2nd Edition Book 1: Mercenary
- Thread starter Shonner
- Start date
I hope that they incorporate years worth of errata that fans have worked on and submitted...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I know of three books for sure. 760 Patrons, vehicle handbook supplements 5 and 6.
Core book, as well.
Did not know that. I thought it was another printing with different artwork and some layout changes for the careers. But I guess that would make it another edition.
And a number of bits of errata applied. Mostly subtle.
Happy to take suggestions on this - my personal focus is on a Mercenary system that will allow you to recruit, build and play out mercenary missions/tickets as a mini-game and/or as adventures.
Got some fairly big ideas on this side, as we are looking to make it an effective new campaign type, which I don't feel the current Mercenary really does.
Got some fairly big ideas on this side, as we are looking to make it an effective new campaign type, which I don't feel the current Mercenary really does.
Matt, use the system in CT Bk4: Mercenary. It worked.
It could use some expansion on the effects of TL10+ tech, but was a solid base.
Another system to look at carefully would be FASA's Battletech Mercenary's Handbook (1st Ed), which is, in many ways, a child of CT Bk 4.
It could use some expansion on the effects of TL10+ tech, but was a solid base.
Another system to look at carefully would be FASA's Battletech Mercenary's Handbook (1st Ed), which is, in many ways, a child of CT Bk 4.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
Hmm. A variation of the standard Patron generator plus a "career" equivalent for the types of unit and conflict, on a month time cycle instead of a four year cycle.
Ground Forces / Counter-Insurgent
Roll Survival -> Event or Mishap
Roll Distinction
Roll Reinforcements (skill roll(s) equivalent)
The player CO might be rolling for his unit, while the Ref is rolling for the Insurgents...
Poppyseed45
SOC-12
Some ideas/complaints:
1. Mostly, the organization of forces should make military sense. Like, there's no reason for a "close combat" company to be 200 people, compared to an "Infantry" company of 100. In classic, different unit sizes got modifiers and that was about it.
2. Please ditch the bases through time thing. Since there were no rules for making bases, it was useless, IMO.
3. Give some idea of "support." For example, in the modern American and British armies, it usually takes 3-4 support personnel for each "soldier"; cooks, medics, mechanics, transport people, whatever. I say this, because Mercenary makes us hire them as part of our hiring rolls, but doesn't tell me how many we need.
4. Make the careers is Merc more like High Guard. In this case, what I mean is, it doesn't make sense for a Lt. Colonel in the Marines to start back as a grunt nobody in a private security firm. There's no way they'd treat such an officer that way (again, the old CT Merc had a chart and roll thingy for determining a person's rank when they changed from regular military to Merc).
5. Merc tickets should specify the unit size needed for a job, and scale pay accordingly. If a job needs an infantry battalion for 3 months, I should be able to roll 40000 measly credits for that sort of job! Insurance premiums will be much more than that alone!
Stuff like that. I think the basic ideas in merc were good, but a learn toward a more "logical" military would be good.
1. Mostly, the organization of forces should make military sense. Like, there's no reason for a "close combat" company to be 200 people, compared to an "Infantry" company of 100. In classic, different unit sizes got modifiers and that was about it.
2. Please ditch the bases through time thing. Since there were no rules for making bases, it was useless, IMO.
3. Give some idea of "support." For example, in the modern American and British armies, it usually takes 3-4 support personnel for each "soldier"; cooks, medics, mechanics, transport people, whatever. I say this, because Mercenary makes us hire them as part of our hiring rolls, but doesn't tell me how many we need.
4. Make the careers is Merc more like High Guard. In this case, what I mean is, it doesn't make sense for a Lt. Colonel in the Marines to start back as a grunt nobody in a private security firm. There's no way they'd treat such an officer that way (again, the old CT Merc had a chart and roll thingy for determining a person's rank when they changed from regular military to Merc).
5. Merc tickets should specify the unit size needed for a job, and scale pay accordingly. If a job needs an infantry battalion for 3 months, I should be able to roll 40000 measly credits for that sort of job! Insurance premiums will be much more than that alone!
Stuff like that. I think the basic ideas in merc were good, but a learn toward a more "logical" military would be good.
I remember the cover, great book.
Just toying around with some ideas at the moment - nothing confirmed!
nats
SOC-12
I definitely think the trick with all of these larger scale aspects of Traveller (Merc. High Guard, Dynasty) is being able to provide an intersting role playing experience. Its all well and good making them intersting mini games for those of us who enjoy creating massive space battles and large ground battles, but the main thing about Traveller is it is a role playing game and needs to be played around a table with friends and everyone wants something intersting to do. It needs to involve all the players in some way and be atmospheric enough to be played in the first person not as a god's view from above. I must admit I struggle to see how High Guard, Merc or Dynasty could be played successfully in the first person whilst keeping all the players enthralled. Large wars are very dehumanising affairs where single men have no impact, only large numbers of troops or whole battle ships make a difference. How can a standard Traveller band have any input into wars or even medium sized skirmishes? I think that is the issue that needs addressing in all of these books if they are to be used in a game rather than just for 'designing things'.
The second issue is how to make them enjoyable for all the players to play because battles and wars are mainly referee controlled affairs where the ref does the number crunching. If the players arent controlling a whole group of men each what have they to do other than follow orders whilst the ref does all the war calcs that are necessary. I am sure you can create wars and space battles as mini games in themselves where each person takes on a ship or an army but that isnt strickly a real RPG is it - its more like a strategy game.
So you know although I have always loved some aspects of Merc (the weapons mainly) and High Guard (designing ships) I have always found these two books pretty useless for doing anything in a role playing sense.
The second issue is how to make them enjoyable for all the players to play because battles and wars are mainly referee controlled affairs where the ref does the number crunching. If the players arent controlling a whole group of men each what have they to do other than follow orders whilst the ref does all the war calcs that are necessary. I am sure you can create wars and space battles as mini games in themselves where each person takes on a ship or an army but that isnt strickly a real RPG is it - its more like a strategy game.
So you know although I have always loved some aspects of Merc (the weapons mainly) and High Guard (designing ships) I have always found these two books pretty useless for doing anything in a role playing sense.
I’ve got a fair bit of experience with operational level roleplaying like this, so maybe I can help. The first game I played that worked at this level was Tarsh War, a scenario set in Glorantha where you play commanders and advisers in a military expeditionary force. You play a character and roleplay that character just as you’d do in any RPG or freeform game, but it just so happens that some of the NPCs you interact with are your subordinates that relay your commands to spy networks, magical covens, scouting troops and even infantry and cavalry units of thousands of troops.
Two things are required to make a game like this work. The first is a more disciplined approach to time than in most RPGs where entire sessions can be spent covering a few hours or even minutes of action. In a game like this there needs to be a sense of an ongoing and reasonably continuous progression of events without allowing the game to get too bogged down in details. The flow of time shouldn’t feel forced, but the GM needs to be aware of the need to keep things moving at a pace at which medium and large scale events are in motion and not too static.
The second is a mechanism for resolving operational scale activities. Tarsh War pretty much cheats at this because it’s a scenario designed for handling a specific sequence of events or unfolding situations. These events are very much dynamic, the player’s choices make a huge difference, but being a specific scenario it establishes the forces and drivers of the action, both known and unknown to the players, and advises the GM on how to resolve events. Unfortunately that approach can’t easily be generalised to arbitrary scenarions and situations.
The other way I’ve played games like this is in freeform games, again mainly in Glorantha but some historical games. In these games you’re mainly roleplaying freeform style, but e.g. in The Life of Moonson I was hetman of a plains tribe and could order my warbands to raid or defend neighbouring provinces (defend… yeah, right!).
I have applied this experience to games in Traveller. I’ve run a scenario in which the players are command crew on a military vessel that get involved in a dispute over a colony world. The players command a main ship of a few thousand tons, some fighters, a few drop ships, and a associated units of marines. One of the players also gets to be the colony director, who’s at least starts off as a close ally of the other players, but depending on how they handle things that may not always be the case.
In that game I use a very abstract way to handle unit combat, essentially a variation on risk dice. I’ve also used a similar approach in a Lord of the Rings game. In one session the players are defending Gundabad (it’s set shortly after the defeat of Sauron by Isildur). I drew up a cutaway area map of the inside of the mountain and neighbouring regions on A3 and again used a variation on Risk dice to resolve unit combat.
So, how would I adapt this experience to a systematised set of rules for Traveller?
The SF game Diaspora is worth looking at. It uses the FATE game system and has a mini-game for resolving tactical unit combat using area movement. It’s worth looking at.
The old Mercenary had a system for working out unit stats by amalgamating the stats of component units, from individual troops on up. That’s a reasonable start, but Book 4 never gave an actual tactical combat system. The game would need to provide a simple, easy to use system to resolve tactical ground combat, indirect fire bombardment and strafing, etc.
High Guard already covers space mass combat via the barrage rules. It could be adapted to combat between air, ground and space vehicles, point defences, etc but doesn’t help when you have e.g. fighters engaging infantry. You’d also need new rules for ground combat between infantry and other vehicles or other infantry.
I don’t think you need a rigorously detailed rule set as solid as a tactical wargame. Roleplaying game situations are just too varied and ‘messy’ for that to be worthwhile. Also RPGs have a referee to help resolve edge cases, or even radically shift the entire situation mid-due to external events and overarching campaign issues, that wargames generally don’t have.
Simon Hibbs
I just use those books for setting reference. I don't even try to use their rules for role-play. I'm not a mini or character sheet wargamer.
Similar threads
