[Ogre] Re: Ogre-list Digest, Vol 8, Issue 20

[Chris French]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ogre-list-request at sjgames.com>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:08:28 -0500
> From: David Morse <dcmorse at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ogre] The Heavy GEV
> The armor is not thicker, the ECM is ecmier!  ; )

Exactly.

> I also would like to see an anti-aircraft GEV, with a prayer of
> shooting down cruise missiles at long enough range to make a
> difference. 

Can't be done -- anything with GEV speed can't carry a Range value
high enough to kill a CM outside the "instant death" radius for
GEVs. Run it through the calculator a few times -- you'll see what I
mean.

Sorry, but GEVs must always live in fear of CMs -- that's what
comes of being a soap bubble. :)
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:33:56 -0500
> From: "Andrew Gelbman" <wizard at internetwizards.com>
> Subject: [Ogre] RE: Heavy GEV
> Hidy Ho All,
> On the open deserts of southern
> Israel, the Sinai Peninsula and Arabia GEVs (Ground Effect Vehicles, or
> hovercraft) truly came into their own. 

Um, not quite. The sand out there comes in dunes (think soft,
squishy Rubble hexsides). Any advantage the GEVs would have
would be countered by forever having to dodge those ridges of
sand (going over one causes the plenum chamber to vent, and if
you think getting a wheeled or tracked unit off of a sand ridge is
bad, imagine not having wheels for traction...).

> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:06:22 -0600 (CST)
> From: "Henry J. Cobb" <hcobb at io.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ogre] Re: Ogre-list Digest, Vol 8, Issue 19
> Nope X means that the vehicle is still intact.

Um, right. If it's intact, why isn't the AI fighting (or withdrawing)
the unit?

> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:57:24 -0600 (CST)
> From: "Henry J. Cobb" <hcobb at io.com>
> Subject: [Ogre] Hidden movement idea
> At the start of the game each player takes out a number of counters with
> alphanumeric IDs equal to twice their total number of units and writes
> down for each of these counters what it represents.  Half of these
> concealed counters will not represent units but instead be designated as
> Dummies.

Wasn't something like this proposed in the "BPC Subs" article from
_OB_?

> The owning
> player can choose to roll for terrain disruption of a Dummy counter, but
> if the counter becomes disrupted it is revealed and discarded.

This doesn't make sense -- if anything a "dummy" would *ignore*
whatever terrain was under it, and whatever was controlling it
would have to "add in" the terrain effects.

> 
> Counters are revealed and either replaced with the actual counter or
> discarded if Dummies anytime they fire, combine or split infantry squads,
> use active scanners, [...]suffer
> terrain disruption, [.]

How can "dummy" counters do *any* of these? Some clarification
would be useful. (Also, why couldn't the "dummy controller" simu-
late splitting/combining INF units?)
 
> A player may never have more Dummies counters in play than he has
> concealed real units and must discard at the end of the current phase any
> excess Dummies.  For example, if a player had previously revealed and
> discarded only one Dummy counter and now on this phase had three actual
> units and one Dummy revealed then he would need to reveal and discard one
> additional Dummy.

Umm, the example does not make any sense. The player has more
"real" units than "dummy" units revealed; why does he need to
lose *more* dummies?

CF