Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

I was actually thinking of off-table assets that are allocated to "deal
with" other off-table assets. There should certainly be rules for
allowing
you to "send things off the table" also though.

This creates (for me, and I may very well be a very small minority here)
the
interesting tactical choice of where I want to but some of my forces. Do
I
spend the point on offense? Or do I allocate a certain amount to
defending
my off-table assets?

I can sort of envision three broad ranges of off-table assets:

Close: Reachable from the table assets "off table" or by off-table
assets.
Far: Reachable by other initially off-table assets.
Distant: Unreachable by opponent's forces - ortillery, cruise missiles,
whatever.

"Off Table Assets" should probably end up with a specific list of what
defines that - essentially either other long-range weaponry, or vehicles
of
a certain speed. Some sort of mechanic for commandos (pick your term,
LRRPS,
Pathfinders, Space Marines, etc) should also be in place for putting
them
onto or having them in place for dealing with said assets.

Able to be abused? Sure. Pretty much all mechanics have that problem.
That's
why you play with people actually want to have fun in the same way that
you
do...

D. Rodemaker

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of John
Lerchey
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:47 AM
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

In DS3, I too would love to be able to send recon or fast attack units
off
to go nail enemy artillery, once the CBS has locked into an area so that
I'd
know where to send them.  The problem generally lies in how far off
table
they are.  In DS3, there are off table zones, but they are not well
defined.
I can tell you how many Tactical Combat Rounds it takes an incoming
mission
to get to the table, but that does not tell me how long it takes a
platoon
of fast attack vehicles to get to them across unknown terrain types once
they've left the appropriate side of the table.
:(

I could likely write something up to handle it, but I'm certain that it
would be overly arbitrary and likely abusable.

Love the idea though.

J

> Ok, and here - as a scenario/campaign/game designer is where I also
see a
>  huge potential for added nuance and, dare I say, complexity.
> 
> If there are off table assets, especially if we are going to represent
> them with minis - I love the idea of being able to allocate assets to
> going and finding and then destroying them.
> 
> This could obviously be aerospace/VTOL/grav/whatever - but it could
just
> as easily be small, fast moving units of ground troops as well. Or
hell,
> how about just a couple of squads of elite commandos who have been
> sneaking around waiting for their chance to act?
> 
> I really have to say that I like the idea of artillery being
abstracted
> like aerospace support. I like the idea even more of being able to
degrade
> it in various ways if you want to spend the points to try and do it -
> essentially a minigame (or extra layer of tactics/strategy if you
prefer).
> 
> 
> D. Rodemaker
> 
> -----Original Message----- From:
gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of John
> Lerchey Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:06 AM To:
> gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu 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 scoot.
> 
> Besides, it's a miniatures game.  I want miniatures. :)
> 
> That all said, I play in 6mm and do DS, not SG.
> 
> J
> 
>> 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 it.
>> 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 <rmgill@mindspring.com> 
>>> 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
>>>> counter 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 in range of the enemy counter battery guns. Personally, I
>>>> think a size class should denote range, but generally for
>>>> simplicity, I'd consider
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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 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 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 and 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 neutralization mission or one in
>>>> which you want it DEAD (a material mission).

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