Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault
From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@t...>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:41:30 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault
John Atkinson wrote:
> >*If* the regulars have total air/orbital supremacy, which is not at
>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
That's not at all certain - again see Hoth. Planets can mount bigger
defences than spaceships can (not necessarily saying that they *do*, but
> >>And COA superiority (Close Orbit/Aerospace) is a precondition to
> >>attempting to land
> > Nope - or, rather, you only really need local COA superiority over
> > 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
> > unless the defences are truly outrageously massive you're pretty
> > 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
wish in the air while the enemy isn't; but (again except locally over
bridgehead) all you really need to do to sustain operations is to deny
*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.
Slammers-style "anything that pokes over the horizon is toast" weaponry)
you can keep the enemy from flying without having a single aircraft of
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
Gzg-l mailing list