Author Topic: Campaign Operations Pay Scales  (Read 1031 times)

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #30 on: 27 December 2017, 14:53:16 »
Yeah, there should be some gradation between 1 and 4...

Yeah I'm inclined to agree since AToW does indicate that Rank 1 is supposed to be the Recruit/Trainee rank and Rank 2+ is supposed to be actually in service.  Should be a little something to make going up the initial ranks worth while.

Pay raises start at E4/O1.

Not with what I was proposing.

That said I'm not sure there is an easy answer.

boilerman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 687
  • Spinning wrenches since 1968.
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #31 on: 27 December 2017, 15:22:52 »
I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be, but to each their own.
Avatar by Wombat. Thanks Wombat!

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5567
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #32 on: 27 December 2017, 16:16:52 »
I know the "+1" is in the rank formula in the CO salary table on p25 but I've always thought it was a typo. If it is there intentionally then why have the "minimum 1" statement?

I improvised a bit on CO's rank equation to try to address not knowing the rank of everyone on the TO&E and, separately, trying not to penalize the lower ranks with the rank multiplier. That led to the +1 and "minimum 1." It appears not to have worked perfectly.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading." --Thomas Jefferson, or not

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #33 on: 27 December 2017, 16:59:00 »
Ok, time for some algebra.

We know we want Rank 1 to yield the base pay (a multiplier of 1).  We want the steps to either be 1/3 or 1/6 (and easily changed between the two if we decide to use AToW different multipliers for Enlisted and Officer).

So:
Pay at Rank (1) = Base x (1 + 0/Divisor)
Pay at Rank (2) = Base x (1 + 1/Divisor)
Pay at Rank (3) = Base x (1 + 2/Divisor)
etc.

Therefore, the formula should be:
Pay at Rank (X) = Base x (1 + (X-1)/Divisor)

Or just for the multiplier: (Rank TP-1)/Divisor + 1
No need for a "minimum" statement, as the "+1" takes care of that.  The officer multiplier is still separate, and either 3 or 6 works for a divisor.  It just depends on how easy you want to make the math to do mentally (which honestly begs for something other than a factor of 3; why not 4?).

boilerman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 687
  • Spinning wrenches since 1968.
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #34 on: 27 December 2017, 17:37:22 »
Which means your lowest ranking soldier in a regular outfit, whatever that is, is either making 1.33 or 1.67 times base pay, depending on the divisor. E3 is lowest ranking soldier in a line outfit, finished basic and individual training, grunt in the line outfit.
In my opinion base pay is for the grunt in the line outfit, not the raw recruit.
Avatar by Wombat. Thanks Wombat!

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #35 on: 27 December 2017, 17:49:22 »
If we want to peg the base to E3, then we can simply introduce a bigger subtraction, and accept paying less than the base to recruits.  The Companion does state that E2 can also be "Troopers", but that doesn't mean they should be the base.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #36 on: 27 December 2017, 18:13:35 »
Which is part of what I think we need to establish, what is the base pay and who should it be for.

Personally I'd make the base salary be truly the base salary and never have to work down, otherwise it ceases being the base salary to my mind.

But I also want to reconcile all this with cray's desire to re-write as little of Campaign Operations as possible.

E3 may be the lowest ranking soldier in a real world line unit but Battletech seems to think that can actually be an E2.

So I think Dayrk's equation works.  6 as the divisor would require the least editing of AToW's pay examples and pay table and should also allow the least editing of Campaign Operations.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #37 on: 27 December 2017, 18:17:21 »
6 for Enlisted, or Enlisted and Officer?  Leaving it 3 for Officers means not having to errata AToW...

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #38 on: 27 December 2017, 18:38:47 »
Wow that is a tough call.

Leaving Officer 3 would make it a bit harder to go from AToW to CamOps but making it 6 would require rewriting a portion of AToW as you'd have to add the 1.2 multiplier.

Both 3 would require even more errata.

Unless I'm missing something both being 6 seems to result in the fewest issues and the least errata.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #39 on: 27 December 2017, 19:24:58 »
I suspect Cray is in the best position to make that call.  While it would be more work for him to leave the AToW 3/6 piece in place, it would mean not having to bother Paul with changing AToW...
« Last Edit: 28 December 2017, 01:07:39 by Daryk »

boilerman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 687
  • Spinning wrenches since 1968.
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #40 on: 27 December 2017, 23:27:53 »
If you are interested attached are pay multiplier comparisons.
I compared AToW salary formula as written, CO formula with a divisor of 3 and CO formula ignoring the plus 1. Experience multipliers are included. And in the case of CO comparisons the officer multiplier is included.
I provided the workbook so you can check my work. The excel file is 97-2003.
Avatar by Wombat. Thanks Wombat!

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #41 on: 28 December 2017, 01:13:18 »
In the workbook, I see your AToW multipliers are adding the experience level vice multiplying... I don't think that's right...

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #42 on: 28 December 2017, 01:59:25 »
The example in AToW seems to support adding the experience modifier with the rank modifier then multiplying the salary.

Meanwhile Campaign Operations seems to support the idea of keeping them separate.

Oy.

boilerman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 687
  • Spinning wrenches since 1968.
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #43 on: 28 December 2017, 02:10:29 »
AToW clearly says add the multipliers, p335.
Avatar by Wombat. Thanks Wombat!

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #44 on: 28 December 2017, 08:51:03 »
The difference in procedure might be due to that pesky "+1"... Cray, can you confirm?

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5567
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #45 on: 28 December 2017, 14:55:47 »
The example in AToW seems to support adding the experience modifier with the rank modifier then multiplying the salary.

Meanwhile Campaign Operations seems to support the idea of keeping them separate.

And...

The difference in procedure might be due to that pesky "+1"... Cray, can you confirm?

The difference stems from more than that. ATOW and CO weren't coordinated well. I had written CO with older Merc SBs as references and had ATOW pointed out to me after - IIRC - CO beta testing was done, so I only borrowed some salary data from ATOW, not the ATOW formulas. Then ATOW wasn't errata'd because I didn't point out the difference. So, if you see a difference between the two then that's not a result of clever thinking on my part, but a bug that needs fixing.

Rather than trying to fix both books simultaneously, let's start with CO on a clean slate approach. ATOW can follow if needed.

CO needs:
1) All troops treated as rank 1 by default, not rankless
2) Base rank salary multiplier of 1

Daryk is suggesting:
Rank multiplier: [(Rank TP-1)/Divisor] + 1

And the various multipliers would be added together before multiplying the base salary.

Does that work?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading." --Thomas Jefferson, or not

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #46 on: 28 December 2017, 14:59:04 »
I think Monbvol and I are on board with that, but Boilerman suggested that E-3 should be base rank for troops in an active unit (as opposed to a trainee).  That would simply mean E-1 and E-2 pay is slightly below the base.  I think that could work, but we should have consensus before going forward.  There's also the matter of deciding on the divisor.  AToW used 6 for Enlisted and 3 for Officer.  CO used 3 for both.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #47 on: 28 December 2017, 15:55:59 »
The only real problem I have with adding experience then multiplying is it may result in salaries too high to sustain.  Especially for Infantry formations.

As far as the base is concerned my mind wants to demand that the base be something you work up from and never down.

Now to sort out what the divisor should be.

What would be most internally consistent would be Officer doubles Rank and off set Daryk's -1 then divide by 6.  Results in no errata to AToW(unless you want the Skill Multipliers to match CamOps) but a lot of re-working CamOps examples.

That way an E5 Regular Mechwarrior would be paid 4/6(Rank - 1) + 1 * 1500 = 2,500.
O2 Regular Mechwarrior would then be paid 10/6(Rank*2) + 1 *1500 = 4000(the 5 c-bill difference from AToW's example is due to rounding of the Rank multiplier and thus I think close enough).

Ultimately I'm not sure I can get it more consistent than that.

boilerman

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 687
  • Spinning wrenches since 1968.
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #48 on: 28 December 2017, 16:01:49 »
CO needs:
1) All troops treated as rank 1 by default, not rankless
2) Base rank salary multiplier of 1
Part 1 - what qualifies as rank 1?
Ignore trait points for the moment. Most real world soldiers/sailors wouldn't consider you a real soldier/sailor until you are out of boot camp. As I've said I think the real rank 1 is E3/O1. They makeup the majority of any military.

Part 2 - with or without quality/experience multiplier?
Base pay by AToW is a regular quality soldier. If I remember correctly it's always been regular soldier, lowest rank gets 100 percent base pay.. Adding the rank multiplier and quality/experience multiplier doesn't make any sense to me.

I still think it best to ignore the +1 and just divide rank trait points by 3. I would delete the minimum 1 too. I would also multiply rank and quality/experience multipliers but I would match CO quality/experience multipliers to AToW.

My 2 cents.
« Last Edit: 28 December 2017, 16:04:59 by boilerman »
Avatar by Wombat. Thanks Wombat!

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #49 on: 28 December 2017, 17:07:39 »
Part 1 - what qualifies as rank 1?
Ignore trait points for the moment. Most real world soldiers/sailors wouldn't consider you a real soldier/sailor until you are out of boot camp. As I've said I think the real rank 1 is E3/O1. They makeup the majority of any military.

It is less about what other soldier and sailors considering you and what the bean counters pay you.  Now sure the US Army doesn't give a pay raise until E4 anyway but Battletech isn't the modern US Army.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #50 on: 28 December 2017, 20:37:35 »
Ok, after a four-hour drive that was supposed to take three...

First of all, real world pay charts do in fact differentiate between E-1/2/3/4.  Recruits get paid less, and troops in active service can be busted back to E-1 for disciplinary/legal reasons, but Boilerman is correct that most troops in active service are at least E-3.

Based on that, I can buy the argument that we should normalize the base pay to what a trooper on active duty makes.  Using a divisor of 6 for Enlisted would mean an E-1 trainee would make 2/3 of base pay.  I think I'm ok with that, even when the Green experience multiplier is factored in.  So for Enlisted, the formula would be:

((Rank TP-3)/6 + 1) x base

Using Enlisted ranks equal to Trait Points invested results in:
E-1: 4/6 base pay
E-2: 5/6 base pay
E-3: Base pay
E-4: 7/6 base pay
E-5: 8/6 base pay
E-6: 9/6 base pay
E-7: 10/6 base pay

Now, for officers, I recommend keeping the multiplier at 3 to align with AToW.  I also recommend using the Rank-3 factor to minimize the differences with the Enlisted formula.  That also leaves the door open for Warrant ranks, and can provide "MechWarriors" who make the base pay multiplied by only the officer multiplier.  Trait point-wise, the Companion set up is that 1 or 2 TP yield no officer rank, and I can live with that.  The formula would be:

((Rank TP-3)/3 +1) x base pay x 1.2

Yielding:
"O-0" (Warrant): Base Pay x 1.2 (which is slightly less than an E-5)
O-1: 4/3 base pay x 1.2
O-2: 5/3 base pay x 1.2
O-3: 6/3 base pay x 1.2
O-4: 7/3 base pay x 1.2
etc.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #51 on: 28 December 2017, 21:22:56 »
Well my mind does rebel at the idea of working down but I think I can get over that if we can find something that is consistent and doesn't result in a lot of errata.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #52 on: 11 January 2018, 20:45:32 »
So just to give myself some idea of what kind of forces a Property can afford I did some math and thought about sharing the results here.

But when I got here I found myself at something of an impasse.  On the one hand I'm battling with my more detail obsessed nature that demands realism be respected and that ranks should be incorporated in the process of determining salaries but the side of me that remembers how quickly burnout can set in if tracking too much detail can set in and thus wants to keep things simpler and easier to run through is making me question just how much of an issue is really present while asking how much do we really need to change.

So yeah I think re-wording the whole only if Rank is known line in CamOps to be clearer that rank is being ignored and only the officer modifier is being applied for obvious officers and unifying the salary modifiers and how they work would be best while adopting Daryk's formula.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3993
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #53 on: 11 January 2018, 21:28:06 »
Something I discovered recently that may or may not impact our calculations here...

The real world US military pay chart has a pay ratio of about 10.5 between E-1 (under four months) and O-10 (with 40+ years).

My proposed formula sets that ratio a little shy of 8 (without referring to the above until now), so there may be scope for further tweaking...

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8817
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: Campaign Operations Pay Scales
« Reply #54 on: 12 January 2018, 00:14:27 »
I'm not sure that is a problem.  As I have said Battletech isn't the modern military, specifically the modern US military.  Things can change in that time frame, let alone it being a fictional setting.

Heck with what I've seen suggested for how many US dollars you can get for 1 C-Bill it might actually be better to be a Battletech military person. ;D

 

Register