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

Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

From: "John Lerchey" <lerchey@a...>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:06:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

I tend to put the artillery unit on a side table, or behind the
baseline.  I also put out ammo tenders, AA/ADS, CBS, command, and any
other assets in the unit.  In the event that there a counter battery
mission, I want to be able to actually move the minis if they're gonna

Besides, it's a miniatures game.  I want miniatures. :)

That all said, I play in 6mm and do DS, not SG.


> Just a quick question to all, related to this subject:
> When you use off-table artillery (in any game system or period), do
> 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
> used models for it, so we can sell the arty pieces and stay in
>  ;-) 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 it.
> for both aesthetics AND our sales, there is a good case for saying
> off-table assets should be modelled on a little "sub-table" diorama
> 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
> 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
>> On a sparsely inhabited planet, you're probably not going to have a
>> army on the ground; the force represented by the DS army could well
>> 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
>> maneuver. So there would be a valid rationale for having the
>> deployed on-table.
>> Robert Mayberry
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Ryan Gill <>
>> wrote:
>>> 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 for 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
>>> kept a LOT of germans from shooting at the British Observer
>>> (You REALLY didn't want to piss him off). Essentially, you activate
>>> many units 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
>>>  scoot or fire and sit pat). Resolve multiple battery's barrage all
>>> at 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 

John K. Lerchey
Assistant Director for Incident Response
Information Security Office
Carnegie Mellon University

Gzg-l mailing list

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