Given all the ideas floating around there seems to be some good ideas for a
campaign of planetary assault in a Full Thrust or similar universe.
The GZG universe states that there were land battles between the Kravak and
Humans.
I'd be interested as to the strategies both the attacker and the defender can
take.
The attacker has the edge in technology (Elite assault units and all) but
maybe not in numbers. The defenders have the advantage of local terrain
knowledge and support.
I'm not sure that heavy armour would be that common on either side, its
difficult for the attacker to transport and land and would be a very expensive
luxury for a colony, so light armoured vehicles or grave effect vehicles might
be the order of the day.
What strategies are available to the defender other than insurgency warfare?
If the defenders mass up and try to go out and engange the attackers in an
open battle they risk and orbital strike or are just playing into the
attackers hands by fighting the war their way.
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 08:32, john tailby wrote:
^^^^^
> What strategies are available to the defender other than insurgency
With that sort of technology, throwing hordes of zombies at the attackers
might work...
Bad Sam, Naughty Sam wrote on 11/27/2005 05:10:39 AM:
> On Sunday 27 November 2005 08:32, john tailby wrote:
Was just about to say, before this discussion goes off on the usually fab tech
of the month, that this assumes the usual suspects, whether giant,
invincibly armored, robotic slug or nano-tech bridge metal munchers or
fiendlishly selective bio-chem-nuke fungoid, that neither side can
deploy, or both do to a standstill.
Selection of random PSB table is left to the reader, but, assuming d20,
rolls of 12 7-19 5 are suggested.
The_Beast
> > With that sort of technology, throwing hordes of zombies at the
By the way, Jon / Jerry, you might mark FMA Sheep as "Type of game:
Roleplaying / Skirmish" and add to the event description:
"This event uses FMA-ish rules, a Victorian SF setting, with a dash of
Paranoia, Awful Green Things, Aliens, and, of course, a few harmless and
lovable sheep."
Not that this has anything to do with fiendish invincible armored
metal-munching bio-selective anything.
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 01:07:05PM -0500, Laserlight wrote:
> Not that this has anything to do with fiendish invincible armored
'Course not. I've never met a sheep that showed the slightest selectivity
about what it ate.
R
> From: Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
Spelling misakes aside, and you could take grave to mean very serious (so no
smiley face icons on the tanks please) in a GZG type universe with that sort
of technology level how would planetary defence actions get resolved?
If starships have full antigrav what stops them floating along at low altitude
like the aliens in Independence Day or the Sky Furnaces in Red Star roasting
the ground beneath them?
> On 11/27/05, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
"Super Dreadnaughts make the best close-support systems."
Actually, I don't think the grav in the GZGverse is anywhere near that level
yet.
Still, it would be a cool way to take out that pesky machinegun nest, wouldn't
it?
> If starships have full antigrav what stops them floating along at
Every laser and DFFG in sight can hit it, not to mention missiles. A
GZG-verse entry might read
"EU cruisers Duquesne and Tourville found out the hard way that a)
local militia with no ability to produce their own anti-ship missiles
could nonethless have Anglian Confed "advisors" with AC "surplus"
surface-to-orbit missiles; and b) ship-mounted point defense systems
are intended for space, with multi-thousand-kilometer liines of sight,
no horizon effects, no atmosphere effects, no background clutter."
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> > If starships have full antigrav what stops them floating along at
Based on my reading of the GZG universe I don't think that the starships have
the ability to decend vertically from orbit into the planetary surface either.
I don't think that even landing shuttles have the ability to go from orbit to
surface and then effect a full STOL turn around. Also running operations from
orbit to the surface for ground support and then back to orbit sounds very
energy intensive. Conducting operations at the end of the range of your close
support ships limits their combat endurance. I also can't imagine a support
vessel in a GZG universe that combines the attributes of orbital shuttle and
helecopter gunship.
If you wanted to conduct close air support missions it might be best to
establish a base on the planetary surface covered by orbiting sensor platforms
and then ground based defence systems then land ships there. Your ground
advance can then be covered by an air umbrella for fire support.
How far this safe zone is from the objective will likely depend on resources
and terrain, but applying the criteria the British used for the Falklands
landing zone (e.g. out of range of enemy weapons) this could be several
hundred kilometers away from the main objective.
This also give the defenders the opportunity to mass up to try and meet you in
open battle away from the main colony objectives. This should give the
invaders the best opportunity to defeat the defenders on their terms. If the
defenders fall back into the colony urban areas then the technological
advantages of the attackers may be mitigated.
John Tailby said:
> Based on my reading of the GZG universe I don't think that the
If they have the thrust and the fuel, there's no obvious reason why they
couldn't go deep into the atmosphere. The ship design process doesn't say
anything about fuel, so it sounds "effectively unlimited"; as for thrust, the
general consensus is that Thrust 1 is 1 gee, and almost all ships have Thrust
2 or better. I grant that I don't recall any instance in the history of a ship
going close in, so I'm assuming it's for tactical reaons rather than physical
ones.
It could also be that the drives don't work properly in atmosphere or some
such, but if so, why have "streamlined" as a design choice?
> I also can't imagine a support vessel in a GZG universe that
I can, I just think it might be expensive. Of course, it's your scenario, do
what you want.
> If the defenders fall back into the colony urban areas then the
Rather depends on who they're fighting, doesn't it? The Kra'Vak aren't likely
to exercise restraint out of concern for civilian casualties.
MT does cover fighters entering/departing atmosphere (it costs them 1
endurance), so starships doing the same thing would make a *serious* dent in
their combat endurance.
This is not counting the "flying brick/target" syndrome mentioned by
several others.
I've found that modelling a planet as a very large Sa'vasku vessel can work
for determining suppression of military defences. GM determined stats are
preferable so it doesn't throw out the play balance.
I'm doing that for my revised campaign rules (available sometime in the next
10 years) where hull = economic revenue. So a planet worth 40 NPV has 40 hull
boxes. Gives the option of economic warfare, but planet razing is
counterproductive if you want to expand your own economy.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/27/05 2:34:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz writes:
<snip>
I kind of like the idea that a powerful but technologically
deficient/challenged (not too much reduced level of tech although HVC
hordes...) force invades a colony of higher tech but significantly expendable
(temporarily) geopolitical (astropolitical?) value. The defending high tech
force has
lots of
opponents but can't lose too many units in any one battle if they hope to hold
off the attackers in multiple battles for a significant period of time before
the 'home world' or even better 'Allied proxy' can come to their aid because
of 'higher priority' - their own colonies are threatened - needs.
If I put the People's Holy Republic on steroids or increase the strength of
the IC (and their IF mercs) then the Native People's Republic (mentor being NI
off course) might have it's hands full in my campaign setting.
Gracias,
Rorkes Drift comes to mind as an example of that.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
In a message dated 11/27/05 8:08:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au writes:
Rorkes Drift comes to mind as an example of that.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
<snip>
BINGO! Someone give that man a cheroot! (or however it's spelled. Since I
don't smoke...)
Gracias,
Glenn "warbeads"