MGT Only: Mercenary Second Edition Playtest - Force Organisation

[rancke]

Not familiar with that work, but it could easily be incorporated:

Army - 2 Corps (plus support)
Corps - 2 Divisions
Division - 2 Brigades
Brigade - 2 Regiments
Regiment - 2 Battalions
Battalion .... 2 Squadrons
Squadron - 2 Companies
Company - 2 Platoons
Platoon - 2 Sections
Section - 2 Squads
Squad - 2 Teams
Team - 2 Buddy system packs
Buddy system pack - 2 buddies

Since these would be translations of the Vilani terms, I can follow you up to the 32 man squad, but the company would (IMO) be the 128 man unit rather than the 64 man unit. Conforming (more or less) to Imperial usage, the battalion should be the 512 man unit and the regiment should be the 2048 man unit. So here's my suggestion:

Regiment - 2 Tercios (2048)
Tercio - 2 Battalions (1024)
Battalion - 2 Columns (512)
Column - 2 Companies (256)
Company - 2 troops (128)
Troop - 2 Platoons (64)
Platoon - 2 Sections (32)
Section - 2 Squads (16)
Squad - 2 Teams (8)
Team - 2 pairs (4)
Pair - 2 buddies (2)


Hans

 

[atpollard]

Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) once convincingly extolled the virtues of a 3 man basic unit. The gist was that most tasks require 2 men to complete the mission, so a 3 man team can sustain the loss of 1 man and still complete the mission.

Just tossing that out there for people with more of a wargamer bend than I have to use or ignore (as appropriate).

 

[Condottiere]

How do the Vilani feel about cloning, because I just had a flashback to the Forever War?

 

[Vladika]

Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) once convincingly extolled the virtues of a 3 man basic unit. The gist was that most tasks require 2 men to complete the mission, so a 3 man team can sustain the loss of 1 man and still complete the mission.

Just tossing that out there for people with more of a wargamer bend than I have to use or ignore (as appropriate).

There is a huge problem with that line of thought.

There is no inherent security element. In a fireteam of 4 (5 if the squad leader is present) two can preform a task and still have unit security and cover fire. Even this is minimal. The 2-3 men on a task would be fine if no resistance (combat) occurs. Saboteurs can, and have, operated this way.

Any officer sending two men out without support runs a good risk of court marshal should they become casualties.

 

[whulorigan]

How do the Vilani feel about cloning, because I just had a flashback to the Forever War?

At a guess, since the Vilani had never developed a particular understanding of DNA during the Ziru Sirka (such knowledge came after Terran conquest), it would almost certainly be "non-traditional" in Vilani culture.

 

[rancke]

One of the ancient kingdoms in my fantasy world had a unit structure based on multiples of five. Five man teams, five team squads, five squad companies, five company regiments, five regiment wings and five wing armies.


Hans

 

[Vladika]

Since these would be translations of the Vilani terms, I can follow you up to the 32 man squad, but the company would (IMO) be the 128 man unit rather than the 64 man unit. Conforming (more or less) to Imperial usage, the battalion should be the 512 man unit and the regiment should be the 2048 man unit. So here's my suggestion:

Regiment - 2 Tercios (2048)
Tercio - 2 Battalions (1024)
Battalion - 2 Columns (512)
Column - 2 Companies (256)
Company - 2 troops (128)
Troop - 2 Platoons (64)
Platoon - 2 Sections (32)
Section - 2 Squads (16)
Squad - 2 Teams (8)
Team - 2 pairs (4)
Pair - 2 buddies (2)


Hans

In peacetime, or light garrison/occupation duty, this "Two" formation might work. It does in some understrength US Army formations who depend on a reserve or national guard unit to be activated to round out their third component.

For combat it, unequivocally, will not work. It's been tried many times with less than desirable results.

The "square" or 4 maneuver units has been tried off and on but usually is found to be unwieldy. Four would be ideal option wise but, under combat stress it is to hard to optimally utilize.

Most any experienced Army will adopt the "triangle" formation with 3 maneuver units.

The basic adage is to always have an organic unit reserve as long as is possible. It is only committed as a last resort.

With the "2" formation either both units are on the line with no reserve, or half the unit is held in reserve (to much). The argument that half of the second unit can be in the line fails due to unit cohesion and chain of command issues.

With the "3" formation, usually 2 units are in the line and one held in reserve. Historically this has been found ideal. If you find yourself with 3 forward and no reserve you are usually "in the shit" as the saying goes.

With the "4" formation to many deployment options exist and the usual commander finds himself constantly second guessing himself (as he knows others will latter). 3 forward and 1 in reserve sounds great until you realize the line becomes to long (side to side) for effective command and control. Communications isn't the main issue, it's visual assessment of the commander in small unit actions.

Warfare is to fluid, and deadly, to be either to narrowly constrained or spread beyond effective command and control.

The "2" units, as described, have to many command echelons and built in delays of disseminating and issueing orders through the chain of command and would unnecessarily delay any action.

 

[Condottiere]

Probably why they lost in the first place against the Terrans.

It comes down to how easily a commander can control his subordinate units, with the range for a normal human between 2-5.

Three seems optimal and builds in redundancy, something that an organization experiencing attrition would need.

This is, of course, for infantry, as compared to wing man/finger four for fighter aircraft.

The Vargr might organize themselves as packs, bands and hordes.

 

[rancke]

For combat it, unequivocally, will not work.

So are you saying that the canonical reference to Vilani using this scheme is an error and should be errata'ed?


Hans

 

[Vladika]

So are you saying that the canonical reference to Vilani using this scheme is an error and should be errata'ed?


Hans

Absolutely. Just because some author (armchair general) wrote it, obviously without any real understanding of warfare, doesn't make it workable.

Then again, leave it canon and, as another poster (Condottiere) postulates, that's why they LOST.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Someone (sorry, I don't remember who) once convincingly extolled the virtues of a 3 man basic unit. The gist was that most tasks require 2 men to complete the mission, so a 3 man team can sustain the loss of 1 man and still complete the mission.

I remember reading somewhere that the US Marines had done a great deal of study and worked out that 6 was the optimum for their Force Recon units. I believe the SAS stick with 8 (two fire teams of four). I think I would tend to lean towards the SAS

Absolutely. Just because some author (armchair general) wrote it, obviously without any real understanding of warfare, doesn't make it workable.

Then again, leave it canon and, as another poster (Condottiere) postulates, that's why they LOST.

Indeed. I had this crop up in a similar setting (had a bit of a ding-dong about it, actually). It is perfectly permissable to write flaws into sci-fi military organisations - real-world militaries stuff things up all the time.

(Actually, the argument I was having was about equipment, with the view that just because something comes from the military, it will certainly be good and workable - something I could just not agree with. Too many boondoggles around for that).

 

[Condottiere]

The American formula makes provision for specializations and cross-training. I think the SAS came up with the four man cell as being the smallest effective unit, and would fit comfortably in a land rover, plus luggage.

I'm sure we could have a great deal of fun with a Vilani corporation contracted to develop the Jewelled Strategic Frigate programme.

 

[Vladika]

I remember reading somewhere that the US Marines had done a great deal of study and worked out that 6 was the optimum for their Force Recon units. I believe the SAS stick with 8 (two fire teams of four). I think I would tend to lean towards the SAS

I'd stick with the SAS model. It is a good mix and the smallest patrol sized unit expected to see a combat situation. (Again it's the same size as a regular army squad, and for the same reasons.)

6 man Force Recon units are not intended for use as combat units and if they find themselves in combat they have failed their mission.

The Force Reconnaissance companies (FORECON), also known as Force Recon, are one of the United States Marine Corps's special operations capable forces (SOC) that provide essential elements of military intelligence to the command element of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF); supporting their task force commanders, and their subordinate operating units of the Fleet Marine Force (FMF).

Historically, the Force Recon companies, detachments and platoons performed both deep reconnaissance and direct action* (DA) operations​

IF a 6 man unit were to be deliberately deployed in direct action it would be a quick, "hit and run", low risk affair.

*In the context of special operations, direct action (DA) consists of: "Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. Direct action differs from conventional offensive actions in the level of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and the degree of discriminate and precise use of force to achieve specific objectives.​

 

[McPerth]

There is a huge problem with that line of thought.

There is no inherent security element. In a fireteam of 4 (5 if the squad leader is present) two can preform a task and still have unit security and cover fire. Even this is minimal. The 2-3 men on a task would be fine if no resistance (combat) occurs. Saboteurs can, and have, operated this way.

Any officer sending two men out without support runs a good risk of court marshal should they become casualties.

About the 2 men pair unit, we should remember that organizational TOE does not always mean tactical deployement (just as most SF units are organized in battalions, but seldom, if ever, deployed as such).

I guess even with this so small unit, the minumal tactical deployement should be a fire team, even if it can be divided in those 2 pairs, while the pair unit would seldom be used (except for TOE organization, and maybe patrol duties or such).

The basic adage is to always have an organic unit reserve as long as is possible. It is only committed as a last resort.

And that can lead to

In the heat of battle reserves are all to often forgotten or deployed to early. Either way they are all to often misused. Another all to often not acknowledged problem is obsessing over the reserves. Focusing on trying to decide when, or if, to commit them. Occasionally this causes a commander to lose track of the current situation .

 

[aramis]

Worth remembering that the black cover books support 3I, but are not 3I. Entirely possible we will do a book detailing 3I mercenary units in the future. This one, however, remains setting-free.

If it doesn't include the unit sizes & terms already established in the OTU, it's failed already to support the OTU.

And the OTU force organization is fundamentally 1965-1970 US Army & US Marine Corps systems, with better weapons, and using the 4-man fire team, 2-3 fire teams to the squad, with the section being 2-3 squads when used, and a platoon being 3-6 (nominally 3-4) squads.

 

[aramis]

Probably why they lost in the first place against the Terrans.

It comes down to how easily a commander can control his subordinate units, with the range for a normal human between 2-5.

Three seems optimal and builds in redundancy, something that an organization experiencing attrition would need.

This is, of course, for infantry, as compared to wing man/finger four for fighter aircraft.

The Vargr might organize themselves as packs, bands and hordes.

Binary organization (2 subunits per level) winds up with too long a chain - but it's canon for the Vilani, and may work fine for them; if it does, it's because, like the US in 1860, combat control skips levels. But the "company" designation should be the 128 man unit, because that's the level the Terran forces would have called a company. (Similar happened with various oriental units in the 17th to 19th centuries.) And, for including such, the Half-company (••••) level (perhaps it sounds better as demi-company) bridges the gap.

Most historical terran forces have used either 3, 4, 5, or 10 subunits per level, with formal organization using 8, 10, 12, or 16 in many cases.

The Roman Legionary system used 10's at several levels - but in practice, it broke down to sub-units - sometimes 3-3-4, sometimes 5-5.

The US Army and UK Army in the 19th C used 8-16 companies to the US:regiment/UK:battalion, but in practice used 4-5 companies as the functional intermediate level (US:Battalion). And both used impressively large squads with no subunits, but then, the maneuver unit (and raising unit) was the company. Also, in that era, the largest standing unit for either was the Regiment (and the UK Regiment wasn't a field unit). And both used a pattern of a major commanding the first of every 4 companies, with captains for the other 3.

The general principle (pun intentional) is that a man commands no more than a hand - but each man he commands might command a hand as well. In other words, at 6, you get subunits.

 

[Vladika]

Matt

It really seems you are looking for "yes men" to validate what you already intend to do. If that really is the case, why waste your, or others, time and energy?

You asked us, a potential customer base, what we thought and wanted to see. You appear bound and determined to not give it to us. It's your Rodeo and in the end you need to go with what you think will sell. I get that, but believe reasonable authenticity will sell even better.

Couple that with the high handed and cavalier disregard mongoose has shown for canon and you alienate an old, established, customer base. If the intent is to draw in "new" players, it really doesn't matter what you print. Please recognize that at some point what you do is no longer Traveller. You leased the license, so I guess you can do what you want with it.

The poles, and thread content, seem to show that CT is, by and large, what CotI members support most often. You really can't ask these questions on the Steve Jackson forums as he's GURPs, but why ask us if the intent is to ignore the majority of the feedback you've received?

aramis, I, and a few others have weighed in with educated answers, based on training, experience and long study. I've even suggested you consult a real, tangible, expert.

From the Mongoose Traveller products I've bought, I have to say the editing, layout and quality of the physical product is well done. The content, unfortunately leaves more and more to be desired.

 

[aramis]

I remember reading somewhere that the US Marines had done a great deal of study and worked out that 6 was the optimum for their Force Recon units. I believe the SAS stick with 8 (two fire teams of four). I think I would tend to lean towards the SAS



Indeed. I had this crop up in a similar setting (had a bit of a ding-dong about it, actually). It is perfectly permissable to write flaws into sci-fi military organisations - real-world militaries stuff things up all the time.

(Actually, the argument I was having was about equipment, with the view that just because something comes from the military, it will certainly be good and workable - something I could just not agree with. Too many boondoggles around for that).

Force Recon and SAS do different tasks.

SAS are more akin to the SEALS in their tasks - highly specialized infiltrate and eliminate. Nail missions, in the MegaTraveller terminology.

FR are primarily "Enter-spot-leave." In fact, until easily portable radios (post 'Nam), the job of force recon was to be "badass enough" to get in, get the information, get out, and get the information back to command.

But also note: The SAS & SBS appear to use:
ø 4-man patrol
•• 15-16 man troop
| 4 troop + HQ squadron (should be •••• by numbers)
||| 4 sqdn + HQ regiment (should be || by numbers)

 

[MongooseMatt]

And the OTU force organization is fundamentally 1965-1970 US Army & US Marine Corps systems, with better weapons, and using the 4-man fire team, 2-3 fire teams to the squad, with the section being 2-3 squads when used, and a platoon being 3-6 (nominally 3-4) squads.

Umm, this is what we already have in the text.

Matt

It really seems you are looking for "yes men" to validate what you already intend to do. If that really is the case, why waste your, or others, time and energy?

I was waiting for you (or someone) to say that

The answer is because I do not consider it a waste of time. By courting opinions, if nothing else, people can get me thinking in different ways. And there is always that one Golden Idea that gets produced that makes me think 'ah ha, that nails it!'

The problem you are running into is that when I come here, I want to hear all ideas but I am working on a project that already has defined parameters - some fairly loose, some very tight. Therefore, suggestions that butt up against those parameters face a fairly easy decision from me - either the parameter gives way (and it normally has to be a Hell of an idea to do that ), or the suggestion has to be laid to one side as being unfruitful in this instance.

Some examples...

On another thread, someone has suggested that the state of the economy should have an impact on recruiting. On face value, this seems fair enough. However, other than Rich and Poor worlds (which need to be added in), Traveller has no UPP mechanism for variable economies. We don't want to add it in specifically for this task and, as an over-riding parameter, I am not keen on adding too many more modifiers to the table in question.

So, this suggestion gets dead-ended. But, it _did_ remind me to add Rich and Poor into that table...

In this thread, just about every suggestion for organisation is already possible in the system as given. This thread has become less about Traveller and more about force organisation in general - which is good, but if the system already supports these organisation, it becomes less helpful. But, again, that said, there have been some interesting comments made about the _control_ of units, and that may be something worth revisiting.

Finally, there is the great SMG debate. The only parameter I had to that was that Gun Combat does not get broken down into 97 different areas but, other than that, the debate was almost purely driven by you chaps, and the changes made are a reflection of what you wanted.

Worthwhile for everybody, surely?