[GZG] Artillery considerations

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:46 AM, Adrian1 wrote:

> Anybody seen Google Earth - thats non-military technology available

Real time monitoring from orbit is gonna be a bitch, you will need a
significant constellation of instruments in orbit covering your areas of
operation. Coupled with that constellation you will need a central processing
center that interprets the data, as well as being in charge of aiming
instruments to provide the detailed area map that a ground unit is operation
in. (Note google earth uses imager from a variety of sources all of which is
generally 1 to 4 years old, depending on when they can get a cheap up date.
(Near Real Time Feed
http://earthnow.usgs.gov))

I'm not saying that it is impossible, what I am saying the scope of the task
is large. One of the things I would do as a local field commander would be to
set a high priority of removing any enemy instruments over my area of
operations.

Think the anti satellite fire missions of Hammer's Slammers.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'v
e seen discussions here of why artillery should be more lethal in the future.
I don't disagree with them (John and Allan make good points and I could make
more points in favour of it).

BUT there has to be more to it. If artillery and ortillery are that
devastating, then you'd never field an army if you could avoid it or it would
look profoundly different. In a D&D campaign, you got a good sample of
this if you had available wizards who could cast evocation spells -
formations of soldiers died like flies under the bombardment of invisible
wizards who were immune to non-magical counterfire and hard to hit with
the latter. So why would you ever build a castle in this world since it is
just a target? (Yes, George Patton, I heard you!) Why would you field and army
that is similarly mostly a target?

So to understand why artillery might not be the last word, we have to
understand what the ubiquitous technology means in the counter-artillery
sense. Possibilities:

(And yes, as John says, this is 'what if' and inherently arguable until the
stars fade...)

1) Ubiquity of recce and armed drones means a bad situation for enemy arty
detected during setup and tear down or transit between FPs. 2) Powerful
counterbattery assets mean that you get a shot, but then you can't shoot again
for a time while you displace. This limits artillery's
turn-to-turn presence in a game (or moment to moment in the battle, if
you prefer). 3) Point defenses can now knock out kinetic weaponry and portable
ATGMs/GLs/RRs. I'm guessing if this trend continues, stopping incoming
bomblets or penetrators may well be a possibility (or at least making them
less likely to work out). 4) Area defenses are getting pretty impressive. This
does bode ill for air vehicles including larger armed drones. This means
artillery shells could have a tough envelope to get through. To justify air
vehicles in this setting, they must be flying tanks or super stealthy. 5) If
you are a defender, you may have your own constellation of killer sats or
ground based weapons that can take out enemy satellites used for commo and
coordination and geopositioning. That can attrit enemy artillery capabilities.
6) The ubiquity of dangerous artillery with a foe and the presence of armed
drones, etc. means that artillery logistics can be compromised by attack. This
might also serve to limit fire missions because ammunition resupply may be
challenging. 7) EW abilities have increased and perhaps will be able to jam
enemy seeker heads in the artillery or guidance in the ortillery. 8) Your air
and artillery assets will be going after his, which might keep
them busy enough they're not going after your infantry/armour.
9) Target stealth and ECM/countermeasures/decoys may get to the point
where
you have trouble pinpointing your target - yes, there are three tanks in
the field, but where exactly? 10) Powered Armour may be immune to conventional
AP artillery rounds, of
course an anti-PA round could be developed...

On the attacker's side:

1) If you control space, your fleet can provide gunnery support and
geolocation services. It can also provide advanced battlespace management.
It can also serve as a home for orbit-to-surface cruise missiles,
drones, and strike fighters. 2) You can deploy (even if your ships eventually
mostly leave) a constellation of disposable, cheap, redundant satellites to
give you coverage (and the defender can use similar cheap, disposable,
redundant satellites in defense). This simply becomes a matter of numbers,
technology, and luck to see who ends up with superiority and the matter may
take quite a time to resolve itself. 3) Stealth artillery shells or artillery
shells with sensors
4) Armed and unarmed recce drones - armed ones can strike against
counterbattery, against area defenses, and there may be EW variants that can
mess with defender's countermeasures (lasing targets, marking them otherwise
with a beacon, etc). 5) Exceptional artillery range and accuracy. If you win
the range war (Like the US MRLS in the war with Iraq), you can engage enemy
artillery from outside its counterbattery range. That's generally unpleasant
for the enemy artillery.

Lots of paper, scissor, rock, repeat.

The only sort of thing that one can be sure of is that if you want a game that
isn't dominated by artillery, you do have to model the 'full depth
battlefront'. SG2 did this by abstractly handling the Air Defense Environment.
You could leverage similar design philosophy in handling
artillery - by having an Artillery Defense Environment that abstracts a
lot
of these sorts of issues - the airstrikes, the logistical issues,
counterbattery, etc. - and serves to limit the effect of artillery on
the tabletop. That's probably the least involved method and really might not
be a bad approach.

If artillery does rule the battlefield, annihilating all it can see, you can
expect forces with lots of small observer units, as much force dispersion as
is reasonable, a heavy focus on their own artillery and artillery
countermeasures, and fewer line troops and armour unless those are very
mobile. This could be a fine game two, but it sgould play out differently and
require organization inconsistent with older TO&Es.

High tech force in good supply vs. low tech force without civilian
entanglement or crippling ROE will result in a pounding for the low tech
force. Two high tech forces? Game of paper, scissors, superguns. Two low
tech forces - maybe a bit more like a skirmish or if more conventional,
like a WW2 battle.

My 0.02, admittedly worth that or less.

Thomas B

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you, Tom. Implicit in the fact you have infantry in
roughly modern-day concentrations is the concept that artillery isn't
much more effective at killing soldiers than today.

One design decision is whether to abstract artillery and
counter-artillery, or make it a separate minigame within the main
game. As I mentioned to Jon on the playtest list, I think it's reasonable to
assume some form of artillery defence environment from the point of view of a
tactical game. Offboard assets are available, but they have to get through the
other guy's offboard defences, and vice versa.

Where it can get a little tricky is in the use of onboard artillery. Should
the other guy's artillery defence system have a chance to stop onboard mortar
and indirect artillery? Or do we assume that it's so close to the battlefield
that the time of flight is too short? Could just be a case of shifting a die
up or down to represent the difficulty in hitting someone else.

> > Hell why fight for such a problem rock....) Chances are

Indeed! Also, let's not forget:

* That rock is the only source of PlotDeviceium, a rare and valuable mineral,
anywhere within three sectors.

* That rock is so hard to map, with its weird clouds that prevent good
satellite surveillance, that it's the perfect place for the insurgents to set
up their resupply camps.

* That rock is really valuable because the politicians say so! How would it
look if those Ruritanian bastards made us cut and run?! So you better get down
there and get the job done, soldier.

And so on and so forth. You can always come up with a reason, and it won't be
any better or worse than tens of thousands of brave soldiers have died for in
centuries past.

-P.

And so on and so forth. You can always come up with a reason, and it won't be
any better or worse than tens of thousands of brave soldiers have died for in
centuries past.

-P.

Again........nuke the sight from orbit, it's the only way to be sure....)

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> 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).

Jon (GZG)

> --

> On Jul 8, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Allan Goodall wrote:

I would say, no, by the time you get a flix, the other guy should be done with
his TOT mission and, unless he's being lazy should have run like a scalded cat
from the just used firing point. Given that current systems can put 10 rounds
down range in 60 seconds and then be moving should help on avoiding that
counter battery mission.

More over, I have always figured that if you're on table, you're subject to
getting spotted by a scout and getting zapped that way. A bigger board is
easier BUT with a bigger board, it's easier for Flying craft to find a way
past the Air defenses and see your or kill your artillery. Naturally, I've
always liked the neatness as to how counter battery was possible if your
opponents fired from the same
spot on table twice in a row. Shoot and scoot missions being de-rigur
if my opponent had Counter battery. Look for emitters in his rear, if you see
a vehicle you don't recognize WITH an artillery vehicle or two and it's
emitting, then you're probably detecting some sort of Counter battery radar
AND you'd better NOT be lazy on shoot and
scoot. I immensely love the rock/scissors/paper that the Air defense/
AD/Artillery/Counterbattery radar/Aircraft make for the game.

Still, I prefer, in a good sized Dirtside game to have,

1 set of infantry based mortars on tracks (roll up, dismount, fire missions)
they're relatively cheap and can get GOOD missions off.
1 set of on table gun/howitzer based artillery back in my rear with
an airdefense vehicle attached AND a Counter battery vehicle attached if
possible. 1 set of off table artillery for really big stonks when I want
something dead right bloody now.

> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Don M wrote:

> Again........nuke the sight from

Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

--Greg

> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:

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).

Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark.

--Greg

Yup, save those hard to get NVG batteries...)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOne
concept on future artillery: autoloading direct fire tank guns (maybe railguns
or MDCs) that are mounted to the side or rear of a turret, where they can
elevate to emulate artillery pieces without the hull interfering. This would
let the main gun operate much like artillery. The onboard computer directs the
autoloader to load the gun tube with the appropriate
ordnance for the fire mission:  fin-guided sabot rounds for direct fire,
or HEDP rounds for indirect fire (or perhaps the sabot rounds could also be
fired in indirect mode and guided into the top decks of armored targets,
functioning much like JDAM ordnance). Conversion from one fire mode to the
other takes mere seconds, and the fire-control systems are made to
compute effective firing solutions for either mode without need for
recalibration.

Yes, someday I will patent this idea and then cackle evilly as I survey the
plebians from atop my mountain fortress -- a mountain made entirely of
money! Someday. (Sigh)

The in-game aspects of this would allow a tank to transition between
fire modes using half its action points, or whatever action system the game
uses. The indirect fire mode would be less powerful than that of thoroughbred
artillery pieces, but the advantage to the player would be the versatility of
the tank.

Mountain of money... (sigh)

> [quoted text omitted]

One thing about the DS3 system...

Off-board artillery is defined as being in a zone.  Something like:

[  -5 ] [  -4 ] [  -3 ] [  -2 ] [   -1 ] [ TABLE ] [  1 ] [   2 ] ...

It takes a full Tactical Combat Round (the fighting part of a DS3 turn)
to cross from one zone to another.  Thus, if your Off-Table artillery is
in zone -4  the target will get a few combat moves before the rounds
land. Then again, the rounds could have trajectory correction, etc., to keep
'em on target.

Just so that you are aware that there could be some issues with "want
something dead right bloddy now.":)

J

> Still, I prefer, in a good sized Dirtside game to have,

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYes
but the off table stonks are likely to be arranged against predetermined
targets, I could imagine turn 1 of the game being the artillery landing, or
maybe it's the attacker launching the artillery and the defender doing their
bit to stop the barrage. I see long range artillery as being good at dealing
with fixed obstacles but flight time of the munitions could make it difficult
to hit mobile units from range. If the artilelry get too close they risk being
attacked by enemy armour units. The old horse archer vs javalin armed light
cavalryman challange. Â

----- Original Message ----
From: John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 1:44:32 PM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

> [quoted text omitted]

One thing about the DS3 system...

Off-board artillery is defined as being in a zone.  Something like:

[  -5 ] [  -4 ] [  -3 ] [  -2 ] [  -1 ] [ TABLE ] [  1 ] [  2 ]
...

It takes a full Tactical Combat Round (the fighting part of a DS3 turn)
to cross from one zone to another.  Thus, if your Off-Table artillery
is in zone -4  the target will get a few combat moves before the rounds
land. Then again, the rounds could have trajectory correction, etc., to keep
'em on target.

Just so that you are aware that there could be some issues with "want
something dead right bloddy now."Â:)

J

> Still, I prefer, in a good sized Dirtside game to have,

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:

> At 8:24 PM -0400 7/8/08, Andreas Udby wrote:

Your big problem is ammo supply. Bigger rounds reduce the number of stowed
rounds.

Do you want stowed kills in tank form or area
suppression/neutralization in artillery form?

Good tanks aren't very good artillery either due to design limits in how guns
must be
elevated/trained.

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. :)
wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
old WRG ww2 and modern rules used to mark of part of each player's deployment
zone to allow the depiction of rear area units like artillery and air defence.
The "reason" that FoW uses aircraft and artillery is so that people can play
with their models. Aircraft tended to interdict supply convoys and units
moving to the front line rather than bomb units in close contact withÂ
friendly. I am not saying it didn't happen but it's not how it's typically
depicted. I like the idea of on table rear areas either behind the main battle
area or on a side table. You can then use your artillery models and exercise
skill in their deployments. As you noted you can then play out air attacks
and counter battery on the rear areas. I'd much rather play games where we use
the models rather than dice for effects.Â

Playing Stargrunt or "Contemptible Little Armies" off table stuff is just
counters or a scrap sheet of paper, playing Dirtside or modern 1/300 the
off table stuff mostly gets modeled if it's artillery and represented by
markers for ortillery, off shore naval vessels etc. Artillery units have been
known to turn up on the field for some scenarios.

Playing "over the top" (Command Decision WW1 variant) in 1/300 the off
table stuff is markers.

Chris

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

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

I prefer using models to represent the arty battery whenever I have them
available, whether on or off the table, whatever the game system.

Mk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> I prefer using models to represent the arty battery whenever I have
I prefer models on the table as well -- if anything it gives you one
more thing you need to worry about keeping alive.

I know in FOW it's extra special fun threading fast recon through the "line"
to nuke baddy arty batteries.

D.

> On Wed, July 9, 2008 08:44, Ground Zero Games wrote:

I have a faint recollection of once using DS artillery models as counters to
represent artillery in a SG game. Has the advantage of being cheap and easy,
plus all the advantages of showing what you really have.

DirtSide models are so cheap I'd have no objection to buying them just to use
as counters.

I use models for my artillery even when it's off-board.

> At 8:44 AM +0100 7/9/08, Ground Zero Games wrote:

In the multiple times I've used off table artillery, I have used figures to
represent the battery. (Schreck PPC carriers as a size 4, Long toms as a size
5 duplex vehicle or fixed emplacement (hardened site) artillery from Ogre.
It's really interesting how a pair of armoured fixed site guns like those from
Ogre are a tough
nut to crack for counter battery. ;-)

Truth is I usually just use "notional" or on paper Artillery. But then for
WW-II I use Command Decision and try to get realistic ratios of
Artillery (I once figured out what was needed for Cobra in CD scale...)

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:44 AM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

> Just a quick question to all, related to this subject:
wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________

I use models for my artillery even when it's off-board.

My dear boy, you must never use that word! Inexpensive, affordable, yes, but
never *ahem* cheap...

The_Beast

Samuel wrote on 07/09/2008 06:49:12 AM:

> I have a faint recollection of once using DS artillery models as

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:
Certainly
> for both aesthetics AND our sales, there is a good case for saying

> class should denote range, but generally for simplicity, I'd

> control the difference between a harassment mission, a
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list

> On Wed, July 9, 2008 14:07, Doug Evans wrote:

So a slogan like "Dirt Ch**p, DirtSide" would be right out?

> At 8:03 AM -0500 7/9/08, Don M wrote:

Do you have a little FDC TOC setup too? With little guys running commo
wire and a Sgt brewing coffee for the red legs in the TOC? ;-)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> I tend to put the artillery unit on a side table, or behind the

I do DS as well (John L knows this ;) ), but in both 6mm and 15mm. :-)
I have, naturally, more arty and support units in 6mm than I do in 15, but I'm
working on it...

Mk

> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> When you use off-table artillery (in any game system or period), do

I keep it on paper. I don't have the space to set aside a part of the
table for non-tabletop stuff.

I have kept artillery inbound sheets on a separate table, but I'd be scared
about what would happen to the miniatures if they were on another table (too
easy to knock off; too easy to get stolen at conventions, etc.).

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

[quoted original message omitted]

Perhaps "High Value Target" is a better description.

> On 7/9/08, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:

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
gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of John

Do you have a little FDC TOC setup too? With little guys running commo wire
and a Sgt brewing coffee for the red legs in the TOC? ;-)

How did you know? ;-P

yes, he does

Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:49 AM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations

> At 8:03 AM -0500 7/9/08, Don M wrote:

> wire and a Sgt brewing coffee for the red legs in the TOC? ;-)

I like the idea of abstract off-table assets rather than trying to
quantify them too specifically. SG's approach is good in my opinion.
Ideally, you want the rules to center around what's going on on-table,
with minimal distractions from off-table complications.

> On 7/9/08, David Rodemaker <dar@horusinc.com> wrote:

> At 10:54 AM -0500 7/9/08, Don M wrote:

You should see the fighting positions I made for Star Grunt. They even have
overhead cover and range sticks.

> I tend to put the artillery unit on a side table, or behind the

Excellent! As producers of miniatures, that's what I like to hear!  ;-)

On a serious note, all the responses to this question do give me some guidance
as to whether it is commercially worth us making actual minis of heavy
artillery, SLAM vehicles and such which are never likely to appear on the Main
Table in a typical game.

Jon (GZG)

> That all said, I play in 6mm and do DS, not SG.
Certainly
> for both aesthetics AND our sales, there is a good case for saying
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> John K. Lerchey

You should see the fighting positions I made for Star Grunt. They even have
overhead cover and range sticks.

> At 5:51 PM +0100 7/9/08, Ground Zero Games wrote:

Hmm. I want to say, I've kitbashed up artillery when I didn't have it handy in
smaller form. Some of my RL Centurion tanks, got modified to make a tube
launched artillery vehicle that DOES get used on table. Same thing for mortars
with a couple of figures and some tubes on bipods. I can't say I've much used
the rocket artillery vehicles I setup.

For heavy artillery, just build a different turret for a large sized tank.
Make the turret MUCH taller, deeper and give it a couple of doors. Make
another vehicle that's a resupply track for it (same hull, different turret
that has no gun) and have a conveyor that sticks out the back.

On a serious note, all the responses to this question do give me some guidance
as to whether it is commercially worth us making actual minis of heavy
artillery, SLAM vehicles and such which are never likely to appear on the Main
Table in a typical game.

Jon (GZG)

Does that mean I'm wrong having two 15mm railway guns on table?
LOL, they were an objective for a SF team. ;-)

Well, such units might be less viable/necessary for SG:AC, but I do want
them for DS. So please feel free to not bother in 15mm and make them in 6mm.
<duck>

:)

J

> I tend to put the artillery unit on a side table, or behind the
;-)
> On a serious note, all the responses to this question do give me some
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> John K. Lerchey Assistant Director for Incident Response Information

I think that for SG, modular vehicles reproducing designs in DS would be best.
I wouldn't buy a 15mm artillery gun just as an objective for a stargrunt
force, but I might buy a spare turret for a generic chassis that matches my DS
figure for that purpose.

> On 7/9/08, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
;-)
> >
:)
> >>>>
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/g
> >>>>> zg-l
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg
> >>>> -l
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> >>>
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> >
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> >

> On Jul 9, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Don M wrote:

> On a serious note, all the responses to this question do give me some

If anything a few 25mm SP arty pieces would make for a good convoy ambush
game. And also a target for larger tabletop games for those
forces that have air-mobile assets.

Damo

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

[quoted original message omitted]

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> Well, such units might be less viable/necessary for SG:AC, but I do

Jon, don't listen to him. Some of us need 15mm arty as well. :-)

So make 'em in both. :-D

Mk

Indy wrote on 07/09/2008 02:00:58 PM:

> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:24 PM, John Lerchey
wrote:
> > Well, such units might be less viable/necessary for SG:AC, but I do
<duck>
> >

And, we'll resurrect VDR, so make 'em in 28/30!

The_Beast

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

> defines that - essentially either other long-range weaponry, or
gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:gzg-l-bounces@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of John

> going and finding and then destroying them.
Or
> hell, how about just a couple of squads of elite commandos who have

I'll always vote for a figure you can buy in multiple scales. For me,
there's an RPG element to even a straight-up wargame that creates a
context for a battle. Harmonizing your collection is a big help there.

Plus, as I've mentioned before, it's a useful hedge against
power-gaming, because some force organizations and weapons are better
in one set of mechanics than another (or, put another way, are more useful in
battles of a particular scale).

Rob

> On 7/9/08, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:

> At 3:31 PM -0400 7/9/08, John Lerchey wrote:

I would suggest that you put the action in an abstracted form where the scout
element searches for it on graph paper or something.

> From my readings on scouting and recce assets of wwii, you rarely went

Heya Ryan,

> Yeah, I fully agree. It would make for some neat side-bar kinds of
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.

I would suggest that you put the action in an abstracted form where the scout
element searches for it on graph paper or something.

> From my readings on scouting and recce assets of wwii, you rarely went

----

My own thought is that this now makes it too complicated for a GZG game. I
want minis and I want dice and I want only a handful of tables - not
hexes, not impulse charts, not a gazillion little fiddly extra rules for this,
that, and the other thing.

Rather than mapping it out I'd give each overall unit a die based on tech
and/or skill (or one of each perhaps) and have them roll off each turn
to see if the searcher can find the attacker.

For each turn that it remains stationary the searcher gets a cumulative
+1
to find it or something like that. Alternately (or in addition to) if it fires
and does not move then it can automatically be located as attacked in the
following turn (even if it is moving at that point).

How's that? It makes scouts even better - find 'em, follow 'em, then
call in an air strike...

Certainly some bugs to work out, but I think it's a basically workable
premise.

For WWII, yeah, I'll buy that.  But for DS/SG:AC, I'd have to think that
counter battery sensors and such, once you determine the area from which the
shells originate, sending a seek and destroy unit would not be out of the
question. Grav skimmers, jet bikes, UAVs, etc., could get there quickly and
would have a much better chance to find the target than WWII recon units
would.

J

> At 3:31 PM -0400 7/9/08, John Lerchey wrote:
404-545-6205
> ( Suwanee and Manassas DCs) - - Office: 404-588-6191