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

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

From: Adrian1 <al.ll@t...>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:36:36 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi!)

I can three attempts already that tried to deal with both artillery and 
ortillery.

In the early 90s there was a game called "Centurion/Leviathans/etc" that

had ortillery that used mass drivers to fire giant nails at grav tanks -

don't know how they dealt with anti-ortillery but they must have.

"Invasion Earth", a rather lengthy novel had used the equivelant of AA 
guns that could apparently shoot ortillery shells in flight.

The Tollan in Stargate had anti-ship Ion cannons that could kill major 
warships with a single ship.  These would lead to a good wargames since 
you would have to launch light, fast, NUMEROUS small assault craft to 
clear the heavy weapons BEFORE you could get either heavy supply or 
ortillery in place since it would be a sitting duck.  I suppose by 
extension, entire campaigns could be based around the assault on/defence

of these massive but immobile weapons.

Oerjan Ariander wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>   
>> ...I'm just tossing them out
>> there as examples, that it is easier to argue for artillery becoming
>> more lethal than it is to argue for it becoming less lethal.
>>     
>
> Well... it is easy to argue for artillery becoming more *accurate*, 
> certainly. However, anti-artillery area-defence systems for ground
forces 
> have only just entered service, and when they shrink in size and start
to 
> proliferate I suspect that artillery will begin to *lose* lethality
again 
> as more and more rounds fail to reach their target. That's definitely
one 
> of the SF features Drake got right in the Slammers books :-/
>
> Note that area-defence systems capable of destroying incoming
artillery 
> rounds within a few hundred or maybe even a couple thousand meters
above 
> the ground are *not* necessarily capable of destroying aircraft that
both 
> fly much higher and are much tougher targets than artillery rounds.
The 
> Slammers' Calliope system was rather extreme with its near-infinite
range...
>
> As for game designing artillery to be weak, why just PSB it? Put the 
> anti-arty defence system in the game explicitly and see what happens 
> instead - that's a lot more fun <g>
>
> Later,
>
> Oerjan
> orjan.ariander1@comhem.se
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.6/1540 - Release Date:
08/07/2008 06:33
>
>
>
>   

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


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