Re: FT: Thought on Orbital Bombardment...

> With varying degrees of success (How many times have
> you read historical accounts that contained phrases to
> the effect of "The bombardment was supposed to
> demolish enemy resistance, but when the troops finally
> went ashore....")

Plenty, but how much worse would it have been if there had been no
bombardment?  That's the question most people don't ask.

> Weapons can fall into one of two categories:
> Generalized and specialized.	Specialized weapons are
> designed to do a few things very well (often
> frighteningly well), at the cost of doing other things
> poorly or not at all.  Generalized weapons do many
> things, but in a mediocre fashion.  Part of the PSB is
> that FT weapons, while very deadly against space
> targets, are just not designed with the mission of
> hitting something on the ground while avoiding hitting
> the friendly things nearby.  Maybe it's a Firecon
> issue as much as a weapon type issue.  From a gaming
> only standpoint, it's also a "too damned powerful"
> issue, especially WRT campaign games and FT/DS tie-in
> games.

A 16" naval gun was designed to pierce massive armour.	A specialized
16"
howitzer would have been more effective for most bombardments, but that
16"
gun is still effective.  I can't buy the firecontrol issue.  It is much
easier to hit grid coordinate on a planet underneath that moves very
predictable (or not at all if the orbit is geo-synchronus) then it is to
hit
ship that can manuever in three dimensions.  As for "too damend
powerful",
all that means is "we don't want to take the time or trouble to make it
work."	If you want really powerful weapons try the board / miniture /
computer game Harpoon.	Even without a nuclear release, there are
missile
and torpedoes that can cripple, if not sink, most ships with a single
hit,
with a nuclear release you can take out whole task forces with a single
strike.  Too powerful, no.  Because the they took the time and trouble
to
make it work.

> You also have to ask yourself, what scale target, what
> scale damage?  Something powerful enough to punch
> through the atmosphere and obliterate a city
> definitely sounds a little risky to use on a DS
> battlefield - it sounds more like strategic weapons
> than tactical.

I never considered them that powerful.	I view them as WWI / WWII naval
guns.  If they shoot at a city enough times, they can take it out, but a
single shot will not.  Also note that most weapons are ineffective, or
have
their effectiveness very reduced against T and ST planets.  Note that I
am
also considering all weaponry to be non-nuclear, ie a general
prohibition
against nuclear attacks that everyone is scared to death to violate.  If
you
want to go for nukes, you're looking at missiles, and a very different
type
of game.  DS battlefields won't be any uglier then the World War 2
Central
Pacific campaign.  The U.S. threw massive bombardments and air attacks,
and
had massive naval gunfire and tactial air support.  When they "fell
short"
it was very ugly for the friendly troops.  That's life for the grunts if
the
fleet can's keep the enemy from landing, or when friendly fire falls
short.
As for play balance, most battles in a campaign game aren't balanced.

ias