MGT Only: Mercenary Second Edition Playtest - Recruiting

[Vladika]

But, if one want's to trash the democracies, a narrow 50 year history of mankind could be used to do it.

I guess the USA should stay home next time around and let the rest of the world go to hell in it's own way?

And that is where you lose me. Cheerio.

Note to Others: I am talking about a game that exists in people's imagination. Not interested in getting into willy-waving about whose country is more or less perfect than others. We are all ruled by idiots.

I think YOU brought that up, trashing the very democracies that arguably "saved the world"?

The most warlike countries in the latter half of the last century were democracies (UK, France and USA, in that order, if I recall correctly), and in certain parts of the world today, there are no shortage of mercenaries from those three countries...

One good thing about Great Britain sinking into the morass of it's own making (Pre WW2, not post of course...) is that Mongoose would go with it, and it's revisionist 3I history, setting and even star systems.

 

[McPerth]

[m;] Please, avoid nowdays real world comparisons that could lead to political discussion[/m;]

The idea (and I am not sure I am happy with it) is that naval bases would be less than happy with an independant military actively recruiting in their immediate vicinity. OPpen for discussion.

Or happy to have them near to be controlled.

IMHO, the IN (as the main political weapon of the Imperium) will try to have some control over Mercenary groups, as they could be disrupting for the pace, and having their bases near IN's own ones could help in this (aside from the availability of ex-marines mustring out on them, as told before).

The most warlike countries in the latter half of the last century were democracies (UK, France and USA, in that order, if I recall correctly), and in certain parts of the world today, there are no shortage of mercenaries from those three countries...

But I guess that would not be apllicable if the whole word is unified as a democracy. Being a democracy, it's expected to need les internnal seccurity forces than (let's say) a non charismatic dictator or oligarchy, while, being unified government for the whole world, any external defensed they could need would be in form of naval assets, more tan ground troops.

(GOT to beware of ex corporals!)

Sound advice.

I'd say beware of corporals (ex or not) .

Got any data on that? I ask, as I would not be surprised if there were more today than ever before...

While there are any number of people, groups as well as individuals, assumed to be mercenaries,

But are such individuals and groups not among what we are talking about when it comes to mercs in Traveller?

As you say, that would depend on what definition of mercenaries you take. I guess nowdays definition in the Geneva Convention sould not be the definition given in OTU (and anyone's guess in ATUs). Depending on how extensive you make the definition, even the private seccurity in a bank (or other companies/corporations) could be seen as mercenaries, as they are motivated by salary, not by loyality.

The fact that the Convention makes (as Vladika says) them de facto war criminals (or near so) in nowdays world makes that in many cases they are not called mercenaries, while if they were seen as just another profesion (as seems to be the case in Traveller) they would be labeled as such.

That's why nowdays real world comaprisons are more likely to bring up discussion that enlightment for the discussion (while discussion about other times where mercenaries were a normal thing in war would be another thing).

 

[rancke]

The idea (and I am not sure I am happy with it) is that naval bases would be less than happy with an independant military actively recruiting in their immediate vicinity. Open for discussion.

The Imperium doesn't really have any say over what goes on outside their bases. Besides, mercenary recruits would have left the Imperium's service before becoming mercenaries, so why should the Imperium care anyway?

Also, what do you consider the "immediate vicinity" of an Imperial naval base? Because unless you mean "in the same system", I don't see how the naval base factors into is at all. (And if you do mean "in the same system", please consider yourself mercilessly mocked).

Again, the idea here is that on a balkanised world, the various nations may not be happy with offworlders coming along and stealing their fighting men.

A nation could legislate against mercenary recruitment, but whether it will or not would depend on the individual nation. It's not something that affects all balkanized worlds or all worlds of any other kind either. It would depend on the law level of the individual nation/world.

What does affect mercenary supply is that balkanized worlds would tend to have bigger militaries than unified worlds (Mercenary gives a +2 bonus to recruitment on Govt. type 7 worlds).

The most warlike countries in the latter half of the last century were democracies (UK, France and USA, in that order, if I recall correctly), and in certain parts of the world today, there are no shortage of mercenaries from those three countries.

Again, warlikeness is not a specific feature of democracies. It's a feature of the national culture.


Hans

 

[Jame]

@MongooseMatt, I took a look and left a comment as follows:

Population codes 0 and 1 do not have a Recruitment modifier. They should, or should have a note explaining why there is not one.

(I think I understand why, but it needs to be explicitly stated just for clarity.)

 

[Condottiere]

Worlds where recent military conflict or a cold war has occurred should be ripe for recruitment, as militaries may be downsizing, soldiers may be disllusioned but need to survive on their skillsets, which doesn't include a Bachelors nor an accounting degree.

Balkanized worlds by their suspicious nature should have larger than average militaries and turnovers.

 

[CosmicGamer]

The world(s) are not always so black and white.

A Balkanised world need not have more fighting than the current day Balkanized North America or Western Europe. A Religious or Military dictatorship or any other government could be unpopular and kept in place by constantly putting down violent civil unrest. A democracy could have warlords (drug lords and gangs) attempting to take over control.

On some worlds where there is conflict, people could have strong convictions to risk their lives for what they believe in. Are they going to give up families and loyalties to go fight someone elses war? In some cases a peaceful world where the small groups of people with violent tenancies are kept under control might actually be easier to recruit from; an outlet for their blood thirsty aggressions.

 

[MongooseMatt]

A Balkanised world need not have more fighting than the current day Balkanized North America or Western Europe. A Religious or Military dictatorship or any other government could be unpopular and kept in place by constantly putting down violent civil unrest. A democracy could have warlords (drug lords and gangs) attempting to take over control.

Taking this forward, we might say there should not be any modifier for government type or it should be left to referee fiat - but I am not sure that is the way to go I think, in this circumstance, people will generally expect to see government type reflected, and would think it odd if it were not.

Population codes 0 and 1 do not have a Recruitment modifier. They should, or should have a note explaining why there is not one.

I believe we have a line somewhere that says recruitment cannot take place on these worlds, as there is literally no one to recruit.

Also, what do you consider the "immediate vicinity" of an Imperial naval base? Because unless you mean "in the same system", I don't see how the naval base factors into is at all.

A fair point - in that case, what effect do you see naval bases generally having in the systems they are placed in?

warlikeness is not a specific feature of democracies. It's a feature of the national culture.

I would agree with that - but we don't have a Culture Code in Traveller, so we use what we've got

At the end of the day, we have to hit the most bases possible in a simple table without caveats that overly increase page count. With all Traveller books, we acknowledge the referee is King and he can change things to fit in with specific worlds in his campaign. That said, what is presented has to make sense in most cases.

Which is why we come to you chaps

 

[McPerth]

Now that I've had more time to read it, some more comments (some of them are void if some provisons of MGT:Bk1 are not kept):

Recruiting modifiers:

Population: I guess the slash on pop 0-1 means no people can be recruited from those planets (womething I agree due to lack of population base).

Governement and Law levels code:

I agree with Hans on balkanized governements. I'd also add that, while you doubt their governments could not be happy on offworlders stealing their fighting men, OTOH they could be happy to have good relations with Mercs, just in case they want to hire them...

In the case of religious dictatorship, I'd set it at variable, according to religión tennets (e.g. the Virasi faith in Dlan in MT could make the -4 to seem even too generous for the recruiters, while a religious dictatorsip for a faith like the old Terran Viking religión, being a warlike one, could make a +4 more adequate). Off course, this would add work for the referee...

Not sure on Law Levels modifiers. Higher law level means more difficulties to recruit, but also more people in internal seccurity (that could join mercs when mustre out) and a more discipined people (people used to few rules, as Law 0 would mean, could not adapt well to military discipline). See that this could also apply to some government codes, depending on the freedom (or lack of) this government represents.

Also, totalitarian governments (or Law Levels) could see merc recruitment for offworld merc companies as a way to be ridden off potentially trublesome people...

Starport:

Critical if starmercs are also being recruited (but I guess that would need other tables, to give more importance to TL, just to give an example). Not sure it has any effect in ground troops, unless we asume you're recruiting offworlders there.

Salaries and equipment:

Aside of what I said before on salaries, I guess the full rules on tickets (and how much are they paid) in LBB mercenary must also be changed to adapt them to them.

About the specialties given, each of them has its own recruitment DM. This may give (IMHO) too large numbers of some specialties (e.g. snipers) if other modifiers are good. This aside, must all the skills (and levels) given to be held for a recruit to qualify for one specialty or just one of them?


Other:

No provision is given for basic training of raw recruits (quite important in cadre missions, just to give an example of its use). It's cited in the third paragraph of The Recruiting Process section, but, IMHO, it should be developed (also an occasion to give Instruction skill some importance).

Suggest also giving a modifier for the fame/notoriety of the unit.

Possible errata:

In the Gunship Pilot specialty, needed skills include Flyer or Grav. Aside from not giving the minimum level needed, Grav is a specialty under Flyer...

In the Tank Crewman specialty, needed skill is given as Drive (tracked). No provisions for weeled AFVs?


Hope some of all this can help...

 

[Jame]

I believe we have a line somewhere that says recruitment cannot take place on these worlds, as there is literally no one to recruit.

Double check, just to be sure. I think you should include a line about why there's no one to recruit, something along the lines of "Since a population 0 or 1 world has exceptionally few people living on it, mercenaries cannot recruit from such a world due to its population being needed on that world."

 

[Condottiere]

More of an adventure hook:

"I want to get off this frickin' deadend planet."

 

[MongooseMatt]

In the case of religious dictatorship, I'd set it at variable, according to religión tennets (e.g. the Virasi faith in Dlan in MT could make the -4 to seem even too generous for the recruiters, while a religious dictatorsip for a faith like the old Terran Viking religión, being a warlike one, could make a +4 more adequate). Off course, this would add work for the referee...

The issue here is that we can make similar arguments for just about every entry on that table. We take the assumption that if a modifier goes against a referee's campaign, he will change it, but we need to have abaseline for people to work from.

Aside of what I said before on salaries, I guess the full rules on tickets (and how much are they paid) in LBB mercenary must also be changed to adapt them to them.

If you mean the 'current' Mercenary book, this project replaces it completly.

If you mean the original CT Mercenary, it has a suggested baseline of Cr. 60,000 for a fifty man platoon every month. In a forthcoming preview, you will see we have changed that to Cr. 100,000 for a 30-40 man platoon.

About the specialties given, each of them has its own recruitment DM. This may give (IMHO) too large numbers of some specialties (e.g. snipers) if other modifiers are good.

Well, this is why we open out the playtesting to you chaps. It stands to reason that there will be more snipers on a highly populated world, but are there other modifiers that often come into play that make snipers more likely to be found than is reasonable? Also, we need to remember that just because X number of snipers apply during recruitment, that does not mean players have to take them all on.

No provision is given for basic training of raw recruits (quite important in cadre missions, just to give an example of its use). It's cited in the third paragraph of The Recruiting Process section, but, IMHO, it should be developed (also an occasion to give Instruction skill some importance).

We covered this in an earlier preview; http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/?p=714 (scroll down to Instruction and Training). Basically, we no longer have an Instruction skill.

Suggest also giving a modifier for the fame/notoriety of the unit.

I keep wobbling on this. Do we want actual mechanics to handle mercenary force rep?

In the Gunship Pilot specialty, needed skills include Flyer or Grav. Aside from not giving the minimum level needed, Grav is a specialty under Flyer...

Good point, well made

In the Tank Crewman specialty, needed skill is given as Drive (tracked). No provisions for weeled AFVs?

There is also a strong argument here for allowing Grav too...

 

[MongooseMatt]

Double check, just to be sure. I think you should include a line about why there's no one to recruit, something along the lines of "Since a population 0 or 1 world has exceptionally few people living on it, mercenaries cannot recruit from such a world due to its population being needed on that world."

First line, after the table

 

[CosmicGamer]

RE: Government DMs.

The issue here is that we can make similar arguments for just about every entry on that table. We take the assumption that if a modifier goes against a referee's campaign, he will change it, but we need to have abaseline for people to work from.

I'd hate to see a DM 'just because'. What's wrong with a baseline of no DM? Throw in a couple suggestions and examples for the GM to come up with their own.

 

[MongooseMatt]

What's wrong with a baseline of no DM? Throw in a couple suggestions and examples for the GM to come up with their own.

Mainly because the logical extension of this is not to have a table at all, and instead have a discussion on how a referee might come up with his own modifiers. Perfectly valid, but;

1. This puts an additional burden on the referee, and we like to help the 'lazy' referee (I am one of them).

2. That style of play is not really 'Traveller.'

Given all that, what you are describing is what a competent/non-lazy referee will do anyway, table or no. So, let's have a table with defined assumptions for everyone else.

 

[McPerth]

If you mean the 'current' Mercenary book, this project replaces it completly.

If you mean the original CT Mercenary, it has a suggested baseline of Cr. 60,000 for a fifty man platoon every month. In a forthcoming preview, you will see we have changed that to Cr. 100,000 for a 30-40 man platoon.

That's why I specified I assumed MgT:Bk1 was kept. If it's a major redoing (as you say), then this was moot...

Well, this is why we open out the playtesting to you chaps. It stands to reason that there will be more snipers on a highly populated world, but are there other modifiers that often come into play that make snipers more likely to be found than is reasonable? Also, we need to remember that just because X number of snipers apply during recruitment, that does not mean players have to take them all on.

Pehaps (as always, IMHO) it would be better to distribute the recruits among categories (as old LBB4 did) and then assign a percentage of the recruits in every one of them (or a roll) for them to have a specific skill (e.g.: for those with previous military experience, gun combat is 100%, while explosives is 15%, or 10+ for each one to have it; for those previously military officers, ledaership is 100%, as it was given as a Rank skill, while medic could be 15%, etc...)

We covered this in an earlier preview; http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/?p=714 (scroll down to Instruction and Training). Basically, we no longer have an Instruction skill.

Well. it's a personal opinion, but I liked Instruction skills as a way to give basic instruction or to teach skills...

I keep wobbling on this. Do we want actual mechanics to handle mercenary force rep?

I guess that depend on the kind of campaign people wants to run. If it's a merc unit history, it would be nice, if just wanting to give the chracters a way to join/form a merc unit, maybe it's not necessary...

 

[rancke]

Mainly because the logical extension of this is not to have a table at all, and instead have a discussion on how a referee might come up with his own modifiers. Perfectly valid, but;

1. This puts an additional burden on the referee, and we like to help the 'lazy' referee (I am one of them).

2. That style of play is not really 'Traveller.'

Given all that, what you are describing is what a competent/non-lazy referee will do anyway, table or no. So, let's have a table with defined assumptions for everyone else.

How about defining something called "recruitment base"? Instead of the number of inhabitants on a world it defines the number of those inhabitants that are potential mercenary recruits. So if, for example, you have a world that is one big military base, like Macene, everyone there is mercenary material, but the recruitment base is nevertheless 0 (or close to 0) because people don't usually get mustered out on Macene, they get transported to Rhylanor and mustered out there. OTOH, a world with a smallish population could be 90% potential recruits if it's a notorious mercenary hang-out. A subsector capital may have a recruitment base calculated from its own population PLUS some more for being the place the local IN services muster out their veterans (So Frenzie would have a bigger base than its population alone would indicate). A referee can introduce any such considerations he likes, or he can just ignore it all and just go with the base figures.

Suggested factors:

* The base recruitment base of a unified world is 1/1000 of its population.

* The base recruitment base of a balkanized world is ten times the base of a unified world.

* The recruitment base of a world varies from 50% to 150% depending on local tensions. This, would depend on recent history and current conditions.

* Law level perhaps? Or would that be a complication to the recruitment rolls themselves?
​

Once you have the size of the recruitment base, you factor in everything the PCs do to recruit: Advertising budget, number of rival recruiters, etc. and go on from there.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Because they promote themselves?

One ex British Corporal self styled "Colonel". (GOT to beware of ex corporals!)

Not sure where "dime a dozen" comes from but there aren't all that many Mercs in the world today period.

18th & 19th C - Merc units tended to be lead by one of two ranks - Colonel (for anything bigger than a company), or captain for company sized units... and yes, by self declaration. A number of 2-3 company units had "Colonels" rather than the majors they should have had on organizational priciples.

General officers in mercenary service were bloody rare - tho' some african ones exist in the 20th C, mostly by self promotion. A very few (Von Steuben comes to mind) may have been actual general officers before going mercenary, but for those we're looking 18th C to early 19th C.

In the post WWI era, we see corporate and government-formed mercs - but legally, groups such as the Wild Geese, the American Expeditionary Force and the AVG were mercenaries. Corporate Security Forces are nothing more than a different skin on the bones of mercenary service.

If you carry a weapon, engage in land or air warfare in organized units, don't wear national insignia, and don't get paid directly by a nation-state, you're a merc. If you fight for a nation other than your homeland, and do so only because they'll pay you, you're a merc.

 

[McPerth]

How about defining something called "recruitment base"?

Do you suggest something similar in concept to the Traffic Value given in Page 161 of the CRB for trade, but adapted to recruiting mercs?

I guess that could work...

 

[Condottiere]

1. I think that titles/ranks are dependent on actual ranks achieved while in military service, especially for officers.

2. Mercenary units rarely are sized beyond reinforced company, because of human dynamics where mercenary units rely a lot more on internal cohesion, so there's more chance of disagreements within a larger organization, especially without a charismatic commander or regimental system and tradition.

3. The real fun part would be throwing a brigade together with disparate company sized units, half of which have feuds or disagreements with the other half.

 

[rancke]

1. I think that titles/ranks are dependent on actual ranks achieved while in military service, especially for officers.

So they are, though not on a one-for-one basis:

"Established conventions define the minimum rank an individual may hold based on both prior service and job description. Characters which were formerly junior officers (of rank 1 or 2) in the army or marines must at least be made non-commissioned officers (corporal or above).Characters who were formerly marine or army field grad officers (rank 3, 4 or 5) must at least be made junior officers (second lieutenant or above). Characters army or marine general officers [sic] (rank 6) must at least be made field grad officers (major or above)."

[Mercenary, p. 19-20]​

Hans