Re: SG-Ortillary

On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 21:43:16 -0500 "Z. Lakel" <zlakel@tampabay.rr.com>
writes:
>> > 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.

<snip>

Excuse me but in (?) MT wasn't Oertillery a specialized system *only*
(i.e., extremely specialized and usable for Space to Ground fire
specifically)?

I rather thought that ship to ship weapon was much less effective
(Relatively) then 'true' Oertillary in CSS (Close Space Support)
roles?!?!?!

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.
Historical - Warbeads@juno.com
Fantasy and 6mm - dwarf_warrior@juno.com

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: