_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:05 AM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> True to a certain extent. And if we were discussing a WWII game, it
One thing that's niggled at me about artillery (and something I need to take
up with Oerjan for DS3) is the presumption of ultra-accurate artillery
and the PSB of a GPS system. Maybe I'm not using my imagination enough to
expand on the SF possibilities, but what if...
1) you don't own the satellites, or don't have the frequency, or
2) there ARE NO satellites (either never put in place - back water
colony
world - or were knocked out by the invaders (who may have put their own
up but your HK sats killed them))
How would you PSB ultra-accurate artillery then? And doing gun survey
positions, etc?
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt
all depends, if you are an invading force and have come by spaceship, the
logical alternative would be deploy a relay net of satellites in orbit
monitoring troop movement and directing artillery.
One presumes that the projectiles have either submunitions or terminal
guidance. So getting the round on a trajectory that would impact
within a couple hundred meters should be good enough for government work.
But as for sats, that's not as much the requirement in and of itself as it is
the means by which modern artillery and artillery observers (and military
forces in general) precisely locate themselves. I leave it to the imagination
what means you would use otherwise. But knowing where you are and where your
enemy is are pretty fundamental
requirements of battle in general--and the more precisely you can
answer those questions, the great advantage you have over an opponent that
cannot.
John
> On 7/8/08, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/08, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing that's niggled at me about artillery (and something I need
Part Two of answer:
Precise location (currently most easily done by GPS) is part of the equation.
But there is more that goes into it. A large factor is the replacement of fire
direction charts used by overworked and frequently exhausted human beings with
computers that talk directly to the guns. Certainly the guy in the FDC talking
to the observer can still fat finger things, and the observer can screw up his
call for fire, but the calcultation is done by a computer. Wind direction
sensors are electronic and far more precise than the mechanical equivalent of
WWII. You can even adjust for barrel wear as measured by sensors on the gun.
The round will land where the computer is told to put it with far more
precision and reliability than was possible 50 years ago. And there are fewer
opportunities for human error than there were 50 years ago.
If you start adding SF refinements like liquid propellant (more precisely
measured than bagged charges) and so forth, you can argue for even greater
accuracy and lethality. Perfected voice recognition software can take the
humans out of the FDC altogether, and if you then link it to a tracker system
(BFT, for the modern example) then you also make the process of clearing the
fire much quicker. I don't intend to hit these arguments in detail, I'm just
tossing them out there as examples, that it is easier to argue for artillery
becoming more lethal than it is to argue for it becoming less lethal.
And that's before I start talking about the next generation of
long-range precision fires, wherein we will likely see the line
between "UAV" and "artillery rocket" roles blur in a serious way--UAVs
that carry warheads are already out there. UAVs that carry reloadable
submunition dispensers are the next obvious step.
So yes, precision artillery is going to be part of any SF game that doesn't
figure out how to PSB it away. And PSBing it away takes
either near-perfect defenses (Hammer's Slammers energy weapons under
computer control, for instance) or handwaving. And if you PSB away artillery
rounds, you're likely to PSB away aircraft in the process, which is fine for
some people and not for others. It is a conscious game design decision, or at
least it should be.
I was wondering if anybody was thinking in 3 dimensions. If your the invader,
you will have spaceships in orbit. The rules clearly state that ORTILLERY
exists. If an army is tasked with orbital assault, it is
more than likely that it will have ortillery - as in spaceraft with
ground bombardment capability. All a unit on the ground would need to use this
is a IFF device, a com unit and a compass. Wouldn't suprise me
if the typical message was "enemy target 300 yards north on my signal -
confirm and destroy".
Anybody seen Google Earth - thats non-military technology available
today. In 200 years I reckon that anybody in orbit will be able to SEE
their targets directly from orbit in real-time and be able to follow
battles from there. When a unit reports that is in trouble and needs
artillery, the ortillery unit would look down at the calling unit and the
surrounding area and think "theres the enemy, heres a bomb, boom.
The tech gap isn't going to get any narrower for the third world
countries - they'll have to rely on NOT been seen and NOT losing control
of orbital space.
> Magnus Alexandersson wrote:
08/07/2008 06:33
> [quoted text omitted]
Which is my TCS was designed with 50K ton Battleriders each carrying @ 1
Brigade. The ship was the fire support for the Brigade.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Adrian1" <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:46 AM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me,Obi-Wan
Kenobi!)
> I was wondering if anybody was thinking in 3 dimensions. If your the
You'd still want ground artillery, at least for missions where you're
defending, but probably for attacker as well. The reason is organizational.
Requesting Ortillery would mean moving way up in the chain of command, and
then across to the naval service. Even theoretically integrated structures
will have an organizational seam
where navy/aerospace and ground forces meet.
Obviously, organizational behavior as a science is advancing rapidly, so maybe
interservice rivalries and differing priorities will be a thing of the past.
Or maybe not. It certainly feels right.
Robert Mayberry
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
08/07/2008 06:33
> [quoted text omitted]
The round will land where the computer is told to put it with far more
precision and reliability than was possible 50 years ago. And there are fewer
opportunities for human error than there were 50 years ago.
To add to that, the fire control computers also factor in flight height of the
rounds fired to defeat counter battery radar. This means Mr.Drake's Calliope
which targets an incoming round at the top of it's elliptical flight
trajectory, would largely be negated or at the very least have a very small
window for success.
Another possible use for artillery is the use of FASCAM or air scatterable
mines. These can be used to channel your opponent's movement and need not be
fired over him and therefore over his counter artillery weaponry.
> You'd still want ground artillery, at least for missions where you're
...And then you'll have the scenarios where rather than a high-tech
invading force doing a hot insertion from orbit with
space-superiority ships in direct support, you've instead got a
Mercenary Company of hovertanks hired by one bunch of farmers on a balkanised
world to help them kick the crap out of the neighbouring bunch of farmers who
speak a different language, or wear red headscarves instead of green, or
whatever, and said tank company
arrives on-world via a regular spaceport in a couple of chartered
bulk freighters.
I suspect that what we need, in game terms, is some kind of Artillery
Environment rules similar in style to the SGII Aerospace Environment concept;
an abstract system that compares tech levels and available resources
(offensive and defensive) of each side in the battle, and uses this to affect
both the availability and the effectiveness of artillery and other support
fire.
Jon (GZG)
> Obviously, organizational behavior as a science is advancing rapidly,
I hear a lot of earth-like parallels here. What if none of them
applied? GPS? What GPS? You arrived in hostile territory, and you haven't had
time to set up GPS satellites nor calibrate them to get them accurate to
within 100'. Plus, the enemy keeps shooting at them. What if you can't see
from orbit? Ion storms, magnetic radiation, dense gas clouds, and enemy
spoofing could make picking out targets on the ground difficult. It could also
make picking out friend from foe difficult. Someone mentioned a compass. What
good is that if the planet has no magnetic poles, or magnetic poles that keep
shifting? Heck, the planet itself might not even be all that sperical.
Just my 2 cents.
--Greg
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody was thinking in 3 dimensions. If your the
ASSUMING the ship(s) are still in orbit, haven't been driven off or
otherwise destroyed/disabled, or aren't busy dealing with something else
somewhere else. This goes for ortillery bombardments as well as simple
spotting.
> Anybody seen Google Earth - thats non-military technology available
Assuming assuming assuming that the sensor net (or one ore more spacecraft) is
in place to detect said targets. What's preventing the enemy from then either
having their own sensor net (in which case each side exchanges one
blow to a vital component of each other's armies or command/control
center after which combat is essentially over), or has a way of jamming or
destroying said sensor net so the inbound arty no longer has the accuracy
people want it to have? This should be modeled as the norm, not the exception,
in games.
> The tech gap isn't going to get any narrower for the third world
Which ultimately means you have to think about the macro level of what's going
on in order to do pinpoint artillery bombardments. What everyone seems to be
postulating (and making sweeping assumptions about) is come in the future,
arty will have unerring pinpoint accuracy (or close enough not to matter) at
all times. I don't buy it. Not because that it would make for a boring game,
but because there'd be no need for any other (substantial) assets to be
present. You have a starship (or satellite sensor net), an artillery battery,
an interposing guard garrison to protect said battery
from close-in assaults/attacks, and let the arty finish the planet
(what,
out of range? move arty, re-target and shoot!). I'm sorry. I just don't
buy it. The enemy isn't just going to sit there and let arty batteries be the
end-all/be-all of what they have to face. They've got to have ways of
foiling the targeting at various levels, and not just by "not being seen".
Mk
I like that idea
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:19 AM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Artillery considerations (was: Re: Help me, Obi-Wan
Kenobi!)
> You'd still want ground artillery, at least for missions where you're
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> _______________________________________________
I hear a lot of earth-like parallels here. What if none of them
applied? GPS? What GPS? You arrived in hostile territory, and you haven't had
time to set up GPS satellites nor calibrate them to get them accurate to
within 100'. Plus, the enemy keeps shooting at them. What if you can't see
from orbit? Ion storms, magnetic radiation, dense gas clouds, and enemy
spoofing could make picking out targets on the ground difficult. It could also
make picking out friend from foe difficult. Someone mentioned a compass. What
good is that if the planet has no magnetic poles, or magnetic poles that keep
shifting? Heck, the planet itself might not even be all that sperical.
Hell why fight for such a problem rock....) Chances are humans would want to
settle human friendly planets.... Unless there was something of value to be
found there, then all bets are off. As for the GPS or equivalent, the ships in
orbit should be able to cover that. Now this means they have to have in system
superiority...That can even be a special rule added to this scenario.
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Don M wrote:
> Hell why fight for such a problem rock....) Chances are
It may just be a problem rock to you, but many of us call it home.:)
Stoopid intollerant hyu-mans.
--Greg
> John Atkinson wrote:
> ...I'm just tossing them out
Well... it is easy to argue for artillery becoming more *accurate*,
certainly. However, anti-artillery area-defence systems for ground
forces have only just entered service, and when they shrink in size and start
to proliferate I suspect that artillery will begin to *lose* lethality again
as more and more rounds fail to reach their target. That's definitely one
of the SF features Drake got right in the Slammers books :-/
Note that area-defence systems capable of destroying incoming artillery
rounds within a few hundred or maybe even a couple thousand meters above
the ground are *not* necessarily capable of destroying aircraft that both fly
much higher and are much tougher targets than artillery rounds. The
Slammers' Calliope system was rather extreme with its near-infinite
range...
As for game designing artillery to be weak, why just PSB it? Put the
anti-arty defence system in the game explicitly and see what happens
instead - that's a lot more fun <g>
Later,
I can three attempts already that tried to deal with both artillery and
ortillery.
In the early 90s there was a game called "Centurion/Leviathans/etc" that
had ortillery that used mass drivers to fire giant nails at grav tanks -
don't know how they dealt with anti-ortillery but they must have.
"Invasion Earth", a rather lengthy novel had used the equivelant of AA guns
that could apparently shoot ortillery shells in flight.
The Tollan in Stargate had anti-ship Ion cannons that could kill major
warships with a single ship. These would lead to a good wargames since you
would have to launch light, fast, NUMEROUS small assault craft to clear the
heavy weapons BEFORE you could get either heavy supply or ortillery in place
since it would be a sitting duck. I suppose by
extension, entire campaigns could be based around the assault on/defence
of these massive but immobile weapons.
> Oerjan Ariander wrote:
The
> Slammers' Calliope system was rather extreme with its near-infinite
08/07/2008 06:33
> [quoted text omitted]
> Adrian1 wrote:
> I can three attempts already that tried to deal with both artillery and
that
> had ortillery that used mass drivers to fire giant nails at grav tanks
The Renegade Legion games. Although the background fluff mentions heavy
air-to-space weapons, I can't find any stats for them in the game rules;
for practical game purposes the only anti-ortillery option available
seems to be to send out fighters to destroy the THOR satellites.
> "Invasion Earth", a rather lengthy novel had used the equivelant of AA
Sounds rather like the assault on Hoth in SW:TISB...
Later,
It may just be a problem rock to you, but many of us call it home.:)
Stoopid intollerant hyu-mans.
--Greg
LOL, point taken, therefore...nuke the sight from orbit, it's the only way to
be sure....)
Dob
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
Didn't that only work for H and I fires? Normally taking the whole slammers
battalion of tanks to try to stop an incoming artillery mission? Note, the
slammers still had artillery themselves and did NOT have much in the way of
air defense.
The current crop is VERY good for H and I fires BUT seems quite easy to
overwhelm with a good multi gun TOT fire mission. You're also limited on the
zone you can protect. Though, Israel is working on their system, I doubt it'd
work very well against a rather large
stonk. They're going to get into a race with Hamas/Hezballah on how
many defense points can cover a given area vs how many rockets/
mortars the knuckleheads can fire at Israel at the same time.
> As for game designing artillery to be weak, why just PSB it? Put the
There should be a capability of overwhelming it. Just as the trick with an
enemy's air defense is to have MORE aircraft, one can take
too much artillery and/or too much anti-artillery. HAving some
indication before the game starts of the enemy OB (roughly) is probably a good
idea.
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Don M wrote:
> I hear a lot of earth-like parallels here. What if none of them
Even if you have no good GPS system, if you're landing a new, you get good
terrain maps on the way down. You're going to need them. If you don't have
that, then you need to play a double blind system with two players moving the
pieces and telling the two players in the next room what and where everything
is via a pair of intercoms.
As for navigation. There's still inertial and a host of other cruder methods
for tracking things. Even if you use ground navigation
beacons far in your rear for positional data. Think GPS/ ILS and Loran.