Ogre Minis Revision Issue: Mark VII

[Marcus Heinous]

I keep forgetting that this monster is M2. Given that, I think that doubling the range of the main and secondary batteries would not be unreasonable. Now you've got mobile howitzer ranged MBs, and missile tank ranged SBs. Maybe grant the Rattlers and extra 3 hexes/6 inches of range. Why? Why not? I'm sure that some Star Trekish techno babble could be cobbled up about a stabler firing platform, larger caliber weapons with great PD, more powerful anti-PD weapons suite on the Mark VII, etc,...

The point being that if you're going to build the Ogre Mark VII Juggernaut/Behemoth then you're seriously going to have to step up the quality of it's armaments by an order of magnitude, there's a certain point where "more of the same" isn't better and definitely not cost effective. So let's give it more AND bigger teeth and then see how much it can bite off.

[DSumner]

Mk. VII Ares (Revised)

6 External Msl 000000
6 MsL Racks 000000
24 Internal Missiles 000000 000000 000000 000000
4 MB 0000 (Attack 4, Range 6", Defense 4)
8 ERSB 0000 0000 (Attack 3, Range 6", Defense 3) (note that the Extended Range secondaries have the same range as the MB)
24 PD 000000 000000 000000 000000
96 Tread Units: Movement starts at 4"
000000 000000
000000 000000 (Movement drops to 3")
000000 000000
000000 000000 (movement drops to 2")
000000 000000
000000 000000 (movement drops to 1")
000000 000000
000000 000000 (movement drops to 0")

[Rhymes With Orange]

Originally Posted by DSumner

96 Tread Units: Movement starts at 4"
000000 000000
000000 000000 (Movement drops to 3")
000000 000000
000000 000000 (movement drops to 2")
000000 000000
000000 000000 (movement drops to 1")
000000 000000
000000 000000 (movement drops to 0")

This just doesn't work on the board game. I can't go 1.5 hex or .5 hex per turn. If you were to lump the 96 units into two equal amounts, 48 units per movement point, it becomes a massive task to take it down in speed the first point.
My point is it becomes more like the slow but unstoppable force that it should be with two lump sums.
Also with so few movement to begin with will beg the question... why doesn't it have cruise missiles of some sort?
I could see fitting 2 racks and 4 missiles in it.
For the sake of the argument, they have fit 'the bomb' on a rifle even. The M-65 Davey Crockett has even been mentioned around here. With the package so small its just a matter of the delivery device (the missile part), and as long as the missile is going to stay within 25-50 hex, it doesn't have to be that... BIG. The Chinese C-602 (debut 2006) anti-ship/land attack cruise missile isn't all that large and it has ranges of something around 100+/- miles.

*a link for reference of anti-ship cruise missiles*

[DSumner]

Originally Posted by Rhymes With Orange

This just doesn't work on the board game. I can't go 1.5 hex or .5 hex per turn. If you were to lump the 96 units into two equal amounts, 48 units per movement point, it becomes a massive task to take it down in speed the first point.
My point is it becomes more like the slow but unstoppable force that it should be with two lump sums.
Also with so few movement to begin with will beg the question... why doesn't it have cruise missiles of some sort?
I could see fitting 2 racks and 4 missiles in it.
For the sake of the argument, they have fit 'the bomb' on a rifle even. The M-65 Davey Crockett has even been mentioned around here. With the package so small its just a matter of the delivery device (the missile part), and as long as the missile is going to stay within 25-50 hex, it doesn't have to be that... BIG. The Chinese C-602 (debut 2006) anti-ship/land attack cruise missile isn't all that large and it has ranges of something around 100+/- miles.

*a link for reference of anti-ship cruise missiles*

As far as movement goes, the inches are for Ogre Minis. For the standard game, it would drop to 1 hex, after loosing 48 treads, and 0 after loosing them all, just like standard Ogres. As far as cruise missiles go, I probably could carry them, but, IMHO I don't want to see Ogres carrying Cruise Missiles, and it would likely make it the target of a strategic nuclear weapon.

[Rhymes With Orange]

After a lot of second thought I have to finally agree with you that it would be better to not have cruise missiles. Cruise missiles *crawlers* are always just so disposable. OGRE's are not.

I'm going with that kind of thinking now, and thinking as well that this thing we are talking about, if built, would have been for combat with other OGRE's.
After all, as the story line progresses the human race dwindles and the OGRE's are slowly taking over the feild. *it seems*
Wouldn't it then be a greater asset if it were to have the normal OGRE missile + back up medium range missiles + mains + secondaries & AP.
I thought of it like this *in board game standards*
MK VII "Behemoth"

4 Long range Missile Racks

20 Internal Long Range OGRE Missiles (6/5)

6 Medium Range Missile Racks

30 Internal Medium Range OGRE Missiles (4/3)

4 Main Batteries

10 Secondaries

20 AP

96 tread, M2



*In addition I would increase the defensive value on the mains and secondaries by one point. Effectively giving it a "super-heavy" feel it should have in my mind.

This is just something I came up with on a Sunday evening, and like it or laugh at it, I'm still posting it.

[Toltrin]

Check out my blog for more details concerning this Mark Here.

The Mark VII would be a missile bus with an ability to shoot down cruise missiles. I would behind the Mark IVs and Mark 3s supporting their advance and shooting down any cruise missiles that happen to slip through.

Mark VII (Re-engineered by Toltrin Industries)
Points: 246
Size: 10 (It's BIG)
12 External Missiles (6/5 D3) 00000 00000
4 Main Battery (4/3 D4) 0000
24 Antipersonnel (1/1 D1) 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
96 Tread Units (DEF at 1:1)
00000 00000 000000 00000 00000 000000 00000 00000 000000 M2
00000 00000 000000 00000 00000 000000 00000 00000 000000 M1
Personal note:
I have play tested this unit against 250 VP worth of infantry and armor (25% INF, 25% GEV, and the rest MSL TNK and HVY TNK with a few SprHVYs). Surprisingly over the 6 games I played it was 3 games won and 3 lost.
Personal suggestion:
Make missile racks shoot 2 internal missiles a turn instead of just one. People would not load their back chassis with 1-shot externals if missile racks packed punch. Additionally, lets add one more defense to the missile rack (D5) to make it more survivable - there are, after all, many many unfired missiles inside ready to find their targets.

[Toltrin]

Originally Posted by DSumner

8 ERSB 0000 0000 (Attack 3, Range 6", Defense 3) (note that the Extended Range secondaries have the same range as the MB)

Extended Range Secondaries? Isn't there supposed to be a slight gap between the main and secondary separate them to add variety to the game? I calculated the Cobb vp value for a 3/3 D3 battery. I gave a heavy tank the same weapon and it came out to be 6.5 vp. A heavy tank moves 3, so does the OGRE. Problem here is that a heavy tank can be disabled. An Extended Range Secondaries cannot.
What is the equation that is used for creating an OGRE weapon then?
Mains are 9 vp, Secondaries equal to 6 vp, External missiles are 8 vp and AP batteries buy in at 1/2 vp.
Funny thing, I gave that same Heavy tank a single AP battery (1/1 D3, M2) and the Cobb formula spit out a value of 1.2 vp. LOL :) So just for fun I loaded that same chassis with x3 1/1 AP batteries... 1.65 vp.
So, if you simulated a weapon system and applied a coefficient (it can't be disabled) you would end up with a rough approximation of it's equivalent of it's cost.
Main...9 vp
Secondary...6 vp
On a Heavy Tank chassis they would be:
4/3 D4 M3(simulates OGRE movement) = 8.6 vp (96% different than Cobb)
3/2 D3 M3 = 5 vp (83% different than Cobb)
3/3 D3 M3 = 6.5 vp
6/5 D3 M3 = 4.7 vp (59% different than Cobb)
So if we do some math (ugh) let's average the three main weapon systems ((.96+.86+.59)/3) x Cobb value of your weapon system on a HVY TNK chassis
= 5.22 vp
I love statistics.
Am I correct?
Extended Range Secondaries = 5 vp, maybe 7 vp or 8 vp because they cannot be disabled ((9+6)/2)? Personally, I am going with 7.5 (Cobb x 1.44). I don't know, maybe make it a log function?
... I was in a math mood. I get that way sometimes. :)

[ladue]

I remain convince that any speed 2 (4") Ogre remains over-valued. They are just seriously vulnerable to GEV attack right from minute one. The GEV's will always get to dictate who makes first attack, and will remove a good piece of the long range firepower with their first attack. The Ogre must expend it's own long range firepower (and probably movement) trying to get the GEV's and given the current point value of the Ogre, it's unlikely to get them all. Overall, I don't see it being a reasonably valued unit operating on it's own.

[Toltrin]

Originally Posted by ladue

I remain convince that any speed 2 (4") Ogre remains over-valued. They are just seriously vulnerable to GEV attack right from minute one. The GEV's will always get to dictate who makes first attack, and will remove a good piece of the long range firepower with their first attack. The Ogre must expend it's own long range firepower (and probably movement) trying to get the GEV's and given the current point value of the Ogre, it's unlikely to get them all. Overall, I don't see it being a reasonably valued unit operating on it's own.

I agree, that is why I stipulated that this is a support unit. Much like a mobile howitzer would not go charging into battle without infantry or armor support, this Mark VII "Lancer" (as I call it) would not go in without 'mixed arms' of Mark IVs or Mark III. In fact it was built to supplement Mark II Brigades.

[ladue]

Unfortunately, I don't think the points system works well for units that aren't "standalone". I suspect that around this point, the "system" needs to be dropped.