Chargen benefits for enlisted personal

[JAFARR]

In the LBBs, basic chargen said nothing about enlisted and officer, but only mentioned officer ranks. With the advent of advanced generation, we have both, but only officers get the bonus benefit(s) for rank, but even the lowest rank gets at least one bonus. Seems like senior enlisted personal should also get bonus rolls too. Maybe a different set of bonus benefits should apply, but the standard system means that a E-8 who has faithfully served the Emperor for 30 years gets nothing except a pension (and is it the same as an officer who serves the same number of terms?) and one benefit per term.

Comments anyone?

 

[daryen]

Welcome to the difference between enlisted and officers. I see this completely consistent with a system that establishes that a green-horn that has just graduated from academy outranks someone else who has 25 years of combat experience.

 

[far-trader]

I recall working out an alternate set of retirement benefits and starship crew salaries after LBB4 came out with it's salary breakdown by enlisted and officer ranks for Mercenaries. Never thought to change the cash benefits tables though. That might have been a good step as well.

So I'd say consult the table in LBB4 as a starting point.

But yeah, in The Imperium I can easily see a huge disparity between enlisted and officer benefits. It's always struck me as a very classist system in many ways.

 

[aramis]

In the LBBs, basic chargen said nothing about enlisted and officer, but only mentioned officer ranks. With the advent of advanced generation, we have both, but only officers get the bonus benefit(s) for rank, but even the lowest rank gets at least one bonus. Seems like senior enlisted personal should also get bonus rolls too. Maybe a different set of bonus benefits should apply, but the standard system means that a E-8 who has faithfully served the Emperor for 30 years gets nothing except a pension (and is it the same as an officer who serves the same number of terms?) and one benefit per term.

Comments anyone?

Very much in accord with 19th C US and UK service. Officers got additional stuff because they could afford it.

The oldest that I found at DFAS' website is 1949... an E7 max is payed less than an O3 with under 2 years... and most Doctors made O3 in under 2 years... and an O1 under 2 years made more than any E5 under 20 years, and as much as most E6's, when you add housing allowances.


On the 1861 scale... which lasted in proportion to at least 1890...
https://usasma.bliss.army.mil/site/ncoMuseum/pdfs/historyoftheNCO.pdf shows the top enlisted pay as $34/mo for Master Armorer, Master Carriage Maker, and Sapper Sergeant; combat arms Sergeants Major made $21/mo; privates drew $13/mo

http://www.federalgeneralscorp.com/helpful_information shows the officer rates and confirms a private

Union privates were paid $13 per month until after the final raise of 20 June '64, when they got $16. In the infantry and artillery, officer was as follows at the start of the war: colonels, $212; lieutenant colonels, $181; majors, $169; captains, $115.50; first lieutenants, $105.50; and second lieutenants, $105.50. Other line and staff officers drew an average of about $15 per month more. Pay for one, two, and three star generals was $315, $457, and $758, respectively.​

Comparing these points to canonical rates in Bk 4 (p.19):

Rank: Salary:
Private 300
Lance Corporal 400
Corporal ' 450
Lance Sergeant 500
Sergeant 550
Gunnery Sergeant 600
Leading Sergeant 700
First Sergeant 800
Sergeant Major 1000
Second Lieutenant 1000
First Lieutenant 1200
Captain 1400
Major 1600
Lt Colonel 1800
Colonel 2000​

It's a pretty fair bet that a brand new LT making exactly the same as the top enlisted man, but being potentially 30 years younger, is quite a difference. It's not as bad as the Victorian era, but it implies some influence of the Victorian. (By the 'Nam war, many senior enlisted made more than junior lieutenants... and many felt themselves far more qualified than their lieutenants, too...)

It would seem that perhaps the top enlisted grades might warrant* an additional benefit, but I really don't think the canonical pay scale justifies it... especially since terms massively outweigh rank. It's pretty much smack in-between victorian style (Offers make 5x what enlisted do) and post WWII (top enlisted earn more than junior officers).


* see inside spoiler...

Spoiler:

there's a bad bad pun for you Commonwealth types
For you non-Commonweath types, the senior two enlisted grades in UK service are warrant officers... which includes Regimental Sergeants Major and Sergeants Major.

 

[Grognard]

The officer will get a couple more rolls on the bene tables.
This is very much in line with the disparity between enlisted and officer ranks.

How many enlisted retirees do you see running for office or having social connections/ large cash savings. None.

I have no issue with the system as it is.....at least once I got over my min/max phase.

Play a character because it fits your idea, rather than whats available on the bene tables.

 

[JAFARR]

I was thinking more along the lines of officers getting the listed benefits and enlisted getting other types of benefits. For example: all retired military & scouts have access to medical treatment at any military/scout base. For merchants something like that would only be avaliable as a paid insurance policy for those serving in large lines. (And this might just be an automatic benefit if you retire. I just decided that it is in MTU.)

Enlisted might be eligible for the weapon and education benefits, but the education may come at the cost of having to spend a year at some sort of school after chargen before actually starting adventuring.

 

[Selandia]

The Imperium of CT is not a liberal democracy, even if individual worlds may be whatever you wish.

Relationships between officers and enlisted reflect an overall social stratification that permeate the military. I will save you the lecture, suffice to says that once you decided that the golden rule is: those with the gold make the rule, you shall not be surprise that the rule is those with gold keep the gold.

Selandia

 

[E.D.Quibell]

That's why Traveller has a SOC attribute. Status counts.

 

[Gray Lensman]

One thing I remember from my Army days is that my pay raises for Time (terms) of Service was ALWAYS higher than what I got from lowly promotions.

(E1 through E7, 1980 to 1993)

 

[JAFARR]

...
How many enlisted retirees do you see running for office or having social connections/ large cash savings. None.

...

Oh! MaCarthy was a tail gunner - an enlisted position if I'm not mistaken, social connections and all!

 

[aramis]

Oh! MaCarthy was a tail gunner - an enlisted position if I'm not mistaken, social connections and all!

Not always. Some tailgunners were officers. Like Lt. Joseph McCarthy, USMC.

 

[dean]

Not always. Some tailgunners were officers. Like Lt. Joseph McCarthy, USMC.

His primary duty was intelligence officer, and for that role he had to go into the battle zone and hitherto, combat; on a two seat plane, by necessity, he also functioned as tail gunner.

He wasn't an officer who was a tail gunner, he was an officer to had to man the tail gun.

 

[HG_B]

That's why Traveller has a SOC attribute. Status counts.

Actually, that's why the 3I has SS. If you aren't using the 3I setting, SS could be utterly superfluous as one of the six character attributes...

 

[aramis]

His primary duty was intelligence officer, and for that role he had to go into the battle zone and hitherto, combat; on a two seat plane, by necessity, he also functioned as tail gunner.

He wasn't an officer who was a tail gunner, he was an officer to had to man the tail gun.

In a WWII US air squadron, Intel officer was an additional duty, not a primary duty; as an LT, he wasn't in an office doing intel; he was in a tailgun and doing the intel briefs before missions.

Most of the WWII aircrews were officers; radiomen and tailgunners often weren't, but Pilots, Copilots, Navigators, and bombardiers were, flight engineers sometimes were officers or warrants (tho' NCOs were common), and staff officers often filled the enlisted gunner positions due to shortages. I've gotten this from 4 different aircrew officers of the USAAC from WWII. And one PAF flyboy.

 

[HG_B]

Most of the WWII aircrews were officers; radiomen and tailgunners often weren't, but Pilots, Copilots, Navigators, and bombardiers were,

Not all pilots were officers. The AAF alone had over 2000 sergeant pilots. The USMC had quite a few...

 

[rancke]

Gentleman rankers go back at least as far as the Victorian Age.

Mind you, the character generation system (and an example in GT:Ground Forces) to the contrary notwithstanding, Imperial nobles are IMO about as likely to become gentleman rankers as present-day European princes (who would be about the social equals of Imperial barons if present-day Earth was part of the Imperium). But planetary gentry could furnish all you need.


Hans

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Actually, that's why the 3I has SS. If you aren't using the 3I setting, SS could be utterly superfluous as one of the six character attributes...

Traveller had SOC before the 3rd Imperium (CT 1st edition), and Traveller has SOC after the 3rd Imperium (MgT). In fact Traveller has always had SOC, and still does. You don't have to play Traveller in the 3rd Imperium, however I'd argue that if you don't play with the SOC attribute you're not playing Traveller. YMMV of course, and probably does from your comments.

As with SOC, Traveller has Jump. You can play without Jump ... easily; however again I would argue that if you play without Jump you are not playing Traveller. Again YMMV of course.

For me SOC and Jump are linked. Speed of comms and man on the ground decison making, becuase you just can't phone home, you have to make the decision and then stand or fall by it.

Like I would argue that MgT's 760 Patrons wasn't Traveller it was 760 generic NPCs for any generic Sci-fi RPG. It's a good product, but it's not a Traveller product.

To be fair to Mongoose it seems like they are doing the next Patron's book as true Traveller Patrons, for which I believe they should be given enormous credit.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Gentleman rankers go back at least as far as the Victorian Age.

The best example (myth ?) of this is I like is in the present day Legion. The story goes something like, that a Legionaire General was inspecting the new Legionaire recruits and recognoses one of them, but can't place him. The General asks the recruit "What were you before you were a Legionare?" and the recuit answers "I was a General, General."

Mind you, the character generation system (and an example in GT:Ground Forces) to the contrary notwithstanding, Imperial nobles are IMO about as likely to become gentleman rankers as present-day European princes (who would be about the social equals of Imperial barons if present-day Earth was part of the Imperium). But planetary gentry could furnish all you need.

I agree.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[HG_B]

Traveller had SOC before the 3rd Imperium (CT 1st edition), and Traveller has SOC after the 3rd Imperium (MgT). In fact Traveller has always had SOC, and still does. You don't have to play Traveller in the 3rd Imperium, however I'd argue that if you don't play with the SOC attribute you're not playing Traveller. YMMV of course, and probably does from your comments.

As with SOC, Traveller has Jump. You can play without Jump ... easily; however again I would argue that if you play without Jump you are not playing Traveller. Again YMMV of course.

Yes, I know. I've been playing since '77.

That being said, SS is most useful in a highly, socially stratified society & proportionately less so in a more egalitarian one . That's of course, an axiomatic statement.

 

[Gray Lensman]

I too have been playing since the beginning, and I have to say this......

SOC is a social status, CHA (what SOC should be) is an attribute, Since the first game I ran it's been CHA as an Attribute and SOC was part of the PCs background, history, whatever. It is so simple it's almost stupid........