MGT Only: Mercenary Second Edition Playtest - Force Organisation

[MongooseMatt]

Continuing with our release of playtest material for Mercenary Second Edition, Planet Mongoose presents the rules for organising your new recruits into a cohesive force!

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/?p=721

Again, all comments welcomed.

 

[RandyB]

Perhaps some commentary about SpecOps units being organized anywhere from "variant of this battlefield standard" to "a lot differently" based on the special unit's intended mission parameters.

And yeah, SpecOps units tend to be the province of governments, but mercenary SpecOps shouldn't be automatically excluded - there's a lot of gaming opportunity in the concept!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Perhaps some commentary about SpecOps units being organized anywhere from "variant of this battlefield standard" to "a lot differently" based on the special unit's intended mission parameters.

The whole point of this system, I am hoping, is that it is flexible enough to organise forces however players wish.

 

[Condottiere]

A paragraph on span of control, which inherently explains why you usually don't have a HQ element directly controlling a very large number of subordinate elements.

Not everyone know this about this concept.

Though there have been some tactically brilliant commanders who have overcome these limitations. Or their staff.

 

[MongooseMatt]

A paragraph on span of control, which inherently explains why you usually don't have a HQ element directly controlling a very large number of subordinate elements.

Do we want this level of detail/players worrying about this, or would it be better to assume that is all 'handled'?

 

[aramis]

Continuing with our release of playtest material for Mercenary Second Edition, Planet Mongoose presents the rules for organising your new recruits into a cohesive force!

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/?p=721

Again, all comments welcomed.

A minor quibble, but one that's important in a game where some units are actually quite low tech...

The basic unit of any military force, mercenary or otherwise, is the squad (sometimes called a section). The size of a squad can vary wildly, dependant on the nature of the force it is part of, casualties sustained and its precise role on the battlefield. Squads typically contain between 6 and 20 fighting men (any more and it is probably best termed a horde), with 8-12 being most common. Larger formations are built by bringing a number of squads together to form a larger cohesive unit.

This paragraph is historically false.

It can be fixed easily - delete the reference to section (a section is, in all the systems I've read about, comprised of 2-3 squads, if the term is used at all), change the clause "any military force" to "most modern military forces".

There is also a difference between organization and operational unit sizes. Up to Vietnam, the US operational unit was the platoon - squads and sections were not allowed to be used apart from their platoon. In the 1850's, the operational unit was the company, but occasionally, the company would be divided into 2 or 3 operational platoons; in the US, it was a violation of standing orders to operate the platoon out of visual command of the captain of the company for more than a day's patrol; in larger battles, companies were the foundation.

In fact, the US organizational system of the 1850's doesn't actually formally specify squads - it specifies a number, but the foundational organization is the 108 man company - with two platoons, of 2 sections each, and 2 squads per section, and 3 officers. They could be as large as 200 men, or as small as 25, but still were 2 platoons, 4 sections, or 8 squads. It also specifies a First Sergeant or CSM, 4 sergeants, 8 corporals. The UK one of the same era is almost as flexible, but specifies ranks and positions more concretely.

 

[rancke]

Do we want this level of detail/players worrying about this, or would it be better to assume that is all 'handled'?

That's up to the referees and players isn't it? Shouldn't you be providing support for different levels of complexity and let the users of your product decide what they prefer?

Have one set of basic generic rules and various options for more complicated play. Or better yet, a set of medium complex rules and various options for more and less complicated play.


Hans

 

[Condottiere]

1. It gives a perspective to players unfamiliar with how the military actually works. Beyond what they see on the silverscreen. But that's an editorial decision.

2. Military organizations evolved in response to advances in firepower, mobility, protection (or rather lack of it for the infantry), command, control and communications.

3. You had the basic square to fob off the cavalry; without looking it up, I think the platoon developed as part of musket firing sequence, then as a subunit for Command and Control when the company had to disperse more in response to heavy support weapons and the introduction of rifles. Then the triangle developed, partially because it was easier to command and control.

 

[aramis]

1. It gives a perspective to players unfamiliar with how the military actually works. Beyond what they see on the silverscreen. But that's an editorial decision.

2. Military organizations evolved in response to advances in firepower, mobility, protection (or rather lack of it for the infantry), command, control and communications.

3. You had the basic square to fob off the cavalry; without looking it up, I think the platoon developed as part of musket firing sequence, then as a subunit for Command and Control when the company had to disperse more in response to heavy support weapons and the introduction of rifles. Then the triangle developed, partially because it was easier to command and control.

The Company got divided into 3-4 firing lines... The company was, until about the start of the 20th C, the foundational unit. Until WWII, the operational unit was the company in most countries. Germany's success with platoon level operations, and the parallel US success, lead to smaller and smaller operational units. To the point now that independent tactical decisions are now sometimes falling on squad leaders on patrol, including the decision to pursue. (USMC operations in Somalia and Haiti.)

 

[MongooseMatt]

(a section is, in all the systems I've read about, comprised of 2-3 squads, if the term is used at all)

A section is what the British call a squad

 

[rancke]

A section is what the British call a squad

In Dad's Army the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard is split into three 5-6 man sections, one commanded by Lance-Corporal Jones and one by Private Sponge; the third section's commander is never named.


Hans

 

[Piper]

Are you ignoring fire teams or do they not figure into your combat system?

 

[MongooseMatt]

In Dad's Army the Walmington-on-Sea platoon of the Home Guard is split into three 5-6 man sections, one commanded by Lance-Corporal Jones and one by Private Sponge; the third section's commander is never named.

Funnily enough, Dad's Army is what springs into mind when I think of what my regular group will do with these rules...

Are you ignoring fire teams or do they not figure into your combat system?

Well, that is the beauty of the system as it stands. While we feature a 'standard' organisational model to follow, there is absolutely nothing to stop players organising their forces into any system they want.

They could have basic organisational structures of 22 men called Teapots, if they wanted, with 47 Teapots to a Serving Spoon, and 7 Spoons to a Grand Dinner Service.

You really can use this system any way you want (alternatively, if you see something you cannot do, let me know and we'll make changes!).

 

[Vladika]

I can see the value in "hiring" a large established group of mercenaries for a patron.

In the case of building your own unit, of whatever ultimate size, I think individual hiring is desirable. Particularly for specialists.

In the same line, why have to accept the less qualified on an existing mass hire? If I was building a mercenary unit, I'd want only veteran or elite troops. Each would be carefully selected to compliment the whole.

 

[Condottiere]

Cannon-fodder?

A ready-made unit, that can deploy within days after being contracted, gives momentum and possibly, the advantage of surprise.

As it's referenced in a number of books, the larger units have a database on likely conflicts and related data. And the ones with a larger agenda, the strategic implications.

 

[MongooseMatt]

In the case of building your own unit, of whatever ultimate size, I think individual hiring is desirable. Particularly for specialists.

For a single squad, _maybe_. But remember, this is a mercenary campaign, not a Human Resources one. Do players want to get into the nitty-gritty of the recruiting and interview process, or do they want to make a few quick dice rolls and move on to blowing stuff up?

We have to go with the majority on this one.

In the same line, why have to accept the less qualified on an existing mass hire? If I was building a mercenary unit, I'd want only veteran or elite troops. Each would be carefully selected to compliment the whole.

You can do that right now with the rules as they stand - simply spec higher skill ranks.

Another answer to your question, however, is the less qualified might be all you can afford...

 

[aramis]

A section is what the British call a squad

NATO documentation claims otherwise. Specifically that on unit organization. So if it's the current practice, it's a change in the last 30 years.

And it certainly isn't true of the 19th C units.

 

[McPerth]

NATO documentation claims otherwise. Specifically that on unit organization. So if it's the current practice, it's a change in the last 30 years.

And it certainly isn't true of the 19th C units.

I guess this NATO documentation uses somewhat standarized language, steamlining those language (or national) differences.

To give an example, in Spanish language, a company is divided in 3 Secciones (platoons), each commanded by a lieutennant and divided in pelotones (sections), each commanded by a NCO. As you can see, it's quite confusing when such similar words are used so swaped...

 

[MongooseMatt]

NATO documentation claims otherwise.

I don't think the average British squaddie really cares about NATO documentation

 

[Vladika]

NATO documentation claims otherwise. Specifically that on unit organization. So if it's the current practice, it's a change in the last 30 years.

And it certainly isn't true of the 19th C units.

I questioned that myself after serving in the BOAR zone in Germany for a year in a NATO joint command. NATO prefers "Squad" for uniformity but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

Most of the way down the page: Structure of units

Still, that is not a NATO designation, and wouldn't (shouldn't) be used while serving with NATO.


The seriously odd thing is that the US Army used Sections too in certain cases. I was with the 111th Army Group (Det) and several Engineering units had section listed in their TOE, and actively refereed to them as such.

In old US usage a Section was an intermediate between an Inf Plt and squad, each section having 2 Squads. That has long since been outmoded.

While supposedly "standardized" NATO is very much a rummage sale of mixed terminology, equipment and weapons.

The major difference between the staff sergeant and the sergeant is not authority, as is often mistakenly believed, but rather sphere of influence. The staff sergeant is in daily contact with large numbers of soldiers and generally has more equipment and other property to maintain. Staff sergeants often have one or more sergeants working under their leadership.

Staff sergeants are responsible for their continued successful development as well as that of other soldiers in the section, squad or team. - http://www.armystudyguide.com/conte...uide_topics/nco_duties/duties-of-an-nco.shtml

Again, this is NOT a common occurrence in the US Army, more of an anomaly.

The Figure 6-7. Platoon organization, shows the support element of the rifle team broken down into an Alpha and Bravo section.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-9/chap6.htm

The word does come up in common Army lingo, but no longer has a fixed meaning as of old. (Old usage Sec larger than Sqd. In the last example, smaller...) Best not to use it if clarity is desired.

Then there is Troop, Battery, Squadron, etc... :CoW: