Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

obviously you miss the whole point of what the 40K universe is about, its not so easy, there is only one religion, the religion of the God Emperor on his golden Throne and thats it, anything else is sedition and up for exterminatus, in fact the SM's wouldn't even bother with negotiations or such, they would just wipe us out from orbit as being tainted.

Then you aren't reading all the fiction. Some Chapters are more viscous than others. What I gave is the "nice approach", the way Ultramarines (who prefer to leave worlds intact and capable) might go about it. Black Templars? I'm sure they would be more prone to just start firing.

the Space Marines can be equated with groups like ISIS, The Catholic Church during the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition you attribute too much mercy to very strict troops.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Finally, you greatly exaggerate how people can self sustain themselves. To illustrate, how many of you actually know how to slaughter a chicken? And that's just properly killing it so you don't suffer poisoning from contamination from it's waste. You still need to catch it, or even just find it. Or crops; how many of us actually know how to properly plant something so it can bear enough fruit to actually eat? if you think food production would be as easy as digging a hole, tossing in a seed and dumping some water on it, you wouldn't last very long in such a scenario. As an exercise, see if you can gather, from your own group of friend, at least one person who would know how to make a shirt from scratch, how to build a stable shelter that can stand up to a rain storm, and how to properly catch game and slaughter it for human consumption.

I can do all that and i'm not very proficient in such things, grow my own herbs and couple of citrus trees and such at my house, know how to handle animals for cooking and so on and so on, now the younger generation might be bereft of such skills, but my generation probably would not find any of that strenuous nor taxing.

Asterios wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Finally, you greatly exaggerate how people can self sustain themselves. To illustrate, how many of you actually know how to slaughter a chicken? And that's just properly killing it so you don't suffer poisoning from contamination from it's waste. You still need to catch it, or even just find it. Or crops; how many of us actually know how to properly plant something so it can bear enough fruit to actually eat? if you think food production would be as easy as digging a hole, tossing in a seed and dumping some water on it, you wouldn't last very long in such a scenario. As an exercise, see if you can gather, from your own group of friend, at least one person who would know how to make a shirt from scratch, how to build a stable shelter that can stand up to a rain storm, and how to properly catch game and slaughter it for human consumption.

I can do all that and i'm not very proficient in such things, grow my own herbs and couple of citrus trees and such at my house, know how to handle animals for cooking and so on and so on, now the younger generation might be bereft of such skills, but my generation probably would not find any of that strenuous nor taxing.

I said "How many", not "can you do it". One person is not enough to feed a community.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Finally, you greatly exaggerate how people can self sustain themselves. To illustrate, how many of you actually know how to slaughter a chicken? And that's just properly killing it so you don't suffer poisoning from contamination from it's waste. You still need to catch it, or even just find it. Or crops; how many of us actually know how to properly plant something so it can bear enough fruit to actually eat? if you think food production would be as easy as digging a hole, tossing in a seed and dumping some water on it, you wouldn't last very long in such a scenario. As an exercise, see if you can gather, from your own group of friend, at least one person who would know how to make a shirt from scratch, how to build a stable shelter that can stand up to a rain storm, and how to properly catch game and slaughter it for human consumption.

I can do all that and i'm not very proficient in such things, grow my own herbs and couple of citrus trees and such at my house, know how to handle animals for cooking and so on and so on, now the younger generation might be bereft of such skills, but my generation probably would not find any of that strenuous nor taxing.

I said "How many", not "can you do it". One person is not enough to feed a community.

Also forgot too mention even in todays society with smart bombs and such, there are still civilian casualties and most small communities that would survive would have a basic understanding of surviving on their own.

There are a bunch of "crazy survivalists" that nonetheless do know how to fend for themselves. But the majority of the population does not (the fact that the term "crazy survivalist" even exists shows our mentality as a society towards such attitudes). The exercise I brought up specifically challenges you to see how many of your friends actually knows how to do those things, then you compare it with the total number of people you actually know (not just friends, everyone). Then you'd get an idea of just how low the percentage of people who are actually self-sustainable are. You yourself even admitted people of the younger generation (most likely my generation and younger) would be "bereft of such skills".

This means that many of them would not be dead from the initial attack, but have to slowly come to the realization that they will die a miserable and slow death, which is why they would riot, causing further chaos.

EDIT: Also yes, being keenly aware that my generation would be screwed without the elder generation's handholding is not a comforting thought in the slightest, which is why I'm currently in the process of learning how to do basic repairs on equipment, hunting and farming techniques, if only to calm the mind.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
There are a bunch of "crazy survivalists" that nonetheless do know how to fend for themselves. But the majority of the population does not (the fact that the term "crazy survivalist" even exists shows our mentality as a society towards such attitudes). The exercise I brought up specifically challenges you to see how many of your friends actually knows how to do those things, then you compare it with the total number of people you actually know (not just friends, everyone). Then you'd get an idea of just how low the percentage of people who are actually self-sustainable are. You yourself even admitted people of the younger generation (most likely my generation and younger) would be "bereft of such skills".

This means that many of them would not be dead from the initial attack, but have to slowly come to the realization that they will die a miserable and slow death, which is why they would riot, causing further chaos.

EDIT: Also yes, being keenly aware that my generation would be screwed without the elder generation's handholding is not a comforting thought in the slightest, which is why I'm currently in the process of learning how to do basic repairs on equipment, hunting and farming techniques, if only to calm the mind.

Survivalists have been losing the crazy term, albeit there are some that are crazy, but with the increase of survival shows and survival product sales, it would tend to think that more are now prepared then ever before, most of my friends are like me, we are not survivalists, but we could survive I know certain herbs which are medicinal in nature and fishing is a simple skill and basic understanding of surviving along with most of my friends, cannot say all of them cause its not a topic that usually comes up, I have a 2 month supply of that god awful survival food that lasts for decades for 4 people, I have spare items if needed and so forth, but these are basic things even the government says you should keep on hand.

as to the younger generation not saying they are stupid or idiots, but that their brains are hard wired in other ways towards electronics and such, and any good invasion would include ECM pulses and such to wipe out all electronics so most of those skills would be useless if such an attack occured.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The real world also has technology that would put the Eldar and Tau to shame.

The opposite is also true. . . starships, antigrav. Even just Lasguns.

Sure, but a lot of that is somewhat misleading. Lasguns dont offer any new tactical capability that a 70 year old Kalashnikov does not (and, more to the point, Lasgun functionality in 40k is portrayed nothing like how laser devices function in reality, but instead follow the Star Wars model of just replacing a lead bullet with a bright red light bolt and otherwise operating like a modern firearm ). Likewise, 40k starships operate in manners more akin to 18th century Age of Sail methods, both in ship functions and tactical operation, than modern day warships do. Indentured crew turn turrets and load shells by hand in chain gangs and the like, stuff that simply would not function on an actual starship. Even antigrav, as its used and described in 40k, at best just replicates Helicopter capabilities.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Nobody in 40k can fight beyond visual range like modern fighters can.

All 40K starships fight beyond visual range, as do orbital and ground defenses.

Survivalist TV shows is something of a mixed-bag for me, because I have seen people think that just because they watched a few of those that they are capable of living in the wild (which is woefully untrue, since like any other skill it's not something you get instantly by just reading manuals)

And as someone from one of the younger generations, city-folk are comically inept without electronics. My lil sis does actually go a bit crazy if she doesn't have her phone fully charged and with signal.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Survivalist TV shows is something of a mixed-bag for me, because I have seen people think that just because they watched a few of those that they are capable of living in the wild (which is woefully untrue, since like any other skill it's not something you get instantly by just reading manuals)

And as someone from one of the younger generations, city-folk are comically inept without electronics. My lil sis does actually go a bit crazy if she doesn't have her phone fully charged and with signal.

could you imagine the chaos that would occur if the internet went down the world over? who needs to bomb things, wipe out the internet and chaos would follow.

as too some survival shows, look at Bear Gryllis, during his shows when he was supposed to be roughing it or surviving in the wilderness he was staying in a cushy hotel.

as to survival skills some basic skills were taught in things like the Boy Scouts and you earned badges for it, now some of the badges you could earn in the Boy Scouts makes me want to wonder what the feth?

 Vaktathi wrote:
-snip re: Modern vs 40k technology

The thing is, our missile tracking and beyond visual range engagement methods wouldn't work against Eldar fighters, because they all have Holo-Fields, which explicitly jam any kind of tracking devices, including ones that use a wider spectrum than our own, and make it effectively impossible to target the vehicle. Their fighters are also capable of ridiculous manoeuvres that make dogfighting perfectly viable and have superhuman pilots with interfacing methods that allow far easier and more responsive control of the plane. To give an example of one such advantage - our most modern planes can possibly reach double-digit g-forces if they're built for it. Eldar Nightwings have pulled off manoeuvres in their novel appearances that have been calculated at 11,000 g's.

Looking at things in a vacuum, sure, they do things that don't make sense to us with our understanding of science and military tactics. But they don't operate by the same rules we do, and a lot of unviable tactics or delivery methods suddenly become a lot less so when you aren't necessarily bound by the laws of physics as we understand them.

I don't know, I think the limitations of the table top game should come into the play here because that is the purpose for the fluff/lore to exist. Units on a 40K battlefield generally need to be relative close together to engage one another. That's for the sake of gameplay obviously but the flavor of combat is in stark contrast to modern tactics which prioritize staying as far away from your enemy as possible, or be undetected, while inflicting maximum damage.

Also, modern nuclear weapons would likely take a toll on a 40K army ground force. Considering that a Space Marine Bolter is basically a hand held .50 caliber sub machinegun , at Strength 4 Ap 5, a nuclear weapon would be magnitudes higher in power, possilby D strength. In addition, using the Bolter as a comparison, modern missile technology could easily be Str7-9 Ap 3. Armies of the modern world have large quantites of these missiles ready to go at any given moment. Long range attacks from missiles and nuclear weapons would pose the biggest threat to any 40K army invasion force.

I would agree, though, that any combat in really close vicinty, would go to almost any army in 40K, if we were going to leave out missiles, modern aircraft airstrikes, etc.

With that said, the best option for an invading force would be to stay in space with their spacecraft and do their conquering from there, since they would have a huge and inequtiable edge against comparatively fledging modern space capabilities.

 Robin5t wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
-snip re: Modern vs 40k technology

The thing is, our missile tracking and beyond visual range engagement methods wouldn't work against Eldar fighters, because they all have Holo-Fields, which explicitly jam any kind of tracking devices, including ones that use a wider spectrum than our own, and make it effectively impossible to target the vehicle.

That doesn't seem to stop other munitions, both guided and unguided from successfully engaging the Eldar in the 40k universe, often many extremely primitive ones, it just means they miss more. Holofields are far from foolproof. They're not perfect stealth or invisibility.

Their fighters are also capable of ridiculous manoeuvres that make dogfighting perfectly viable

Dogfighting viability isnt a matter of maneuverability, its a matter of range. A missile launched from 100 miles away doesnt need to actually physically catch and make contact a fighter, they get within a set distance and then just need a fraction of a second to detonate their warhead and send a cloud of shrapnel at or in the path of the target like a giant shotgun. You can be as nimble as you want, if the missile can get close enough, it's over. It's also unlikely that we'd be talking about a single missile, trying to dodge and outrun one missile, ok, but four or five or a dozen? Then try dodging fire from a Phalanx system that can just fill the airspace your aircraft occupies with so much lead that there's nowhere to escape into.

and have superhuman pilots with interfacing methods that allow far easier and more responsive control of the plane. To give an example of one such advantage - our most modern planes can possibly reach double-digit g-forces if they're built for it. Eldar Nightwings have pulled off manoeuvres in their novel appearances that have been calculated at 11,000 g's.

I havent read that book, but that sounds like an instance of an author really not having any clue of what they are talking about (wouldnt be a first for 40k). That's about the acceleration of a artillery shell experiences for the briefest of times during firing. Even if the aircraft and pilots themselves were somehow magically capable of withstanding that, the air turbulence generated by such maneuvers would be toss the craft around like a paper plane in a hurricane. I haven't seen such a figure given in an IA book or Codex that I can recall.

I mean, I can buy them being faster and more maneuverable than modern aircraft, and able to take more G forces and dramatically outdogfight modern aircraft. Ok, I can buy all of that, but when we start talking about things like 11000 G maneuvers, the limits of physical matter, inverse square law, and thermodynamics start to kick back very hard even when talking about theoretical materials. Superhuman pilot or no, youd have to scrape them out of the cockpit with a paper towel and a pressure hose. Thats not just superhuman G force resistance, thats multiple orders of increasingly difficult to accept magnitude there.

It's like how the bug heavy scary Imperial tanks dont work either, Land Raiders having effectively no ground clearance and being stopped by a common speed bump or Leman Russ turrets having no room for crew and a gun breech that extends beyond the crew hatch making entry into the turret impossible even in GW cutaway drawings

Looking at things in a vacuum, sure, they do things that don't make sense to us with our understanding of science and military tactics. But they don't operate by the same rules we do, and a lot of unviable tactics or delivery methods suddenly become a lot less so when you aren't necessarily bound by the laws of physics as we understand them.

Which is why things fall apart because the 40k universe stuff basically relies on Handwavium and fundamental wrongness of proven scientific concepts. Im not even talking about just stuff we make but rather the fundamental constraints of reality.

Asterios wrote:

the Space Marines can be equated with groups like ISIS, The Catholic Church during the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition you attribute too much mercy to very strict troops.

If you going to think Space Marine chapters are all alike in their personalities and disposition, I guess I really can't help you there.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sure, but a lot of that is somewhat misleading. Lasguns dont offer any new tactical capability that a 70 year old Kalashnikov does not (and, more to the point, Lasgun functionality in 40k is portrayed nothing like how laser devices function in reality, but instead follow the Star Wars model of just replacing a lead bullet with a bright red light bolt and otherwise operating like a modern firearm ). Likewise, 40k starships operate in manners more akin to 18th century Age of Sail methods, both in ship functions and tactical operation, than modern day warships do. Indentured crew turn turrets and load shells by hand in chain gangs and the like, stuff that simply would not function on an actual starship. Even antigrav, as its used and described in 40k, at best just replicates Helicopter capabilities.

Even if it doesn't hit any harder, I'm sure you recognize the strategic and logistical benefits to a rifle that can be reloaded by putting the battery in a fire. It's at once both ridiculous and amazing (sorta sums up the whole thing, right?).

40K is tricky, because it's medium of choice (written story, tabletop or video game/cinematic) really just goes along with whatever narrative works best. Starships engaging targets hundreds of thousands of kilometers away in BFG, and also broadsiding each other. They can lance targets from orbit with fairly good precision, or just lay waste to continents.

Antigrav = Helicopters. It's true, they're not dissimilar. Falcons are capable of flying above the clouds, or hugging the earth. They are hermetically sealed and can operate in a vacuum. I think they can deploy from space. As for their weapons, to me at least, that remains hard to judge. Weapons are limited in range for tabletop purposes. In my mind a Bright Lance is intended to represent a highly capable AT weapon. Even if the range is short, in a Vs. battle with modern tanks, Falcons could just descend on them from above the elevation limit of the 120mm cannon and pick them apart, or (as per the rules) land in the midst of them and disgorge elite troopers with miniature fusion weapons. Holo-fields making the vehicles hard to target, etc.

In the end, 40K technology is both less and more.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Not really what I meant. Those things by definition operate beyond visual range.

I guess I don't know what you mean then. Aircraft using radar? That seems analogous to starships using sensors. I feel like I've read that 40K aircraft have similar capabilities in some books, but I honestly can't be specific. I think the game goes "hollywood", but the fiction varies between hollywood and more legit. All depending on plot, of course.

There are obviously rules for unit targeting for artillery and smart missiles though. Which is another type of engagement beyond LOS. I dunno, I'd be interested in what examples people can come up with in this area. I feel like this stuff is floating around, but it's not necessarily part of the tabletop game so we don't get much exposure to it.

I certainly have never seen any, its pretty much all WW2 style dogfighting with guns of various sorts, while missiles, when used, are used at close visual ranges, there's nothing like an AWACS coordinating fighter movements and tracking sensor contacts and feeding targeting data to fighters so they can engage targets 150 miles away.

You might be right there, in regards to the actual aircraft. I really don't know, honestly. It's been a while since I've read any BL stuff with actual areal battles. Planetary defenses obviously can track orbital and areal targets though. They can communicate to the fighters in flight. I know that doesn't help if the aircraft are sitting ducks for long range AA missiles, but it seems likely that they have at least some countermeasures. If ground defenses can fire at orbiting spaceships,(which does take missiles/lasers/whatever that track via instrumentation) then it seems likely that they could also fire at aircraft, right?

They probably have the speed, but nothing near the firepower and target engagement capabilities, at least not that I can find or recall any examples of.

I guess I mostly replied to this above. Really, I don't know. Someone who is more of an Eldar buff might have better information. I know they can pack D weapons though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Something akin to a Tomahawk, something that can be fired from a large aircraft, a ship, a submarine, or a ground installation at a target a couple hundred miles away and intended to destroy a high value but immobile or relatively slow moving targets like warships or a slow convoy or airfield hangers or bridges.

Deathstrike really is more of an intermediate range ballistic missile that got hamfisted into a front line artillery role for...reasons. Manticore missiles might be the closest thing but arent really quite there, and are apparently extremely unreliable and tempermental weapons.

Hmm, what you're looking for sorta sounds like a Melta Torpedo or similar weapon. Or, why fire a missile when a lance strike will do? I feel like the strategic niche is covered.

Hrm, theyre not so much about reducing collateral damage as ensuring you actually hit what youre aiming at. WW1 and WW2 bombing raids would routinely devastate areas and simultaneously completely miss what they were actually trying to bomb, often by many miles. If you can send one plane with one bomb and have a 95% hit rate to do the job, thats a far more effective weapons system than sending a fleet of bombers with tens of thousands of bombs with a collective 30% hit rate combined. That collateral damage is reduced is a happy coincidence.

That's a good point, but if the Imperium isn't concerned about collateral damage, and is also unconcerned about time and cost (AKA, the IG), then why bother with smart munitions? Again, I feel like the strategic niche is covered. You can lance it from orbit, you can torpedo it, or you can bombard the area to rubble. Or you can land Space Marines on it, for that matter. The options of "destroy or capture" seem to be all there.

I guess it's unclear how accurate orbital bombardment is. The one in 40K (that a Chapter Master calls in) is small, but pretty accurate. The bombardment in Epic 40K was much bigger, but still fairly accurate on that scale. Drop Pods are obviously pretty damn accurate. It's a little difficult to say, since the accuracy moves around in service of the game or the plot. Can the Imperium put a missile through a window without an on-site spotter? Maybe not. Can it level a city block from orbit? That seems pretty clear.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Robin5t wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
-snip re: Modern vs 40k technology

The thing is, our missile tracking and beyond visual range engagement methods wouldn't work against Eldar fighters, because they all have Holo-Fields, which explicitly jam any kind of tracking devices, including ones that use a wider spectrum than our own, and make it effectively impossible to target the vehicle.

That doesn't seem to stop other munitions, both guided and unguided from successfully engaging the Eldar in the 40k universe, often many extremely primitive ones, it just means they miss more. Holofields are far from foolproof. They're not perfect stealth or invisibility.

Their fighters are also capable of ridiculous manoeuvres that make dogfighting perfectly viable

Dogfighting viability isnt a matter of maneuverability, its a matter of range. A missile launched from 100 miles away doesnt need to actually physically catch and make contact a fighter, they get within a set distance and then just need a fraction of a second to detonate their warhead and send a cloud of shrapnel at or in the path of the target like a giant shotgun. You can be as nimble as you want, if the missile can get close enough, it's over. It's also unlikely that we'd be talking about a single missile, trying to dodge and outrun one missile, ok, but four or five or a dozen? Then try dodging fire from a Phalanx system that can just fill the airspace your aircraft occupies with so much lead that there's nowhere to escape into.

and have superhuman pilots with interfacing methods that allow far easier and more responsive control of the plane. To give an example of one such advantage - our most modern planes can possibly reach double-digit g-forces if they're built for it. Eldar Nightwings have pulled off manoeuvres in their novel appearances that have been calculated at 11,000 g's.

I havent read that book, but that sounds like an instance of an author really not having any clue of what they are talking about (wouldnt be a first for 40k). That's about the acceleration of a artillery shell experiences for the briefest of times during firing. Even if the aircraft and pilots themselves were somehow magically capable of withstanding that, the air turbulence generated by such maneuvers would be toss the craft around like a paper plane in a hurricane. I haven't seen such a figure given in an IA book or Codex that I can recall.

I mean, I can buy them being faster and more maneuverable than modern aircraft, and able to take more G forces and dramatically outdogfight modern aircraft. Ok, I can buy all of that, but when we start talking about things like 11000 G maneuvers, the limits of physical matter, inverse square law, and thermodynamics start to kick back very hard even when talking about theoretical materials. Superhuman pilot or no, youd have to scrape them out of the cockpit with a paper towel and a pressure hose. Thats not just superhuman G force resistance, thats multiple orders of increasingly difficult to accept magnitude there.

It's like how the bug heavy scary Imperial tanks dont work either, Land Raiders having effectively no ground clearance and being stopped by a common speed bump or Leman Russ turrets having no room for crew and a gun breech that extends beyond the crew hatch making entry into the turret impossible even in GW cutaway drawings

Looking at things in a vacuum, sure, they do things that don't make sense to us with our understanding of science and military tactics. But they don't operate by the same rules we do, and a lot of unviable tactics or delivery methods suddenly become a lot less so when you aren't necessarily bound by the laws of physics as we understand them.

Which is why things fall apart because the 40k universe stuff basically relies on Handwavium and fundamental wrongness of proven scientific concepts. Im not even talking about just stuff we make but rather the fundamental constraints of reality.

For what it's worth, the reason they can pull it is due to insanely good inertial dampening and gravity manipulation. They can literally do a near-instant 180 degree turn while travelling at supersonic speeds - I'll also note that the quote in question never actually mentioned the exact amount of gee-forces involved, it only described the action itself, the gee-forces required to do it were then calculated by a fan over on the Spacebattles forum. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, though - when your understanding of science is so advanced that you can laugh at the laws of physics as we understand them, you can basically ignore most of the limitations that make us think 'that is a silly idea'. Granted, even then they still do ridiculous things like put people on Jetbikes and give them lances, but I suppose that's what you get when your universe runs on rule of cool.

With regards to the Holo-Fields, I'll also point out that Eldar atmospheric aircraft are basically unstoppable in-setting. Every time they deploy in the fluff they curb-stomp whatever they're up against - Imperial Navy estimates 75% casualties every time merely to operate in contested airspace with the Eldar. The fields are less effective on other craft, but on an interceptor they're pretty much game-breaking.

I suppose the point I'm trying to get at here is that even if they don't use it in the most efficient and effective way they could, the sheer difference in level of advancement between us and the likes of the Eldar means they're going to stomp us into the ground regardless.

Not going to argue with you about Imperial tank design, though, especially given that they're bound by a lot of the same rules we are. The Leman Russ is objectively awful as a tank.

Then the Tau Barricuda with its simple auto targeting software ignores all of that Eldar BS. Ah got to love computers and predictive targeting. If the Tau can develop auto targetting software that negates that we can do it too.

Our missiles will be problematic, but rapid fire kinetic and laser based weapons would bet he perfect counter to such high speed turns. Good thing Eldar fighters are the most frail around and will be swatted out of the sky.

If an Eldar jet turned 180 the light emitting from a laser is still faster and still going to mess it up.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/us-air-force-fighter-jets-will-have-laser-weapons-by-20-1469667517

Basically it doesn't matter how agile you are when the guns work like this. Then add in actual lasers the fastest thing in the universe. Our Drone fighters or fighters being flown by people on the ground will be able to make turns that will close the agility gap on Eldar fighters since there won't be any limits on agility from the pilot anymore just what the craft itself can do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME5jhsgmB4#t=1m52s

 Gamgee wrote:
Then the Tau Barricuda with its simple auto targeting software ignores all of that Eldar BS. Ah got to love computers and predictive targeting. If the Tau can develop auto targetting software that negates that we can do it too.

Our missiles will be problematic, but rapid fire kinetic and laser based weapons would bet he perfect counter to such high speed turns. Good thing Eldar fighters are the most frail around and will be swatted out of the sky.

If an Eldar jet turned 180 the light emitting from a laser is still faster and still going to mess it up.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/us-air-force-fighter-jets-will-have-laser-weapons-by-20-1469667517

Basically it doesn't matter how agile you are when the guns work like this. Then add in actual lasers the fastest thing in the universe. Our Drone fighters or fighters being flown by people on the ground will be able to make turns that will close the agility gap on Eldar fighters since there won't be any limits on agility from the pilot anymore just what the craft itself can do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ME5jhsgmB4#t=1m52s

That's game mechanics, though. In the fluff, no targeting measures work properly against holo-fields. You basically can either use really wide area-of-effect weaponry or you hit and hope if you want to hit a Nightwing.

On top of that, they're actually really durable by our standards. The wraithbone they're made of is a hundred times stronger than steel.

The Dark Eldar totally got this. They can use Webway Portals and appear in every major city, military base, or other locations deemed necessary for takeover.

Or, Vect could just steal the entire planet and portal it into Commoragh and saying that we now belong to him.

There are more than enough Dark Eldar to raid from anywhere using portals, pouring in and wiping people out. As for me, send me to die by Lelith in the arena. Closest thing to death by snoo-snoo in my opinion.

I am kinda baffled how some of you Americans completely underestimate the effect of orbital bombardment. What do they teach you at school about the bombing of Rotterdam and Hiroshima.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any void capable warship with ways to communicate with modern day humans will conquer earth in a few days to weeks.

1 ork.

 Robin5t wrote:
That's game mechanics, though. In the fluff, no targeting measures work properly against holo-fields. You basically can either use really wide area-of-effect weaponry or you hit and hope if you want to hit a Nightwing.

Except weapons can and do hit Nightwings. And Imperial fighters, with all their flaws and primitive technology, manage to fight at some level of parity with them. Sure, they take losses and only win by sheer numbers, but they can fight. It isn't like a Culture fighter (should they decide to build one out of sheer boredom with winning the usual way) against 40k, so the obvious conclusion is that the Eldar are massively over-hyped and their real performance is much lower.

As I said control the gravity well, control the planet. Even a simple merchant ship could do it. You want to wipe out population but save the infrastructure, drop a virus. Want to reduce the populations of the planet down to 25% or less of its current size, without bombarding the whole planet? EMP will do the trick and wait a couple months. Then show up and supply food and suddenly you are in charge. Aside from the food runs, they never really ever need to step foot on the planet.

Well seeing how Russia and USA and coalition couldn't take Afghanistan I would think it would take a lot to take over a planet let alone a country.

Davor wrote:
Well seeing how Russia and USA and coalition couldn't take Afghanistan I would think it would take a lot to take over a planet let alone a country.

Russia and the US had to fight by the laws of war and couldn't use "exterminate the entire population and bring in our own settlers" as a strategy. The Imperium would do this as a default policy.

 carldooley wrote:
One ship from any of the fleets could do it. "He who holds the high ground wins."

This. Regardless of what GW authors have feed us in the fiction, reality tells us a single warship in orbit can bring a world to its knees. Doesn't even have to expend munitions, just needs to push the occasional steal I-beam out an airlock to leave behind a 35-megaton kinetic calling card that says "I win, your economy is now mine". Don't even need troops, just drop an I-beam each time there is any form of resistance.

SJ

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The real world also has technology that would put the Eldar and Tau to shame.

The opposite is also true. . . starships, antigrav. Even just Lasguns.

Lasguns, despite on a tech level being more advanced, are used purely due to helping relieve ammunition supply issues and producing a weapon with a universal ammunition. Autoguns, at least in the older fluff used to be extremely common, if not the main weapon used in the early years of humanity. Autoguns themselves being slightly more powerful and accurate than Lasguns, but not by an extremely noticeable amount and definitely not enough to be superior on the tabletop. Even then Autoguns are most definitely inferior to modern firearms seeing they only fire solid slugs and by comparison are incredibly crude.

So basically ignoring the technical tech level it would be Lasguns<Autoguns><Modern Firearms. You then have the issue that in the 40k universe (not so much the 30k era) many of the most popular remaining combat vehicles were never designed to be combat vehicles, the Rhino and Leman Russ are prime examples!

In all honesty the whole comparison is pointless anyway seeing 40K is a Space Fantasy, it's not even Sci-Fi. If you paid attention to 40k fluff, if we didn't use nukes a lone marine would most likely be enough to cripple our defenses. Maybe 10-50 would be enough to defeat our planets armies. That being said I reckon even the Guard, despite the fluff describe them now as being the main conquering force of the Imperium by the 41st century, wouldn't have a particularly easy time but would be able too eventually using their superior numbers and willingness to fight. Too much of their equipment relies on direct fire, although it would be interesting to see how their thunderbolts etc would fare. Also the Guard and Navy still poses many long ranged guided missiles akin to what we have now, albeit their ballistic weapons seem to be lacking. I get the impression that the Lascannon may struggle against modern tanks, albeit provide composite armour pointless. >

Several warships with 100 marines would crush the earth in a month. The ships would destroy all nuclear weapons from space. The fallout would kill many earthlings. Marines would then drop into the major cities to crush the world leaders.

Normal human with autoguns vs giant hulk with depleted uranium bolter rounds and power armor? Humans with weaknesses vs marines who don't need to sleep in war? It would be over quick. Theit only issue would be logistics, but in rality they could win by taking out governments and military powers.

I think the world would submit to them quickly after we lost all our super weapons, military leaders, etc.

 455_PWR wrote:
Several warships with 100 marines would crush the earth in a month. The ships would destroy all nuclear weapons from space. The fallout would kill many earthlings. Marines would then drop into the major cities to crush the world leaders.

Normal human with autoguns vs giant hulk with depleted uranium bolter rounds and power armor? Humans with weaknesses vs marines who don't need to sleep in war? It would be over quick. Theit only issue would be logistics, but in rality they could win by taking out governments and military powers.

I think the world would submit to them quickly after we lost all our super weapons, military leaders, etc.

so let me get this right a giant hulk with a Depleted Uranium Bolter round which kills one person, is better then the human with a gun and a bullet that kills one person, it doesn't matter how powerful the bullet is, dead is dead, there are no bonus death points involved by overkilling.

Peregrine wrote:

Davor wrote:
Well seeing how Russia and USA and coalition couldn't take Afghanistan I would think it would take a lot to take over a planet let alone a country.

Russia and the US had to fight by the laws of war and couldn't use "exterminate the entire population and bring in our own settlers" as a strategy. The Imperium would do this as a default policy.

What is the title of the thread? CONQUER not who would win a battle. Russia and USA could have used Nukes, that doesn't mean they would have conquered. How do you conquer someone when everyone is dead or there is nothing left to conquer? USA did use Nukes in a war. What if the country didn't capitulate to the demands of the USA and allies how would the USA and allies conquer the country? It's not so easy at all.

To conquer you need to defeat the army first. Then you need to defeat the resistance. Then you need to keep all the people of the country or in this case the entire world 7 Billion people to do your tidings. That is not an easy thing to do.

Also a few ships coming in from the "warp" is not enough to do this.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
40K just doesn't use any reasonable physics, tactics, strategy, or weaponry. It's much like Star Wars.

It does if you look for it.

On a similar note, I'm sure you could find all sorts of lousy decisions by earth militaries if you looked for it.

Yup, like the US nuking Japan

Since 40k regularly fields guns with a 1/6 chance of hurting the user, and we don't, i feel like we have enough bodies to wait it out.

Davor wrote:
Well seeing how Russia and USA and coalition couldn't take Afghanistan I would think it would take a lot to take over a planet let alone a country.

Modern western civilizations vs an orbital warship would be noting like Taliban vs the US. It is going to be like the Dutch vs the Nazi's. If you are lacking the imagination imagine the following while you are one of the leaders of Canada.

Hour 0: Nasa and the other space agencies notice some strange abnormally.
Hour 3: It appears to be an alien space ship, and they demand our surrender.
Hour 5: Long ranged missiles are fired, but they appear to be totally ineffective.
Hour 6:They lance Montreal from orbit, the city is completely leveled. The first reports estimate a death total of at least 1500k and you will get the following message: We will lance Vancouver,in the next hour and continue lancing cities until you offer your unconditional surrender and order all your forces to stand down.

How many cities would you surrender knowing that your army doesn't have a clue how to strike back?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want any real life historical context just look at this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz