I'd say one guy with a SAW in a good position could've handled it.Deepcrush wrote:I think 12 min may be a bit to long... A squad with M4s and a SAW would have won the battle in a matter of seconds.
Also, don't do this.
I'd say one guy with a SAW in a good position could've handled it.Deepcrush wrote:I think 12 min may be a bit to long... A squad with M4s and a SAW would have won the battle in a matter of seconds.
Probably, but a GPMG would be a better choice, just in case there are lots of Jem'Hadar - it's better suited to sustained fire.Tsukiyumi wrote:I'd say one guy with a SAW in a good position could've handled it.
And Nog would have kept his leg.Mikey wrote:I said the whole ep would be 12 minutes - you know, including credit sequences, etc.
Let's consider what benefits a strong ground-based force has:Mikey wrote:I read what you said. I repeat - what specific factors led to the conclusion that spaceships preclude the need for boots on the ground? If you can't or won't provide them, then your assertion is empty.
That's where I'm afraid we disagree. The entirety of your (plural) argument can be summarized as follows: "Our experience and reading of history up to April 21st 2009 indicates that competency in ground combat is vital to success in warfare, we expect this will remain true over the next several centuries". To which I have postulated several reasons why that may no longer be true in the 24th century Star Trek universe. To which you have responded " "Our experience and reading of history up to April 21st 2009 indicates that competency in ground combat is vital to success in warfare, we expect this will remain true over the next several centuries". This has become more an issue of posting stamina than anything else. I think that we both know where we stand, and we each remain unconvinced. That isn't necessarily a bad thing by the way. My comments were directed specifically at Mikey, who challenged me to defend my alternate theory to the "They're really stupid!" ethos.Rochey wrote:Jesus Christ, did you read a single thing we've posted? All of your arguments have already been adressed! Read and respond to our posts.
So you think that empire B's resource allocation was better planned than empire A's? In an ideal situation I would agree that it would be nice to have space superiority and a good ground force. However, if a government can only guarantee one or the other the best option is space superiority.Rochey wrote: Yes, starships could obliterate everything on a planet if they wanted to. But then they'd lose all resources on that planet, making it worthless for months, if not years, until they can get their own colonies set up. In war, you capture resources, not destroy them.
Wiping out resources as you find them, forcing you to rely on an increasingly large and spread out supply train as you advance, is f***ing stupid. Do you know how you're going to capture them? That's right, with ground assaults.
So while starships could wipe out everything on a planet and will dictate who wins the war, ground armies are not rendered irrelevant.
I have.Rochey wrote: Read our posts.
Rochey wrote:We really do need a Chakat Award...
More or less correct. Except you forgot to mention that simple logic and common sense also back us up on this position.That's where I'm afraid we disagree. The entirety of your (plural) argument can be summarized as follows: "Our experience and reading of history up to April 21st 2009 indicates that competency in ground combat is vital to success in warfare, we expect this will remain true over the next several centuries"
Every one of your arguments has been rebutted. You've yet to explain how we're wrong in our assertion that logic dictates that ground combat will still exist and play an important role in wars. Instead, you've simply repeated "but they have spaceships!" as if that somehow disproves our statements.To which I have postulated several reasons why that may no longer be true in the 24th century Star Trek universe. To which you have responded " "Our experience and reading of history up to April 21st 2009 indicates that competency in ground combat is vital to success in warfare, we expect this will remain true over the next several centuries". This has become more an issue of posting stamina than anything else. I think that we both know where we stand, and we each remain unconvinced. That isn't necessarily a bad thing by the way. My comments were directed specifically at Mikey, who challenged me to defend my alternate theory to the "They're really stupid!" ethos.
The cost of equipping a single planetary defence force with modern tech in the 24th century would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of maintaining massive, M/AM powered warships. Saying that they can't afford it is quite clearly BS.So you think that empire B's resource allocation was better planned than empire A's? In an ideal situation I would agree that it would be nice to have space superiority and a good ground force. However, if a government can only guarantee one or the other the best option is space superiority.
Good, we're making progress. Now maybe one of these days you'll consider adressing them, instead of just brushing them off with "but starships make it all irrelevant!"I have.