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 01-30-2018, 06:43 PM   #21
dwalend
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColBosch View Post
Where does it say that BPC floats?
GURPS Ogre, I think on the first page of background material.
dwalend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2018, 10:28 PM   #22
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misplaced Buckeye View Post
All good ideas. The without adding anything weird on the mines though...since magnetic mines have been around for a while it only seems natural that they would upgrade in some way, if only to seek out non magnetic hulls.
I meant that the existing minefield rules, as is, work fine for naval mines.
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 09:46 AM   #23
TheAmishStig
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancaster, PA
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
I meant that the existing minefield rules, as is, work fine for naval mines.
That's what I read from it too: Not a single thing in the rules that says mines can't go in a Water hex...the current PDF of the rules even straight-up suggests it by mentioning hexes with Bridges in them.

I had a big write-up in the works the other day, but the conversation moved on between when I wrote it and when I got around to proofreading it, so let it go. It read like it was generated by a ramble-o-matic anyway, touching on other stuff like Ninja toys.

For a while, I was considering the merits of making a distinction between a Floating mine (GEV movement / Infantry) and a Seabed mine (Ogres / Superheavies), not unlike how mines already make the distinction between 'On the road' and 'somewhere in the hex'. But the more I think about it, and the more I work through ideas elsewhere...I don't like it nearly as much as I did at first Oooh Shiny.

It'd be a neat tool in a scenario designer's toolbox, but it takes away from the elegance that defines Ogre as Ogre rather than Flames of War or one of those. The more I dwell, the more I'm thinking it's probably best to assume any water we're going to see in-game is shallow enough that nothing is safe ("Swimming Ogre" minis show the conning tower above the surface, so what...10-15m at most?), or that mine technology has become advanced enough to be able to hit either. Sensors and ballast tanks in the mines themselves [so they can rise or sink when they detect a hostile unit] would be all it takes, and in a world where you've got Turing-and-then-some AIs running supertanks flinging nuclear warheads out of railguns on ballistic arcs with enough arms and armor to take on entire battalions on its own, a mine that can manage its own depth isn't exactly going overboard.

Same can be said for an 'Ooh shiny' moment I had in response to all the talk of Keel-cracking...the idea to give a fixed 1:1 or 1:2 Spillover when a water mine goes off, to reflect how nasty underwater explosions are. It's cool, but I'm not sure if the cool factor makes up for the extra work.
__________________
Andy Mull
Agent #0460
Lancaster, PA
TheAmishStig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 02:29 PM   #24
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAmishStig View Post
the current PDF of the rules even straight-up suggests it by mentioning hexes with Bridges in them.
That's not necessarily the case, and the way it's worded is actually a source for discussion.

Mines affect only the unit that sets it off, so it's unrealistic to assume a mine on a bridge hex (note that it says "bridge hex", not water) would affect the bridge unless the intended meaning of 13.04 is that the mine is on the bridge itself, not just in the hex (i.e., in the water).

Furthermore, 13.04 isolates the damage even further when discussing roads and railroads to the point that they are damaged only if the mine was on the road/rail. There is no reason that same logic shouldn't be applied to the bridges as well.

None of this changes the discussion about putting mines in water, though. The rule is very clear when it says "He places them in whatever hexes he wishes." There are no exclusions listed for water, so there's nothing stopping you from putting them in water. However, it does matter when you talk about the specific case of a mine in the same hex as a bridge for damage resolution; it should follow the same guidelines for mines in hexes with roads. A mine in water will be unaffected by a unit on the bridge, and a mine on the bridge will be unaffected by units on/in the water.

The only real edge case is whether there needs to be a distinction between submerged units vs not. From a KISS standpoint, there should be no difference. It gets too fiddly trying to keep track of submerged/surface status of both the units and the mines.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 02:36 PM   #25
ColBosch
 
ColBosch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

I know I've been saying this a lot lately, but since the mines are almost certainly nuclear weapons, if we go with "all water is relatively shallow" then submerged vs. surfaced really isn't going to matter a whole lot.
__________________
Keeper of the GURPS Banner
See my Ogre collections!
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP
ColBosch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 04:42 PM   #26
TheAmishStig
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancaster, PA
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
That's not necessarily the case, and the way it's worded is actually a source for discussion.

Mines affect only the unit that sets it off, so it's unrealistic to assume a mine on a bridge hex (note that it says "bridge hex", not water) would affect the bridge unless the intended meaning of 13.04 is that the mine is on the bridge itself, not just in the hex (i.e., in the water).

Furthermore, 13.04 isolates the damage even further when discussing roads and railroads to the point that they are damaged only if the mine was on the road/rail. There is no reason that same logic shouldn't be applied to the bridges as well.

None of this changes the discussion about putting mines in water, though. The rule is very clear when it says "He places them in whatever hexes he wishes." There are no exclusions listed for water, so there's nothing stopping you from putting them in water. However, it does matter when you talk about the specific case of a mine in the same hex as a bridge for damage resolution; it should follow the same guidelines for mines in hexes with roads. A mine in water will be unaffected by a unit on the bridge, and a mine on the bridge will be unaffected by units on/in the water.
We're in agreement, have been the whole time. Lemme just get that out there now, before I ramble a bit about what my thought process was.

When I wrote the first sentence of my last post, I came at it from the other direction...that if it was meant to be "mines cannot be in the water, but bridges over water can still be mined", it would have said something to that effect, rather than not mentioning water and concerning itself with (vaguely) pointing out that 13.02.2 applies when a mine goes off on a bridge. That's all I was getting at with pointing out the wording of mines, bridges, and 13.04.

The wording of "bridge hex" rather than "bridge's hex" or "large bridge" does bring up an interesting question, though...something that does make for a point of discussion. What's your (or anyone's) take on the implications of that wording in regards to bridge "endpoints" (for purposes of discussion, defined as any part of a bridge that is not a full hex thereof...the hexes on either side of a Stream Bridge, and the hexes bordering either end of a Large Bridge)? Does a mine going off on the road/railroad of a hex containing a bridge's endpoint also destroy the bridge?

On one hand, both 13.02.1 and 13.02.2 have explicit 'direct attacks only' clauses, with the two exceptions. That suggests no...cut the road, but leave the bridge alone, because the mine isn't explicitly on the bridge.

On the other hand, 13.04 doesn't explicitly state 'Large Bridge', which leaves an opening to argue that if the hex was entered via the bridge, it would (or would also) destroy the bridge, on grounds that the mine could very well have been on the slope to and from the bridge surface proper, which is what is attacked when attacking the bridge via its 'adjoining road hex' in 13.02.

I didn't initially buy it, but after rephrasing to consider entering via the hexside with the bridge, now I'm not so sure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post

The only real edge case is whether there needs to be a distinction between submerged units vs not. From a KISS standpoint, there should be no difference. It gets too fiddly trying to keep track of submerged/surface status of both the units and the mines.
That's ultimately what I settled on, too: an interesting idea, but more bookkeeping than it's worth...hence the whole paragraph babbling on about shallow water and mine technology explaining why we're not expected to track mine depth.
__________________
Andy Mull
Agent #0460
Lancaster, PA
TheAmishStig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 06:08 PM   #27
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAmishStig View Post
We're in agreement, have been the whole time. Lemme just get that out there now, before I ramble a bit about what my thought process was.
Oh, I totally get it. :-)


Quote:
What's your (or anyone's) take on the implications of that wording in regards to bridge "endpoints" (for purposes of discussion, defined as any part of a bridge that is not a full hex thereof...the hexes on either side of a Stream Bridge, and the hexes bordering either end of a Large Bridge)?
This is actually easier to resolve than you might first think. The key lies in two things:

13.02.1 - States large bridges occupy all three hexes; specifically with respect to bridge destruction. Additionally, an attack by a unit in any of the three hexes gets an auto-destruct of the bridge.
13.04 - Specifically states a mine going off on a bridge hex destroys the bridge

Therefore, a mine that is actually on the "road" in any of those three hexes would be considered on the bridge as well. If it goes off, the bridge drops.

The only bookkeeping extra that I wonder about is if the road should also be cut if the mine is on one of the support hexes. I'm inclined to say yes, but...

A thought occurs. What if it's possible to state explicitly that the mine is on the bridge support or the road? In other words, on G1, mark the mine location in 2114 as 2114-B (bridge) or 2114-R (road). Spelling this out actually reinforces my original assertion, and here's why.

Mine locations are not that discreet. It doesn't work if you say it's 2114-B because that allows for movement into the hex, on the road, with no chance to trigger the mine. The rules are not built for that level of detail. You either move into the hex with a mine, or you don't. All movement results (terrain effects, etc) are based on when you move in (including mine detonation). Trying to enforce that separation causes issues with that methodology, especially since mines on a road immediately go off if a unit enters the hex at all along the road.
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 11:49 PM   #28
TheAmishStig
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancaster, PA
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
Mine locations are not that discreet.
CRAP. I just realized I've been citing 13.02.1 and 13.02.2 when I mean 13.02 and 13.02.1, respectively. Crap crap crap crap crap.

But getting back on topic, therein lies my conundrum.

The way 13.02 and 13.02.1 read to me, it's not for purpose of destroying the bridge, it's for the explicit purpose of firing at the bridge...determining 'Is it in range?' and 'do I get the auto-destruction boon?'.

Makes me think the wording in 13.04 is in need of clarification...either "yes, if a mine goes off in an adjoining hex the bridge goes boom", or replacing "bridge hex" with "the center hex of a river bridge".

I'm really tempted to suggest that the answer is "If a mine goes off on a full-hex bridge, blow the bridge. Otherwise, leave the bridge alone". Or failing that, "If a mine goes off on a river bridge, blow the bridge. If a mine goes off on a road in a hex adjoining any bridge, blow the bridge IF the unit setting off the mine entered the hex via the bridge."

Option A is elegant and KISS-friendly. Option B keeps the 'If you enter a hex with a mine, the mine goes boom' elegance intact, preserves bridges as separate targets from hexes, and still destroys the bridge when it conceptually should.

But I dunno. It's 1:45, my brain is beyond tired, and it's entirely possible that I'm just not thinking straight.
__________________
Andy Mull
Agent #0460
Lancaster, PA
TheAmishStig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 11:36 AM   #29
GranitePenguin
 
GranitePenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Plainfield, IL
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAmishStig View Post
I'm really tempted to suggest that the answer is "If a mine goes off on a full-hex bridge, blow the bridge. Otherwise, leave the bridge alone". Or failing that, "If a mine goes off on a river bridge, blow the bridge. If a mine goes off on a road in a hex adjoining any bridge, blow the bridge IF the unit setting off the mine entered the hex via the bridge."
I actually like either version.

As you say, KISS is probably the best (the mine must be on the center hex of the bridge to drop it); but the enter from the bridge side idea is a cool middle ground. For option B, would it only drop the bridge, or would the road be cut in the adjoining hex (i.e., the hex where the mine is placed), too?
__________________
GranitePenguin
MIB #2214
GranitePenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 12:42 PM   #30
TheAmishStig
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Lancaster, PA
Default Re: Supercavitating OGRE Weapons...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GranitePenguin View Post
I actually like either version.

As you say, KISS is probably the best (the mine must be on the center hex of the bridge to drop it); but the enter from the bridge side idea is a cool middle ground. For option B, would it only drop the bridge, or would the road be cut in the adjoining hex (i.e., the hex where the mine is placed), too?
That's a good question.

Because we're not distinguishing between 'mines on a road' and 'mines on a bridge', that lends itself to saying "yes, the bridge blowing up is in addition to the other effects, not in place of them".

Conceptually, I'm struggling with how that makes sense for a Y-shaped road...if a road goes through hexsides 1, 3, an 5, does it make sense for blowing a bridge through hexside 5 to affect units entering via 1 and leaving via 3?

In terms of Design Philosophy, is addressing the conceptual issue going to result in something too granular for the space Ogre sits in? Nothing else that cuts a road, even spillover fire, distinguishes between the branches of roads that are more than 'one hex in, one hex out'...so gut instinct is yes, that's too granular.

As I now sit here trying to figure out what I was thinking when I was writing a post at almost 2am...I think that ultimately either way is a viable answer, but in terms of keeping the rules consistent, am leaning towards "Yes. The unit hit a mine on the road while entering the hex using the road. That's independent of the bridge clause."
__________________
Andy Mull
Agent #0460
Lancaster, PA
TheAmishStig 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 03:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.