Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby Moppy » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:15 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:33 am
Moppy wrote: Didn't see anything with mountains that high as the photo, but there's certainly some we saw north of Harnosand.
Härnösand? That would be Ångermanälven. By definition an älv.

Höga Kusten is rocky for the Swedish coastline, but nothing like Norway.

Note that the difference between å, ä and a, and ö and o, is not an accent; they are different letters in Nordic languages.
Smaller than that. That's a river in English. If there's no road nearby it's probably not marked on a road map (why would it be unless it's one of the super-detailed ones for hiking?). There's a lot of little inlets you can fit a boat up. Anything with high rocky walls is fjord in English (edit: and formed by glacier), though they're no way as impressive as the one in the photo you provided.

I suspect we're really debating the use of language, and the meaning of words in English and Swedish.

I don't mean to disrespect with the accents, but I can't type them, so apologies for that.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4768
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby phavoc » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:22 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
Quite, but I'm not sure current carriers say much more about 53rd century spacecraft than a few thousand years old classic triremes.
I'd say no to that. Ford has fission reactor, Traveller has fusion. Both have running water and internal plumbing, just to name a few similarities. Far closer than an aircraft carrier and a tireme.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
Regalskeppet Wasa, at 1200 ton and 64 guns a large warship in the 17th century, had a crew of ~450.

At roughly 400 Dt it has a much larger crew than a comparably sized Traveller spacecraft, yes.
Ah yes, the (in)famous battleship that sank after traveling less than a mile on it's maiden voyage. Fortunately for preservationists the environment was well suited to preservation.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
But my point is that when spacecraft crew are as few as fighter pilots currently, and training them well gives an enormous advantage, all spacecraft crew will be as well-trained as fighter pilots are currently. I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it completely.

Perhaps a better comparison is current spacecraft crew, astronauts?
Where are you drawing this analogy from? Large vessels in Traveller (warships especially) still require large crews. A LCS has a crew of 40, similar to a patrol cruiser. Modern naval ships are close analogues to Traveller ships. And what are you basing your elite training for naval crew on? The 52nd century has as many problems as Earth does today. Why would their naval crews be any different than humanity has been for the last 30+ centuries? At the end of the day soldiers and naval personnel have a job to do - especially in peacetime. They have no desire to train, train, train. They want to do their duty, get off duty and drink, watch the vid, etc. Just like soldiers and navel personnel do today. You can disagree all you want but it doesn't make it any truer.

And your comparison with astronauts is even worse. The number of people qualified, accepted and don't get washed out is far smaller.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
OK. I thought that was more about retention, not recruiting.
It's both. USAF is hoping to get about 1,500 pilots per year in it's training program. Right now they are a little over a 1,000 slots. The issue is airlines pay big bucks to pilots with military flight experience. Plus service is hard on a family. Which is why lots of pilots leave the service after serving a few terms. Sure, a 777 isn't as fun to fly as an F-35, but it pays pretty damn well and perks are great and it's far easier on families. USAF offers a six-figure bonus for fighter pilots. From the Air Force times - "The take rate hit 44 percent last year, well below the 65 percent the Air Force usually hopes will accept the bonus. Only five fighter pilots in fiscal 2017 opted for the full, up to 13-year service commitment and the up to $455,000 that came with it that year."

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
We have rough estimates of Imperial GDP and population and good estimates of cost and crew of spaceships. That gives much lower percentage of the Imperial population serving aboard warships than current wet navies.
Well, we do know that the Imperial survey of planets shows some things that don't make any sense. Which means extrapolation of anything based on random dice rolls is iffy, at best. And without a full accounting of the Imperial armed forces (I'm not aware of any supplement that breaks down all the forces Imperium wide) we can't do a comparison. Which is what makes this conversation difficult. I have no issue with trying to compare a fantasy world to real world. However in this particular instance we have dribs and drabs of data that talks in generalities subject to widely varied interpretations.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
Sure, but we could just as well use numbers from the ~50 battleships of Home Fleet or the ~300 quinqueremes of Roman fleet 256 BC. Neither would say much about the spacecraft of a 53rd century multi-sector Imperium.
This is what extrapolation is all about. But citing Roman vessels as equivalents is a bit much don't you think? I fail to see any usefulness there. Modern warships, even those without nuclear power, are far closer analogues to 52nd century ships. They have many of the same systems that a Traveller ship has - missiles, electronics, jammers, ESM, etc. They float instead of using grav drives. If you include submarines then you have nuclear powered ships using the ocean as a vacuum analogue. Don't you agree it's a much closer similarity than a tireme?

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
My point is that with powerful neighbours there is very little difference. The difference between peacetime army and wartime army is a week or so.
Umm, you need to go back and review your history books. There is a H-U-G-E difference between peacetime and wartime military. And it's much more than a week to mobilize reservists into active combat brigades and divisions. History is littered with examples, even modern history.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
If the Canadians had the ~4 million German or French army in 1914 or 1939 or the ~20 million Soviet army of the 80s they would have been able to conquer the US in a few weeks. The US would have had no time to start to build an army.

But obviously had you had such powerful neighbours you would have had a much stronger army. Which was my point, I think.
Nobody had a big army in the 30s because of the world depression. The US recognized the changing landscape in Europe and started a peacetime buildup prior to 1941. Had our neighbors to the north or south been belligerent or well armed the US would have had to counter. I'm not sure anyone would have wanted the 1939 French army. It was too entrenched in the Maginot line defense theory. And, on paper at least, it was superior to the German Army. The Germans had well trained troops, the MG3, and really shitty PZK I and II's. But they rolled up the Brits and French when, on paper again, that should not have happened. The Russian Army in the 80s seemed big and scary, but it was partially a paper tiger as well. It depended on hordes of troops and massive casualties if it attacked. Much like it's previous wars it was willing to throw away it's men. Western armies have, generally, not been that way - at least since WWI and stupid things like trench warfare and Galipolli.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
The US has a very small army (for a major power) since it has such a favourable geo-strategic position. Few other major powers have had that luxury. The Imperium does not enjoy that luxury. It is not a normal situation for a major power, with a different mindset that the rest of us consider quite strange.
The Imperium, much like Russia, enjoys a defense in depth. It's heartland is far from any invader. It has historically traded miles and miles for time to respond and build up. The US has a small army in size, but it's capabilities are far vaster than armies 10x it's size. In modern warfare you need more than just bodies. Like castle walls and rivers were defensive multipliers, modern weaponry is an offensive multiplier. But the concept has been around since the phalanx and pikes.

To be honest I'm not sure what a 'normal' situation is for a major power. If you are a major power you deal with what your setting gives you.
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
Yes, Traveller is entirely made up. But that fantasy is what this forum is dedicated to? The Imperium has about 18 trillion inhabitants, about 50 000 times the US population. It could afford quite a few low tech jets.

Germany could only produce about 1400 Me-262 jets. What does this say about the Imperium?
As a matter fact, yes. You entirely miss the point (again). Imperium is made of many planets and trillions of inhabitants. But are all of them TL-15 worlds with massive economies? Nope. So that analogy fails. How much revenue will a TL-7 planet with billions of people on it contribute to the defense of the Imperium? If average Imperial TL is 12 that would put the usefulness of the planet at an equivalent of what, late 1800s to early 1900s?

The F-22 is the same as a TL-15 fighter for the Imperium. That's what "equivalent" means. 1,400 ME262 jet planes was great output for a brand new tech. And you don't state a historical fact, that Hitler interfered with the ME-262 and wanted a bomber instead of a fighter, costing Germany nearly a year in development time. Thank goodness the man was an idiot when it came to economic planning and the military.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
That is a bit inflated compared to reality. I included reserves as most of the reserves are Home Guards that traditionally train more often in small groups. All of them have been in uniform recently and can be mobilised quickly.
It's great to see a nation actually test their reserve before it's needed. The US found it's Army reserves to be woefully under-trained when it called up it's reserves for the 1st Gulf war. I went and read about the recent mobilization and the government was hoping at least half of the reserves would respond. Since it was a single days voluntary activation it kind of loses some of it's bite.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
Um, yes? But I suspect that is not what you mean.
Doh! No, I meant to type Switzerland in the second Sweden.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am
I don't think the Army mobilised more than about 300 000 at the same time during WWII. The Army alone was larger than 500 000 in 1945, but only partially mobilised. Total forces were larger.

A specific wrinkle of the Swedish system was that the Army almost only conscripted for training not active service. Only on mobilisation were active units formed. As such the active standing army was close to zero during the Cold War, but reasonable amounts could be mobilised quickly. Hence counting how many are in uniform on a specific day says next to nothing about the strength of the Swedish Army since about 1650.
Yes, one of the problems with militia-style militaries. Mobilizing Bob and Ted, Sven and Alice with their guns at the local armory is all fine and dandy. However these types of forces are terribly ill trained to respond to modern rapid-movement warfare. Small arms don't take a lot of skill to master, but theres more to it than that. A fireteam needs more than assault rifles. You need your grenadier support, you need your anti-tank or support weapon support. And that's just basic infantry. Without regular exercises even your squad-level skills atrophy, and thus you become a step up from an armed mob. It gets even worse when you have to work as a unit, like on a ship, or need very high level of skills (like pilots) to even function at a useful warfighting level. Which is why regular military units drill, drill, drill (and then we went and drank, drank, drank! to balance things out).

For Traveller you are going to have the mainline Imperial units, then sub-sector, then local planetary units. Just like we have regular army, then the reserve and the guard (or equivalents). Each one is generally a step down from the next, with lower expectations, less funding, and more questionable usefulness when the balloon goes up. While they are going to be better than the Sven off the street, it still takes time to get them into a fighting force. For the Imperium their core areas are very far away from the fronts. Even the Imperium can't defend everywhere at once, and I think it was written down somewhere on the history of the Frontier wars that they traded systems (non-nodal and less important ones) for time.

As an aside I found it very odd that the closest Depot for the Marches was located all the way back in the Corridor sector. One would expect Deneb would have had one much closer, say in the Star Lane subsector. It would be able to respond to attacks from Aslan to the south, the Zho to the west, or the Vargr to the north much faster than the base in Corridor. Meh, sometimes trying to put logic to the gaming setting hurts the brain.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby Moppy » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:30 am

I think that a common theme in countries with milita armies is that they have lots of mountains.

I think they can be effective in such situations for many years so long as the defenders enjoy living there. The Afghans have been holding out against nato and the russians for over 30 years.

Grav-tanks may change this ...
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:56 am

Moppy wrote: I suspect we're really debating the use of language, and the meaning of words in English and Swedish.
Yes, sorry. It's a local joke about Scandinavian exceptionalism.

I wasn't aware "fjord" was considered an English word. I have only ever used it as a borrowed Norwegian word. I find it quite funny since English has already loaned the same word in the form "firth" long ago.

Moppy wrote: I don't mean to disrespect with the accents, but I can't type them, so apologies for that.
I suspect you can, most modern computers can, even with letter-challenged English keyboard layouts. Ö (as an accented o) is even properly used in English (in the French manner), as far as I understand.

E.g. with Windows try holding 'CTRL' and pressing 'SHIFT'+':' followed by 'o'? On a Mac it would be 'Option'+'u' followed by 'o'.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:55 am

Moppy wrote: I think that a common theme in countries with milita armies is that they have lots of mountains.
Most European armies, including the French, German, and Russian were based on conscript-reserve units during the 20th century. It's the only practical system that combines a reasonably large army with reasonable cost. It was only disbanded in some countries after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The system worked in 1914 and 1939. The system still seems to work fine in Israel.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby Moppy » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:02 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:55 am
Moppy wrote: I think that a common theme in countries with milita armies is that they have lots of mountains.
Most European armies, including the French, German, and Russian were based on conscript-reserve units during the 20th century. It's the only practical system that combines a reasonably large army with reasonable cost. It was only disbanded in some countries after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The system worked in 1914 and 1939. The system still seems to work fine in Israel.
I was referring to milita here, not conscripted standing armies, and not army reserves.
baithammer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby baithammer » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:32 pm

Conscripted reserve is a type of militia, more related to the draft.
I suspect you can, most modern computers can, even with letter-challenged English keyboard layouts. Ö (as an accented o) is even properly used in English (in the French manner), as far as I understand.

E.g. with Windows try holding 'CTRL' and pressing 'SHIFT'+':' followed by 'o'? On a Mac it would be 'Option'+'u' followed by 'o'.
On a bog standard US layout, you'd use alt+"4 digit code" to use ansi text.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby Moppy » Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:16 pm

I can type it if I try very hard.

It was from memory. I don't remember the accents because I don't speak the language. Even if I did, I need to look up the code point, or learn where it is in the pick screen. If I had done it from the internet, I would have copy-pasted it and it would have been fine.

It's actually easier for me to type emoji due to superior software support.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am

phavoc wrote: I'd say no to that. Ford has fission reactor, Traveller has fusion. Both have running water and internal plumbing, just to name a few similarities. Far closer than an aircraft carrier and a tireme.
Neither example says much about the Imperial economy or how many spacecraft is can or want to afford.

phavoc wrote: Where are you drawing this analogy from? Large vessels in Traveller (warships especially) still require large crews.
Example: Rhylanor has a population of 8 billion and a GDP of about TCr 120. With a Naval spending of 1% and a ship stock of ten times the naval budget as per TCS that would be about TCr 12 worth of ships or about 120 battleships with perhaps 2000 crew each for a total of 240 000 shipboard crew or 0.003% of the population.

Since about 80% of the Imperial population lives on HiPop HiTech worlds this is approximately representative of the Imperium.

This is only a rough estimate, but probably accurate to within an order of magnitude.

0.003% of the population corresponds to about 10 000 people of the US population. With 10 000+ manned aircraft in the US armed forces (according to wiki), that is somewhat comparable to the number of pilots in US military service.

phavoc wrote: Why would their naval crews be any different than humanity has been for the last 30+ centuries? At the end of the day soldiers and naval personnel have a job to do - especially in peacetime. They have no desire to train, train, train. They want to do their duty, get off duty and drink, watch the vid, etc. Just like soldiers and navel personnel do today. You can disagree all you want but it doesn't make it any truer.
Agreed, people are people. But pilots are people too.

Note that I don't assume absurd levels of training, just an average skill level of 2 as has been standard since LBB5.

I would consider skill-2 a skilled professional, not a random first term naval rating.

phavoc wrote: And your comparison with astronauts is even worse. The number of people qualified, accepted and don't get washed out is far smaller.
You reject astronauts as a comparison, I reject wet navy personnel as a comparison. Without numbers we both just speculate.


phavoc wrote: Well, we do know that the Imperial survey of planets shows some things that don't make any sense. Which means extrapolation of anything based on random dice rolls is iffy, at best. And without a full accounting of the Imperial armed forces (I'm not aware of any supplement that breaks down all the forces Imperium wide) we can't do a comparison.
I agree we don't know exact numbers, but we can make rough estimates, as above.

I don't think we can reject the canon Imperium just because more or less randomly generated data and still discuss the Imperium.

phavoc wrote: Which is what makes this conversation difficult. I have no issue with trying to compare a fantasy world to real world. However in this particular instance we have dribs and drabs of data that talks in generalities subject to widely varied interpretations.
I'm all for real-world comparisons, but I will not agree to equalling G$ ~500 spaceships with G$ ~20 wet ships.

phavoc wrote: This is what extrapolation is all about. But citing Roman vessels as equivalents is a bit much don't you think? I fail to see any usefulness there. Modern warships, even those without nuclear power, are far closer analogues to 52nd century ships. They have many of the same systems that a Traveller ship has - missiles, electronics, jammers, ESM, etc. They float instead of using grav drives. If you include submarines then you have nuclear powered ships using the ocean as a vacuum analogue. Don't you agree it's a much closer similarity than a tireme?
They are both many TLs and millennia from the Imperial Navy. Modern warships are roughly as distant from triremes as 53rd century starships in TL and time.

I would reject estimates of the USN based on the republican Roman navy, just as I reject estimates of the Imperial Navy based on the current USN.

phavoc wrote: Umm, you need to go back and review your history books. There is a H-U-G-E difference between peacetime and wartime military. And it's much more than a week to mobilize reservists into active combat brigades and divisions. History is littered with examples, even modern history.
France and Germany successfully mobilised millions of men into combat effective units in a few weeks in 1914 and 1939.

My point is that you have to have the trained men, units, and equipment when the war starts, or you have lost the war before the first shot is fired.

phavoc wrote: Nobody had a big army in the 30s because of the world depression.
Most European nations had massive conscript-reserve armies in 1914, 1930, and 1939. They were of course not mobilised in peace-time, but they were available in a week or two.

phavoc wrote: I'm not sure anyone would have wanted the 1939 French army. It was too entrenched in the Maginot line defense theory.
It was still one of the most powerful armies in the world. I agree it was much too defensive and intended to fight WWI again, but the Maginot line was a reasonable choice for a future conflict with a larger, stronger Germany after the crippling losses of WWI. The Maginot line worked to limit German choices and channel German attacks through a narrow front in Belgium. France also had a large mobile field army.

phavoc wrote: The Russian Army in the 80s seemed big and scary, but it was partially a paper tiger as well. It depended on hordes of troops and massive casualties if it attacked. Much like it's previous wars it was willing to throw away it's men.
Sure, but that was sufficient to win WWII. And it was big, very big. Even if half of it was crap it was still big.

phavoc wrote: The Imperium, much like Russia, enjoys a defense in depth. It's heartland is far from any invader. It has historically traded miles and miles for time to respond and build up.
Yes, the Imperium is rather safe against any one possible enemy.

Historically the biggest threat is internal, e.g. Barracks Emperors, Solomani breakaway. Presumably with local support Olav and Arbellatra were able to move fleets from the frontier to the Core quite quickly. If a frontier region grew disaffected and joined forces with an enemy the Core could be under attack.

phavoc wrote: To be honest I'm not sure what a 'normal' situation is for a major power. If you are a major power you deal with what your setting gives you.
Yes, agreed, that is a better view. Still the British/US position is unusual compared to previously dominant major power like France, Spain, Rome, Germany, Russia, and China.

phavoc wrote: As a matter fact, yes. You entirely miss the point (again). Imperium is made of many planets and trillions of inhabitants. But are all of them TL-15 worlds with massive economies? Nope. So that analogy fails. How much revenue will a TL-7 planet with billions of people on it contribute to the defense of the Imperium? If average Imperial TL is 12 that would put the usefulness of the planet at an equivalent of what, late 1800s to early 1900s?
About 80% of the Imperium's population lives in HiPop, HiTech systems.

phavoc wrote: The F-22 is the same as a TL-15 fighter for the Imperium. That's what "equivalent" means.
There are many possible TL-15 fighters. Some may have similar cost, some don't. That does not mean that the Imperial economy is the same as the US economy. As usual I reject the equivalence of the Imperium to any historical power.

phavoc wrote: 1,400 ME262 jet planes was great output for a brand new tech. And you don't state a historical fact, that Hitler interfered with the ME-262 and wanted a bomber instead of a fighter, costing Germany nearly a year in development time. Thank goodness the man was an idiot when it came to economic planning and the military.
Agreed, and completely irrelevant to the Imperium. Just as the F-22 is irrelevant. Which was my point.

phavoc wrote: It's great to see a nation actually test their reserve before it's needed. The US found it's Army reserves to be woefully under-trained when it called up it's reserves for the 1st Gulf war. I went and read about the recent mobilization and the government was hoping at least half of the reserves would respond. Since it was a single days voluntary activation it kind of loses some of it's bite.
Reserve units must of course be regularly called up and exercised to be of any use. I have never heard of response rates as low as 50% in Sweden or any major European mobilisation, but it's never 100% obviously.

phavoc wrote: Yes, one of the problems with militia-style militaries. Mobilizing Bob and Ted, Sven and Alice with their guns at the local armory is all fine and dandy. However these types of forces are terribly ill trained to respond to modern rapid-movement warfare.
The invaders are probably the same type of reservists themselves. Else they are woefully outnumbered in any remotely fair fight. I'm not sure reservist mechanised forces are all that unprepared for manoeuvre warfare.

Reserve units are of course complete units with heavy weapons and motorised logistics, not just unorganised mobs.

Israeli reservists seems to be quite adept. German reservists in 1914 were quite capable of overwhelming small professional British forces.

phavoc wrote: For Traveller you are going to have the mainline Imperial units, then sub-sector, then local planetary units. Just like we have regular army, then the reserve and the guard (or equivalents). Each one is generally a step down from the next, with lower expectations, less funding, and more questionable usefulness when the balloon goes up. While they are going to be better than the Sven off the street, it still takes time to get them into a fighting force.
Local forces are just smaller powers, not necessarily low-priority forces. I would imagine that e.g. local Jewell forces have much higher readiness than Imperial reserve forces long behind the potential front.

Naval units are expensive, so the saving of having reservist crews is tiny and makes no sense.

phavoc wrote: As an aside I found it very odd that the closest Depot for the Marches was located all the way back in the Corridor sector.
Deneb 1613? Depot A10066A-F.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4768
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby phavoc » Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:30 am

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Neither example says much about the Imperial economy or how many spacecraft is can or want to afford.
True. But one is based on reality the other on dice rolls. If we are going to make assumptions its a safer bet to make them with real data.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Example: Rhylanor has a population of 8 billion and a GDP of about TCr 120. With a Naval spending of 1% and a ship stock of ten times the naval budget as per TCS that would be about TCr 12 worth of ships or about 120 battleships with perhaps 2000 crew each for a total of 240 000 shipboard crew or 0.003% of the population.

Since about 80% of the Imperial population lives on HiPop HiTech worlds this is approximately representative of the Imperium.

This is only a rough estimate, but probably accurate to within an order of magnitude.

0.003% of the population corresponds to about 10 000 people of the US population. With 10 000+ manned aircraft in the US armed forces (according to wiki), that is somewhat comparable to the number of pilots in US military service.
Ah, so you understand the concept of equivalancy - good. Assuming you don't later profess ignorance in the concept by ignoring it this will be easier to explain.

Rhylanor is a single world in the Imperium. The US is a single nation on Earth. With me so far? First off we all know that the economics of the Traveller gaming system don't follow any logical economic theory. There are massive holes in the game that cannot be explained in making the economic system work, so they are handwaved off because (as) it's a game, and (b) economics are boring to most people that aren't economists, oh and (c) even in reality it's been proven time and again that economics and political reality do not share the same conceptual base. If you don't know what I'm referring to then please go out and educate yourself on why what economists state don't match up to socio-political realities. I'm specifically referring to trade.

Using TCS numbers is fine, but unless and until you understand the underlying economics of the system they are pure fantasy. As it's been said, this is a game so it's fine. But you are trying to use fantasy numbers to compare to reality. It's far more logical to use real numbers and then scale them up to fantasy.

I went back to Sector Fleet (TCS is fine for some things, but Sector Fleets also breaks down forces in the Spinward Marches, so it's more useful for the discussion). According to SF, the Rhylanor sector fleet (Imperial) has a total of 8 battleships, 1 fleet carrier and 1 battle tender with 3-5 riders (as major combatants - supporting vessels not included). The subsector fleet consists of only lighter vessels ( 1 CL, 16 destroyers, and 19 escorts). Colonial feet assets are 6 DD and 32 Escorts). It is listed that these are all fairly typical. There is mention of a reserve fleet in mothball status, but no ship listing. Personally I think the listed fleets are rather puny. Even the Jewel fleet, which should be one of the stronger ones, is not much stronger than that according to SF. The subsector fleet is much stronger than the norm, with a pair of 2nd and 3rd class battleships for additional power.

Sf does speak of reserve ships stationed in each of the sub-sectors that are in mothballs and could potentially be re-activated in times of crisis. For Jewel 16-24 capital ships might be operational after 90 days (it's one of the heavier listings), along with cruisers and destroyers.

Nowhere is stating that 120 battleships are around - for a single planet. I'm not disagreeing with the math. What I'm trying to state is that it's not matching the math we see from nations in reality, or even some previous materials. So, to repeat myself, we can assume pure fantasy or scale up from reality.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Agreed, people are people. But pilots are people too.

Note that I don't assume absurd levels of training, just an average skill level of 2 as has been standard since LBB5.

I would consider skill-2 a skilled professional, not a random first term naval rating.
Aye. And you completely miss the point about people, especially those who serve. No one is disputing skill levels. Just some of the assumptions you are making and providing no justification for. You've provided nothing to justify your statement (and again, there is no dispute about average skill levels).

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
You reject astronauts as a comparison, I reject wet navy personnel as a comparison. Without numbers we both just speculate.
Aye, as should you. Imperial navy is equivalent to the wet navy, no? Imperial pilots equivalent to regular pilots, no? You reject the numbers I present (from reality I remind you). Sigh... Again, equivalency. You wanted to use it above, you reject it here. Why is that?

Since you raise the issue, please, for the edification of anyone reading this, please state some statistics that show astronauts are a reasonable comparison to anything? They are the elite of the elite. I will tell you. 536 humans have traveled to space. Of those 24 have traveled beyond low orbit and only 12 have walked on our nearest neighbor. So explain to everyone how astronauts are comparable to anything?

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
I agree we don't know exact numbers, but we can make rough estimates, as above.

I don't think we can reject the canon Imperium just because more or less randomly generated data and still discuss the Imperium.
Agreed. The expansion of the Imperium makes very little sense in any form or fashion. The randomness is fully explained by die rolls though. Which is a terrible basis upon which to try and have a serious comparative discussion. It is far better, logically speaking, to use reality upon which to have the basis of the discussion, altering things such as tech level, which I believe most people see Traveller as. At least I do.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
I'm all for real-world comparisons, but I will not agree to equalling G$ ~500 spaceships with G$ ~20 wet ships.
Well, you are free to do so if you choose. There's nothing logical to support such a position though. Still, it's the internet and we are discussing Traveller - ANYTHING is possible! :D
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
]
They are both many TLs and millennia from the Imperial Navy. Modern warships are roughly as distant from triremes as 53rd century starships in TL and time.

I would reject estimates of the USN based on the republican Roman navy, just as I reject estimates of the Imperial Navy based on the current USN.
That's a fallacious statement. If you cannot see the comparisons between modern ships and Traveller ships, well, that's rather sad. Based upon your previous statements I would say you are just objecting out of something other than logic and common sense.

Other than one vessel being water based and the other vacuum based, they are very close analogues (again, equivalency). Modern vessels are VERY different than tiremes. Again, if you can't see that either, then discussing anything with you is pointless.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
France and Germany successfully mobilised millions of men into combat effective units in a few weeks in 1914 and 1939.

My point is that you have to have the trained men, units, and equipment when the war starts, or you have lost the war before the first shot is fired.
Let's put some context to that statement. First off, "mobilizing" your reserves simply means calling them up. At no point does that mean they are effective as a fighting force. Secondly, for the time period. the average reservist was NOT a professional soldier. Conscription was the norm, men served their hitch and got out. Conscript forces have historically been nowhere near as skilled as professional/career military. A historical review of battles will tell you this. After Marne, and then Ypres, the war on the German/French front settled down into trench warfare. So "successfully" mobilizing conscripted infrantry requires context.

In WW2, France mobilized its reserves to invade the Saarland while the bulk of German forces were invading Poland. They did this partially by mobilizing their reserves. Two weeks after they began mobilizing they attacked. From the Wiki entry on this - "French mobilization suffered from an inherently out of date system, which greatly affected their ability to swiftly deploy their forces on the field.[4] The French command still believed in the tactics of World War I, which relied heavily on stationary artillery, even though this took time to transport and deploy. Many pieces also had to be retrieved from storage before any advance could be made." Were they able to successfully mobilize? According to the entry, not so much. Were the troops successful? Again, not so much. I would argue their defeat and loss of all their gains was more to the better led German soldier than anything that had to do with reserves. But since we are talking mobilization, it's relevant.

From a Traveller perspective, Sector Fleet history on the Solomani Rim War, "While initial Imperial battle performance was unimpressive, especially among reserve forces brought up from deep in the Imperium, hard lessons were well learned in the early stages of the war. Soon the Imperial fleet was on the offensive. From this point on, the Solomani had lost, though hard years of war were needed to convince them of it." This is fictional history, but repudiates the idea you propose from the gaming universe perspective.

To be fair, the above means very little. It was fiction written up for a fictional game. This is specific to Sector Fleets. It's not mentioned in the original Solomani supplement. But that's not at all unusual for Traveller materials. However, if you wish to cite and use fictional materials, then you have to take the good with the bad. As I continually state, my points are taken from reality and used as equivalents for the gaming universe.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Most European nations had massive conscript-reserve armies in 1914, 1930, and 1939. They were of course not mobilised in peace-time, but they were available in a week or two.
Aye, on paper they certainly were. In reality their effectiveness showed. Having lots of bodies is pointless if they get ground into meat when encountering the enemy. The invention of modern warfare and modern weaponry has made massed armies redundant and has been proven time and again when massed charges went up against the machine gun.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
It was still one of the most powerful armies in the world. I agree it was much too defensive and intended to fight WWI again, but the Maginot line was a reasonable choice for a future conflict with a larger, stronger Germany after the crippling losses of WWI. The Maginot line worked to limit German choices and channel German attacks through a narrow front in Belgium. France also had a large mobile field army.
Indeed it was. Which is a bellweather for how some things are measured. The French should have been able to easily repulse the Germans. They did not. The British and French had far superior armor to the Germans. They still lost. On paper the French military was fearsome. In reality it was a paper tiger. Leading up to the beginning of hostilities the governments of Britain and France made many, many mistakes. There are literally tons of historical books out there that identify these weaknesses and why the allies suffered so mightily under the German boot - and also many of the boneheaded decisions of the Germans (and Russians, Japanese, Americans, etc).

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Sure, but that was sufficient to win WWII. And it was big, very big. Even if half of it was crap it was still big.
You are conflating multiple things here. Had the wars been between only Russia and Germany, it may have turned out very different. Germany under Kaiser Wilhem learned the hard way about fighting a war on two fronts. So it settled one to concentrate on the other. The American industrial machine helped mightily to suppress Hitler.


The Russian army at the start of WW2 was weak. It took the Russians nearly two years to rebuild into a fighting force that could oppose the Germans (and to find the right leadership). At the start of the war, when they invaded Poland from the east their equipment was junk. Yes, still a big army, but like the Tsarist forces predating them, they were a large, inefficient force.

The Soviet army of the 80s was very large. Would it have steamrolled over the US and it's Western Allies? (shrug). When we wargamed at the Fulda Gap we knew our life expectancy was short. Our mission was to delay or bottle the Warsaw Pact. Would we have succeeded to give time for the reserves to be brought over from the US? Who knows.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Yes, the Imperium is rather safe against any one possible enemy.

Historically the biggest threat is internal, e.g. Barracks Emperors, Solomani breakaway. Presumably with local support Olav and Arbellatra were able to move fleets from the frontier to the Core quite quickly. If a frontier region grew disaffected and joined forces with an enemy the Core could be under attack.
Yes, the Imperium, like many empires over the ages, faces internal threats. Though internal threats are not the same as external. There is no 'defense in depth' to that. When you give your admirals the proper tools to do their job they, like Caesar, can bring their forces home.

For any polity, if a region joins with external forces then the core of your polity can be attacked. What does this have to do with the discussion though? We aren't talking about civil wars here.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Yes, agreed, that is a better view. Still the British/US position is unusual compared to previously dominant major power like France, Spain, Rome, Germany, Russia, and China.
If you are referring to the other powers being primarily land powers, that's true. Of course the other powers did not rise to their status when it was possible to project power across the world. Rome, to an extent, had this with the Med, but ship technology required the navies to be mostly coastal. Crossing open seas was an invitation to death for ships that were still mostly human powered. China found out the seas were deadly to invading forces trying to invade Japan. Both times the 'divine wind' saved them from their Mongol invaders. Perhaps it is fortuituous that both England and the US had very large moats to protect them. Though as the native Americans found, and the colonies themselves, it just made the trip longer to bring forces. George III brought tens of thousands of troops and mercenaries easily enough across the Atlantic to fight the colonists.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
About 80% of the Imperium's population lives in HiPop, HiTech systems.
With the average TL across the Imperium being TL12. Neither point is particularly relevant.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
There are many possible TL-15 fighters. Some may have similar cost, some don't. That does not mean that the Imperial economy is the same as the US economy. As usual I reject the equivalence of the Imperium to any historical power.
Again, using the concept of equivalency, the US has the largest military budget and highest TL of any of the world powers. the Imperium is one of many powers in the game. China, Russia, the non-aligned nations, the West... each could be one of the major powers in reality. That's the point. You can reject the idea of equivalency, but it doesn't make it any less valid. The point was that a nation that has the largest economy and a defense budget larger than the next 6-7 nations combined. And we could only afford 300 of the most advanced fighter jets ever created. Every nation has a limit on how much it can spend on weapons before it bankrupts itself.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Agreed, and completely irrelevant to the Imperium. Just as the F-22 is irrelevant. Which was my point.
How? Remember, we are talking about equivalents. I'm trying to use real-world information. If we refer back to Book 00, it states in the modification section (where it counsels players if they want to make changes to the rules) - All changes should be rational, logical, and scientifically sound (after all, Traveller is a science fiction role-playing game). Using reality as the basis and upscaling it to the 52nd century is rational, logical and parts of it scientifically sound. But, like the tagline says, Traveller is still a game first and foremost. So the equivalence of today's budgetary constraints when it comes to weaponry is not at all irrelevant.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Reserve units must of course be regularly called up and exercised to be of any use. I have never heard of response rates as low as 50% in Sweden or any major European mobilisation, but it's never 100% obviously.
That was what I found in an article from The Defense Post. I was looking for a better site that was better known, but I didn't spend a lot of time digging. Other articles did state it was a voluntary conscription recall, not a mandatory one, which can account for the lower numbers. In a 2016 Foreign Affairs article (a well-regarded publication), they had this to say about the Swedish armed forces - The Swedish military, which toward the end of the Cold War boasted nearly half a million reservists and full-time officers, is having trouble recruiting and retaining the 17,100 troops its budget currently allows for. As of April, the armed forces were missing 1,000 of the 6,600 full-time soldiers and 6,500 of the 10,500 part-time reservists it needs. Which, combined with the increasing Russian tensions, conscription is being brought back. Probably not a bad thing for any of the Nordic nations. Make it painful enough to invade and the invader has to either commit more forces to ensure a victory or leave a potential enemy on a flank that could later threaten them.

However it doesn't obviate the fact that modern military equipment requires more training to master, and more practice to retain that mastery. A infantryman needs to know not only his basic infantry tactics, but also how to deploy mines, how to use squad-level weaponry, how to use night vision goggles, man-portable anti-tank weapons, etc. It's a LOT to learn, and you have to keep practicing regularly to maintain your mastery. Which is why most militaries prefer their reserves be rotated out from previously trained troops. Then you "just" have to try and maintain the skills. But, like I said, nations find that easier to do on paper than do in reality.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
The invaders are probably the same type of reservists themselves. Else they are woefully outnumbered in any remotely fair fight. I'm not sure reservist mechanised forces are all that unprepared for manoeuvre warfare.

Reserve units are of course complete units with heavy weapons and motorised logistics, not just unorganised mobs.

Israeli reservists seems to be quite adept. German reservists in 1914 were quite capable of overwhelming small professional British forces.
Invading troops today are usually the main-line regular troops. It's much better to use your less-skilled troops to control the rear areas and mop-up pockets of resistance since they typically have second-line equipment. Though it's true that some leaders would prefer to squander ill-trained troops to soak-up the fire of the enemy. But again, with modern weapons, ill-equipped and trained, they will be cut down and easily destroyed. Not to mention that reservists can be more easily demoralized when taking casualities. Iraq found out this when their massive army of conscripts ended up not fighting or surrendering. Or during the Iran-Iraq war.

Isreali reservists are an exception to the general rule, however. Their situation and the fact that they have fought conflicts, wars and other things constantly since the creation of their nation puts them in a separate class. And no, reservists aren't unorganized mobs, but nor are they finely-tuned war fighting units you can snap your fingers and make into finely-tuned fighting units.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Local forces are just smaller powers, not necessarily low-priority forces. I would imagine that e.g. local Jewell forces have much higher readiness than Imperial reserve forces long behind the potential front.

Naval units are expensive, so the saving of having reservist crews is tiny and makes no sense.
Local forces often will see more combat than mainline imperial forces because of how the Traveller universe is set up. That's the job of the local forces to deal with the 'gnats', while mainline forces deal with the bigger enemies. Smaller units would be more likely to see combat (escorts and perhaps destroyers taking on pirates or privateers).

You will find that reality often makes little sense when it comes to governments and militaries. And where the choose to pinch credits would be no different than the stupid and short-sighted ways militaries have done so throughout the centuries.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
Deneb 1613? Depot A10066A-F.
Huh. Missed that one. Learn something new every day. I had always gone with the Corridor depot. I'll have to go back and figure out which version added it.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:58 pm

phavoc wrote: True. But one is based on reality the other on dice rolls. If we are going to make assumptions its a safer bet to make them with real data.
OK, show me real world data for a TL-F multi-sector Star Imperium, and I will try to use it.

In the mean time the made up fantasy we call Traveller Canon is all the information we have about the Imperium.

phavoc wrote: Ah, so you understand the concept of equivalancy - good. Assuming you don't later profess ignorance in the concept by ignoring it this will be easier to explain.
I take it you have run out of arguments, since you want to talk about me, and not Traveller?

phavoc wrote: Rhylanor is a single world in the Imperium. The US is a single nation on Earth. With me so far?
IIRC, you wanted to use the US as a base for calculations. Does that mean that you consider Rhylanor a representative base for calculations?

phavoc wrote: First off we all know that the economics of the Traveller gaming system don't follow any logical economic theory. There are massive holes in the game that cannot be explained in making the economic system work, so they are handwaved off because (as) it's a game, and (b) economics are boring to most people that aren't economists, oh and (c) even in reality it's been proven time and again that economics and political reality do not share the same conceptual base.
Yet we cannot just ignore the economic data we do have about the Imperium, and just assume they can and do build as many space battleship per capita as wet ships some minor power on a balkanised world built thousands of years previously.

phavoc wrote: Using TCS numbers is fine, but unless and until you understand the underlying economics of the system they are pure fantasy. As it's been said, this is a game so it's fine. But you are trying to use fantasy numbers to compare to reality. It's far more logical to use real numbers and then scale them up to fantasy.
We don't have any numbers for any real space fleets. Using current wet navy numbers to estimate Imperial star fleets isn't any better than using the Roman navy to estimate current fleets.

phavoc wrote: I went back to Sector Fleet (TCS is fine for some things, but Sector Fleets also breaks down forces in the Spinward Marches, so it's more useful for the discussion). According to SF, the Rhylanor sector fleet (Imperial) has a total of 8 battleships, ...

Nowhere is stating that 120 battleships are around - for a single planet. I'm not disagreeing with the math. What I'm trying to state is that it's not matching the math we see from nations in reality, or even some previous materials. ...
TCS gives how much a governments CAN afford, SF how much are actually bought and stationed in each subsector. There is no inconsistency.

By the numbers from SF the Imperium uses even less of the total pop as shipboard crew than I estimated, so as a proportion of the population starship crew is lower than the proportion of military pilots in the US armed forces.

phavoc wrote: Imperial navy is equivalent to the wet navy, no? Imperial pilots equivalent to regular pilots, no?
No, it's a space force that uses spacecraft that are much more expensive per crew member than wet ships. Hence it uses far less of the total population as crew, more like the most expensive current combat aircraft.

phavoc wrote: You reject the numbers I present (from reality I remind you). Sigh... Again, equivalency. You wanted to use it above, you reject it here. Why is that?
You imagine an equivalency between the IN and the USN that is clearly inconsistent with Traveller canon. Use the number of ships you presented above to calculate total crew as a proportion of subsector population, that would be very different from current US numbers.

phavoc wrote: Since you raise the issue, please, for the edification of anyone reading this, please state some statistics that show astronauts are a reasonable comparison to anything?
They are actual spacecraft crew. Their numbers say about as much about Imperial spacecraft crew numbers as current wet navy crew, i.e. not much.

phavoc wrote: Agreed. The expansion of the Imperium makes very little sense in any form or fashion. The randomness is fully explained by die rolls though. Which is a terrible basis upon which to try and have a serious comparative discussion. It is far better, logically speaking, to use reality upon which to have the basis of the discussion, altering things such as tech level, which I believe most people see Traveller as. At least I do.
If you wish to reject Traveller and it's universe you are free to do so. But using your homebrew assumptions to discuss Traveller will not lead to any common base for discussions.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: I'm all for real-world comparisons, but I will not agree to equalling G$ ~500 spaceships with G$ ~20 wet ships.
Well, you are free to do so if you choose. There's nothing logical to support such a position though.
You are completely free to imagine a space empire that builds as many G$ 500 spacecraft per capita as the US builds G$ 20 wet ships, but it's not the Third Imperium any longer.

If you wish to discuss Traveller and the Third Imperium you have to use the internal logic of the Traveller game, IMHO.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: They are both many TLs and millennia from the Imperial Navy. Modern warships are roughly as distant from triremes as 53rd century starships in TL and time.

I would reject estimates of the USN based on the republican Roman navy, just as I reject estimates of the Imperial Navy based on the current USN.
That's a fallacious statement.
What fallacy would that be, exactly?

phavoc wrote: If you cannot see the comparisons between modern ships and Traveller ships, well, that's rather sad. Based upon your previous statements I would say you are just objecting out of something other than logic and common sense.
I don't agree that anything you believe is common sense and the only logical conclusion. I only see a lack of argument from you.

I can't help or be responsible for what you imagine about me. Nor does it have anything to do with spacecraft.

phavoc wrote: Other than one vessel being water based and the other vacuum based, they are very close analogues (again, equivalency). Modern vessels are VERY different than tiremes. Again, if you can't see that either, then discussing anything with you is pointless.
Yes, current wet ships are very different from triremes. And 57th century spacecraft are very different from current wet ships. That is only common sense, right?



phavoc wrote: Let's put some context to that statement. First off, "mobilizing" your reserves simply means calling them up.
Yes.

phavoc wrote: At no point does that mean they are effective as a fighting force.
No, but some reserve forces clearly were combat effective in 1914 and 1939, like the French and German armies. And in Gaza a few years ago.

phavoc wrote: Secondly, for the time period. the average reservist was NOT a professional soldier. Conscription was the norm, men served their hitch and got out. Conscript forces have historically been nowhere near as skilled as professional/career military.
Agreed, but conscript-reserve forces can be vastly larger than professional forces. E.g. in 1914 German reservists overwhelmed far smaller British professional forces.

The conscript-reserve system does not mean "men served their hitch and got out". Reserve units are of course called up and trained occasionally. The average reservist is still part of the same unit, with the same men, he trained with originally and has since re-trained with in field manoeuvres.

phavoc wrote: Were they able to successfully mobilize? According to the entry, not so much. Were the troops successful? Again, not so much. I would argue their defeat and loss of all their gains was more to the better led German soldier than anything that had to do with reserves. But since we are talking mobilization, it's relevant.
France did mobilise millions of men in a few weeks in both 1914 and 1939. In 1914 they were effective enough to stop the invading German forces of similar reserves. Germany used the same type of conscript-reserve units to crush Poland and it's conscript-reserve army. British professional forces, while better trained, were too small to significantly influence events in both 1914 and 1939.

France did of course not want to fight in improved trenches inside Germany when they had the Maginot line, as they expected WWII to be fought like WWI. The Saar "offensive" in 1939 was aborted without meeting any serious opposition, so we don't really know how combat effective the French troops were a week or so after full mobilisation began.

What happened in 1940 after almost a year of training of the mobilised reserves are probably not representative of newly mobilised units. But I agree the German army was better lead in both WWI and WWII.


phavoc wrote: From a Traveller perspective, Sector Fleet history on the Solomani Rim War, "While initial Imperial battle performance was unimpressive, especially among reserve forces brought up from deep in the Imperium, hard lessons were well learned in the early stages of the war. Soon the Imperial fleet was on the offensive. From this point on, the Solomani had lost, though hard years of war were needed to convince them of it." This is fictional history, but repudiates the idea you propose from the gaming universe perspective.
I don't see how it repudiates anything. It says nothing about Solomani forces, that were at least formally Imperial forces before the civil war started and it says nothing about numbers. If Solomani reserve forces won over Imperial reserve forces by using superior numbers, what does that say about the relevance of reserve forces in general. Note that is says that Imperial battle performance was unimpressive in Imperial forces in general.

And no-one that I know about uses conscript-reserves to crew combat ships or aircraft. Reserve units in Imperial Navy parlance can at least mean strategic reserves such as the Corridor fleet backing up the Spinward Marches, not necessarily non-professional crews.


phavoc wrote: To be fair, the above means very little. It was fiction written up for a fictional game. This is specific to Sector Fleets. It's not mentioned in the original Solomani supplement. But that's not at all unusual for Traveller materials. However, if you wish to cite and use fictional materials, then you have to take the good with the bad. As I continually state, my points are taken from reality and used as equivalents for the gaming universe.
I agree we have to take all published data in consideration. It is, as far as I can see, you who want to disregard e.g. economical data about the Imperium.

phavoc wrote: Aye, on paper they certainly were. In reality their effectiveness showed. Having lots of bodies is pointless if they get ground into meat when encountering the enemy. The invention of modern warfare and modern weaponry has made massed armies redundant and has been proven time and again when massed charges went up against the machine gun.
Which is why set-piece battles transformed into front-lines along the entire border, necessitating even larger armies. Small, professional, well-trained British forces were much too small to significantly influence major campaigns in both WWI and WWII. All participants in major wars in the 20th century used massive conscript armies.

phavoc wrote: Which is a bellweather for how some things are measured. The French should have been able to easily repulse the Germans. They did not.
The Germans knew they could not reliably defeat the Anglo-French field army in a stand up battle, which is why they took the huge strategic gamble of sending basically their entire offensive along a few bad roads in the Ardenne forest. A few broken down tanks or Allied bombers at the wrong time could have been disastrous.

The Anglo-French army was just as mobile with large motorised forces, but they were busy rushing north to take up defensive positions along rivers in northern Belgium and the Netherlands.

That it was encircled and cut off from supply does not mean it was incompetent, any more than the 6. Armee was incompetent when it was encircled at Stalingrad.

The German victory in 1940 was not a foregone conclusion, Fall Gelb could very well have failed.

phavoc wrote: You are conflating multiple things here. Had the wars been between only Russia and Germany, it may have turned out very different. Germany under Kaiser Wilhem learned the hard way about fighting a war on two fronts. So it settled one to concentrate on the other. The American industrial machine helped mightily to suppress Hitler.
WWI and WWII were very different.

1941-42 were not much of a two front war. The bulk of the German army and airforce was in the East. And it was there and then WWII was decided. After '42 the Germans had no real chance of winning.

American industry was important and probably shortened the war significantly, but according to the numbers I recall seeing deliveries to Europe didn't become very large until 1943-44. The British sent more help to Russia early, in 41-42.

Both the British and the SU alone outproduced Germany, and the US produced even more. Germany never had any chance of winning except by quick knock out.

phavoc wrote: The Russian army at the start of WW2 was weak. It took the Russians nearly two years to rebuild into a fighting force that could oppose the Germans (and to find the right leadership). At the start of the war, when they invaded Poland from the east their equipment was junk. Yes, still a big army, but like the Tsarist forces predating them, they were a large, inefficient force.
The Soviet Army was not the Imperial Russian Army, it was much stronger. Unlike WWI it kept fighting and didn't fall apart.

Despite the Western Army collapsing it inflicted massive German losses in 1941, something like 30% of the personnel and most of the tanks and aircraft. Already after six months the Germans were pushed back from Moscow, and after 18 months Uranus inflicted a major defeat for the Germans.

In Poland and France the Germans took tens of thousands casualties, in Russia the Axis took something like a million casualties in 1941 alone.

The Soviet Army wasn't good, but it was large and resilient and hence difficult to defeat in the immense depth of Russia.

phavoc wrote: The Soviet army of the 80s was very large. Would it have steamrolled over the US and it's Western Allies? (shrug). When we wargamed at the Fulda Gap we knew our life expectancy was short. Our mission was to delay or bottle the Warsaw Pact. Would we have succeeded to give time for the reserves to be brought over from the US? Who knows.
Thankfully we will never know.

phavoc wrote: For any polity, if a region joins with external forces then the core of your polity can be attacked. What does this have to do with the discussion though? We aren't talking about civil wars here.
If civil wars are the greatest threat, the IN will be prepared to fight them. And the Core fleet will be stronger than any frontier fleet.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:02 am
About 80% of the Imperium's population lives in HiPop, HiTech systems.

With the average TL across the Imperium being TL12. Neither point is particularly relevant.
It makes HiPop HiTech systems representative of the Imperium and the other ~10000 systems more or less irrelevant except as refuelling stations.

phavoc wrote: Again, using the concept of equivalency, the US has the largest military budget and highest TL of any of the world powers. the Imperium is one of many powers in the game. China, Russia, the non-aligned nations, the West... each could be one of the major powers in reality. That's the point. You can reject the idea of equivalency, but it doesn't make it any less valid. The point was that a nation that has the largest economy and a defense budget larger than the next 6-7 nations combined. And we could only afford 300 of the most advanced fighter jets ever created. Every nation has a limit on how much it can spend on weapons before it bankrupts itself.
I fail to see what would be equivalent, we have no indication that the Imperium outspends the other multi-sector governments together. The Imperium has a tech advantage against the Zho and Solomani, but not against the e.g. the Hivers.

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Agreed, and completely irrelevant to the Imperium. Just as the F-22 is irrelevant. Which was my point.
How? Remember, we are talking about equivalents. I'm trying to use real-world information.
What does the US military budget, the F22, or the Me-262 say about the Imperium and the IN?

phavoc wrote:
AnotherDilbert wrote: Deneb 1613? Depot A10066A-F.
Huh. Missed that one. Learn something new every day. I had always gone with the Corridor depot. I'll have to go back and figure out which version added it.
It was in CT Atlas of the Imperium.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4768
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby phavoc » Sat Mar 09, 2019 11:13 pm

I think at this point it is pointless for us to respond to each other's postings.

I'm not going to block you, but I'm not going to respond to you any more either.

That just seems a better use of time to me.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7334
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Core 2 & High Guard 2 rules check - EW, mssiles, armor

Postby Condottiere » Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:44 am

1. How many Imperium Navy slots are there, compared to a manpower pool of billions, if not trillions?

2. This would not apply to ground forces, which could be on a planetary level one in five hundred for a volunteer force? I certainly have no idea how large the Imperium Army is.

3. Logistics will dictate how large a force the Imperium can directly leverage, whether along it's frontiers or to quell internal unrest.

4. Since the invention of the railroad, Continental armies, that had to be large in any event in comparison to the Anglo Saxon sphere, as their borders were directly impinged on by rivals, compared to the buffer that powerful navies protected the Home Islands, permitting the establishment of a more trained, better equipped, better supported, expeditionary force, that was kinda voluntary.

5. The invention of the railroad not only required large armies on the continent, assured by conscription, but also meant that they had to have the capability to respond quickly to enemy mobilization.

6. After the Great War, France had a demographic deficit, meaning that the Germans would and could outbaby them, plus with the lessons the French took from the Great War, they had two strategies in mind, sockblock the Germans along their direct frontier, and fight in someone else's backyard, specifically the Belgians'. The Maginot Line more or less worked; whether the resources could have been better spent elsewhere, probably with a large mobilized armoured reserve that allowed flexible defence, but it would have meant that the Germans could run over their borders, and they'd end up fighting on their home turf.

7. What the Germans learned was that armour is meant to be used to pierce through a weakly held area, and disrupt the rear, which is basically what cavalry was meant to do in an earlier era, modern mechanized warfare just could do it better, faster and more effectively, plus now you added a third dimension with close air support, being both a rather mobile battlefield artillery, and could disrupt the enemy much further behind the lines.

8. As I understand the Soviet concept of war, they had a similar plan regarding NATO, keep pushing until you find a weak spot, and then pour all your reserves through it, momentum being the key factor as these armoured formations raced to the Rhine.

9. I always thought the British should have insisted on keeping New York, but made some form of customs union with the Colonies to prevent them exploiting their position to tariff them to death.

10. One thing that the French conscripts didn't do, as the Germans and Soviets did, was fanatical resistance, as their frontlines were being overrun and they were surrounded, morale being one to three in the equation, I believe, though I'd would have to look up the quote to get the exact maths.

11. You do have to build a reserve of highly educated and trained technicians, such as pilots, something the Japanese Navy didn't do, possibly opting for the Samurai concept of an elite and dismissing those that didn't quite cut it, though i don't recall as to how the Army handled this.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests