Re: Planet conquering

>  Keep
> > in
> > mind that any battles the SJ forces fights against a groundling
> army
> > are going to weigh heavy against the groundling nation due to the
> > airpower being
> > used (unless the groundlings have some magic or tech that would be
> > effective
> > against the ships)
>
> <<<<<And here I disagree.  Air power can't win a war.  So if the
> enemy
> builds fortifications effective against aerial assualt (like going
> underground) or uses highly maneuverable ground troops (like cavalry)
> SJ
> ships have little effect.  You have to use ground troops to take and
> hold
> ground.  In the (A)D&D world the existence of an underdark ecology
> (or the
> possiblity of one) as well as all that magic for food and such you
> were
> going to use to support your SJ army can make Sj ships a needless and
> vulnerable burden.>>>>>
>
> So you think that air power would be useless. I think not,

Please avoid putting false statements in my mouth.  You said:  "any
battles the SJ forces fights against a groundling army are going to
weigh heavy against the groundling nation due to the airpower being
used".  And you are wrong.  I did not say flyign ships wouldn't be
useless, even if only for scouting and improving supply lines, I said
they will not weigh heavy against the groundlings.  SJ tech is about on
level with WWI aircraft.  You can drop a few bombs, do a little damage,
and engage enemy forces but using the [presumed] standard SJ economics
(including limits of helms vs ship sizes) you can't mount WWII carpet
bombing campaigns and you don't have the accuracy of modern "smart
weapons".  Since in war any tactic or advantage leads to the enemy
developing counter tactics and abilties your ships will not win the war
for you.  In fact, they will be a burden once the enemy makes getting
an aerial force of its own a priority.  Dragons, griffons, rocs,
weapons able to fire into aerial ships but too large to mount on such
ships, call lightning, the list goes on.  Ships in the sky make really
good targets.  There's a reason pilots don't like the "big sky--little
bullet" theory (discuss it with an apache pilot someday, they have a
far different view of it than us poor infantry guys did).

 But a ground
> force
> supported by aerial assaults and transportation will have the
> advantage over
> a ground force that does not.

Not true.  It will have some advantages but the above statement implies
it will necessarily have an overall decided advantage and this is
false.  You would have said in the 1930's that tankers would have an
advantage over spear wielders too, and like the Italians found out, you
would be wrong.  The Ethiopians proved this.

 And there is the moral factor to take
> into
> account here. Imagine your in some grounding army and these flying
> ship
> start pounding your position wit large rocks, ballista bolts and
> anything
> else they can find.

OK, I imagine I'm in a cavalry unit and I watch some aerial ships fly
over and they start firing rocks and ballista bolts from high enough up
that our bows, slings, and crossbows can't hit them.  I also notice
they maneuver like a piece of listless dung when the wind doesn't swing
them around.  They also have to tilt their ship so their people nearly
fall off to fire at us.  And their accuracy sucks donkey dongs.  At the
same time our druidic shaman calls down a lightning bolt and suddenly
they're more worried about fire than firing.  My moral has skyrocketed
as I watch the invaders who don't know the land find they are without a
key component of their combat force, and are now hurting for supplies,
and have no way to get away (not that a few Sj ships can actualy remove
all their forces from battle anyway).

 Then they drop ground troops behind your lines to
> out
> flank you. I think your moral would suffer a little.

They drop a couple dozen infantry in an area cut off from their other
forces and I sweep once of my groups of cavalry through them, cutting
them up piecemeal in the time-honored manner of missile using horse
warriors everywhere.  Ahh, to be a mongol.  Oh, and my moral again
increases as the enemy watch another of their "superior battle
strategies" and elite troops die, their moral dropping.

The above shows that there are innumerable effective tactics against SJ
ships in battle.  Even with however many daily overflights and smart
weapons we couldn't get Al-Qaida and I'm supposed to believe SJ ships
will somehow change this when they are less numerous and less accurate
and the enemy is more likely to have effective counterattacks (if you
want to get into really powerful magic, just see what happens when the
enemy druid creates a really nasty storm).  Only a DM who wants it to
be an overwhelming advantage (or lacks the imagination to deal
effectively with their presence) will allow SJ ships to be significant
on a groundling batlefield in a direct combat roll.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/