Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Board and Card Games > Ogre and G.E.V.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-24-2016, 05:39 AM   #21
Dave Crowell
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

For me, the GEV ability to swoop in, attack, and then dance away is big part of of the game. It is fundamental to tactics.

Allowing reaction fire would be a fundamental change in game play. Adding reaction fire would also be devestating against ordinary armour units and infantry. Infantry especially would have to run a gauntlet of AP fire before they could make their range 1 attacks.

Similarly I don't think we need to allow AP guns to attack non infantry targets. The Ogres have enough guns already, and managing which attack what targets is part of playing skill.
Dave Crowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 07:21 AM   #22
tomc
 
tomc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeatDeath View Post
It's precisely this play dynamic, an artifact of the turn sequence and hex grid, that makes making a really accurate Ogre RTS basically impossible.
There's a line between a simulation and the abstractions of a game, and people naturally draw that line differently. I've always preferred "simple and fun" to "complex and accurate", and I think that's part of why I play Ogre instead of ASL.

Of course, lots and lots of folks have a blast playing ASL, so there ya go.
__________________
OgreMap2

Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Podium
tomc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2016, 01:44 PM   #23
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Kauffman View Post
I tried a different approach on my playthrough from others posted and focused entirely on slowing the OGRE down as the mission priority to see how that may play out and to what conclusion.
This idea seems worth a shot, so I played through the standard Mk V "Dogpile" twice, solo. The PE tactical guidance was to take most shots against treads till the Ogre was slow enough to be sniped. As seems to be the case with this scenario, the first few turns were key.

1st playing: Ogre victory in 18 turns, but that was due to an error that left the last GEV in range. This should have been a close Ogre loss with one GEV remaining. By the time it cleared the board, the Ogre had 2x MB, 6x 2B, 12x AP and 24x treads remaining. Losses in the first three turns were 17 armor killed and 18 treads lost (M2).

2nd playing: Unwinnable for the Ogre on turn 25. Some GEVs decided to keep out of range while the other armor worked on whittling down the Ogre's mobility. But by the endgame the Ogre still had M2, so the GEVs had to take their chances. Three out of four were killed, and the other played keep-away to deny the Ogre a victory. Remaining forces = 1x GEV versus a Mk V with 1x MB, 6x 2B, 12x AP, and 23x treads.

Observations: To make the anti-mobility/run-away strategy work, it helps a lot to knock out both MB. The approach also emphasizes the shoot-&-scoot GEV tactic discussed in this thread. I'm disinclined to add opportunity/reaction fire to address that because most of the time it's a feature, not a bug. It's an abstraction to produce the effect of a wounded Ogre not being able to deal with zippy, harrassing GEVs. In this scenario, maybe results like I've described here should be considered ties. Clear the board = Ogre victory, kill the Ogre (not counting APs) = PE victory, and anything else = tie, evaluated on points as described in the scenario.

Last edited by ghostofjfd; 09-24-2016 at 02:13 PM.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2016, 04:47 PM   #24
wolf90
 
wolf90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Thank you everyone that has tackled this scenario and posted feedback! It is extremely helpful!

Ok…I'd like to try some additional variants other than the healthy, intact Mark VI. This seems to be the version that is raising some questions. So here is an alternate variant to try:

1) Instead of an intact Mark VI, try one with only two external missiles, one missile rack, and 6 internal missiles.

And as an added bonus, here are two different variants to try:

2) Replace the Mark V in the base scenario with a healthy, fully intact Mark IV.

3) Replace the two LADs in each corner with a single HWTZ in the base scenario. More firepower, but only one unit to kill (per corner).

Remember, beating the scenario should not be a common event. The Ogre should die, more often than not!

D.
__________________
Proud sponsor of Ogre KS $4.5k Sheet #3 - Bringing the Vatican Guard, a Tiger-striped mercenary unit, and of course pink GEVs, to a game near you! Orders may be placed here.
wolf90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 06:50 AM   #25
dwalend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Why no infantry in the standard version of the scenario?
dwalend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 08:40 AM   #26
ghostofjfd
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

My initial impression was that a Mk VI with two external missiles and zero racks was still pretty robust, especially when the balance is only 24 INF squads. But I'll hold comments about balance till I log more playings, including more f-t-f.
ghostofjfd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 05:31 PM   #27
wolf90
 
wolf90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwalend View Post
Why no infantry in the standard version of the scenario?
My understanding was that it was more of a conceptual scenario, much as laid out in the introductory vignette.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostofjfd View Post
My initial impression was that a Mk VI with two external missiles and zero racks was still pretty robust, especially when the balance is only 24 INF squads.
I'm inclined to agree. The Mark VI may simply be just too strong for this concept without seriously hamstringing it. But it's always worth proving the point, even if you're proving a negative. And again, we really appreciate the help in proving it!

D.
__________________
Proud sponsor of Ogre KS $4.5k Sheet #3 - Bringing the Vatican Guard, a Tiger-striped mercenary unit, and of course pink GEVs, to a game near you! Orders may be placed here.
wolf90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 06:17 PM   #28
tomc
 
tomc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Carrboro, NC
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf90 View Post
The Mark VI may simply be just too strong for this concept without seriously hamstringing it.
I tried the Mark VI with 2 ext MSLs and 1 Missile Rack, vs an extra 24 INF, and it totally smoked the opposition. Destroyed 5 GEVs and 4 HVYs on turn 1, along with some Ds.

The Mark VI destroyed:
turn 1 - 5 GEVs, 4 HVYs
turn 2 - 1 LAD, 1 MSL, 4 INF, 1 HVY
turn 3 - 4 MSL, 1 LAD, 1 HVY, 1 GEV
turn 4 - 1 MSL, 2 INF (running out of targets here...)

At this point the Mark VI had only lost 3 treads and expended all internal and external missiles, and I saw no point in continuing.

Defenders prioritized the Missile Rack and MBs, failing on several 2:1 attacks. Good rolls for the Mark VI on turn 1 made this no contest.
__________________
OgreMap2

Freedom of Speech is not Freedom of Podium
tomc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2016, 08:12 PM   #29
dwalend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf90 View Post
I'm inclined to agree. The Mark VI may simply be just too strong for this concept without seriously hamstringing it. But it's always worth proving the point, even if you're proving a negative. And again, we really appreciate the help in proving it!
I won't get time to play for at least a week but:

The ramming/reduction rules mean that the INF can't effectively channel the ogre's movement. Putting the INF way out at the LADs maybe doesn't make sense.

While putting together this post I had a thought: Dogpile might be a particularly good one to use the green-map overrun rules instead of tan-map ramming and reduction. (But keep the tan map stacking rules in place, so no spill over.) That'd let INF in the Mk VI variant channel or at least delay the ogre.

Plus overruns are fun.
dwalend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2016, 06:39 PM   #30
Tim Kauffman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
Default Re: New Scenario: Dogpile

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf90 View Post
Thank you everyone that has tackled this scenario and posted feedback! It is extremely helpful!
It's great fun being part of this, wish I had more time to help and will continue doing what I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf90 View Post
Ok…I'd like to try some additional variants other than the healthy, intact Mark VI. This seems to be the version that is raising some questions. So here is an alternate variant to try:

1) Instead of an intact Mark VI, try one with only two external missiles, one missile rack, and 6 internal missiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf90 View Post
The Mark VI may simply be just too strong for this concept without seriously hamstringing it. But it's always worth proving the point, even if you're proving a negative. And again, we really appreciate the help in proving it! D.
Would Laser Towers have a place in this Scenario in each of the corners next to a Howitzer or LAD? These would have total field range of the Map, meaning anytime the MARK6 fired a Missile, the LTs get 4 shots to intercept it, or, instead of this attack, they could make 4 attack strength 2 attacks, or up to a single attack strength 8 attack if all 4 LTs combine fire, with a lot of combination attacks possible as well, a lot of variable firepower which can really be leveraged hard against the Mark6. For example, 2 LTs could Missile intercept and two could attack normally in a turn provided the two intercepting didn't fire the previous turn. That's a big deal in this sand box Scenario and with this, you may be able to let the MARK6 keep all it's Missiles.
I do like the idea of it having already fired some prior to the start of the Scenario, but using LTs may be what's needed here to try running a undamaged Mark6 with all it's Missiles available.

For added customization and interest, that each Scenario would play a bit differently, maybe allowing some mines to be placed by Paneurope secretly would also help...it would be fun using mines in this Scenario to test them out for Balance/Fun Factor.
It would instill a uncertainty for the Combine player about how and where the next tread unit damage would occur=tension=combat fatigue=more of that sense of the pervasive and constant threat of:"how much of me will be making it out of this intact"?
And to put too fine a point on using LTs, since all four have total range of the Map, the MARK6 would be under much more threat pressure than if using range 8 Howitzers or LADs. In fact, LTs here would be like LADs with total Map range and more "Health" as both do attack strength 2 attacks.
__________________
"So I stood my ground...my only hope to die as I had always lived-fighting" John Carter of Mars

Last edited by Tim Kauffman; 09-30-2016 at 11:13 PM.
Tim Kauffman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.