What if the Empire invaded modern day Earth?

[Star Wars 888]

Quite.
If the imperials can establish themselves for a short time (say, a year) and only in parts of the world, they will still have the means to subjugate it - not directly, but with tribute. Just by building a couple of spacestations and threatening everyone with orbital drops of stuff.

And they can also establish real allicances - even very low-tech for the imperials is super-advanced for us. A efficient fusion reactor alone would be a immense blessing and every nation would be glad to have it.

And your argument is "zomg when the tie fighters run out of fuel we won't be able to attack them because they're on the moon!"

Yet that begs the question as to how the tie fighter pilots survive when they're stranded on the moon with no fuel.

[Batman]

The Eta-2 (you know, the one the TIE is supposed to have 80% of the speed of) is EXPLICITELY STATED TO BE UNSHIELDED.
Not that TIEs are necessarily unshielded. We see in ANH that at least SOME of them are.

Strangely enough, another source, the Clone Wars campaign guide, lists the speed of the Eta 2 to be 1,500 kph when in an atmosphere.

Tough luck. The ICS is higher canon. Look up the official LFL canon policy sometime.

BTW, are you sure that those figures are for in atmosphere flight?

Yes. That'd be the part where EVERY LAST ONE of those kph figures is EXPLICITLY STATED TO BE.

Which is relevant to your stupidity about them NEEDING repulsorlift because they don't have landing gear how?

Ok, they may not need repulsorlifts, but on the ground they'd be vulnerable to attack.

Really. THAT comes as a shock. I was mocking your abjectly stupid allegation that they need repulsorlift to sit on the ground due to not having landing gear..

There is when you're firing straight down a gravity well. You know, like TIEs in orbit firing on targets on Earth's surface.

And tie fighters aren't as accurate as you think they.

Here's your 'are' (that'll be 2.99 plus tax, we have a sale on verbs today) and your evidence for this is?

And not lasers is NOT the same as plasma.

I didn't claim that lasers were plasma. I claimed that Star Wars's "laser cannons" are plasma.

As evidenced by...

No, because the bullet would drop to the ground thanks to gravity and friction. The TIE fighter is firing STRAIGHT DOWN FROM ORBIT. If we assume WHATEVER Wars laser cannon fire has mass gravity actually INCREASES their firepower in this case.
Just how stupid are you?

Even if I had a laser, could I hit the Hoover Dam from Toronto simply because it's stationary, big and the laser would not be noticeable affected by gravity?

Probably not, because the Earth itself would get in the way (that pesky horizon thing for line of sight weapons). Not a problem when you're firing down from orbit.

No I didn't. Neither did Solauren far as I can recall.

Then what's with the "zomg tie fighters go to the moon and bomb us!" wanking?

Err-that never happened? Nobody ever said TIE fighters could attack targets on Earth FROM the moon?

I never stated TIEs had ls ranges to begin with, and neither did Solauren. That was entirely YOUR idea. I don't have to show proof for a point I never made to begin with.
So, you know TIEs AREN'T designed to fight at those ranges because?

By claiming that tie fighters can hit us from the moon you are saying that they can fire at those ranges.

A pity NOBODY EVER SAID THAT. Serafina has stated TIEs can REACH the moon (which they can) and several people have stated TIEs can hit targets on Earth from orbit (which they can). I demand a quote of anybody saying they could actually hit targets on Earth FROM the moon.

Although you didn't directly make the assertion, it's a prerequisite for your plan to work and thus you need to prove it.

I would, if I ever asserted something like that to begin with. And it is NOT my plan. It is Serafinas, and I'm still waiting for the quote that shows her saying the TIES would FIRE from the moon, as opposed to the Imperials simply moving operations there.

Said by whom? I don't recall anything beyond 'can hit targets on Earth from orbit' coming from anybody EXCEPT you but I certainly don'T have perfect memory so if you have the quote?

Did you even read the past few pages? Or the posts that I was responding to? That's been one of the main arguments on your side; that tie fighters can go the moon and hit us from hundreds of thousands of miles away.

Quote. The Imperials can go to the moon with impunity, and they can attack us FROM ORBIT with impunity. Show where anybody said the TIEs can attack us FROM THE MOON.

All over the EU fuckface? X-Wing novels, NJO...
And that's ignoring that ANYTHING with that kind of acceleration has effectively INFINITE range. Boost, coast, unboost.
Let's give the TIE 20 seconds of endurance on a 1000gs (we know they have much much more) and 48 hours of consumables. That's a range of 17 million kilometers right there while MASSIVELY lowballing acceleration AND powered endurance.

Example?

How about all the ICS examples I gave you? There's your accelerations (unless you want to argue TIEs are massively slower than Clone Wars era fighters). Curiously enough, not one of them ran out of fuel after less than half a minute in the movies.

That's Serafina's problem, not mine. I was just commenting on your stupidity in thinking they'd need repulsorlift to stay in orbit.

Basically, you're nitpicking minor points on my post.

Probably. So? Doesn't change the fact that was massively stupid.

[Connor MacLeod]

Each of those applies as well to Star Destroyer firepower as they do to Death Star scaled firepower.

Yes, it potentially does, and there is every possibility it may not scale linearly. It cannot be assumed but it is not neccesarily impossible either. And at the same time I kind of doubt something like the Death Star could just pop out of thin air from say, a universe whose most advanced capital ship weapons and defences were merely kiloton range. R&D does not not simply work like a RTS game. (Moving the death star alone would be a massive feat too, even if its not nearly as impressive as blowing up a planet was (even if we're talking single digit accelerations even.) And even if they can't use it in a reactor the way often assumed, that doesn't mean it wouldn't apply in other manners (building warheads, for example.) And the sorts of forcefield tech needed to contain, direct, and handle that kind of firepower have implications on their own as well.

So no, linear scaling isn't neccesarily the answer, but at the same time one cannot simply dismiss what the Death Star represents in terms of SW capabilities. Stuff like that doesn't come out of thin air, like I said.

It would make more sense to use the smallest possible ship to do the job, so you can maximize the total number per produced output. If the potential exists to make a ship with Star Destroyer equivalent capability, but in a smaller package, they'd want to exploit it - it allows more ships to be built at equal cost.

Which they may very well. We know they have lots of ships smaller than an ISD after all. There's nothing wrong with that. And evne big warships may not be built to the same level of capability, or of equally same materials. (something less resilient but cheaper might suffice too.) So you could have a large number of "low quality" ISDs (which might be the WEG types we see) and then a smaller number of higher quality ISDs (which might represent the canon movies.)

And yes, the capability to build ISD capabilities in a smaller frame arguably exists. The problem is, however.. that that either represents a specialization or some sort of tradeoff (decrease in operational range or endurance, reduced engine/hyperdrive performance, lower mass, etc.) R&D in SW, while it exists, is neither rapid nor magic.

No, this was e=mc^2 specifically. Look at the density the Death Star would have to have to have mass inside it to convert to energy. It was done earlier in this thread: about 10x that of lead, excluding the actual structure! And that's only for a single shot. If reloading requires a small moon to be delivered to it each shot, cool (good bye to the main site's Death Star power output number though). If no, then it must have even more density, when it is already obscenely high.

The other alternative is hypermatter might have insane density and repulsor lifts are everywhere to hide its gravity, or E=mc^2 doesn't actually apply here.

Yes, but no matter how you try to explain it away its going to be fantastically implausible. Noone ever claimed SW was realistic (but if they did they need their heads examined.) I doubt carrying insane amounts of fuel is any worse than somehow getting more energy from a given quantity of fuel somehow, running off some extra-dimensional power tap, having it magically beamed to the ship (or the fuel transferred from some other, stationary source via magic wormhole) or whatever.

Non-linear scaling with volume. That explains weak stardestroyers, weaker starfighters, but strong death star all at the same time.

Just a second. What exactly are you proposing as the upper limit capabilities for Star Destoryers, starfighters, or whatever, since you consider anything derived from the DS implausible. Its rather hard to debate based on ambiguities.

If you have something specific with the logic, bring it up. The dodging part is conceded, but that just means there's no disproof of the high acceleration, not that there is proof of it. Mike's number of 1000g for X-Wings remains pure bullshit, for the reason I gave on page 6. (Not necessarily wrong, but definitely not proven.)

Again what is the problem? Do you want someone to admit that the Yavin incident could allow for a different interpretation? fine. The acceleration could be less than thousands of gees. I honstly never got much more than several hundred gees but that is also far different from saying "there is no possible way to get thousands of gees from that."

[Serafina]

MoronWars 888, here is a tip. It's free:
Learn to read or shut the fuck up.


My plan was simply to use the moon as a base for shuttles, TIEs etc. early on. Simply because reaching it is not problem at all for TIEs and you are utterly invulnerable there.
But hey, if you want a nice atmosphere outside, go somewhere else - like antartica or the Himalaya or anything like that. It's nearly as good.

LATER ON, orbiting space stations (build from all that tribute and with the aid of immense lifting capability) and a moon base provide safe havens AND you can drop stuff from there. Like rocks. And rocks falling from orbit tend to do a lot of damage. They are not precise, but it's enough to show everyone that continuin to pay that tribute is a REALLY good idea.
So even if the TIEs broke down beyond repair at that point, you still rule the wavesworld.

My overall plan reduces fuel requirement, stress on your compat equipment and most importantly - it completely replaces the need to hold any territory. It works completely on fast hit&run raids which cost little fuel and where you will sustaint next to no casualities because earth forces can not react fast enough.
Given that those raids can cripple any country you like, extorting tribute is easy. And given that there is no mean to resist, your magical earth alliance will no longer resist.

[Star Wars 888]

@Batman:

Read my rebuttal to Solauren on page 14 (I quoted his post in my rebuttal).

@Serafina:

I made the argument that tie fighters would eventually run out of fuel and would be screwed. You refuted by asking how they would be attacked when they're on the moon.

Basically, you were claiming that the tie fighters would be on the moon when they ran out of fuel. I'm pretty sure that you can figure out the problems that such a situation would cause.

Your idea of the imperials somehow setting up a base on the moon doesn't make any sense. How do they get AT-ATs, AT-STs or stormtroopers there and back?

[Batman]

@Batman:
Read my rebuttal to Solauren on page 14 (I quoted his post in my rebuttal).

Okay. He never actually stated TIEs have that kind of range but it was heavily implied from context. Conceded that he apparently DID assume TIEs to have that kind of range. Doesn't change the fact that they CAN hit targets from a range where there's jack all we can do about it.

@Serafina:
I made the argument that tie fighters would eventually run out of fuel and would be screwed.

The problem being you blithely assume 'eventually' to be 'pretty much after a handful of sorties', which is GARBAGE. If the ground troops have supplies to keep them going from one end of the americas to the other there'll be fuel and spare parts to keep the TIEs going.

[Aaron]

So are we to assume that the force was just dumped on Earth? No dropships or anything?

[Serafina]

I made the argument that tie fighters would eventually run out of fuel and would be screwed. You refuted by asking how they would be attacked when they're on the moon.

Basically, you were claiming that the tie fighters would be on the moon when they ran out of fuel. I'm pretty sure that you can figure out the problems that such a situation would cause.

Your idea of the imperials somehow setting up a base on the moon doesn't make any sense. How do they get AT-ATs, AT-STs or stormtroopers there and back?

Hey, guess what moron:
You utterly ignore my point that my plan drastically reduces fuel requirements.

As for getting stuff to the moon: How about all these landing crafts they HAVE to have? Else, how do they get to earth in the first place? And a craft that can carry a AT-AT can easilly carry parts for a moon base as well.+

And your OP is still retarted. So you want a szenario without supply line and capships. But you can't handwave supplies and landing craft away without being an utter retard - or rather, making the invading force utterly retarded.
Besides, your own OP states the following:

enough supplies to last them from North to South America
as much knowledge on the world's militaries as is available to the public

There. You assumed a standard military campaign that would last months, since your tiny brain can't grasp anything else.
If we take my plan instead, the supplies given in the OP last far longer and easily long enough to subjugate the world and create permament bases to maintain that superiority.
My plan works. That you are too stupid to get it is not my problem.

So are we to assume that the force was just dumped on Earth? No dropships or anything?

He does, apparently. Which is utterly retarded, since they have to get there somewhere.

[Star Wars 888]

I made the argument that tie fighters would eventually run out of fuel and would be screwed. You refuted by asking how they would be attacked when they're on the moon.

Basically, you were claiming that the tie fighters would be on the moon when they ran out of fuel. I'm pretty sure that you can figure out the problems that such a situation would cause.

Your idea of the imperials somehow setting up a base on the moon doesn't make any sense. How do they get AT-ATs, AT-STs or stormtroopers there and back?

Hey, guess what moron:
You utterly ignore my point that my plan drastically reduces fuel requirements.

As for getting stuff to the moon: How about all these landing crafts they HAVE to have? Else, how do they get to earth in the first place? And a craft that can carry a AT-AT can easilly carry parts for a moon base as well.+

And your OP is still retarted. So you want a szenario without supply line and capships. But you can't handwave supplies and landing craft away without being an utter retard - or rather, making the invading force utterly retarded.
Besides, your own OP states the following:

enough supplies to last them from North to South America
as much knowledge on the world's militaries as is available to the public

There. You assumed a standard military campaign that would last months, since your tiny brain can't grasp anything else.
If we take my plan instead, the supplies given in the OP last far longer and easily long enough to subjugate the world and create permament bases to maintain that superiority.
My plan works. That you are too stupid to get it is not my problem.

So are we to assume that the force was just dumped on Earth? No dropships or anything?

He does, apparently. Which is utterly retarded, since they have to get there somewhere.

You clearly miss the point of this thread. Does the premise make sense? No! That's why it's hypothetical. Realistically (well, not really since the invasion force is from a fictional series) the Empire could easily conquer modern Earth if they manage to get here. Star destroyers and such would be beyond our current capability to defeat.

Therefore, you are basically admitting that your plan is wack and that therefore try and modify an OP that you didn't make in order to fit with your side.







If you want a reason for why they don't have space transports in this scenario though how about this:

The imperials somehow find a way to travel to our galaxy through a wormhole or something. They send a star destroyer and lots of transports to invade us. However, the Rebels figure out this plan and manage to plant a bunch of powerful Star Wars level bombs on the star destroyer. When they get to Earth, the bombs go off and the star destroyers crash land in Brazil. The crash doesn't cause that much collateral damage to Earth but the star destroyers and transports are destroyed. The surviving forces and supplies are those that I listed in the OP.

[Batman]

For all we know the Imperials got dropped on Earth via act of Q/ROB/God/whatever. While the OP force composition IS stupid for somebody actually trying to take over the planet, it's the force composition we have to work with in this thread. We do NOT get to assume they have the spacegoing resources they'd need if this were an ordinary invasion.

[Serafina]

You clearly miss the point of this thread. Does the premise make sense? No! That's why it's hypothetical. Realistically (well, not really since the invasion force is from a fictional series) the Empire could easily conquer modern Earth if they manage to get here. Star destroyers and such would be beyond out capability to defeat.

So you admit that it is stupid.
We can easily devise a szenario that limits the forces. Perhaps a single transport ship got transported there by a wormhole and is now crippled. The survivors set down on earth. Voila, no capship support, no supply line, limited troops.
But given your stupidity, expecting you to actually put effort into your posts is too much.

Therefore, you are basically admitting that your plan is wack and that therefore try and modify an OP that you didn't make in order to fit with your side.

Hey, my plan doesn't need any ground troops at all, nor any dropships or shuttles. All it needs is the TIEs and the fuel supply you gave them in the OP. You are the one trying to chagne the OP here since you limit their fuel capacity contrary to what the OP stated.

[Star Wars 888]

We can easily devise a szenario that limits the forces. Perhaps a single transport ship got transported there by a wormhole and is now crippled. The survivors set down on earth. Voila, no capship support, no supply line, limited troops.
But given your stupidity, expecting you to actually put effort into your posts is too much.

I edited my posts to include a scenario. I'm not disputing that, if the invasion force gets a star destroyer, this is a spite thread. Hence why they do not in this thread.

Hey, my plan doesn't need any ground troops at all, nor any dropships or shuttles. All it needs is the TIEs and the fuel supply you gave them in the OP. You are the one trying to chagne the OP here since you limit their fuel capacity contrary to what the OP stated.

Your plan is for the invasion force to set up a base on the moon.

1. What about when the tie fighters run out of fuel?
2. How do they get AT-ATs there and back?
3. How do they get AT-STs there and back?
4. How do they get stormtroopers there?
Note: if you want to keep the ground forces on Earth and the tie fighters in space, then the ground forces would be fodder for air attacks and long range strikes. Well, except for the AT-ATs, which would run out of fuel.
5. How do they set up a base there?
6. How do they get supplies there?
7. How do they even survive there?

[Serafina]

Your plan is for the invasion force to set up a base on the moon.

No it isn't. Learn to read, your bloody moron.
That's PART of my plan, mostly because i love moon bases. And then it's only a long-term plan of the plan and can easily be replaced by space stations which have to be built anyway.

My plan is to use quick hit&run attacks rather than a standard military campaign and to demand tribute instead of trying to occupy territory.
You have not adressed that at all, nor it's implications - namely that that plan is fast and effective and removes all weaknesses the invasion force has while maximizing it's strenghts.
Rather, you are strawmanning and arguing against the moon base which is irrelevant for my actual plan. The space stations could be built with earth technology and are an efficient long-term threat to maintain superiority over earth.

Now adress the actual point or shut the fuck up, idiot.

[Star Wars 888]

Your plan is for the invasion force to set up a base on the moon.

No it isn't. Learn to read, your bloody moron.
That's PART of my plan, mostly because i love moon bases. And then it's only a long-term plan of the plan and can easily be replaced by space stations which have to be built anyway.

My plan is to use quick hit&run attacks rather than a standard military campaign and to demand tribute instead of trying to occupy territory.
You have not adressed that at all, nor it's implications - namely that that plan is fast and effective and removes all weaknesses the invasion force has while maximizing it's strenghts.
Rather, you are strawmanning and arguing against the moon base which is irrelevant for my actual plan. The space stations could be built with earth technology and are an efficient long-term threat to maintain superiority over earth.

Now adress the actual point or shut the fuck up, idiot.

If the tie fighters are busy doing hit and run attacks, who's going to be guarding the invasion force's ground troops? They'd be fodder (except for the AT-ATs) to air strikes and long range strikes.

100 tie fighters on their own cannot hold territory. Are you saying that they're going to simply keep on doing hit and run attacks? For what reason? Demanding tribute? What tribute? Money? And once they run out of fuel what stops the Earth's armies from butchering them?

[Serafina]

Hey, moron:
MY PLAN DOES NOT REQUIRE HOLDING ANY TERRITORY.
Nor does it require any ground troops. I said that multiple times now, you really are that stupid apparently
If your idiotic OP does not contain orbital transports, the ground forces can simply hife in the jungle or occupy a city and use it as a human shield. If it does, then they can simply fly around or to the moon (or orbit, or antarctica) for the two-three days that will be required to kick earths ass. And even if they get annihilated, it doesn't matter, the TIEs and some support staff do.

The tribute will be paid in materials. Such as fuel (if it is compatible), materials to build space stations and other weaponery, food&other comodities and so on.

Your OP gives the TIEs fuel for a high-intensity campaign that lasts many months. My campaign has a low combat intensity, so you can at least double that. Within that timeframe, the worlds combined resources can build many space stations in orbit - which will be equipped with orbital cannons, lasers and whatever else technology allows. Those space stations are enough to subjugate earth and virtually untouchable (if placed in a high orbit) with todays technology.

Voila, you just subjugated earth. You do not even have to get involved in politics, they deliver you all you want due to fear of getting bombed and there is nothing earth can do against it.

[Batman]

A dozen TIEs do hit and runs. The rest guards the Imperial ground troops. EVERYTHING Earth can throw at them is cannon fodder.
And are you seriously so stupid you don't understand Serafina's approach?
'Okay, here's the deal-you pay us tribute, and in turn you not only get technology massively superior to your own, but we DON'T blow up your vital infrastructure, which, incidentally, you can't do jack all about if we decide to do it anyway.'
After having demonstrated that there IS indeed jack all we can do about it Earth will fold in a heartbeat. MASSIVE technology boost, some extra taxes (as Serafina pointed out, not even particularly high ones), why would Earth actually bother to take the immense damage (infrastructure and manpower) we WOULD have to absorb to fight the Imperials until the finally run out of supplies when there's so much more to gain by JOINING them?

[Serafina]

A dozen TIEs do hit and runs. The rest guards the Imperial ground troops. EVERYTHING Earth can throw at them is cannon fodder.
And are you seriously so stupid you don't understand Serafina's approach?
'Okay, here's the deal-you pay us tribute, and in turn you not only get technology massively superior to your own, but we DON'T blow up your vital infrastructure, which, incidentally, you can't do jack all about if we decide to do it anyway.'
After having demonstrated that there IS indeed jack all we can do about it Earth will fold in a heartbeat. MASSIVE technology boost, some extra taxes (as Serafina pointed out, not even particularly high ones), why would Earth actually bother to take the immense damage (infrastructure and manpower) we WOULD have to absorb to fight the Imperials until the finally run out of supplies when there's so much more to gain by JOINING them?

Batman, didn't you learn that morons always go for "resistance at all costs"?
It takes at least some intelligence to figure out why people resist something. MoronWars 888 obviously doesn't have any. Hence, he does not grasp that earth has no reason to resist here, since they have little to gain and all to loose, and since the typical man on the street won't feel the impact of imperial rule that much anyway.

Also, i would like to point out that any technology boost is optional and not necessary.
And furthermore, i think my strategy works pretty well with the Tarkin doctrine - rule by fear, not by direct occupation.
The Empire did not maintain large garrisions everywhere, rather they maintained a force that could crush anyone disobeying. And i am proposing the same thing here.

[Aaron]

I actually have to question whether the Imps can boost us all that much. I imagine that the force will include military engineers (if they had a ship it would actually have been far better for my point) but if the Imp military is anything like the modern day, they won't be able to build anything. Maintain, sure, even give us ideas and point us in the right direction but short of outright ripping out a TIE or AT-AT powerplant, even mundane SW tech is likely to be beyond us for a good long time.

I realize the spirit of the OP is "lets get ready to rumble" but even with Darth Vader in charge I suspect the better course of action would be to land in NA/Europe and go "hey guys, we're stuck here, want to learn about cool, helpful stuff in exchange for food?"

[Agent Sorchus]

This is only true if you assume low density anti deuterium.

I believe Darth Wong's estimate that the DS1 would need a ball of fuel bigger than itself was based on assuming antimatter and matter with the density of uranium.

Your right, 500km diameter mater antimater with the density of Uranium. But that is why no-one every claimed that hypermatter wasn't hyperdense. Hell the ICS's give the mass of the hypermatter that is annihilated, and it matches e=mc2. It hasn't and never will rape physics as we know it because it never was non-hyperdense. That is why I laugh at D13, the only certain trekkies ever claimed anything like having non hyperdense fuel. Specifically darkstar claiming that the death star was fussion powered and had to rely on a chain reaction effect to destroy planets.

Because, yes, I know of one object that we have detected that has released more energy than the deathstar's blast in less time, while still being far smaller than the DS. Feast your eyes on SGR 1806-20 with particular note on the 1039Joule explosion, and her diameter of 20 kilometers. And that explosion was only a tectonic shift, so it can do it plenty of times.

That's a neutron star: the density is something nasty, and so is the gravity and magnetic field and the effects of it just being around.

If there were a neutron star in the Death Star, that would explain the energy (like I said in my post that you quoted, of course, if you don't know what "density' means it would be hard to see that), but it'd take a huge amount of magic to do anything with it on demand. Moving it, dealing with its gravity, etc. Including pulling material out of its gravity well.

No you specifically said that it fucks over e=mc2, not that it requires the fuel to have immense density. And yes I know that that particular star is incredibly dangerous, but that was not why I brought it up. I brought it up because it is real, it has had an explosion of similar Magnitude, and it doesn't rape e=mc2. So no I ain't letting you weasel out of your words, even if you are cutting what you actually said from the quote.[

Actually, the Death Star bends e=mc^2 over and rapes it with a knife. A death star blast would require a sphere of antimatter bigger than the actual ship!

Good thing then that Star Destroyers use Neutronium in their armor and that star wars is other wise used to dealing with the ridiculous gravitational fields that such retain. But no D13 doesn't want to use anything from the expanded universe, but refuses to give us calculations of his own. Yes you can find some objections but you haven't given us any damn numbers to work with.

Imagine if Destructionator did science. Oh we found a exemption to our standard model, well guess it is time to through it all out.

It would be awesome if you knew how to read. I'm not sure how many times I've said in this thread: solid empirical observations must never be thrown out.

Guess what? I never said that, great strawman. You do not want to use any of the existing calculations, just because you have found some small objections and outliers, and you never want to give us anything to work with. You have given nothing but exceptions and never try to quantify stuff your self. Where by chance is your numbers for a Star Destroyer? You object to our numbers based on your beliefs that we can't model linearly based on volume, but have never given us an alternative.

That's what I'm saying: fighters seem ineffective, but they were launched anyway (in The Empire Strikes Back, those two X-Wings per transport were surely expected to be of some use, otherwise it would be better to have them help fight the incoming walkers. Perhaps their use is just to distract undisciplined gunners and buy the transport hyperspace time with their lives? But, if Star Destroyer guns are indeed 1,000,000x more powerful than starfighter guns - which breech the shields in the Death Star battle - and they have hundreds of them, why would two suicide guards even matter? And in Return of the Jedi, fighters went up against Star Destroyers, and scored some good damaging hits. If they were completely useless, why not focus fire on the Death Star and leave the ISDs for the Rebel big ships?)

First Objection, starfighters were never expected to defend against a fucking ISD. It is even stated directly in the fucking movie. The main defense was the Ion Cannon, you dishonest fuckwit. Secondly if X-wings were able to damage ISDs then why the fuck wouldn't the commanders tell the X'wings to finish of the disabled ISDs? Third, the deathstar was overly optimized in defense against fleets, not snub fighters. This is even in the movie where the fighters cross the Main shields while still at a stupendous distance from the Death Star. What shielding that we see in ANH is not the DS's primary defense. But no you have to spit our dishonesty to support your opinion.

Star Wars admirals clearly believe fighters can help in a battle against capships, which doesn't make sense if they are indeed at a million to one power disadvantage.

Again, if fighters were expected in small numbers to defeat an ISD than why didn't the Rebels send the X-wings back to finish the disabled stardestroyers in ESB? They didn't, and you lie so that your belief's do not get crushed.

[Junghalli]

Within that timeframe, the worlds combined resources can build many space stations in orbit - which will be equipped with orbital cannons, lasers and whatever else technology allows. Those space stations are enough to subjugate earth and virtually untouchable (if placed in a high orbit) with todays technology.

Will the Imperials have the technical specialists on hand to do this? I mean we're not talking about just repairing their equipment here, we're talking about building whole new equipment probably largely based on a tech base they are not familiar with (since it has to be supportable with modern Earth technology), or new equipment to do asteroid mining or other such stuff to replace their technology when it breaks. How likely is it that they will have people with half the skillset you'd need to actually do this? I mean, this scenario basically takes all the difficulties of say a US army division dropped into 1600 and compounds them with the fact the primitives in this scenario are nonetheless an industrial society so reverse engineering and improving on their tech is going to be a lot more involved than just building some better muskets.

Sure I suppose they could coerce Earth technicians to help them ... nothing could possibly go wrong with that, could it?

... Aaron sort of beat me to it.

[Thanas]

Meh, I proposed the version of Imps offer people to join them peacefully, war averted and everybody wins a few pages ago already.

[Junghalli]

Meh, I proposed the version of Imps offer people to join them peacefully, war averted and everybody wins a few pages ago already.

Negotiating a mutually beneficial exchange or just incorporating into our society would be the intelligent thing for them to do here.

But I guess these are fanatics or something so we can have our contrived scenario.

[Star Wars 888]

Hey, moron:
MY PLAN DOES NOT REQUIRE HOLDING ANY TERRITORY.
Nor does it require any ground troops. I said that multiple times now, you really are that stupid apparently
If your idiotic OP does not contain orbital transports, the ground forces can simply hife in the jungle or occupy a city and use it as a human shield. If it does, then they can simply fly around or to the moon (or orbit, or antarctica) for the two-three days that will be required to kick earths ass. And even if they get annihilated, it doesn't matter, the TIEs and some support staff do.

The tribute will be paid in materials. Such as fuel (if it is compatible), materials to build space stations and other weaponery, food&other comodities and so on.

Your OP gives the TIEs fuel for a high-intensity campaign that lasts many months. My campaign has a low combat intensity, so you can at least double that. Within that timeframe, the worlds combined resources can build many space stations in orbit - which will be equipped with orbital cannons, lasers and whatever else technology allows. Those space stations are enough to subjugate earth and virtually untouchable (if placed in a high orbit) with todays technology.

Voila, you just subjugated earth. You do not even have to get involved in politics, they deliver you all you want due to fear of getting bombed and there is nothing earth can do against it.

1. Fuel on Earth is not compatible with whatever tie fighters use. They obviously don't run on fossil fuels or anything else that we have here on Earth. Besides, why on Earth would we give them their only lifeline to keep on threatening us?
2. If you want to get technical, my OP doesn't give them that much fuel, only enough to last them from South to North America, which for a tie fighter is a few minutes if we are to put their atmospheric speed at mach 9 like the empire side claims.
3. Since when will 100 tie fighters and their pilots have the knowledge to build orbital cannons and such? Are you suggesting that the entire world will give all of their resources to 100 tie fighter pilots? Do you not realize how difficult it would be to build the things you mentioned? By that time the tie fighters would have run out of fuel.

[Junghalli]

1. Fuel on Earth is not compatible with whatever tie fighters use. They obviously don't run on fossil fuels or anything else that we have here on Earth.

To be fair for all we know it might be something common like deuterium which would not really be hard for them to obtain with proper equipment.

3. Since when will 100 tie fighters and their pilots have the knowledge to build orbital cannons and such?

With a tech base they are completely unfamiliar with to work with, don't forget.

I wonder how well the guys who do maintenance on modern fighter jets would do trying to build a WWII prop fighter. Serious question.

[Aaron]

The fighters have minutes of fuel now? May as well rip out there damn guns and stick them on a local tank chassis then. Jesus Christ.