# UNSC vs Imperial Guard



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

The debate about Spartan vs Astrates rages on but I think that a better question would be how would UNSC marines do if faced with an equal number of imperial guardsmen. (Obviously the Guard can field superior numbers and would easily win a war of attrition)


----------



## Raptors8th (Jul 3, 2009)

On the ground the guard would get slaughtered, in space it would probably be close but guard would win.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

On the whole, I'd probably give it to the Imperial Guard. 

For small arms, combat effectiveness is probably titled a bit towards the IG. The Guard's lasgun is a laser weapon, though, so accuracy is almost without a doubt better. The UNSC assault riffle's accuracy is shoddy at best. Logistics wise the lasgun is much easier to keep supplied as well.

The Imperial Guard's support and heavy weapons are much better than the UNSC. I don't recall in any of the games a marine lugging around a heavy machine gun (there were some, though. Master Chief usually tore the gun off their mounts). Plus in any close quarters fight flamethrowers would be important.

And then heavy equipment...The UNSC has the Scorpion and a few other tanks. A total lack of artillery. Plus other fast armored vehicles. The warthog is too vulnerable.

Then toss in Orgyns. The lack of heavy weaponary the average UNSC marine holds would make it difficult to stop their charge. Though a rocket launcher could probably do in a pinch. And possibly a headshot with the sniper rifle. 

Ratlings are also apparently better snipes than most normal humans could hope to be.

Sanctioned Psykers would probably throw an additional weight for the Imperial Guard.


----------



## GiftofChaos1234 (Jan 27, 2009)

and a scorpion with like 4 unsc marines sitting on the side would be far less effective than a lrbt with 3 heavybolter mounts


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

not another one!... :headbutt:


----------



## Raptors8th (Jul 3, 2009)

I'd make a case but after the Spartan vs. Sm I'm sick of it.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

UNSC? What's that? United Nation SEAL Corps?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

United Nation Space Command if google, and by extension halopedia, are to be believed.

In regards to the topic itself, outside of fighting on the ground, the UNSC has the advantage because they have space fair vessels. The guard do not, ships fall under the control of the Imperial Navy, which have nothing to do with the Imperial Guard.

Honestly Raptors8th, what did you expect? This is a 40k forum by and large, there is bound to be a lot more people who support and can give any kind of example of backup in its favour just as would be the case in a halo oriented forum.

You might want to believe that the UNSC are overall better but to be honest its not the case. They may not be entirely outclassed by the Imperial Guard and Navy but to be perfectly honest they do not beat them overall. The Guard and Navy have numbers on their side, they come from a galaxy spanning empire, with production of certain things like vessels being in production for up to ten thousand years.

Simple fact is that even if the UNSC were overall better, they lack the numbers. However, they are not overall better, guard have more weapons for their ground troops and the navy more ships, and weapons, at their disposal. Just take a look at the basic infantry squad of the guard, able to be armed with flamethrowers, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, meltaguns, plasmaguns, heavy bolters, autocannons, mortars, missile launchers, lascannons, and heavy flamers as well as being mounted in a transport that is more heavily armoured and armed than a rhino (with a higher transport capacity.)

Thats not even looking at the Imperial Navy, with their escort class ships being between three-quarters and two kilometers in length. The cruisers, which make up the bulk of the strength in an Imperial Navy fleet, are between three and five kilometers in length, making them larger than the largest of the space vessels used by the UNSC. And those are not even the largest of the ships available to the Imperial Navy, they also have battleships, vessels of over eight kilometers in length; and all of the Imperial navy vessels are armed with both heavy shields and a large variety of weapons. (Honestly, given the kind of firepower that Imperial shields withstand before going down, they would have to be obnoxiously strong.)


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Another debate that can't be solved. Yay!

Before people start running around shouting "He's better! No HE'S BETTER!!!11!" can we get some facts and figures?

No?

Then neither side can prove ANYTHING!


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Oh will you just shut the fuck up Wusword77? If people want to debate something like this then do you honestly believe your little bitching is going to stop them? If you don't care for these threads then ignore them, don't partake in them at all and be on your merry way. They do not pop up all that often compared to other things, so let them be and they will die out in time.


----------



## Raptors8th (Jul 3, 2009)

Main reason UNSC wins on the ground: They have Spartans, which are better than anything the Imperium has (including SM, but if you want to disagree with this please put it in the thread dedicated to that debate). Sure they've only got 34ish of them, but if a squad (4 man) were deployed with the marines they could take anything the guard brought but the guard couldn't bring anything that could take them.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Raptors8th said:


> Main reason UNSC wins on the ground: They have Spartans, which are better than anything the Imperium has (including SM, but if you want to disagree with this please put it in the thread dedicated to that debate).


UNSC could beat the guard because they have spartans. 

First you claim that, and then go on to claim they are better than marines, but then go to mention that is not the place to debate that? That is little more than a form of hypocrisy to be honest.

In regards to spartans and marines, oh look at that they are outnumbered by marines. Simply numbers game, marines win, just like how on the ground, ignoring the likes of armour and weapons, the guard can beat the UNSC and how in space the Imperial Navy can beat the space forces of the UNSC.



Raptors8th said:


> Sure they've only got 34ish of them, but if a squad (4 man) were deployed with the marines they could take anything the guard brought but the guard couldn't bring anything that could take them.


As for this, guard don't have anything that can contend with spartans? What do you call ordanance, heavy mainline battletanks, superheavy tanks, superior numbers with oodles of special and heavy weapons. Yeah a group of three or four spartans might be able to lay waste to a full platoon of guard, but that means little to a fighting force like the guard. 

One of the addages of the guard is "it does not matter the number of casualties it may take to win a battle. the Imperial guard will devote many thousands of men to overcome a small goal."

When you draw hell knows how many millions of soldiers from millions (if not more) of worlds, numbers mean nothing to you. So what if three or four spartans wiped out little more than a full platoon of guard, can they honestly deal with several regiments of various types?

Thats one of the big things about guard, they aren't organized with every scenario in mind. You have light regiments, heavy, drop, mechanized, armoured, cavalry, artillery, and flying regiments (in those extremely rare cases) all of which number several thousand strong. (Artillery, armoured, and mechanized are the smallest regiments in sheer numbers for obvious reasons, numbering as few as seven hundred to fifteen hundred respectively and for obvious reasons.)


It comes back down to the fact that the UNSC does not have the numbers to fight such a force that can bring those kinds of numbers to the field, and with regiments focused as they often are, you will wind up with some of the UNSC weapons becoming absolutely useless. (Great you have missile launchers, not that they'll do you much good vs an all infantry regiment who focus in guerilla and hit and run warfare. Or how about your vanguard forces vs a drop regiment designed to hit you from the rear and within where you are most vulnerable? Or how about an armoured regiment composed entirely of heavy and medium armour; fat lot your anti infantry weapons will do against mainline tanks and the like.)




Raptors8th if you want to prove why the UNSC would be better than please, don't just post up little more than opinion. Throw in some fact, some numbers, something to back your side up.


----------



## Dark Assassin101 (Jul 3, 2009)

wait im not entering spartan v astartes debate but can some one clear this up i thought all the spartans were dead or incapacitated all bar Master Cheif? 
but on the IG v UNSC it would all depend on sercomstance(spelling) as well as who was in comand you can have the best and the most and still have 7 different kinds of shit beaten out of you. if your comander is a complete idiot just throwing that in there


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

In the end, it all boils down to who can destroy the planet first and afford to lose everyone on it just to win.


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

Raptors8th said:


> Main reason UNSC wins on the ground: They have Spartans, which are better than anything the Imperium has (including SM, but if you want to disagree with this please put it in the thread dedicated to that debate). Sure they've only got 34ish of them, but if a squad (4 man) were deployed with the marines they could take anything the guard brought but the guard couldn't bring anything that could take them.


Spartans are neither here nor there, they are completley regardless. Especially if there are only 34 in a large scale engagement. 

Im not big on the Halo background because I've always hated the games, in my opinion, hype aside they are appauling FPS games... 

anyway you think the UNSC would be able to stand up against a couple Super-Heavys? When what is it they have, scorpions is it? Against the Imperial Navy which would undoubtedly be supporting the guard?

When it comes to Halo Vs 40k, if such a thing can suitably be compared, 40k wins it in most if not all base situations.

However what Dark Assassin101 said is correct. All 'Vs.' threads are entirely hypothetical, and if one did occur there are so many angles that have to be taken into the account. So much depends on the situation...


----------



## DeathTyrant (Aug 23, 2009)

Well let's see. Lasguns are usually described as better than Autoguns and Stub guns, which in the case of Autoguns from classic fluff (2ED Rulebook) were more advanced than what we have now, utilising caseless ammo (let's not bring up the H&K G11).

As already stated, Lasers are going to be more accurate than standard projectile weapons on account of there being no projectile to be swayed by the wind, by gravity etcetera. Flak armour is pretty 'meh' but would seem to be at least on par with what the Halo Marines use.
As for better training, well that is a bit harder to decide. Some Guard Regiments/Armies like to use the Meat-Grinder approach. Some (as described in Abnett's books) are resplendent in glassy armours, with hotshot lasguns, and are comprised almost entirely of very grand, well equipped elite units. Then there are Cadians who are not only well trained but are the very definition of veterans, as they fight so much.

Halo Marines are probably more standardised (so better than some IG, worse than others).


----------



## sundrinker (Aug 7, 2009)

there is a thousand trillion zillion gjillion imperial guardsmen and only somthing like 19 million unsc soldiers or so i would think at the very most and the spartans are all well and good until they get shot the crap out of by a couuple hundred guardsmen.

on the other hand unsc does have a nice array of equipment but probably far less than the guard and not much in the way of a fleet compared to the guard. but a very important to remember is that the guard is a very cumbersome force whereas the the unsc is very moblie with drop troops, light speed ships and fast aircav


----------



## lawrence96 (Sep 1, 2008)

Like most here i would have to say the Guard, partly out of loyalty to my army, but also becuase the imperium has the better tech.

Also there are regiments (such as D99, i think that's waht they're called) who had not only numbers but also had Genetic mods like spartans.


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

A more pertinent question would seem to be:

WHICH Imperial Guard are we talking about? There are rather a few.

Some of them could even be considered super soldiers themselves (Gland Warriors for instance). Some guard would be a lot quicker than the UNSC forces (I'm thinking Elysians), some would be far superior in jungles (Catachans). Some are just going to be all round better (Cadians ;D ).

Saying who would be the best is an incredibly wide question, which doesn't take into account terrain, individual training, mentality and so on.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

LordLucan said:


> WHICH Imperial Guard are we talking about? There are rather a few.


Yes but the same, or possibly just a similar, question can be asked on the behalf of the UNSC. Are we talking about the main fighting force, the ships, the armoured divisions, ODST's, or spartans? All of those are different elements of the UNSC much like the various regiments from different worlds with different styles and designations are all elements of the guard.

I believe the question pertains to the entirety of the guard vs the entirety of the UNSC. In which case, without the inclusion of the Imperial Navy, the guard might win any and all ground battles but they could never truly win, as they would have no way to deal with space ships.

With the Imperial Navy though, a sad truth comes about in that, compared to the ships of the Imperium the UNSC space forces are a joke. The largest of their ships are a handful of converted ships made into supercarriers no greater than three kilometers in length, with their average fighting ships being half that. 

Your standard Imperial cruisers are three to five kilometers long, at the very least twice the length of a UNSC ship but full equiped with multiple shields. From all the halo novels I've read, for the most part the UNSC struggle to take down covenant shields; I'd be willing to bet that Imperial ships have shields of comparative ability.


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

So we're pitting the entire earth military from Halo, against one element of the Imperial military? How is this a worthwhile debate at all?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

LordLucan said:


> So we're pitting the entire earth military from Halo, against one element of the Imperial military? How is this a worthwhile debate at all?


Not everyone realizes that the Imperial Guard and Imperial Navy are separate entities; it could just be a slight oversight by the OP.

Personally, I say if your gonna have the debate, than honestly you have to include the Imperial Navy with the Guard.


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

I certainly agree.


----------



## delonemonkey (Oct 16, 2008)

The thing the people standig up for halo are missing, is the 40000 year gap in technology. 

You just shrug it off by saying, the imperial guard would get slaughtered. No question. The imperial guard is a force of the best soldiers taken from countless thousands of worlds. Some armys are even Gene bred (meaning a genetics program, meaning they are all near perfect soldiers. Not close to a spartan or marine, but way more so than your year 2500 average joe.

Why would the UNSC win, lol? simple COMMON SENSE would tell you the army from 40000 years in the future is going to be better equiped and have much more effective weapons.

We are talking weapons and materials that even the scientists in halo would not even think of having. And you also say without any back up spartan is better than a space marine.

Do you not realise a spartan is basically a space marines great great great greatx10000 grand daddy? 


Honestly i am a big halo fan as well as 40k and i think out of simple common sense 40k will win every time. You cant fuck with the imperium. You really are going Die hard for the halo universe. Face it, they are out classed in almost every single aspect. And if you deny that, then you are giving NO CREDIT to the 40k universe. 


You can try to explain to me why the UNSC is better, and i will gladly hear you out. But please explain what it is that would give them the advantage.


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

> Why would the UNSC win, lol? simple COMMON SENSE would tell you the army from 40000 years in the future is going to be better equiped and have much more effective weapons.


Really? my experiences of Halo tell me what UNSC has very advanced technology, similar to what the Tau use in the 40k Universe. The technology used by the Imperium is very basic compared to how its like 38000 years in the future... You would of thought that in 38000 years, full of vast galatic wars humanity would of evolved from using bullet firing weapons. Sure bolter shells are more like mini RPG`s but still, you would of thought they would be using advanced laser technology safely by now... not just those flashlights used by the Guard....

In my opinion the Imperium would win, because simply they have more resoureces, more man-power, Space Marines, and Virus bombs... and if they could be arsed, then they could probably encourage an Ork WAAAGH to own the UNSC


----------



## delonemonkey (Oct 16, 2008)

Could you explain to me what makes the UNSC that advanced?

I was under the impression they were using advanced solid round weapons more powerful cousins of what we use today. I know they have rail guns and such, but only on larger vehicles and star ships. 

And if you go by the fluff those "flashlights" are extremely effective. There is a reason they are chosen over solid round weapons. Accuracy and range, as well as effectiveness. No recoil as well. In the fluff las weapons are extemely effective when you are not fighting some insane armor wearing sterioid pumping enemy. Which is why they are sometimes looked at as weak. And i dont think UNSC armor was ever designed to stop a laser in any way. 


Technology wise the imperium is extremely advanced. Their bio engeneering capabilities, cybernetics, weaponry and material capabilities are all way beyond what the humans in halo have, or could dream of having. 

For example, super heavy tanks, and all those fancy energy weapons they run around with. They would end up leaving a lot of UNSC vehicles in puddles on the ground. Not to mention psykers. Once you bring pyskers in thats a whole new mess of trouble. 

I am interested in hearing good points that the UNSC would have, but i honestly think that they would get beaten in almost all catagories. Asides from the spartans, which would probably need either super heavies, pyskers or marines to take out, the imperial guard would grind them down with numbers and heavy weapons. 

It would be an awesome fight.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Thats the thing delonemonkey, some of us ask for good facts or things to back up the claims that the UNSC forces would be better or whatnot but the members defending them are either unable or unwilling to do so.

It could be for a reason as simple as the halo universe simply lacks the stuff for them to do this; it is not nearly as established as the 40k universe with its quarter of a century life.

But then, for the halo supporters to admit this would also mean they are admitting that they have next to no support for their claims and baseless claims hardly make for effective arguements on your side.


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

> Could you explain to me what makes the UNSC that advanced?


Ok Dark Reeever, Ill explain. Although my last post was fairly neutral with me supporting both sides, although stating that the Imperium has the vast advantage through man-power, resources, many chapters of super-humans and planet-destroying WMD`s. And thus would win a confrontation with UNSC.

Like I said, from my _experiences_ of Halo their technology seems advanced. They have a number of energy weapons and portable shield generators that seem more common than those used by the Imperium. The Imperium tend to rely heavily on the use of bolters as anti-infantry weapons. Bolters do fire rounds that are more advanced than todays, relying less on simple, brute kinetic energy. They are like small RPG`s. 

You may return by saying that the Imperial Guard rely on Laguns that as basic standard issue weapons are very complex. Yeah, but they generally are not effective against most of the Imperiums enemies and even against things such as waves of gaunts they still needed massed volleys to become effective, have you ever fired 30 lasguns? against a tactical squad you`ll take down roughly 1 space marines per turn, two if your lucky, 3 and you kinda get abit freaked out. And what of Plasma guns, Melta gunsm, Multi lasers and all that shit? well, Plasma technology is still something the Imperium is wary of. They still havent mastered it as well as the Tau or Eldar, and Melta weapons are effective but still not that advanced. Its like the 11th century Chinese, pissing around with Black Powder, having the odd accident....

Admittedly the Imperium do have a vast Navy, with miles-long spaceships, have massive machines of war, pyskers and a good understanding of bio-engineering, but this simply is down to their massive amount of cheap labour and resources.

All Im saying is. Considering how weve gone from throwing flint-tipped spears to weapons that imitate the very processes of the Sun in what???? 7,000 years, if that, and by using this as a guide. Combined with all of the wars the Imperium has fought, which only drives technological developments, they havent advanced in 38,000 years as much as I thought.


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

bobss said:


> Ok Dark Reeever, Ill explain. Although my last post was fairly neutral with me supporting both sides, although stating that the Imperium has the vast advantage through man-power, resources, many chapters of super-humans and planet-destroying WMD`s. And thus would win a confrontation with UNSC.


Indeed.



> Like I said, from my _experiences_ of Halo their technology seems advanced. They have a number of energy weapons and portable shield generators that seem more common than those used by the Imperium.


I thought the man portable shields in halo are covenant, not human?

The Imperium makes extensive use of man portable shields. Rosarius are rare on a galactic scale, but consider how many chaplains and Inquisitors have them.

The Imperium have absolutely tonnes of energy weapons



> The Imperium tend to rely heavily on the use of bolters as anti-infantry weapons.


Well, not exactly. Marines use bolters, as do Sororitas, but most of the Imperium uses lasguns as standard anti-infantry weapons.

Unless you mean heavy bolters, then I apologise, because almost every Imperial force utilises them.



> Bolters do fire rounds that are more advanced than todays, relying less on simple, brute kinetic energy. They are like small RPG`s.


Indeed.



> You may return by saying that the Imperial Guard rely on Laguns that as basic standard issue weapons are very complex.
> 
> Yeah, but they generally are not effective against most of the Imperiums enemies and even against things such as waves of gaunts they still needed massed volleys to become effective,


The vast majority of the Imperium's enemies are rebel humans and Orks. On rebel humans, they work fine, and with Orks, lasguns work ok. You just need to shoot them more.

This point is irrelevent in this debate however, as the Imperium are fighting humans (the UNSC). Lasguns kill humans perfectly well (they blow chunks out of people, and hellguns can vapourise heads and limbs rather well) 

have you ever fired 30 lasguns? against a tactical squad you`ll take down roughly 1 space marines per turn, two if your lucky, 3 and you kinda get abit freaked out.[/QUOTE]

That's TT though. I thought we were debating the background? 

And what of Plasma guns, Melta gunsm, Multi lasers and all that shit? well, Plasma technology is still something the Imperium is wary of.[/QUOTE]

Not really accurate. Imperial warships, super heavy tanks, titans and even man portable versions are utilised wildly.

Only the man-portable ones are dangerous. This is because the Imperium doesn't care about human life, so deliberately make their plasma weapons as powerful as possible, regardless of what the safe level of power would be.



> They still havent mastered it as well as the Tau or Eldar, and Melta weapons are effective but still not that advanced. Its like the 11th century Chinese, pissing around with Black Powder, having the odd accident....
> 
> Admittedly the Imperium do have a vast Navy, with miles-long spaceships, have massive machines of war, pyskers and a good understanding of bio-engineering, but this simply is down to their massive amount of cheap labour and resources.


The Tau aren't more advanced than the Imperium. Their stuff just looks cleaner and more 'futuristic'. The Tau have nothing the Imperium doesn't have. The Imperium has lots of stuff the Tau do not. Much of the Imperium's tech is likely warp-related too (like teleporters and full warp engines), which Tau can't understand.

Also, it is not just massive amounts of labour and resources that allows the Imperium do do all this. They also have inherited miraculous-level Dark Age tech, which is insanely advanced.



> All Im saying is. Considering how weve gone from throwing flint-tipped spears to weapons that imitate the very processes of the Sun in what???? 7,000 years, if that, and by using this as a guide.


What dates are you using? 7000 years from cavemen to now? Seriously? I think you mean 70,000 years (at least!)

Modern **** Sapiens developed around 100,000 years ago.It then took us 70,000 years to develop improved stone spears, with better cutting edges.

It isn't until 10,000 BCE that we even get agriculture!

Ninety nine percent of human history has almost no technological development.

Technological development also isn't linear.

Some societies developed advanced technology and construction techniques thousands of years befor eother areas, then lost their technological know-how through loss of records and artisan skill-sets and what have you.

We, as a post-enlightenment society, have this strange misconception that humans have an innate drive to develop and improve their technology. 

Humanity, as history tends to show, does not. Most of the time, if something works, we don't bother developing it. It only develops when



> Combined with all of the wars the Imperium has fought, which only drives technological developments, they havent advanced in 38,000 years as much as I thought.


War doesn't always advance technological developments. Most of the time, wars waste resources (industrially and in terms of manpower).

For all the sieges during the crusades, the Islamic empires did not develop their siege weapons much at all. Technological development is not a guaranteed outcome of warfare. There isn't always an arms race between enemies civilisations. 

In some empires (like Medieval china) technological development was deliberately stagnated in some areas. Any inventions which didn't concern argicultural efficiency, they were ignored by the authoritarian leadership.

Also, we must always bear in mind, the Imperium is a civilisation which has suffered TWO near-apocalypses! Nobody complains that Mad Max's tech isn't more advanced than us (because it's in the future). Why complain that the Imperium aren't advanced 'enough' (whatever that means. How advanced are they 'supposed' to be?)


----------



## bobss (May 18, 2008)

> How advanced are they 'supposed' to be?)


Thats a good question. If we compare the rate of human technological development within say the last 10,000 years until now, then its pretty drastic. If development continues at an almost constant rate, which of course it wont, due to us running out of resources, then by the year 40,000 we *should* be alot more developed than what the Imperium shows us.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

bobss, honestly you can't use the things on the table top and use that as a good reference. The differences and scales are so dumbed down its honestly no good; the difference in strength between a space marine and guardsman, for example, is merely a single point.

But when you use inquisitor for your references, its entirely different and much more apparent; and far more accurate. In that your average veteran guardsman has a strength of 60 compared to a space marine with strength of 200. 


By the way, how is trying to tear down weapons of 40k supposed to be giving support and references for the UNSC forces and halo?

Also, haven't advanced as far as you thought? The Imperium uses laser rifles as standard for their troops, they are capable of creating super human weapons, have war engines capable of leveling whole cities without much effort. And thats all with ten thousand years of stagnation plus however long the stagnation of technology occurred during the dark age of technology that cut off humanity from itself.


----------



## Raptors8th (Jul 3, 2009)

Ok. if we're going to keep this going, we need to agree to what forces each side has. This wasn't about the _entire_ Imperium vs. the _entire_ UNSC, it was supposed to be an equal force from each side. How about a single guard regiment in a strike cruiser vs. a single UNSC cruiser (like the _Pillar of Autumn_) and it's garrison (something like 1200 marines with supporting armour and units like ODSTs). In that case it's generally going to be a highly mobile force against a slow juggernaut (UNSC and guard respectively). So all those great super-heavies and artillery pieces are useless, since they have to catch a force that's entirely mounted in dropships (Pelicans) and ATVs (Warthogs).


----------



## lawrence96 (Sep 1, 2008)

Well it would be noce to use the above model, but IG regiments are big, very big. And they contain one thing and one thing only I.e. you get an infantry regiment that has no tanks, a tank regiment that has no infantry support ect. The emps brought this in after the HH (while he could still speak) to prevent another lagre scale heresy. A single regiment might turn evil, but it would only be one.

So if you use a single regiment you might end up with 2000-3000 Guardsmen but no tank support VS 1200 UNSC + tanks + ODST support ect. (Or a regiment of Russes which would not be fair on the UNSC)

If you take 1200 IG vs 1200 UNSC then it would be fair.

And i still think that the IG would win. Even if you could shoot enough basic troop you've got the command to deal with. and they have personal shields and a hell of alot of battlefield EXP. And the lasgun is far more deadly then the UNSC equivalent. It is more accurate, has more ammo (being nearly unlimited), is more versatile with the power settings, better distance.

Another reason why IG would rock, when i played Halo the UNSC got disheartened easily and also cared about casulties. 

IG don't. Cowardice is a executable offence ig the IG. As is theft, improper equipment maintainence, Not praying, Sleeping in, disrespect to a senior officer and about a billion other things. 

What i'm trying to say is that compared to their usual terrifying opponents the UNSC would even spook the IG. They would just line up, say their prayers to the Emp. and let loose with the vollies


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Raptors8th said:


> This wasn't about the _entire_ Imperium vs. the _entire_ UNSC, it was supposed to be an equal force from each side.


Fair enough, but to be fair both sides jumped to conclusions and it lead to al vs all. So this should have avoided but instead we all jumped the gun.



Raptors8th said:


> How about a single guard regiment in a strike cruiser vs. a single UNSC cruiser (like the _Pillar of Autumn_) and it's garrison (something like 1200 marines with supporting armour and units like ODSTs).


The problem with this is that the Imperial Guard do not operate in single regiments and so its harder to do this for them. Strike cruisers are space marine vessels, the Imperial Navy does not have access to them.

For the guard it would be far more accurate to say they are transported in a dictator class cruiser what with it being one of the main workhorse carrier of the Imperium. The truth is even a single IG regiment would be carried around in a number of escorts and troop carriers, not a single capitol ship. Maybe certain regiments would get that privalage but not the bulk.

With a ship for them out of the way (in regards to this post) next up is the regiment used. Raptors8th, you seem content in assuming that all of the Imperial Guard is some large, unwieldy force very easily outmanouvered and this is not the case. Any force operated as one gigantic unit is going to be slow and unwieldy, even forces of the UNSC because it does take time to coordinate your entire force. Where IG regiments are concerned though, as multiple members have pointed out their are many different types of them. You have all infantry, all armoured, a few rare air regiments, artillery, drop, mechanized, or cavalry.

Now an entire IG force comprised of multiple regiments would allow for UNSC forces to be able to bring all their own weapons to bear without being hampered. But face facts one regiment will not do that. So lets pick which guard regiment UNSC ground forces should be compared to so that we can be more accurate here; we have a shit load to choose from. (infantry and armoured regiments can be further divided into even more regiments.)


In regards to UNSC forces; use a Halycon class cruiser? Why? They were phased out by the Marathon as soon as possible. Sure the Halycon cruisers were known for being nigh indestructible and could be retrofitted for most required tasks but is your choice for using that ship just to try and gain some slight advantage in what is supposed to be an even debate?

Finally we have the UNSC troops themselves; I personally have no problem going with the forces you have listed (though armoured units would take away from the number of marine forces as marines and vessel crew operate and maintain their vehicles.) It might be better though, to go with an entire marine and ODST battalion; that would put their numbers at 2000 marines plus supporting vehicles as well as several dozen ODST's. Given the fact that these guys will likely be going up against 3000 of something else, I believe UNSC forces using the right sized forces is more than fair.




Raptors8th said:


> In that case it's generally going to be a highly mobile force against a slow juggernaut. So all those great super-heavies and artillery pieces are useless, since they have to catch a force that's entirely mounted in dropships (Pelicans) and ATVs (Warthogs).


See this is where my comment towards you specifically comes from, you want to assume the guard will always be this large and pondering force while the UNSC will always be fast and manouverable. This will always favour your claims but it is neither true nor entirely fair.

Why should a super heavy vehicle mounted with some of the heaviest and most powerful weapons of the Imperium have to catch up to an enemy when they can shoot it from afar? 

Also, pelicans and warthogs may be fast, but they have relatively small carrying capacities and when in large numbers its not so hard to hit something when your opponent blankets a large portion of the ground or sky.


So before we go on we all should honestly agree on what kind of Imperial Guard regiment these UNSC forces are going to be compared to. Personally if you want to do something similar to the UNSC then go with a drop regiment like the Elysians or Terrax Guard.


----------



## jaren (Jul 7, 2008)

For imperial guard I vote for the 16th Elysian Drop Troops Regiment, as close to the middle of ODST and IG as I could figure.

for the UNSC I think the even split of 50/50 ODST and standard marines as the halcyon is split that way for the loaded ground forces. this comes to whatever number you want is half and half, so if we choose 2000 men per force, you get the picture.

though we could take a larger sized force then that, so go 5,000 a side that was reached by the unsc during the battle for reach. with this many forces, we need to assume each has space reinforcement cut off, though they have their full force landed, including air support from ground bases (no orbital bombardment) and supplies for 1 year.

if these parameters are fair enough, i think we have a basis of where to start, though i am not set on the numbers, just ideas.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

Think like this...

10 UNSC marines vs 10 Guardsmen
1 Scorpion vs 1 Leamon Russ
1 Warthog vs 1 Chimera

if these forces were to collide who would be the victor???
(I think guard )


----------



## jaren (Jul 7, 2008)

Android089 said:


> Think like this...
> 
> 10 UNSC marines vs 10 Guardsmen
> 1 Scorpion vs 1 Leamon Russ
> ...


aside from the video games this is not how an army works, you truly never want a scorpion or lemon russ alone, they will have support, that is why defining what there is in a somewhat realistic situation, albeit a controlled, but bringing the force down to that level the 10 v10 will be a tough call, it depends on what pattern of leman russ you bring forward, and the chimera will win due to heavier armour and all the anti-personnel fire will tear it up.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Android089, a baseless claim does nothing for this though. Why do you think the guard would win, and can you back up that reasoning at all?

Take the chimera and warthog as examples, if your in favour of the guard and those were the two things your only comparing then your reasoning could be:

Warthog can only transport three people, has light armour, and is either armed with a chaingun or gauss rifle. The chimera has a transport capacity four times greater than a warthog, not including the crew operating the vehicle, is more heavily armoured in the front, has access to two heavy bolters which are fairly similar to a chaingun, or it has access to a multi laser which is a high powered laser which, though not as powerful as a gauss rifle vs armour, is still capable of a faster rate of fire and can damage most light and medium armour without problem.


That is better, it has substance to it and gives both sides something to consider. Its not just a wild claim with no support, its a claim backed up by fact that helps to further validate the point of your claim. Without that we'd just be going back and forth saying one side is better than the other cause that person said so, with greater support being for the 40k side since this is a 40k forum. (The above example is just that, an example, if its missing stuff for either side then oh well, its just there to help show a point.)



I still think using a full regiment and maybe a ship or two per side would be a bit better than a single squad, transport, and tank.


Jaren, not sure if your picking the 16th for any special reason, but I agree with you in choosing the Elysians. As a general regiment they seem to be more like the UNSC which would definitely help make things clearer and easier for both sides.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

I think choosing a particular regiment is a poor approach.

The Guard are supposed to be a combined armed force. Troops, armor, air support.

This is also true for the UNSC. 

Personally I'm still questioning the UNSC's ability to handle IG's...special units. Like Psykers and Super Heavies. Trained psykers can get inside an officer's mind and figure out tactics and battle plans.

They've also proven useful when jamming radio frequencies. The Imperial jammer could be as powerful as need be, since all communication can be handled by psykers, as the Chaos forces did on Heredor. 

Super Heavy would raze everything in front of it. I don't think the Spartan Laser can be used by normal troops, and even if it was mounted on a tripod or warthog, would it be powerful enough to penetrate a Baneblade's armor? I'm dubious of its strength since it can't kill a Scorpion tank in one shot. Only its driver.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

In terms of scale, I think the only universe I know comparable in scale to 40k is Dune and maybe Star Wars (not really a Star Wars fan esp. after the prequels came out, it just got silly)

Dune is also tens of thousands of years in the future, but out of all the universes I'm know 40k is the most warlike


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Starwars doesn't really fit the bill. Not the scale for its military. The clone wars were fought with millions (not tens of millions, billions, or even trillions) of clones.

That Universe is surprisingly unmilitarized. I suppose it makes sense when you're the only real power in the galaxy. Just enough force to keep the population in check and stop any unruly smugglers.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

darkreever said:


> Android089, a baseless claim does nothing for this though. Why do you think the guard would win, and can you back up that reasoning at all?
> 
> Take the chimera and warthog as examples, if your in favour of the guard and those were the two things your only comparing then your reasoning could be:
> 
> ...


Drakreever you can NOT compare these 2 forces with facts

This is an opinion thread

How are you going to compare 2 imaganry worlds with facts???!!!

1 is a table while the other is a vidio game

jaren: I know that forces like that would never be deployed but I said that for example.


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

Android: Just because two settings are fictional doesn't mean they cannot have internal logic. Oh, and the best way to compare them is by comparing background, not game mechanics.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Android089 said:


> 1 is a table while the other is a vidio game


What do you call dawn of war, final liberation, chaos gate, firewarrior, and space marine? Surely all of those are video games that are able to help depict some aspect of 40k in one form or another?

Both have fiction, both have fluff, there are sources to back up claims made for either side so yes you can compare the two with facts because those facts do exist. It doesn't matter that those facts are created by a company or design team or whatnot for a fictional universe and game, we do that all the time and accept it.


Also, using a lot of exclamation points and or question marks doesn't validate your point all that much. It kind of just looks silly and childish, at least in my opinion anyway.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

darkreever said:


> What do you call dawn of war, final liberation, chaos gate, firewarrior, and space marine? Surely all of those are video games that are able to help depict some aspect of 40k in one form or another?


Your right here (but all of these surly have diffrent profiles for weapons so none of them can be accuratly compared)



darkreever said:


> Both have fiction, both have fluff, there are sources to back up claims made for either side so yes you can compare the two with facts because those facts do exist. It doesn't matter that those facts are created by a company or design team or whatnot for a fictional universe and game, we do that all the time and accept it.


Yes both have fluff and your right here too. But again its not in fact form. All of the books made on these games have diffrent opinions on the way certain weapons and people should work. (one book might state that assault rifles should do alot of damage while another says its they should do little dmage)



darkreever said:


> Also, using a lot of exclamation points and or question marks doesn't validate your point all that much. It kind of just looks silly and childish, at least in my opinion anyway.


My reason for putting in 3 of each is so that you know I ment to put it there. If I put only one in then it might mean that my finger slipped and punched in the wrong letter. :taunt:

When it comes down to it...
its all in opinions because even though some one brings up a giant point 1 person will always deniy it


----------



## Mitchy (Apr 19, 2009)

i agree with Android089

in my opinion, you can only compare games from the same universe. Fantasy and 40k are nothing alike (sept for the chaos gods). but other then that there is no possible way to compare the games. but thats only my opinion, if someone can prove me wrong go ahead.


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

But we aren't comparing the games. We're comparing the fluff.


----------



## Mitchy (Apr 19, 2009)

> But we aren't comparing the games. We're comparing the fluff.


then why are people setting up battles? if you are only comparing the fluff, then there is no reason to set up battles.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Android089 said:


> Yes both have fluff and your right here too. But again its not in fact form.


Imperial Armour, Index Astartes, the rulebooks, codecies; pretty sure some or a lot of those contain fluff, are books, and contain facts and specifications about some things in regards to 40k.

Halo might not have those things, but the novels they do have go into some depth from time to time in regards to things in the halo universe.




Android089 said:


> its all in opinions because even though some one brings up a giant point 1 person will always deniy it


Yes, but if you bring up a point and back it up with fact or a source, it has more validity than someone who tries to tear that point down with only their opinion.

Facts and sources give a claim, argument, or point its strength and are far harder to overturn when a rebuttal has none of its own.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

how did this turn into a fight???

In my opinion this is all about opinions and in your opinion its about facts.

lets leave it like that.

and lets stop taking up so much room and getting so far off topic.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

If this has started to jump off topic, then I am afraid to say we have done it because you refused to answer my first question: why do you think the guard would win? Surely you have something to support that? Something, anything?


----------



## Mitchy (Apr 19, 2009)

heaver tanks, artillery, more weapons, bigger ships, better weapons, larger empire, more resorces, somewhat better leadership because of the commissars......and thats about all they need to win.

In my opinion.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

exactly what he said

why do you think the UNSC would win???


----------



## LordLucan (Dec 9, 2009)

Mitchy said:


> then why are people setting up battles? if you are only comparing the fluff, then there is no reason to set up battles.


What do you mean? Battles occur in the fiction of both settings. Why can't we compare them?

However, do we need to keep comparing them?


I feel that verses threads such as this create unneccessary antagonism between forumites who debate the issue on here. Surely there are more interesting topics to discuss about the dense and interesting background of 40K? Why is there this need to measure one's hobby against someone else's? Both sides are entrenched.

In the end, whoever we, as individuals, find cooler, will win for us. I find the Imperial guard to be cooler, and face off against monsters far worse than the covenant. Thus I THINK they should win. Others enjoy the halo games, and find humanity in that to be cooler, and hence are more inclined to want them to win, so will pick the evidence which puts them in the best position. Fair enough.

I find both factions to have their charms, but I'm not going to continue this debate. I think these crossover threads have run their course. All they are doing now is causing fan-rage on both sides, when there's not supposed to be any conflict. Both the UNSC and the Imperium have a common foe: filthly xenos scum! *draws sword and charges* :grin:


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Android089 said:


> why do you think the UNSC would win???


Me, oh no sir you must have skipped over my posts before because I believe the guard would win. However I am trying to get other members to give support, sources, and facts to their claims so that when the other side tries to rebuttal or invalidate those claims or points they have to back their own claims and points with facts, sources, and support of their own.

Thus fueling good discussion rather than something akin to a shouting match.


But I agree with LordLucan, if all members are going to do is go back and forth claiming one side over the other without backing it up then why don't we put our efforts towards something better? Good discussion and debate is worthwhile, but little discussion and a shouting match, those are no good and better left in the past as we grow up.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

darkreever said:


> Me, oh no sir you must have skipped over my posts before because I believe the guard would win. However I am trying to get other members to give support, sources, and facts to their claims so that when the other side tries to rebuttal or invalidate those claims or points they have to back their own claims and points with facts, sources, and support of their own.
> 
> Thus fueling good discussion rather than something akin to a shouting match.
> 
> ...


If you thought Guard would win then why the post above saying 

"If this has started to jump off topic, then I am afraid to say we have done it because you refused to answer my first question: why do you think the guard would win? Surely you have something to support that? Something, anything?"

And then YES!!!
I have everything 80 percent of these people say!!!
and what you also have to say.

that message you sent above sounds like your challanging me to answer a question that you disagreed with.
am I wrong???


----------



## jaren (Jul 7, 2008)

Mitchy said:


> then why are people setting up battles? if you are only comparing the fluff, then there is no reason to set up battles.


yet this seems to be a UNSC vs. IG thread so the battles to determine the winner would be the necessity, as both forces are military machines.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Android089 said:


> that message you sent above sounds like your challanging me to answer a question that you disagreed with.
> am I wrong???


Yes.
It was obvious that darkreever wanted to hear some sort of convincing argument from you as to why you thought the IG would win, at no point did he insinuate that he didnt think the IG would win.


----------



## Android089 (Apr 21, 2009)

Baron Spikey: well then if you were me how would you have taken that???


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Well from reading it as if it was directed at me I'd say darkreever was queestioning why I supported a certain faction, but I wouldn't inherently think that darkreever was a supporter of the opposing faction (especially if I'd read his other posts on this thread).


----------



## officer kerky (Jun 12, 2008)

i think we jumped straight past the first question the people are on even numbers.

sure IG have like 20million different varients of tanks while only the usnc have like 3. 
but i would say Ig would win in the tanks. 
the uscn have basicaly been crapped on in this thread. sure they might have some cool people like spartans and stupid master cheif but when the facts come in the uscn would be able to put heavy casualties on the ig but ig will still win. USCN come from earth ig come from billions of planets from the imperium.

sure the uscn will have a higher kill/death ratio but will still loose. numbers or by different reasons.


----------

