Semi-OT: A General Tech Question Thread for me :)

[Starhawk]

Hey El-Phil congratulations for crossing from civilized discussion into snide *** rather foolish and obvious political crap that you started the last time I brought up a discussion that had nothing to do with the overall war in Iraq and this time I will not rise to your attitude that US soldiers are some how inferior to your "gods almighty" royal army buddies and btw this is my last reply to you on that subject at all as you are obviously sure yours is the only possible solution to anything in the world I'll let you keep on wrongly thinking that. The British have made plenty of stupid mistakes and I won't start debating something like that since you are either too immature or too arrogant to look at anything other then the way you want to see it.

And what I was referring to is that your "precious all seeing sensors" will probobly never exist as there is always something to counter it you'll need troops on the ground for that sort of thing because yeah they might be ambushed but they'll be a lot more capable of fighting back then simply blasting to bits a whole forest to get one squad that might be hiding from your sensors.

Oh and "Hush my mouth" Radar doesn't detect organics very well......(rolleyes)

You want a "clean bloodless" war for whoever is attacking that ain't gonna happen no matter what you do.

BTW Vietnam was a political FUBAR on many levels the US had it's hands tied and if it hadn't things probobly would have turned out much differently as they would ahve been able to pursue into Louse and Cambodia and kick the hell out of the viet kong there it had nothing to do with "Landing against opposition" we were opposed in WWII and won and many other invasions have won look at the formation of Rome, France, Spain, your beloved little Brits all of whom forged empires on the Blood of people they invaded and conquered who didn't exactly want them there, it was thanks to internal fighting and or streign of wars only that those Empires broke up.

Hmmm Taera that's a great idea that would definately be more detailed and look impressive plus it would help me get some better ideas on it for the books so I don't do the typical Trek technobabble where one thing can work this week and suddenly be totally different the next (Transporter ranges anyone? phaser abilities eh lol)

[Renegade 13]

Alright, I've only just read the first couple sentences of the last few posts, but I'd suggest taking a little time off from this particular discussion, and perhaps getting the thread back onto it's original heading??

[Will]

Indeed. Starhawk, you should edit out some of the stuff in your last post, or else a moderator will probably be forced to lock this thread. Looking over the discussion, Iraq didn't come into the discussion until you (meaning, Starhawk) brought up Clinton to bring the discussion into recent/current politics. El_Phil didn't have to throw in the current analogy for orbital invasion of an unwilling population, but you need to realize that it was _you_ who opened that door, not him bringing it into an "unrelated discussion".

[dogscoff]

Agree with Will.

To address the style of this quote from Starhawk rather than the content:

Hey El-Phil congratulations for crossing from civilized discussion into snide *** rather foolish and obvious political crap that you started the last time I brought up a discussion that had nothing to do with the overall war in Iraq and this time I will not rise to your attitude that US soldiers are some how inferior to your "gods almighty" royal army buddies and btw this is my last reply to you on that subject at all as you are obviously sure yours is the only possible solution to anything in the world I'll let you keep on wrongly thinking that.

If you're going to write a novel, you're going to need to more full stops. Here, have some of mine........................

[El_Phil]

Well as I appear to have touched a nerve I will apologise. That was a somewhat baiting post, which I probably shouldn't of phrased it a bit better. You live and learn.

What I will say is this, anything like this is so far in the future it is beyond anyones ability to predict or even guess at. Well you can guess but you'll probably be wrong.

[NullAshton]

You people change topics too fast.

[El_Phil]

Change is good, stops things festering. Like yoghurt.

[Starhawk]

Yeah yeah I know doggie , I am working on my writing already I just got a little ticked and unfortunately when I do that I type as well as I talk

Eh no Problem El-Phil you are right about the fact that it's probobly so far in the future none of us will ever be right about what will be there.

[El_Phil]

A little.. Jesus or a tricycle.
Remind to steer clear if you ever get very ticked.

[Hunpecked]

Starhawk writes: "you are right about the fact that it's probobly so far in the future none of us will ever be right about what will be there."

Actually it COULD be happening right NOW just a few light years away.

Seriously, though, given the uncertainties of future technology it's probably better to confine ourselves to the fictional Space Empires game "universe"; those of us who enjoy using troops can try to rationalize the use of ground forces (actually air/land/sea forces) in that limited context.

Off the top of my head I can think of two possibilities to start:

1) Suppose most of the planetary population would rather be "red than dead", but government and/or military officials insist on "death before dishonor" (as, for example, the Nazis and Japan's military at the end of the Second World War). Suppose further that it's impossible to take out all the die-hards from orbit without taking most of the planet along with them, but ground troops can accomplish the mission.

2) Suppose that, for whatever reason, domestic politics requires a sincere attempt to minimize "collateral" casualties, as for example with the US in Iraq, 2005 (as opposed to Japan, 1945). If SE IV sensor/weapons technology makes space-based pacification excessively bloody, then politics, rather than military considerations, may dictate the use of ground troops instead. Obviously this isn't in the game itself, but players can role-play, and fiction based on game events can include it.

Game-based fiction can also include interstellar politics, e.g. neutral empires that would likely join the enemy out of fear if the player glasses too many worlds. A writer may also use a low-casualty policy to explain the relative ease of winning the loyalty of captured populations in the game: suppose the Terrans, for example, capture Pyrochette worlds with troops, but the Pyrochette AI nukes its own (former) people just to nail a few occupying Terrans. That might not convince every Pyrochette to love the Terrans, but it might produce enough Quislings to make planetary occupations a lot easier.