No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

Nerhesi said:
Infact, this game suffers from disposable infantry having no equals due to the amount of powerful weaponry available at low TLs; There is a big discrepancy between the effectiveness of armor at a spacecraft level and personal/vehicle level. It's like the balance exists in spacecraft, but in small scale combat


One of my main items to fix when I rewrite combat rules. A TL 7 rifle will just bounce off TL 12 combat armor. Will be like an 18th century canon round bouncing off of a current day MBT.
 
It's harder for IEDs to take out hovering troops, since you'd have to be very cunning and/or foresighted to find a choke-point or area they'd have to pass through.
 
Condottiere said:
It's harder for IEDs to take out hovering troops, since you'd have to be very cunning and/or foresighted to find a choke-point or area they'd have to pass through.

Yep. "land mines" would be pretty useless against vehicles that don't run on the ground.
 
When the tanks float, so do the mines and/or mines become remote launchers for munitions that can adapt to the target.
 
If it flies, it dies - motto of an ADA unit I knew. It is pretty hard to hide in the air, you lose both cover and concealment.
 
f35-lightning-ii1-1-.jpg
 
dragoner said:
If it flies, it dies - motto of an ADA unit I knew. It is pretty hard to hide in the air, you lose both cover and concealment.

I can see that and agree, which is why your first missions are SEAD.

Take this up a few km, where is your air defence based when your airborne target is in orbit or on approach to the planet?

I really think this argument ("No grav tanks needed at higher TL's") hinges on how as assault will happen, with star/system ships coming into play how does it change?

If as you suggested any TL 11+ planet with the wealth to put as many meson guns deep into the planet's crust as it can afford, they will project a shield around the planet as far as they can be targeted (which is two part, the ability to see the target and the range for the weapon to hit it. I can't recall the ranges at the moment).

Everything has a counter, what's the counter for this?
 
Condottiere said:

The Mark 1 Eyeball works just fine, I can see it easy peasy... where's my aim9x?

OK, it can manoeuvre pretty well (assuming the pilot hasn't choked to death) but so can the latest Sukhoi

It all comes down to the same thing, if you can see it, you can kill it.

How does that work when you introduce combat vehicles in orbit?

I'm repeating myself, less coffee perhaps...
 
hiro said:
Everything has a counter, what's the counter for this?

"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes"; the weasels can't hit what they don't know what is there. You let the enemy get into position where you can cause them the most damage, then cut loose. Also it is back to selective response, how do you fight an insurgency from LEO? Tanks still are organic fire support, even if some giant tank battle (which are historically rare) is unlikely.
 
They might forget to switch off their cell phones, and we have a range of steel rods that can be dropped from low earth orbit.
 
If we let the discussion diverge to one of insurgency then indeed, the argument is moot. Traveller being based in pre fall of the Wall conflicts it's always imagined it's enemies to be the red horde swarming over the horizon in more tanks than you can throw a stick at which is where the majority of this discussion has centred. Wars haven't really changed, it's just the more recent ones have been LIC against an enemy either ill equipped/disposed to fight symmetrically or smart enough to stay hidden cos they watched the second gulf war on CNN.
 
dragoner said:
hiro said:
Everything has a counter, what's the counter for this?

"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes"; the weasels can't hit what they don't know what is there. You let the enemy get into position where you can cause them the most damage, then cut loose.

Not sure I was clear in what I said, I meant, what's the invading force's counter for umpteen meson guns hidden in the crust of a planet?
 
Hiro, you reminded me about self-contained one shot anti-aircraft systems and anti-tank systems from years ago that could be manually placed or dropped by air. they sit hidden and wait for targets to launch missiles. Sounds like something for grav troops to be concerned with.
 
"Not sure I was clear in what I said, I meant, what's the invading force's counter for umpteen meson guns hidden in the crust of a planet?"

Commandos dropped to find and destroy the sensors detecting and targeting for the Mesons of Navarone.
 
hiro said:
Not sure I was clear in what I said, I meant, what's the invading force's counter for umpteen meson guns hidden in the crust of a planet?

I understood, thus my "nuke them from orbit comment", maybe my thought process just skips over the intermediate conversation, this being a fairly old topic in Traveller discussions. It really depends on what you are trying to do, which is where selective response comes in.

In as far as the subject being moot due to asymmetrical warfare; both Rommel and Giap developed the battle tactic of being close in enough to the enemy to prevent or dissuade the use of airpower due to the fear of fratricide.
 
Reynard said:
"Not sure I was clear in what I said, I meant, what's the invading force's counter for umpteen meson guns hidden in the crust of a planet?"

Commandos dropped to find and destroy the sensors detecting and targeting for the Mesons of Navarone.

Battlestar Galactica, with the big space gun: The Gun on Ice Planet Zero.
 
dragoner said:
If it flies, it dies - motto of an ADA unit I knew. It is pretty hard to hide in the air, you lose both cover and concealment.

The "unit" you knew didn't ever deal with flying craft that can take hits from atomic bombs and keep flying. :D
 
Back
Top