>>5248908In regards to the melee and tactical issue, there's definitely room for that to be doctrinally accounted for as well as strategy wise.
The Galaxy lacks no shortage of planets where destruction is an issue, alien and biological worlds whose value intact is null, and since we are not formally part of the Imperium we won't suffer from Perturabo Syndrome. We can pick and choose our campaigns since if we become the Fabricator General even if Horus is warmaster, we stand on even footing. So he can't send us on shitty campaigns without asking us.
"So instead we would need to somehow focus and channel the natural aggression of the Astartes without getting them slaughtered or wasting them in a brawl."
Could always follow the Moritat doctrine, where they have both ranged and melee firepower in CQC, with lots of training to boost their survivability.
Astartes potentially would make superior Steel Wardens.
"What we all know though is that Astartes do NOT like fighting with other forces because of how 'limiting' they find it."
Only because for other legions, 'Auxiliary' means weak squishy slow humans. We just need to pair them up with Auxiliary that are on par with them in strength and speed that they can, or at least a nearby Techmarine can, keep them up to speed.
There are a plethora of Cybernetica designs besides the common ones, ones perhaps that match the astartes in everything except sentience. We can just pair them up with those, or place them in places where we need indiscriminate melee killers. Just not too indiscriminate. Worse comes to worse, we install implants that tell them friend from foe so they don't just slaughter our own melee troops if their rage is truly indiscriminate.
But eh. . .some of our melee troops are definitely meant to be fodder on purpose, so if its a case of choosing to throw a grenade into a pile of melee troops we can install "Cost Effectiveness" implants instead to determine if its worth it or not.
