Re: [GZG] [DSII] Precision Strike
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:16:18 +0200
Subject: Re: [GZG] [DSII] Precision Strike
On 7/31/05, Laserlight <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I have to wonder if it's not a bit like nano-tech; tends to be uber
> to the
> > point of making the gaming pointless.
> No -- just limit the supply of killer UAVs, give the other side more
> troops, whatever. Quality on one side, mass on the other.
The intent of these things is precisely that--to take on hordes of bad
guys with a numerically inferior group force. Unfortunately past a
certain point quantity just doesn't compensate all that much. Both
sides need both high tech weapons and the appropriate countermeasures.
You can have a nearly infinite number of T-72s, and a single US UA
would lunch on them, never mind a Combat Maneuver Group like the ones
COL Macgregor proposes. For one thing, his Strike Battalion would
include 3x8 gun batteries of tube artillery (Paladins), a battery of
MLRS and a Taifun battery with 300 Taifuns. Not more than a fraction
of them would be in the air at one time, due to limitations on
controllers, but that's enough to break a old-style Soviet Tank
For instance, putting rules for GMS/AA systems into DSIII would help.
Split out the cost of launcher/gun system vs. the control systems, and
allow batteries to be controlled by a single C2 system with data from
any air search system.
Make LADs meaningful, including the ability for vehicle-mounted LADs
to link into ADS fire control networks.
Allow auxillary energy weapon systems, RFACs, and APSWs to be linked
into ADA networks at reduced effectiveness.
Rethink ranges for all AD systems in the game. Unclassified range for
Stingers is 10 km. An LAD with a 1.2 km range represents what?
Seriously revamp capacity costs for ADS. I mean, you can put six
Surface Launcher AMRAAMs on a HMMWV. You also need another vehicle
for the radar and another for the fire control center, but each radar
and FC center can handle a half-dozen launcher vehicles.
Americans tend to forget about air defense, mostly because we have
never fought a nation capable of contesting our control of the sky
(other than local, short-term effects caused by concentrated efforts
of the entire Luftwaffe). In fact, since 1945 the ADA branch has
NEVER fulfilled its designed purpose. And the USAF has only shot down
a grand total of 1,078 aircraft in its post-WWII history. Of those,
nearly 90% were downed in the Korean War (894). But against a
high-tech opponent these things must be considered.
I'm sure other ideas can be tossed out here, especially when OA gets
ahold of this idea.
As I've said before, modern warfare is not a democratic process.
Quality, and quality alone, counts. Political points can be scored,
terrorist tactics can be effective, but if you come out and play
hardball with a first-rate Army, you loose. Period, end of
discussion, and it doesn't MATTER how many troops you bring to bear.
Well-trained professionals handling technically advanced weapons
systems, integrated into a combined arms and joint system of systems
will defeat any concievable (and most inconcievable) tactics based on
hordes, be they bodies or inexpensive obsolete tanks.
Interesting wargaming scenarios have to be between units of similar
capability, or they have to be fudged and handwaving performed to take
away the high-tech force's advantages.
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians."
Gzg-l mailing list