StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Elheru Aran wrote: So, basically a small warship, you're saying?

Well, more like a mobile chunk of fort, but yeah.

The LAAT was pretty much capable of what you described in your post, and with using an Acclamator or Venator (or hell, even an ISD) as a mobile base, they wouldn't need long-range capability-- they can just return to their ship.

But then you have no local presence. Your coming and going from a distant point, and if the enemy has an observer watching that ship, which he probably will, he'll know your LAAT is coming and be in a much better position to do something about it. If you are trying to oppress and occupy whole planets that's a serious problem.

I don't think trying to space police that in a LAAT from orbit is going to go well. It has its places certainly, but the LAAT is just too vulnerable to Space MANPADS for sustained attritional fighting. We had that one episode of the Clone Wars where it was actual Space Afghanistan with the Droid Gunships being blown apart with small missile launcher for example. So you really want something bigger and more heavily protected then that. Even a small piece of a plant rebellion could suffice to make some pretty advanced and high firepower armament. The Star Wars tech floor is extremely high for that.

You certainly do want to avoid static troops on the ground as much as possible because they are both vulnerable and immobilized.

The old EU made mention of an Ubrikkian "Floating Fortress" that basically fills the role your suggesting.

20 metres long, crew of 4 plus 10 passengers and one ton of cargo, max altitude 200m, max speed 200 kph or so. Commonly deployed in urban environments.

Elheru Aran wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: The idea ground combat vessel would probably hold about 25-50 men, with two to four turbolasers that can knock out any plausible enemy tank or reinforced building, but not necessarily all fortifications. An ISD can just blow that stuff up. A Mobile Air Assault Vehicles like this could just fly around destroying anything it saw, while also able to instantly to land enough men to suddenly raid a large building or other strategic point. You go around sucking up everyones wifi and the moment you get intel you either blow that spot up, or seize a prisoner ect..

So, a LAAT?

Escort shuttle or Sentinel variant, or Gamma Assault transport. Independently deployable from orbit or even from another system, turreted light turbolasers, capacity for ground team or long-term habitability for crew for persistent missions.

Something I've wondered about for a while is to what extent sustained mass ground combat actually happens in SW. Once a planet loses shielding, the defending force can not actually win - it can hold out long enough to force the attacker to waste the whole planet as a usable unit, but that's pretty damn cold blooded when it's your own people you're talking about. For a city-world, the planetary government would have to decide pretty damn fast whether surrender is preferable to mass starvation when an enemy fleet arrives and is not relatively quickly driven off.

In those circumstances, wouldn't most combat be about massive concentration of forces to take key points, like shield generators and defense batteries? At that point, you wouldn't need many assault warship-, as opposed to noncombatant large transport-, borne troops. Warships may be expensive, but large ships with basic shields and massive volume seem to be relatively trivial to SW.

fractalsponge1 wrote:In those circumstances, wouldn't most combat be about massive concentration of forces to take key points, like shield generators and defense batteries? At that point, you wouldn't need many assault warship-, as opposed to noncombatant large transport-, borne troops. Warships may be expensive, but large ships with basic shields and massive volume seem to be relatively trivial to SW.

At that point, non-military/non-navy bulk transport ships would probably be fine. Heighliners. Transport versions of those huge replenishment ships you designed.

The Imperial equivalent of Trade Federation Lucrehulks.

fractalsponge1 wrote:Something I've wondered about for a while is to what extent sustained mass ground combat actually happens in SW. Once a planet loses shielding, the defending force can not actually win - it can hold out long enough to force the attacker to waste the whole planet as a usable unit, but that's pretty damn cold blooded when it's your own people you're talking about. For a city-world, the planetary government would have to decide pretty damn fast whether surrender is preferable to mass starvation when an enemy fleet arrives and is not relatively quickly driven off.

In those circumstances, wouldn't most combat be about massive concentration of forces to take key points, like shield generators and defense batteries? At that point, you wouldn't need many assault warship-, as opposed to noncombatant large transport-, borne troops. Warships may be expensive, but large ships with basic shields and massive volume seem to be relatively trivial to SW.

Yup. A point that has been made a few times already throughout this thread. I'm still not getting a decent reply from the OP regarding whether or not it's getting through to him though.

fractalsponge1 wrote:Something I've wondered about for a while is to what extent sustained mass ground combat actually happens in SW. Once a planet loses shielding, the defending force can not actually win - it can hold out long enough to force the attacker to waste the whole planet as a usable unit, but that's pretty damn cold blooded when it's your own people you're talking about. For a city-world, the planetary government would have to decide pretty damn fast whether surrender is preferable to mass starvation when an enemy fleet arrives and is not relatively quickly driven off.

In those circumstances, wouldn't most combat be about massive concentration of forces to take key points, like shield generators and defense batteries? At that point, you wouldn't need many assault warship-, as opposed to noncombatant large transport-, borne troops. Warships may be expensive, but large ships with basic shields and massive volume seem to be relatively trivial to SW.

In an "Empire vs planet" situation, sure. Not in a Clone Wars situation where there are two comparable sides trying to land forces in opposition. Then even without shielding bombardment can be prevented by fleet maneuvers. Key installations won't be shield generators but landing sites for reinforcement and resupply. Sure Acclamators and the like can land in impromptu places, but that will be way less efficient than a dedicated hub for landing, repair, offloading and transport, something akin to the CIS landing fields on geonosis. Pretty easy to draw up a situation there where each faction has assumed an orbital position that can't be dislodged and keeps landing forces via that umbrella that are trying to destroy the other sides landing site. The armies would have theater shields to protect against artillery or armor attacks, so you could end up with this inverted scenario where there is intense battle of the somme style fighting under the shields trying to break through enemy lines to take out the landing site. If they succeed then their ability to more efficiently land and move divisions lets them capture the planet.

Re: above

I think this would be more common, because if they try and bring in more ships to dislodge the orbital position that weakens them elsewhere, which the enemy would then be aware of (when they show up to fight) and the speed of hyperdrive let's the other force then strike those weakened places. So if you want to force the fight in space you either need to win damn quick without much damage and return to your original spot ready for a second fight or you need the long slog. And given reactor fuel demands and the fuel constraints (e.g. An ISD would consume its entire mass in a few hours at peak power) it explains why they would mainly fight at less than full power - to sprint accross is the galaxy at top speed, burn all your fuel with high accelerations and max power TLs and then sprint back would basically be suicidal, going hard for any extended period risks turning up at the next fight on empty.

So instead you end up with this strategic forced stalemate where speed of travel, reactor power, and industrial output (for the ground troops) leads to these long bloody grinds.

Also highlights why Jedi (or Sith) matter so much.

Abacus wrote:

fractalsponge1 wrote:Something I've wondered about for a while is to what extent sustained mass ground combat actually happens in SW. Once a planet loses shielding, the defending force can not actually win - it can hold out long enough to force the attacker to waste the whole planet as a usable unit, but that's pretty damn cold blooded when it's your own people you're talking about. For a city-world, the planetary government would have to decide pretty damn fast whether surrender is preferable to mass starvation when an enemy fleet arrives and is not relatively quickly driven off.

In those circumstances, wouldn't most combat be about massive concentration of forces to take key points, like shield generators and defense batteries? At that point, you wouldn't need many assault warship-, as opposed to noncombatant large transport-, borne troops. Warships may be expensive, but large ships with basic shields and massive volume seem to be relatively trivial to SW.

Yup. A point that has been made a few times already throughout this thread. I'm still not getting a decent reply from the OP regarding whether or not it's getting through to him though.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I would say that once shields fail the defending world cannot win by itself, after all a world in the galaxy is part of a greater whole, can after all be possible to hold on until re-enforcements break the attackers orbital dominance.


Also indiscrimate orbital bombardment really works better as threat then as the main strategy since if you used too often worlds get the idea that they're doomed either way and choose to make sure that taking their lives will cost the empire dearly making the imperial victory a phyrric one at best (and please do remember that while huge the imperial logistical capasity is still finite).

A single world could not hold out indefinitely against the determined might of a galactic opponent without aid under any circumstances.

I would assume that the goal of any defences would be to a) make things bloody enough for an attacker to deter them, or failing that, b) hold out long enough for outside assistance to arrive.

Edit: Plus, of course, keep a lid on the activities of less formidable, local opponents, like the ever-present space pirates and other criminal forces.

If you reach a certain threshold where the cost of invading your planet would be such that the invader would be depleted and vulnerable or weakened or unable to prosecute campaigns elsewhere, especially if the context is if your planet isn't the only restive area... then that might be a good enough deterrent.

Either that or stealthy asteroid-hidden "boomer" SSBN-style silent drive space ships with cryogenically frozen crews that are thawed and sent on planetary-murder missions with ICBMs or planetkilling missile loadouts upon the deactivation of some failsafe deadman's switch signal transmitted from the homeworld...

It's really simple actually, the question is will invading that planet grant enough benefits to be worth the cost to invade it?


Same for "killing" the planet since if you destroy all the stuctures and kill all the people at best you're left with uninhabited ruins you need to rebuild to be of any worth, at worst the planet isn't just uninhabited, but also uninhabitble meaning not only did you gain jackshit you lost any potential benefit that planted could have offered, reducing your own logistical potential.

You don't have to make the attacker weak elsewhere just to make sure that the cost of invading outweights the benefits.

I must admit to being a bit surprised by the responses in this thread. In the old days, I'd have expected most of them to insist that the Empire had billions of ISDs and an infinite army of stormtroopers with which to occupy every galactic backwater. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The orbital supremacy isn't really being called into question... and we're not really supposing that the stormtroopers have real hard numerical limitations, they might as well be able to occupy lots of worlds, but we're proposing valid alternatives in how ground combat is used. Plus real life "fuck fascists" and all that.

At least here in SDN nobody ever bought into the Mangdalorian bullshit.

Galvatron wrote:I must admit to being a bit surprised by the responses in this thread. In the old days, I'd have expected most of them to insist that the Empire had billions of ISDs and an infinite army of stormtroopers with which to occupy every galactic backwater. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I suppose back into the old day it was a case of having to deal with idiots who pull stuff out of their arse rather then admit defeat, made us rather militant about certain things.

As I said the imperial warmachine is still unbelivebly huge but it's still finite and it doesn't have material to throw away carelessly and a lot of terrotority to cover so it comes a case of "is this backwater planet worth the effort or not".

as for fucking fascists only if they're not giving consent, otherwise they might enjoy it and we can't have that now can we.

The anti-minimalism approach that proposes endless legions of troopers would also, due to its nature, mean that huge swathes of the SW galaxy would also have enormous populations that would have even endlesser total numbers of indigenous security forces.

Like, I presume the total number of law officers in the US outnumbers the number of servicemembers in the armed forces, rite?

Hell no the US military outnumbers US police about 1.4 to 1 if you only count active full time people on both sides, counting reserves and part time still only makes the US military bigger. The UK isn't that far off that either.

It's only unstable places like China where the domestic security forces need to far outnumber the actual military by wide margins. If a country is orderly then 1-2 police can handle the overwhelming majority of situations. If it is not then very suddenly you might need 12 cops just to try to make an arrest in a non political situation, simply because the mob violence factor impedes them. That suddenly makes policing way more like a war, and the manpower required skyrockets while the total effectiveness of enforcement drops off because the cops aren't as many places and people become less willing to give them information.

The Empire would have to rely on different grades and types of forces, the WEG stuff covered that well with an Imperial Army and an ISB force, besides local forces. Stormtroopers would exist to negate any conventional military threat to the Empire being established, but once they scattered that kind of opposition someone else would really need to take over. Even 100% elimination of the rebel threat on a planet doesn't mean that situation will last.

Those of you haven't read Catalyst probably should, if only to read about Tarkin's invasion of the Salient system. It covers a lot of the ground being discussed here.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:The anti-minimalism approach that proposes endless legions of troopers would also, due to its nature, mean that huge swathes of the SW galaxy would also have enormous populations that would have even endlesser total numbers of indigenous security forces.

Like, I presume the total number of law officers in the US outnumbers the number of servicemembers in the armed forces, rite?

I would hardly equate anti-minimalism with "lulzhugeOMG stormtrooper zerg rush" ideas. I'm anti-minimalist, but I'm also a realist.

Actually, there are far, far fewer law officers in the US than there are active service members of the military. "BJS estimates that in 2008, there were 17,895 law enforcement agencies employing 1.13 million full-time workers, including over 765,000 sworn officers, as well as about 100,000 part-time employees, including over 44,000 sworn officers as of Aug 26, 2014." (source) Whereas the US military has more; the projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for FY 2017 was 1,281,900 people, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components. It should be noted that while the military outnumbers the law enforcement peeps, the actual combat effectives is lower overall -- but then the first rule of any military is, generally, "every man is a rifleman" which just means that, at need, the military can exponentially increase its combat effectives on short notice. Law enforcement historically cannot.

Galvatron wrote:I must admit to being a bit surprised by the responses in this thread. In the old days, I'd have expected most of them to insist that the Empire had billions of ISDs and an infinite army of stormtroopers with which to occupy every galactic backwater. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I don't think that anyone is really contesting that they don't have that ability, rather that it isn't cost effective or can't be brought to bear with sufficient speed.

Discussion a few pages ago was if the planet could move its army faster than the empire could land additional forces for example.

Plus with the legends bit I think most of the old evidence is now not evidence

I'd also recommend to the OP to read the new "Star Wars Battlefront: Twilight Company" book.

Ender wrote:

Galvatron wrote:I must admit to being a bit surprised by the responses in this thread. In the old days, I'd have expected most of them to insist that the Empire had billions of ISDs and an infinite army of stormtroopers with which to occupy every galactic backwater. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I don't think that anyone is really contesting that they don't have that ability, rather that it isn't cost effective or can't be brought to bear with sufficient speed.

Discussion a few pages ago was if the planet could move its army faster than the empire could land additional forces for example.

Plus with the legends bit I think most of the old evidence is now not evidence

I think 25,000 Star Destroyers made it back into canon somewhere, though I can't recall the source off-hand.

Though its a pity that certain parts of the old EU were lost. I seem to recall a very relevant passage in The Last Command, when Thrawn assaults Ukio. Basically that the two conventional means of assaulting a planet with planetary shielding were a massive bombardment, or landing a fast-moving force at the edge of the shield and fighting your way to the generators. The problem basically being that both were too costly. Though I could be misremembering- its been a long time since I read it last, and I couldn't find my copy to actually quote the passage.

Though we do see examples of both these methods in highest-level canon:

For the first, the Death Stars (or now, I suppose, Starkiller Base) are basically the ultimate examples- effectively giant siege guns that can blow through a planetary shield (and the planet behind it).

For the second, Hoth seems to be pretty much a textbook example. Endor is an example too, sort of, albeit a somewhat atypical one since the shield that needed to be destroyed was being projected into orbit, not protecting the planet.

Galvatron wrote:I must admit to being a bit surprised by the responses in this thread. In the old days, I'd have expected most of them to insist that the Empire had billions of ISDs and an infinite army of stormtroopers with which to occupy every galactic backwater. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Frankly, I'm glad those days are mostly over. The overcompensation for the purposes of vs. debates got a bit tiring.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Endor is an example too, sort of, albeit a somewhat atypical one since the shield that needed to be destroyed was being projected into orbit, not protecting the planet.

If there was no shield protecting the moon itself, why did Han have to ask the Executor to open it so the Tyderium could land? We may not have seen a shield gate, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was one.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Frankly, I'm glad those days are mostly over. The overcompensation for the purposes of vs. debates got a bit tiring.

Agreed.