Re: [GZG] DSIII q

> 
> Grant,
> 
> We've been discussing the "impact marker" issue.  As OA has pointed
out to 
> me again and again, there shouldn't BE an impact marker that the enemy
can 
> see.	Sadly, because it's a game, and there has to be some way to
track 
> such things, we have to put something down.  There are ways to move
the 
> marker once it's played.  If it's being painted by an FO (guy with a
laser 
> or whatever), that player can move it around on his TCR within certain

> limits (that I don't want to go look up right now!).	Some munitions
are 
> self correcting and will look for signatures within an area and fire
off 
> at them.
> 
    I'm guessing that you need a marker to indicate that artillery has
been
  called in at all right?  I'm just thinking off the cuff here, but I'd
  consider 3 cases:

	1)  Dumb artillery rounds  --  In this case, I'd lay the impact
marker
				  because it represents the
predictability of
				  such weapon systems.

	2)  Reasonably steerable rounds  --  I'd consider allowing
multiple
				  dummy markers to be placed to conceal
the
				  actual target.  With the actual marker

				  being moveable in a limited way, the
final 
				  target point would be very
unpredictable.	
				  You could also allow multiple actual
target 
				  points and not require an entire
battery to 
				  shoot the same way.

	3)  Brilliant rounds  --  No impact marker at all.  Targets are 
				determined by FO at arrival time, or the
rounds
				roll for acquistion on their own.  Would
work
				for drone launched munitions too.  Mark 
				offboard that artillery has been fired
and when
				(and from where) it arrives.  I would
think 
				all orbital to ground artillery would
work this
				way.

    I suppose it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow orbital observers to
direct
  fire as well, but boy should that be expensive.  :-)
    It would be interesting to allow "fake" impact markers to bluff
units into
  moving.  Perhaps it represents artillery firing fake rounds to
simulate an
  attack and draw defensive and counterbattery fire.  You could even
have cheap
  light artillery systems that do little besides simulate the big boys.

> I hadn't considered things like orbital lasers, but don't see any
reason 
> that such could not be used if your setting allowed for it.  I'll
defer 
> that to OA.
> 
    Yeah, I was just thinking that low orbit to ground is not hugely
farther
  than normal laser ranges.

> There is currently a TON of stuff in the artillery section, which is
part 
> of why I have been ignoring it until I'm much more comfortable with
the 
> main rules. :)  The infantry mortars would have been useless against 
> vehicles and useful against infantry or other soft targets. :)
> 
> John
> 

   :-)	Thanks for all the info.  Very interesting.

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