In general taking the high ground is always advisable and what higher ground is there than space? But is that to high up?

This is a general problem that comes up when discussing a battle between to armies in scifi. One side may win the ground battle but because they cannot hold to orbital space they have effectively lost the war. But would this be the case?

Not if the orbital side wants to actually secure any valuable resources or avoid civilian casualties. Most orbit to ground weapons in scifi ever designed really don't have tactical strike capacity unless they get down really low and close which may not always be possible or may render the ships vulnerable to anti-air fire.

Most star ship weapons hit with forces equal to or greater than nuclear weapons. Most simply hit with to much force to avoid excessive damage to the surrounding area. Even beam weapons have this problem if the target is well dug in, to the point where stratgic assets are the only thing destroy the fortifications. This often requires a ground assault to dig out the enemy.

Thoughts? Opinions?

5659398
It does depend on the kind of war you're fighting. At minimum, all you need to do to knock a planet out of the war is to destroy any spaceports or dockyards capable of supporting FTL capable craft. Then just leave a frigate or some second line craft in orbit to keep them from rebuilding the spaceport, ground-orbit weapons, or starships.

It wouldn't matter how many people live there, how many war materials the planet can churn out, or the quality/quantity of their garrisons. They'd have no way to bring their forces to bear anywhere else*.

A couple ships for patrolling/blockading a world is far cheaper than a full scale ground invasion. Though, given where some of the starports would be, I do see a need for special forces to sneak in and sabotage ports, ground-based weapon platforms, and on the defensive to guard key points like ground-based communications relays. But other than that, every person that would have otherwise been assigned for the one invasion could be used to shore up logistics lines or crew ships in the fleet to secure the orbit of other worlds.

Plus if you let the local population live mostly as normal, you won't have to deal with irregular forces coming out of the woodworks. All while blasting propaganda to slowly bring the locals over to your side.

* Unless it's a scenario where stargates or intersystem transporters exist and are common. In which case, jam the transporters and station garrison forces around the stargate.

5659398
that depends entirely on exactly how future-y your setting is. is it just the start of the space age, or has the nation already covered a nice part of the galaxy?

5659409
Might not be that simple depending on how effective a groups logistics are. Star Ports would be assumedly heavily defended to repel an orbital or ground assault. Also depends on if the system has resource you want or need capture or not. What you are describing is a wither-on-the-vine strategy which is fine but still requires securing strategic positions.

5659398
5659409
There are some justifications in Sci-fi for having ground assaults depending on how you go about it. In Star Wars (legends) for example not only do anti-orbial weapons exist (e.i. Ion cannons which EMP ships, turbo lasers which can blast light and medium ships out of orbit) , but also plantary shield which are usually coincidentally located in the cities which are heavily fortified during times of war. These shield can stand bombardment for days on end and if it ceases for even a moment the shields can quickly get for strengh.

5659417
True, which is why I do endorse inserting special forces to sabotage the ports. Much lower risk and potential resource cost than landing a large force that could be bogged down by city fighting.
Hell, turn the defender's own city against them and slowly peck away at the defenders using guerrilla tactics. Urban fighting is always hell for the larger force.

What you are describing is a wither-on-the-vine strategy

Indeed, and there's something just so satisfying about watching a foe slowly lose because their economy is in shambles. And the best part is that it no longer has the fridge horror of the wither tactic's use in the past/today since most planets would be able to feed their own populations.

which is fine but still requires securing strategic positions

True, that's one of the failings of the strategy. If the proverbial front lines fall or are bypassed then it would only take a minimal amount of resources for the enemy to bring that planet back up to 100% output if it hasn't already turned by that point.

5659430
Well, if the shields are only around the cities then the obvious solution is to bombard the road and railways. Without the ability to transport food from the farmland, the cities will starve and surrender as they slowly eat through their rations.
Also shoot down aircraft capable of transporting bulk goods.

5659433
That would work for Organic troops... not going to work for inorganic troops and even then if it's war the cities should stock up on enough food and resources to resist for weeks until reinforcements and if those's reinforcements are only days or hours away it's less likely blockades would work.

5659433
Usually its meant to hold the line until reinforcements arrive. Sieges can work both ways remember?
5659431
In theory at least they should be able to feed themselves but not always.

5659438
Point taken. Bombardment of power generation facilities and massive use of powerful electromagnetic pulses would be needed when facing inorganic troops.

5659439

Usually its meant to hold the line until reinforcements arrive. Sieges work both ways remember?

Point taken. Though by that same logic, landing troops would also be a bad idea as then if reinforcements arrive you could be forced to leave tens of thousands of your own men behind. Where as with a blockade force, you could easily pull the few ships there and live to fight another day.

In theory at least they should be able to feed themselves but not always.

True. To borrow an example from Star Wars, Coruscant would quickly starve unless it has vertical farms. And any recent colony or outpost would also likely starve as they would not be developed enough to be self-sustaining. Though that would also play to the occupying forces advantage as then you can offer aid for their surrender.
And that's not even considering something like Babylon 5's Earth Alliance which actively keeps its colonies from being completely self-sufficient so they don't try to rebel against Earth. IIRC.

5659449
Actually that is a genuine threat to Coruscant. as very little room is available for agriculture and what room there is cannot hope to feed Coruscant's massive population on its own, the same for other city planets in Star Wars. Good news is Coruscant usually has enough emergency stockpiles to last several months without resupply or if resupply is hampered. Losing major agriculture worlds however can quickly cripple larger and more industrialized worlds.

Happens in 40k as well, with hive and forge worlds, they simply can't produce enough local food stuffs to feed their massive populations so they have to import a lot of their food.

Also that's assuming that the power generators aren't contained inside the shield system.

5659459
I will never understand why there are so many city-planets/hive worlds in sci-fi. At what point in universe did it seem like a good idea to overbuild that much?
Of course, that's a discussion for a different time.

Losing major agriculture worlds however can quickly cripple larger and more industrialized worlds.

Those, along with mining worlds, are often my first objectives to take in a war. Remove their ability to produce their best equipment, and all they'll have left is wave after wave of their own people. And populations take a LOT longer to replenish than fleets.

Also that's assuming that the power generators aren't contained inside the shield system.

Also true. In which case the best solutions are to bombard power lines and/or secure the airspace around the power plants then send in small craft that can go under the shield. Assuming Star Wars style ground shielding which block orbital bombardment, but allow relatively slow moving craft, such as troopships/gunships, to bypass them

5659470
Yes slow landing craft can bypass the shields... which is way you see them getting blast them with anti-aircraft guns and fighters lunched from the ground. It's actually terrifying to land anywhere close to your target and landing to fair isn't a option either. However once you land and secure the area it's almost impossible for your enemy to win without reinforcements.

Planet-cities are factually impossible. Imagine global warming, turned up literally to infinity. A planet like that will overheat until all atmospheric water has boiled away. It's factually impossible to radiate heat away faster than a planet-city would produce it. This is just not a feasible option to begin with.

As to orbital bombardment... honestly? Smart bombs. You are in space. You presumably have a fairly good fucking grasp on automation and targeting systems and such. Swarms of semi-autonomous hunter-seeker missile drones are a genuine possibility here. The logistics of planetary invasion require armies numbered in the billions, though, not the millions, so who knows how realistic even that is as an option. It's one of those things we won't really understand until we do it.

Sure as hell won't be getting any planets conquered by a group of a hundred over-sized testosterone monsters, though, that's for sure.

5659507
True at best ground warfare would be sending in teams and unites to capture important targets (e.I. Capital, leaders, defensives and Important milary instlations) and after capturing these points along with orbital supremacy would give you the win.

40k warfare is o over the top it's laughable.

5659495
If we go that far, I'll take advantage of physics and simply hit the area around the shield. Can't stop thermodynamics from taking effect and cooking the defending troops.

5659514
Yeah, no, when I say billions, that's the required number. Imagine guerilla warfare over an entire world. Utter and complete air superiority is the bare minimum and from there, you need to crush ground resistance completely and utterly. Even if you bring a billion troops, you will have a ground population outnumbering you by at least ten times that, on just a relatively thinly populated planet like Earth. There is almost an infinite number of places where resistance could be hiding, everyone will be resistance, and they will always know the terrain better than you. An entire world of people who don't want you there, you don't overcome that by taking some minor strategic targets. WH40K has the right idea in that sense: More Men, More Tanks is exactly what you'd need.

Even orbital bombardment would have to be so massively saturating, it basically reduces the planet to ash. It's a ridiculously massive logistical undertaking.

5659511
It's not that. Trust me with the right defensive a planet can destroy a attacking fleet. However having a enemy fleet in orbit is a huge advantage as they can resupply troops. If the fleet has control of the system without reinforcements fighting only delays the enviable.

5659470
Actually the shield in Question had to be briefly lowered or opened to allow ships to escape. Thus the Empire had to take the generators from the ground.

5659507
Assuming the smart bombs aren't destroyed on the way down of course.

5659511
A fair point to be made.

Actually the whole point I was trying to discuss is how Orbital Bombardment isn't exactly the practical "I win" button that some people have made it out to be. 40k fans for example if they lose a ground fight will go, "well shit, that didn't work. Oh well! COMMENCE EXTERMINATUS!"

5659542
Oh it blocks ALL aerospace craft. Suddenly the trench line makes a lot more sense.

5659518 So the majority of your forces would be A.I?

5659545
And why Vader was so pissed at Ozzel for screwing up the approach as it meant the Empire couldn't properly bring its capitol ships to the fight properly. Meanwhile the rebels had not only air superiority in the local area of echo base but also meant that the empire would have to risk taking fire from the rebel Ion canon during attempts to intercept rebel evacuation ships, which would leave the Star destroyers vulnerable to Rebel Star Fighters.

Unfortunately the rebels lacked the AT weapons needed to effectively counter the Imperial walkers, most of their heavy defense guns were older models bought on the cheap that, while effective against AT-ST's were less effective against AT-AT's. This combined with the superior range of the AT-AT-AT's main guns made the rebel defense at best a delaying action. The Rebel Snow Speeders improvised a tactic to counter the AT-AT's but the TOW Cable attacks proved costly as they left the speeders extremely vulnerable to Imperial defensive fire and the rebels only had around 20 speeders available.

5659547
Calling that A.I. would be too generous, I think. It would be both a waste and logistically unfeasible to put an artificial intelligence into something that's more like self-aiming munitions that you could drop over the planet in bulk. I'm thinking something that's more like from mid-sized missile to bunker buster size and loaded with advanced visual recognition and IFF routines, that kind of thing. Not suited to carpet bombing, but the self-aiming aspect makes it have relatively good coverage while minimizing collateral damage.

5659571 Sounds like something straight out of the Culture series.

5659627
I was actually inspired by that scene with Skaffen-Amtiskaw in Use Of Weapons there. You know, the one where he uses his drone body to just rip straight through an entire small company's worth of native soldiers. Including their horse things.

5659629 YOU SPOILER!
I only just finished the second book, The Player of Games.

5659640
Don't worry, it's not an important scene and I didn't tell you when or why it happens.

Think twice before reading Use Of Weapons, by the way. I think it's one of the best science-fiction novels ever written, but the plot is like a kick in the gut, over and over. Seriously, once it came to the big plot climax, I had to put sit down for half an hour just to process the whole thing, it hits you that hard. It's a really emotionally exhausting book, which says something, coming from me. Great writing, but not actually pleasant to read.

5659641 Thanks, you just hit me with a +2 hammer of hype.

5659674
Make that +3, because the story is, in addition, also told in this really neat way where half of it is in regular chronological order and half of it is basically told in reverse. This isn't a spoiler, it's something that's supposed to be visible from the beginning, but a lot of people I've talked found it pretty confusing until they managed to pick up on it, so it helps to know that in advance.

Just be aware that you'll probably feel like shit for the rest of the day once you're done reading. It's that kind of book.

5659685
I'm going now, i need to read at least the first chapter before i go mad.
Good night!

5659694
Enjoy. I look forward to hearing you curse me for not warning you more loudly.

5659511 The best part of SOTS is that the empires convert their arsenals of nukes they built in their cold wars into anti-ship missiles. Capital planets are able to take out invasions undefended.

(Even better is that in the case of the humans it happened about a day after a reactionary coup.)

5659899
As far as planetary invasions go, I like the way Galactic Civilizations handles it better. Invasions will involve literally billions of troops, with what orbital support is available having a massive impact on the environment. Planets are rated by class. If Earth is a Class 10 planet and Mars a class 4, Orbital Mass Driver bombardment can easily reduce a planet from class 10 to class 6, from the sheer ecological and geological impact. Less damaging methods, like tide-jacking the planet and washing away the majority of civilization with globe-spanning tsunamis will still cause genocide and wipe out basically any planetary development.

In practical terms, this is closest to what I can imagine a real invasion on a well-populated planet to work like.

5659913 Hello Wlam

I like the way Galactic Civilizations handles it better.

Goodbye Wlam.

Galciv did it alright in that regard but it still made it compulsory to land troops and while that's something I'd normally do, I like the option of bombing when it's needed. Sins had a similar thing in that, if you bomb a really fortified planet you can't colonise it for a long time because of all the radiation. Or if you're playing TEC you can have an auxillary government in a starbase and never lose the planet to bombardment because bureaucracy > nukes.

5659921

Goodbye Wlam.

Oh, shush, you. I really don't like anything else about the series, being one of those boring "+x% to fart collecting" games with nothing interesting at all in the research tree, but credit where credit is due. SOTS streamlines shit massively, pretty much by intent. Conquering the galaxy with fleets of up to 10 ships at a time isn't really there for the realism of it.

I gotta commend the whole biological warfare thing it has going, though. That part is neat.

Sins had a similar thing

I never could get into Sins. It's too much like a jacked-up Star Trek: Armada for my tastes. I play space 4x for the strategy. Realtime on limited maps just doesn't really work for that.

5659545
5659561
If Ozzel hadn't messed up the approve and if the Rebels didn't have as much time as they did I suspect the fleet would have preformed a Base Delta Zero on Hoth.

5659932

Oh, shush, you. I really don't like anything else about the series, being one of those boring "+x% to fart collecting" games with nothing interesting at all in the research tree,

Hello again Wlam. A huge problem I had with Gal Civ was the tone was bit silly whereas SOTS is a bit darker.

I gotta commend the whole biological warfare thing it has going, though. That part is neat.

I personally used bio warfare ships because you can run in, run out, and after some waiting the planet would be dead.

Dropbear always went with the asteroid option, but I always like the idea of attaching FTL to missiles.

I never could get into Sins. It's too much like a jacked-up Star Trek: Armada for my tastes. I play space 4x for the strategy. Realtime on limited maps just doesn't really work for that.

I like to think of it as a much better Supreme Commander. It's a pretty comfy game to play at LAN parties.

5659937
So, orbital bombardment.
BDZ has been mutilated by various writers. In it's original incarnation, it was basically the Star Wars version of General Order 24. From there, some writers inflated it to the point where it meant 'liquify the mantel'. Even though the original version talked about people and fighters ground side immediately after a BDZ to clean up survivors.

Does that code even still exist in the Disney era canon?

5659960
Yep... it's basically General Order 24 in Disney Canon.

5659949

Hello again Wlam. A huge problem I had with Gal Civ was the tone was bit silly whereas SOTS is a bit darker.

It's really about as dark as you make it. An all-evil 8 civs game can end up having some really dark random events. The backstory of that game is really not very pleasant, once you pick up the hints of where all those precursors went to. SOTS, on the other hand, has hivers who get drunk on cheese and can smell your farts to tell what you had for dinner. Yes, this is canon. I always thought it really didn't take itself too seriously, despite the wanton planet-wide slaughter.

I like to think of it as a much better Supreme Commander. It's a pretty comfy game to play at LAN parties.

Does it have that kind of scale? I've got Trinity lying around here somewhere, but it really didn't seem that big.

5659960
Liquefying the mantel is possible but excessive, to clarify a hit from a UNSC Super MAC could crack a continent. In other star wars media such as the Old Republic you actually run into a scientist trying to determine if a relatively recent orbital bombardment may have caused damage to the planets tectonic plates, ou find out that no it has not, but that damage dealt is still sever structurally for the large buildings and plate like levels of Coruscant.

5660024
Oh I don't have a problem with liquifying the mantel, it's timescale and number of ships. Since it was inflated from 100 ships of unknown type and over an unknown period of time to destroy every major population and resource center to 1 ISD in liquifying the mantel in a single day.

Hmm, a study on the effects of orbital bombardment on plate tectonics. That has to be the single best idea for a doctoral thesis in geology.

5660031
Again, old silliness. Or potentially Imperial Propaganda and exaggeration.

To clarify the only things currently able to destroy an entire planet that fast in canon are the Death Stars and Starkiller Base, which can actually kill multiple planets at once.

5660024
5660031
Canon is not all that impressive in that front.

In legends there are a few Super Star Destroyers with a super laser that while not as powerful as the death stars can creak continents, The Galaxy Gun which is a complex space station that fires missiles though hyperspace armed with the payload to glass a planet and my favorite the Starcrucher a fighter sized craft that is armed with specially designed torpedo that can cause any star to enter into a supernova like explosion.

5660048
WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE STUPID F*CKING SUNCRUSHER!

5660039
Understood.

5660048

specially designed torpedo that can cause any star to enter into a supernova like explosion.

Okay, now that is blatantly ripping off Star Trek's Trilithium Torpedo from Generations.

Or the lesser known Nova Bombs from Andromeda.

5660054
I sense a glorious rant incoming.

5660066
Well the torpedoes themselves are fine. They exist in other franchises and what not. The rest of the Sun Crusher is so god damn stupidly op that it is literally the refined essence of all of the stupid shit from the Legends that everyone with half a brain likes to ignore or just acknowledge as kind of having happened but probably not in the manner it was depicted. And it was created by Kevin J. Anderson, universally recognized as the second worst Star Wars writer of the entire Legends EU behind only the Travesty herself.

Also I'd like to double check that rip off. The Novel where the Sun Crusher first appeared came out in march of 1994.

5660066
To furter sum it up the suncrusher is made up of a alloy that let's it fly though Star Destroyers

5660082

And that is why we don't talk about it.

5660071
Roger that.

5660082
5660085