Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen discussions here of why artillery should be more lethal in
the
> future. I don't disagree with them (John and Allan make good points
and I
> could make more points in favour of it).

I agree with you, Tom. Implicit in the fact you have infantry in
roughly modern-day concentrations is the concept that artillery isn't
much more effective at killing soldiers than today.

One design decision is whether to abstract artillery and
counter-artillery, or make it a separate minigame within the main
game. As I mentioned to Jon on the playtest list, I think it's
reasonable to assume some form of artillery defence environment from
the point of view of a tactical game. Offboard assets are available,
but they have to get through the other guy's offboard defences, and
vice versa.

Where it can get a little tricky is in the use of onboard artillery.
Should the other guy's artillery defence system have a chance to stop
onboard mortar and indirect artillery? Or do we assume that it's so
close to the battlefield that the time of flight is too short? Could
just be a case of shifting a die up or down to represent the
difficulty in hitting someone else.

-- 
Allan Goodall http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l