[Ogre] 'Shadow' Ogre and the Campaign Rules

[Douglas R. Pearson]

David Morse posted:
>> I'm sure that this could be tested somewhat in the tactical
>> game, using a Mark V counter and an altered Mark III sheet.
>> But unless the tactical game uses a large map, the deception
>> will be quickly discovered and corrected.
>
> To me, one of the most frigtening things about fighting a Mark V is
> its ability to simply DELETE a squadron of armor at long range with
> its alpha strike.  I like the Shadow Ogre you presented, but if I were
> a field commander I'd be more likely to lobby for this Faux-V, because
> it can maintain the illusion of being a V long enough to win its first
> battle:
> 
> 6 One Shot Missiles
> 2 Main Batteries
> 6 AP
> 45 treads @ M3
> Disguise Mk V (+10 vp)
> 100 vp 
> 
> This Ogre would have a second application, useful even after the enemy
> has "made" its disguise: as a missile truck, able to quickly shuttle
> 6-packs of missiles to crack open enemy lines, easily destroy
> howitzers, etc., then return to base for reloads and do it again.

Done!

In my records, the stats you give above will be the 
Mark III-S 'Shadow' Ogre.  Note that I've assumed that such
a unit would be available from about a year or so after the
introduction of the Mark V.  The Paneuropeans should have had
enough time by then to be fairly terrified of it!  @:^)
I did not note, but will now, that the 'Shadow' is a Combine unit.
[But there's no reason that the Paneuros couldn't do the same
thing with a faux-Fencer . . .]

(I would make sure that it has the towing equipment installed,
so that it could tow as per Ogre Reinforcement Pack.)

===========================================
Keith [keith.falk at nuarc.com] posted:

> So how would you play it? It would be in the same dirty trick 
> category as fielding a MK3 with one hidden Main, 2 hidden 
> secondaries, and six hidden external missiles. Obviously only the GM 
> and you would be hip to the scam... I can just hear the arguments 
> which WILL take place.
>
> Really, how would you work it into the game?

In a two person game, no referee would be required, provided of 
course that the two players are honest.  (This is always a basic
assumption of mine.  I never play with a person if I find that
he has cheated even once!)

Player A would use a standard Mark V counter, but keep his records
on a specially modified Mark III sheet.  Player A would also have
to pick fewer armor units to reflect the fact that he supposedly
also has a standard Mark V!

Player A might also have in mind a mix of armor units that he
_would_ have been able to have if he would of picked a standard
Mark III at the beginning of the scenario.  When Player B discovers
the fake by  a) either deducing it on his own, or b) perhaps letting
the cat out of the bag during any overrun situation the 'Shadow' is
involved in, then perhaps Player B would let Player A bring on the
back-up armor units as reinforcements coming in from Player A's 
side of the map.  Perhaps.  Seems fair.

However . . .

As I've said, the 'Shadow' will only work as designed if and when
some kind of simple overgame is developed for Ogre/GEV.  Consider:
If Player A and Player B (perhaps Player C & D &  . . .) start out
with  1) Only a set number of units.  Perhaps start with points,
but you _must_ convert these to units right away.  2) Only a set
number of _factories_, which is where your reinforcements come from,
building new units at an agreed upon rate of X number of VPs per
turn, and 3) Certain set "starting points" or staging areas on a
very large scale map (perhaps these are where the factories are
located?).

Now at this point, both (all?) players would be ready to set up
for the individual tactical scenarios.  These would be separate
scenarios.  While all of the scenarios will probably be played
out one at a time, some could be defined to occur "simultaneously"
with others, while others might happen according to an event "tree":
If Player A wins #1, go to scenario #6, else go to scenario #7, etc.

The point is that both players will have to divide up their forces
from the large initial batch into smaller forces and deploy them
for the different scenarios.  For all of the "simultaneous"
scenarios, these forces could not reinforce each other (i.e. move
from one scenario to another), BUT there are also the "leftovers"
to consider.

For example:  For scenario #1, both players lay out armor units
as per the scenario's start-up rules.  (This step probably should
occur for ALL of the scenarios that are defined as taking place
simultaneously.)  Hopefully, both sides have units left at their
"staging areas".

While the beginning moves are taking place for each scenario, units
on both sides could be moving from their staging areas toward the
areas where each scenario is said to take place.  (This would fall
under the overgame rules.)  If Player B sees 2-3 Mark Vs moving
toward Scenario #1's site, then he may move quite a bit of back-up
armor from one or more of his staging areas toward that same site.
Later it becomes apparent that the Mark Vs are in actuality something
quite "less", thus he has squandered his resources far from where
Player A is actually planning to break through.

There could be "capture the factories" concerns, salvaging of almost-
dead Ogres that could be repaired, consideration of how to use
forces that were victorious in one scenario in reinforcing the
forces in another scenario that "takes place later", etc.

It should be obvious that I'm just thinking out loud here, but
I think that something viable could be constructed.

The 'Shadow' Ogre is simply something concrete that came about
while thinking about something fairly (at this time) abstract.

Keith, thank you for your question.  It has helped spark further
ideas inside my (fairly) empty gourd toward the goal of a viable
overgame for Ogre/GEV.

More input desired . . .

Doug Pearson     "Bowser"     pearsond at odsgc.net
===========================================================================
OGRE Geek Code:
S+++ O1() O2+ G+++ S++ RP++ OM() B+ GO() PO+++ HR/NU- MK3() MK5-- CM-- W()
     thanx to Michael Powers 2001/gevfeb23.txt