How important is TL in Traveller space combat?

[robject]

TL is important in Traveller space combat, whether by a proxy (Computer Model), table, or directly. So what advantage do you think TL should grant?

A small benefit, as in a DM+1 to hit and a DM+1 to "evade"?

A moderate but not overwhelming benefit?

A commanding benefit, as in near-automatic success?

 

[flykiller]

I voted total dominance, reluctantly. historically it's the case. an abrams can kill t62s all day long. the argentines sent out the belgrano and its support ships, a major task force by wwii standards, and the british simply put a torpedo in it and sank it. american subs ran circles around the soviet subs for decades. and american aircraft are so dominant that iraq buried its aircraft to preserve them rather than launch them to fight.

for a game though I'd prefer a significant but merely incremental advantage.

 

[Matt123]

Yep, total dominance. The next TL is essentially magic if you do not have it. This isn't to suggest other strategies cannot be bought into play such as utilising larger economies, population, un-conventional tactics, but it makes meeting the higher tech opponent in open combat with anything less than overwhelming numbers, a poor tactical choice.

 

[mike wightman]

TL4 - Napoleonic era-American civil war
TL5 - WW1
TL6 - WW2-Korean war
TL7 - Gulf war

Total dominance

 

[Procopius]

the argentines sent out the belgrano and its support ships, a major task force by wwii standards, and the british simply put a torpedo in it and sank it.

A WWII-era Mark VIII torpedo, I should note, since the captain of HMS Conqueror had (well-founded) doubts about the reliability of his then-ultramodern Mk24 Tigerfish wire/sonar-guided torpedoes.

W/R/T the Iraqi Air Force in 2003, I would suggest that lack of spares, limited annual flying hours and thus poor pilot training, and being massively outnumbered were all factors in the IrAF's decision to bury their aircraft rather than be destroyed in the air, probably far more than the TL difference.

In any case, aren't the Zhodani approximately a TL behind the Third Imperium? I think the TL differences in lower level military confrontations confined to a single world are more magnified than higher TLs with a 1-2 level divergence on a galactic scale, akin to how a King Tiger tank was devastating tactically for the Wehrmacht, but strategically an irrelevance.

 

[flykiller]

In any case, aren't the Zhodani approximately a TL behind the Third Imperium?

how did you escape their psionic suppression and realize that? you must be a witch! I mean, a psionic! let's see if you float ....

using bk 5 systems requires a 3/1 superiority in numbers for a tech 14 fleet to match a tech 15 fleet. any other system should be roughly equivalent. either the imperium has trouble fielding a fleet or the zho psi advantage plays a significant role.

 

[kilemall]

Hmmm, Axis Germany had something like a 1/2 TL advantage with the more advanced tanks and planes, but did not win or slaughter (or at least enough to make a difference).

Also, there should be mismatches- for instance, jammers designed to interfere with digital radar do not work against vacuum tube analog systems. There should be occasional surprises where the 'old stuff' performs better then expected because it was discounted as a threat.

 

[Lycanorukke]

using bk 5 systems requires a 3/1 superiority in numbers for a tech 14 fleet to match a tech 15 fleet. any other system should be roughly equivalent. either the imperium has trouble fielding a fleet or the zho psi advantage plays a significant role.

Well when the enemy can teleport commandos directly into your facilities (or maybe even teleport in a nuke) it tends to be a force equalizer. And then of course you have the mind readers.

The other catch though is that the higher the tech, the more dependant on your supply line to support that tech you become. So while the super-tech ship may be flying around blasting lo-techs apart sooner or later he will need fuel, replacement parts and reloads. And those things have to come along a supply line which the lo-tech guy has just cut...

 

[Meeko100]

Hmmm, Axis Germany had something like a 1/2 TL advantage with the more advanced tanks and planes, but did not win or slaughter (or at least enough to make a difference).

Also, there should be mismatches- for instance, jammers designed to interfere with digital radar do not work against vacuum tube analog systems. There should be occasional surprises where the 'old stuff' performs better then expected because it was discounted as a threat.

Mm?

You're talking about the experimental jets and such deployed at the end of the war, right? If they were deployed in enough numbers, and earlier in the way, then I imagine it would have been different.

It brings up another point. The new TL16 Tech you magically conjure has to be able to be sustained in a war. Just because you have a TL16 Battleship from the most tech'd out system in the empire doesn't mean that it can be used effectively. The crew may be untrained in its use, the equipment may be unserviceable where you're at, new doctrines making use of the tech may not have been developed yet, etc.

Assuming perfect condition of both sides, then the more advanced ship would have some advantage over the less advanced ship.


Its also worth noting that just because something isn't as advanced doesn't mean its that obsolete. No doubt WW2 planes could have went up against Korean war planes and had some impact. A T72 could likely put a good number on a Abrams. And so on.

Its odd, that the one place where nothing seems to be fully obsolete (infantry equipment, rifles, etc) seems to have that happen in traveller quite a bit. A TL8 infantrymen has zero chance against a TL11 soldier in combat armor. But a TL11 Merchant vessel can get modified enough to fight a TL13 police cutter of equal tonnage and not be blown to smithereens?

 

[Procopius]

No doubt WW2 planes could have went up against Korean war planes and had some impact.

A Royal Navy Sea Fury (just wrapping up its development cycle in 1945) did indeed claim a probable MiG-15, and of course Meteors and P-51s served mainly in the ground attack role -- though RAAF Meteor pilots claimed three MiG-15s.

 

[Matt123]

Hmmm, Axis Germany had something like a 1/2 TL advantage with the more advanced tanks and planes, but did not win or slaughter (or at least enough to make a difference).

It was fighting two industrial giants, each bigger than Germany, that fought against technological superiority by producing overwhelming numbers of basic tanks, ships and planes.

 

[mike wightman]

Hmmm, Axis Germany had something like a 1/2 TL advantage with the more advanced tanks and planes, but did not win or slaughter (or at least enough to make a difference).

German tanks at the start of the war were way behind allied designs, the significant advantage was equipping them all with radios and using combined arms tactics to win battles.
The best tank of the war was without a doubt the T34 - which was designed by an American and rejected by the US army (or at least its ancestor)

As to planes - Mustang, Spitfire, Lancaster, Flying Fortress, all better than German efforts. And let's not forget that the Meteor and the P80 were much more reliable jet aircraft then the Me262.

Britain had the advantage of radar in the early war years.

 

[aramis]

It was fighting two industrial giants, each bigger than Germany, that fought against technological superiority by producing overwhelming numbers of basic tanks, ships and planes.

and had the ability to spend more time per man training on the equipment they did have. US pilots were (slightly) better trained than the Germans.

Between more planes and better trained pilots (and being able to wash out the lesser skilled into other, non-combat roles), this meant that the attrition hurt less for the US, and didn't result in as rapid a drop in pilot quality as the axis forces (both German and Japanese).

On the ground, things were different - USSR troops were better drilled than German, but not better skilled. (According to Paul Avrich, only 1/8 of the USSR infantry had actual weapons... And Avrich also note that German High Command estimates were off by about a factor of 8, and still had 2:1 USSR:3R infantry... Literally human wave attacks. And that's before accounting for the 3R having two fronts. The US was sending 2:1 as well...

And, generally, 2:1 is about what a 1 major war difference in tactics and training needs to be overcome. Maybe 3:1.

 

[wbyrd]

TL when properly exploited rules the day...when improperly used..its worse than equal TL.


Tech level has more than a tactical advantage. It has a strategic advantage as well.

During the first stages of the War, the panzer !!, III were ess powerful than the French tanks they faced..or didn't face...the way the Germans deployed, and fought determined the outcome, not the power, or technology of thier armor....they simply out maneuvered the french and concentrated their armor more effectively.

Later in the war the Panzers were far superior to any single tank they faced...the Sherman and Matilda tanks were not up to fighting anything Like a Panther or a Tiger...however they repeatedly beat the Germans in head on battle.

The Tiger, and Panther tanks. were a generation ahead of the Sherman, Better armor, better guns, etc...but the war went south at every major campaign.

They were basically beyond the ability to German to field in numbers as large as the Sherman. Shermans were replaced as fast as they were destroyed, or faster. Panthers and tigers were so resource hungry, the Germans were struggling just to meet basic needs much less build up their numbers.

Same issue with the Me-262, it's engines were next level tech...requiring a lot of effort to manufacture and maintain compared to internal combustion engines.

By the end of the war, the technically advanced designs were unable to hold off the less advanced allied designs..Simply because German Industry didn't have the ability to field them in the numbers needed.

If a TL 14 ship is being produced it requires more to build than a tl10, So a TL ten society of equal or larger size can field many more ships, with less advanced if just as potent weapons at their disposal...

they may loose more ships and men but if the higher tech power cant produce replacements for battle losses as fast as the lower tech power..they may well find themselves swarmed over by sheer numbers alone...

Another factor in tech level is overconfidence. The British army assumed it's massive advantage over the Zulu in terms of technology would be more than enough to subdue the primitives....And we know how that ended..The most humiliating defeat the British Empire ever faced.

The British commanders failed to fully exploit their advantage, they deployed their men improperly, and lost a lot of men. One on one the Average British soldier was a mach for the Zulu...With the advantage of his rifles range and accuracy.

The second offensive into Zulu land was fought with a lot more thought than the first. The British were better lead, and fought more effectively. The result as that their tech advantage paid off in spades...the Zulu lost the war, and British dominance was assured for quite a while.

 

[nobby-w]

Should be less than Book 5: High Guard

The TL gap was too much in High Guard. The automatic +1/-1 per tech level you got from the computer size meant you need something like 2-3x the numbers per tech level disadvantage to balance an engagement.

I think a tech level should give a significant advantage - an equivalent tonnage should be most likely to win with a 1 TL advantage but you should not need double or triple the tonnage like you do with High Guard.

In practice. High Guard has quite a few balance issues anyway.

 

[McPerth]

TL should be an advantage, but, unless the TL difference is significant (let's say more than 2-3 TLs), one that can be overcome by better training (at least tactically, strategically, higher jump number will always be quite decisive).

See that HG (where mainly it affects through the computere advantage) effects are not reflected in OTU history, where Sword Worlds fletes (TL 11-12 at best) where not just walked over by IN TL 15 ships, And the Vargr in rebellion, whose main ships are shown also as TL 11-12, were able to take TK 16 Gemid (whose planetary fleet and ground defenses should have made short of any such ships there could appear in the system).

 

[mike wightman]

The TL gap was too much in High Guard. The automatic +1/-1 per tech level you got from the computer size meant you need something like 2-3x the numbers per tech level disadvantage to balance an engagement.

I think a tech level should give a significant advantage - an equivalent tonnage should be most likely to win with a 1 TL advantage but you should not need double or triple the tonnage like you do with High Guard.

In practice. High Guard has quite a few balance issues anyway.

We are talking about ships separated in time by 100-500 years of military development.
It took the Imperium centuries to go from TL14 to TL15.
At the risk of real world analogies not being a suitable model, it's like comparing a Napoleonic battleship with an ironclad, or an ironclad vs a dreadnaught, a dreadnaught vs an Iowa BB, an Iowa BB vs flight 3 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

Each of those represents a TL advance.

HG is a brilliant game for doing what it is meant to do, model ship combat across a TL range that represents 5000years of development.

 

[robject]

As Wil and wbyrd have elegantly summarized, overcoming a +1 TL advantage requires a similarly strong advantage in another area:

* superior strategy
* superior tactics, maybe (but more risky)
* sheer numbers (i.e. twice the numbers)
* "natural analogs" to high technology (e.g. psionic teleportation)

 

[robject]

THANK YOU

I want to THANK each and every one of you who have responded so far. This discussion has been IMMENSELY helpful to me.

 

[nobby-w]

We are talking about ships separated in time by 100-500 years of military development.
It took the Imperium centuries to go from TL14 to TL15.
At the risk of real world analogies not being a suitable model, it's like comparing a Napoleonic battleship with an ironclad, or an ironclad vs a dreadnaught, a dreadnaught vs an Iowa BB, an Iowa BB vs flight 3 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

Each of those represents a TL advance.

HG is a brilliant game for doing what it is meant to do, model ship combat across a TL range that represents 5000years of development.

Unfortunately, that's not a terribly useful scenario. A naval wargame pitching Ironclads against Dreadnought-class battleships (Civ notwithstanding ) isn't terribly interesting. A far more useful scenario to actually play is when one side has some slight technological edge over the other. Out of the box, High Guard can't model a situation where one side has a small technological edge over the other - at least not without some fudging.

The closest thing I used to do was to allow a 1 TL difference but give both sides the same computer technology - say TL12/TL13 but with both sides maxing out at a 6/Fib computer. The +1/-1 dichotomy caused by this is by far the biggest advantage that the higher tech level gets. If you remove this then the tech level differences are much less extreme.

Also, one can require the higher-tech player spend a proportion of their budget at one tech level below their peak, possibly allowing some weapon upgrades to be fitted to older ships.

That means that the higher tech player can field better weapons, screens (and possibly power plants) but the difference isn't so wide that one side has a crushing advantage over the other.