Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)

>You'd still want ground artillery, at least for missions where you're
>defending, but probably for attacker as well. The reason is
>organizational. Requesting Ortillery would mean moving way up in the
>chain of command, and then across to the naval service. Even
>theoretically integrated structures will have an organizational seam
>where navy/aerospace and ground forces meet.

...And then you'll have the scenarios where rather than a high-tech 
invading force doing a hot insertion from orbit with 
space-superiority ships in direct support, you've instead got a 
Mercenary Company of hovertanks hired by one bunch of farmers on a 
balkanised world to help them kick the crap out of the neighbouring 
bunch of farmers who speak a different language, or wear red 
headscarves instead of green, or whatever, and said tank company 
arrives on-world via a regular spaceport in a couple of chartered 
bulk freighters.

I suspect that what we need, in game terms, is some kind of Artillery 
Environment rules similar in style to the SGII Aerospace Environment 
concept; an abstract system that compares tech levels and available 
resources (offensive and defensive) of each side in the battle, and 
uses this to affect both the availability and the effectiveness of 
artillery and other support fire.

Jon (GZG)

>
>Obviously, organizational behavior as a science is advancing rapidly,
>so maybe interservice rivalries and differing priorities will be a
>thing of the past. Or maybe not. It certainly feels right.
>
>
>Robert Mayberry
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>  I was wondering if anybody was thinking in 3 dimensions.  If your
the
>>  invader, you will have spaceships in orbit.  The rules clearly state
>>  that ORTILLERY exists.  If an army is tasked with orbital assault,
it is
>>  more than likely that it will have ortillery - as in spaceraft with
>>  ground bombardment capability.  All a unit on the ground would need
to
>>  use this is a IFF device, a com unit and a compass.  Wouldn't
suprise me
>>  if the typical message was "enemy target 300 yards north on my
signal -
>>  confirm and destroy".
>>
>>  Anybody seen Google Earth - thats non-military technology available
>>  today.  In 200 years I reckon that anybody in orbit will be able to
SEE
>>  their targets directly from orbit in real-time and be able to follow
>>  battles from there.  When a unit reports that is in trouble and
needs
>>  artillery, the ortillery unit would look down at the calling unit
and
>>  the surrounding area and think "theres the enemy, heres a bomb,
boom.
>>
>>  The tech gap isn't going to get any narrower for the third world
>>  countries - they'll have to rely on NOT been seen and NOT losing
control
>>  of orbital space.
>>
>>  Magnus Alexandersson wrote:
>>>  It all depends, if you are an invading force and have come by
>>>  spaceship, the logical alternative would be deploy a relay net of
>>>  satellites in orbit monitoring troop movement and directing
artillery.
>>>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>>  Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.6/1540 - Release Date: 
>>>08/07/2008 06:33
>>>
>>> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Gzg-l mailing list
>>>  Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>>> 
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gzg-l mailing list
>>  Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>> 
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l