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 01-07-2019, 09:56 PM   #11
TheAmishStig
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancaster, PA
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

None taken! I wouldn't have posted if I didn't want "I don't like X because Y" responses...that whole "think out loud, people I respect whacking me with a rolled-up newspaper when I go too far" thing is why I post bright ideas like this one instead of squirreling them away in a Google Doc titled 'half-baked ideas never to see the light of day'.

It's the "it's too complicated" angle that I'm hung up on. I'm not offended or defensive, I'm confused.

I don't see "Infantry delayed, all others prohibited" (proposed cliff) as being outside the spectrum of "no effect" (clear) to "Ground Effect / Light Track units delayed, Wheel prohibited, all others unaffected" (stream).

I don't see "Infantry slowed, all others prohibited, +1D, cannot fire over" (proposed mountain) as being outside the spectrum of "no unit may enter" (crater) to "Disable chance for Ground Effect, all vehicles slowed, infantry unaffected. Infantry 3x D, all other 2x D, lasers cannot fire over" (town).

With those as my context, I'm struggling to process objecting on grounds of "it's too complicated"...I'm missing something. You see something I don't, I've spent all day trying to think of what it is, I can't, and I trust your opinion enough that not getting it bothers the [fnord] out of me.

Unless with "too complicated" you're specifically referring to the terrain destruction component, which...yes, that could use refinement, but on the whole terrain destruction is messy, slows the game down with additional rolls and bookkeeping, isn't something most players will commit to memory, and is the reason that entire subset of rules is optional. [on that note: I had the timing wrong; all other destruction-in-overrun effects happen after the overrun, and that should too to keep everything consistent].

Objecting on grounds of "Something different was established 40 years ago, and you're risking a constant stream of '[FNORD], we forgot that again!' moments from the guys who have been playing it differently all this time"...that's a solid point. I can't help but doubt if it warrants completely shutting the discussion down, because there's no way Richard could have considered the way it'd interplay with anything but Clear, Crater, and Ridge because at the time Iron Mountain was published nothing else existed...Iron Mountain predates even GEV...but it's a solid point.

And even if it does never go further than the realm of "Totally Unofficial Ogrezine Article"? Doesn't mean I won't need trusted voices helping to refine it, filing off the burrs of 'gotcha', etc.
__________________
Andy Mull
MIB Agent #0460
Ogre 134th Battalion

Lancaster, PA
Imgur: https://agent0460.imgur.com/
TheAmishStig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2019, 01:51 PM   #12
Dave Crowell
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

I don't see AmishStig's proposed rules being to complex for a scenario using the Iron Mountain map. We have cruise missiles, and buildings and strongpoints, as well as engineers and revetments all of which add some complexity and book keeping to the game.

I don't really want to see mountain hexes and cliff side hex edges proliferate through many maps. But for an occasional map to feature non-standard terrain is fine. I am also fine with people coming up with scenario specific rules, whether that be for terrain effects or new units.

Treating mountains and cliffs like craters and rubble is certainly an easy solution, but maybe a little too restrictive.
Dave Crowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2019, 02:57 PM   #13
Cat
 
Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Crowell View Post
Treating mountains and cliffs like craters and rubble is certainly an easy solution, but maybe a little too restrictive.
That's my thought. Need to be able to move units around the whole map in order to play anything that is tacticallly different than just force the road every time. I'll be meditating on this sometime in the very near future. My painting is caught up well enough for Arisia in a week and a half, and now I need to get some scenarios ready that play on one mat each.
__________________
All-Purpose Gaming Blog: Goblinhall
Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2019, 04:12 PM   #14
TheAmishStig
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancaster, PA
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Crowell View Post
I don't see AmishStig's proposed rules being to complex for a scenario using the Iron Mountain map. We have cruise missiles, and buildings and strongpoints, as well as engineers and revetments all of which add some complexity and book keeping to the game.
If Roland's saying it, he's got a reason...probably a good one. A couple years of forum banter, and being one of the first ones I felt a rapport with, have me convinced of that. But it's one I can't see for myself, and that's what's driving me nuts.
__________________
Andy Mull
MIB Agent #0460
Ogre 134th Battalion

Lancaster, PA
Imgur: https://agent0460.imgur.com/
TheAmishStig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2019, 08:10 PM   #15
Cat
 
Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

Is there an honorific colour word that we are assigning to the mountain pass hexes?
Tan, Orange, Gold, Ochre, Rust?

Hmm, Ochre is iron rust, that would be most appropriate.
__________________
All-Purpose Gaming Blog: Goblinhall

Last edited by Cat; 01-10-2019 at 08:23 PM.
Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 12:16 PM   #16
sparky00
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Parma, OH
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

Ocher Ogre?
Say that five times fast....
Love it.
E
sparky00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 07:09 PM   #17
ColBosch
 
ColBosch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAmishStig View Post
If Roland's saying it, he's got a reason...probably a good one. A couple years of forum banter, and being one of the first ones I felt a rapport with, have me convinced of that. But it's one I can't see for myself, and that's what's driving me nuts.
Sorry for the late reply! My girlfriend was in town, my roommate returned from vacation, and we all had a slew of late holiday events. Much of the last week was a bit of a blur, and I didn't feel up to explaining my reasons until I had a solid 24+ plus hours between bottle and throttle.

So, here's my reasoning: there are several layers of rules in Ogre (as in most games). Here's how they break down.

General Rules: The basics of the game. 1 MP = 1 hex of movement in any direction, compare the attackers' combined Attack value to the defender's Defense and roll a D6 to see what happens, etc. These are the core of the game system and could - and have - been easily transplanted to other games. It's the next three layers that make Ogre uniquely itself.

Unit-Specific Rules: Any exceptions or special cases that apply to certain kinds of units. Ogres (usually) cannot be instantly destroyed, Infantry can combine counters to boost their Defense, Lasers have line-of-sight restrictions, etc. Some are simple (Howitzers cannot move) and some are complex (Combat Engineers and Ogre Vulcans).

Map-Specific Rules: How terrain works. Craters block movement, Towns provide shelter but can be destroyed, many units can't enter Water, etc. It's important to separate these from "general" rules for two reasons. First, the terrain effects for Ogre are unique to this game; usually craters (for example) provide cover instead of being impassable. Second, Ogre's maps vary quite a bit. The G/S series are fully compatible, but the basic orange map and Iron Mountain/M-2 are pretty different.

Scenario-Specific Rules: As Ogre is a game system, rather than a fixed boardgame, everything is mutable. That is, the play area, playing pieces, and goals vary. Scenario rules provide guidelines for those things: use Maps S-1 and G-2, the attacker has 15 INF and 10 Armor Units, the goal is to destroy the enemy command post, etc. These also include modifications to the unit- and map-specific rules, such as treating one terrain type as another, giving bonus victory points for destroying certain enemies, and so on.

With those defined, let me explain my thinking when it comes to introducing new rules.

General rules should be inviolate. While some folks have come up with alternative ways to implement the CRT, such as special dice or the No-Math Chart from Ogrezine I, the basic mechanic of comparing attack vs. defense values remains the same. Changes at this level would dramatically change the game, arguably into something that is no longer Ogre. See Battlesuit and GURPS Ogre; they may be set in the same universe, but they are definitely not the same as the classic war game.

Unit-specific rules should generally be kept as simple as possible. Otherwise, players will forget or ignore them. For the most part, Ogre achieves this. Combat engineering is perhaps the one exception, but I think Steve and Drew did a good job explaining that they're guidelines for scenario creation, and that ENG and Vulcans mostly act as normal units, just with additional special abilities.

Map-specific rules are the crux of what we'e discussing here today. Ogre has a very limited number of terrain types. Indeed, when using the basic orange map, there's only three kinds of terrain: clear, crater, and ridge hexside. The G, S, and most of the M-series maps add a few more, but these are still rather simple and all are common though the series: towns, roads, rails, water, streams, forest, and swamp. They also use a common pool of special rules, which are summarized on a single-page chart.

Scenario-specific rules are, as I said before, going to show the largest variety. This is really where "rules hackers" have the most freedom. Special scenario rules are the best place to put anything new and complicated. Players will have them fresh in their minds from reading the scenario right before play, and it's easy to keep the scenario write-up to hand for reference.

M2/Iron Mountain thus presents a special problem. Its mountain and cliff hexside terrain types are fully unique to that map. The question is whether those new terrains should be considered new map-specific rules, new scenario-specific rules, or both. From there it needs to be considered how complicated the rules should be.

Personally, I feel the new terrain types should be codified as map-specific rules. That is, they should have simple rules that, given a new rulebook, would be included within and on the reference sheet. That's why I went for as basic as possible, so that their inclusion doesn't make the basic game more complicated. If you want to do more-complicated rules - such as Andy's landslides or the Iron Mountain scenario's ramming - then the proper place to include them is in a scenario.

The difference all comes down to how much a player is expected to learn before actually playing. General rules are so critical to gameplay that someone who doesn't understand them is going to be absolutely unable to make meaningful choices during a game. Luckily, they're very simple and can be explained in moments. The same goes for most unit- and map-specific rules. If you look at the reference sheet for Ogre, you'll quickly see that almost many terrain special rules are modifications of Swamp, meaning that once you learn how Swamp hexes work, you've got the basics for Towns and Forests. It's easy to at least remember "I'm moving into a different kind of terrain, does that change anything?" and to then check the chart. As I said before, scenario-specific rules can be as complicated as you want, because a player is more likely to remember them during the course of a game. They're going to reside in short-term memory, meaning the player really doesn't need to learn them at all.

There are other considerations. Playmat M2 is a physical item SJ Games is selling. That weighs more heavily on the side of simple rules, since a prospective player faced with obscure and complicated rules may decide not to bother with the purchase at all. Put another way, if a player has trouble with - for example - the rules for combat engineers, then he simply doesn't use the ENG counters. If he doesn't like the special rules for the Casey Joneskii scenario, then he just doesn't play it. In either case, he's still got tons of other pieces and scenarios to play with. But if he doesn't like the general rules for playmat M2, then he's out the use of an entire $25-$30 item he purchased.

In other-other words, inclusiveness should always be the goal, so starting with bone-simple general rules is the best course of action. Save the complicated stuff for specific scenarios.
ColBosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 07:30 PM   #18
ColBosch
 
ColBosch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

That got super long, but I do ask that anyone with questions read it before asking them. Do note that I am making a big distinction between rules that are in the rulebook and those that are specific to individual scenarios.
ColBosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 07:42 PM   #19
Cat
 
Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

Using Iron Mountain map rules for all games on M2 will make all scenarios play out a lot like Iron Mountain.

I've drafted up some simple map rules that are more permissive than that to provide for greater scenario variety. I'll be taking them for a test spin on Sunday, and will post after the initial playtesting, in case any immediate revisions are necessary.
__________________
All-Purpose Gaming Blog: Goblinhall
Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2019, 09:05 PM   #20
ColBosch
 
ColBosch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Additional Iron Mountain scenarios?

I look forward to your take on this!

And there is one thing I'd like to add to everything I've said. (Like I haven't already said enough.) In all cases when I am discussing or proposing something on these forums, you should assume that I've appended "in my opinion," even if I forget to state it outright. I'm not about to get ego-involved in something I haven't created, even if I have been a fan for literal decades.
ColBosch 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 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.