Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx>]

John Atkinson wrote:

> >*If* the regulars have total air/orbital supremacy, which is not at all
> >certain:
>
> If I have starships capable of blasting other starships from
> light-seconds away, then if I'm in low orbit your fighters are
> screwed.  If one side owns space, then they also own the atmosphere by
> extension.

That's not at all certain - again see Hoth. Planets can mount bigger 
defences than spaceships can (not necessarily saying that they *do*, but 
they *can*).

> >>And COA superiority (Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to even
> >>attempting to land
> >>troops.
> >
> > Nope - or, rather, you only really need local COA superiority over your
> > chosen drop zone; everywhere else COA *parity* is enough to give the
> > invasion a chance to succeed. A planet is a very big place to defend, and
> > unless the defences are truly outrageously massive you're pretty much
> > guaranteed to find an unprotected spot to land in.
>
> True.  Although to sustain operations, you need air superiority.

No. "Air superiority" means that *you* are effectively free to do what you 
wish in the air while the enemy isn't; but (again except locally over your 
bridgehead) all you really need to do to sustain operations is to deny the 
*enemy* from using the air as *he* wishes regardless of whether or not 
*you* can use it. With good enough ground-mounted AA defences (eg. Hammer's 
Slammers-style "anything that pokes over the horizon is toast" weaponry) 
you can keep the enemy from flying without having a single aircraft of your 
own.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l