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

John Atkinson wrote:

>...I'm just tossing them out
>there as examples, that it is easier to argue for artillery becoming
>more lethal than it is to argue for it becoming less lethal.

Well... it is easy to argue for artillery becoming more *accurate*, 
certainly. However, anti-artillery area-defence systems for ground
forces 
have only just entered service, and when they shrink in size and start
to 
proliferate I suspect that artillery will begin to *lose* lethality
again 
as more and more rounds fail to reach their target. That's definitely
one 
of the SF features Drake got right in the Slammers books :-/

Note that area-defence systems capable of destroying incoming artillery 
rounds within a few hundred or maybe even a couple thousand meters above

the ground are *not* necessarily capable of destroying aircraft that
both 
fly much higher and are much tougher targets than artillery rounds. The 
Slammers' Calliope system was rather extreme with its near-infinite
range...

As for game designing artillery to be weak, why just PSB it? Put the 
anti-arty defence system in the game explicitly and see what happens 
instead - that's a lot more fun <g>

Later,

Oerjan
orjan.ariander1@comhem.se

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

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