Best/Worse Troops in Sci-Fi

[Bob the Gunslinger]

If *all* sci-fi counts - and not just the serious stuff - I'd like to nominate the Democractic Order Of Planets. Why ?

Their highest decorated officer is Zap "I find the most erotic part of a women's body is the boobies" Brannigan

I rest my case.

Ah-ah-ah. You're forgetting Tod Spengo's (Jon Lovitz's) army in Mom and Dad Save the World. An entire legion of their troops died due to their stupidity and one "light grenade" with the words "PICK ME UP" printed on it. The second-to-last soldier calls for reinforcements.

Diabolical!

[Lord of the Abyss]

I thought the Goa'uld used them as actual troops when they fought each other. I never understood that, since if they really wanted to defeat each other then you'd think the pressures of warfare would force them to create better weapons or tactics, and it's not as if their wars are not serious, since they regularly kill one another and conquer one another's territory.

Competition only produces progress when variation exists. If everybody you meet does things the same, bad way, there is no pressure to improve.

Consider slavery, for example. Slavery is an economic drag on a society; slaves just aren't as good as free workers. Back when all "civilized" cultures held slaves, this wasn't a disadvantage because everybody crippled themselves the same way. When some cultures freed the slaves, they outcompeted the slaveholders; the obvious example of course is the slaveholding American South and the free North.

If all the Goa'uld use Jaffa, it's just like what happens when two corrupt, Third World thug armies fight. Both are awful, but the awfulness cancels out as long as they fight each other. When an outsider shows up with a less corrupt, more professional army, the flaws in the locals military suddenly become glaring. To quote SG 1 ( comparing staff weapons and ours ), "This is a weapon of terror; it scares the enemy. This is a weapon of war; it kills the enemy." .

[Uraniun235]

the obvious example of course is the slaveholding American South and the free North

That's not at all "the obvious example" because your comparison isn't a direct one. The North and the South operated on fundamentally different economies; the North was a primarily industrial economy, where the South was a primarily agrarian economy.

[HemlockGrey]

From what we've seen the modern US military would make short work of Cylon ground forces, and a salvo of nuclear missiles could probably take down a basestar (talking about neo-BSG here).

[Civil War Man]

the obvious example of course is the slaveholding American South and the free North

That's not at all "the obvious example" because your comparison isn't a direct one. The North and the South operated on fundamentally different economies; the North was a primarily industrial economy, where the South was a primarily agrarian economy.

Just to say this as an aside: One of the main reasons why slavery lasted so long in the South was because it had an agrarian economy. In an industrial economy, slaves in the literal sense are even more harmful to profits than normal, largely due to slaves requiring, for lack of a better term, upkeep. Everyone requires food, shelter, and the like. A master has to provide all of these things in order to keep his slaves in working condition.

However, the same was not true for the so-called "wage slaves" of the industrial north (largely made up of freed blacks and Irish immigrants). In the absence of an equalizer like government regulation or unions, bosses would only provide minimal pay and let the workers scrounge for the rest. If anyone complained, the worker base was large enough (after all, immigrants were flooding the cities looking for these jobs) that just about anybody could be replaced.

And even setting all of that aside, slavery in the South would have collapsed under its own weight if the cotton gin had not been invented.

Something that few take into account though, is that during the Civil War, when the South was cut off from the industrial base of the Union, they began to industrialize very rapidly. Not nearly enough to stave off the inevitable, but still done because for that time period they were forced to compete with the North instead of cooperating with them.

On top of that, there were several attempts by Southern politicians to emancipate the slaves and recruit them as soldiers for the army, but the more racist parts of the Confederate government shot that down pretty quick.

So when faced with a superior foe, the Confederacy was forced to try to improve themselves to be on par with the Union.

Basically, the North/South comparison in LotA's post holds, but for different reasons.

[Nephtys]

It pains me to say this, but Bab5's EA GROPOS take the cake for plain bad. Descended from Earth armies in about 250 years, they're like the Book MI, but uh... equipped with PPGs, and poor dropships. Who when trying to board an enemy installation, somehow degenerate to fighting with their bare hands in the middle of an energy-weapon fight. They don't even have grenades. Just teeny, fragile silver paintball guns that shoot plasma, short little silver squirt-pistols that shoot plasma, and uh... knuckles.

This is the same force that assumes a platoon strength boarding pod, docking in a totally unimportant slum sector with a ton of warning, can take over a space station of five hundred thousand people, kilometers long, with hundreds of security personel.

[Lord of the Abyss]

That's not at all "the obvious example" because your comparison isn't a direct one. The North and the South operated on fundamentally different economies; the North was a primarily industrial economy, where the South was a primarily agrarian economy.

And why was the South agrarian ? Largely, slavery. They didn't dare give slaves education, not even something as basic as reading. They stayed agrarian because they needed to if they wanted to keep slaves. The slaveowners simply didn't dare give slaves the education necessary to run a more modern economy, much less access to any number of poisonous/flammable/explosive substances and tools.

However, the same was not true for the so-called "wage slaves" of the industrial north (largely made up of freed blacks and Irish immigrants). In the absence of an equalizer like government regulation or unions, bosses would only provide minimal pay and let the workers scrounge for the rest. If anyone complained, the worker base was large enough (after all, immigrants were flooding the cities looking for these jobs) that just about anybody could be replaced.

Another point; as badly as the "wage slaves" of the time were treated, they had something to lose; at the very least, they typically had wives/husbands/children. Slaves were different. If you sell somebody's mother or children, they are much more likely to decide they have nothing to live for, and do something like arrange a boiler explosion or toss a torch into a bunch of explosives. Uneducated slaves stuck in a field can't usually manage to do that much damage as individuals; in an industrial economy, one person at the right place can do lots of harm if he knows what to do.

This may sound paranoid, but that's precisely what slavers were like : paranoid. That's what happens when you spend your life making large numbers of people with nothing to lose murderously angry with you.

[Ender]

Good - the military forces of schlock mercenary. Well equipped and professional.

Bad- Jaffa.

[Uraniun235]

From what we've seen the modern US military would make short work of Cylon ground forces, and a salvo of nuclear missiles could probably take down a basestar (talking about neo-BSG here).

I'd find it hard to believe that Basestars have no anti-missile defenses.

That's not at all "the obvious example" because your comparison isn't a direct one. The North and the South operated on fundamentally different economies; the North was a primarily industrial economy, where the South was a primarily agrarian economy.

And why was the South agrarian ? Largely, slavery. They didn't dare give slaves education, not even something as basic as reading. They stayed agrarian because they needed to if they wanted to keep slaves. The slaveowners simply didn't dare give slaves the education necessary to run a more modern economy, much less access to any number of poisonous/flammable/explosive substances and tools.

Or... they made a shit-ton of money on cotton and tobacco, for which there was great demand in Europe, and weren't about to give that up in order to directly compete with the established and powerful Northern economy.

One of the main reasons why slavery lasted so long in the South was because it had an agrarian economy. In an industrial economy, slaves in the literal sense are even more harmful to profits than normal, largely due to slaves requiring, for lack of a better term, upkeep.

I'm not sure how slaves being unprofitable in an industrial economy is relevant to their utility and/or profitability in an agrarian economy, especially one where millions of immigrants are not coming in looking to pick cotton all day, unlike the cities of the North.

So when faced with a superior foe, the Confederacy was forced to try to improve themselves to be on par with the Union.

The Confederacy could have never out-produced the established industrial base of the Union, though. Their strength was in making a shit-ton of cotton and other agricultural products, and trading it for manufactured goods. The climate and soil of the South was especially suited to this; as part of a greater American economy, it made sense for the South to focus on the cash crops while the North focused on industrialization.

If Europe had been willing to immediately recognize and trade with the Confederacy, they would not have needed to industrialize so much, because they could have traded their crops for war material; and that much war material being brought in throughout the war would have certainly evened things up a bit between the two sides.

The Confederacy wasn't even felled so much by the Union's unmatchable industrial capacity; what really killed it in the long run was the lack of any strong central government, which was needed to organize a (more) effective defense against the Union. A strong central government could have ordered slaves to be emancipated for combat duty, could have ordered state militias to operate in a manner that would support key operations, and could have more forcefully demanded state contributions to the greater war effort.

Basically, the North/South comparison in LotA's post holds, but for different reasons.

The closest thing you've done is argue that an industrial economy is inherently more competitive than an agrarian economy, but that's not what LotA was attempting to argue with his remark, and is therefore not relevant to my criticism that his comparison is invalid because the two economies being compared are fundamentally different.

A valid argument for the inefficiency of slaves based on that kind of comparison, however, would be to take two agrarian economies of roughly the same technological era, one heavily utilizing slaves and the other not, and compare their per capita profits. One could then make a conclusion based on this comparison as to whether or not slaves are a profitable endeavour for that era.

[SylasGaunt]

Ah-ah-ah. You're forgetting Tod Spengo's (Jon Lovitz's) army in Mom and Dad Save the World. An entire legion of their troops died due to their stupidity and one "light grenade" with the words "PICK ME UP" printed on it. The second-to-last soldier calls for reinforcements.

Diabolical!

Yes, they do indeed take the cake. I doubt anyone mentioned here could fall for that Light Grenade more than once.

And to think, their leader was almost able to turn his planet into an Uber-Death Star capable of sniping planets from lightyears away.

[SirNitram]

If Europe had been willing to immediately recognize and trade with the Confederacy, they would not have needed to industrialize so much, because they could have traded their crops for war material; and that much war material being brought in throughout the war would have certainly evened things up a bit between the two sides.

I hate to extend this off-topic ramble of someone unable to get that the factors which led to the Civil War are inextricably linked to the slavery/agrian economy they developed, but I have to say something.

Europe was not about to help the Confederacy. The major powers had been working to stamp out the practice. The British Empire, as an example, had actually paid entire nations for the costs of shifting their economy away from the practice. Folks like this aren't gonna help out a bunch of revolutionaries who attacked their own government over their refusal to change their economic model, not when it means compromising years and fortunes spent placating the abolitionists of their own turf.

[18-Till-I-Die]

If Europe had been willing to immediately recognize and trade with the Confederacy, they would not have needed to industrialize so much, because they could have traded their crops for war material; and that much war material being brought in throughout the war would have certainly evened things up a bit between the two sides.

I hate to extend this off-topic ramble of someone unable to get that the factors which led to the Civil War are inextricably linked to the slavery/agrian economy they developed, but I have to say something.

Europe was not about to help the Confederacy. The major powers had been working to stamp out the practice. The British Empire, as an example, had actually paid entire nations for the costs of shifting their economy away from the practice. Folks like this aren't gonna help out a bunch of revolutionaries who attacked their own government over their refusal to change their economic model, not when it means compromising years and fortunes spent placating the abolitionists of their own turf.

Huh.

I didnt know the Europeans back then actually were trying that hard to stamp out slavery. I knew that most had long since abandoned the practice and wanted to get rid of it, but i had no idea they actually PAID people cold hard cash to stop it. Thats...oddly civilized for that time, i mean considering how most people viewed non-whites then. Or do i misunderstand the reasoning behind it?

Oh and again, i learned more here, at a Star Wars fansite, than i did at school. Yay public shools.

[Imperial Overlord]

Huh.

I didnt know the Europeans back then actually were trying that hard to stamp out slavery. I knew that most had long since abandoned the practice and wanted to get rid of it, but i had no idea they actually PAID people cold hard cash to stop it. Thats...oddly civilized for that time, i mean considering how most people viewed non-whites then. Or do i misunderstand the reasoning behind it?

Despite the fact that the Brits stood to make considerable profits from taking part in the slave trade, the British electorate was strongly oppossed to it on moral grounds. They not only outlawed slavery throughout the empire, they pushed other nations into getting rid of it, and used the Royal Navy to maintain an anti-slavery blockade.

This isn't to say that the Brits were paragons of virtue and tolerance, but slavery did appall them. A lot of Naval officers weren't too enthusiastic about the blockade, but the conditions on the slave ships they stopped made a lot of converts.

[Zorak]

I'd have to say the Best Troops in Sci-Fi would have to be the Fedaykin/ Fremen troops. I mean come on, they're knife wielding troops from the middle of the desert who are able to take on the Emperor's most elitely trained soldiers, and not just trade blows but easily surpass them in skill. The Sardaukar were IMMENSELY feared throughout the Empire, but the Fremen (and their elite, the Fedakyin) just kicked their ass heavily. They were like.... sand ninjas or something. Plus their tactics were very efficient (using the enviroment itself in the form of preventing the use of wather sattelites and later on in Dune when they used the Shai-Hulud to attack the Emperor's ship. They had ingenious leadership, and managed to conquer the known galaxy with relative ease.

And worst.... uh, I'd have to agree that the Signs Aliens do take the cake.

[Lord of the Abyss]

In terms of worst troops, I have to vote for Signs aliens too. Really, short of naked, unarmed troops that burst in flames on contact with our air, I can't see how troops could be worse.

[Uraniun235]

May I suggest that this whole Confederacy tangent be split to it's own thread?

I hate to extend this off-topic ramble of someone unable to get that the factors which led to the Civil War are inextricably linked to the slavery/agrian economy they developed, but I have to say something.

Where are you getting this from? I'm not a Confederate apologist, I know that the Civil War was basically over slavery, and that this conflict had simmered since the drafting of the Constitution. I have no love for the Confederacy.

Europe was not about to help the Confederacy. The major powers had been working to stamp out the practice. The British Empire, as an example, had actually paid entire nations for the costs of shifting their economy away from the practice. Folks like this aren't gonna help out a bunch of revolutionaries who attacked their own government over their refusal to change their economic model, not when it means compromising years and fortunes spent placating the abolitionists of their own turf.

A little quick Googling suggests that while the European governments were rather hesitant to support a pro-slavery nation (despite so much of Britain's economy being tied to American cotton!), the only thing stopping European citizens from trading supplies for cotton was the Union blockade; cotton trade continued (albeit at a significantly reduced rate) throughout the war.

Furthermore, the Confederacy might have had a chance (albeit a small one) at arguing that the Union blockade was in fact not legally binding (as the 1856 Treaty of Paris declared that "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.") if they had not tried to impose a cotton embargo in an attempt to pressure Europe into coming to their side - at that point, I suspect (although I am not an expert on maritime law and thus am willing to concede that my assessment here is in error) that the merchantmen of Europe could then freely make the attempt to land at Confederate ports, and, when detained by Union naval forces, provoke the navies of Europe into providing escort to said Confederate ports as they would not recognize the legitimacy of the blockade. Again, this is a very slim possibility.

While your post accurately judges the hypothetical scenario of Europe recognizing the Confederacy as extremely improbable, it does nothing to address the facts that the South's greatest strength was in agricultural trade, that it would almost certainly be unable to directly compete with Northern industry, and that the Confederacy's best bet was to trade cotton for manufactured supplies (which in fact did not require the recognizance of European governments, although the Confederate attempts to court their favor was ultimately detrimental).

[SirNitram]

I didnt know the Europeans back then actually were trying that hard to stamp out slavery. I knew that most had long since abandoned the practice and wanted to get rid of it, but i had no idea they actually PAID people cold hard cash to stop it. Thats...oddly civilized for that time, i mean considering how most people viewed non-whites then. Or do i misunderstand the reasoning behind it?

Well, there's alot of famous things that were said. My favorite is thus, from a 1772 case. It's the ruling of the judge, William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, as he rules that slavery has no basis in the laws of England.

"the air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe, and so everyone who breathes it becomes free. Everyone who comes to this island is entitled to the protection of English law, whatever oppression he may have suffered and whatever may be the colour of his skin."

While the purity of the air went down with the rise of industry, the intent did not. Unfortunately, the ruling held across Britain, but not in the colonies.

The East India Company would be one of the chief profiteers of the continued slave trade, which, when you account all the private groups in the Empire, swapped around a million individuals between 1782 and 1807. 1807 saw Parliment respond to mounting pressure by banning the slave trade, and issuing orders to the Royal Navy to deliver the, shall we say, beat-down upon those trading in human lives. Large sums were paid to get a few other nations out of the trade.

Total rejection of slavery would come in 1833, when the East India Company found itself hemoragging cash at a massive boycott spurned on by the abolitionist movement. At that point, the Empire shelled out cash to the colonies to rework their industry so they wouldn't need it, including twenty million pounds to the Carribean.

That's about all I remember in detail. Hope that sates your thirst for knowledge. If not, there should be about eleventy-seven books on the subject.

[SirNitram]

May I suggest that this whole Confederacy tangent be split to it's own thread?

I hate to extend this off-topic ramble of someone unable to get that the factors which led to the Civil War are inextricably linked to the slavery/agrian economy they developed, but I have to say something.

Where are you getting this from? I'm not a Confederate apologist, I know that the Civil War was basically over slavery, and that this conflict had simmered since the drafting of the Constitution. I have no love for the Confederacy.

If I'm mistaking folks here, I apologize. But it's more than just slavery itself; it's worth noting the economic situations of the time, including the tariffs and factionalism, were spurned on by the economy that was formed.

Europe was not about to help the Confederacy. The major powers had been working to stamp out the practice. The British Empire, as an example, had actually paid entire nations for the costs of shifting their economy away from the practice. Folks like this aren't gonna help out a bunch of revolutionaries who attacked their own government over their refusal to change their economic model, not when it means compromising years and fortunes spent placating the abolitionists of their own turf.

A little quick Googling suggests that while the European governments were rather hesitant to support a pro-slavery nation (despite so much of Britain's economy being tied to American cotton!), the only thing stopping European citizens from trading supplies for cotton was the Union blockade; cotton trade continued (albeit at a significantly reduced rate) throughout the war.

Trade did indeed continue; I half-remember a sailor's ditty about the American Squabble. However, there's a rather large gulf between buying your cotton and supplying military aid.

Furthermore, the Confederacy might have had a chance (albeit a small one) at arguing that the Union blockade was in fact not legally binding (as the 1856 Treaty of Paris declared that "Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.") if they had not tried to impose a cotton embargo in an attempt to pressure Europe into coming to their side - at that point, I suspect (although I am not an expert on maritime law and thus am willing to concede that my assessment here is in error) that the merchantmen of Europe could then freely make the attempt to land at Confederate ports, and, when detained by Union naval forces, provoke the navies of Europe into providing escort to said Confederate ports as they would not recognize the legitimacy of the blockade. Again, this is a very slim possibility.

It's actually fairly ridiculous, to be honest. The Europeans have zero gain for provoking the Unionists, and since these are merchantmen, they aren't going to do it unless there's big bags of gold involved. Whether the blockade was legal or not ultimately doesn't mean anything; the Europeans were going to run the blockade and trade for cotton either way. They're not going to start a war over it, not when the European attitude is that it's just some stupid revolutionaries trying to uphold the corrupt edifice of slavery.

While your post accurately judges the hypothetical scenario of Europe recognizing the Confederacy as extremely improbable, it does nothing to address the facts that the South's greatest strength was in agricultural trade, that it would almost certainly be unable to directly compete with Northern industry, and that the Confederacy's best bet was to trade cotton for manufactured supplies (which in fact did not require the recognizance of European governments, although the Confederate attempts to court their favor was ultimately detrimental).

Frankly, there was no way for them to get the manufactured goods they needed to win the war, because the major players in Europe weren't going to undo the last fifty years of vast payouts to end slavery just to arm some revolutionaries.

The military supplies simply will not come.

[Skylon]

It pains me to say this, but Bab5's EA GROPOS take the cake for plain bad. Descended from Earth armies in about 250 years, they're like the Book MI, but uh... equipped with PPGs, and poor dropships. Who when trying to board an enemy installation, somehow degenerate to fighting with their bare hands in the middle of an energy-weapon fight. They don't even have grenades. Just teeny, fragile silver paintball guns that shoot plasma, short little silver squirt-pistols that shoot plasma, and uh... knuckles.

This is the same force that assumes a platoon strength boarding pod, docking in a totally unimportant slum sector with a ton of warning, can take over a space station of five hundred thousand people, kilometers long, with hundreds of security personel.

1) The population of B5 is 250,000. Half what you stated. Also, a comparative fraction of that are people you're going to have to fight. Most are civilians who are going to say holed up in their quarters until the fighting is over.

2) As far as the grenades go, would YOU bring grenades aboard a ship in the B5 universe? Part of the reason PPG's have taken over as the chief weapon of Earthforce is because of the possibility of bullets puncturing the hull. Grenades for boarding parties is likely then a no-no.

3) If you watch "Severed Dreams" some of the Marines were touting the heavier version of the PPG rifle. There's the silver one and another type. I'll see if I can find a photo...

4) They were in close quarters and the Narn strategy seemed to be "run up and fight hand to hand". Considering Narns took up half of B5's security force after the Nightwatch fiasco, I can see how the fight degenerated into hand-to-hand.

5) Brown sector is the outer-hull area. They'd kinda have to board there first.

6) I know this doesn't count as its not an on-screen thing, but JMS addressed the issue of one boarding pod on usenet, noting that others had probably been with the assault group but were either taken out by B5's Starfuries/defense grid or boarded in other areas and we weren't shown that action.

[The Dark]

1807 saw Parliment respond to mounting pressure by banning the slave trade *snip*

Total rejection of slavery would come in 1833 *snip*

Interestingly, the United Kingdom and United States abolished slave trading in the same year. Arguably, it was the better growing climate (compared to Britain proper), lack of neighboring nations (compared to India), and slow industrialization of the American South (which had been a source of squabbling since the Colonial era) which led to the preservation of the institution of slavery for 30 years beyond when the Brits abolished it. The BBC has a good timeline covering slavery and the slave trade.

[Oskuro]

Well, it'll be redundant to point again at the effectiviy of the Imperial Troops or the Imperium Forces... But I'd like to point out several soldier types that could be pretty effective if combined with proper support (The fact that these units are generally seen without support is generally due to the situation they are presented in).

-Kull Warriors (Stargate SG-1): Obviously, Anubis was aware of his lack of effective troops. They mix cloning, with Goa'uld enhancement and superb armor and weaponry... And the most effective weapon aganist them is in very sort supply, and not terribly effective at sttoping a wave of them. Scary.

-Disintegrator Droids (Space Truckers): Hilariously bad movie. Neat baddies. They work very nicely. To those who have not seen them, they are large, black, bio-droids (a kind of biological interior of sorts) with a disintegrator cannon instead of their head, and switchblades on their arms. One of those beats a whole defense army (with tanks and aircraft) on the opening scene.

-Predators: Although they qualify as special forces, a proper army of these would be scary too.

--------------------------
Now, about all this talk regarding the Stormtrooper's lack of accuracy... Didn't ObiWan, when discussing the Jawa massacre, elaborate on the precission of Stormtroopers?


And I was just thinking... There are many armies on the WH40k universe and people, usually, just consider those of the Imperium. I'd actually take the Orks. Appart from the absolute neatness of their greenish chaotic nature (heh), consider this: The average, unenhanced Ork is a match for an Space Marine. They are born en masse (spore reproduction and all), and upon birth they are fully mature and with all the necessary knowledge in their minds, wich means they require no training. They have this strange power to make things work because they BELIVE they should work (Red is faster!)... And worse of all... No need for brainwashed zealots or the like... They are genetically engineered to LOVE fights! To the point that they spend a 100% of their time preparing for or doing battle, and as such are always ready, fit, and green.

Also, Orks make the tactic of "running up to your opponent wielding a crudely designed hand-to-hand weapon" an art. Klingons should learn from them and paint themselves green.

Oh well, enough Ork-wanking for now

[omegaLancer]

I'd have to say the Best Troops in Sci-Fi would have to be the Fedaykin/ Fremen troops. I mean come on, they're knife wielding troops from the middle of the desert who are able to take on the Emperor's most elitely trained soldiers, and not just trade blows but easily surpass them in skill. The Sardaukar were IMMENSELY feared throughout the Empire, but the Fremen (and their elite, the Fedakyin) just kicked their ass heavily. They were like.... sand ninjas or something. Plus their tactics were very efficient (using the enviroment itself in the form of preventing the use of wather sattelites and later on in Dune when they used the Shai-Hulud to attack the Emperor's ship. They had ingenious leadership, and managed to conquer the known galaxy with relative ease.

And worst.... uh, I'd have to agree that the Signs Aliens do take the cake.

For all their so call skill, They still would have been own by any army with descent mechanize forces, and this is directly from Dune Messiah when Paul ponder the possibility of some of the House fielding such a force..

[Sea Skimmer]

2) As far as the grenades go, would YOU bring grenades aboard a ship in the B5 universe? Part of the reason PPG's have taken over as the chief weapon of Earthforce is because of the possibility of bullets puncturing the hull. Grenades for boarding parties is likely then a no-no.

Even if the hull is vulnerable to fragmentation grenades (in which case the hull is weaker then modern body armor, and the whole station could be knocked out by a strafing WW1 fighter left adrift by the Space Shuttle) that doesn't mean you can't use any grenades at all. Flash bangs and concussion grenades would just be quite viable, and highly effective.

[Uraniun235]

And I was just thinking... There are many armies on the WH40k universe and people, usually, just consider those of the Imperium. I'd actually take the Orks. Appart from the absolute neatness of their greenish chaotic nature (heh), consider this: The average, unenhanced Ork is a match for an Space Marine. They are born en masse (spore reproduction and all), and upon birth they are fully mature and with all the necessary knowledge in their minds, wich means they require no training. They have this strange power to make things work because they BELIVE they should work (Red is faster!)... And worse of all... No need for brainwashed zealots or the like... They are genetically engineered to LOVE fights! To the point that they spend a 100% of their time preparing for or doing battle, and as such are always ready, fit, and green.

Also, Orks make the tactic of "running up to your opponent wielding a crudely designed hand-to-hand weapon" an art. Klingons should learn from them and paint themselves green.

Oh well, enough Ork-wanking for now

And what will you do with your Ork army after the war has been won, hmm?

[Aktariel]

I nominate the Rix for best...though they are basically everything but soldiers. Commandoes, assassins...you name it. Like the Cadre, but better.

Worst? Gotta go clean the cum off my tv from all that klingon-honor wank. And the Signs tape is clogged hopelessly with M-Night-Shyamalan wank