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.

The simplest way is probably to say that off-table assets have to 
penetrate off-table defences (area defence and counterbattery 
systems), but on-table support has to be dealt with (or not) by 
on-table defences (close-in point defence).

Jon (GZG)

>
>--
>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

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