06-01-2012, 11:43 PM | #11 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Sections 7-8:
7.05.1 If INF are next to multiple Ogres, can they be attacked once per turn by each Ogre's AP, or can they only be attacked once per turn by AP weapons period? 7.09 lists the former, so I recommend changing 7.05.1 to "No infantry unit may be attacked more than once per turn by each Ogre's AP,...". 7.10 Unless the CRT has changed, 5-1 odds are an automatic X. Change the next-to-last paragraph to read "Note that any attack at odds of 5-1 or greater are an automatic X,...", since last I knew there was no 5-1 odds column, and there's no other mention of 5-1 being an automatic X. 7.11 See my comment above about changing "enemy fire" to "weapons fire" in case a unit is disabled by friendly shockwave or spillover fire. Also, change the "(e.g., by terrain)" to simply "by terrain", to differentiate between units disabled by weapons fire and those disabled by terrain. 7.12.1 A note should be added that the defender makes this choice once per turn, and that if INF are reduced by fire they cannot be reorganized before being attacked again. 8.05.2 If an Ogre rams a SHVY during an overrun, is it treated the way a SHVY would be in 6.02.1, or is an SHVY treated like any other unit. Also, why don't Ogres lose treads for ramming during overruns? 8.05.3 Given that section 8 effectively replace section 6, this rule is ambiguous. If you mean to use 6.07.X to determine what units can legally ram another unit, you should put a reference to it here. Suggest changing to: "Any other unit which could legally ram a unit (see 6.07) or building (see 11.04.3)...". 8.06.1 Add "unless they mounted the vehicle during the same turn." to the end of the first sentence to make it consistent with 5.11.3. 8.08 Should there be a note that if an Ogre was removed from an overrun because it didn't have valid targets and surviving units have additional movement points, they can spend 1 to overrun the Ogre again?
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
06-02-2012, 12:09 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Nova Brasília
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
OK, this is a background color nit, but looking at wargames and miniatures wargame rules over the last decade or so, I'd say get rid of the set-in-stone time scale.
Say something like "a turn represents a unit of time anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes". This makes certain movement and time/space issues in Ogre easier to fudge, particularly militia and obsolete unit movement. In fact, it makes the game more realistic because, realistically speaking, heavy armor units aren't generally driving 60 kph in straight lines through hexes, especially under combat conditions. If you don't like the flexible time fudge, then say each turn is about ten minutes long. Again, given the weaving and dodging that units do, this is much more realistic than the 4 minute current turn time span. |
06-02-2012, 12:13 AM | #13 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Train stuff:
3.03 The train still says "The choice of front counter shows the train's speed." Change this to reflect the new train counters. Quote:
9.03.1 Can the 2 counters rejoin each other? If so, add "The counters may rejoin each other if they are standing still in adjacent hexes." 9.06 If there are multiple tracks, can the owner of a unit which got road bonus on the tracks declare it to be not on the same track as a train which moves into its hex? What about friendly units? Can they get off the tracks (in the case of GEVs using the rails for road bonus) do avoid a collision? Can a train move through friendly INF even if they got the road bonus? 9.06(b) Suggest you rephrase to make it clearer. I'm guessing you mean that the train is attacked with a strength equal to the total Size Class of the enemy units, but I could be wrong. 9.07 Are vehicles that leave the train considered stacked with it in the same hex, or do they move 1 hex and then stop? Also, can INF which leave the train move on that turn, and can INF on GEV-PCs leave the train on their own like INF, or do they have to debark with the GEV-PCs? I recommend the latter, otherwise the system can be gamed by loading 4 GEV-PCs and 12 INF per train counter, then using them separately. One other thing - how are GEV-PCs w/INF handled from an attack standpoint if the train is destroyed? Do they all use the same 1-1 die roll (i.e., everyone dies on a single X, and only a disabled GEV-PC survives on a D) or do they roll separately? I'm tempted to suggest that INF on GEV-PCs do take up space, just to be consistent with the stacking rules...
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
||
06-02-2012, 12:17 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheltenham, PA
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Quote:
__________________
Joshua Megerman, SJGames MIB #5273 - Ogre AI Testing Division |
|
06-02-2012, 12:51 AM | #15 |
Join Date: Apr 2012
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Re: 9.03... does a destroyed train block the track? If so, that's a reason to leave the counter in place if there are other trains in the scenario.
|
06-02-2012, 01:08 AM | #16 |
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
|
06-02-2012, 01:37 AM | #17 | ||
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Typos (and errors):
3.03 ... Train: Description needs to be updated for new counter design. 5.02.2 Advanced map scenarios: "advanced" should be capitalized before "(green) maps". 5.08.1 Effects of infantry: The Marines section discusses combat effects, not movement effects. 6.02.1 Ogres ramming Superheavy Tanks: Reference to 6.07.1 should be 13.07. Advanced Map Scenarios (p. 48): The last sentence before Breakthrough should say "Advanced maps". Ceasefire Collapse (p. 54): The last sentence of "Objectives and victory points" should discuss "extended or Ogre scenarios". Suggestions: 5.08.2 Effects on GEVs: The last sentence under Forest should be rewritten to: Quote:
6.02.1 Ogres ramming Superheavy Tanks: I think that "if it is not destroyed" should be replaced with "in addition to the 1-1 attack". 9.6 Collisions: I think that the second sentence should be "A unit which used the road bonus last turn ...". 5.07.1 says that a unit "gets" the bonus for spending its entire normal move on road/rail. Inconsistencies in lasers The SP for laser towers is not consistently specified. I think that the 20 SP probably should be specified in the three scenarios noted, and then 3.06 can reflect a range for both lasers and laser towers. Quote:
|
||
06-02-2012, 03:00 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
End of 3.02 "Any two squads can defend together at D2, and any
three squads can defend at D3." What happens to a squad of inf and a squad of marines in a water hex? (I suggest changing this to a player may combine any two or three of their infantry squads in the same location and add together their defense strength against ranged attacks.) 3.04.2 Internal Missiles wording neglects possibility that these could be destroyed by a cruise missile destroying the entire Ogre. Suggest shortening to something like "The destruction of a missile rack also destroys one remaining internal missile and these are otherwise only lost if fired or if the Ogre itself is destroyed." 7.02 Attack Strength and Range. Consider a note that there is no facing in this game. 7.05.3 Missile racks. At what point in the turn does the missile rack reload? 7.06 Combining attacks. Consider a note about "within range" 7.07.1 Multiple infantry targets. Replace "Infantry cannot divide itself into attack strengths of other than whole numbers – no fractions." with "Each squad can only make one attack per fire phase or round." To prevent squads from making split attacks in overruns. 7.14.4 Water. So while Marines may avoid GEV overruns, the GEVs can still hit and run with ranged attacks on them, right? 8.05.1 Disarmed Ogres. replace "If, during overrun combat, an Ogre loses all its weapons that have valid targets in that combat" with "If, during overrun combat, an Ogre is unable to make at least a 1-2 attack against any target" to handle Missile Racks that don't have missiles ready, underwater overruns etc. (Why they never built APs that work underwater is beyond me.) 8.05.2 Ogre ramming during overruns. "If the target was anything but another Ogre, it is destroyed and the Ogre is undamaged." Even trains and buildings? Just delete "after the first fire round" as it adds nothing to this section. I am so going to abuse 8.05.3 by blowing up Hvy Tanks with LGEV rams and (if I can get away with it by quoting 11.04.3) Hovertrucks also. (Can I combine the rams of 2 LGEVs into a 1-1 attack on a Superheavy? If so does D count as X here?) 9.07 Reinforcements from the train. "Infantry may fire from the train unless they are mounted [or carried on other units carried] within the train." Would cover trucks on the train. On page 53 Baywatch needs a trademark symbol. (sigh.)
__________________
-HJC Last edited by hcobb; 06-02-2012 at 03:07 AM. |
06-02-2012, 04:06 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Quote:
Maybe that works in miniatures; I wouldn't know, but it's just nonsense in a wargame. |
|
06-02-2012, 11:08 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Nova Brasília
|
Re: Comments on 6-1 Rules
Quote:
This is not "nonsense in a wargame"... or if it is, plenty of the wargames now out there being praised to the skies are "nonsense". As for this "working" or not, it's not at all a game mechanics issue. We could say each turn represents one second or one hour and the game would continue to work just like it currently does. All this is a "suspension of disbelief issue" and, in that sense, no, the current time/distance scale does not work at all. The current time/distance scale is nonsense, both in RL terms and in terms of the fictional canon that SJG is trying to build and flesh out. For a superheavy tank to cross 4.5 kilometers in 4 minutes, it needs to be driving close to 70 kph IN A RULER STRAIGHT LINE. Now THAT is nonsense. Even given the technological capacity to move that much BPC that fast, no tank is going to drive in a straight line, as a matter of course, on the nuclear, computer-moderated battlefield. Even if it wanted to, it would have to make jigs and jags to take local terrain features into account. Given that we know, canonically, that armor units in the ogre world do not travel in straight lines but, in fact, spend much of their time dodging and weaving, our putative SHVY has to be moving at close to 100 KPH in order to get anything like its performance under the current space/time model. And that's a conservative reckoning, friends. No, that doesn't work. It is not realistic, at all. It doesn't even fit canon realism, which shows armor units dodging and weaving all over the place to put local terrain features between them and their opponents. Now, I'm sure one can say "It's a SF game, I really need to relax". And I'm certainly not going to scream to the ether that Ogre is broken if Steve decides to ignore this nit. But this nit has cropped up quite a bit when people discuss obsolete units and militia - which I love to use in my games. And yes, I can and do assume that the game turn is closer to 15 minutes long than 4 minutes long in my own games. That's not an issue. The only issue is this: the current time/distance scale is laughably unrealistic and does not add to the suspension of disbelief, nor does it fit the canon description (and I'm assuming that this is going to become more important if SJG is thinking of more Ogreverse fiction). As long as SJG is reworking the rules and asking for input, I thus thought I'd bring it up, as it's easy to fix. I think there are three solutions to this... 1) Ignore it as a nit. Maybe people will get their noses bent out of shape if something like this is changed and it's best to let sleeping dogs lie and ignore the incongruency. 2) Be vague about the amount of time a turn actually represents, just like most of today's best and most popular wargames (and here I'm thinking of Fighting Formations: Grossdeutschland Motorized Infantry Division, Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Russia 1941-1942 and Tide of Iron, all of which use a flexible turn scale, IIRC). Call it "anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes". 3) Stick to a set time slice in a turn (like, say, The Gamers Tactical Combat Series) in order to appease the strict Newtonians among us, but double or even triple it to better reflect what is actually going on in a turn. I'd thus say change the time scale to 10 minutes per turn. JLV: you've mentioned you have real life military experience. Given what you know of combat, do you SERIOUSLY envision ogres and superheavies rushing around the battlefield at 70 KPH in billiards-table straight lines? I mean, you weant to talk nonsense? THAT, my friend, is nonsense. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|