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 01-13-2018, 02:13 PM   #21
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Yes. Does this make chess a bad board game?
Maybe you shouldn't play chess then?
It makes chess a very poor representation of ancient warfare.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:20 PM   #22
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
It makes chess a very poor representation of ancient warfare.
Why does that matter?
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:29 PM   #23
ColBosch
 
ColBosch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Okay, guys. Let's back it off a notch. We're all here for the giant robot tank goodness.

While I disagree with the need for tbeard's suggested rules, if they work for his games, then who am I to say how he should play? Ogre is fantastic for house rules because it's such a simple system. Instead of repeating ourselves about why we don't like them, perhaps we could take a few moments to consider the implications and make suggestions as to how to make them even better.
__________________
Keeper of the GURPS Banner
See my Ogre collections!
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP
ColBosch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:30 PM   #24
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
My response is that Tac-Air was an excellent game about the kind of warfare you are talking about, at roughly the same scale as Ogre. Go play that.
I have, though I didn't care for it as I recall. And my response is that your arguments are very unconvincing.

The problem as I noted earlier is that the game rewards tactics that would not rationally be used on a battlefield like the one that GEV describes. None of your explanations change that, I'm afraid.

Even worse than the magical teleporting GEVs is the problem I mentioned previously:

Quote:
But what happens is that enemy tanks moving on a defensive position can force the defenders to retreat (or launch an attack despite being badly outnumbered) without ever firing a shot.

The attackers move to a position that is out of the defender's range, but close enough to move into the attacker's range next turn. This is 3-5 hexes if the target and attackers are heavy or light tank.

If the defenders stay in their position, they will be attacked and possibly wiped out by the attackers in the attackers' next turn and the defenders won't be able to fire until they've absorbed this attack. If the defenders are outnumbered (the usual case with defenders), they may be wiped out or badly damaged.

So, the defenders can withdraw so that they cannot be engaged by the attackers on the next attacker turn. Poof, a defensive position has been eliminated without the attacker firing a shot. Worse, the attackers can use the exact same "tactic" next turn.

"We have to retreat sir; they're gonna attack us on their turn!"

Or, the defenders can launch an attack (also giving up their defensive position).

Either way, the defenders are forced out of a defensive position solely because of the artificial turn sequence.
None of your arguments seem to convincingly explain this tactically absurd situation either.

Personally, I just think that it's an artifact of a fast and simple sequence of play that was perfectly good for the situation described in Ogre - a pitiless giant tank driving towards a command post.

But when it was expanded into a tactical armored game (a sort of sci-fi Panzerblitz, which is a compliment), the sequence of play wasn't as robust. But it is generally good enough.

The genius in GEV is the lack of line of sight requirements. That eliminates the most egregious problem with a "ugo/igo" sequence of play - panzerbushing. But unfortunately, it doesn't eliminate the exploit I described.

I'd also add that there's an almost endless of things I really admire about Ogre/GEV. The ground units are superbly well balanced against each other (except for the lt tank; I think it should cost 2/3 of an armor unit). The disabled mechanic allows for a simple, temporary erosion of combat capability. The overrun mechanic is classic. It's so good that I pretty much stole it for A Fistful of TOWs (and gave due credit in the designers' notes). Infantry, especially in GEV, work very well. And on and on.

But my tremendous regard for the game doesn't blind me to my friend's legitimate complaints about implausible tactics.

Fortunately, the solution is simple and takes very little additional time. I'll be using it going forward, though not for classic Ogre games.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:31 PM   #25
FJCestero
 
FJCestero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston SC, USA
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
I agree that the deployment was sub-optimal. But it hard to reply when he says, "Okay, my tank is sitting there just waiting for them. It can't fire when they close the range? Then they can move out of range after taking a shot? I can't be in some kind of overwatch? How is that reasonable?"
I get your basic point, and it's not without merit.

However...

The simplest answer to your friends question is:

"Well, in OGRE there are two types of tanks: those in motion, and those on fire. That Light Tank you parked on the waters' edge? Sitting duck for any GEV who gets to pick the time and place and who's ECM is designed to handle an over-water approach. You need to deploy a few miles back so you can ambush it as it becomes vulnerable making landfall. Be a Panzer, not the Maginot Line -- you know how that turned out."

Defense-in-Depth is also a thing.

OGRE game mechanics encourages everyone to stay in motion in order to do onto others and do it first, with formations constantly moving and shifting about in a decent imitation of maneuver warfare (or at least it would if the CRT didn't kill everyone off so darned fast, but that's another topic). Hold Fire could quickly become a reason to Hold Fast, where the fight is won by whoever has the greatest range. At that point Missile Tanks take over and who really wants that?
FJCestero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:35 PM   #26
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Why does that matter?
It matters a lot if I am trying to play a game that models ancient warfare and requires me to use game tactics analogous to real world tactics.

Chess is a poor choice for that, despite the fact that it is an excellent game.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:37 PM   #27
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
It matters a lot if I am trying to play a game that models ancient warfare and requires me to use game tactics analogous to real world tactics.

Chess is a poor choice for that, despite the fact that it is an excellent game.
Ogre seems to be a very poor choice in that case. Maybe try SPQR instead?
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 02:50 PM   #28
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJCestero View Post
I get your basic point, and it's not without merit.

However...

The simplest answer to your friends question is:

"Well, in OGRE there are two types of tanks: those in motion, and those on fire. That Light Tank you parked on the waters' edge? Sitting duck for any GEV who gets to pick the time and place and who's ECM is designed to handle an over-water approach. You need to deploy a few miles back so you can ambush it as it becomes vulnerable making landfall. Be a Panzer, not the Maginot Line -- you know how that turned out."
The problem is that this explanation discusses deployment. It doesn't plausibly address my friend's complaint.

Nor does it plausibly address the other issues I raised (being forced to abandon a position without the enemy firing a shot).

I can see no plausible Real World reason that a stationary AFV can't engage a detected enemy AFV when that enemy AFV enters weapon range. Assuming of course, that the stationary AFV isn't shooting at something else or disabled.

The reverse, by the way, is also true. GEV's universe assumes near-omniscience for the tactical commander (an assumption that I find very plausible). So the GEV's should also be able to attack an enemy unit as soon as the GEV moves into range. It should not be required wait until the enemy unit shoots. Absent some system to determine who fires first, the most logical approach would be simultaneous fire. Kinda like the Hold Fire mechanic. That's particularly true since GEV assumes rapid fire weapons with area effect. It's likely that multiple shots are required to kill a target.

Overwatch and "waiting for them to come into range" are fundamental armored warfare tactics and the universe of GEV, as described by the designer, would not change that. I now find their absence disconcerting. Fortunately, it's an east problem to address.

And like me, my friend has been a wargamer for 40+ years.

Quote:
Defense-in-Depth is also a thing.
I agree. But defense in depth won't address the concerns I raised.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 01-13-2018 at 02:59 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 03:01 PM   #29
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding View Post
Ogre seems to be a very poor choice in that case. Maybe try SPQR instead?
Please clarify; this sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 03:10 PM   #30
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Hold Fire in Ogre/GEV

Quote:
Originally Posted by FJCestero View Post
I get your basic point, and it's not without merit.

Hold Fire could quickly become a reason to Hold Fast, where the fight is won by whoever has the greatest range. At that point Missile Tanks take over and who really wants that?
I didn't address this point.

I don't think that will be a huge issue. In Fistful of TOWs - a similar tactical game to GEV in many respects - Hold Fire ceases to be used once the battle gets joined. In FFT3, Hold Fire is resolved simultaneously with enemy fire (the solution I advocate for GEV). I would expect the same in GEV.

A point that some may be missing is that a unit has to forego its attack in its turn to get a Hold Fire marker. Essentially, the unit is delaying its attack until the enemy combat phase.

And a unit will always fire in its turn if possible. Otherwise it winds up firing simultaneously with the enemy.

What Hold Fire does is stop the unrealistic "bum rush" tactic endemic to all ugo/igo systems. And it would also prevent GEVs from the exploits I previously described.
tbeard1999 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 12:17 AM.


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