In defense of hovertanks

[Tim Kauffman]

hmm...

I would propose Aces at Pilot Skills ranging from 1-6. A successful Disable avoidance roll happens if they roll equal to or less than their Skill. For example, a Level 1 Ace avoids a D on a 1 or less, while a Level 5 does so on a 5 or less. Level 6 is automatic avoidance.
They would use a Chipboard Token placed underneath them which would be set to their Pilot Skill Level.
The other rule I would have is when a GEV Ace suffers a X result, they roll on their Pilot Skill and if successful, they are reduced by 1 Pilot Skill Level. A Pilot Skill 1 Ace would reduce to a official GEV. If their Pilot Skill roll is failed, they are Xed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128248...57711067341466

Disables are not that frequent, and when they do occur, rolling vs a Pilot Skill would be a moment of suspense if the Ace avoids it or not based on their skill and the die roll. A Token does not have this edge-of-the-seat suspense because you are choosing when to use it and there is no chance of failure because it is a automatic success when used. (Unless using Drews idea).
The more experienced, the better chance to avoid the Disable. Making it worth the time to take the roll because this is where your Ace is being challenged and you have a vested interest in the outcome.

Comparing time to roll a D6 vs playing a Token = ? Not much of a difference Imho.

You would need enough Ace Tokens to use depending on how many there are in a game, where you only need 1 OGRE D6 when rolling vs their Pilot Skill. Also, how would you keep track of what Aces have how many Tokens and how many have been used?

Having a Pilot Skill brings a RPG flavor without really being one since it's an extension of the base game mechanic. Exactly the sort of thing I think would add something to the gameplay and give the Aces personality and that moment of suspense if they Ace a situation or wash out like a rookie.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

I would propose Aces at Pilot Skills ranging from 1-6. A successful Disable avoidance roll happens if they roll equal to or less than their Skill. For example, a Level 1 Ace avoids a D on a 1 or less, while a Level 5 does so on a 5 or less. Level 6 is automatic avoidance.
They would use a Chipboard Token placed underneath them which would be set to their Pilot Skill Level.

While it's an interesting idea, it feels too complicated for Ogre. Either you're an ace, or you're not. Anything more fiddly would be for more of an RPG, not that I'd be averse to an Ogreverse RPG. But for Ogre as it stands, it's not quite KISSable :)

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

The other rule I would have is when a GEV Ace suffers a X result, they roll on their Pilot Skill and if successful, they are reduced by 1 Pilot Skill Level. A Pilot Skill 1 Ace would reduce to a official GEV. If their Pilot Skill roll is failed, they are Xed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128248...57711067341466

Nope - if you take an X, it's not a case of all or nothing. I don't mind aces having a (small) chance to turn an X into a D, but they don't get to turn it into an NE (and reducing skill just doesn't make sense to me either, but that's a separate argument). I like Drew's idea of the ace token having a 50/50 chance of avoiding a D, so let's extend it and make the token a 33% (5 or 6 on the die) chance of turning an X into a D. Basically, it represents a last-ditch attempt to turn a direct hit into juuust enough to survive, albeit shaken up and out of commision for a turn.

I'd also expand his idea to be that if you use the token successfully, you get to keep it to use it again. Basically, the token represents an experienced pilot's abilities and luck - if they're lucky, they get to see how long it lasts. If not, they're not... :)

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

Disables are not that frequent, and when they do occur, rolling vs a Pilot Skill would be a moment of suspense if the Ace avoids it or not based on their skill and the die roll. A Token does not have this edge-of-the-seat suspense because you are choosing when to use it and there is no chance of failure because it is a automatic success when used. (Unless using Drews idea).
The more experienced, the better chance to avoid the Disable. Making it worth the time to take the roll because this is where your Ace is being challenged and you have a vested interest in the outcome.

Comparing time to roll a D6 vs playing a Token = ? Not much of a difference Imho.

You would need enough Ace Tokens to use depending on how many there are in a game, where you only need 1 OGRE D6 when rolling vs their Pilot Skill. Also, how would you keep track of what Aces have how many Tokens and how many have been used?

OK, fair point, but to build on my idea, how about this: Each ace (or any "experienced" unit) gets a token. As long as they have their token, they're having a good day - each time they're hit by a D or X, they roll to see if they avoid/downgrade the hit. If they succeed, they avoid a D or turn and X into a D, and keep their token. If they fail, they're disabled/destroyed, and lose the token. In war, soldiers and especially pilots tend to only live as long as their luck holds. Yes, skill certainly helps, but bad luck will always trump skill, and good luck can make up for almost anything.

Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman

Having a Pilot Skill brings a RPG flavor without really being one since it's an extension of the base game mechanic. Exactly the sort of thing I think would add something to the gameplay and give the Aces personality and that moment of suspense if they Ace a situation or wash out like a rookie.

Yes and no. It's a LOT more fiddly and detailed than the basic mechanics handle. Combat as written is nearly black-and-white. One die roll, 3 possible results, done. Adding a second die roll of any sort doubles the complexity, and that's without putting any conditionals in or having skill rolls. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea overall, just that I think you're talking about a whole new level of game. But, as I said above, having that whole new level overall (as opposed to just for pilots) might not be a bad thing - I just think that if you're going to go there, you should go all the way into full on RPG territory (even if it's a very lite RPG)...

[CON_Troll]

Ironically, GURPS Ogre suggests using OGRE/G.E.V. for mass combat, but switching to character's skill-rolls for how to deal with combat that affects the vehicle(s) the PCs are in.

Actually, since most of us apparently agree that these should be just house rules for groups/clubs, we can use something a bit complex like Tim's ideas OR stick with the more KISS-like version proposed by Drew. It's really up to the individuals playing at the moment and I think both schools of thought have merit.

And now I will be "That Guy" and point out that we are drifting off topic.

So, are MGEVs (Missile GEVs) really feasible? We've done a lot of rationalizing and theorizing about GEVs, but can the MGEV actually exist in the real world in the near future?

[wolf90]

Originally Posted by CON_Troll

And now I will be "That Guy" and point out that we are drifting off topic.

And I will be "That OTHER Guy" that says . . . Thanks!

(even if I contributed to the drift!)

D.

[Ashley]

Been following the thread, and there has been some interesting observations. I've always felt that you could replace GEV with helicopter and have the same effect (mostly) on how the game works.

Now, as to MGEVS, well yes and no.

Yes for missiles, no that they wouldn't be the same type as on missile tanks.

PS: To TimK: More detailed combat resolution in the Ogreverse seems to me like an opportunity for a version of the game set with a different ground and time scale.

Call it Over Run: the map represent one hex from the big map broken down into hexes (ground-scale of 70 meters per hex would make a 22x22 map equivalent to 1500 meters).

[offsides]

Originally Posted by Ashley

Been following the thread, and there has been some interesting observations. I've always felt that you could replace GEV with helicopter and have the same effect (mostly) on how the game works.

The main reason I see GEVs working better than helecopters (VTOLs) is that the rotors on a helecopter are much more exposed and therefore vulnerable to taking damage and rendering the vehicle inoperable. That said, we know air transport exists in the Ogreverse since Mark Is are explicitly kept in production because they are air-transportable, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were transport helecopters for moving INF and even light armor faster than they can go on their own - but only to staging areas away from the front lines, since I expect that even a D result (equating to a near miss) on a helecopter would be good for a kill.

Now, if you have a scenario using the non-nuclear combat rules the picture changes a lot - all of a sudden helecopters are probably a lot more survivable under battlefield conditions, and I agree that they would fill a similar niche to the GEV.

[Tim Kauffman]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/128248...7711067341466/

Thanks everyone...I think the GEV Ace has finally been solidified into a fully iterated and playable unit now because of all your comments and feedback over the years since this concept was first introduced for consideration.

Look for it over on OGRE GEV Battlesuit Shockwave Battlefields soon!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1148...epa=SEARCH_BOX
I'll take a poll over there with the posting of the rules to see if it's viable and something worthy of a OGREzine submission.

[CON_Troll]

Tim, your flickr page is amazing. Please keep up the good work!

[howitzer7]

I agree; great work, Tim!

[alsteel]

I’ve thought fairly often on this subject over the years so I’m glad we are finally having “the talk”. Here’s my take on it. There’s a reason why Steve called them G.E.V.s and not hover cars, hover tanks, or any other popular moniker. A G.E.V., in the Ogreverse is NOT a hover TANK, in that it is not heavily armed or armored as the name suggests. It is not a HOVER craft, in that it doesn’t float on an air cushion. Calling a G.E.V a hovercraft is like calling an AV-8 Harrier a hovercraft… yeah, technically it can hover, but that’s more of an operational characteristic as it spends 95% of it’s time as a fixed wing aircraft in forward flight. Which is a nice segway…

Steve Jackson, in all of his Ogreverse musings, describes GEV drivers as more like pilots. That a GEV is “flown” rather than driven. So how does that square with the idea that a GEV is a hovercraft? Simply, it doesn’t. Ogreverse GEVs are flown, and while some like to think of them as hovercraft, they simply aren’t in the traditional sense. They don’t ride on a cushion of air like modern hovercraft. They initially get off the ground by using a combination of vertical thrust and thrust vectoring to offset the craft’s weight. Once slightly airborne, they utilize a combination of thrust vectoring, and aerodynamic lift (provided by a lifting body design, powerful thrust, small winglets, and balancing the ground effect forces that arise from near earth air disturbance) to fly… albeit very close to the ground. That’s a GEV, think a F-35B with just enough wing surface to take advantage of ground effect to fly NOE but not enough to sustain higher altitude flight. The physics that apply to a hovercraft are not the same as a GEV. Hovercrafts ride on a “cushion of air” trapped underneath the vehicle. This makes the surface they ride on essentially frictionless and motion in any direction requires little effort. Thrust can be added in any direction but will need to be counteracted through thrust vectoring or very large control surfaces to turn and maintain orientation. This makes them clumsy, hard to maneuver, and limited to smooth surfaces to maintain the air cushion. Conversely, a GEV more-or-less flies NOE and uses a combination of thrust vectoring, lifting body/high thrust-to-weight ratio, and control surfaces to sustain very low altitudes. All this lifting power also gives rise to the notion that GEVs can make bursts of thrust to gain slightly higher altitudes when necessary to “Hop”. All this means that GEVs are far more maneuverable and versatile than their hovercraft predecessors and likely won’t be stopped by the first ditch or steep incline that they come across.

Which brings us to the overall design of the Combine and Paneuro GEVs. Let’s dissect the iconic Paneuro GEV first. The canon PE GEV looks an awful lot like a traditional hovercraft (YES I’m sure that, at the time, it was the best idea of what one should look like based upon modern hovercraft design and WC used that for his artistic inspiration, but I digress). The most distinguishing feature are the “skirts”, which would suggest a traditional hovercraft but with one notable difference, all renderings of the PE GEV suggest the skirt is solid or rigid. Now this is purely speculative but stay with me. This solid skirt is not a skirt but rather a complex undercarriage with multi-faceted plenums which create multiple columns of air (much like a F-35B) that lifts the craft off the ground. Forward thrust is then provided by the large turbo jet engines mounted high on the tail. The high mounting of those engines suggest that they need to be high to counteract a nose-up attitude which develops when the GEV begins to transition to forward flight. The several louvers surrounding the skirt are movable and articulate to vector the air 360 degrees around the craft and providing maneuvering control. It doesn’t need traditional ailerons or a large rudder to provide flight control. All flight control is provided by vectoring air through the multifaceted, infinitely adjustable plenum. Basically, the Paneuro GEV is flying by sheer force of will, its rectangular shape has the aerodynamic properties of a brick. It’s got a huge lifting surface with powerful engines and forces itself through the air, but still technically flies. The Combine GEV is much easier to justify because it looks like it should fly. It’s got a lifting body design, four articulating thruster pods/winglets, thrust nozzles in-line with the fuselage, and large angled rudders which suggest it is controlled less by thrust vectoring and more by the rudders. This really leads one to conclude that it must go FAST because it has more airplane-like control surfaces. Rudders are ineffective at slow speeds, so it is probably more of a speed demon yet less maneuverable at low speeds than the Paneuro GEV. The Paneuro can probably spin on a dime but can’t match the Combine GEV in a drag race.

So, with all that out of the way, let’s talk armor and armament. GEVs don’t have serious armament, by that I mean a large bore cannon, way too heavy. Rather they have some form of lighter, smaller caliber, rapid fire gun (think a Bradley, LAV or even an A-10) that couldn’t hope to penetrate the forward glacis of an MBT… but it doesn’t have to. Because you would NEVER match a GEV head-to-head against an MBT. You use the GEV’s ability to outmaneuver the slower vehicle and exploit the soft flanks or even the tops (making the classic GEV “hop” to pop-up and shoot down on the top of an opponent). An A-10 which is renowned for its ability to obliterate armor, uses a relatively weak 30mm Gatling gun. This gun couldn’t hope to go through any heavily armored vehicle's front armor BUT drop those rounds through the soft top deck and engine grates and that’s all she wrote. Against Ogre’s, a GEV would have to mount some form of supplemental tactical missile launcher system to supplement the gun. Otherwise they would be completely ineffective.

Armor, yeah, not really. Enough to protect the occupants from small arms and possibly a near-miss by a tac-nuke. But with heavy armor comes reduced maneuverability and that just isn’t in the GEV’s makeup. Speed is life for the GEV. Like the A10 titanium bathtub, GEVs likely place heavy armor in vital areas but overall, it’s a paper airplane against direct hits.

Now I don't own a copy of GURPs Ogre which may go into more detail about the GEV's makeup and design than I suggested here. If my ideas and description don't gibe with that then so be it. I like my explanation but if someone could enlighten me on the Gurps Ogre description of a GEV, I'm all ears.

As far as the concept of hover TANKS in general… I think it’s a solution in search of a problem. Overall tracks or even wheels are a more versatile mode of propulsion over most terrain. A Hovertank, or even a heavy GEV tank, would require a LOT of power to lift, stabilize, and maneuver if it were to be combat worthy against a tracked MBT. This may be overcome in the long term with say, a small-lightweight fusion powerplant and/or extremely lightweight yet strong metal alloys, but why? The largest advantage a hover tank has over earth bound counterparts is the ability to traverse large open areas faster (debatable) and travel over water. This advantage would likely be offset by thinner armor, a smaller gun, and a fragile propulsion system. I could see a niche for amphibious assaults but that’s fighting yesterday’s wars with today’s equipment. And while I like the idea of hovertanks (because they are frickin’ cool!) I doubt you will see the US or any other country ponying up the R&D efforts anytime soon.