v2.0 Military Careers

[Mongoose Pete]

Starting off, its very nice to see NCO's added to the military careers. Many thanks to Mongoose Gar for his continuing efforts to please us all!

However, I do feel its a terrible shame to have messed up the elegant Skills and Training table by the addition of the extra column. Personally I'd really like to see the 'Advanced Education' table removed from each military career, and replaced with 'Officer Skills'.

My reasoning is three fold.

1) It brings the table back into line with all the other careers (i.e. 6x2) which makes it look nicer, and gives a universal feel to the document.

2) Officers are effectively the people with the advanced education. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but when I was in 6th form college (is that High School in the US?) we had a succession of military recruiters coming to the school to encourage us to join officer training programs. They wanted the best educated people they could get.

3) The current 'Service Skills' are in reality the ones that only enlisted men and NCO's learn (perhaps this should be renamed to 'Enlisted Skills'). Its the skills listed under each Specialist column which are the service skills.

That aside, the v2 rules now have a problem in that you cannot join the military as an officer without first being enlisted personnel. As I pointed out above, the majority of commissioned officers join directly from school or university, and don't serve in the rank and file first. So I would suggest that the EDU 8+ is used as the entry requirement for joining straight away as an officer. If this value is too low, then make it EDU 9+. That should keep it simple and elegant without adding any new unnecessary rules.

Finally, there is some disparity in the military 'Events' tables. Naval officers can receive a commission on an 11 or 12; Marines cannot be commissioned at all; and Army grunts get commissioned on a 12. Perhaps these could be balanced so that the commission chances are all equal?

 

[AKAramis]

Starting off, its very nice to see NCO's added to the military careers. Many thanks to Mongoose Gar for his continuing efforts to please us all!

[...]
That aside, the v2 rules now have a problem in that you cannot join the military as an officer without first being enlisted personnel. As I pointed out above, the majority of commissioned officers join directly from school or university, and don't serve in the rank and file first. So I would suggest that the EDU 8+ is used as the entry requirement for joining straight away as an officer. If this value is too low, then make it EDU 9+. That should keep it simple and elegant without adding any new unnecessary rules.

I'm one of those who feel enlisted ranks are a needless complication, or at best should add only to skill receipts, not benefits. That is, after all, how 5 other traveller editions handled it.

Likewise, not all current militaries have direct-to-officer policies.

True, most first world and second world nations do (and several have no enlisted commissioning), and it is quite possible to have a "no academies" system, with the best and brightest being made leaders of men...

And both CT and MT basic had no pre-career options. Only advanced gen provided that. TNE and T4 both did, as did T20. GURPS doesn't matter, since the mechanics are unrelated.

Which brings up another oddity...
In point buy characters, does rank carry with it the extra benefits rolls?

 

[Golan2072]

I suggest the addition of decorations to the military careers. If you roll the exact Survival number in your Survival throw, you have been wounded in action (fully treated; the military pays the whole bill) and receive a Purple Heart; if you roll a natural 12 on your Survival throw you receive a Meritorious Conduct Under Fire (MCUF) badge; if you roll a natural 12 on your Event throw (Heroism in Battle?) you receive a Medal for Conspicuous Gallantry (MCG); if you roll on the same term natural 12's on both the Survival and the Event throws, you receive a Starburst for Extreme Heroism (SEH).

 

[AKAramis]

Guys, the more detail the game carries in CGen, the less newbie and user friendly it becomes. PLEASE, don't make the core game look llike TNE++ instead of CT++

Adding decorations is needless and setting-tied details.

Adding enlisted ranks is, too, since whie the majority of the world has very similar officer rank systems, most countries have 2-5 different enlisted systems, and they are in about 10 different families, often using similar terms for different levels of authority and responsibility.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I agree. The core rule book should attempt to keep everything reasonably generic, and as accessible as possible. Keep the more detailed options for the supplements.

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Decorations might go in the expanded-chargen stuff in the supplements, but definitely not in chargen. It's already due another pruning run.

 

[Allensh]

Question: when you are comissioned as an officer do you start at Rank1? say you're in the Navy and you are a Chief Petty Officer, then you get comissioned. Do you become an Ensign? I see some of the military tables list a rank 0 for Officers...I think that's a bit odd.

Allen

 

[wlewisiii]

I am in complete agreement with Aramis here. Neither, IMO, enlisted ranks or decorations should be in the core book's chargen. Both are far too setting specific but make good fodder for the later 3I setting book.

William

 

[donm61873]

Not the first time Aramis and I have agreed out here

I agree... NCOs and decorations start breaking down what is a very clean, VERY Traveller system.

Leave the CORE clean, and add those kind of messy details later; but please keep the CORE as CT-esque as you can, while as clean as possible.

Draft 1 was frighteningly close to great on the CharGen/Skills & Tasks front.

 

[AKAramis]

Not the first time Aramis and I have agreed out here

[...]

Draft 1 was frighteningly close to great on the CharGen/Skills & Tasks front.

Hardly the first, Don...

And yes, Draft 1 Rolled CGen was just about great from my point of view.
A few little inconsistencies, but great.

 

[Exwrestler]

Im afraid I'm registering with the opposition on this one. The NCO ranks are my second favorite addition in the 2.0 (right after the equipment section).

I feel like it adds one more role play element to character generation.

 

[Allensh]

Not the first time Aramis and I have agreed out here

[...]

Draft 1 was frighteningly close to great on the CharGen/Skills & Tasks front.

Hardly the first, Don...

And yes, Draft 1 Rolled CGen was just about great from my point of view.
A few little inconsistencies, but great.

You can count me among those who agree with you. The NCO thing somewhat messes things up. I also feel that if there is going to be a Commission roll, the Rank 0 thing is unneccesary. It was a holdover from the draft with no Commission roll, and I think ranks should just start with rank 1 ala CT. More detailed systems can be added in supplements (hopefully balanced so advanced characters don't get a lot more skills than the basic ones) or just left to T5.

Allen

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Im afraid I'm registering with the opposition on this one. The NCO ranks are my second favorite addition in the 2.0 (right after the equipment section).

I feel like it adds one more role play element to character generation.

Absolutely!

From a GM's perspective... Since 90+% of the retired military personnel in the OTU are going to be ex-Enlisted/NCOs, I really do think its worthwhile having them in the core rules book! As well as players wanting the chance to play a gruff old sergeant, I'll want to generate them as NPC's without have to wait months for an additional supplement (which might not ever be written).

NCO's are a staple source of characters and encounters in most Sci-Fi games. I don't see a reason why they should be left out.

 

[SableWyvern]

An NCO fan here as well.

Given that adding NCOs requires little more than the addition of an optional commission roll and a third column on some short, previously two-column tables, I think it would be greatly remiss to have them left out just for "old-time's sake".

These aren't advanced rules allowing players to do crazy new things, they're merely representing a vast gamut of the Imperial military from whence the PCs and many of the NPCs they'll meet are drawn.

"You shouldn't be able to play a grizzled sergeant out of the box," is a concept that runs entirely contrary to the whole theme and mood of Traveller as I see it, whether that's true to the CT core rules or not.

 

[hdrider67]

An NCO fan here as well.

Given that adding NCOs requires little more than the addition of an optional commission roll and a third column on some short, previously two-column tables, I think it would be greatly remiss to have them left out just for "old-time's sake".

These aren't advanced rules allowing players to do crazy new things, they're merely representing a vast gamut of the Imperial military from whence the PCs and many of the NPCs they'll meet are drawn.

"You shouldn't be able to play a grizzled sergeant out of the box," is a concept that runs entirely contrary to the whole theme and mood of Traveller as I see it, whether that's true to the CT core rules or not.

I'm also an NCO fan. I'd make the commission role optional for my players, though. Some characters will be "work for a living" types.

 

[captainjack23]

Overall, I'm in favor of not having the enlisted ranks the way they exist. On the other hand, I also never much liked that the only way to get a second skill (in CT) was via promotion.

So, essentially, I made the promotion roll a second skill roll, and the comission roll changed you from the enlisted track to the officer track; rank went up via promotion roll, and was mainly grist for roleplaying, although bonuses for mustering out were based on that.

It would be very easy to do that in the system here, especially as different track ranks are associated with different skills. BUT it would add more rolls. Not sure if that is good or bad.

Every career would have a roll for a second skill; a comission roll, and a promotion roll to advance rank; and bonus skills at various ranks.

There is one other issue to consider, coming next post.

-Cap

 

[captainjack23]

So, it occurs to me that part of the issue is due to the very odd two-tier rank structure modern western armies are organized into, based on (IIRC) the social divisions in society...all the way back to the middle ages, I think (sergeant = commoner with armor & experience, and maybe a horse; officer = nobility/gentry, chinless or otherwise).

How hard is it to imagining that a military 3K years hence, with a major collapse between then and now, and the infusion of many other cultural forms has a different organization ? GT:IW notes that the Vilani military had a bizarre corporate matrix organization. Who knows what has developed on Vega or Sylea ?

Like say, could we have a system where the tracks are combined , enlisted ranks are the first three, and officer as the second three ?

Call it a Centurionate/Legionary model. Roman and Byzantine armies were mainly commanded by seniority from the ranks, and can hardly be said to be ineffectual.

The slots be less specific and cover a range of ranks. Using more functional names would be good, also.

Example:
rank0 Trooper
rank1 Squad commander
rank2 platoon sergeant
rank3 senior sergeant
rank4 junior officer
rank5 field officer
rank6 command officer


Even a western style officer caste has often expanded promotion from the ranks as a defacto career path; and I get the feeling that todays military is more accepting of mustangs than in my dad's day.

This version and many on this list seem willing to sciencfictionize traveller's technology away from a 1970's future model - perhaps military org should be also something other than a carbon copy of late 20th century NATO ?

-Cap

 

[SableWyvern]

I have no in-principle objections to a combined rank structure, as long as it doesn't result in a hideously compressed heirarchy in order to maintain seven discrete ranks.

 

[captainjack23]

I have no in-principle objections to a combined rank structure, as long as it doesn't result in a hideously compressed heirarchy in order to maintain seven discrete ranks.

Compresson isn't the goal - changing the focus of differentiation is.

The model suggests that the best way to rate rank in the game is the effective command level, and what demands were placed on their skill set, not just by the simple rank. Junior and senior variants within each rank are rolled together: do we really need to worry about Lt. Colonels and 2nd lieutenants ? 01,2,3 can all command a company, 05,04,03 can command battalions. 05,06,07 can command regiments,ships or brigades. etc etc.

An 05 commanding a regiment has a different set of problems than one commanding a battalion, and different again from an 06 commanding a battalion.

An example of a command level hierarchy of ranks.

Rank US(ish) military rank: size of command
R0 = grunt & senior grunt : himself, binom,fireteam*
R1 = E2,3 squad, section**
R2= E4,5,6 section, platoon, troop, gunboat**
R3 E7-8 more platoons, company, escort***
R4=E-9,O1,O2,O3 company ,small warship****
R5=O4,O5,06 battalion, regiment, warship
(independent unit level) *****
R6=O7+ stars or braid. commands multiple major units.

Less seriously,
*command radius = within walloping range
** command radius = within rock throwing range
** *command radius = within yelling distance
****within close comm link, or shooting range (as needed)
****command radius = radio, or can send a marine or xo to grab them,
***** Command radius: Artillery, orbital strike.

-Cap

 

[Halfbat]

Yeah - I'm all for separating out the bonus skill gained at the end of a survived term from anything gained from rank. It is a small departure from previous Traveller, but it does make for a more rounded character.

As for ranks, etc, I think it depends on how much the rank system is to support the classic Traveller layout / rank model (that did depend on 20th century rank models) and how much it is to move onwards. The OTU is dependent on class: maybe commission/promotion in the OTU Navy, Marines and Army should even have an alternate DM of +Social Standing.

In a different, "future" universe, maybe the rank models are changed (the number of layers, frankly, being adjusted for playability in character generation). Specific ranks can be chosen by the character as part fo background - for example, was the character on the up and dropped out due to an unfortunate circumstance (high end of the O1-3 spectrum) or was he a rider and deserved everything he got (low end)?