Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII - Page 2

DSumner · 03-04-2008, 07:33 AM

No matter how you cut it a MK VII is going to be a huge, and well worth the cost in cruise missiles the Paneuropeans would throw at it. I'm thinking the initial design was nothing more than a prototype that was used for computer simulations. If the war had continued, I'm thinking the Combine would have refined the final designs (something similar to what was done with both the MK VI and Dopp). As for the design itself, I'm not to keen on all the those internal missiles. It's far to easy to take out the missile racks, and have them sit there useless. I'd suggest increasing the number of missile racks to a minimum of six, a maximum of 8, and decreasing the number of internal missiles to 24.

As far as its top speed goes, it's just too freaking big to move much faster, but, you'd also have to knock off a lot of treads to slow it down. Either way, it'd be interesting to playtest various designs to see how they'll actually hold up on the battlefield. I'd suggest keeping them out of areas where the Paneuropeans are known to have a good supply of cruise missiles available.

ladue · 03-04-2008, 08:08 AM

If it *has* to be that slow because of the size, then the secondary batteries are essentially useless. Drop the bulk of the secondaries for additional main batteries. It's been a while since I played with numbers, but 8 main batteries and 6 secondaries (for killing masses of tanks) sounds about right. Decrease the internally stored missiles (which are often wasted), and give it another 8 external missiles.

That would give it an 8 main battery and 12 missile initial strike. Truly an awesome vehicle for smashing a hole in a defensive line, but not actually practical enough for real production. It'd probably be most effective as the first unit rumbling out of the water in an invasion.

jpattern · 03-04-2008, 10:23 AM

I'd definitely buy 3 of them, if the mini is ever made.

IanD · 03-04-2008, 10:35 AM

Much in the same vein as the Mk VII has anyone combined the front of a Fencer with the rear of a Dopp and visa versa? (Or did the Autofac ever?) Would it give the PE’s a couple of units in between the Fencer and Dopp and could you increase the movement for the one with the Fencer front end - call it a Sabreur! Just a thought. Haven't given the stats much thought though.
Regards
IanD

andreww · 03-04-2008, 02:56 PM

Well, I'd buy one, paint it, and happily show it off at cons and gatherings even if we never settled on the stats.

For those who just cannot get enough Ogre, it would make a great Smash The CP! scenario. The VI is hard to stop in time, with any sane number of defenders. But M2 makes the map much longer, more time to pound away. And at M2 it can't afford to divert back and forth to take out HWZs and MSLs, opening up new strategies.

Outside of the Smash The CP! context I'd worry that even at M2 the map isn't big enough to kill it, or to hold the number of defenders you'd need to fight it.

Speaking of the number of defenders, is this just a plot to sell more miniatures? Because if so, I vote in favor.

Andrew

DSumner · 03-17-2008, 09:01 AM

Okay, I played around with Henry's Ogre Calculator (yes I'm that bored today), and it comes in at being close to the 350 points Steve guesstimated it to come in at. But, if I'm doing the math right, it's to heavy for only 96 treads, even moving at a speed of 2 (4"). So in addition to cutting back on the missile load, and increasing the number of missile racks, it might have to drop a couple of Secondary Batteries, or increase the number of treads to even move.

CaptainRufus · 03-17-2008, 04:43 PM

If its gonna be that big and that slow, some anti cruise missile armament would probably be a must have.

Not to mention a howitzer or two. Maybe even a laser tower.

woodchuck · 03-17-2008, 10:40 PM

And it's own cruise missle.

Steve Jackson · 03-17-2008, 11:10 PM

I've seen fan-created designs for Ogres with HWZ-range weaponry. And realistically, if that were at all possible, it would be worth building.

Apache · 03-18-2008, 01:47 AM

Hmmmm.

Mk VII Ogre.

It's Main Batteries are 6/6 (MHWZ-class), and its 'secondary' batteries are 4/3. The increase in size allowed for a higher load-out of 'smart' rounds/hypersmart missiles. The slower speed of the Mark VII was balanced by the increased range of its weapons, but it was still considered too expensive for its combat abilities (2 Mark V's were cheaper and faster).

The missile racks were eliminated to make room for the larger internal ammo bays which fed the main and secondary guns.

Whaddya think, sirs?

*pushes the button*

03-04-2008, 07:33 AM	#11
DSumner Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: The North American Combine	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII No matter how you cut it a MK VII is going to be a huge, and well worth the cost in cruise missiles the Paneuropeans would throw at it. I'm thinking the initial design was nothing more than a prototype that was used for computer simulations. If the war had continued, I'm thinking the Combine would have refined the final designs (something similar to what was done with both the MK VI and Dopp). As for the design itself, I'm not to keen on all the those internal missiles. It's far to easy to take out the missile racks, and have them sit there useless. I'd suggest increasing the number of missile racks to a minimum of six, a maximum of 8, and decreasing the number of internal missiles to 24. As far as its top speed goes, it's just too freaking big to move much faster, but, you'd also have to knock off a lot of treads to slow it down. Either way, it'd be interesting to playtest various designs to see how they'll actually hold up on the battlefield. I'd suggest keeping them out of areas where the Paneuropeans are known to have a good supply of cruise missiles available. Last edited by DSumner; 04-04-2017 at 04:56 PM.

03-04-2008, 08:08 AM	#12
ladue Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Buffalo NY	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII If it has to be that slow because of the size, then the secondary batteries are essentially useless. Drop the bulk of the secondaries for additional main batteries. It's been a while since I played with numbers, but 8 main batteries and 6 secondaries (for killing masses of tanks) sounds about right. Decrease the internally stored missiles (which are often wasted), and give it another 8 external missiles. That would give it an 8 main battery and 12 missile initial strike. Truly an awesome vehicle for smashing a hole in a defensive line, but not actually practical enough for real production. It'd probably be most effective as the first unit rumbling out of the water in an invasion.

03-04-2008, 10:23 AM	#13
jpattern Join Date: Dec 2006	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII I'd definitely buy 3 of them, if the mini is ever made.

03-04-2008, 10:35 AM	#14
IanD Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Edinburgh	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII Much in the same vein as the Mk VII has anyone combined the front of a Fencer with the rear of a Dopp and visa versa? (Or did the Autofac ever?) Would it give the PE’s a couple of units in between the Fencer and Dopp and could you increase the movement for the one with the Fencer front end - call it a Sabreur! Just a thought. Haven't given the stats much thought though. Regards IanD

03-04-2008, 02:56 PM	#15
andreww Join Date: Aug 2004	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII Well, I'd buy one, paint it, and happily show it off at cons and gatherings even if we never settled on the stats. For those who just cannot get enough Ogre, it would make a great Smash The CP! scenario. The VI is hard to stop in time, with any sane number of defenders. But M2 makes the map much longer, more time to pound away. And at M2 it can't afford to divert back and forth to take out HWZs and MSLs, opening up new strategies. Outside of the Smash The CP! context I'd worry that even at M2 the map isn't big enough to kill it, or to hold the number of defenders you'd need to fight it. Speaking of the number of defenders, is this just a plot to sell more miniatures? Because if so, I vote in favor. Andrew

03-17-2008, 09:01 AM	#16
DSumner Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: The North American Combine	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII Okay, I played around with Henry's Ogre Calculator (yes I'm that bored today), and it comes in at being close to the 350 points Steve guesstimated it to come in at. But, if I'm doing the math right, it's to heavy for only 96 treads, even moving at a speed of 2 (4"). So in addition to cutting back on the missile load, and increasing the number of missile racks, it might have to drop a couple of Secondary Batteries, or increase the number of treads to even move. __________________ "There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, only dangerous men." "Death is certain, life is not." "No one assails me without punishment"

03-17-2008, 04:43 PM	#17
CaptainRufus Join Date: Oct 2007	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII If its gonna be that big and that slow, some anti cruise missile armament would probably be a must have. Not to mention a howitzer or two. Maybe even a laser tower. __________________ Gamer in Southeastern Connecticut? JOIN US: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/SECTRPG/ My gaming blog: http://wargamedork.blogspot.com/

03-17-2008, 10:40 PM	#18
woodchuck Join Date: Dec 2007	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII And it's own cruise missle.

03-17-2008, 11:10 PM	#19
Steve Jackson President and EIC Join Date: Jul 2004	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII I've seen fan-created designs for Ogres with HWZ-range weaponry. And realistically, if that were at all possible, it would be worth building.

03-18-2008, 01:47 AM	#20
Apache On Notice Join Date: Apr 2007	Re: Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII Hmmmm. Mk VII Ogre. It's Main Batteries are 6/6 (MHWZ-class), and its 'secondary' batteries are 4/3. The increase in size allowed for a higher load-out of 'smart' rounds/hypersmart missiles. The slower speed of the Mark VII was balanced by the increased range of its weapons, but it was still considered too expensive for its combat abilities (2 Mark V's were cheaper and faster). The missile racks were eliminated to make room for the larger internal ammo bays which fed the main and secondary guns. Whaddya think, sirs? pushes the button __________________ If you think an Apache can't tell right from wrong....wrong him, and see what happens.