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

Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:44:41 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

Just a quick question to all, related to this subject:

When you use off-table artillery (in any game system or period), do 
you represent it by actual minis kept behind the baseline, or does it 
just exist on paper?
With my commercial hat on, obviously I'd rather that folks used 
models for it, so we can sell the arty pieces and stay in business... 
This is, I guess, the major reason why FoW (for example) uses it's 
odd logarithmic ground scale compression and insists on all artillery 
being on the table - so folks have to buy and deploy the models for 
Certainly for both aesthetics AND our sales, there is a good case for 
saying that off-table assets should be modelled on a little 
"sub-table" diorama behind the player's baseline. Doing this also 
means that things like counter-battery and airstrikes against enemy 
artillery can actually be gamed out using the normal rules rather 
than abstracted, if you so wish.

Jon (GZG)

>I've seen one of Ryan's CB fire missions before, they're brutal. :)
>However, much of this will depend on the type of battle you're having.
>On a sparsely inhabited planet, you're probably not going to have a
>huge army on the ground; the force represented by the DS army could
>well be the entire thing. In that situation I might not have the
>luxury of deploying my artillery far behind my lines, because I'd want
>my main force to be able to cover them and the small force would be
>easy to out maneuver. So there would be a valid rationale for having
>the artillery deployed on-table.
>Robert Mayberry
>On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Ryan Gill <>
>>  On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>>  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).
>>  Except that flies in the face of the doctrine of putting your
>>  battery forwards and your main support fires to the rear. That way
>>  the rear guns are further away from MOST of your enemy's counter
>>  battery guns and your counter battery guns have more chances to be
>>  range of the enemy counter battery guns. Personally, I think a size
>>  class should denote range, but generally for simplicity, I'd
>>  1. man portable mortars to be tabletop only
>>  2 towed and or SP tube artillery to be table top plus off table
>>  3 off table to be Table/off Table for range.
>>  PLUS
>>  Depending on desires, MULTIPLE artillery units could be called on
>>  a given mission if spotted by an artillery observer element. This
>>  would parallel something that at least the British could do in WWII.
>>  Basically organize a stonk or fire mission using a battery, A
>>  regiment, an AGRA, a whole Corps, or every tube that's in range.
>>  Getting the upper orders called down on you was what kept a LOT of
>>  germans from shooting at the British Observer aircraft. (You REALLY
>>  didn't want to piss him off). Essentially, you activate as many
>>  as you want and place those counters on the target as you want.
>>  They're all activated and do what they're going to do (shoot and
>>  scoot or fire and sit pat). Resolve multiple battery's barrage all
>>  the same time as you would one. This allows you to more precisely
>>  control the difference between a harassment mission, a
>>  mission or one in which you want it DEAD (a material mission).
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l mailing list

Gzg-l mailing list

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