GZG List archives -- November 2005

Number 235 of 329 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault



as an old battletech player, there is nothing worse than a contested drop zone, there's to much confusion and to many people firing on you as you leave the ship, when dropping planet side you need a base that can easily be defended and lets you move unabated, so as to capture key facilities, eg the power plant, radar , and airfields etc, if you think that you can just drop on your target and they'll capitulate, then why didn't the allies do this in world war two,hello Adolph were the 82nd cop this. or in Iraq, because a, not enough intelligence b, the enemy can react quicker than you can deploy c, its to far away from help that can make a difference d, supplies,it's always better to get them to come to you, then use your ortillery asset's, and other capabilities to whither the defender's down so that they have to surrender, remember that if it cost's more in money and lives and property damage to take a colony the, you could of bought the thing or set up one of your own for far cheaper than it cost to mount a military campaign, then you have to defend it.

and as for insurgent type games, remember that a 15yr with a 1000 dollar black-market rpg 9 can take out a multimillion dollar Abrams tank, according to the pentagon and janes, or his mate with a sniper rifle can tie up a company of troops for a couple of hours game of tag, I think that it comes down to what a person wants in his games and some of the funniest things can go wrong with a platoon chasing one person all over town, is alot of enjoyment for some and dam right pain for other's, if you think not alot happens in this type of game, then remember that the v.c did this sort of thing to the u.s and did it well , then the Afghanis did it to the Russians , but they haven't met with the same degree of success this time round with the Americans, why some could argue tech and that does have a huge effect, and that they don't have a superpower backing them this time.

at the end of the day this is just a game and a dam fine one at that, you play what you want and the type of scenario you want, everyone's different, and always take comments onboard as constructive and try to make the best out of every game you have.

that's my rant.
regards james mitchell.




----- Original Message ----- From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault



On 11/24/05, John Tailby <john_tailby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I made my comments about equatorial landing zones I made the assumption that the landing craft would be a more advanced version of the space shuttle. If the landing craft have full antigrav then they could land straight down.

They'd have to be to have any value. You'd also have to land somewhere useful. Land in the "Central Africa" equivalent on a colony with 125,000 inhabitants clustered in the Italy equivalent, and you're wasting your time. By the time you road march the whole way, you've lost a lot of troops to environmental factors, much of your equipment has been lost to wear and tear and accidents, and you'll have wasted a lot of time as well.

If you have shuttles that fly like aircraft they might well need long landing spaces to set down.

Which makes them incapable of fulfilling the role of landing craft. :)

The last 50 years of earth history has been full of advanced nations losing wars to local militia. The Europeans all lost their colonial empires to local revolts. Some were managed in semi peaceful transitions but others were violent rebellions. Yet they had the technology and the economics to suppport their army if they wanted to. The Americans suffered a similar reverse in Vietnam as did the French.

There has not been a case in the last 50 years of a major power's army suffering a defeat in a conventional battle. Political decisions not to continue fighting a counter insurgency have been made. But every time local forces stand and fight, they die like flies.

I'm very carefully seperating conventional warfare and insurgency.  My
model is an initial phase of high-intensity conflict to secure the
major population centers and defeat the garrison, thus assuming
effective control of the colony.  Then there is the counter-insurgency
phase.  Which I'm not going to worry overmuch about because it makes
for some piss-poor wargaming scenarios.

To properly capture the flavor of guerilla warfare, you need to run 30
scenarios where the government forces run up and down the road and
cordon-and-search and so on and NOTHING HAPPENS.

Then, on the 31st scenario, throw in a roadside bomb or some suicide
car bomber or some joker in the village who decides to die for Allah.

Then 30 more scenarios where nothing happens.

I agree that campaigns set in the FT universe won't suffer from the CNN effect of recent conflicts and the armchair quarterbacking of politicians.

I can see the same kind of politics going into outfitting the invasion fleet though. The "there's only a bunch of half assed mountain boys" you won't need any armoured vehicles or aerospace fighters.

That would be possible.

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l




  • Prev by Date: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault
  • Next by Date: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

  • Previous by thread: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Thu Dec 22 13:19:19 GMT 2005