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.

In a setting where even medium ships can completely raze huge swathes of land, what's the point of many races even putting ground troops down?
Say some IG were besieging some Necron palace thing, and both races were taking a huge interest in the conflict, how would their ships act?

What i'm trying to say is, how on earth do space/star ships interact with the boots on floor, tanks and taking ground of the familiar 40k?

Ground combat is not pointless because nuking a planet from orbit tends to ruin the planet. Despite the Imperium having thousands of worlds, it can't afford to raze them unless it's absolutely necessary, and this is assuming you don't have a person or item on the world that needs retrieving. Other races are usually in a similar boat.

Spacecraft interact with ground forces in a lot of ways: Deploying and supplying them, providing orbital strikes, keeping orbit friendly so they aren't annihilated from space by someone who doesn't care about the world. Space Marines would be a lot less effective without a Battle Barge to send them down via Drop Pod, put it that way.

You also have cases where near-planet space is contested zone and there may not be opportunity for the ships above to take the time to give dedicated fire support to pinpoint targets.

Plus, most of the ground combat, especially against rebel human worlds, would be to take out surface-to-space defense weaponry. Humans tend to surrender when you have a weapon capable of destroying any city on the planet, but only if they don't have a way to retaliate.

Ever watch the intro to Space Marine? One of the first options that is levied is to deploy capital weaponry and raze the Ork forces from orbit. The Forge World declines this request stating that the damage to the factory output would be unacceptable.

I would guess there are many battles where it is nothing more than the ships arriving in orbit and nuking the enemy off the planet, but those don't make interesting stories.

Another possibility is that advanced human/xenos cities are sometimes shielded against orbital bombardment. You could have a hive city with void shields stronger than a battleship (in fact if I was building a hive city, it would be a no-brainer to include those for this exact reason). So even with orbital supremacy, you still need to put boots on the ground to take out their shield generators.

Because it's actually hard to get ships in orbit that aren't equipped with Exterminatus-grade weapons to deliver directed-energy blasts to ground targets when there are ground targets with capital-ship grade weapons shooting back.

This about it really.

I can guarantee a couple hundred Guardsmen, maybe a few dozen marines, are easier to replace than a capital ship

The whole Hoth scenario is an excellent explanation.

Shields and surface-to-space weapons prevent orbital bombardements, so you have to send in the troopers.

 Psienesis wrote:
Because it's actually hard to get ships in orbit that aren't equipped with Exterminatus-grade weapons to deliver directed-energy blasts to ground targets when there are ground targets with capital-ship grade weapons shooting back.

Exactly, and in some cases a sufficiently armed planet has enough firepower to make the average fleet blush.

Calth's planetary defense systems were sufficient to obliterate moons in no time and cause the local star to go nova with a sustained bombardment.

Orbital bombardment would cause huge amounts of damage. No good if you're trying to take over AND inhabit that paticilar world

"He can't make that kind of decision he's just a grunt- No offense"

"None taken."

Grunts will always be needed, even in an age of lasers and virus bombs.

Look at Halo...

killed more by grunts than by Elites when you play legendary

In the Damnos book the Imperial Navy tries to take out the Necrons from orbit, the Necrons shoot back and the Navy is destroyed. The Marine ship enters orbit just long enough to deploy drop pods then runs (but still takes a kicking).

 IHateNids wrote:
Look at Halo...

killed more by grunts than by Elites when you play legendary

Nah... them damn Jackal snipers with particle beam rifles used to one-hit me out of nowhere allll the bloody time. Trial and error gameplay -> reveal their position & die in the process -> outflank and snipe them on respawn... repeat.

replace jackals with beam rifles with:

Cloak + Sword

or

bringht yellow guy with stupid hat (the ones thougher than a Space Marine in GW fluff terms) and a concussion rifle.


now you have my current location... it isn't all that funny...

I have to fight one of them...

A planet particularly well defended against orbital bombardment would also likely make it difficult to land significant numbers of troops and armor(and support) as well.

The thing is, it's a setting, not a reality simulation. The simple out-of-universe answer is the background and the various combat and logistics mechanics are built around the tabletop game.

"kaptin! da enemy have kaptured da kommanda!"
"Shoot it for da emprah!"
"Targeti-" "NO! We'z gotta save him for da emprah! Start da invashun!"
"YESSSS"

Yes, infantry units are completely pointless in an age of technology raining death from the skies.

Just ask the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Americans in Vietnam, and in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. And the French in Algiers and Indochina, and the Dutch in indonesia, and the British in Singapore, and the Germans over Britain. And the soviets in Grozny, and the Germans in Stalingrad.

The best example of this was in 1998. Bill Clinton, from positions the enemy couldn't counterattack, launched tomahawk missiles into the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, which instantly and comprehensively won the war on terrorists, turned Iraq into a peace-loving stabilizer of the region and a paragon of democracy, and solved all of America's problems in the middle east. Without a single infantry soldier.

Yup, the army that can do the most damage from the highest altitude is always the army who wins the war. Infantry units are pointless.

Many black library books address the interaction between orbital bombardment and ground forces... the short explanation is, however, that there are a lot of conflicts which probably end with an orbital bombardment but those aren't the stories that get told in the 40k universe, because they are boring. Even in the game there is an orbital bombardment option. Pinpoint orbital bombardments are extremely hard to aim from orbit to not hit friendly forces. Measures like exterminatus are costly and require that the planet not be worth it or beyond saving... in the case of vital forge worlds, the Imperium cannot afford to just nuke the vital resources there. And on top of that there are city defense void shields and planetside batteries that require ground forces to land in safety out of range, then attack from land.

Ground troops are needed for capturing objectives and wiping out enemies without destroying the whole planet. Plus infantry units are the coolest part of 40k IMHO. I do imagine that most of 40k's battles take place in space though, the tabletop game is just a very small fraction of battles.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, infantry units are completely pointless in an age of technology raining death from the skies.

Just ask the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Americans in Vietnam, and in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. And the French in Algiers and Indochina, and the Dutch in indonesia, and the British in Singapore, and the Germans over Britain. And the soviets in Grozny, and the Germans in Stalingrad.

The best example of this was in 1998. Bill Clinton, from positions the enemy couldn't counterattack, launched tomahawk missiles into the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, which instantly and comprehensively won the war on terrorists, turned Iraq into a peace-loving stabilizer of the region and a paragon of democracy, and solved all of America's problems in the middle east. Without a single infantry soldier.

Yup, the army that can do the most damage from the highest altitude is always the army who wins the war. Infantry units are pointless.

Valid points, but valid in the context of modern warfare, politics, and technology.

The soviet union had a vast nuclear arsenal at its disposal. And it lost the war against Afghanistan.

The Imperium has a vast fleet at its disposal. And they would also lose without ground forces. For all of the same reasons that simply nuking afghanistan wouldn't have won it for the soviets, or nuking vietnam would have won it for the americans.

Support weapons are just that - support. You can't achieve anything with just long-range firepower.

The one exception to this would be the dread exterminatus, but firstly, just how many resources are being diverted to create planet-killing weapons that may or may not actually achieve their intended objective (cf. Tallarn), and secondly, what happens when the Imperium handles every situation by destroying the entire planet? An imperium that controls nothing more than the blasted hulls of former planets won't have the resources to fight off their enemies.

Which is why they make gothic

TL: DR

Collateral damage is a pain to deal with if you want stuff from your target.

Chances are that if you can mount a big gun on a spaceship them you can mount a bigger one in the ground.

In a setting where we got lazors that blow up planets we are bound to have shields to protect those planets as well

 Ailaros wrote:
The soviet union had a vast nuclear arsenal at its disposal. And it lost the war against Afghanistan.

The Imperium has a vast fleet at its disposal. And they would also lose without ground forces. For all of the same reasons that simply nuking afghanistan wouldn't have won it for the soviets, or nuking vietnam would have won it for the americans.

Support weapons are just that - support. You can't achieve anything with just long-range firepower.

The one exception to this would be the dread exterminatus, but firstly, just how many resources are being diverted to create planet-killing weapons that may or may not actually achieve their intended objective (cf. Tallarn), and secondly, what happens when the Imperium handles every situation by destroying the entire planet? An imperium that controls nothing more than the blasted hulls of former planets won't have the resources to fight off their enemies.

The decision to deploy weapons like nukes in a setting like 40k would, generally, have much less political weighing involved. In cases where you need to simply completely annihilate a foe(OP mentioned a conflict against necrons), I would expect WMDs to, realistically, have a considerably larger role than they're usually depicted in having.

I also think you're confusing my position as arguing ground combat would have absolutely no place in a more realistic setting - I just think its role would be diminished considerably.

But it's not a mere matter of politics.

Let's say you're a fleet commander, and you've got a few imperial guard armies tagging along (because they're super cheap to create and maintain. You know what, have three imperial guard armies), and you've also got a giant battlefleet with enough missiles to destroy all life on a planet twice over.

You're in your situation room, and you've got some situations. On Phalax III, your naval base, heretics have risen on the planet and taken over your ports drydocks, and battleship parts factories. On Wargram IV, orks have invaded, and a fierce fight is roiling over your planet-killing missile factories, and there are sketchy reports and rumors of a huge tyranid fleet approaching.

What do you do?

The stupid answer is to say "I've got enough missiles to kill two planets" and completely annihilate Wargram and Phalax. Oops, looks like you don't have any battleships or missiles anymore. Hope the tyranid don't invade.

The smart answer is to send in your guardsmen to kill the orks and heretics without doing any damage to your drydocks and missile factories and save the missiles in case the tyranid show up, and you need to shoot them with a huge quantity of firepower.

Completely ignoring politics, there's plenty of reason why you use infantry to do stuff, rather than NUKE EVARYTHING FROM ORBITZ!!!!!1!!!!eleven!!

While doing nothing but shooting stuff with missiles doesn't work in the real world of 2013, only one, small reason is because of politics. If you could achieve your goals with nothing but missile strikes, then everyone would damn the politics and just use missiles. It turns out, though, that long range support weapons alone are ineffective at achieving your strategic objectives.

Which is why you have infantry. Because you want to actually win wars, not merely throw around a few fireballs and call it a day.

 Ailaros wrote:
But it's not a mere matter of politics.

Let's say you're a fleet commander, and you've got a few imperial guard armies tagging along (because they're super cheap to create and maintain. You know what, have three imperial guard armies), and you've also got a giant battlefleet with enough missiles to destroy all life on a planet twice over.

You're in your situation room, and you've got some situations. On Phalax III, your naval base, heretics have risen on the planet and taken over your ports drydocks, and battleship parts factories. On Wargram IV, orks have invaded, and a fierce fight is roiling over your planet-killing missile factories, and there are sketchy reports and rumors of a huge tyranid fleet approaching.

What do you do?

The stupid answer is to say "I've got enough missiles to kill two planets" and completely annihilate Wargram and Phalax. Oops, looks like you don't have any battleships or missiles anymore. Hope the tyranid don't invade.

The smart answer is to send in your guardsmen to kill the orks and heretics without doing any damage to your drydocks and missile factories and save the missiles in case the tyranid show up, and you need to shoot them with a huge quantity of firepower.

Completely ignoring politics, there's plenty of reason why you use infantry to do stuff, rather than NUKE EVARYTHING FROM ORBITZ!!!!!1!!!!eleven!!

While doing nothing but shooting stuff with missiles doesn't work in the real world of 2013, only one, small reason is because of politics. If you could achieve your goals with nothing but missile strikes, then everyone would damn the politics and just use missiles. It turns out, though, that long range support weapons alone are ineffective at achieving your strategic objectives.

Which is why you have infantry. Because you want to actually win wars, not merely throw around a few fireballs and call it a day.

Obviously if you're considering a front on a forge world or similarly valuable location, use of destructive weapons has to be done with caution, but that's not always the case nor can we assume that somehow *all* of the planet is so valuable that deploying super destructive weapons anywhere is unacceptable.

Orks and tyranids come to mind as aggressors these kinds of weapons could be deployed against more often than the background tells of. Certainly that's more logical than facing down hordes of aliens with legions of infantry and tanks.

Someone's gotta plant the flag.