Prev: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault Next: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:19:44 +1300
Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

When I made my comments about equatorial landing zones I made the
assumption that the landing craft would be a more advanced version of
the space shuttle. If the landing craft have full antigrav then they
could land straight down.

If you have shuttles that fly like aircraft they might well need long
landing spaces to set down.

I also assumed it would be easier for the blocading fleet to manouvre
into eqatorial orbits for assault landings because its easier to land
and take off into orbit from the equator rather than the polar regions.

The last 50 years of earth history has been full of advanced nations
losing wars to local militia. The Europeans all lost their colonial
empires to local revolts. Some were managed in semi peaceful transitions
but others were violent rebellions. Yet they had the technology and the
economics to suppport their army if they wanted to. The Americans
suffered a similar reverse in Vietnam as did the French.

I agree that campaigns set in the FT universe won't suffer from the CNN
effect of recent conflicts and the armchair quarterbacking of
politicians.

I can see the same kind of politics going into outfitting the invasion
fleet though. The "there's only a bunch of half assed mountain boys" you
won't need any armoured vehicles or aerospace fighters.

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

Prev: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault Next: Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault