View Single Post
Old 01-13-2018, 04:52 PM   #37
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Okay, I will try again.

First, I agree. You-go-I-go is often a source of artifacts in tactical and operational scale simulations. If you were interested in trying to make Ogre more simulation-like then the kinds of mechanics you are talking about are one way to do it.

However, there is a plausible reason an AFV can't engage an enemy in its weapon range. Why can't indirect elements engage all targets in range today?
The problem is that you can’t limit such assumptions (which I don’t agree with, but for purposes of discussion we’ll assume I do) to the situations I described. If the environment you postulate existed, then units should fire in some random order. Tha would slow the game to a crawl.

Why is it so important to rationalize an issue that has been understood to be a flaw in ugo/igo games since Panzerblitz? What’s so hard about admitting what is self evident to me - a stock ugo/igo system will always allow moving units to gain an unrealistic advantage? The sole exception is if moving units are not allowed to fire. That situation is only applicable to WW2.

GEV is not some transcendent thing that is somehow immune to the rules that apply to every other game with similar systems.

It is, in all likelihood, the igo/ugo game that suffers the least from it. But it still gives attacking units an unreasonable advantage that is implausible given what we know about modern AFV combat and the revealed nature of the Ogre universe.

Quote:
But, you say, Ogre assumes instantaneous, 100% reliable battlefield intelligence.
Well, I infer it from the game itself. Most scenarios feature complete knowledge of the battlefield and there are no mechanisms for spotting hidden units or somesuch. The closest thing I am aware of was the breakthrough scenario (IIRC) in GEV that allowed the defender to cover up his units. Even then, you there were enemy units present; you just didn’t know exactly what they were. (And that, by the way, would argue against attacking GEVs being able to ambush defending tanks that are waiting for them. Obviously the defending units have more information than the attackers).

Quote:
Yes, but this conceit is actually just as unrealistic as the the GEV getting to shoot and move out of range without risk of return fire.
I really don’t think it is. In fact, we’re fast reaching the point now in the Real World. Tiny tactical drones with high resolution cameras and the military version of Google Earth have made tactical surprise a much rarer occurrence - at least as long as the batteries last. I’m working up a design called FFT 2050 - a mid 21st century Fistful of TOWs variant. No cybertanks, so it doesn’t really compete with Ogre. As I project current trends, the “fog of war” is quickly evaporating. Indeed, I’m having to rig the analysis to keep AFVs viable. Top-attack, fire and forget brilliant missiles are gonna be rough on tanks. I also have to rig the analysis to allow GEVs, but the Rule of Cool applies there.

But if I’m wrong, that doesn’t make the “attacker ambush” tactic more realistic. If there is a significant fog of war, the defender invariably has more information than the attacker. His units are hidden and in the best terrain. That argues against “attacker ambush” tactics.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-13-2018 at 05:11 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote