Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

Dave,

Yeah, I fully agree.  It would make for some neat side-bar kinds of
actions during a normally restricted game.  We do it with air assets as
well - call in a ground attack strike, move the fliers in, hit things,
and go away.  No reason not to allow an air cav unit or whatever to hold
off in the wings, or fly out to hit enemy artillery, or whatever.  Opens
up some neat possibilities.

J

> 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
> 
> 

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

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