============ OGREverse list, May 10th (Last: May 2nd) ============= ===== Ogre Tournament: Bid for sides? Tandem games? From: "Andrew Walters" ===== New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated From: Terry Overton From: "Garth L. Getgen" From: OHara Walter From: "Imre A. Szabo" From: Sethkimmel@aol.com From: Patrick Odonnell From: "Andrew Walters" From: garrett From: Chris Camfield ===== Snap! YOWCH!! From: "Andrew Walters" ===== Preemption From: "Todd A. Zircher" From: Servitor@aol.com ===== Ogre Conning Towers From: Kerr Ballantyne ===== Where have all the OGRE's gone? From: "Andrew Walters" From: bryan rombough From: Jpattern@aol.com From: garrett ===== Anime style and preemptive strikes From: "Mike Alvarez" ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Ogre Tournament: Bid for sides? Tandem games? I need the list's collective experience (and hopefully Steve's) with regard to an upcoming tournament. Between two experienced players the traditional Ogre scenarios is spectacularly balanced, skill vs luck, movement vs fire power, offense vs defense. But when new players, or players who haven't played in a year (or years), the Ogre always wins. The Ogre tournament from last September's ConQuest brought people who remembered Ogre from way back, and in a round-robin tournament the Ogre never lost. Only once was the Ogre immobilized before it could escape. My solution was to introduce bidding in the final round. Each player wrote down the number of armor units and infantry they thought they'd need to stop the Ogre, lowest bid took defense. I was tentative about this, since I hadn't been able to think it through or collect advice, but it seemed like a good solution to all of us, and luckily the lowest bids were always the standard defense, so we didn't play any unbalanced scenarios. But the Ogres kept winning. We were able to clearly determine a winner by the degree of success, but that was a lucky happenstance. I'm running an Ogre tournament at GameCon II at the end of the month, and I thought I would do bidding in every game. My intention is to balance out the Ogre's advantage when players with limited recent experience are playing. But I thought I'd take advantage of other people's experience before deciding. We will be playing Mark IIIs for shorter games, by the way, since I only have pieces for two games and only two giant maps. The other thing I wanted advice on was four player games. On the (please, please, please) off chance I get more than eight players I thought I would run the first round as a tandem game. Two players take Mark IIIs vs two take 12/20 defenses, one CP. The Ogres can run in together or split up. The defensive players can play one up, one back, or any which way they like. The players are in no way competing with the other player on their side. The two Ogre players advance to the next round together or the two defensive players advance. Can anyone see a problem with this? I'm a little concerned that if the Ogre's stay together the defense won't be able to move enough pieces close enough. My ancient Ogre rulebook (the red and blue one) gives an alternate scenario as two Mark IIIs against a Mark V defense as fair, and this would be a slightly larger defense that that. What do you all think? I'd also love to know if anyone's planning to be at GameCon , I'd love to get in a Mark V game outside the tournament. ----- [My favorite four player game is to take Mk-III on the defense and apply the two Mk-IIIs attacking mods. -HJC] ------------------------------ From: Terry Overton Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated > From: Steve Jackson > Basically, units do not have to fire from their final position; each unit > can place a "fire from here" marker at any point along its movement path. > This means that a unit can effectively fire and flee -- which is currently > a very bad idea in OGRE. The markers might be keyed to unit numbers, or > might just indicate "2 points" or whatever. Depends on how many units are > in play. The idea is nice, but isn't this adding a bit too much complexity to a game whose charm is in its simplicity? The thing that I always loved about Ogre was the low administrative overhead during play. Basically the only paper you had to keep track of was the record sheets for the Ogres. Keep the rules simple and free of any unecessary paperwork for the players. The people who want the ultra-realistic wargames can play Assault (and take three days to finish one turn). I'll take the basic Ogre setup where you can set it up and play a game through in half an hour. Of course, this does not apply to a computer version. > For the [hypothetical] computer game, you would just be keeping track of > each unit's path during movement, and picking a point along that path to > fire from when combat came along. Easy enough when the computer is keeping track of everything - and if you are playing in a "real-time" mode won't matter a whole lot anyway. Gives a bit more realism without actually costing anything in playability - the onus is on the programmer. > An Ogre would thus be able to drop a lot of those counters as it moves. Requiring the player to keep track of all the weapons fired along the way, and probably using up a small pad of paper if more than one or two Ogres are involved. And making PBM/PBEM much more difficult. If it ain't broke... > Would a GEV be able to drop a fire counter during its SECOND move, if it > had not done so during its first, or would it just get a much longer move > and no second phase? One longer single phase move. Once the move/fire phases are combined, the whole reason for the second phase is gone. This will need to be heavily playtested, though. Any allowance for GEVs firing during that second movement step will mean that GEVs will be capable of devastating stand-off attacks out of range of missiles/howitzers/etc. Get three or four together and with their combined movement and range they can strike anything less than an Ogre with total impunity. > Two questions, or maybe three. Or four. > (1) Playable? Yes, but less so than now. > (2) Fun? Not if I have to keep track of every time a Mark VI lobs something along its movement path. > (3) More realistic? Definitely yes. Certainly - and IDEAL for a computer game. > (4) And the subtle question . . . by reducing the criticality of > where the Ogre, in particular, ends up, does it actually take away from the > intellectual aspect of the game? No - you actually introduce a whole new layer of complexity. But do you really want to do that? I'm going to get jumped on for this - jump away! Everyone on this list is eagerly looking forward to anything for Ogre that you can give, Steve--and that includes me. But I still believe that Ogre's main charm and the source of all of these fans is the fact that Ogre is simple enough to be playable without having to go to West Point first. You can play the simple games in an hour or less, and even the more complex scenarios don't take more than a couple of hours (PBEM doesn't count). You don't get so bogged down in the game administration that you forget how much fun it is to actually stomp someone's units flat with a rampaging MkV. And it's quite possible to do so while putting away a six-pack. That's why I still have all of the Ogre games while most of my old GDW and Avalon Hill titles are no longer taking up space on my shelves. TJ Overton ----- From: "Garth L. Getgen" Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated > This is a proposed change in the firing rules. It would give the *effect* > of split move and fire, without actually changing the sequencing. Now this would be an interesting thing to playtest. Does it cause a "fuzzy-wuzzy" problem?? > An Ogre would thus be able to drop a lot of those counters as it moves. Seems reasonable that a multi-weapon unit (OGRE, SuperHeavy) shouldn't be forced to fire everything from one hex if you're not making all units fire from thje last hex moed anymore ... but what a pain in the bippy to keep tracke of all that!! >Would a GEV be able to drop a fire counter during its SECOND move, if it >had not done so during its first, or would it just get a much longer move >and no second phase? NO!!! That screws with the game balance of howitzers!! See my KILL THE HOWITZER scenario for the "perfect" example. If you allow GEV's to hold fire until the second movement, the attacker WINS every time and can NOT be stopped. In my not-so-humble opinion, there should be NO unit added to the game with a strike range (move + firing range) equal to or greater than a fixed howitzer's firing range. A very un-humble suggestion: take a look at the Reaction Fire rules (part of the Line-of-Sight rules, which also had Long-Range Suppression Fire rules attached) I submitted a long time ago. I can resend them, if you need a copy. They were written for the hex-map board game; not for minitures but could be easily adapted. Garth L. Getgen ----- From: OHara Walter Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated >>An Ogre would thus be able to drop a lot of those counters as it moves. Since firing on the move, even with all the gyroscope stabilization improvements you could project into the 22nd century, is inheirently harder than firing at the end of movement, why don't you balance the effect by making firing on the move harder to accomplish (i.e., give it a negative modifier on the CRT)? >>Would a GEV be able to drop a fire counter during its SECOND move, if >>it had not done so during its first, or would it just get a much longer >>move and no second phase? Keep the GEVs unique. Giving the shoot and scoot power to every unit on the board turns the GEVs into a light tank that can move twice. How about making it optional first or second phase, with a negative modifier in the second phase? > Two questions, or maybe three. Or four. > (1) Playable? > YES > (2) Fun? > Let me tinker with it and I'll let you know. > > (3) More realistic? Definitely yes. > Agreed > (4) And the subtle question . . . by reducing the criticality of > where the Ogre, in particular, ends up, does it actually take away from > the > intellectual aspect of the game? > Here's the design challenge, IMHO: A lot of the fun of OGRE (the boardgame) is that you had to position your units "just so" to keep them always, always in FRONT of the OGRE (unless they are GEVs, or HWZs), because the OGRE usually has higher mobility than most of your units. When you move your units, you are trying to stay just on the edge of effective range of the OGRE, so you can fire at it and not get run over if you get disabled. I don't THINK the fire and flee method would impact the basic defense tactic of "fire, fall back," but it would open the defense up to being in range of the OGRE's weapons for longer periods of time, since most defense units have shorter ranges. Just my .02, worth what you paid for it. ----- From: "Imre A. Szabo" Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated If you're thinking about allowing units to fire while moving, why would GEV's need a second movement? They could just have one movement allowance. IAS ----- From: Sethkimmel@aol.com Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated << Two questions, or maybe three. Or four. (1) Playable?>> Not as much as the original game IMO... (2) Fun?>> Why not... (3) More realistic? Definitely yes.>> I agree... (4) And the subtle question . . . by reducing the criticality of where the Ogre, in particular, ends up, does it actually take away from the intellectual aspect of the game? >> I think it changes the whole complexity of the game. I would include the counters, but make the new rules optional.... ----- From: Patrick Odonnell Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated Hello, First, let me appologize for not introducing myself with my first post. I'm sorry. My name is Patrick J. O'Donnell I will be 30 yrs old in Sept. of this year and am married to a wonderful lady named Angelika. I am currently living and working in the Ruhr area in Germany as a software quality assurance anylist. I was born in Plainview, Texas USA in 1969 and have a B.S. degree in Organizational Management. (I know. I know. Think, statistical systems analysis with a specialization in *Human Networks and Resources.*) I have been playing RPGs and Table Tops since Dec. 1977. One of the first table tops I ever played was *Ogre.* My two brothers and I were introduced to Ogre by a friend of my older brother while we were trying to introduce him to the games *Robots* and *Space Knight.* (Two out of print table tops from another company. Hey, from another era in gaming for that matter.) That's really all the relevant info I have (well unles my little tour of duty in the U.S.M.C. between high school and college counts as relevant) and probably more than most of you wanted. Anyway, now you know who I am and where I am coming from. > From: Steve Jackson <...> > This is a proposed change in the firing rules. It would give the *effect* > of split move and fire, without actually changing the sequencing. <...> Ahh, the old *Shoot and Scoot* technology. I LIKE IT!!! <...> > An Ogre would thus be able to drop a lot of those counters as it moves. > Or, would one simply want to record map hex numbers (number of inches in movement) and then declare as it happens? > Would a GEV be able to drop a fire counter during its SECOND move, if it > had not done so during its first, or would it just get a much longer move > and no second phase? > Or would all of the units on the board that were able to *Shoot and Scoot* just be treated like GEVs with their upper movement range not being changed? Or, would all combat just be resolved with a modification of the *Overrunn/Next Nearest* rules already in the books? Example: Ogre player begins movement phase and decleres after having moved two hexes (inches) "Firing Main Batteries at targets xy" ... moves two more hexes (inches) and declares "Firing secondary Batteries at targets ab" etc ... <...> > (1) Playable? > IMHO, yes. But should be an *Advanced Player* option and not a rule of the *Basic Game.* > (2) Fun? > I don't know. I haven't had a chance to play test it yet. This is all just *first blush* and *brain storming.* > (3) More realistic? Definitely yes. > Oh yeah, big time. > (4) And the subtle question . . . by reducing the criticality of where the > Ogre, in particular, ends up, <...> Would it, really? In the current 'Real world Shoot and Scoot' environment fire and manuevre have become a tricky cat and mouse game of risk taking wieghed against percieved outcome benefits. As an Ogre player one has to take into account whether or not he would, through his manuevering to attain a target, open up his rear flanks to all manner of other *Shoot and Scoot* vehicles ... especially those with a turret. <...> does it actually take away from the intellectual aspect of the game? I don' think so. If anything it will, over time and a number of games, make the players accutely aware that fire and manuevre can be a two edged sword and can greatly assist the uninitiated to over extend - expose her/himself. Therefore, I think the intellectual aspect of the game will climb exponetially if *Shoot and Scoot* is done correctly. I wrote: > 1. I want an option to allow for pre-emptive strikes > <...> I guess, I should have also included that I would like a couple of "Hunt/Ambush the Ogre scenerios" to better demonstrate this concept. "But, you can't ambush an Ogre", you say? Why do you think all those Ogres who were not self aware never made it past the last war. Could it be that Ogre Hunting/Ambush tactics were well refined by then? All I want to do is play out what *obviously* had to have happened. Regards, PJ ----- From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated >Basically, units do not have to fire from their final position; each unit >can place a "fire from here" marker at any point along its movement path. Hmmm... I won't have a chance to play this until GameCon on Memorial Day, but I have a couple of concerns. > (1) Playable? Sure. Only problem is figuring out who dropped which marker and who hasn't, which probably means little IDs on the units. As I imagine it, though, only two or three of these would be dropped per turn in a given area, so it shouldn't be too bad. If the markers are going to indicate attack strength they're going to need range, too. Ogre feels very clean, though, and this would detract a little. > (3) More realistic? Definitely yes. Nope. You're exchanging one granular abstraction for another, but I don't think you get closer to reality, or even believability. Turns are a *very* abitrary grid system over what's being modeled, but they are necessary. Trying to fudge them "fakes depth with clutter." I have always assumed that each combat resolution die roll represented not just one instantaneous shot taken at the end of movement, before pausing to let the other side shoot, but the sum total of four minutes worth of firing. We have to have a distance to determine the effectiveness of this fire, what number do we use? Range at beginning or end of movement are very convenient, but unrealistic, either way there's an assumption that the other unit was standing still. Choosing a point in the middle of the turn is precisely the same. You're still assumng your whole turn's worth of fire takes place at one instant, and that the target is stationary while you approach, fire, and withdraw. Realistically, we should have plotted movement and a fire strength coefficient for the portion of the turn the two units were within range, or we're going to have to use phased movement like Car Wars. The problem is that phased or plotted movement sort of takes over the player-experience. This is fun in a game like Car Wars, with few units, split second timing, and very short turns (1 second, IIRC). But Ogre is about carefully selecting your moves, not watching movement unfold (as you roll to maintain control, I *loved* doing that). Consider a light tank attacking Infantry. The new mechanism would allow a clever tank to take repeated shots without counterfire from the infantry unit targetted or the infantry unit next to them. With the standard system the tank would have to take fire, and I think that's reasonable, light tanks aren't that fast. GEVs use a mechanism essentially similar to the one described, and that makes sense, they're very fast. I don't imagine the other units would have this advantage. A more easily managed mechanism to add realism would be to allow deferred "opportunity fire." A unit can forgo its fire (place any marker on it), and then use it any time during their opponents movement. This would allow infantry to take a shot at passing GEVs, and let defenders get first shot. This would be more realistic, but the game would be a lot less exciting, with fewer crushing charges, and more cautious approaches. > (4) And the subtle question . . . by reducing the criticality of >where the Ogre, in particular, ends up, does it actually take away from the >intellectual aspect of the game? That's where my real concern lies. Ogre/GEV has has a unique and intriguing balance of movement rates, weapon ranges, and relative strengths that makes manuever interesting. You can optimize your attacks and minimize counterfire by counting hexes. This can make tactical engagments far more intersting than a die roll, and make gems like "Kill The Howitzer" possible. This new mechanic would multiply the possibilities several fold, making it harder to evaluate the possibilities, encouraging players to think, "oh, the heck with it, I'll move into range and fire." Another concern is that this mechanic would benefit Ogres more than anyone else, making them stronger, which they don't need, and causing them to act in a manner more suggestive of fencing than stomping, changing their character. "Art," whatever that is, thrives under limitations. Chess wouldn't be much of a game if you could move all your pieces each turn. Great photographers sometimes choose black and white film. Less is more. We could use Henry's wondrous formula to develop a huge panoply of armor unit types with every possible combinations of ARDM and VP, so you could choose exactly the types of units you wanted. But I'd rather play with the original six or so unit types. I think more choice might be less interesting. Lastly, can GEVs fire at the point of their choice during first movement only or first and second movement? I'd favor the former, but haven't thought about it. ----- [I always considered the single shot for several minutes of firing to represent the shock effect of a sudden attack, as I can't think of any way to get a more impressive ECM effect than setting off a nuke at the target point. -HJC] ----- From: garrett Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated Regarding Steve's concept of fire markers dropping off, I'll do some tests with that this week and let you know how the balancing is via this message list. I can see the benefit of Unit/Unit combat and also would wonder if terrain would be a factor soine wouldn't you need to do some LOS and modifications if your vehicle is going through some wicked terrain. Looks like there might be more added to this concept like piloting skill, etc. I'm not sure how fast a game would go with that in mind. Hmm. As for the OGRE's, well laying out a carper of attacks is like a straf of firepower, and that's could make those OGRE's even more menacing in their capability. I can see some faction upgraging the operating system inside the OGRES to allow for this. But would that allow the ability of a programmer (ficticiously here) to install a virus as well during the OS download? Then, at a certain point of the game if the OGRE does this type of attack, it shuts down for a turn to perform a soft-reset. Garrett Briggs P.S. Anyone in Colorado that wants to do some OGRE? ----- From: Chris Camfield Subject: New mechanic: playtest feedback appreciated > [The differnce between this and my split-fire > >http://www.io.com/~hcobb/gev/foxhunt.htm > > is that you only allow for one firing point per turn. My impression from Steve's message was that an Ogre *would* be allowed multiple firing points in a turn. Presumably markers indicating "2 points" would indicate two attack points fired into a location. >(GEVs and Missile Tanks >would love fire and retreat.) Agreed. Attacking missile tanks with, say, heavies would be very nasty... I think GEVs mustn't be able to fire after or during the 2nd movement phase, or howitzers will be seriously weakened. (GEV moves 7, fire, bye-bye howitzer!) I've noticed in slugathon email games that people will tend to 'dance' their tanks around each other, because they're afraid of moving up and getting blasted. When you think about it, most of the classic scenarios - Ogre vs CP, Breakthrough, Raid, Train - are loosely speaking "raiding" scenarios where that isn't a big problem. I'd be interested to see how the game would play if the CRT was less severe (a lot more 'D' results) but BOTH sides got to fire in each fire phase. In any case, I haven't played a game by email in a while and this discussion has sparked my interest, I would like to try play a game using a splitfire rule or something along the lines of what I've mentioned, just for fun, let me know. > 1. I want an option to allow for pre-emptive strikes (or at >least the important after affects thereof) against Ogre's during their >deployment phase. (read that before they arrive at the outer edge of the >battle map.) Sounds a bit like the 'damaged Ogre' rule in the Reinforcement pack. I definitely think that the defender should pay for this, or the attacker should pay less for the Ogre. I don't know if I agree with the possibility of the Ogre being really seriously damaged, though - then the attacker is screwed. The Reinforcement pack rule specified stuff like rolling a die for each main or secondary; on a 1 or 2 the gun is intact, otherwise destroyed. For somewhat damaged Ogres, then, you could have a 1 (or 2) in 6 chance of the gun being destroyed, roll 1 die per 10 tread units for tread damage, etc. CC -- Chris Camfield - ccamfield@cyberus.ca Big Rude Jake Fan Club President www.bigrudejake.com "I've had dinner with the devil, and I know nice from right!" ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Snap! YOWCH!! I intended a friendly nudge, thus the little smiley. Please take nothing personally. Sure, new players are attracted by new merchandise, but there's plenty of Ogre material, and you can always personally recruit new players. Commercialism should help our hobby, not dominate it as it does in the MTG and WarHammer arenas. I'd love to see the rumored Killing Zone with its Sea Ogres and desert terrain rules, but if no new Ogre materials or miniatures *ever* turn up I'll still be choosing a rest home based on the availability of Opponents for the original scenarios. ------------------------------ From: "Todd A. Zircher" Subject: Preemption Patrick Odonnell write: > > 1. I want an option to allow for pre-emptive strikes (or at > least the important after affects thereof) against Ogre's > during their deployment phase. (read that before they arrive > at the outer edge of the battle map.) Sounds like it would be a good campaign element. Remember, any units involved in the pre-emptive strike would not be available for defending the key objective. Also, expect the rear staging areas to have some formible defenses of their own such as minefields, laser towers, and overlapping howitizers. It seems like only an advanced raiding Ogre would stand a fighting chance. > 2. I want to be able to blow the coning tower off of an Ogre. > (And, for said attacks to have real effects on the Ogre's > ability to perform its mission.) I mean, think about it, I > can take out main and secondary batteries but not that D**N > tower? Give me a break. (Why chop the feet out from under an > Ogre when I can poke it's eyes out.) I think most commanders realize that the tower is not the only sensors that an Ogre has. Why waste shots on the tower when the can be used to take out treads or weapons? Only in the mini's game (where LOS is an issue), would attacking the sensor tower serve any tactical function. > 3. Regardless, of how big the thing is it is MHO that the > number of rounds of at least the main batteries need to be a > part of the character sheet. Ammo, especially tactical nuclear > ammo, is neither free nor infinite in available supply. Ammo > never has been throughout the whole of history. It is MHO that > it never will ever be either. Even if you limited each Ogre to a hundred or so shots/salvos/ etc, that's still eighty or ninty more than needed for a typical engagement. Unless you have a real long campaign, ammo will not be an issue. It's generally a moot point when any given unit will be long dead before they run out of ammo. > [Speaking of prempetive strikes, where do you think those > craters on the map came from? -HJC] Performing RAM search... isn't there a Shockwave scenario that covers that? "The Day Before" or some such? -- TAZ ----- From: Servitor@aol.com Subject: Preemption << I can take out main and secondary batteries but not that D**N tower? >> Actually, I've always figured it was (oh, here comes that dreaded word) "factored" in. That is, as you blew guns and treads off the Ogre, you were also destroying parts of the hull including the tower. However, I can see Patrick's point. Even though I'm sure the traditional tower was included simply because it looked cool on the Ogre, it certainly screams "I'm a SENSOR tower!" Okay, try this out: Armor, Infantry and Ogres all have sophisticated, interlinked weapon targeting systems that rely on a number of inputs for tageting data that include onboard sensors, drones (small semiautonomous robotic spy hovers), comm gear that receives continuos pulses of data from a nearby command post (now you know why that CP is just so important!) and interlinked datanets emitted and received by the combatants own friendly units. However, Ogres must frequently operate in battlefield environments where they are cut off from most of these data sources. (No drones, there are too many anti-drones from the numerous enemy units, not to mention that they will just shoot 'em up themselves when one gets too close. Also, no comm input from a CP due to the distance and enemy jamming. And, usually, no data net as an Ogre must often work independently.) This means that Ogres must often rely soley on their onboard sensors for targeting data for the AI to chew over. This means that Ogres have VERY high-powered "active" sensors and VERY sensitive "passive" ones. Also, since there are no data nets and (usually) no other spotters for the Ogre to gain data from, the hull must be equipped with a highly elevated platform for the optic, thermal, mag, radiation and other sensor packages main inputs. These sensor towers are, of course, somewhat noticeable (and targetable) in battle. Naturally, the designers saw fit to armor them heavily... Optional Special Rules: Ogre sensor towers are now targetable and have a defense strength (just like a battery, missile or tread unit.) Ogre sensor towers can take a number of "hits" (just like tread units) before suffering impairment of function. When a sensor tower takes a certain number of hits, the Ogre must begin making "lock-on" rolls for its weaponry. An Ogre does NOT have to roll for lock-on until that certain amount of damage has occurred. When a lock-on roll is required, the Ogre must roll the number indicated on the sensor tower track or higher. The roll is required everytime the Ogre wishes to fire weaponry at an enemy unit or structure. A roll is NOT required to shoot at a hex, but any units/structures in the hex will only suffer "spillover" fire, not a direct hit. A single lock-on roll is made for each target (not weapon) that the Ogre fires at every turn. (After all, if the Ogre has got you dead to rights with its secondaries, then it should have no problem hitting you with the mains. Its angle calculations, not sensor input after the first shot.) If the lock-on roll is successful, then the Ogre may fire any and all guns at the selected target as normal. If the lock-on roll is missed, then the Ogre may only fire blindly at the target's hex (hoping for damage from spillover effect) EXCEPTION: Ogre missiles have their own sensor packages and steering motors, and are thus unaffected by damage to an Ogre's sensor tower. Translation: an Ogre may fire its missiles (both external and rack launched) normally, even if its tower is destroyed. Add the following to your Ogre record sheets: Ogre MK III, MK IIIB, Ninja & MK IV: Lock-On Sensor Tower (D5) 0 (2+) 0 (3+) 0 (4+) 0 (5+) 0 (Destroyed) Ogre MK V & MK VI: Lock-On Sensor Tower (D6) 0 (2+) 0 (3+) 0 (4+) 0 (5+) 0 (6+) 0 (Destroyed) Notes: You will notice there are no stat lines for MK I, MK II or Fencer cybertanks. This is because they have no towers. This is not really a problem due to the low number of guns on these Ogres. ------------------------------ From: Kerr Ballantyne Subject: Ogre Conning Towers Hcobbs: A reply to PJ's Conning Tower: Concerning your CONNING TOWER hit; here is an idea. CONNING TOWER SENSORS (A:0/D:6/R:0) () () () () Remember the conning tower is shielded by BPC of up to a meter thick. So a high defensive rating might be useful. (SJ did say that A:8/D:6 should be about the highest limits) Also, the 4 sensors represents the main system and the backups spread throughout the tower since any OGRE built is going to only have the 1 system ;-) Toss this into the options for shooting. Now if you take all the TOWER SENSORS out, then perhaps limit the OGRE to nothing other than OVERRUNS since there must be small sensors at ground level or such. Now for the FENCER model then perhaps you might have to assume that those sensors are spread out as well. Just an idea! ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: Where have all the OGRE's gone? >I just hope all this talk about manga, anime, and mecha is a joke. One of >the things that really appeals to me about OGRE/GEV is the fact that it is >somewhat serious (grim, even), adult, and realistic =2E.. >Too much fantasy, or cutesiness, would destroy the integrity of the >OGREverse. Yes. What he said. Grim. Thanks for helping me crystalize my thoughts. >We don't need an anime series to make the games popular; we need >support for the game itself! A new rulebook, new minis, and solid, engaging >scenarios. That's it! Please don't turn OGRE into Battletech... Well, it would be nice if the boardgame and miniatures would be available, but I'm not a big fan of the ever growing canon that "popular" games have. ----- From: bryan rombough Subject: Where have all the OGRE's gone? Time for a reality check I think. Since when is a fifty meter long robot tank firing tactical nuclear shells more realistic than mecha? I personally don't want OGRE to turn into Battletech because I hate it, I find the 'mech's' extremely ugly, the rules unralistic, poorly concived and executed (a fourteen ton cannon that can only lob a shell two hundred seventy meters? give me a break) and the whole universe flat and dull. I do like Marc A. Vezina's mecha and Cyberwalkers for OGRE articles; if you look, you'll notice that he's from Dream Pod 9, the creators of Heavy Gear and Jovian Chronicles, a couple of very good Anime-inspired games. (no, that wasn't meant as a plug) Mecha, Cyberwalkers, flying OGRE's (now there's something that pushes the realism envelope) and the like are unofficial and purely optional anyways, if you don't like them don't use them. (you won't see any flying OGRE's in my games, but you may catch sight of Godzilla) As for all the other talk on this subject, I'm starting to feel like we're chasing our tails, it seems the only impediment to a re-release of OGRE is a mini's manufacturer and since everyone in the know is keeping mum about it (I know they have good reasons) there doesn't seem to be much else to say. Bryan Rombough ----- From: Jpattern@aol.com Subject: Where have all the OGRE's gone? Bryan wrote: << Personally I'm a big anime and manga fan . . . what kind of low-quality anime have you been watching? not Ghost in the Shell or even Akira, I think, and since when has Johnny Quest even been pseudo-anime? >> Yep, you're a big fan, and I'm not even a little fan. We don't really need to turn the list into a "what's right or wrong with anime" list, so let's just say some people like it, some don't. As for the "low-quality anime" I've been watching, there's Ghost in the Shell and Akira, which you mentioned, also Vampire Hunter D, Evangelion, Macross/Macross Plus/Robotech, Dragonball Z, and lots more at conventions, borrowed from friends, or seen on TV. While I can appreciate the work and artistry that goes into anime, and the vast difference in quality between Ghost in the Shell and Dragonball Z, I still don't like it. Overly melodramatic, lots of speed lines, ultraviolence, generally jerky animation, big eyes, little mouths, the whole schmeer. :) Then again, I like Aeon Flux, but I know some anime fans despise her. I like Nausicaa, but I don't the style is at all appropriate for Ogre. And my daughter likes Kiki's Delivery Service. :) As for the Jonny Quest connection, the new series seems to me to owe more to anime than to the classic series of the 60s. Lots of melodramatic poses and angles, speed lines, lots more explosions and other violence, jerky animation . . . But, hey, your mileage may vary. :) Jeff Moore jpattern@aol.com ------------------------------ From: garrett Subject: Where have all the OGRE's gone? Joe Bloch wrote: >I just hope all this talk about manga, anime, and mecha is a joke. >(...I can see hovertanks as logical extrapolations of modern >military technology, and the OGREs themselves are almost >believable; a lot more than a 'mech at least.) I totally agree. I have been loving Mechs since day two, and OGRE since day one. I'm no big fan on real combat, but letting that manly urge out virtually is fine. Anime and manga and mechs are a wonderful product of Japan. And I'm sure there's plenty of designers that love that stuff and would do a great job in coming up with a mecha army for an Asian Ogreverse faction. But not here in the USA. As our military goes for the most stable design and anti-detection profiles. A mech would stick out like a sore thumb for those pesky (had to use that word hahaha) OGRE's. Where as a low-profile unit would sneak up and POW!-take out a tread. You introduce mechs and you'll have to introduce flight. I'm having a hard time as it in introducing pilotless drones in the game and the systems of a mech are more electronically sensitive that hey, the bulk would be radiation shielding not the super-light armor. Have you tried balancing those mechs after a party the night before. Those poor combat guys are gonna fry. I'm not against mechs in the game, hell if I see a player introducing them, I'll go after them first. But OGRE is about tactical groung combat, with units that coordinate at a whole. Not a few rogue mechs that have lasers, missiles, bombs, giant swords, light sabers, change into a plane, etc. And as for that hovertank concept, what a coincidence that I have been working on one at http://www.hovercar.com just click on This Month and see its progress. And PLEASE give me feedback as it is early enough to add new concepts before I get too involved. I was trying to go low-mech look but a walking unit is way too slow. Garrett Briggs ------------------------------ From: "Mike Alvarez" Subject: Anime style and preemptive strikes II've been a long time observer of this list, but have never posted before. Well , here goes. First off, I think an anime style reworking of Ogre wouldn't be so bad. I've alwayz loved anime mecha designs, and disagree that such a reworking would ruin the grittyness of Ogre. I'm thinking a redesign along the lines of Kow Yokoyama's SF3D series from the early 80's. No cute anime chicks, just hardware. Second, I don't understand why you would want preemptive strikes in Ogre. I mean, I thought the whole idea was to improve your tactics by attempting to destroy the enemy with the forces available. I can understand the logic of such strikes in the real world, but in the game world this would appear to remove some of the challenge. I enjoy reading the different ideas posted to this list concerning various ways of overcoming the Ogre's strengths. I think that a scenario involving a suprise strike against an Ogre in a lightly defended maintenance facility would better fit the bill. One side with a force of vehicles and infantry versus a light enemy force of vehicles and an Ogre in a less than optimum state (down for maintenance). And as far as the number of rounds for an Ogre's main batteries, I don't think there's a need to keep track of them. It's safe to assume that an Ogre goes into battle with a full load of ammo, much like a warship, and only fires when a target is aquired. Thus, ammo is not blindly thrown away by the machine intelligence. Sizable weapons such as missles I can understand, but since not all the tagets will be engaged by the main batteries, it's safe to also assume the Ogre has enough rounds to go the distance.The best thing about this game is its lack of bookeeping, and thats the one thing I hope will never change. Turbz ----- [I've always felt that when one is hemmed in it's best to outflank. A big tie-in should bring the distributors running and the only investment that's needed is to get a copy of the OGRE Minis book and a letter of introduction into the hands of Masamune Shirow. After all, the worst that could happen is for the entire OGREverse to come true. BTW Steve: could you add to the future history that the dividing point between the Western Europeans and the Americans came about during a small conflict in the Balkans? -HJC] Henry J. Cobb ogre@sjgames.com http://www.io.com/~hcobb All OGRE-related items Copyright (c) 1999, by Steve Jackson Games.