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.

Crimson, a question.

Given the effort you have spent on your Marine models, not to mention art et cetera, how do you view the 'one million marines can't do anything' dilemma? (A highly consistent number, for that matter.) Most who believe they are still useful explain it by portraying them as really really powerful, but that does not seem to be your cup of tea, yet you surely must have some way to explain it if you approve of them enough to choose them as your army?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Crimson, a question.

Given the effort you have spent on your Marine models, not to mention art et cetera, how do you view the 'one million marines can't do anything' dilemma? (A highly consistent number, for that matter.) Most who believe they are still useful explain it by portraying them as really really powerful, but that does not seem to be your cup of tea, yet you surely must have some way to explain it if you approve of them enough to choose them as your army?

Marines are certainly the best the Imperium has, but that doesn't mean they need to be invincible superheroes. Protagonists who are too powerful become boring.

Do their low numbers mean they're irrelevant in the galactic scale? I think not, but it certainly means that they're just one small but important part in the massive military of the Imperium. Imperial Guard has the numbers, and in any large scale war they'll ultimately be more efficient than the Marines. However in some situations you just need quality instead of quantity. Surgical strikes to capture key strategic assets or to eliminate the enemy leadership are the tasks where the Marines excel; not to mention that there are numerous alien and daemonic horrors that just are too powerful or horrific for normal men to face. There are million worlds in the Imperium, and there are million Space Marines. That certainly sounds like they're spread thin, and they certainly would be a rare sight on the battlefields. On the other hand, how many of those million world are under attack or in rebellion in any given time? 10%, 5%, maybe just 1%? And of course Marines do not participate every little war raging in the Imperium. I think the numbers can work and Marines can still be relevant, if one assumes that they mainly work in concert with the Imperial Guard, instead of winning entire wars by themselves.

 Crimson wrote:
Surgical strikes to capture key strategic assets or to eliminate the enemy leadership are the tasks where the Marines excel; not to mention that there are numerous alien and daemonic horrors that just are too powerful or horrific for normal men to face.

Actually marines aren't very good at those things. They can't capture strategic assets because they don't have the strength to hold anything, without a horde of guardsmen to take over the marines are just going to get slaughtered by far superior numbers once the enemy reacts to their attack. They can't do anything against enemy leadership that a cruise missile with a tactical nuke can't do for a tiny fraction of the cost. And whether or not they can face those horrors doesn't really matter, anything touched by that corruption is going to need to be destroyed anyway, so just nuke it from orbit until nothing is left. The only thing marines excel at is being larger than life heroes for the Imperium's cults to worship, their contributions to the Imperium outside of this propaganda role are virtually nonexistent.

 Peregrine wrote:
They can't do anything against enemy leadership that a cruise missile with a tactical nuke can't do for a tiny fraction of the cost. And whether or not they can face those horrors doesn't really matter, anything touched by that corruption is going to need to be destroyed anyway, so just nuke it from orbit until nothing is left.

It's funny because I distinctly remember having a conversation with you in which I posited that the way the Imperial Guard fight is moronic because an air strike/carpet bombing would achieve in seconds what it takes them sometimes years to achieve for a fraction of the cost and time. To which your response was "b-b-but you can't just bomb everything! What about times where you want to take the base/city/location more or less intact! Then you need a surgical instrument!"

And yet... here you are...

 Peregrine wrote:

Actually marines aren't very good at those things. They can't capture strategic assets because they don't have the strength to hold anything, without a horde of guardsmen to take over the marines are just going to get slaughtered by far superior numbers once the enemy reacts to their attack. They can't do anything against enemy leadership that a cruise missile with a tactical nuke can't do for a tiny fraction of the cost. And whether or not they can face those horrors doesn't really matter, anything touched by that corruption is going to need to be destroyed anyway, so just nuke it from orbit until nothing is left. The only thing marines excel at is being larger than life heroes for the Imperium's cults to worship, their contributions to the Imperium outside of this propaganda role are virtually nonexistent.

How does it feel knowing that the fluff doesn't even begin to support your assertions?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's funny because I distinctly remember having a conversation with you in which I posited that the way the Imperial Guard fight is moronic because an air strike/carpet bombing would achieve in seconds what it takes them sometimes years to achieve for a fraction of the cost and time. To which your response was "b-b-but you can't just bomb everything! What about times where you want to take the base/city/location more or less intact! Then you need a surgical instrument!"

That's not really the same. There is a use for taking things intact, the problem is that marines suck at it. They can drop pod in and slaughter everything, but they don't have the numbers or supplies for an extended fight against the enemy's attempt to retake whatever they just captured. Even if they manage to win they're going to take casualties that the Imperium can't afford. Guardsmen might take tons of casualties getting there, but at least they're capable of holding things once they capture them and they're expendable enough that it doesn't matter if a few thousand meatshields die.

The nuke problem is in response to the claim that marines are great at things like taking out enemy leadership, which doesn't make any sense because if you know an enemy commander's position with enough accuracy to drop pod in some marines to shoot him then you might as well toss a cruise missile at his command bunker. One especially hilarious example of this was in IA8 where a marine squad drop pods in, places demo charges on some fuel tanks, and immediately leaves. So why bother with the marines at all? Just drop a pod full of explosives on the fuel tanks and skip the expensive super-soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
How does it feel knowing that the fluff doesn't even begin to support your assertions?

I don't know, I'll let you know if/when it happens.

 Peregrine wrote:


That's not really the same. There is a use for taking things intact, the problem is that marines suck at it. They can drop pod in and slaughter everything, but they don't have the numbers or supplies for an extended fight against the enemy's attempt to retake whatever they just captured.

They do it all the time though. In fact in the types of environments where a Marine would ideally be sent into (i.e. not a grassy open field that you can attack from any angle) they're better at it than the Guard.

Guardsmen might take tons of casualties getting there, but at least they're capable of holding things once they capture them and they're expendable enough that it doesn't matter if a few thousand meatshields die.

Sure, unless the thing the Marines are being sent in to neutralize is whats preventing the Guard from getting there in the first place.

The nuke problem is in response to the claim that marines are great at things like taking out enemy leadership, which doesn't make any sense because if you know an enemy commander's position with enough accuracy to drop pod in some marines to shoot him then you might as well toss a cruise missile at his command bunker.

But you can't always get to the target with a cruise missile. A cruise missile can be neutralized. It can be shot down, there could be something incredibly important like an STC or archeotech/ equivalently important resource that needs to be undamaged, or the bunker could be too entrenched/durable for a missile to penetrate- at which point drop-podding in ten marines who can infiltrate the location on foot and destroy or capture the key target is a viable strategy.

One thing that always gets me is the stagnation. Not just just technological stagnation, I know why that exists. I mean the stagnation of ideas. The Imperial Guard habitually fights World War scale conflicts yet their tactics never change despite the number of times they fight these wars. Ever major war in human history has resulted in major tactical changes, even if the technology stays the same. With the number of wars the guard fights you'd think they would adapt and change their tactics more than they do over the past ten thousand years they've been fighting.

 EmilCrane wrote:
One thing that always gets me is the stagnation. Not just just technological stagnation, I know why that exists. I mean the stagnation of ideas. The Imperial Guard habitually fights World War scale conflicts yet their tactics never change despite the number of times they fight these wars. Ever major war in human history has resulted in major tactical changes, even if the technology stays the same. With the number of wars the guard fights you'd think they would adapt and change their tactics more than they do over the past ten thousand years they've been fighting.

the tactics they use win (despite horrendous cost) leading to a if its not broken dont fix it attitude, as well as the fact that they regard their tactical writings as scripture so to violate them would be heresy.

Also they are too busy executing people to be creative.

No stagnation would spoil the grimdark.

Skipped to the end.

Chapter Approved, 2003, page 72: Land Raider has between 91 and 95mm of armor, but the composite construction makes it the equivilent to 395mm of armor.

The T-72A's hull has the equivilent of 500mm of armor protection against sabot.

Land Raider armor: Fail.

One of the Imperial Guard codicies has the following quote:

"I have at my command an entire battle group of the Imperial Guard. Fifty regiments, including specialized drop troops, stealthers, mechanised formations, armoured companies, combat engineers and mobile artillery. Over half a million fighting men and thirty thousand tanks and artillery pieces are mine to command. Emperor show mercy to the fool that stands against me, for I shall not."

The German army at the start of Operation BARBAROSSA had over 3 million troops. Fail.

I've done the math for a Space Marine-Guard ratio many times over the years, and I recently put it into a Google Doc spreadsheet so all could see it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jJLK-oXPAr27e1wwmyfnj41iE9iS7R-xab7659XhPQM/edit?usp=sharing

Also, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScifiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale

Just a thought on the Vrakks numbers. Ten million dead in WW1 was the statistic for both sides of the conflict. Isn't the Vrakksian 8m number just for the loyalists? Meaning that assuming the same number of enemy dead gives you 16 million dead in the war?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Just a thought on the Vrakks numbers. Ten million dead in WW1 was the statistic for both sides of the conflict. Isn't the Vrakksian 8m number just for the loyalists? Meaning that assuming the same number of enemy dead gives you 16 million dead in the war?

I asked earlier with no response. I asked if the traitors slaughtered where counted (or if they where slaughtered). But the answer to that I do not know.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Just a thought on the Vrakks numbers. Ten million dead in WW1 was the statistic for both sides of the conflict. Isn't the Vrakksian 8m number just for the loyalists? Meaning that assuming the same number of enemy dead gives you 16 million dead in the war?

I thought 14 million guardsmen died on Vraks?

8 million was the population of the planet, most of whom were killed. 14 million was the number of Guard casualties. (Vraks part 3 page 86)

The worst one for me is that there was only 1,500,000 IA at Terra, the most important battle in all of the fluff and there was only 1.5 million loyalist soldiers?

Can we choose sense of scale fail in terms of ridiculously oversized equipment?

Such as Titans, Tau Riptides, etc all being stupidly oversized and huge just because 'big stompy machines are kewl!'. I like Battletech, but it is horrifically flawed, as are these machines in that things that big just make really good targets and it is plot armor out the wahzoonie to have them around on a battlefield and not be insta gibbed continuously.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
Can we choose sense of scale fail in terms of ridiculously oversized equipment?

Such as Titans, Tau Riptides, etc all being stupidly oversized and huge just because 'big stompy machines are kewl!'. I like Battletech, but it is horrifically flawed, as are these machines in that things that big just make really good targets and it is plot armor out the wahzoonie to have them around on a battlefield and not be insta gibbed continuously.

I don't think that's really the same kind of failure. Giant robots are stupid from an engineering perspective, but if someone wants a universe where awesome giant robots run around smashing stuff you can't really call including those giant robots a failure of scale. They're in the universe because of a deliberate choice to sacrifice realism for fun/theme/etc, not because the author just doesn't have any sense of scale.

What this thread is about is things like the ridiculously small numbers involved in various battles, where there's no theme reason for those numbers and the explanation is simply that the author doesn't have a good sense of just how big a planet is.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Ewww, no thanks. Seven feet, that's not much taller than my brother. Seems absurd a healthy specimen with huge armour and superhuman buffs would not be taller.

In a BL novel whose name eludes me (I can dig up the source if you are interested) a Marine outside of armour is described as half again the height of a man, with a chest like a dining table and hands like shovels.

Assuming this man is about six feet (he did seem well-grown) this would put the marine at a very reasonable nine feet.

Clearly all those 7 feet references are outdated (Like the rather overrated Goodwin statement) or just in-universe propaganda to make Marine feats seem even more incredible!

And before you mention doorways and ceilings, have you noticed how oversized Imperial architecture is? At nine feet they could operate where it matters without issues. In the rare cases where there is a doorway that's too low, just snashing through is child's play for them.

All this is my opinion, of course. Calling it 'hilarious' when others disagree with yours is needlessly dismissive. We're all friends here.

Going much over 7ft tall means you run into all sorts of physical problems, even with a Space Marine's robust constitution. It's quite ludicrous to have them at 10ft tall, they would have trouble supporting their own body weight, have ludicrous blood pressure that would laugh at any 'quick congealing' blood agents, etc (even with unobtanium infused bones).

You simply start to place to much stress on the human frame, even with super genes and unobtainium infused body parts. Shoot, even 8ft would be a bit of a stretch.

It also makes you tactically crappy. Now you are talking about something that weighs so much it cannot enter many structures, sinks in mud/poor ground conditions, makes an easy target vs the amount of plating you can put on it, etc. A 10ft tall walking target with a large 'shoot here please' sign on it thanks to bright and gaudy colors and immense amount of noise such a bulk will generate (because regardless of fluff, that marine armor is NOT going to be nimble the way it's shown in pictures. It is far to bulky/to little articulation to enable ninja backflips with a bones that could like crush themselves from doing said backflip).

7-8ft makes them not wholly implausible...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:
Can we choose sense of scale fail in terms of ridiculously oversized equipment?

Such as Titans, Tau Riptides, etc all being stupidly oversized and huge just because 'big stompy machines are kewl!'. I like Battletech, but it is horrifically flawed, as are these machines in that things that big just make really good targets and it is plot armor out the wahzoonie to have them around on a battlefield and not be insta gibbed continuously.

I don't think that's really the same kind of failure. Giant robots are stupid from an engineering perspective, but if someone wants a universe where awesome giant robots run around smashing stuff you can't really call including those giant robots a failure of scale. They're in the universe because of a deliberate choice to sacrifice realism for fun/theme/etc, not because the author just doesn't have any sense of scale.

What this thread is about is things like the ridiculously small numbers involved in various battles, where there's no theme reason for those numbers and the explanation is simply that the author doesn't have a good sense of just how big a planet is.

Fair enough.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
The worst one for me is that there was only 1,500,000 IA at Terra, the most important battle in all of the fluff and there was only 1.5 million loyalist soldiers?

I agree. It was a planetary war, and we all know how big earth is. Should have been a billion troops if you ask me. I hate how 40k is such a big place but the legendary battles are so unbearably tiny.

 Lord Tarkin wrote:
I hate how 40k is such a big place but the legendary battles are so unbearably tiny.

It's a common theme in fiction and 40k is hardly alone. Authors just don't bother doing the research and think "a million men is huge" without ever realizing that it's actually fairly small compared to real-world wars.

 Lord Tarkin wrote:

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:
The worst one for me is that there was only 1,500,000 IA at Terra, the most important battle in all of the fluff and there was only 1.5 million loyalist soldiers?

I agree. It was a planetary war, and we all know how big earth is. Should have been a billion troops if you ask me. I hate how 40k is such a big place but the legendary battles are so unbearably tiny.

Maybe it was a misprint and they forgot the last 3-40,000 zeroes after 1,500,000.

1,500,000,000 starts to look okay...

1,500,000,000,000 would do me well for an all out kill-everything-apocalypse

I'm sure the HH novels will address this disreprency and retcon the number to something sutiably large.

Most of the time marines are deployed are not against super killy hostile xenos that will give them massive trouble. It is against rebellious worlds, maybe not very technologically advanced. In which case, they can hold strategic assets, why you may ask, well out of pure fear that's how. Try telling the PDF you have under your command for a corrupt governor that you need to retake a facility that fell in less than 2 minutes and all the previous occupants were wiped out, with sub standard equipment and maybe 1 lemus russ if you are lucky. No need for nukes if you can rip the fighting spirit out of your enemy.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Most of the time marines are deployed are not against super killy hostile xenos that will give them massive trouble. It is against rebellious worlds, maybe not very technologically advanced. In which case, they can hold strategic assets, why you may ask, well out of pure fear that's how. Try telling the PDF you have under your command for a corrupt governor that you need to retake a facility that fell in less than 2 minutes and all the previous occupants were wiped out, with sub standard equipment and maybe 1 lemus russ if you are lucky. No need for nukes if you can rip the fighting spirit out of your enemy.

No, that doesn't make any sense. There are way too few marines to waste their time dealing with low-end threats that the IG/PDF can handle. Marines will only be deployed against the super-killy xenos/massive demon swarms/etc, unless they intended to deploy against one of those major threats and it turned out to be something smaller.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, that doesn't make any sense. There are way too few marines to waste their time dealing with low-end threats that the IG/PDF can handle. Marines will only be deployed against the super-killy xenos/massive demon swarms/etc, unless they intended to deploy against one of those major threats and it turned out to be something smaller.

If the weaker enemy is close at hand I see no reason why they wouldn't intervene if they didn't have an urgent mission elsewhere. Even Grey Knights were shown in their Codex to crush an (untainted) Ork assault on an Imperial world because they were around. Quickly ending small invasions would help the Imperium by freeing up longer to mobilise resources.

I do agree that they'd generally concentrate on the larger threats though.

It's the Imperium. There is always an urgent mission elsewhere.

As for the Siege of Terra - Maybe 1.5m is all the men that can fit in the Imperial Palace? Don't forget, this is a planetary war that revolves around the taking of a single fortress.

it's a matter of how the resources can be best used. Marines do get used to crush planetary rebellions on occasion. but yeah it's rare, but if the planet is important eneugh, or the Marines are in the area anyway (or maybe they just feel like bashing some rebel heads, ultimatly the IoM doesn't order Marines anywhere. Marines receive numerous requests and they pick and choose whereever the hell they wanna go. based on their understanding of the situations, Divination from the Chapter Librarians, and ultimatly the whim of their commanders.) I suspect more then a few revolts have ENDED with the message sent to the rebels "There is a Astaries Strike cruiser in orbit. you have 12 hours to surrender"

 Furyou Miko wrote:
It's the Imperium. There is always an urgent mission elsewhere.

As for the Siege of Terra - Maybe 1.5m is all the men that can fit in the Imperial Palace? Don't forget, this is a planetary war that revolves around the taking of a single fortress.

True, but that fortress was ginormous. And though it mostly revolved around that siege, there was still numerous fights on key locations around the entire planet and 1.5m army troopers seems far to timid for any heavy duty battling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a matter of how the resources can be best used. Marines do get used to crush planetary rebellions on occasion. but yeah it's rare, but if the planet is important eneugh, or the Marines are in the area anyway (or maybe they just feel like bashing some rebel heads, ultimatly the IoM doesn't order Marines anywhere. Marines receive numerous requests and they pick and choose whereever the hell they wanna go. based on their understanding of the situations, Divination from the Chapter Librarians, and ultimatly the whim of their commanders.) I suspect more then a few revolts have ENDED with the message sent to the rebels "There is a Astaries Strike cruiser in orbit. you have 12 hours to surrender"

Imo, the only real kind of rebellion astartes would respond to is genestealer cult rebellions because it usually means a hive fleet is nearby ready to consume the planet.

I think the would respond if it was suspected that the rebellion was caused by Chaos cult activity (and why wouldn't it be!) It is better to stop such things before the Chaosites have their operation in such point that they can start summoning daemons.

 Crimson wrote:
I think the would respond if it was suspected that the rebellion was caused by Chaos cult activity (and why wouldn't it be!) It is better to stop such things before the Chaosites have their operation in such point that they can start summoning daemons.

That is true, I suppose. Altough, SM's would believe there are decently competent IG forces nearby to end such activities. On second thought, it would probably depend on what stage the rebellion was at. If a rebellion (of any kind mind you) began getting too successful in its dark objectives then SM's would probably come clean it up. Destroy key points of the rebellion and let the IG fight out the rest.