Re: SG-Ortillary

I agree that ortillery seems way underpowered.	I mean, judging from the
scale used in FT, a plasma bolt could potentially cover most of the
surface
area of a continent if someone wanted to be indiscriminate enough to use
it
on an inhabited world.	Missiles are supposed to be nuclear-scale
warheads.
Ships actually _survive_ getting hit by these things.  Yet these weapons
are
considered worse for planetary bombardment than ortillery is... which
leads
me to wonder just what sort of specialized horror ortillery really ought
to
be portrayed as, when ships capable of surviving medium-scale nuclear
exchanges would prefer to use this rather than their normal weapons.  I
mean, it would start to seem evident that having an ortillery satellite
in
stationary orbit would be a huge advantage in a ground war, based on the
scale involved.

Just my thoughts.

Stilts

----- Original Message -----
From: "Z. Lakel" <zlakel@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: SG-Ortillary

> > > Which raises a question in my mind. Namely, does anybody else
> > > think the dammage/firepower represented by ortillary to be
> > > UNDERpowered? I think that the effects and destructive
> > > power in ortillary firesupport is too low for
> > > the energy levels involved....
> >
> > In SG what do you rate them as, Very large artillery?? I'd probably
also
> > rate them as anti-armour vs armour and anti-personnel vs dispersed
(just
> to
> > capture the effects of kinetic energy and all). Mind you I'm not one
for
> > using much if any artillery in SG - I just know its gonna deviate
and
land
> > on me anyway!
>
> I do agree that both in DS and SG ortillery is vastly underpowered
(but
then
> again my to-be-written TOE will include an orillery observer at the
company
> level, so I'm probably a bit biased).  Also, the existing rules for
> artillery cover only kenetic penetrator and explosive warhead type
things.
> While treating missiles and specialised ortillery fire as in the above
would
> be (sort of) satisfactory, it really doesn't suffice to reprosent the
effect
> of a ship's main beams, pulse torpedoes, neadle beams, railguns, or
plasma
> bolts on a ground target.  Therefore, my 2 cents would be to suggest
> treating these things as outlined below.  I'll only coment on SG as my
DS
> experience is a tad limited.
> Main Beams (inc Pulsars): Everything within a certain radius (say 18")
is
> treated as if hit by weapon with impact dice something like
1D12*6*(Class
of
> beam)^2.
> Neadle Beams: As a Class 2 Main Beam but w/ a smaller radius (for
argument,
> 8").
> Pulse Torps: As a Class 3 Main Beam but w/ a greater radius (24") and
a
> greater chance for deviation.
> Railguns oops, K-guns rather: Standard solid munitions treat as a hit
w/
an
> impact die of 1D12*(2+(Class of gun))^2.
> Plasma Bolts: Treat as a tacticle nuclear munition.
>
> I'm sure the actualy numbers I used arn't very balanced, but it's a go
at
> it.
>
> Zachariah Lakel
>