Allegiance Class Star Destroyers are command ships, not multi-role ships like the Imperator. The ISD was designed to pacify systems - the ASD was designed for one reason: to command.
Funny they have a lot of firepower and space for something that is just designed for "command".
It being long does not automatically mean it carries any decent number of soldiers. But since you don't like my numbers, why don't you provide some yourself? As I said, your fleet cannot carry more than 50 000 soldiers. To occupy an entire planet?
Alright here we go. Though this site itself is not canon, they derived their info from canon sources so I shall begin:
www.geocities.com/nifship...ird_1.html
Troops: 18,500 Stormtroopers.
Support Craft: 10 Alpha Class XG-1 Star Wings, 28 Delta Class Dx-9 or Dx-9s Transports , 15 Lambda Class T-4a Shuttles, 2 Gamma Class Assault Shuttle and 2 TIE Shuttle Craft.
If I wanted I could even hold more if I hollowed out a portion of the support craft/fighters section.
The Imperial Mk. II Star Destroyer (the only kind ORS has)
Troops: 9,700 Stormtroopers, 20 AT-AT Walkers, 30 AT-ST Walkers, 1 Pre-fabricated Garrison Base.
Also I can gain more troops if I remove the walkers. I have two of these. That's roughly 10,000 per, 20,000 + roughly 20,000 = 40,000. Now that's just from my Star Destroyers, and allow me to quote the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels:
Strike Cruisers can carry a strike force if need be. This can contain five AT-ATs and "enough troops to supplement an assault". Also if you refer to the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels it indicates that "one ISD can be used for an assault" and it takes "five to six for a full scale assault". Seeing as you don't have the forces to hold up against a full scale assault - plus I have ships to make up for the lack of ISDs (including an ASSD which holds the compliment of TWO Star Destroyers) - it is in fact over kill. Let's see what else I can conjure up.
I have two of those, that's roughly 1000 soldiers.
pub33.ezboard.com/fswalli...=113.topic
That's 1200 more on my Silencers.
As well as armors.
I have three Battle Horn Bulk Cruisers. Bulk Cruisers were originally designed to carry troops, we can consider that anotherish 2500-3000. I'll balance it out at 2675.
Then we have Penetrator Assault Cruisers, four to be exact. They can each carry 2 Storm Regiments and 2 Fighter Squadrons, or 4 regiments if the 2 fighter squadrons are removed. So I have 2 storm regiments per, that's roughly 800 per regiment, so 1600 per ship. That's 3200 more soldiers.
pub33.ezboard.com/fswalli...=224.topic
Plus I have 60 Sovereignty Birds of Prey Mk. II, that's 10 CAVs per, that's 600 CAVs + their compliment of soldiers.
Now take into consideration the fact that you have a very minimal garrison on the planet that was already destroyed through constant air/space raids.
Next, you can dish out some canon evidence that says Abregado-rae has fewer cities than Iraq.
Abregado
Abregado, site of the Abregado-rae Spaceport, is controlled by an oppressive government which has kept the peace and improved the local spaceport facilities at the expense of individual freedoms. Abregado's government has cut off all supply lines to a clan of rebellious hill people, which has created illegal supply opportunities for ambitious smugglers. Han Solo and Lando Calrissian met up with a contact from Talon Karrde's smuggling organization in Abregado-rae's LoBue cantina, and Wedge Antilles later helped get one of Karrde's ships out of impoundment from the planet. The natives of Abregado are referred to as Gados. [HTTE, DFR]
There was only ever referenced one or two major cities, especially during the Yuuzhan Vong invasion.
Everything points to the fact that Abregado-rae is built around a space port by an oppressive regime. Oppressive regimes do not tolerate constant build ups of new cities that are further and further from their power base. Its a planet built around its shipyard and its shipyard alone.
And then explain how your 50 000 soldiers (maximum) can hope to occupy an entire world when it takes 200 000 to occupy one country.
Oy I'll do the math myself here:
20,000 + 10,000 + 10,000 = 40,000 + 1,000 = 41,000 + 1,200 = 42,200 + 2,675 = 44,875 + 3,000 = 47,875 + a good 3,000 from the advancing CAVs, AT-ATs, and the like = 50,875 now that's just infantry (not my total force)
+ give or take 1,000 armor units moving against 0 armor units against 0 air units against very limited infantry units.
I was being very, very lenient in saying that there were multiple cities to take - with Abregado-rae being primarily hills and its spaec port. 51-55,000 troops are MORE than sufficient to take and hold a planet built around a single space port.
Especially one where you have almost no forces.
Again, read the books. This isn't the same thing as real life, there are other things to take into consideration.
Now also bare in mind, it is taking 200,000 American soldiers to currently occupy Iraq post invasion.
We did not hit Iraq with 200,000 soldiers in a single strike. If so the country would've collapsed far sooner.
Iraq's population is roughly 20 million, and there are 200 000 (roughly) soldiers there. That's one soldier for every 100 citizens. Abregado-rae has a population of roughly one billion, and you have 50 000 soldiers (maximum) on the ground. That's one soldier for every 20 000 citizens. And keep in mind that none of these citizens like you.
Don't like you either Drayson, you can't hide behind civilians and expect to be Mr. Popular.
The difference is however, *I* RPed these things out. The civilians aren't going to just suddenly pop up and assault mine mid invasion. You are taking things entirely out of context.
This is one major push with 55ish thousand troops + armor + aircraft + naval craft. You have, at best, a couple thousand left - if even that on account of your RP.
And yes, obviously militia lines break easily. But as I said, this is not trench warfare. Nor is this two sides lining up in a field and taking turns shooting each other down. You are attacking a vastly superior force which is entrenched in fortified positions, in their native territory.
That's the exact opposite of what you said last post. You said "this is not entrenched warfare, this is guerilla warfare". I am fighting INFERIOR forces in INFERIOR gear who now have INFERIOR numbers.
You are going to suffer losses. That's a given.
And I have, but I was VERY careful about my strategy so that my losses wouldn't be as grotesque and absolutely stupid as you try to make them out to be. I didn't fire for the past sevenish hours so that you could shoot down everything coming down.
When I landed it was NOT a fair fight. I made sure of that.
Now then, you can also explain how you can level several cities (yes, several. more than one means several.) and only cause "a few" civilian deaths.
When civilians aren't there, they can't be killed, pretty simple.
Do you honestly expect them to run into the middle of nowhere?
Read my RP, I am not explaining this to you again.
Unlikely, in the extreme.
Only in your weird little ideas for how RPs should go.
Unless you going to go on to claim that "He was holding a gun, he doesn't count as a civilian!"
You're damn right. As soon as you pose a threat to an armed force you give up your rights as a civilian. Militia are NOT civilians. People defending what they think are their homes are NOT civilians.
If you are a threat, you give up your right - knowingly - as a civilian and can hence be targetted.
Don't be an idiot Drayson.
Which might make sense in the IC forums. But it is clear that you have still killed thousands of innocent civilians, unarmed. That's part of war, pure and simple.
Absolutely wrong. Sorry, but it's just wrong and Im' not going to explain why again.
The United States, using the finest cruise missile technology in the world and trying their best to avoid civilian casualties, caused around 10 000 in Iraq.
I'd like to see where these numbers came from.
But remember though that wasn't 10,000 casualties in the opening day either. That was 10,000 casualties over the course of months.
You're attacking a target from hundreds of kilometres up, using unrefined weapons not designed for pinpoint accuracy (from that distance). And you destroyed "one or two" entire cities and massive tracts of civilian land.
Wherever there were military targets. If you put them in civilian tracts of land that's your own fault - but I gave the chance for them to evacuate. If they did not and took up arms they are NOT civilians.
Yes, there are going to be civilian deaths. A lot of them.
You are inexplicably stupid unfortunately, or bull-headedly ignorant.
Oh, and I guess that the World Trade Centre wasn't a civilian structure?
You moron. You unbelieveable moron.
I said in the Pentagon strike no civilian structures were harmed. What kind of an idiot are you really?
Circular logic to the extreme, thank you for proving every single one of your debates wrong with your countless logical fallacies.
Know this: you're bullshit does not make something reality.
No but the reality of the situation does.
Post and post accurately without spewing out your dribble.
You have 24 hours.
IF you use the same stupidity you have here it will be ignored.
If you remember by Ahnk's own ruling, the civilians would flee the cities.
Try reading these posts Drayson.