[Mercenary] Rank "carry-over"

[PoppySeed45]

Don't know if this was addressed before but I haven't found it so here goes:

Basically, it seems a bit silly that, say, a former Marine Captain (finishes at Rank 2 after 2 terms for example) then decides to become a Commando and comes in at rank 0.

Now, I went looking in the main book and Merc and found nothing on this. Why this...hit in rank? The only reason I can figure is that it effects something with mustering out benefits (pensions and the like?).

Otherwise, I don't understand it.

I realize that a guy moving from being a regular soldier to a merc is a career change, but I don't think former solider, especially former officers, would start at the bottom again. Maybe one rank down? Maybe a rule like former Officers start at rank two of a merc career, and enlisted start at rank 1, or at their previous rank level, whichever is lower (so, no Rank 1 Lts will be Rank 2 commandos, for example).

P.S. - oh, and first time posting here. I've just gotten a whole bunch of Traveller for Christmas and I'm quite stoked about it (have the Core, Merc, High Guard, and 760 Patrons). Lovely stuff, all around...

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I allow Rank carryover, if it makes sense in the context of that character's history. If it makes sense for the career combination, then I allow it.

For example, I had a character that spent 2 terms in the Navy and got a commision, ended as Rank 01. She then spent 1 term as a Drifter, achieving Rank 1. THEN she joined a Mercenary Group. I allowed her to keep her commission at Rank O1 from the Navy. It isn't in the books, but it made sense for that character.

 

[GamerDude]

I can see a Merc org having someone "keep" their rank when they join the organization. Maybe there is first a period of orientation and adjustment in a lower slot just to get a feel for how the organization works and the people in it, then promoting them up after this period.

For the game, that can easily be reflected by letting them have their rank for the first term as a merc since it is a four year period, more than enough for "orientation and such"

 

[PoppySeed45]

Those make sense to me. I like the book quite a bit otherwise (just read the mass combat rules last night) but this one bothered me. As I said before, I wouldn't want to unduly reward someone, but, I liked the old system in CT Mercenary where your former rank (within the expanded generation, of course) would carry-over in some fashion when you joined a merc group (so a former 04 might end up as a low ranking officer with mercs; a former lieutenant would end up somewhere in the mid to high enlisted ranks, etc).

I know this would be harder to codify for MongTrav with it's mixed rank tables (some being a straight 0-6, the military ones being different). So, yeah, just wondering if anyone had devised a system for it other than eyeballing it - which is what will probably end up happening anyway.

 

[kristof65]

I noticed issues with ranks in High Guard as well. My complaint was slightly different:

With only one advancement per 4 year term, it seems the quickest anyone can get from E1 to E9 is with a 36 year (9 terms) career. I only found one event that gave an automatic promotion (I admit I only skimmed though). In the US Navy, it's not uncommon for guys to make E7 in around 15 years - less than four terms, but by HG promotion standards, they shouldn't be more than E4 at that time.

Considering the different rates at which different services promote, this seemed a little off. I've been thinking about different ways to handle it that won't skew things too badly.

Right now my thoughts are to allow two advancement rolls the first two terms, plus change any event that gives a +DM to the next advancement roll into an additional advancement roll (with no DM).


As for Rank carryover between services - I'm going to handle it on a case by case basis. Even in today's world it's too dependent on many factors - I've seen guys switch branches of the service with no loss in rank, others start back at the bottom, and still others lose a rank or two.

Some of the factors to consider:

-what service are they coming from/going to? A planetary army isn't likely to accept a subsector navy rank at face value, while a merc company might value that particular army's personnel and accept them at their current rank.

-what career specialty/skills do they have? An Imperial Navy tech with high scores in communications systems might be just what that planetary marine force needs as a liason between them and their planetary navy, thus willing to grant their existing rank to him, despite all other factors.

-how long its been between the two services. For every term not in the military, I feel at least one rank should be lost. I was E6 when I got out 18 years ago, I'm definitely not current enough to go right back in at my former rate, however, I there is no way I'm "lesser" than a guy currently at E3-E4 in my old rating.

- and in Traveller, Tech Level. A soldier used to handling TL9-10 weapons may have issues handling TL13-14 ones - and vice versa, especially for careers like ship's engineer.

 

[GypsyComet]

- and in Traveller, Tech Level. A soldier used to handling TL9-10 weapons may have issues handling TL13-14 ones - and vice versa, especially for careers like ship's engineer.

There might be an issue in that range, but the established setting assumes a baseline TL12 across the Imperium with the Imperial Navy using higher tech. As such, I would expect a Navy trained engineer to be comfortable at TL12-15, grousing about "primitive hunk of junk" aside. He's going to have more problems with alien drives built with different languages, cultural assumptions, and ergonomic and safety standards than he is used to. By comparison, a TL11 or 12 fusion plant in an old Free Trader may be older tech, but its still *Imperial*.

 

[kristof65]

It was just an example to make the point. Here in the real world, the US Navy actually has a very wide range of tech through out it's fleet. But what happens is that you end up with "specialists" - people who are more familiar with the older or newer equipment, and unless they get training for different stuff, they will end up jumping between commands that have the equipment they are familiar with.

There is a common misconception that going backwards in tech is more comfortable than going forward. This is not always true - a good example is connecting to the internet - how many of today's teenager's who are used to broadband, always on internet can actually get connected via dial up, or even more dramatic, to a BBS with a terminal emulator? If they're willing to set aside "modern" notions, and learn, most can, but most of them will gripe about it, and a lot will give up, deciding "it isn't worth it."

In some fields, the tech is basic enough that understand new tech can help you with old tech - internal combustion engines come to mind. In other fields, things are completely different - ask a pinball technician if there is a cut-off to how old of a machine they'll work on voluntarily - most of the younger ones will say nothing prior to 1980 or so, about the time pinball switched from mechanical to electronic.

I would never use TL as a pure baseline for determining penalty for rank though - as I mentioned, it's pretty much a case by case basis, and hopefully the PCs skill set and player's input can help work out a sensible solution.

 

[PoppySeed45]

With only one advancement per 4 year term, it seems the quickest anyone can get from E1 to E9 is with a 36 year (9 terms) career. I only found one event that gave an automatic promotion (I admit I only skimmed though). In the US Navy, it's not uncommon for guys to make E7 in around 15 years - less than four terms, but by HG promotion standards, they shouldn't be more than E4 at that time.

Right now my thoughts are to allow two advancement rolls the first two terms, plus change any event that gives a +DM to the next advancement roll into an additional advancement roll (with no DM).


As for Rank carryover between services - I'm going to handle it on a case by case basis. Even in today's world it's too dependent on many factors - I've seen guys switch branches of the service with no loss in rank, others start back at the bottom, and still others lose a rank or two.

Some of the factors to consider:

-what service are they coming from/going to? A planetary army isn't likely to accept a subsector navy rank at face value, while a merc company might value that particular army's personnel and accept them at their current rank.

-what career specialty/skills do they have? An Imperial Navy tech with high scores in communications systems might be just what that planetary marine force needs as a liason between them and their planetary navy, thus willing to grant their existing rank to him, despite all other factors.

-how long its been between the two services. For every term not in the military, I feel at least one rank should be lost. I was E6 when I got out 18 years ago, I'm definitely not current enough to go right back in at my former rate, however, I there is no way I'm "lesser" than a guy currently at E3-E4 in my old rating.

- and in Traveller, Tech Level. A soldier used to handling TL9-10 weapons may have issues handling TL13-14 ones - and vice versa, especially for careers like ship's engineer.

All good stuff here, though I worry that making the advancement rolls more frequently for enlisted with make those characters more attractive than, say, nobles. What I mean is, assuming there's an advantage for being an enlisted in a military service, from a game view, it makes sense to be one of those (and get more ranks and therefore chances for skills and mustering out benefits) than a "civilian" career.

Otherwise, the tables for Naval advancement in HG bothered me too. I like what the book does for officers (though I don't know if some of the "you can jump ranks by switching arms" thing is good) but seems to screw enlisted unless they stay in forever.

That said, if the ranks had stayed the European way, i.e., just six ranks, then there'd be no worries. A British Army sergeant and an American Army sergeant are two different things. Sort of. I don't know why Mongoose decided to keep the regular system from the main book in Mercenary (while expanding some tables for Army/Marine characters) but to go for this expanded thing in HG. Is mystery.

 

[kristof65]

All good stuff here, though I worry that making the advancement rolls more frequently for enlisted with make those characters more attractive than, say, nobles. What I mean is, assuming there's an advantage for being an enlisted in a military service, from a game view, it makes sense to be one of those (and get more ranks and therefore chances for skills and mustering out benefits) than a "civilian" career.

True enough. Not that I would mind a campaign where the pc's are all ex-Navy, but something to consider.

My other thought to "fix" it, at least for my campaign, was to keep the rules the same, but change the length of a term to 2 or 3 years instead of 4. This would give younger, relatively more powerful PCs - not sure if I'm ok with that.

 

[PoppySeed45]

I believe somewhere on here I read that for a particular game someone cut the terms to two years, which of course made characters younger (so no aging rolls) but that also means more dangers (more rolls on the survival and mishap tables maybe).

I wonder about it myself...

 

[lurker]

I noticed issues with ranks in High Guard as well. My complaint was slightly different:

With only one advancement per 4 year term, it seems the quickest anyone can get from E1 to E9 is with a 36 year (9 terms) career. In the US Navy, it's not uncommon for guys to make E7 in around 15 years - less than four terms, but by HG promotion standards, they shouldn't be more than E4 at that time.

Considering the different rates at which different services promote, this seemed a little off. I've been thinking about different ways to handle it that won't skew things too badly.

Right now my thoughts are to allow two advancement rolls the first two terms, plus change any event that gives a +DM to the next advancement roll into an additional advancement roll (with no DM).

See http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/nlnavypromotion.htm

Consulting the link, a person in the navy could make E5 in 4 years. This would be 4 promotions in one traveller term.

To make E6 or higher takes 3 years MINIMUM (without special events) per advancement. This is fairly close to the 4 years per advancement Traveller has.

In traveller, promotions include additional skills and benefits. Somehow you need to balance your need for the Navy of the future to have ranks and promotions similar to todays system with a balanced game character generation system for characters in the far future.

Personally, I can role play that jump drives, grav plates, and other things exists. I also can role play that the Imperial Navy (and other careers) has a rank structure where promotions are determined based on 4 year terms.

I do not have high guard and I'm basing statements only on the current USN and the Traveller core rule book character generation.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Just allow extra advancement rolls, but don't give them extra skill rolls. So, for your first term, you can roll for advancement every year, but even if you make all four, you only get 1 skill.

NOW, make those early ranks only worth one rank on the benefits table.

So, E1-E4 counts as Rank 1, etc.

 

[kristof65]

See http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/nlnavypromotion.htm

Consulting the link, a person in the navy could make E5 in 4 years. This would be 4 promotions in one traveller term.

To make E6 or higher takes 3 years MINIMUM (without special events) per advancement. This is fairly close to the 4 years per advancement Traveller has.

In traveller, promotions include additional skills and benefits. Somehow you need to balance your need for the Navy of the future to have ranks and promotions similar to todays system with a balanced game character generation system for characters in the far future.

Personally, I can role play that jump drives, grav plates, and other things exists. I also can role play that the Imperial Navy (and other careers) has a rank structure where promotions are determined based on 4 year terms.

I do not have high guard and I'm basing statements only on the current USN and the Traveller core rule book character generation.

Oh, I know what the US Navy minimums are (or were) very well. Why? Because I made E6 nearly at the minimum - in 6 years, 2 months, which is only 2 months longer than the absolute minimum. My Captain was very sorry to see me leave the navy, because I was in line to make E7 that rapidly, too, which would have looked good for him, too.

My need for the more rapid advancement at lower levels isn't so much based on my real world experience of how quickly I made rate, but the fact that large organizations like that need a decent "middle management". The bulk of military people are one or two termers. If someone sticks it out until their third term, they're likely to stick around for a couple more until retirement.

The bulk of your military also needs to be E4-E5 or below. With people sticking around 1-2 terms, and Traveller's HG Navy advancement scheme, that leaves the impression of a distinct shortage of E4-E5 types within the HG rules.

Even in the USAF, which has a much slower advancement rate than the US Navy, the bulk of your guys getting out after their first or second term are E3, possible even E4.

Something else to consider - certain fields within the Navy have bigger personnel retention issues than the Navy at large, therefore have more rapid advancement. It's not because because the job in the Navy sucks, but because those fields are in high demand outside of the Navy. After the first or second term, it's far more lucrative to move to a civilian career than stick around in the Navy. For a lot of planetary navys, this is going to be the same case - the Navy will have the best training in certain fields, and the civilian market for those skills will far outstrip the navy's ability to retain those personnel - again, leading to a shortage of middle management types.

That's my issue with the system. Of course, being former Navy myself, I have been far more interested in the HG book than the Mercenary book. I haven't looked at Mercenary as much, but it sounds like they kept a rank structure there that doesn't have the same issue.

 

[Sturn]

I've done lots of house-rules for the character generation, wish I could share my version of the MGT character creation chapter.

These are my ranks for enlisted Army, for example:

0. Private
1. Corporal (team level)
2. Sergeant (squad)
3. Platoon Sergeant (platoon)
4. First Sergeant (company)
5. Sergeant Major (battalion)
5. Command Sergeant Major (brigade+)

I made Sergeant in less then 4 years in the Army, less then 1 term, but that wasn't typical, I had a prior BS degree. Above ranks still not close, but better.

I think some of the problems with the Merc careers are that there are too many new careers that should be specialties. Lots of that stuff could have been added as specialties to the current careers already in the core book. As in Cadre and Commando. Those by their nature should be specialties in careers such as the Army or Marines, not completely new careers. MGT seems to think they must stick to 3 specialties per career, so you end up with some wacky specialties that are basically the same thing as each other (look under Cadre, seems designer had to stretch to get 3) and you have careers that need more specialties then just 3, but the designer had to stop.

My house-ruled MGT character creation system has added specialties to many careers such as Army, Navy, and Marines which cover some of the careers in Merc. For example, my Army career has specilties of Artillery, Infantry, Support, Cavalry, Commando, and Medic (thinking of adding Command).

My Mercenary career uses a non-officer rank system (like scouts). Prior military enlisted rank is dropped by 2 when entering the Mercs, prior officers keep their rank, but their commission is removed. Merc career requirements suggest most are already veterans from prior armed service, which is how I think it should be.

Mercenary Ranks
0. Troop
1. Corporal (team leader)
2. Sergeant (squad)
3. Lieutenant (platoon)
4. Captain (company)
5. Colonel (battalion)
6. Commander (large merc unit leader)

My Mercenary career specialties currently include Armor, Flyer, Trooper, and Striker. Thinking of adding Support and Command.

Characters can easily switch between specialties they qualify for within a career in my modified MGT cg system.