Re: [SG2] weapons

> > Therefor a protracted medium to low intensity
> > conflict will tie down more of
> > the enemy forces for a longer period of time.
>
> Have to disagree with you there.... from an offensive
> POV, a quick, fast strike before the enemy can respond
> is best.  And for that, the key will be superior
> troops, superior equipment.

Try a quick strike, get shot at by a massive orbital bombardment (the
landing covering force), lose a bunch of men and equipment.  Not a very
good
plan unless you have tanks that can take spaceships.  Much better to
either
keep them away from the planet with the fleet, or go low intensity and
keep
them bogged down.  So they can't go take over another planet.

> Yes, if you're the defender, you'll want to fight a
> protracted, low-intensity conflict.  But how are you
> going to deliver your EMP's for EVERY battle if I
> control air and space?  And if you pop one before
> EVERY guerilla raid, how long will it be before the
> civilian population gets tired of your antics and
> losing power, losing grandpa because your EMP fries
> his pacemaker?  And how long will it be before the
> occupier figures out, "Hmmm.... Emp goes off, Guerilla
> attacks start up," and begins to use that intelligence
> to his advantage?

If I'm using RR rounds with microwave radiation warheads to take out the
electronics of individual vehicles, your control of the air and space is
irrelevant.  As the civilian effects, the degredation is an inverse
function, so they most of the time they won't be effected.

> So you're basing your entire strategy on eliminating
> my PDS so that you can wield RR's against me?  You'd
> better hope I base MY entire strategy ON PDS.  But
> you'll be wrong.

Nope.  The strategy is to down your troops, heavy armor, and prevent you
from generating income for your war effort from my planet.  RR's and
microwave radiation warheads are just one tactic to implement the
strategy.

> Again, we're talking about the future here, it's all
> theoretical.	I believe you yourself said it was
> arrogant to claim to know which side of the race will
> bbe ahead.  But I find it netirely plausible that by
> the time the game is set in, there will be electronics
> capable of resiting damage from EMP.

It's also plausable that they will be bear bean and butnaked to the
advanced
EMP devices of the time...  Which is why I'm about finished with this
thread.

> In other words, you're assuming that in EVERY battle
> that EVER takes place in the future, EMP WILL have
> taken out ALL PDS?  Wow....  maybe you should post to
> the discussion of weapons to be added/removed in DS3.
> I mean, why should we bother to have PDS?  After all,
> according to you, they won't be a factor because
> everyone will Pop EMP's before every battle.....

If you want the civilian economy in tact, you won't use hemisphere tech
killing nuclear EMP bombs.  If you want to neutralize a tank, it may be
a
very effective method with a conventional microwave radiation warhead
with a
very localized effect, in a RR rounds, a missile, off-board artillary
rounds, etc...

> Or maybe you're just unwilling to admit that PDS will
> be so effective against low velocity weapons because
> you want to be argumentative, so you have to concoct a
> scenario that eliminates them from the equation.

Reactive armor was so effective that designers built tandem warhead heat
rounds.  If PDS is so effective at shooting things down, designers will
come
up with a way to beat it.  Microwave radiation warheads is simply one
possibilty.

ias