>Sci-fi setting>Having infantry and AT-ATs battling on land instead of an Dreadnought Class Starship dropping to orbit and pooping out full orbital bombardment to destroy all enemy forces in one single swipeWhy do Sci-fi settings do this?
>>97763798>Why do Sci-fi settings do this?Because these are not true sci-fi settings, they are space-slopera.
>>97763798>Why do Sci-fi settings do this?They don't.You're clearly talking about fantasy.Now that your ofoff-topic bullshit is out of the way, let's talk about games. You seem to enjoy space fantasy, so what sort of fantasy game set in space would suit your interests?It also seems like you'd be more interested in some kind of mass combat thing, than something character-focused.
>>97763798Someone may or may not want the thing that's on the ground.
>>97763855If someone doesn't want it, that's a compelling case for them to blast the everloving fuck out of it so the other guy doesn't get it.
>>97763919Unless someone on the ground is more valuable alive than dead. Or there's some sort of intel that may or may not be of use.
>>97763855>>97763919>>97763940>Hehe if i wave my Lasersword at them i will surely win this!!
>>97763798because they thought a ground fight might look cool
>>97763839Obtuse retards like you are least qualified to talk about games "hurr sci-fi is actually fantasy unless it hits some autistic rule I made up" shut up faggot LOL your opinions are worthless.
>>97763798Anti-ship batteries guard low orbit. They are far cheaper and far more numerous than FTL capable cruisers. Good luck trying to scour an entire planet for thousands of camouflaged firing positions. Long range munitions are easily detected and intercepted using ballistics or shields. Drop pods, space/atmosphere fighters, and ground vehicles are absolutely necessary for planetary warfare.
>>97764181Get an actual argument, and I'll give you the attention you crave.
>>97763798>surely THIS time infantry will be obsolete
>>97763798>Not having your life forces protected by deep core bunkers.>Not having military-industrial complexes capable of continuously mass-producing anti-orbital ammunitions.>Not using your planet as a heat sink so you can fire your gigaton-powered laser against enemy ships that there getting in orbit. >Not having enormous silos with millions of anti-orbital missiles.
>>97763940Is it a thing or is it a someone?Reread >>97763855, because I didn't see anything about a someone.
>>97763798>cool a new Sci-Fi setting!>alright, so whats the deal?>oh, a war! Cool! So, what will out character do?>what do you mean they just solved it by orbital bombardment?>out characters get to do literally nothing?Wow, what a fun setting! I cant wait to see more of it!
>>97764354It could be either. Maybe there's intel they need.Maybe there's a VIP that they'd like to captureMaybe there's some of their guys that need extraction.Maybe the enemy is mixed in with the civillian population and they can't just glass the place.Maybe there's some sort of critical resource or infrastructure that needs to remain intactMaybe the area is of cultural significance to the attacking side and they can't just destroy itMaybe they're fighting literally any other kind of war aside from a war of annihilation/extermination and they actually have to like, think about what happens after.
>>97764354>>97764514Oh yeah, also both of those posts you were replying to were me.
>>97764514These are all cases for someone wanting something or someone.What if one side doesn't want those things, like the latter half of >>97763855 mentioned?
>>97764711Christ you're dense.
>>97764798I'm not the one who can't answer a straight question.If someone MAY NOT want something, what's stopping them from alpha striking the enemies?
>>97764820I'm not answering it because it's a retarded question by a retarded individual. You already know what the answer is, but you're getting so hung up on the exact wording I chose that you've completely missed the point of what I was saying.
>>97763798>Dreadnought Class Starship dropping to orbit>Dreadnought Class Starship can't sustain orbit due to a pesky thing called gravity>Dreadnought Class Starship becomes Dreadnought Class LandmarkBRLNT
>Not having your whole planet as your spaceship.
>>97763798>Vietnam War setting>Having infantry fighting in the jungle instead of B-52s carpet bombing the Charlies with nukesWhy do Vietnam War settings do this?
>>97763798Honored Matres absolutely do this shit, and then some, in the last two Dune books. It may have happened during Paul's Jihad, but even he wouldn't want to rock the boat too much and piss off the Navigator's Guild. You don't see typical sci-fi space combat in the series until after the Guild's monopoly on space travel is broken.
>>97763798Because it's cooler that way.
>>97763818>space-sloperaWell it looks like the tourists are out in strength today.
>>97763798They use the AT-ATs and infantry on Hoth because theater shields make the base impervious to orbat on any reasonable timeline. Old EU also had this as one of the primary reasons behind the Death Star, it would be able to overpower normally-considered-invincible core-world-tier theater shields.
>>97764854There is no point to what you were saying.
>>97763798>why do scifi settings do things that look cool and appeal to the heroic desires of their audience? Is this a real question? Fuck it, in the setting they're still very likely to need boots on the ground in the majority of cases. orbital bombardment or glassing places only works if its of no value to you. If its of no value to you there's not even much reason to be there at all. You've already got ftl, just destroy the planet from far away.
>>97763798>>Having infantry and AT-ATs battling on landbecause the rebel base had a shield generator so they had to land forces and destroy it. Please pay attention to the plot
>>97765305>muh space-sloperaWell it looks like the nogames are out in strength today.
bit of a shame nobody has made a 2mm or 3mm scale wargame using the 1950's era pentomic division logic as the foundation where nukes are the standard weapon that defines how everything works. Would need a crazy ground scale even in that scale though
>>97763798>IRL Setting.>having infantry and tanks instead of just spending all your money on a million ICBM's.Wars usually happen because X has something and Y wants it. Y can't take it if they blow it up.
>>97763798Someone may want someone or something that is on the surface.
>>97764259>Drop pods, space/atmosphere fighters, and ground vehicles are absolutely necessary for planetary warfare.but>Anti-ship batteries guard low orbit. ...
>>97763798Ironic that you picked that image for the OP, when the Harkonnen warship doing that missile strike is the final stage of the battle, not its start. Before the Baron came down from orbit with his capital ship, he already had a traitor on the inside shut down the city's defenses, then sent in a wave of bombers and dropships full of infantry to take out the main airfield, supported by Sardaukar special forces dudes grav-paradropping in behind the Atreides lines. And if you look where the Harkonnen battleship is when it unleashes the missile spam, it's just firing indiscriminately into the civilian quarter of Arakeen. Basically teabagging a foe already defeated by a conventional combined-arms air/ground assault.
>>97763798In Empire Strikes Back, Vader knew Luke was with the rebels on Hoth by that point, so just blowing it up from orbit wouldn't be an option since he was still hoping to recruit him. So there's that.
>>97764711Well, in Dune that happens at the end of book 5 (I believe it's book 5, anyway) and Dune/Arrakis gets glassed.Glassing or exterminatus'ing or colony dropping or what-have-you is usually a known tactic/possibility in most scifi. It's not employed because of roughly the list anon provided.
>>97763798Maybe it isnt that easy? Or you want to keep the infrastructure for yourself? Keep the civilians alive? If it would be that easy the Iran war would be over since a week.
>>97766260He didn't think about it very hard. the truth is it's not really necessary though. there's plenty of examples from history where bombardment from ships' superior guns was not sufficient to rout an entrenched enemy. star wars and other space opera already pull from WW2 a ton, there's dozens of examples there.
>>97763798>>97763818>>97763839Retarded question. United States has been in a constant state of war since the 40's yet it has launched nuclear weapons only twice. You don't fucking glass the planet every time something on it inconveniences you because by doing so you lose everything ON that planet.
>>97766260You think a drop pod dive bombing a planet at retarded speeds is as easy to intercept as a bomber in a predictable orbit? Moreover, you think they are as large or expensive as FTL-capable ships?Hang out in high orbit where you can evade planetary defenses, deploy smaller and more numerous vessels to the surface. This is a solved problem in sci-fi.>>97766878I did think about it that hard.
>>97763798>All the resources on the planet are lost>The planet is no longer habitable, meaning the fight was for literally nothing and you come out at a net negative>The PR is awful for the general populaceAnd that's just a few. You fucking faggot retards don't understand the first thing about warfare. You think it's just two groups of people having a pissing match, it's not. You're so out of fucking touch, you don't understand that it's about resources. Territory. What good is a planet if it's been glassed from orbit you retard? What good are its resources if it's been destroyed?You fight on the ground because you want to minimize damage to the territory and resources, because you want a scalpel. Orbital Bombardment is a fucking cudgel that harms you as much as or more than your opponent. Not only are you wasting energy and resources to glass a planet, you're also ensuring you won't get those resources back because the planet you were fighting for is now a useless husk, your civilian population hates your guts and might even rebel if you glass enough planets out of fear of being glassed themselves, and you've accomplished fuck and all in the process.
price of taking planet:paid in bombs = $1000000paid in human life = $10000meat puppets win
>>97763798 Not every setting is 40k, OP. Just because a guy you disagree with was found shitting on some backwater planet doesn't mean the whole fucking thing is corrupted and needs to be "dood exterminatus lmao."
>IRL>Having infantry and APCs battling on land instead of a Nimitz Class Supercarrier parking off the coast and pooping out full aerial bombardment to destroy all enemy forces in one single swipeWhy does IRL do this?
>>97769365US restraint in use of nuclear weapons isn't out of concern about environmental devastation, but fear of receiving retaliation in kind.
>>97763798Because it's cool you insufferable faggots
>>97770986its similar to "you couldn't rebel against the US government because they have bombers, fighters and tanks" and then we look at all the time we've been in the middle east and realize it amounts to nothing done right. Wars aren't deathmatches and can't be just solved by leveling out your enemy. You go to war because you want something not because you're aiming for a kill count.
>>97771065Sometimes the goal isn't swift and decisive victory, sometimes the goal is more along the lines of field-testing wide assortment of gear.
>>97763798Because the prefer to operate on their personal rule-of-cool rather than dedicate themselves to the impossible task of satisfying every intolerable pseudo-intellectual's enlightened criteria for a believable setting.
>>97771156Ideally you don't want to engage enemy troops at all, just keep surgically assassinating enemy leaders until one of them is willing to surrender.
>>97763798Traditional games?
>>97769953You think that a drop pod large enough to contain a human let alone a human sized vehicle can't be intercepted by anti-missile missiles or other area defence weapons? This is a solved problem in sci-fi.>I did think about it that hard.Yet still not hard enough.>Moreover, you think they are as large or expensive as FTL-capable ships?They only thing you did hard was build that little strawman right there.
>>97763798Settings have Thier own feel and style. Some are hard sci-fi, some are retro future, some have things like psionicd or mind uploading.You use what fits the style and theme of a setting.
>>97763798Ground based defenses have an advantage over space ones since they can armor up more and be more bulky in general and they get atmosphere as a heatsink so they can run reactors at much higher power without fragiel radiators
Orbital bombardments can't capture and hold territory. Same reason why the airforce alone can't win a war, and why infantry and ground vehicles are still a thing in modern war. Not all wars are just seeing who can most efficiently glass their opponents the fastest.
>>97771095It's neither, or we would've nuked China during the Korean War like MacArthur wanted to. It was because it's bad PR. Causing massive disproportionate and indiscriminate destruction is bad optics, even if you're killing non-human animals like Communists.
Also the infantry are fighting pitched battles where they throw themselves at eachother in mobs
>>97766260Orbital guns are expensive, they can't be covering every inch of the planet. You find the gaps in their coverage (probably in the local Bumfuckistan desert region) where you can put your troops down while using the horizon as cover, then have them leg it over to the guns and knock them down.
>>97771095>fear of receiving retaliation in kindRetard. Nobody would have nuked the US if the US decided to nuke Saddam Hussein, for example. Hell, America could nuke Tehran right now and nobody would nuke them. There MIGHT be sanctions, but that's about it.
>>97785656That's not an orbital gun, that's a surface anti-orbital gun. An orbital gun would be one that is in orbit, or which fires orbitals.>plot armourDefences don't have to reach into space, though chances are some will to produce a standoff defence. Shorter range weapons can cover every inch of the planet. While the assaulting troops are (trying to) land and leg it, defensive troops and atmospheric defences are cutting them down.Did you miss the part where the earlier anon reduced everything in sci-fi to a solved problem? Whatever you say works in your setting works because you say so which undermines the premise of this part of the discussion.
>>97785761>An orbital gun would be one that is in orbitWhy static in-orbit defenses don't work is something so easy to understand that even David Weber grasped it, so I didn't think they were using that meaning. You can at least armor something planetside without having to worry about getting the mass of it up into orbit.>Shorter range weapons can cover every inch of the planet. While the assaulting troops are (trying to) land and leg it, defensive troops and atmospheric defences are cutting them down.Yep, landings are always nasty, but it's not like Normandy didn't fall.>Whatever you say works in your setting works because you say so which undermines the premise of this part of the discussion.That sounds really boring.
>>97764711If there's not any one of those things listed, why are they even fighting over it?
>>97785646because that looks way cooler than some 5man squads doing shit
Anyone know a color between GW's Mechanicus Standard Grey and Dawnstone? I tried using the comparative color list in the Mega, and bought London Grey, however, it's lighter than Dawnstone so I'm not trusting it. I trust you guys, doe
