Iron Mountain: We’ve Been Playing This Scenario Wrong for 35 Years

[dsal]

Recently I was comparing the Iron Mountain article as it appears in the Ogre Book to its original appearance in the Space Gamer #12 (1977). This is one of my favorite Ogre scenarios but players often complain that it’s unbalanced. Given that this scenario was originally published for 1st edition I wanted to see if there had been any changes to the core rules, or the article, that might have altered the balance of the scenario. While there were many minor changes that effect the scenario there was one really glaring discrepancy that got my attention:

In the original scenario the starting forces (also referenced in the story) include “five infantry platoons”. This was changed in the Ogre Book to “15 points of infantry”. You’re probably not seeing the problem unless you’re aware that in 1st edition a single strength point of infantry was called a platoon, not a squad. (See “Ogre Update” in Space Gamer #15 for an explanation of why the terminology changed). So the original scenario only had 5 strength points of infantry, not 15. I believe this was an error, rather than a deliberate decision to increase the size of the defending forces, since this scenario already heavily favors the defender.

Now I’ll admit, eliminating the extra 10 strength points of infantry probably isn’t going to be enough to balance the scenario, but, if there are any plans to republish this scenario, it would be a good start in that direction and would reflect the scenario author's original intentions.

[DSumner]

You also have to remember that when this was published, it was using the unit stats for 1st edition Ogre, so HVY's had a move of 2 and GEVs were 4/4, that also makes a difference.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dsal

In the original scenario the starting forces (also referenced in the story) include “five infantry platoons”. This was changed in the Ogre Book to “15 points of infantry”. You’re probably not seeing the problem unless you’re aware that in 1st edition a single strength point of infantry was called a platoon, not a squad.

Also, for reference for those that don't have 1st Ed Ogre:

3.015: Infantry. These counters come in three types, representing one, two, and three platoons of infantry.

[dsal]

Originally Posted by GranitePenguin

Also, for reference for those that don't have 1st Ed Ogre:

3.015: Infantry. These counters come in three types, representing one, two, and three platoons of infantry.

I am envious. I've been trying to find a copy of the 1st edition rulebook. I've had to rely on secondary sources (old Spacegamer articles) to catalog exactly what changed in the rules. I would prefer to be able to read the original wording of the rulebook.

As an example. The "Ogre Update" article from Spacegamer #15 discusses some updates to the Ogre ramming rules (5.031) and mentions that "An Ogre loses two tread units (see Section 6.05) for ramming a Heavy Tank, and one tread unit for ramming anything else". Was this a rule change or rule clarification? If it's a rule change does that imply that Ogres only lost 1 tread unit when ramming a Heavy Tank in 1st edition? If so, that's another rule change which worked to the Ogre's disadvantage in this scenario.

(If you happen to have the original wording of the ramming rules. Please share!)

Originally Posted by DSumner

You also have to remember that when this was published, it was using the unit stats for 1st edition Ogre, so HVY's had a move of 2 and GEVs were 4/4, that also makes a difference.

You also used to be able to combine attacks against treads which (if the attacker had an unlucky die roll) could work in the Ogre's favor.

[dsal]

Another Issue I’ve noticed from reading past posts about Iron Mountain is that some players miss the implications of the scenario’s 1st and 2nd special rules.

“1. Units may stack. Maximum stacking limit (for movement also!) is 3 defensive factors.”

“2. When any unit (except the Ogre or infantry) enters a hex containing any non-infantry unit, there is a cost of one additional movement point”

Some players have complained that once the Ogre’s speed is reduced from 3 to 2 it is impossible for the Ogre to catch up to the convoy which also moves at a speed of 2. (Each truck can attempt to use “accelerated movement” to move 3 hexes but it’s usually too risky since it can cause the trucks to stall). What they miss is that one of the two 6/8 howitzers blocks the road so each truck will have to pay an additional movement point to pass through its hex. Since this scenario’s unique stacking rules prevent more than 2 trucks from stacking with the howitzer (Iron Mountain trucks are D1) this will cause the entire convoy to slow to a speed of one for several turns as the trucks get backed up behind the howitzer. This gives the Ogre the opportunity to gain on the convoy and possibly get within weapons range. If the Ogre is wise it will have reserved a missile or two for this phase of the battle either to strike the convoy or distract the howitzers from attacking its treads.

Note that the 1st special rule also applies the stacking limit DURING movement (unlike GEV which only applies the limit at the END of the movement phase). This makes unit placement and movement unusually tricky for the Defender (and the various turnouts on the map invaluable) since it's easy to inadvertently block the road if you're not careful about the order in which you move your units.

Unfortunately the special rules don’t tell us whether stacked units can move together or whether they have to take their moves individually. If, for example, stacked units can move together than two trucks which begin the turn together could both move forward two hexes. If they have to take their moves individually the first truck could move forward two hexes but the second truck would only be able to move forward one hex (unless it takes its chances with accelerated movement) since it would cost 2 movement points to enter a hex that already has a truck in it (in accordance with the 2nd special rule).

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by dsal

Was this a rule change or rule clarification?

Rules change. The original:

5.031 Results of ramming armor units. ...An Ogre loses one movement point (see Section 6.05) for every armor unit it rams.

You also used to be able to combine attacks against treads which (if the attacker had an unlucky die roll) could work in the Ogre's favor.

This is true. 6.112 does not explicitly state any limits on combining attacks on the treads. It doesn't use an example of doing that (the example is a single HVY), but it doesn't say you can't.

I can't imagine a time where this would ever be a good idea, the only thing I can think of is if it's the last turn before losing the command post and it's all or nothing; any other time would be pointless and statistically unsound.

[dsal]

It's been mentioned in the past that the scenario set-up doesn't actually match the story in several respects. To give just one example, the scenario begins with the Ogre entering from the road marked by the X, but according to the story it should have entered the map from the road marked with a Y and was ambushed at the intersection (meaning the defenders, not the Ogre, should get the 1st shot).

There's also some discrepancies in scale. 1st edition ogre had .5 km per hex and later editions (to the current day) use 1.5 km per hex but the Iron Mountain map works out to a scale of approximately .33 km per hex based on the distance between the intersection and Launch Site B. Assumptions about have fast units move (in km/hr) may also have changed since the story was written (or perhaps you just can't move as fast on a mountain roads).

And there's some other oddities as well. For example: how did Lt. Jacob's lone GEV manage to score two successful hits (the 4 tread damage the Ogre begins the scenario with) on a Mark-III-B in a one-on-one fight and live to tell the tale? (My theory is the Ogre let the GEV escape hoping it would give away the location of the convoy.)

If this scenario is updated for the current edition I would really love to see two versions of the scenario:

An update of the "classic set-up", and..

A new "historical" set-up that more accurately reflects the events of the story.

I would hope that the original special rules would be preserved (more or less) because one of the charms of this scenario is that it uses stacking and movement rules distinct from the Ogre and GEV maps.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by dsal

It's been mentioned in the past that the scenario set-up doesn't actually match the story in several respects.

This doesn't really answer your questions, but in my experience sometimes good stories don't make for good scenarios, and vice versa. For example, Iron Mountain uses a number of special rules to more closely match the story. But the more special rules you need, the more complicated the scenario becomes and the harder it is to "just play" using the known rules. I suspect that fact alone may be part of why these discrepancies exist - but I have to admit that your idea of redoing it both for current rules and for "historical accuracy" is a rather interesting one...

[ColBosch]

Eh. While I'm fine with the scenario being tweaked, forcing fiction to strictly match game rules usually results in boring fiction.

[dsal]

Iron Mountain uses a number of special rules to more closely match the story. But the more special rules you need, the more complicated the scenario becomes and the harder it is to "just play" using the known rules.

Although we usually think of Iron Mountain as a "scenario" I would argue that it was really the first expansion for OGRE (despite GEV, which was published later, getting the credit). It had everything you would expect from an expansion: a new map with new terrain, new units (the Mark III-B, the light howitzer, and trucks), news rules (including the 1st ever stacking and spillover rules), and a new scenario with fiction. It also set a precedent for having "map specific" rules (distinct from the original OGRE map) just as GEV would later do. I've always been disappointed that Iron Mountain has been overlooked, never even having had a map that was playable "out of the box", while the rest of the game has gotten the deluxe treatment.

I suspect that fact alone may be part of why these discrepancies exist

Actually most of the discrepancies between the scenario and the story seem unnecessary and could easily be fixed (I've used a scenario set-up based on the story that seems to work) so it's unclear why they exist. Perhaps the scenario was based on an earlier draft of the story (or vice versa) and the author never got around to revising them to match?