the scale, if needed. -HJC] ============================== From: "Paul Chapman" Subject: Missile Racks in Overruns > From: stephan beal > > From: "Paul Chapman" > > > > > From: Dave Morse > > > When Ogres with missile racks are in overruns, do they get 1 missile > > > launch per /round/, 1 missile launch per /player turn/, or 1 missile > ... > ... > > GEV 6.133 Resolving an overrun attack. > > "Overrun combat is resolved in 'fire rounds.'" > > "Units can combine fire, or fire in succession on one target, just as in a > > regular attack, as long as no unit fires more than once per fire round." > > > > GEV 8.071 Missile rack rules. > > "Each missile rack can fire one missile per _turn_." > > > > In overrun combat, an Ogre may fire each weapon system once per fire round. > > Therefore, an undamaged Ogre Mk. IV can fire 3 missiles into overrun combat > > per fire round. > > Paul, > > i would read this in exactly the opposite manner (one shot per rack per turn, > regardless of when/how it's fired), especially considering how you underlined > _turn_ (which is not "fire round"). i'll take your word for it, of course, > but it is indeed a point for clarification in one of the undoubtedly many > future reprints :). In this instance, "a turn" means "a point in the game when the unit in question may fire." The alternative is firing one missile rack per turn, no matter how many fire rounds are in the turn. This would require additional bookkeeping (did the unit fire before? did it fire during?) which would slow down the battle. I will always prefer the simpler method. > > From: Darren Breland > > This isn't an official ruling, but I'll give it a shot. First we consult > > the Holy book of GEV c1978 ed: > > > > "6.134 Ogre overrun rules. Ogres in an overrun situation follow the above > > rules, except that: (1) An Ogre may fire a certain number of missiles per > > TURN. Therefore, if an Ogre fires its quota of missiles during overrun > > combat, it cannot fire more missiles either in another fire round of that > > overrun, in another overrun that turn, or in its regular fire phase that > > turn." > > And that's exactly the opposite of what Pat just printed (granted, this rule > book is 23 years old!). Which is correct? Both. The version of GEV 6.134 quoted here does not address missile racks, therefore is reinforcing the fact that missiles on the Mk. III and V are one shot weapons. > [Actually, I just spotted another source of confusion on this. > > How many cruise missiles can a Missile Rack engage per turn? From the > official ruling above I suppose it must be one shot per cruise missile per > Missile Rack so what exactly is meant by the one missile per turn > restriction is unclear to me. -HJC] Retorical question: how many missiles does an Ogre Mk. III have? Answer: enough to allow it to make two attacks at strength 6. This does _not_ equal 2 missiles. At the level of abstraction Ogre/G.E.V. operates at, "one 6/5 attack" does not mean "one Rattler." GEV 8.071 is denoting, perhaps too simplistically, that a missile rack may not fire its entire payload in one turn. It may, however, fire one full scale attack (6/5) per rack per turn. Firing into overrun does not require a full "burst" of missiles, nor does it require the extensive targeting normally necessary. Firing at a cruise missile is similar -- a "snap shot" if you will. How about this for a rewrite? "GEV 8.071 Missile rack rules. The "missile rack" is a new weapons system not seen in _Ogre_. Each missile rack can fire one missile per turn. The missiles are stored inside the Ogre and can only be fired through a missile rack. Therefore, an undamaged Mark IV can fire three missiles per turn. However, a missile rack which has fired may still attack a Cruise Missile on the same turn, providing it has the additional missile available. "A missile rack has a defense of 4. The missiles have no defense strength -- they cannot be destroyed while inside the Ogre. When all missile racks are destroyed, or when all 15 missiles are gone, the Mark IV can no longer fire missiles. Destruction of a missile rack destroys one missile at the same time; this is the only way these missiles can be destroyed before firing. "A missile rack may fire once per fire round in overrun combat, until the racks are destroyed or the missile supply is exhausted." Does that help? ===== [If you change that to read "may still engage any number of Cruise Missiles on the same turn", I'm cool with it, but it does make the traditional leap and scream overrun of the Mark V onto the smaller missile rack equipped Ogres more costly. -HJC] ===== From: Darren Breland Subject: Missile Racks in Overruns Per Paul Chapman >In overrun combat, an Ogre may fire each weapon system once per fire round. Therefore, >an undamaged Ogre Mk. IV can fire 3 missiles into overrun combat per fire round. Ouch! I thought missiles were only one shot per TURN, not fire round. That's gonna hurt, but you can sure use up those 20 missiles real quick that way. =) While were on the subject of semantics I want to address the TURN / PHASE / FIRE ROUND confusion. In my book I read the following: TURN - An entire Attacker / Defender sequence of events which includes Attacker and Defender Move / Overrun / Combat PHASES PHASE - Definable separate sequence of events. A player Turn is broken into PHASES defined as Movement, Overrun, & Combat PHASES. ROUND - Only exists in the Overrun Phase which occurs during a player's Movement Phase. Each ROUND is the sequence where Defender / Attacker is allowed to resolve Combat. So now if a rules definition says, "A missile launcher can only fire once per TURN", that means to me only once per Move/Overrun/Combat sequence. And therein the confusion lies. So if SJGames was sponsoring a tourney, would the rule be applied in the manner you described? per stephan >Just wait until you start using the Militia from Ogre Battlefields. >Too complex for the original rules framework. Oh man, keep the lid on that box, I have already voiced my displeasure at the MIL unit type. Look back in the Archives and the Ogre message board for that "discussion"... more like an electronic beating. =) >And that's exactly the opposite of what Pat just printed (granted, this rule >book is 23 years old!). Which is correct? Mostly the basic rules themselves have remained fairly static since the original, only some of the units have changed. But I should cover that up cuz my age is showing on that one.. ;-). ============================== From: "Paul Chapman" Subject: Mark IV miniature > From: Sethkimmel@aol.com > It will look like the MKIII and MKV though? I've seen pictures on the web of > a MKIV, and I liked the front hull; it had the right family of vehicles > "feel". I'll take your word for the aft hull as the picture wasn't a close > up... When could you release him if you only redo the aft hull, and leave > the front hull the same (and maybe use MKV treads and guns to save > time)?. To me, a MKIV has to look like a III and a V... According to the background, the V was the next direct step from the III; the IV was a step sideways. The designers liked the firepower and toughness of the III, and wanted to expand it. However, they also wanted a cybertank which could _move_ (undoubtedly tired of GEVs snapping at their heels all the time). Rather than try to satisfy both needs in one unit, they took two different paths. Which is a long way of saying: the IV will look like the III and V, but not like the "in-between" step. Paul Chapman Miniatures Division Manager Ogre Line Editor Steve Jackson Games paul@sjgames.com You can't spell "progress" without an Ogre! ===== From: "Powers, Michael T1" Subject: Mark IV miniature I think that it ought to be no wider than a Mark III (or maybe just a bit wider), but each body segment should be 50% longer; this makes it look like a Fencer, but with more of a balance between the front body and the rear body. The front gets the tower, the MB, and the two secondaries (arranged as the Mark III) and some sort of "engine/drivetrain" structure for the rest of the length. The rear gets three 'missile racks', arranged front-to-back along the right side of the body (the other side is missile storage.) -- Mike Powers ============================== From: Dave Morse Subject: mailing lists > [And why not subscribe to Pyramid? Fifteen bucks a year isn't going to > break you, now will it? I don't subscribe just because I don't like the idea of paying for stuff I don't want. By giving $15 to pyramid, I'm encouraging SJG to further support GURPS or whatever its mostly about. (furthermore I'm unintentionally consuming advertising for whatever pyramid is mostly about). I'd rather keep my money for for "optional" ogre stuff, like that third superheavy tank, which encourages development of more Ogre product. > Personally I'm feeling that Ogre support is a little scattered over > the internet. If I behaved myself sufficiently to be on speaking terms > with SJ I'd suggest to him that I move my operations over to Pyramid and > the old style public Ogre Message Boards be shutdown also. It would > concentrate the community of serious Ogre players so that the maximum > energy could be directed at improving the products. [SFBay_OGRE at yahoo groups and rec.games.board (.ogre?) would remain as the public interfaces to draw people into the community. ("Welcome to the village. We want information, information, information. Look out for Rover's treads.") -HJC] IMO SFBay_OGRE really should be only a regional list, dedicated to the logistics of getting games together. The reason its becoming more popular than that, and has many national and even international subscribers, is that (afaik) its the only ogre-specific low latency forum. One can fire off one's idea for the "super-duper heavy tank" and get immediate feedback. I suppose the Ogre message boards are good for that too; however, I find it hard to seperate the new posts from the old posts, because everything is sorted by thread. This (HJC's) Ogre list has the right scope, but is awfully high latency. What about migrating it to Yahoo! Groups(tm)? It has a lot of handy features too boot: User created polls Chat (on some platforms) Photobook File sharing Calendar Searchable archive Messages web-readable or mail-readable, sortable by date or thread, and searchable. I was also toying with the idea of using slashcode, but that doesn't seem as worthwhile for an active userbase of sub-40 people. ===== [Uh, did I just get booted off the Yahoo list or are they suffering from more bugs? -HJC] ============================== From: Sethkimmel@aol.com Subject: Underwater Ogres << Several lakes the same. >> Lake Mead-900 FEET deep (formed by Hoover Dam)...:-). Not to mention the Great Lakes (though I suppose they should all count as fresh water inland seas...). ===== [What happens when an Ogre rams Hoover Dam? -HJC] ============================== From: Darren Breland Subject: Missile GEVs in action. >From: hcobb@io.com >OK, we tried out the "Missile GEV" over the weekend. > >That's the Atk: 2/3, D: 2, M: 3/2, 6 VP unit. Are you guys testing a *new* MGEV? This one is different then the one we have used. We've been using a 3/4, D2, M: 3/2 9VP one. Like the Cub, but unlimited shots.. too much paper work keeping track of shots . It's not quite a game breaker, but in numbers they hurt. I like your new version, but how is it tactically different from a normal GEV? GEV 2/2 M: 4/3 Radius 6 Attack 2 MGEV 2/3 M: 3/2 Radius 6 Attack 2 hmmm... Why use em when you get the same bang-for-the-buck out of a regular GEV and have a greater bounce move? The only advantage I can see is to engage at range when attacking. Good assault unit -vs- static defenses (hit and run) but less useful -vs- Ogres and Heavy armor due to bounce reduction. I will have to give em a go next time just to see how they work out. Oh, and for those of you out there making lots of MGEV figures, Mr. Chapman needs a little "encouragement" (sorry Paul) to sell the Missile Racks separately from the MSL figs. I have been robbing my MSL's to make MGEV's. I can only guess that is the way other mini's players are making them. I have asked him if he will sell the launchers separately and he stated that he doesn't currently, but would consider it if the interest was there. Personally, I would rather buy 3 launchers than 3 MSL's to make 3 MGEV's, wasting the MSL's in the process. If anyone else feels the same give Paul a nudge. ;) ...In the meantime you can use the Missile launcher from the Future Wars minis line from Ground Zero games (www.geohex.com). The Triton Missile Tank (FWM08) has a launcher that you could use. At $7.50 for 5 they are cheaper (but not as pretty) than SJ MSL minis and you get 5 chassis to use for hulks or other units. ===== [Once the stats for the missile armed hovercraft are commonly agreed on I suspect they wouldn't mind casting some for us. The MGEV attacks better around terrain than the regular kind, but can't keep up with a long march. Which of the following one armor unit light cubs would you allow? Atk: 3/4, D: 1, M: 3/2, unlimited shots, or exactly the same with one missile shot and then it turns into an ordinary LGEV by dropping the empty missile tubes and runs away for three hexes even on the turn of firing? The LGEV with one-shot missile pods may choose to attack with its standard 1/2 gun and keep the missiles in reserve, but it cannot use both attacks at the same time. -HJC] ============================== From: David Morse Subject: GEV Scenario Contest Announcing: a GEV scenario creation contest. The Ogre minis community is fairly starved for maps at the moment. The only published "big scale" maps are the old Ogre and GEV maps. Ogre's got a scenario book due out any minute. GEV's got ... nothing. So send me (gev-scenario@bomberlan.net) your submissions, and I'll post them online. The winner will be chosen by the SFBAY_Ogre polling mechanism. (All scenarios remain the property of their original authors, and I will unpost them at the owner's request, but presumably you're entering the contest for fame and feedback, not money. Submissions should conform to the SJG online policy) HTML or plain text format preferred. Put SCENARIO in the subject line. Good luck. ============================== From: Darren Breland Subject: Laser AA Systems Today -Xposted to Ogre discussion boards- This cool Ogre world turned real world stuff. I have often thought that the advent of an effective AA Laser program would sound the death-knell for high altitude attack aircraft and high-trajectory missiles / artillery. There are several reasons for this: 1. Lasers are Instant- essentially no time-to-target so the target cannot evade and does not need to be "led" or predicted as with AAA. 2. Unaffected by atmospheric conditions - wind and temperature doesn't affect performance. Humidity and atmospheric refraction may affect the beam but can compensated for. 3. Engage multiple targets simultaneously - simply change the angle of the aiming mechanism (articulated mirror or the like) and you can engage a new target in milliseconds. 4. Very long range - Will reach medium and high altitude targets (above 10k feet) 5. Set and forget capability - Slaving a laser to an automated targeting and control system allows you to effectively interdict the airspace around a Theater of Operations without allocating combat resources to the task. 6. Un-affected by countermeasures - You can't jam a laser or make it chase a phantom target like a flare. In short, if it flies it dies. This is no longer science fiction, but reality. Through a joint US-Israeli program begun in April of 1996 a project was undertaken to develop a low-cost air defense system designed to destroy in-flight rockets that were fired at Israeli cities. The result has been a laser defense system called the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) or Nautilus. It has had unequaled success when compared to kinetic-energy kill vehicles. In field tests the system has destroyed multiple in-flight rockets, some in "high-stress" situations where target acquisition / track / kill phase has been very short. Field testing of this system is expected to be finished early 2002 and the system will be deployed Q3-4 2002 in Israel. Worth noting is that this system has a kill probability of near 1 (100%) at ranges up to 5km!! One shot, one kill. Did I mention that it exists today? Additionally, next-gen plans are for a rapid deployment system that is vehicle mounted. The future implications of this technology are obvious and ominous. Could the unchallenged and unequaled US air-superiority soon face a threat that will obsolete attack aircraft? Imagine a network of ground based, mobile, AA Lasers that could destroy airborne threats of ANY kind (planes, cruise missiles, rockets, bombs and artillery). It would also be fairly inexpensive when compared to networked AAA systems and slow AA guided missiles. This technology could mature within the next 10 years. Next generation targeting systems could be improved to destroy any airborne threat (mortars, arty, missiles, etc.). Laser power, reaction time and range will likewise improve. When it does, the US and other nations will SERIOUSLY have to reconsider their dependance on air power and air delivered munitions. Perhaps a re-surgance of ground forces will be the result? ;-) For details on this amazing bit of science fiction turned reality go to: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/thel.htm http://www.trw.com/presskits/detailinfo/1,,2_12^2^12^23,00.html (I know the URL is wierd, but it works trust me) Kewl stuff...again Steve was right just 50-70 years off. :-) L8ta, -D. ===== [Well, you're going to want a target for that, so why don't I make a stab at fixing the most divergent rule between Ogre Minis and the boardgame. Everytime a Cruise Missile is detonated, everything in the new crater is removed, then for every other unit within eleven inches, calculate an explosion strength of ten minus the range in inches. (From ten to eleven hexes the explsion strength is one-half). Each ordinary armor units takes an attack of the current explsion strength on the usual CRT. D0 units and all hovercraft are treated as having a defense of one half for this attack. Units in woods or swamp add two inches to the total range. Units in towns or infantry in rubble add four inches to the total range. Underwater units double the range. Infantry defend as squads, but add three inches to the total range on top of the terrain effects. Ogres add four inches to the range and each component except treads takes an attack of the current explosion strength. Roll twice the Ogre's size class in attacks of the current explosion strength against the Ogre's treads. Structures add four inches to the range then take a number of dice of damage equal to the current explosion strength. Town and forest areas take an attack as if they were three inches closer to the explosion and do not act as cover to protect themselves. Each hex of distance is counted as two inches. There, that gives an effect about the same as the Shockwave rules, without a table and the effects translate directly to Ogre Minis. Now just remember to add Ogre AP guns to the anti-missile table and you'll actually need to worry about shockwave attacks on Ogres. -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.