It isn't if I have a capable G2A system! It's nothing more than a jumped up bomb truck.
Ground force equipment
- Thread starter Sinister2202
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It isn't if I have a capable G2A system! It's nothing more than a jumped up bomb truck.
Nitpicking? There is a world of difference between me saying "no war has ever been won with airpower alone" and your claim that I said " a show of force"...
I'm not the one banging on about Japan as the example to end all examples - you are. My point, as I have reiterated many times, was no War has ever been won with airpower alone. At what point was WW2 fought with air power alone?
it wasn't. That was actually a "so, you have to research the tech and it isn't available as standard", which is what I said originally in response to your "I'll glass the planet and simply terraform it" attitude.
A dozen spaceships against a planet with reasonable surface defences is suicidal? Haha, whatever.
- 1
- 1
Well, usually field hospitals are made where there are no facilities better suited for the job. Which can be the case on a colony.
The only thing we know for sure is that colony is under attack from the Klingons and ship with reinforcements was destroyed. That is all there is to say about warfare in this episode. Those could be even warriors from one ship looking for some action.
If someone is looking for good examples of planetary warfare Warhammer 40k is a way to go. But this universe always was a bit on the weird side. Meanwhile my fav is The Lost Fleet series written by former US Navy officer which, I admit, supports my side of the argument.
To (kind of) quote Han Solo: and who's gonna fire it, you?
Besides, those SAM systems are bad examples, since the AC-130 is vulnerable to them while space forces are far more able to avoid fire from planetary batteries. A better example would be you having a rocket launcher rather than self-targeted, guided missiles.
You KNOW what I meant. Stop this silliness. Just because the expression "show of force" describes certain kind of military operations it doesn't mean nuclear detonation ain't actual show of actual force.
Fought? None. Won? You betcha.
But when you actually have the planet you can research the technology and do the whole thing later. I mean seriously...
Haha whatever indeed. I mean where I said "a dozen spaceships" will... ah, whatever...
It's heavily implied the planet is being attacked, not least because of previous episodes indicating a Klingon invasion of border colony worlds, which led to them requesting the Federation invade Klingon space.
Agreed - In 40K, they tend not to care for the planet so much and are quite happy to fudge it up in the course of a War on top of a zealous desire to exterminate Xenos where they don't care for such things as "diplomatic ramifications" - who cares when you can build enclosed hives and you're only going to pollute the planet anyway. Take Tallarn - a planet totally desertified by Warfare or the infamous Exterminatus. In the books, Imperial forces think nothing of a planetary bombardment of installations but if they desire the infrastructure of the planet or it's inhabitants, they usually temper this a lot and then follow up with ground forces.
And why would a planetary defence not have "self-targeted, guided missiles" (not that either the Rapier or S-300 fits those descriptions either)?
Many here seem to think that Spaceships would have superior weaponry to planets - why? Planets can have MUCH larger guns, missiles and lasers than ships can.
- 2
Details... details matter.
Actually I meant it as an argument for planetary assault. It happens very often during various liberations of other worlds or unifications with others. And they go through a lot of guardsmen to get things done. I don't remember how were things with planetary defences in W40K.
Anyway Gaunt's Ghosts series describe such actions with awesome details.
Missiles can be shot down, and if you're firing them up from a gravity well they can be shot down really easily since they'll be moving so slowly. Lasers take time on target to do their damage, so if a ship starts combat maneuvers as soon as it begins taking fire it could probably prevent its armor from being penetrated since it quickly moves the beam's destination either to another segment of armor or off of the ship entirely while the ship neutralizes the attacking battery. Projectiles may do their damage instantly, but move very slowly and can be seen coming. The ships are much more survivable because they can evade shots while ground installations probably can't.
Basically, as a wise yordle once said, you don't hurt 'em if you can't hit 'em.
- 1
- 1
Damn this must be single most pointless thread in all of the forum. 
and that's saying a lot.
Does it compute that there is a ground combat in game?
Can we please discuss it already?
and that's saying a lot.Does it compute that there is a ground combat in game?
Can we please discuss it already?
- 4
at this point wait for the thread to close then try againDamn this must be single most pointless thread in all of the forum.
Does it compute that there is a ground combat in game?
Can we please discuss it already?
- 2
- 2
Let's try this:
1. Old Man's War by John Scalzi has a interesting race, called Consu (if I remember correctly). This race was technologically very advanced but also highly ritualized (religious some would say) in the way they conducted warfare.
They would attack a planet by deploying ground troops, but would only deploy a level of technology similar to the defenders had, since this would mean that any victory would be more glorious.
They were willing to loose large amount of troops in order to do this, meanwhile they had such an advanced technology that were unstoppable in space.
2. A insectoid race that has no concept of personal lives (is hive like) would have no problem in loosing millions of troops in order to capture an intact infraestructure / biosphere. I'm thinking about The Commonwealth Saga by Peter F Hamilton.
These are two examples of aliens whose psichology/ethos allows or even demands ground combat.
In this game we really shouldn't focus solely in the Human way of doing things.
1. Old Man's War by John Scalzi has a interesting race, called Consu (if I remember correctly). This race was technologically very advanced but also highly ritualized (religious some would say) in the way they conducted warfare.
They would attack a planet by deploying ground troops, but would only deploy a level of technology similar to the defenders had, since this would mean that any victory would be more glorious.
They were willing to loose large amount of troops in order to do this, meanwhile they had such an advanced technology that were unstoppable in space.
2. A insectoid race that has no concept of personal lives (is hive like) would have no problem in loosing millions of troops in order to capture an intact infraestructure / biosphere. I'm thinking about The Commonwealth Saga by Peter F Hamilton.
These are two examples of aliens whose psichology/ethos allows or even demands ground combat.
In this game we really shouldn't focus solely in the Human way of doing things.
- 4
Wait were citing 40k as a realism debate now?.....
What exactly in warhammer follows actual physics or well any natural laws as currently understood by humanity for that matter?
As for kalnar, I suppose if your hundreds if not thousands of years in advance of your opponents you can do whatever the heck you like rather like the Predator's do with hunting humans for amusement. But taking on a foe that can actually fight back effectively versus you ie they are technologically comparable puts things in a rather different perspective.
Invading a planet with troops on the ground isn't how you'd minimize damage to the infrastructure anyway, have you ever seen or if not seen with your own eyes seen pictures of the aftermath of urban warfare with heavy weapons? The phase "it looks like a war zone" was coined for a reason. Forcing the planet to surrender is how you'd take a planet with its infrastructure mostly intact if that's what you were after whether your bugs or not.
What exactly in warhammer follows actual physics or well any natural laws as currently understood by humanity for that matter?
As for kalnar, I suppose if your hundreds if not thousands of years in advance of your opponents you can do whatever the heck you like rather like the Predator's do with hunting humans for amusement. But taking on a foe that can actually fight back effectively versus you ie they are technologically comparable puts things in a rather different perspective.
Invading a planet with troops on the ground isn't how you'd minimize damage to the infrastructure anyway, have you ever seen or if not seen with your own eyes seen pictures of the aftermath of urban warfare with heavy weapons? The phase "it looks like a war zone" was coined for a reason. Forcing the planet to surrender is how you'd take a planet with its infrastructure mostly intact if that's what you were after whether your bugs or not.
Last edited:
- 6
Damn this must be single most pointless thread in all of the forum.
Does it compute that there is a ground combat in game?
Can we please discuss it already?
A ground combat system that somewhat mirrors the space system would be nice. Maybe a sort of soft counter system (lasers/projectiles/melee vs shields/armor/range) that allows you to equip a range of planetary forces (perhaps infantry/armor/artillery/atmospheric aircraft) with different gear that determines their strength and behavior in battle. Each unit would have some drawback (perhaps infantry=population, armor=cost, artillery=damages infrastructure, aircraft=tech for planet type required). The species could get small bonuses based on their traits (Bulrathi-style high g heavy infantry, mech races superior tanks, avians better aircraft pilots, insectoids cheaper infantry, etc.). Then the combat could play out like the space battles or like a sci-fi version of Dominions 3, perhaps with some elements of the width system from EU4 and/or the flank system from CK2 to limit the power of massive infantry spam or super high-tech units. A low tech graphical reprentation of this would be great, especially if it featured planetary structures and terrain as part of the battlefield. Maybe having a general present would allow you to "equip" that general with a preset strategy that suits your army composition (hold the line, flank left, flank right, Cannae, armored breakthrough, frontal assault, etc.). Those things could be researchable somewhat like the HoI doctrines.
If that isn't in launch, I think that would be quality DLC material. Just my two cents, of course.
Last edited:
- 4
The static defense versus mobile attacker argument has been decisively resolved in favor of the attacker since 1940...
- 2
- 1
An interesting question would be how you hold a planet.
Let's assume the planet surrenders to you, but what ist after? Do you need an army to occupy the planet. Look at iraq and afghanistan, what happened their after the 'victory'.
And if you look at modern wars, none was won with only air raids. If you do not kill every man with bombs it, you do need ground troops. And why would I conquer a planet this way if I could simply take a barren planet and terraform it. You want the infrastructure and the pops. Otherwise it would be a waste of time and resources.
And one advantage does a planet have over the fleet. Energy. How many power plants can i have in a ship and how many can i have on a planet? If we have a shield technology, how strong is it with nearly infinite energy (remember star wars). How many missiles can a planetary infrastructure produce under such a shield? And how much bigger can they be if they start from a planet and not from the limited space of a ship? Every planet can be the the stronger brother of the deathstar.
Let's assume the planet surrenders to you, but what ist after? Do you need an army to occupy the planet. Look at iraq and afghanistan, what happened their after the 'victory'.
And if you look at modern wars, none was won with only air raids. If you do not kill every man with bombs it, you do need ground troops. And why would I conquer a planet this way if I could simply take a barren planet and terraform it. You want the infrastructure and the pops. Otherwise it would be a waste of time and resources.
And one advantage does a planet have over the fleet. Energy. How many power plants can i have in a ship and how many can i have on a planet? If we have a shield technology, how strong is it with nearly infinite energy (remember star wars). How many missiles can a planetary infrastructure produce under such a shield? And how much bigger can they be if they start from a planet and not from the limited space of a ship? Every planet can be the the stronger brother of the deathstar.
- 3
You send the whole population away into slave astroids or slave stations. In such places no food can be grown so if they try to make a revolt you can just starve them. In such places they would act as cheap labor to satisfy the empires population.
You don't give an enemy a second chance, if they decleared war on you once they will likely do it again and that time you may not be victorious and terminating the population is a bit of a waste.
You don't give an enemy a second chance, if they decleared war on you once they will likely do it again and that time you may not be victorious and terminating the population is a bit of a waste.
- 2