Prev: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!) Next: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!

Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)

From: Indy <indy.kochte@g...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:38:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)

Gzg-l mailing list
Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Adrian1 <> wrote:

> I was wondering if anybody was thinking in 3 dimensions.  If your the
> invader, you will have spaceships in orbit.  The rules clearly state
> that ORTILLERY exists.  If an army is tasked with orbital assault, it
> more than likely that it will have ortillery - as in spaceraft with
> ground bombardment capability.  All a unit on the ground would need to
> use this is a IFF device, a com unit and a compass.  Wouldn't suprise
> if the typical message was "enemy target 300 yards north on my signal
> confirm and destroy".

ASSUMING the ship(s) are still in orbit, haven't been driven off or
otherwise destroyed/disabled, or aren't busy dealing with something else
somewhere else. This goes for ortillery bombardments as well as simple

> Anybody seen Google Earth - thats non-military technology available
> today.  In 200 years I reckon that anybody in orbit will be able to
> their targets directly from orbit in real-time and be able to follow
> battles from there.  When a unit reports that is in trouble and needs
> artillery, the ortillery unit would look down at the calling unit and
> the surrounding area and think "theres the enemy, heres a bomb, boom.

Assuming assuming assuming that the sensor net (or one ore more
is in place to detect said targets. What's preventing the enemy from
either having their own sensor net (in which case each side exchanges
blow to a vital component of each other's armies or command/control
after which combat is essentially over), or has a way of jamming or
destroying said sensor net so the inbound arty no longer has the
people want it to have? This should be modeled as the norm, not the
exception, in games.

> The tech gap isn't going to get any narrower for the third world
> countries - they'll have to rely on NOT been seen and NOT losing
> of orbital space.

Which ultimately means you have to think about the macro level of what's
going on in order to do pinpoint artillery bombardments. What everyone
to be postulating (and making sweeping assumptions about) is come in the
future, arty will have unerring pinpoint accuracy (or close enough not
matter) at all times. I don't buy it. Not because that it would make for
boring game, but because there'd be no need for any other (substantial)
assets to be present. You have a starship (or satellite sensor net), an
artillery battery, an interposing guard garrison to protect said battery
from close-in assaults/attacks, and let the arty finish the planet
out of range? move arty, re-target and shoot!). I'm sorry. I just don't
it. The enemy isn't just going to sit there and let arty batteries be
end-all/be-all of what they have to face. They've got to have ways of
foiling the targeting at various levels, and not just by "not being


Prev: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!) Next: Re: [GZG] Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!