Ogre or GEV rules?

[AurochJake]

Hello folks!

We were having a discussion in the office today and wondered whether what ruleset people preferred; Ogre, or GEV?

What is it about them you prefer? Are there drawbacks to either set, in your opinion?

Looking forward to hearing from you!

[GranitePenguin]

I have no opinion on this at all...

... yeah, right. ;-)

Full disclosure (that I always lead with for these kinds of things), I started with G.E.V. in 1978 and didn't have Ogre rules until 1986, so I will always have a bias toward G.E.V. rules.

Preferred ruleset: GEV

In a lot of ways, comparing Ogre and GEV rules is like comparing checkers and chess rules. While checkers is "simpler" it's not simplistic; they are just different games. You also have to define exactly what you mean by Ogre or GEV rules (i.e., exactly what parts make it one or the other).

For me that line is:
Ramming vs Overrun
Stacking limits
Mounted INF
Terrain Destruction
Spillover

This is also more a question of terrain choices than the actual rules choices. I prefer the more varied terrain that usually accompanies GEV rules, but the Orange map is not _required_ to use Ogre rules. You can use Ogre rules on a green map, and GEV rules on an orange map (you just usually don't).

I like that INF are more deadly/involved on green maps. The terrain variations on movement and defense add a lot of complexity to the tactics. Making choices regarding stacking or not, trying to "take the hill" with overruns, and rubbling towns out from under units to get a better chance at hitting them make GEV rules a lot more interesting.

I tend to find Ogre rules on the orange map a bit stale after a while; it's great for a quick game, but it's not dynamic enough for me.

[Xenophonii]

GEV for the reasons that GranitePenguin cited.

[gmaxschmidt]

I like how you have it set now; being able to use Ogre or GEV rules when you create a senario.

[ulzgoroth]

Definitely for GEV rules, they're more of a developed wargame, less bare-bones boardgame - not that Ogre isn't fun.

Originally posted by gmaxschmidt:

I like how you have it set now; being able to use Ogre or GEV rules when you create a senario.

That's a must, of course.

[offsides]

I started with Ogre, but otherwise feel pretty much the same as GranitePenguin. There's an elegant simplicity on the Ogre rules that makes it just as fun as the GEV rules, but if I could only have one I'd have to go GEV. Fortunately, that's not the case, so I can have both :)

[Firebrand]

I prefer having both as options. I've played Ogre more than GEV, but that doesn't mean I prefer one to the other.

Originally posted by GranitePenguin:

In a lot of ways, comparing Ogre and GEV rules is like comparing checkers and chess rules. While checkers is "simpler" it's not simplistic; they are just different games.

This is a terrible comparison. Checkers doesn't have 1/1000 the tactical depth that chess does. Maybe a better comparison would be Chess to Go.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally posted by Firebrand9:

I prefer having both as options. I've played Ogre more than GEV, but that doesn't mean I prefer one to the other.

Originally posted by GranitePenguin:

In a lot of ways, comparing Ogre and GEV rules is like comparing checkers and chess rules. While checkers is "simpler" it's not simplistic; they are just different games.

This is a terrible comparison. Checkers doesn't have 1/1000 the tactical depth that chess does. Maybe a better comparison would be Chess to Go.

I'll accept that; Go certainly has a much deeper element. It's a classic example of "easy to learn, difficult as hell to master." The only problem with using Go is it's a fundamentally different kind of game. The checkers/chess comparison is just an easy illustration of the idea; it doesn't have to be particularly exact.
This isn't about nitpicking metaphors, though. ;-)

[Ludeman]

Gev, because not being able to move down a road for some unknown or unseen reason is not good.

[AurochJake]

Originally posted by Ludeman:

Gev, because not being able to move down a road for some unknown or unseen reason is not good.

Roads were an addition in the GEV scenarios :)

[GranitePenguin]

Originally posted by AurochJake:

Originally posted by Ludeman:

Gev, because not being able to move down a road for some unknown or unseen reason is not good.

Roads were an addition in the GEV scenarios :)

True, but this is an example of my point about using Ogre rules on a GEV map. You can do it, but it's:

A. weird
B. where do you draw the line?

You will notice that in my list I did NOT include "terrain effects" as a differentiation between Ogre and GEV rules. Terrain effects are something that should be part of basic rules because they are baked into the map you are using (i.e., movement doesn't magically change just because you decided to add towns and swamps to a map).

It makes sense on a GEV map to:

use Ramming instead of Overrun
have a Stacking limit of 1AU
not allow Mounted INF
not allow Terrain Destruction
not allow Spillover

but it does NOT make sense to ignore terrain.

[spike]

I don't have the experience of many of the folk who have played the board game for years. As a PC gamer, I'd like to have the option of both sets of rules if possible. I suggest a halfway house, if possible, whereby it is clearly stated what rule set is being used in a particular map or campaign.

A link to both rule sets would be cool, so gamers could read up on the various changes.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally posted by spike:

I don't have the experience of many of the folk who have played the board game for years. As a PC gamer, I'd like to have the option of both sets of rules if possible. I suggest a halfway house, if possible, whereby it is clearly stated what rule set is being used in a particular map or campaign.

A link to both rule sets would be cool, so gamers could read up on the various changes.

This isn't a "we are going to give you only one or the other" thread, they are just interested in which ones you like and why. Both are already available in the PC game. You can also see what rules are being used when you start the scenario (it's in the details).

They also link to the PDF of the Ogre Designer's Edition rules in the main menu, but you can find everything under the Ogre Resources page[www.sjgames.com]

I recommend the Quick Reference Sheet in particular as that covers the basics of combat, phases, and has the terrain effects chart.

[FU]

I prefer both. Sometimes you just want the basic classic rules. The game is easier to play, plays faster and is easier to teach. If you want more...GEV is always there as an option. Options are good...usually. In OGREs case, these two options are great.

These two options also greatly affect OGREs replay value. Replay value is a very big deal and a very good thing.

[AurochJake]

Thanks for listing these resources GranitePenguin :)

Agree with you completely on terrain being a massive part of tactics and strategy, and how they improve the effectiveness of infantry.

Personally, having played more Ogre, there's a softer spot there for me, but I do thoroughly enjoy the depth that the GEV additions brought to the game and it definitely added to the overall game.

The reason for this thread was to get a bit of buzz going - we'll be releasing the GEV scenarios soon!

[Lord Bubba]

Yeah: GEV