back to the rider vs BB - if we assume the rider has a similar factor spinal to the BB then the effect on the BB would be the same as if two BBs were duking it out - but because the rider is a size class lower it is going to more at risk of the ship go boom result just like any other large cruiser hit by a BB main gun. So the BBs do make sense in that they can take crits while lesser ships go boom.
Yes, and Marc seems to think that from that almost-space-combat sequence between those two Tigresses or Lionesses or whatever they are. One shot, one crit.
I've also heard, multiple times, that BCS is intended for capital ship warfare. Acknowledged that capital ships are never alone, and that nuke salvos and minefields can stop a capital; nevertheless, the battle goes to the winning capitals.
In Classic Traveller personal combat, "armor" just means it's harder to score
a hit that does damage. In this context, that would presumably mean harder to score
a hit that does critical damage.
Riders make sense if you have a numerical or tech advantage over the BBs, but an equal number of riders vs BBs should see a reasonable victory for the BatRon.
The tech advantage is pretty much baked into Traveller ever since Imperium (so in other words, even before Traveller). Maybe I should include that in my list of presuppositional foundations to Traveller. Economics is All, Jump Drive is the speed of communication, Shotguns in Space, and Tech Kills -- in that order?
I doubt very much if the Zhodani commit points balanced forces to attack the Imperium, they would need a 5 to 1 advantage to make up for the tech disparity and that they cannot afford to lose a battle, while the Impies can take damage, retreat and repair until their reserves enter the field. That may/will mean the Imperium retreating and ceding the system/world being fought over until they can marshal enough of a counterattack to guarantee their eventual victory.
"Strategic retreat" is a term I have never heard before, but it smacks of Truth. Maybe "A Strategic Lose" even. Ha!
A: Sir, the Joes are throwing hundreds of spines at us!
B: Ah, the Eurisko Offense. Call all forces to abandon this system. We are retreating.
A: Sir yes Sir!
--- later, in jumpspace ---
(knock on door)
B: Come!
A: Sir... I have... questions.
B: Wot, you think it's noble to die on the field of battle?
A: Well.... we're sure to lose the war if we keep retreating...
B: Son, let me lay this out for you plainly. Economics drives interstellar empire.
A: That's Space Econ 101. Everyone knows that.
B: Sure. But what about in war? Does economics drive war?
A: Space Econ 201. Old Admiral Aramais likes to quote to us that war is "economics by other means."
B: Okay. Is it economical to lose all your dreadnoughts in battle with little pea-shooters?
A: Never, sir, but...
B: But?
A: Well, if you lose your systems, you're losing economic power, but also your projection of power.
B: Depends on the systems.
A: Jewell would be a nice engine to own.
B: Compared to Esalin and even Regina, yes. What about Efate?
A: Well yeah, Efate is a monster.
B: And Glisten? Mora? Strouden? And that's just the Marches, months away from the core. Need I go on?
A: Now we're back to Space Econ 101, where they talk about jump being the speed of communication and transport.
B: Right. That's item two in SE 101's
Five Laws of Space Empire. And what's the third?
A: Tech Kills. Tech is a force multiplier.
B: Right. So we retreat, the Joes take a few systems, then what?
A: We... regroup?
B: You betcha. And?
A: Ah, we get reinforcements.
B: Maybe yes. If so, we go back and kick their butts. What if we don't get reinforcements?
A: Well we lose territory.
B: But that's never permanent. Eventually our technical superiority allows us to pick our time to reengage.
A: But... that could be years in the future.
B: So?
A: So... but surely the Joes know this. Why do they keep engaging if they know they have inferior forces?
B: That, my son, is the REAL question.