====== OGRE Digest, March 2nd, 2003 (Last: February 28th) ======== ===== Strategic Game From: David Morse From: "Chris French" ===== Rectifying _Battlesuit_ to _OGRE_ From: "Chris French" ===== GEV on Cyberboard From: "Peter Lomax" ===== Ogre Maps From: AvaheilDotter@aol.com ===== Even more units. From: "Imre A. Szabo" ===== number of dopp missiles From: David Morse ============================== From: David Morse Subject: Strategic Game > From: "Herb Diehr" > A strategic game should have more than just providing > opportunities for game-generation; it should also provide > economic concerns, strategic movement, etc. > > I was hoping one of the bulging brains out there would have > an interest in tackling this subject... You strategic game makers should definately read Andrew Walters' essay: http://www.geocities.com/candrewwalters/Ogre/StategicOgres.html Its a shoe-in for "The Ogre Book, volume 2". I tried my hand a bit at making such a game, but immediately hit a problem: I wanted Ogre counters to represent indivdual Ogres, and I wanted those counters to be good relative to conventional units, but in order to do that the conventional unit counters had to be companies or battillions(?), and when you're staring at a map of, say, France, its painfully clear that there are going to be far too many counters on the map to be fun. Any advice? I also have an ugly european map I can mail you if you want. A thought just hit me: why play a game with a map of Europe, why not play a game with, say, The Whole World, more Axis & Allies style. (or Sid Meir's Civilsation). The Combine, Paneurope, China, Nihon, and PanPac start in maybe 2030, or whenever BPC and SATNUCs came out. They spend money on R&D&Espionage, military production, and social programs. Event cards cause revolutions and social unrest. There's a tech tree that you move up. Not very deep for most stuff ("I've invented SHVY! +1 to all my armor regiments"), but pretty deep for Ogres and "Leviathan" cyberships. Also there could be a tech tree for aerospace that in the historical universe never got developed. Okay, here's the cool part of the game: the victory conditions. Its possible for all players to lose, and its possible for more than one player to win. Historically all players lost. However it didn't have to happen. Borrowing from Vonnegut, suppose the Chinese developed mass interplanetary colinization first, and simply removed themselves from Earth. They would win. But if the Combine also conquors the world, then they too would win. > From: "Chris French" > Subject: infantry capturing armor >>From: David Morse >>I was playtesting a scenario where, in the end, two missile tanks and >>one heavy tank were barricaded up in a 2 hex city, hopelessly surrounded >>by PanEuropean infantry. They were disabled and since it was the >>endgame the infantry really didn't have anywhere else they had to be. >>It occurrs to me that in this situation, the infantry might attempt to >>capture the vehicles, rather than destroy them. > > > I would think that at this point the armor jockeys would simply > surrender, knowing that if they didn't, the INF would be recei- > ving help shortly (not to mention how effective INF is in city > hexes...). In this case they couldn't make the decision to surrender because they were unconcious (disabled). And their battle computers weren't cutting them any slack. :( > From: reaper28i > Great idea, especially in the endgame turns, but one query springs to > mind. The vehicle cannot move or fire after being captured, so what happens > if, by some fluke :) it is captured early in the game? As you state, the > opposing side may try and re-capture it. Therefore imho all the infantry > gain is a defensive bonus from the vehicle's armour (they can't shoot from > inside the vehicle with the hatches closed) until such time as they are > dragged kicking and screaming from the vehicle. I wasn't imaganing the infantry stayed with the vehicle. Well maybe 1-2 guys, but not enough to consume the whole squad. > From: David Morse > Subject: Re: Ogre Miniatures should have NO authority in resolving hex-based > rulesquestions For the revised rules wordings, PC and I found some bugs. There's a new working draft I'll mail anyone who asks, but I don't want to spam the list more than I am already... > From: stephan beal > Subject: Marine Defense > > Okay, i'm gonna open up a can of worms here, because we've got some really > flimsy arguments on this point so far (no offense intended)... > > "Fight equally well" implies that DEF is NOT modified, since DEF is half of > the inputs for the combat ratio calculation (i.e., a "fight"). > ... I suspect most people would read it the same way. I know I do. However the technique of "argue the hex rules are 'ambiguous' using flimsy arguments then use OM to 'clarify' how to resolve the dispute" is the new Offical Way. It was also used to produce the GEVs-stop-at-shores "clarification". Frankly, you should be happy about this result, even if you're less than happy about the way it was produced. Since the GEVs-stop-at-shores "clarification", the defense has gotten a boost in Raid, Breakthrough, and The Train. I think overall that's a good thing, because to varying degrees all those scenarios were squewed towards the attacker. Also, the GEV is no longer quite so über as compared to the HVY and MSL. (But still the unclear favorite, IMO). As much as I don't like the methodology of rules "clarifcation" in the case of marines, I think we can all agree that if they can't submerge, they are overpriced. (There was a poll to that effect on SFBay_Ogre a year or so ago). I think the new marines are one-trick-ponies, but I'd rather have that than the zero-trick-ponies of yor. :) So, Stephan, if you don't like the means of rules "clarifications", I think you could at least be happy with the ends of the rules "clarifications". That's what I keep trying to tell myself, anyway. > So what's the official verdict on that? i cannot interpret the published texts > (or the errata) in any way other than "SHVYs may move in water [as an Ogre]." > After all, they *explicitely* move "as an Ogre" and nowhere is it even > implied that they cannot enter water. (Oh, man, is that "in" the water or > "on" the water? Okay, seeing as tanks generally do not float (but Marines > tend to), i think we can safely assume they're "under" water. ;) I think everyone agrees with your interpretation here. ============================== From: "Chris French" Subject: Strategic Game > From: "Herb Diehr" > These are readily available from the USGS in Washington. > http://www.usgs.gov/ OK, I'll check there. > Some maps were free, the last time I checked. Most were > cheap. Some are from WW II, which may be interesting, > as well. Adding a hex grid should not prove too difficult. Assuming 1.5 kM will appear as anything besides a dot on the map. > A strategic game should have more than just providing > opportunities for game-generation; it should also provide > economic concerns, strategic movement, etc. > > I was hoping one of the bulging brains out there would have > an interest in tackling this subject... A few years ago, I tried to work out a formula for determining a unit's monetary cost (this was before Cobb), based on RL values. I concluded that the Last War could only happen once, inasmuch as afterward there would be nothing left to trade or base a cash economy on.... I suppose someone could steal something from another game, but I don't know which one would be best suited for it. (Con- sidering how *&^%$#@!ing expensive everything is in _GURPS OGRE_, economics seems to be irrelevant.) > 1.000 units? When you look at all the things people have > come up with, it's quite large. 960 was the last I heard, > right here a couple of years ago. Figured it grew... Wha? I admit I haven't been on the list that long, but how in hell did someone manage to get 960 pieces onto a playing area? > From: reaper28i > Subject: infantry capturing armor > Great idea, especially in the endgame turns, but one query springs to > mind. The vehicle cannot move or fire after being captured, so what happens > if, by some fluke :) it is captured early in the game? As you state, the > opposing side may try and re-capture it. Therefore imho all the infantry > gain is a defensive bonus from the vehicle's armour (they can't shoot from > inside the vehicle with the hatches closed) until such time as they are > dragged kicking and screaming from the vehicle. That assumes vehicle crews also wear powered armor. I'm pretty sure it's been established that they don't. So the INF could not get into the vehicle if they wanted to (this helps ex- plain why GEV-PCs are open-backed). > :) I wonder if SJGames might include OGRE bumper stickers if and when > decals become available "I DON'T BRAKE FOR ANTHING OR ANYBODY!" Well it > should be large enough to read on a macroture anway :) Ever seen _Spaceballs_? The Bad Guy Ship has a panel on the back reading "WE BRAKE FOR NOBODY". > From: Kirk Hunt > Subject: infantry capturing armor > Bad. Reduce speed by one (or two) with a minimum of > Speed 1. Can't fire (interlocks) but can drive unit > off board to score it. If there are interlocks for weapons, there are interlocks for the driveline and steering. > [http://www.warehouse23.com/item.cgi?SJG10-2010 -HJC] Thanks. > Also, if the OGREs can shoot missiles at each other while in the > water, why can't they shoot anything else? > > [Targeting? Need drone rules.... -HJC ;-] I think you're missing my point here. If an OGRE can shoot at a target with missiles while underwater, what's stopping it using the rest of its firepower. The weaponry is waterproof, or else it wouldn't work after the first submergence; the targeting gear works underwater, or else the OGRE couldn't even find the tar- get. There's really no reason why an OGRE couldn't use its non-missile weapons while underwater, except that trying to shoot from underwater to land might be a bit difficult due to the friction of the water. [Firing a gun becomes a lot more complex when the barrel is full of water while the missiles swim out of the racks on their own like torpedoes. -HJC] Besides, who needs specific drone rules? Just assume each side has a network of drones, deployed from various vehicles and INF units, which combine to allow all units on that side a free view of targets that are not ordinarily visible. > [Sorry about the mixup. Taking D as X is a 3/4ths multiplier for the > defense modifier. For multi-modal units, charge the most expensive mode > plus one tenth of all other modes. > > So if the formula says that Mode-A is a total unit cost of 10 VPs and > Mode-B is a total unit cost of 5 VPs then the total cost is 10.5 VPs. > -HJC] OK, thanks. (I warn you -- when I get this idea squared away, a lot of _OGRE_ traditionalists are going to be very upset with me.... :) ) > From: David Morse > When there's a rules question about Ogre, nobody runs to "Gurps Ogre" to > resolve it! Can I get a "hallelujah", brothers and sisters!? :) > [Yes, but I have a Pyramid article that'd fix this if ever printed. > -HJC] Then GET IT PRINTED, damn it! :) BTW: My 2p on the "marines versus OGREs versus anything else debate": It has been established that EVERY gun in the OGREverse fires NUCLEAR-TIPPED SHELLS. Has anyone here ever been out fishing with dynamite? Same principle, folks. Any body of water that an OGRE force thinks conceals INF or amphibious tanks gets a spread of NUCLEAR-TIPPED SHELLS, at which point the word "fish-kill" becomes operative. You want to hide in water? o/~ Be my guest, be my guest/ Put the theory to the test/ I drop nukes into the water/ And let pressure do the rest! o/~ In short, not only should a unit in water NOT receive a Defense bonus of any kind, its D value should be *lowered* due to underwater shockwave effects. Whomever wrote the under- water rules for _OGRE_ clearly has no clue how water works. CF [BTW, did I mention that all OGRE weapons fire NUCLEAR- TIPPED SHELLS? :) ] ===== [Yes, but Ogres themselves are solid blocks of armor and the nukes use tiny little armor piercing jets instead of giant explosions. -HJC] ============================== From: "Chris French" Subject: Rectifying _Battlesuit_ to _OGRE_ Finally found the sheet of paper where I figured all this out. As threatened^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpromised, I have figured out the "proper" scale for _Battlesuit_ (that is, the scale which allows conversion from _B_ to _OGRE_). The scale as published in _B_ is 37.5m to the hex (well, point, actually, but the points are arrayed hexagonally, so I'll call them hexes), with a turn length of 10 seconds. However, this has the INF traveling at a maximum unmodified speed of 81 kilometers per hour (kph hereafter); in _OGRE_, the maximum unmodified speed of INF is 45 kph (1.5 km x 2 =3D 3 km per 4 minutes; 3 km x 15 turns =3D=3D 45 km in 60 min, or 45 kph), which is about half that of the _B_ rate. Rather than trying to change the printed counters, can the scale as printed be altered to something which cages with _O_? The saving grace of both games is that they both use the metric system, making such changes simple. The _O_ rate of movement for a 1 MP unit is: 1.5 km per 4 minutes, or 1500 meters per 240 seconds, or 6.25 meters per 1 second (6.25 m/s). The _B_ movement rate for 1 MP units is: 37.5 meters per 10 seconds, or 3.75 meters per 1 second (3.75 m/s). So, what do we know for sure? We know INF travel at 45 kph. What is that in meters per second? (6.25 x 2 =3D) 12.5 m/s. We also know that suited INF have two possible MP values in _B_: 5 for Standard and Ranger suits, or 6 for Command and Assault suits. Assuming that the speed of an INF squad is dic- tated by its slowest units, assume that a INF squad in _B_ has a MP value of 5. (Bit of a handwave, but it makes sense.) So, 5 _B_ MP equate to 2 _O_ MP. That 5 _B_ MP eqautes to 45 kph, as was established from _O_'s Movement rate. (45 / 5 =3D) 9 kph (or 9,000 meters) for a 1 MP _B_ unit. (9,000 / 3,600 [seconds per hour] =3D) 2.5 meters per second (m/s). Leaving alone the 10-second turn length for _B_, that equates to: 2.5 meters per 1 second 25 meters per 10 seconds. So the "proper" scale for _B_ is 25 meters per hex, with a turn length of 10 seconds. Check of proof: 25m per hex times 5 hexes =3D 125 m/10 seconds. 240 seconds per _O_ turn =3D 24 _B_ turns. 125 x 24 =3D=3D 3,000 m per 240 seconds, or 3 kilometers per 4 minutes, which equals the INF movement rate given in _O_. *** I also found out how to equate _B_ Attack Strengths to _O_ Attack Strengths. The _B_ scenario "Scrap Iron Hill" establish- es the size of a platoon (3 INF pts.) of INF: 12 Standard; 3 Ran- ger; 2 Assault; 1 Command. Conveniently, this splits into three equal squads of: 4 Standard; 1 Ranger; and 1 Command or As- sault suit (and for reference, the CMD suit's Attack is the same as the AST; since the game describes the CMD suit as an im- proved AST suit, I assume that the CMD suit is for INF platoon commanders, while the AST is for squad leaders). Attack values for _B_ suits are: STD and RGR: 8; CMD and AST: 10. So, each squad has ((8x4)+(8x1)+(10x1)=3D) 50 Attack points. Since a single INF squad in _O_ has Attack 1, 50 _B_ Attack points =3D 1 _O_ Attack point. Defense is a bit more complicated, as every _B_ unit has a dif- ferent ECM value, and the combat system is wholly different from _O_. Without going into the math of it, a squad has a total ECM value of either 18 or 19, so I'll say 20 ECM =3D 1 _O_ De- fense point. (And even a mere GEV would be treated in _B_ as an OGRE would be in _O_ -- the vehicle would have to be taken apart component by component!) CF ===== [Rangers move 7 and you should think in terms of road movement in GEV. Plus you should consider that the grunts can move very quickly for a few seconds at a rate they would not maintain moving in a straight line for minutes and hope to survive. -HJC] ============================== From: "Peter Lomax" Subject: GEV on Cyberboard > [The best link I have at the moment is > http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/9617/cyberboard.html Which > reminds me that I need to clean up the DMOZ category at > http://dmoz.org/Games/Board_Games/Science_Fiction/Ogre/ -HJC] Thanks for the mention of the Ogre (and GEV and Shockwave) gamebox for Cyberboard. Does anyone actually use this I wonder ? There is a revision of this gamebox in the pipeline that includes geomorphic board support (BIG boards :-) and the inclusion of Battlefields (thanks to Bill Su). Peter Lomax http://surf.to/hawkmoon ============================== From: AvaheilDotter@aol.com Subject: Ogre Maps Having just moved, I came across my partial copy of "Modern Battles 2" from SPI. The maps would work well for a paper version of Ogre. One of the maps is of the area around Zagreb in Yugoslavia, made for an attack on a rebelling city state. Another is in Germany, but could be any relatively open plain area. Suspect the playing on the Jerusalem map would be seriously unPC right now. Ad Astra! Stan Leghorn ============================== From: "Imre A. Szabo" Subject: Even more units. Units I'd like to see added to Ogre/GEV. Company Command GEV, denoted GEV - CC: based on the standard GEV with a attack reduced to 1/2 to make room for a limited CIC. Stats: D2 M4/3 1/2 Points: 6 Battalion Command GEV, denoted GEV - BC: based on the GEV - PC with infantry racks removed and enclosed for a small CIC. Stats: D2 M3/2 1/2 Points: 8 Bridgelayer variant of the GEV-PC, denoted GEV - BL, to replace bridges destroyed in combat. Can only carry one squad of infantry, usually engineers, on side racks. The racks on back of the vehicle have been removed to carry the bridge. The most similar vehicle today would be the German Biber. The bridge will support all units less then the size of a Super Heavy Tank, which give a SP of 24. To deploy the bridge requires the GEV - BL to be start the turn in the hex, and spend the entire turn doing nothing but deploying the bridge. This means it can move or shoot, but defends normally. Typically, a battalion might have one GEV - BL, while a regiment would have three. Stats: D2 M3/2 1/2 1 inf Points: 6 + eng + bridge I assume Regiments are commanded by a GEV-HQ, etc. Tracked versions could also be added. Points cost for the command units represent not only the combat capability, but also the command capability (not included in formula calculators). My idea to fix this is to use the formula calculators, then add 1 point per company commanded. This results, using the Henry Cobb formula, in the GEV - CC = 4.87 + 1 = 5.87 ~ 6 points. GEV - BC = 3.87 + 4 = 7.87 ~ 8 points. A company command vehicle commands only a single company, while a battalion command vehicle commands 3 - 5 companies, with an average of 4. ias ===== [If I was going to build a mini-CP on a hovercraft (something smaller than the unit in Ogre Minis), I'd start with the armored hovertruck, because it already has an interior space to work with. -HJC] ============================== From: David Morse Subject: number of dopp missiles I hear there's still some debate on the final stats for the doppelsoldner. Since I don't subscribe to pyramid, I have no choice but to put in my 2cents here. Stats so far: Same old doppelsoldner, except 6(!) missile racks and either 20 or 24 missiles. The debate is # of internal missiles. First, all Ogres up till now have a number of internal missiles evenely divisible by their number of missile racks. For that reason I favor 24 internal missiles. Secondly, if you count the total number of missiles on a Mk VI, its 18. Seems to me that the dopp, with fewer treads, AP, and mains, should at least have significantly more missiles for its internal racks. For this reason I also favor 24. However, if studies showed that in VI-versus-Dopp fights 20 missiles led to closer battles than 24, I guess I would flip flop on the issue again. ===== [My concern is not with the Ogre to Ogre fight, (If the Mk VI allows the Dopp to unload 20 missiles on top of it the fight is about over right there), but rather in making sure that the Dopp does about as well as the Mk VI in a fight against a horde of smaller units. Also note that trading one MB for two SBs is not trading down, in a cybertank duel. (I admit this and I hate SBs worse than anybody!) If I was allowed to set the Dopp's rack configuration, my current choice would be for five racks and 25 internal missiles. No more than 15 of those missiles would come into play against the Mk VI, but they would be very useful against fuzzballs. -HJC] ============================= Send all submissions or mailing list changes or problems to ogre@sjgames.com Archives for this mailing list may be found at http://www.io.com/~hcobb/ General online support for the OGRE game is at http://www.sjgames.com/ogre Ogre, G.E.V., Shockwave and other products mentioned here are trademarks or registered trademarks of Steve Jackson Games. All rights are reserved by SJ Games. This material is used here in accordance with the SJ Games online policy at http://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html