Prev: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations Next: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!

From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:08:21 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIf
both sides have large and effective artillery forces and can hit and
kill anything they can detect then the only defence will be to be
undetectable..
You could do this by high tech stealth technologies or in low tech
armies by hiding below ground.
Advancing inside a box barrage or behind artillery laid smoke doesn't
offer any protection from enemy artillery rounds and could infact
prepare the enemy for an attack and invite counterfire from defending
artillery on the basis that you are sheltering an attack in you barrage.
By 1918 the artillery tactics had evolved so that they only fired just
before the attack to keep the enemy suppressed rather than a 3 day
barrage to alert the enemy to the impending attack.
I like the ideas behind some of the discussions around the "war
environment". Depending on the war level certain units may become
available and the war environment less restrained.
You might have a number of levels ranging from "local dispute" between 2
corporations with hired mercenaries ranging up to "total war" with WMDs,
orbital strikes, airpower the whole works.
Thus you can get away from the "I picked max tech level artillery as my
army" = I win.
I am no expert but I think that a military formation that moves about
with a whole bunch of radars going is effectively signalling here I am
come and kill me. Most military units don't give away their position
with unneccessary EM radiation.


Prev: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations Next: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations