www.ditl.org

You are now purposely ignoring Rochey's points, which, as he pointed out, is bad form around here. If you have any means of substantiating your claim, or refuting Rochey's point that supply lines do (and will always) depend on capturing enemy territory, please do so ASAP.

I disagree, an unbiased reading of this thread will reveal that I have conducted myself honestly and with integrity.

You need to respond to others' points. At least to acknowledge that you read them. Ignoring their points (which you have been doing) is the opposite of conducting yourself with integrity.

SteveK wrote:I disagree that they've been refuted. Unless repeatedly and obsessively saying "I disagree" counts.

On whether any 'Trek power could afford to field a properly equipped and trained ground force, it's been pointed out that the resources involved would be a tiny fraction of resources compared to the amount spent on starships, and would keep enemies from capturing planets using minimal untrained forces. The cost would be well worth preventing the enemy from gaining ground and supplies.

On whether you can capture a properly defended planet using space superiority and pathetically trained and under-equipped ground troops, that really should be self-evident. No, you can't.

SteveK wrote:I disagree, an unbiased reading of this thread will reveal that I have conducted myself honestly and with integrity.

I'm not biased against you or toward them, if that's what you mean.

I am biased against people ignoring basic principals of combat to support a position that is clearly an attempt to explain the writers' lack of knowledge of said principals.

SteveK wrote:...If it seems like I've stopped addressing your posts in particular its because I have.

This is the part that I'm calling you on. If you have anything to refute the point that supply lines will always be a necessary part of warfare, please supply it. You can't purposely ignore his points simply because you have no way to refute them.

I disagree, an unbiased reading of this thread will reveal that I have conducted myself honestly and with integrity.

Well, I'm not unbiased in truth. Though, thats not against you. That's against Seafort, who is a total stuck up prick on his good days (what, you didn't see that coming? dumbasses). I'd also love nothing more then a chance to watch him get stomped. However, this isn't the case. You've down right done nothing but bullshit. You had an opinion to start with but it's been shown to hold nothing but hot air. You've been asked to prove your points, you haven't. Everything here I've read from you lacks any form of integrity and as to honesty I'm hoping you really just know nothing about combat and are just guessing.

I disagree that they've been refuted. Unless repeatedly and obsessively saying "I disagree" counts.

No, its their supported and proven points not only by RL but also IU. You've yet to defeat anything they've shown and just ignore when they've defeated your points.

I disagree that they've been refuted. Unless repeatedly and obsessively saying "I disagree" counts.

Read my damn posts, you illiterate moron. I've given plenty of reasoning backed by simple realistic facts to support every point I've put forward. The only one repeatedly and obsessively saying "I disagree" here is you, who has ignored everything I've put forward.

I disagree, an unbiased reading of this thread will reveal that I have conducted myself honestly and with integrity.

Ah, so ignoring your opponent's points is "honesty and integrity"? You've one very weird definition of those words in that case. Respond to my points, or concede.

Do I seriously need to remind you of what you said just a couple of posts back?

You wrote:If it seems like I've stopped addressing your posts in particular its because I have.

If I'm wrong, then it should be no problem to go through my posts and explain why.

Oh, and since you seem to be ignoring me, I'm going to post my explanation of why your theory that every race goes around BDZing planets for fun is wrong:


When you are at war, your forces require supply lines to keep functioning. If those lines are cut, your forces will run out of supplies and be little more than target practice for the enemy. Therefore, keeping a steady and efficient supply train is important if you want to achieve victory.

Now, let's say that you start winning the war and start pushing your enemy back. As you progress further into the enemy's territory, the distance between your forces and your supply bases become far greater. This means that it takes longer for supplies to reach their destination, and there's a greater chance of marauding enemy ships attacking convoys. As you progress further and further, you may very well find yourself with damn all supplies reaching the front lines. This results in your forces becoming incapable of sustaining the assault, and your enemy is able to start pushing you back.

Now, what about enemy planets? Well, enemy planets will contain a great deal of resources, infrastructure, supplies, and maybe even ship yards. This means that they can be used as supply bases close to the front lines. This again means that your supply lines will now be shorter, as the distance between captured enemy planets and the front lines is much shorter, allowing for quicker transit times and less chance of enemy interception. This allows your forces to remain well supplied, and thus capable of continuing the assault. Over time, this strategy will lead to victory.

Now, let's say that instead of capturing enemy planets, you decide to just bomb them from orbit and wipe out all cities, towns and other signs of habitation from the surface. This planet is now useless to you. With no infrastructure, it can not be used to supply your forces. While resources may still be on (or to be more accurate, under) the surface of the planet, all mining equipment is destroyed, and so it can't be mined. All processing plants are gone, meaning that you can no longer process what you do find. All factories are ruined, which means that nothing can be built. All food is gone, meaning that you can't feed your troops.
This means that instead of becoming an important and campaign-sustaining supply point, the planet becomes utterly worthless. As such, this requires your supply lines to continue stretching from your homeworlds to the front lines. As I explained earlier, this means you're in trouble on the supply front.

As you can see, simply BDZing planets is completely counter-productive. History backs up this as well. Why do you think Scorched Earth tactics cause so many problems to invaders? By destroying anything of use, the defenders force the attackers to rely on long, stretched-out and vulnerable supply lines to sustain them.

Bombarding the occasional planet is fine, particularly for something like a show of force, to set an example that you're not to be messed with (such as the Weyoun quote you provided), or if it's a preemptive strike and you don't expect to ever have to use that planet (such as the attack on the Founder homeworld). But to destroy everything you come across is to herald your own defeat.

Of course, you're not going to actually bother listening to this, are you? Instead you're probably just going to continue clinging to your own stance, as if it holds any water.

Now, respond to that, or concede the point.

I got about four paragraphs into that before I realized that part was a copy-paste from your post last page.

Of course, since he didn't read that post, it does make sense to repeat it.

I don't expect you to have read it, since you're not involved in the debate. I expect him to have read it since it contains a refutation of his own points.

Sorry I've been away most of a couple of days, so I skipped ahead. All I can say is Rochey must be wrong, because so many RL campaigns just got a full head of steam when marching into the deepest parts of Russia...

... oh, wait.

Wonder what happened to Stevyboy.

I think he ran away from the debate. God knows he's been doing his best to hide from my rebuttals for the past few days.

Wise SteveK ran away. ("No!")
Wisely ran away, away. ("I didn't!")
When logic reared its ugly head,
he wisely turned his tail and fled. ("No!")
Yes wise SteveK turned about, ("I didn't!)
and gallantly he chickened out.
Wisely taking to his feet, ("I never did!")
he beat a very wise retreat.("All lies!)
Wisest of the wise, SteveK! ("I never!")

Even if space combat was the end all be all of warfare in the Trek universe how does that excuse the abysmal training, tactics, and equipment the ground troops get?

It doesn't. Steve here seems to think that because you have starships, ground forces are rendered irrelevant in warfare.

Makes me wonder if he's even watched the AR-558 episode of DS9. You can't see that and not decide that when it comes to ground combat at a bare minimum the Dominion and Federation are total idiots.

Ever play Star Trek Elite Force I or II? Some of the weapons in there would be pretty damn useful. Pulse phaser carbine, mini-torp launcher, etc.

Ah, but those were "isolated incidents" that were "out of the ordinary", or whatever he said.
Or maybe he'll still be going on with his "but spending money on ground troops would cripple Starfleet!" idea, despite the fact that a few million AK-47s would be nothing compared to a single nacelle off of a GCS.

Frankly given my choice between a phaser rifle and a G36, I take the G36.

The federation already supplies its ground troops with a phaser rifle. The rest of the kit they're missing such as body armor, a helmet, a decent knife, grenades, flashlights (useful ones not the wrist stupidity), etc. is incredibly low tech in comparison. After that you just need to give the troops some training in how to use it all. It's like buying a car but refusing to pay for a steering wheel and some seats in order to save some money.

Low tech yes but when in the field that tends to be the best. Helmet, rifle, boots and some frags.