I blame myself for the SuperHeavy

[hcobb]

Yes, it's partially my fault, so you should always get as many superheavies as you can afford after buying up all the Ogres you can.

For one example, take the one and only unit type that trades evenly with the SuperHeavy, the howitzers.

The howitzer (either type) should get the first shot on the SuperHeavy and if it does the first shot has one third chance of killing the SH, one third chance of bouncing off the SH's armor and one third chance of stunning the SH's crew.

Since any result other than X or D on the SH results in a dead howitzer, only the D result goes to the next round where two thirds of the time the howitzer wins and one third of the time it dies.

So that is five to four odds, when one howitzer takes on one SuperHeavy in clean terrain. Since SH's are able to move much better than the big guns this will seldom be the case in a big battle.

Given the formula results (if properly applied) and the special abilities of the SuperHeavy, let me recommend once again the following stats:

SUPERHEAVY TANK (SHVY) Defense: 5
Two gun attacks: 3 each, Range 6"
Two AP attacks: 1 each, Range 2"
Move: 6" Movement Mode: OGRE
Size: 5 Points: 15 (Two and a half "Armor Units")

And if that is not buff enough, let the AP guns be doubled in overruns, even when the SuperHeavy is itself disabled. (Computer controlled.)

If the SuperHeavy were to be made even tougher with say X being counted as D except that the first X destroys one each of gun and AP then this SuperSuperHeavy would be worth around 18 points.

[Armydillo978]

That's a brutal machine. Makes me think of the M-728 CEV (Combat Engineer Vehicles) we used to drive back in the day, with it's 165mm turret mounted demolition gun. Nice....need a few squaddies as buffer security and it'd be real schweeet.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by hcobb

Yes, it's partially my fault, so you should always get as many superheavies as you can afford after buying up all the Ogres you can.

The Chevy was a bad idea to begin with -- it's not your fault.

What you *should* be blamed for is missing the salient difference between Attack and Defense in _OGRE_ and _GEV_:

Attack Points are straight additive -- there is no essential difference between being hit with six 1-pt. attacks, two 3-pt. attacks, three 2-pt. attacks, one 6-pt. attack, or whatever combo you like -- it's still Attack 6, period, end of debate. (The exception being "OGRE track" attacks -- in which case one has to decide whether it's more important to hit hard, or hit often.)

Defense Points, conversely *aren't* -- if I stack five Defense-2 units in one hex, I do *NOT* end up with a Defense-10 unit; I have one D2 taking the full Attack value, and four others taking half the Attack value in "spillover".

Thus, Defense Points are far more important than Attack Points.

[hcobb]

To clarify on the SuperSuperHeavy, multiple D results don't stack on it. So any D disables it anew. even if it was already disabled.

NE => No effect
D => Disables, even if was disabled before. (Possibly extending disabled time.)
X => Lose one gun and one AP and disable or turn to hulk if was Xed before.
XX => Gone.

Note that D still gets upgraded to X in overruns, so feel free to overrun it.

[TheDS]

That's okay, Cobb, we blame you too. All the uproar around here, the death threats, the world terrorism, it can come to an end now that you've admitted fault.

[dwalend]

43Supporter makes a great point about Defense. The superheavy is the only D5 thing in the game. Why not make the Ogres out of that stuff?

Beyond that, D5 is a lot more than D4 in a game of floored integer division. 5 is a prime number. Unless you use an ogre missile, a mix of units, or set up a 2:1 attack (10 attack points!), you're giving up something in the division. For example, a pair of heavy tanks chooses between two shots at 1:2 odds or one 1:1 shot, wasting 3 attack points either way.

You can't sustain fuzz vs. superheavies with light gevs or light tanks; it can use two A3 attacks. You might like to use infantry (maybe riding tanks) to fill in the extra numbers, but the superheavy has extra guns just for that. Killing a superheavy means killing it on the first shot. Sustaining an attack against a group of them withers lighter units.

Lone A2 units can't even scratch them if they get the first shot. Vs Ogres, lone infantry and light gevs can at least take out a tread or an AP gun. Vs D5, they've got no answer.

15 points seems closer to right. It's at least a discussion, although I suspect it still comes down to force concentration in long battles. Given a large budget, at what price do you stop buying superheavy tanks and start buying Mark Is?

How would the superheavy look with just D4? The same concentration of force, but vulnerable to 1:2 attacks from a raider gev and 1:1 from a heavy tank. Would that pull it back to its envisioned tank leader role, or make it too weak?

[hcobb]

A D4 Superheavy with all the other goodies still formulas out to 13 VPs, but clearly isn't worth it. (Too fuzzy prone.)

I'd be happy with a D4 Superheavy with the non-stacking of Ds and X only half kills it at 15 points.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by hcobb

A D4 Superheavy with all the other goodies still formulas out to 13 VPs, but clearly isn't worth it. (Too fuzzy prone.)

I'd be happy with a D4 Superheavy with the non-stacking of Ds and X only half kills it at 15 points.

Painful thing about that is it gives a superheavy four states {OK, half-killed, disabled, half-killed and disabled} on a two-sided counter, plus another special rule for the superheavy. To me, half kills feels like a strain to not chop it up into components like an Ogre.

Non-stacking of Ds seems playable. That special rule is much simpler. It fits between some existing parts of the game -- ogres are immune to Ds, tanks are disabled and more vulnerable. Smaller units would have to work a little harder to keep superheavies pinned down while trying for their X.

How about A(3+3) R3 & 2 AP guns , D4 with non-stacking Ds, M3 w/ogre terrain?

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by dwalend

Painful thing about that is it gives a superheavy four states {OK, half-killed, disabled, half-killed and disabled} on a two-sided counter, plus another special rule for the superheavy. To me, half kills feels like a strain to not chop it up into components like an Ogre.

Non-stacking of Ds seems playable. That special rule is much simpler. It fits between some existing parts of the game -- ogres are immune to Ds, tanks are disabled and more vulnerable. Smaller units would have to work a little harder to keep superheavies pinned down while trying for their X.

How about A(3+3) R3 & 2 AP guns , D4 with non-stacking Ds, M3 w/ogre terrain?

A non-stacking D is no longer a half kill and is more like a one-third kill.

That makes the defense adjustment 1.25 (compare to Ogres at 1.5)

The math then is:

3 x 1 x 1 x (6 + 6 x 1.4)
+ 1.1 x 3 x 1 x 1 x (6 + 6 x 1.4)
+ 2 x 1.1 / 3 x (2 + 1 + 6 x 1.4)
+ 2 x 4 x 1.25 x 6
= 159.08 / 12 = 13.3 VPs.

Against two heavies this version gets the first shot against one and nukes it 8/9ths of the time. The buddy tank responds with a 1-1 which now is a an even result. (Note that the APs are not part of this scenario.)

[dwalend]

Henry,

Do you still buy all that you can afford at 12 points? 15 points?