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

On Jul 8, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
>
> 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 :-/
>

Didn't that only work for H and I fires? Normally taking the whole  
slammers battalion of tanks to try to stop an incoming artillery  
mission? Note, the slammers still had artillery themselves and did  
NOT have much in the way of air defense.

The current crop is VERY good for H and I fires BUT seems quite easy  
to overwhelm with a good multi gun TOT fire mission. You're also  
limited on the zone you can protect. Though, Israel is working on  
their system, I doubt it'd work very well against a rather large  
stonk. They're going to get into a race with Hamas/Hezballah on how  
many defense points can cover a given area vs how many rockets/ 
mortars the knuckleheads can fire at Israel at the same time.

> 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>
>

There should be a capability of overwhelming it. Just as the trick  
with an enemy's air defense is to have MORE aircraft, one can take  
too much artillery and/or too much anti-artillery. HAving some	
indication  before the game starts of the enemy OB (roughly) is  
probably a good idea. 

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