Who will win this large, set-piece battle, Combine or Paneuropean?
Here's the BLUF:With a 1.27 to 1 advantage in each category, Armor and Infantry, the Attackers wiped out the defenders!
GEV Scenarios. That's a pretty small margin to win. Important question:
- Is it a "rule of thumb" that you can use to make your own scenarios?
Consider the 2019 reproduction of the 1978 GEV rules:
- Breakthrough: nearly equal forces, 12.66 Defending Units to 12 Attacking. Victory: Attacker must exit units off the board through the defenders.
- Raid: 11 Defenders to 10 Attackers. BUT Defenders increase one unit per turn. Victory: Attacker must destroy 110 Points more than Defender to win at all.
- The Train: Attacker has 26% point advantage. Defender controls The Train. Victory: Attacker must destroy the train Defender must preserve it and get it to the station on time - the points required to win are 20+ more than the other side.
- Ceasefire Collapse: Equal Forces. Victory: win by 20+ points as in The Train.
In three of the four scenarios, both sides have equal forces, altho geography and victory conditions shape the challenges for both sides. The one scenario where the attacker has a 26% advantage also ignores losses for victory - only stopping the train matters. Overall, the scenario that seems to be played the most is Ceasefire Collapse, probably because it is easy to set up and "balanced".
The META of a METAGAME
This gets into the META of the game - the design and mechanics reward aggressive, alpha-strike type play. Attack! Attack! Attack!
OGRE / GEV posits a future where technology rewards the attacker.
All other factors being equal, the Attacker will win the initial encounter by moving + attacking at favorable odds, on his terms, resulting in the Defender taking an initial punch to the face that will require effort to recover from.
How to mitigate the Alpha-Striker "I Move, I Attack" game mechanic?
1) Have a substantial terrain advantage [nearly all your units are in town hexes, infantry in Woods hexes].
2) Have a substantial reserve to counter-attack, i.e. move and attack in your player turn, with advantage.
3) Have a substantial Range Advantage, i.e. be strong in MHWZ and MSL Units.
I've explored this a few times in the past [
CLICK] and my takeaway is that aside from the above, a defender needs to make a pre-emptive strike against the attackers when they advance into mutual Threat Range [TR], 6 hexes by GEV/MSL or 5 hexes by Lt/HVY Tank.
In other words, you can't be a "Defender" in this game. When the "Attacker" moves into TR [6 or 5 Hexes] you have to move up and attack.
Turning History on its Head
In traditional WWI and WWII modern wargames, you need a 3:1 attack advantage to win against a prepared defense. This is because defenders are dug-in, camouflaged, their Artillery [especially] has prepared Fire Missions, and reserves are ready in specific staging areas. Unless one side has a clear air advantage [which can attack artillery and reserves] you need a lot of numbers to overcome this, and sometimes that's not enough if your attacking infantry aren't experienced and well-trained. And the problem with modern war's lethality is that it takes a lot of time to train and season a unit, but it can be mostly destroyed as an effective formation in a few weeks.
It's Genius!
It could be said that the genius behind the OGRE / GEV game design is that it blatantly favors the attacker, so that each side is encouraged to be attacking at every opportunity, resulting in a slaughter that often comes down to one side being wiped out and the other having a "win" with 80-90% casualties.
Such sanguinary satisfaction is a lot of fun and best presented in a sci-fi game where the above reality of defense can be ignored. The OGRE / GEV game system posits a speculative military future where there is 100% parity between the two sides [including Ogres], and the defense does not have much in the way of advantages.
As moving does not affect shooting ability, combat then becomes more like a naval or air battle, with minimal terrain influence and constant maneuvering to advantage.
Genius is Fun!
So, I have to admit that I've always had fun playing Ogre/GEV. Original Ogre was amazing. Trying to stop the cybernetic monster before it ran over your CP was addictive. It was the perfect scenario for the game: intense, do-or-die, no prisoners, no surrender, because the OGRE will " absolutely, positively NOT stop until your CP is dead!"
GEV can get repetitive
For me, it was really GEV that started to get me a bit dissatisfied with the alpha-strike aspect of the game. Sure, I've worked out several tactics to gingerly engage enemy forces, usually using the long-range weapon systems like the MSL Tank and MHWZ. But whichever side lands the first heavy blow will usually gain the upper hand and then grind to a win. With both sides having fun along the way, I might add. Also, if both players are aware of and planning for alpha-strikes, then it will usually come down to die rolls.
Reducing the Alpha-Strike factor
This does go against the game design. It is designed to be an alpha-strike game, and reward aggressive tactics, something gamers love. I realize that. Still, I couldn't help myself. Some things I tried:
1) Change Turn sequence: I Move - U Shoot; U Move - I Shoot.
This resulted in a fast-playing game just like original GEV and gives the defender first shot and attacker the maneuver advantage [the defender can only shoot units that the attacker chooses to put in harm's way]. This was the fastest and easiest way to make GEV play more like reality as we know it - if one wants that! :)
However, it also allows one side to avoid combat by moving away. They do not take Fire, and on their Turn will not get any shots, either. Works fine but what about the victory conditions? What if you need to protect a piece of ground? Then you can't trade space for time. This points needs to be made if you use the above sequence.
Still, I found that only having one side shoot in a phase was a bit annoying - lightning-fast modern combat should have both sides fighting with more simultaneity. So I tried;
2) Both Sides Shooting in a phase. This was an I Move - We Shoot; U Move - We shoot game mechanic. As there was twice as much shooting, I made the the CRT about half as lethal This was hard to keep track of and slowed the game down.
3) Automatic "Return Fire" from Units that were disabled / destroyed before they were removed. This was easy to implement - all I did was allow them a shot before being removed. Being destroyed out of Range of any enemy unit still meant you got nothing, however - such is life with ranged weapons. This is a good solution and only requires you remember to shoot before you Disable or Remove the unit. It may feel a bit unrealistic and it gives additional lethality to the game if you don't change the CRT.
4) Reduce the lethality of the CRT.
This results in more Defender units surviving with Disabled results, possibly recovering from Disable status later and then getting back in the fight. This ended up being my preferred choice for a few reasons:
First, it was just as easy and fast to play as original GEV.
Second, the reduced lethality was easy to explain in the "fluff" of the game: a temporary tech advantage in ECM [Electronic Counter-Measures] that reduced the incidence of direct hits, thus resulting in more "Disabled" units.
Third, modifying the lethal end of the CRT didn't feel much different, as I kept the misses the same. I converted it to a d12 chart, doubling everything, but making the one X result a Disabled result, except in the 3-1 and 4-1 where there are two more Disabled results. This flattened out the lethality to a linear progression, which I justify as "more ECM makes armor / shell ratio less important".
I also added a 2-3 and a 3-2 which optimizes unit capabilities against other units - it makes weaker attacks slightly better against the HVY, and the MSL slightly better against D2 Units. Adding those columns is likely a bigger change than decreasing the lethality of the CRT in terms of original "feel". But weapon optimization is constantly progressing in real life so why not here, also? It was just a matter of time... Anyway, both the added columns are easy to ignore if one wants to keep the original wasted attack factors of the original CRT.
The modified CRT is below:
|
Die
Roll
|
Combat Odds
|
|
1-2
|
2-3
|
1-1
|
3-2
|
2-1
|
3-1
|
4-1
|
|
1
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
|
2
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
|
3
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
|
4
|
NE
|
NE
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
|
5
|
NE
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
|
6
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
X
|
|
7
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
X
|
X
|
|
8
|
NE
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
9
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
10
|
D
|
D
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
11
|
D
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
12
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
Note that it is 8% less lethal [1 spot on a d12] and that the "D" has been extended down to a linear progression at 3-1 and 4-1, instead of becoming progressively more lethal. This is explained in my fluff as "more successful ECMs at work" and is as good as the real [thin] fluff. Or at least it is in my mind!
Also, I am a big fan of rolling for all Recoveries from Disruption: a 4+ regardless of the reason. To make it less predictable, I roll at the turn start, so it is possible to be Disrupted then recover at the start of your turn, so a Disruption is NE. It would be more in keeping with the original rule to roll at the *end* of your Player Turn, so you definitely lose a Turn. Either way can be good, it just depends on how you like it.
* * *
With the CRT ready, I had a great big throw-down to try it out!
25 Armor and 40 Infantry squads [38 Unit Equivalents] for Combine:
And 20 Armor and 30 Infantry squads [30 Unit Equivalents] for the Paneuropeans.
This translates to a net 25% advantage in Armor, and a net 33% advantage in Infantry, or a net 30-38 overall, which is about a 26.7% advantage for the attacking Combine force. But, I'm making their victory conditions pretty demanding - they need to seize all the Paneuro cities and destroy both CPs.
On the left, the Combine assembles a pretty strong force, 8 Armor and 15 Infantry. They also have to guard CP Alpha and the Reactor from enemy counter-attack.
Facing them, across no-mans-land wherein lies a large city, is Paneuro West Force, guarding two small cities, with 6 Armor and 10 Infantry, the BETA CP and an ADMIN building. As there are two large woods along the way to the right city, the Combine Infantry will be a significant threat as they maneuver against it.
In the Paneuro center, the Combine has to advance across a large woods [the Ardennes, by any chance? Naaaaahhh...] so has a force of HVY tanks and infantry to cross that, while GEV and MSL tanks will use the central open corridor and Lt, MSL and MHWZ will advance down the road. 15 Armor and 25 Infantry.
Below, their objective: a large port city on the bay. A smaller city southwest of it has the ALPHA CP and an ADMIN building.
The Center has 5 Armor and 5 Infantry with a toe-hold in the large city. It also has the Reserve of 6 Armor and 5 Infantry.
The right side is lightly screened by both sides with 3 GEVs, with the one Paneuro city held by 5 Infantry. Not enough to protect it against GEVs without friendly GEVs, unfortunately. The question of what to do with the small forces on this flank will arise several times during the fight.
Combine Turn 1. They advance as much as possible - all will be out of TR anyway. Their counter-attack force is HVY and MSL Tanks. Infantry starts to work south through the woods. The Paneuro MHWZ has so many targets... which to choose??
NOTE: The Combine MHWZ is in a Mexican Stand-off with the Paneuro MHWZ - neither wants to leave the city where their defense is doubled and they are just out of range. Why risk an important asset for a 3-2 attack? Then a possible 3-1 counter-attack? Tough call...
Paneuro 1. They gingerly move up to within 5 hexes, close enough to threaten the Combine Lt. Tank screen. This may have been a mistake, as it puts all the Lt and HVY Tanks within range of the Combine MSL Tank support. A better tactic may have been to stay out of TR, force the Combine to advance [since they have to take the cities] and get their Alpha-Strike in first. Only issue with this is the strong Combine MSL Tank force.
In the Center, the Combine force advances at full speed. The small road bonus helps the slower units out, but it is a narrow corridor and there's Spillover Fire for hexes with multiple units - granted the worst it does is a Disabled result.
Paneuro 1, they move up all their forces, trying to get as many into the town as possible. This doubles the Defense of Armor and trebles the Defense of their Infantry. Only issue is Combine Range, which is more than enough to cover the city's area.
Turn 2. Combine Infantry get into TR of the City. Paneuro Lt Tanks attempt to knock out some MSL Tanks, but put themselves into a vulnerable situation. Combine take both Disabled and Destroyed results to some Armor Units.
In the center, the Paneuro defense has inflicted some Disabled results. Combine Infantry are ready to provide a critical mass to the attack.
But the Paneuro still have some reserves left in the center.
On the left, the fight has some ebb and flow, with the Paneuro pushing Infantry forward to create a solid line that would demand Overrun attempts. But Combine Infantry are just about to get into the fight, also, and are presently lurking in the woods, fairly safely.
A costly turn for the Combine: 3 GEVs, a MSL Tank and 2 Lt Tanks, or 5 Armor.
Paneuro losses are 3.66 Units. If they continue this exchange, the Paneuros should fight to a draw or win! But there's still lots more Combine forces about to get engaged...
Combine 3. The Infantry get stuck in while the Armor continues their fight. It's tough for the Paneuro Armor to decide what to do - shoot at Infantry or other Armor? If they ignore the Combine Armor, they risk being destroyed by it. If they ignore the Infantry, they will lose ground. Also, Combine MSL and MHWZ Fire is chewing up the trebled strength of the Paneuro Infantry in the city, as it is supposed to do. I wonder if I've underrated Infantry all this time by simply not using enough of it??
As expected, the Paneuro lose their Lt. Tanks. They also lost an Infantry platoon, 3 GEVs and 2 HVY Tanks. There was some hot rolling by the Combine, unfortunately.
In the West, the Paneuro force gets seriously chewed to pieces. They clearly should have hung back and forced the Combine to advance into their Alpha-Strike TR. Only issue with that tactic is that the Combine Infantry would get into TR and provide an overwhelming total attack force, and also deprive the Paneuros of much needed terrain hexes. Again, I'm sing Infantry as an underrated threat, here.
Paneuro loses 4 Lt Tanks, and won't have the numbers to hold a line.
Paneuro 3, Center. They advance and reposition themselves to their right, moving into the City more and also putting more units near the City to support it. They chew up some Combine Armor but the Combine still has "reach" with the MHWZ and MSL Tanks, and still has "numbers" with the infantry advancing.
Paneuro 3, Left. There's not a lot that they can do - reposition Infantry in the City, stage the MHWZ to remain a potent threat. However, it's still too close, and the Combine can fire *over* the small city at it, a big error on my part.
Turn 4, left. The Combine advance into the collapsing Paneuro front, Disable the MHWZ, and get Infantry positioned against the town with good Fire support.
The left flank is pretty much done, so the Paneuro Beta CP starts to retreat but not soon enough. Oh for a few Lt Tanks!
Turn 4, Center. The Combine continue to chip away at the City while moving up more Infantry thru any opening possible gap in Paneuro line. Combined arms!
Game Turn 5, Center. The last Paneuro reserves have been committed, and a damaged Combine Armor force still has enough to support a strong Infantry attack in the city. Pattern is the same - MSL and MHWZ trim down a squad or two, then the Infantry attack at even odds or so.
Paneuro feed their last units into the city fight, but now their Alpha CP and Admin building are vulnerable to mere Infantry!
Game Turn 5, Left. Last stand of the Paneuro force under a horde of Combine Infantry. Beta CP is slipping away, but has nowhere to go.
On Combine Turn 6, the last of the Paneuro units were destroyed.
Counting the Cost:
- Combine: 10.5 Armor and 14 Infantry Squads destroyed: 15 Unit Equivalents.
- Paneuro: completely wiped out: 30 Unit Equivalents destroyed.
Survivors: a lone goat mascot.
Points to Consider
1) With an advantage of 1.27:1, Attacker destroyed Defender at 2-1 ratio, 30 Units to 15 Units.
2) Attacker succeeded in all victory conditions, taking all cities, in 6 Turns with normal setup distances and normal map size, i.e. very similar to GEV map size and setup conditions.
3) There was no provision for Paneuro to concede and leave the board. In all GEV scenarios, units may "Escape" the board. This may have resulted in significantly more Paneuro units surviving.
Conclusions
1) Ogre / GEV favors the tactical attacker, regardless of which side is designated the scenario Attacker or scenario Defender.
2) Units with longer Threat Ranges, and favorable Terrain, can reduce the attacker's advantage.
3) When designing scenarios, key terrain hexes should have victory point values.
- The Defender should weight the value of the hexes v. the value of destroyed Units. - Staying to fight should be worth more than just leaving the board and conceding the ground's point values.
- Close examination of GEV scenarios should provide a good starting point for hex values v. retreating off board.
That final point... I see an analysis and a new post coming!
My sappers were able to get in close and cause some trouble, but they ended up shaken and reduced.
