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.

So they nuke the 100 Cadians, my answer is...so what? Somehow I doubt the military will go 'oh no, a company of infantry was slaughtered. Guess nukes are the only option!'

Besides, if we're bringing in nukes, the Imperial bring in the Imperial Navy, and it's alreeady been shown that the Imperial Navy has little to nothing to fear from our missiles.

We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Melissia wrote:

LordWynne wrote:Been there done that, point wise the 21st century army is cheaper and gets more armor and hvy weapons. Buy the IG gain one thing that means the differance (pysker's and special chars) this offers the best chance of a win. But the role of a 21st century army focuses on eliminating HQ and hvy armor to give its land forces the advantage.

Win goes to 21st century.....in a point battle I played a 2,000 pt game at 2001 Adepticon vs several IG armies and won every time with a 21st century army.

Then you played by stupid rules.

You just automatically assume he played by stupid rules? Don't you think it would be, you know, more intelligent to ask what those rules were?

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

Aside: Of you want proof look at how the vastly under equipped and much worse trained Viet Kong hammered the Americans in Vietnam.
Or how the Russian's spanked the German's in Russia.....

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Okay, but for that to be an advantage, you'd need 100 soldiers who are intimately familiar with New York City.

Lets say they're fighting 100 Guardsmen with extensive experience with urban combat.

Guardsmen win.

im2randomghgh wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LordWynne wrote:Been there done that, point wise the 21st century army is cheaper and gets more armor and hvy weapons. Buy the IG gain one thing that means the differance (pysker's and special chars) this offers the best chance of a win. But the role of a 21st century army focuses on eliminating HQ and hvy armor to give its land forces the advantage.

Win goes to 21st century.....in a point battle I played a 2,000 pt game at 2001 Adepticon vs several IG armies and won every time with a 21st century army.

Then you played by stupid rules.

You just automatically assume he played by stupid rules? Don't you think it would be, you know, more intelligent to ask what those rules were?

No, not really. If you win every single game with a houseruled army it's a safe bet that those rules aren't balanced.

Melissia wrote:

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

And I would not want to be shot by either of them!

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Aside: Of you want proof look at how the vastly under equipped and much worse trained Viet Kong hammered the Americans in Vietnam.

So? Americans didn't have a good strategy for fighting in a jungle environment. Germans didn't have a good strategy for fighting in Russia's winter environment.

You forget, Germany was winning the war against Russia until winter hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

And I would not want to be shot by either of them!

I wouldn't want to be shot by a Nerf gun. Doesn't mean it can penetrate flak armor.

Melissia wrote:

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

Please Mellisa don't use game mechanics.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

And I would not want to be shot by either of them!

But a Guardsman would love being shot at by an M16, in comparison to what's normally getting thrown his way. That, at least, his armor will save him from.

Nerivant wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Okay, but for that to be an advantage, you'd need 100 soldiers who are intimately familiar with New York City.

Lets say they're fighting 100 Guardsmen with extensive experience with urban combat.

Guardsmen win.

But then you are assuming that the Marines would not have extensive urban combat training? And also that none of thearines had been to NYC? They would know an awful lot more about it than the IG that's for sure.

Please, the Guard have fought in far deadlier urban environments. Ours are relatively well ordered and safe in comparison.

IvanTih wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

Please Mellisa don't use game mechanics.

An autogun is superior to a standard modern assault rifle. An autogun cannot regularly penetrate flak armor-- in fact, flak armor is basically designed to be useful against autoguns and lasguns, as well as shrapnel and blasts. None of these get any bonus to penetration against flak armor in any game, from tabletop to Inquisitor to Dark Heresy. Even when using armor piercing rounds using Dark Heresy rules, flak armor stands a good chance of deflecting all damage done by a stubber weapon (IE, a modern assault rifle).

And it's not Mellisa. You didn't even spell "Melissa" right, never mind my name...

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Okay, but for that to be an advantage, you'd need 100 soldiers who are intimately familiar with New York City.

Lets say they're fighting 100 Guardsmen with extensive experience with urban combat.

Guardsmen win.

But then you are assuming that the Marines would not have extensive urban combat training? And also that none of thearines had been to NYC? They would know an awful lot more about it than the IG that's for sure.

No, I'm assuming they have equal amounts training, and the modern soldiers have an advantage in their familiarity with the combat area. Still doesn't narrow the gap enough.

I'd also like to mention that the OP specifically says an "open field," but I assume that went out the window at some point?

Melissia wrote:Please, the Guard have fought in far deadlier urban environments. Ours are relatively well ordered and safe in comparison.

IvanTih wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Varrick wrote:With the cadians the armor is probably capable of stopping an m16 variation rifle round but i won't bet on it

Please, an M16 wouldn't even be equal to an autogun in damage. An autogun, which is S3 AP-.

Please Mellisa don't use game mechanics.

An autogun is superior to a standard modern assault rifle. An autogun cannot regularly penetrate flak armor-- in fact, flak armor is basically designed to be useful against autoguns and lasguns, as well as shrapnel and blasts. None of these get any bonus to penetration against flak armor in any game, from tabletop to Inquisitor to Dark Heresy. Even when using armor piercing rounds using Dark Heresy rules, flak armor stands a good chance of deflecting all damage done by a stubber weapon (IE, a modern assault rifle).

And it's not Mellisa. You didn't even spell "Melissa" right, never mind my name...

I know all that(a ton of novels supports your point,I base my opinion on the fluff),but wasn't it stated by GW that game mechanics aren't actual repretentation of the 40k capabilities(and I know that the flak armor would laugh at the modern small arms)?

And sorry for the misspell.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Okay, but for that to be an advantage, you'd need 100 soldiers who are intimately familiar with New York City.

Lets say they're fighting 100 Guardsmen with extensive experience with urban combat.

Guardsmen win.

But then you are assuming that the Marines would not have extensive urban combat training? And also that none of thearines had been to NYC? They would know an awful lot more about it than the IG that's for sure.

Regardless, Cadians are trained from a very early age how to defend their cities. They would be infinitely more experienced that 100 marines. That coupled with better training over all, better armor, better command, technology and weaponry means a win for the Imperium.

Considering the OP says an 'open field' which I just realized, the gap has grown even larger. Longer lethal range for the Guardsmen and better armor and better discipline.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Aside: Of you want proof look at how the vastly under equipped and much worse trained Viet Kong hammered the Americans in Vietnam.
Or how the Russian's spanked the German's in Russia.....

The Vietcong won because they managed to erode the American public's support of the war through attrition damage.
The Russians won because Hitler was an idiot.

As for dropping 100 Guardsmen in New York...look, just visting New York doesn't mean you have 'intensive knowledge' about how to fight there. If the battle was between 100 Guard urban specialoists and 100 US Marines, I'd bet on the HGuardsmen.

Nerivant wrote:
No, I'm assuming they have equal amounts training, and the modern soldiers have an advantage in their familiarity with the combat area. Still doesn't narrow the gap enough.

I'd also like to mention that the OP specifically says an "open field," but I assume that went out the window at some point?

Oh look at that; the spit take put iced tea all over my monitor.

So whats this about modern day infantry being better trained and disciplined compared to a notable Imperial Guard regiment? Lets ignore that all Guardsmen go through training that would kill our modern day infantry, and lets ignore the fact that the Guardsmen regularly stare down much, MUCH worse compared to our boys; and then lets assume both commanders are of equal quality.

Melissia wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Aside: Of you want proof look at how the vastly under equipped and much worse trained Viet Kong hammered the Americans in Vietnam.

So? Americans didn't have a good strategy for fighting in a jungle environment. Germans didn't have a good strategy for fighting in Russia's winter environment.

You forget, Germany was winning the war against Russia until winter hit.

Good salient points. But the Americans had the better trained better equipped troops and still lost. As did the Germans. If we are talking hypothetically here, then what makes you think that the IG would not make the same mistakes? Example: thinking themselves superior in every way but not counting on the general fighting spirit of the enemy.
Oh, and the enemies knowledge of the home turf that they are defending....

IvanTih wrote:I know all that(a ton of novels supports your point,I base my opinion on the fluff),but wasn't it stated by GW that game mechanics aren't actual repretentation of the 40k capabilities(and I know that the flak armor would laugh at the modern small arms)?

They're a rough approximation. Inquisitor and (more recently) Dark Heresy are a less rough approximation.

Melissia wrote:

IvanTih wrote:I know all that(a ton of novels supports your point,I base my opinion on the fluff),but wasn't it stated by GW that game mechanics aren't actual repretentation of the 40k capabilities(and I know that the flak armor would laugh at the modern small arms)?

They're a rough approximation. Inquisitor and (more recently) Dark Heresy are a less rough approximation.

Thanks for clarifying that Melissia.

Varrick wrote:

Oh look at that; the spit take put iced tea all over my monitor.

So whats this about modern day infantry being better trained and disciplined compared to a notable Imperial Guard regiment? Lets ignore that all Guardsmen go through training that would kill our modern day infantry, and lets ignore the fact that the Guardsmen regularly stare down much, MUCH worse compared to our boys; and then lets assume both commanders are of equal quality.

You're quoting me, but I'm not sure who you're talking to. Mind clarifying?

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:the Americans had the better trained better equipped troops and still lost.

We won more battles than we lost. But we lost support for the war. The Guard aren't going to lose support for the war. They can maintain half a million man drops every year for decades on the same meat grinder warzone planet without fatigue. Centuries if need be. Hell it would become a tradition to them. Same goes for your note about Germans-- the Imperial Guard is far more skilled and experienced in fighting in various kinds of terrain than we are.

If we are talking hypothetically here, then what makes you think that the IG would not make the same mistakes?

No. We Americans are noobs at war. Very capable and skilled noobs with high tech gadgets and lots of money sure. But still noobs. We have a mere two hundred years of experience at war as a nation, almost all of which were against inferior or equal opponents. The Imperium has ten thousand, against the toughest, meanest, and most downright freaky enemies that the 40k universe can provide. Childish mistakes like that aren't things the Imperium makes.

IvanTih wrote:

Melissia wrote:

IvanTih wrote:I know all that(a ton of novels supports your point,I base my opinion on the fluff),but wasn't it stated by GW that game mechanics aren't actual repretentation of the 40k capabilities(and I know that the flak armor would laugh at the modern small arms)?

They're a rough approximation. Inquisitor and (more recently) Dark Heresy are a less rough approximation.

Thanks for clarifying that Melissia.

You should go look up the Dark Heresy books. They have a lot of neat fluff in them.

It is difficult enough to have a reasonable discussion because of the vagueries associated with the OP's topic. Let's not make it worse by using fluff mixed with the table top rules.

BTW, an autogun in 40k cannot be the equivalent of an M16, why? Because even the Imperium would not saddle the IG with a 5.56 weapon... The Emperor, in his wisdom, would have surely known that you need at least 8mm to put someone down with one hit. Add flak armor to the mix, and, well, bring out the 12.7 or 14.5.

Nerivant wrote:

Varrick wrote:

Oh look at that; the spit take put iced tea all over my monitor.

So whats this about modern day infantry being better trained and disciplined compared to a notable Imperial Guard regiment? Lets ignore that all Guardsmen go through training that would kill our modern day infantry, and lets ignore the fact that the Guardsmen regularly stare down much, MUCH worse compared to our boys; and then lets assume both commanders are of equal quality.

You're quoting me, but I'm not sure who you're talking to. Mind clarifying?

Clarified the post.

iproxtaco wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:We really need to come up with the specific forces in involved and which environment they will fight in.

Right, home advantage, that works..... Stick your 100 Cadians into the middle of New York and then sic the Marines on em. I guess in that case, if it's just 100 basic IG (with no air support or titans or all of that stuff) against 100 basic Marines (again with no air support etc etc), then my money would be on the Marines. Home advantage counts for an awful lot. Especially if you are in a combat situation....

Okay, but for that to be an advantage, you'd need 100 soldiers who are intimately familiar with New York City.

Lets say they're fighting 100 Guardsmen with extensive experience with urban combat.

Guardsmen win.

But then you are assuming that the Marines would not have extensive urban combat training? And also that none of thearines had been to NYC? They would know an awful lot more about it than the IG that's for sure.

Regardless, Cadians are trained from a very early age how to defend their cities. They would be infinitely more experienced that 100 marines. That coupled with better training over all, better armor, better command, technology and weaponry means a win for the Imperium.

Not in an urban Environment... You can successfully hold off companies of infantry with only a mere "Squad" while holed up inside a building. Assuming that an IG force was attacking NYC, the modern military would use our own buildings much to our advantage.

But, in response to the OP, I would have to break things down to "known" units... For instance, Elysians vs. 75th Ranger Regt.; Cadians vs. 1ID (or 4ID, as they are mechanized); Catachans vs. 25ID (or maybe more fair to have them square up with some SOCOM operators) etc.

Also, completely eliminating modern armor is not such a good thing, because while in the fluff, the LRBT may outgun an Abrams, the Abrams is much more mobile and can maneuver itself into prime position to take out the LR. The "tank hunting" rounds that we use in an Abrams arent designed to make huge craters the way Russes would, they are designed to turn an enemy tank into a smoldering husk of metal. Using a historical example, the Russian T-32 had some great success against the heavier, better armored german Panzers, because of tactics, and mobility.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

dirkthe1 wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:That's all true, but we have the weapon of last resort. The A-Bomb..... And before you all start crowing about virus bombs etc etc, don't. I presume this little tete a tete will happen on Earth? If that's the case do you really think that the IG would virus bomb the planet of their ancestors and the current home of the Beloved Emporer? I don't think that they would....... Hopefully.......

But they would arrive out of the blue and start killing everyone? I see. Are you 15 by chance?

An I see you did not read the OP's opening statement, which clearly says that it's '100 IG v 100 modern day troops. Now I presume by the 'versus' part of that that someone started shooting first...... Next time please read the thread title more clearly......

So with that in mind.
100 guard arrive without contact- thus we must assume they are hostile. Location isn't specific, however is most likely to be a high value Target- un, white house or similar- has to be earth as we havn't got any off world sites.
So this weapon of last resort you speak of has been rendered useless, and with you knowledge of weapons and tactics, please inform me 1 why they wouldnt virus bomb us. And 2, bearing in mind the opening statement, what exactly does any of you post have to do with that situation. Hence my comment asking if you were 15.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Also, completely eliminating modern armor is not such a good thing, because while in the fluff, the LRBT may outgun an Abrams, the Abrams is much more mobile

The Abrams has roughly equivalent speed to the LRBT. The Russes have dual purpose rounds that are both anti-tank AND anti-infantry, not just purely anti-infantry. They also have anti-tank dedicated rounds as well, something that isn't in tabletop but is in fluff.

Varrick wrote:

Nerivant wrote:

Varrick wrote:

Oh look at that; the spit take put iced tea all over my monitor.

So whats this about modern day infantry being better trained and disciplined compared to a notable Imperial Guard regiment? Lets ignore that all Guardsmen go through training that would kill our modern day infantry, and lets ignore the fact that the Guardsmen regularly stare down much, MUCH worse compared to our boys; and then lets assume both commanders are of equal quality.

You're quoting me, but I'm not sure who you're talking to. Mind clarifying?

Clarified the post.

Alright, thanks.
I never said they were better trained or disciplined. I assumed that they received equal amounts of training, but the quality of the training and the technological advantage of the Guard was more than enough to make up for "home field advantage."

But not so clearly or in so many words.