Campaign Operations Pay Scales

[Daryk]

Based on a discussion between Monbvol, Cray, and me, we thought it would be useful to widen discussion of the issue of base pay and Rank as outlined in Campaign Operations (pages 24-25).

The problem, as I see it, is that the chart in Campaign Operations, and all the supporting examples, use the base pay without modifiers for Rank with the sole exception of "Officer".  That seems to imply that the majority of personnel in a unit are Rank "0", whatever that means.

As written, the current formula for pay basically means a Rank 1 trooper would receive 750 (the base pay for an infantry trooper) x 1.33 (which is Rank/3 + 1), or 1,000 C-Bills per month.  Again, all of the examples presented in the book don't do this.  The formula also lacks guidance on rounding, but any rounding at all would impose unreasonable steps in the pay system (i.e., Rank 2, 3, and 4 personnel would all receive double the pay of a Rank 1 trooper, with no differentiation between them).

My initial proposal is to align Rank 1 pay with the base pay by imposing a -1 to the Rank trait in the formula.  This is only a first approximation, but it could work.

[monbvol]

It is something of a procedural question I think at this point.

If the intention is to allow a Rank "0" then that entry at he bottom of the table on page 25 needs a bit of a note or the examples need to mention this is the intention a bit better as it is a bit confusing.

As far as the pay scale and potential issues with how fast pay rises I'm still doing a bit of math on it but so far as an example based on Campaign Operations page 25 as it currently stands chart and using A Time of War's Rank entry as a guide I'm coming up with a Regular Foot Infantry Squad would be an Enlisted 6 making 2,250 C-Bills a month, a Squad Second as either an E5/E4 making 2,000(E5)/1,750(E4) a month, and 5 E2s pulling a subtotal of 6,250 C-bills a month (1,250 individually) for a final total of 10,500/10,250 C-Bills a month in salaries.

I'm mostly worried that for Infantry because of how they are organized will have far more expensive salaries than may be intended if using detailed Rank tracking.

[Daryk]

Excellent points, and the only thing I'd add to them is that infantry are set to be the most expensive part of any force before adding in any rank modifiers at all, so the rank problem only makes that worse (MUCH worse).

[monbvol]

*nod*

Digging into it a touch more Vehicles have two advantages as far as I can tell.  There are no guidelines about when, or even if, with their variable crew sizes they should get a Squad Second, and the aforementioned variable crew sizes.  So by all available guidelines a player who does want to use detailed Ranks could take a Behemoth and staff it with an E6 and 6 E2s to save themselves some salary expenses.

[Daryk]

Advantages over infantry, certainly, but 'mechs will always win the salary race, even with full tech support.  AsTechs are just too cheap compared to infantry troopers, and Techs are only barely more expensive.

[boilerman]

The problem, as I see it, is that the chart in Campaign Operations, and all the supporting examples, use the base pay without modifiers for Rank with the sole exception of "Officer".  That seems to imply that the majority of personnel in a unit are Rank "0", whatever that means.

If you are using the rank as setup by the Rank trait in AToW then the majority of personnel in a unit are not Rank E0. They are Rank E1, E2, or E3 by the time they make it to a combat unit. Rank E0 should only apply in bootcamp, or maybe during the first school after boot.

*nod*

Digging into it a touch more Vehicles have two advantages as far as I can tell.  There are no guidelines about when, or even if, with their variable crew sizes they should get a Squad Second, and the aforementioned variable crew sizes.  So by all available guidelines a player who does want to use detailed Ranks could take a Behemoth and staff it with an E6 and 6 E2s to save themselves some salary expenses.

Which is why unit/crew quality is the so important in the BT universe. My own experience, both real world military and BT universe accounting with spreadsheets, suggests to me that unit/crew quality in the best way in BT to account for rank. Mercenaries are paid for their skills so I don't think they care much about rank. Regular soldier's pay is set by rules written by bean counters at General HQ and those salaries do not come out of the unit's budget so why bother?

[monbvol]

If you are using the rank as setup by the Rank trait in AToW then the majority of personnel in a unit are not Rank E0. They are Rank E1, E2, or E3 by the time they make it to a combat unit. Rank E0 should only apply in bootcamp, or maybe during the first school after boot.

Which is the inconsistent part that both I and Daryk have pointed out.

Which is why unit/crew quality is the so important in the BT universe. My own experience, both real world military and BT universe accounting with spreadsheets, suggests to me that unit/crew quality in the best way in BT to account for rank. Mercenaries are paid for their skills so I don't think they care much about rank. Regular soldier's pay is set by rules written by bean counters at General HQ and those salaries do not come out of the unit's budget so why bother?

Mercs do have rank structures and A Time of War page 335 specifically states that standing armies always pay their troops as if they were Regular.  So quite clearly position and skill are two different things as far as who gets paid how much.  It has been that way for a while now in Battletech.

As to why bother?  I'm concerned with working this out because I'm trying to bridge the gap between A Time of War characters and some of the more strategic game forms.  So basically a player can be the bean counter and figuring out what they can get to defend their landhold.  A Time of War Companion spells out how to figure out your budget and makes it pretty clear that as an example Anywhere is expected to raise and pay for it's own local militia without help from Tharkad.  Campaign Operations rules can cover government forces too, not just mercs.

[boilerman]

Which is the inconsistent part that both I and Daryk have pointed out.

What's inconsistent about it?

Mercs do have rank structures and A Time of War page 335 specifically states that standing armies always pay their troops as if they were Regular.  So quite clearly position and skill are two different things as far as who gets paid how much.  It has been that way for a while now in Battletech.

Of course skill and rank are two different things and mercs have a rank structure, but for the most part their pay is based on the skills they bring to the fight.

As to why bother?  I'm concerned with working this out because I'm trying to bridge the gap between A Time of War characters and some of the more strategic game forms.  So basically a player can be the bean counter and figuring out what they can get to defend their landhold.  A Time of War Companion spells out how to figure out your budget and makes it pretty clear that as an example Anywhere is expected to raise and pay for it's own local militia without help from Tharkad.  Campaign Operations rules can cover government forces too, not just mercs.

Good luck trying to bridge the gap, they're two different systems that were not designed to connect.

I have looked at basing salary on AToW rank for my TOE spreadsheet, I was never satisfied with the results. Of course I'm a veteran so I compared it to the real world, which was probably a mistake. Over the years I've found that fine granularity in BT isn't worth it. Detailed pay for the player characters makes for interesting role-playing opportunities but for the masses is just a headache. But to each their own. Good luck.

[Daryk]

What's inconsistent about it?
*snip*

That all the examples in the book seem to use "Rank 0" personnel.  Even a Rank 1 trooper would be paid more than the "base salary", which is all that the examples use (with the sole exception of the Officer multiplier, but even that seems to assume a "Rank 0" officer).

Fundamentally, my position has always been that NPCs are people too.  Every member of a unit is going to have a rank, and it will only be "0" for recruits in accession training (as you pointed out).

[monbvol]

Pirates and Clans I would expect to be exempt from these rules for hopefully pretty obvious reasons.

Sure Mercs get paid for the skills they bring to the table but I would also expect that to include the ability of unit leaders being able to keep a bunch of other guys who may not have the same backgrounds, training, and cultures in line and a cohesive fighting force to be part of that.  Which the only mechanic we have to represent that easily is Rank.  After all only the Clans decide who is in charge by whoever is better at killing people or at least beating them up.

As far as bridging the gap I think it is possible, especially if we do remember Battletech is not real life.  For one there does not seem to be the concept of hazard pay.  Likewise concepts like flight time and flight pay for pilots seem to be built into their base salary.  There are also certain military honors in the real world that come with cash bonuses or perks that Battletech has never mentioned either.

Now I do think AToW's divide Rank by 6 to determine pay multiplier might actually give more even and usable results.

[Daryk]

I just found the revised language about Ranks in the AToW Companion, and my head is about to explode:

Zero-Level Ranks and Trait Costs:
As with the basic Rank Trait shown in A Time of War, the costs (in Trait Points) for each of these ranks remains equivalent to the numerical value of the listed rank level, with a rank of O3 or E3 costing 3 TPs each. (Officer ranks, designated by an “O”, also require that the character either hail from the Clans, or possess the entire Officer Skill Field). The zero-level ranks for both officer and enlisted grades are a new addition, however. These ranks nominally reflect characters who are either still undergoing training or who have been awarded a provisional or minimal level of authority. Possessing these ranks still requires the full training prerequisites for a 1-TP level of that rank’s grade (or 3-TP, plus Officer Training Field for O-0 ranks), but at character creation, these minimal ranks may be purchased as a special 0.5-TP Rank Trait (worth 50 XP) for E0 (3-TP Rank, worth 300 XP, for O-0).

At this point, I have no idea if 3 TP and the Officer Training Field means an O-3, or an O-0 since the excerpt above says both.  The table in AToW lists O-3 as costing 6 Trait Points, not 3.  I'm inclined to believe AToW vice the Companion on this one, but I haven't seen any errata or rules questions on it.  If we agree it's a problem, I'll post an errata for it.

As far as the Campaign Ops pay formula, the +1 really jacks up salaries.  For example, an E-5 has a multiplier of 2.66 (5/3+1).  Assuming 3 TP really is O-0, that multiplier would only be 2.4 ((3/3+1)x1.2 for being an officer).  Since E-5 is the minimum for enlisted MechWarriors, it seems to be more economical to make them Warrant Officers (O-0).  I think AToW and the Companion missed an opportunity by leaving out Warrants.

EDIT: I just posted the errata entry up in that sub-forum (26DEC17).

[monbvol]

To be honest how Rank is so inconsistently handled and lack of frameworks/incentives are part of the reason I've written some of the House Rules I have.

I think part of the problem is how the chart is arranged in AToW and the language is confusing the matter worse in Companion.

Certainly something to bring to the attention of the writers to see if they can sort out the mess.

I know I'm certainly of a mind to say no Rank 0.

[monbvol]

Okay did some quick math to try and resolve some of these issues.

Rank/6+1 actually works much better I think.  It pretty much ensures an Officer is going to get paid more.

E10 Mechwarrior will get paid 4,000 C-Bills a month under this math while an O1(Rank 4/6+1+1.2) Will get paid 4,300 a month.

A much better comparison I think.

[Daryk]

Uh, it's not +1.2, it x1.2.  That would mean:

E10: (10/6 + 1) x 1,500 = 4,000

O1: (4/6 + 1) x 1.2 x 1,500 = 3,000

That's not necessarily a problem, though, as:

E5: (5/6 + 1) x 1,500 = 2,750

A real pay chart (like this one from 2016), has O-1s making a bit more than E-5s until about the 8 year mark.

[monbvol]

I'm really starting to dislike these Campaign Operations upkeep shenannigans.

[Daryk]

Amen, brother!  And Merry Christmas, should I get too wrapped up in wrapping gifts later...  ::)

[monbvol]

What would clear it up is if at least one example did deal with Ranks for everybody.

And I'll probably be off an on until sometime tomorrow afternoon but a Merry Christmas to you too in case things go awry.

[cray]

I know I'm certainly of a mind to say no Rank 0.

Agreed. That just borks every TO&E ever. CO will need to regain ranks, like "default 1."

Whatever changes emerge here, I'd also not like to have to rewrite all the TO&Es and examples in CO. But if something simpler comes up that reduces headaches in the long run, it can happen.

[Daryk]

Thanks for weighing in here Cray!

I see that side of the argument, but I still think an opportunity was missed for Warrant ranks.  They exist in the real world for good reasons (see US Army helicopter pilots).  Real world militaries have been tinkering with the specifics for decades though, so they're not as clear cut as the "regular" officer and enlisted ranks (e.g., US Navy Warrant Officers are completely different than their Army counterparts).

[monbvol]

*nod*

That section of AToW Companion I wouldn't mind going away is more what I mean but yeah it is a bit of a question on how to handle.

I do think the easy option would be as Daryk suggests.  Rank 1 doesn't modify the pay any and can gloss over needing other Ranks in the examples.

[idea weenie]

I see that side of the argument, but I still think an opportunity was missed for Warrant ranks.  They exist in the real world for good reasons (see US Army helicopter pilots).  Real world militaries have been tinkering with the specifics for decades though, so they're not as clear cut as the "regular" officer and enlisted ranks (e.g., US Navy Warrant Officers are completely different than their Army counterparts).

How about this for Warrant ranks:
Take their existing Enlisted Ranks, and use that for payroll, then add a single officer Rank (shown as Rank 0 to reflect that it doesn't get the full multiplier) to the income multiplier.

So most of their income would come from their time as an enlisted, but they get the slight officer income bonus.

So if a Warrant officer is listed as:
Enlisted Rank 7
Officer Rank 0

The income would be calculated using Darryk's equations above as:
(7/6+1) + (1/6+0)*1.2
13/6 + 1.2/6
14.2/6
2+2.2/6

As each Enlisted Rank is replaced by an Officer Rank, the pay could change as:
(6/6+1) + (2/6+0)*1.2
(5/6+1) + (3/6+0)*1.2
(4/6+1) + (4/6+0)*1.2
(3/6+1) + (5/6+0)*1.2
(2/6+1) + (6/6+0)*1.2
(1/6+1) + (7/6+0)*1.2
(0/6+1) + (8/6+0)*1.2
(0/6+0) + (8/6+1)*1.2

But this is getting a bit detailed/complex.  Needs a simpler solution.

[Daryk]

Agreed... that is a bit convoluted.  One possibility is to use the three "non-ranks" introduced by pegging O-1 to 4 Trait Points.  At the very least, I've been using the 3TP version to save money on paying MechWarriors...

[boilerman]

That all the examples in the book seem to use "Rank 0" personnel.  Even a Rank 1 trooper would be paid more than the "base salary", which is all that the examples use (with the sole exception of the Officer multiplier, but even that seems to assume a "Rank 0" officer).

Fundamentally, my position has always been that NPCs are people too.  Every member of a unit is going to have a rank, and it will only be "0" for recruits in accession training (as you pointed out).

I always assumed the CO examples were not using the AToW ranks for salary calculations, which is optional.

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?

If I ignore the "+1" then "minimum 1" has meaning and the junior ranks, up to 3 trait points, have a pay multiplier of just 1.  See the attached pdf for the multipliers but basically the rank multiplier is trait points divided by 3 with minimum of 1. And there would be an officer multiplier on top of that if appropriate.

[monbvol]

The +1 is so that you don't wind up paying an Infantryman 250 C-bills a month(1/3*750 with no other modifiers).

So to me I think it makes more sense if it would be (Rank-1)/6+1.  Since Rank is always 1 this results in a Rank 1 Infantryman being paid 750 C-Bills.

[boilerman]

The +1 is so that you don't wind up paying an Infantryman 250 C-bills a month(1/3*750 with no other modifiers).

So to me I think it makes more sense if it would be (Rank-1)/6+1.  Since Rank is always 1 this results in a Rank 1 Infantryman being paid 750 C-Bills.

The minimum 1 prevents that too.

[monbvol]

Ah I see what you're talking about now.  Rank/3 round to a minimum of 1.

That could work.

[Daryk]

I suspect the writers went through many of these same mental gymnastics, but they also had the rest of the book to write.  No one should be a surprised if a typo crept in...

[monbvol]

If you deduct one from Rank with the multiplier still being a minimum of 1 then the examples all work in Campaign Operations.

So Rank-1(to a minimum of 1)/3 to a minimum of 1.

Trouble is you don't start getting pay raises until E5.  I'll have to think on that.

[Daryk]

Yeah, there should be some gradation between 1 and 4...

[boilerman]

Pay raises start at E4/O1.

[monbvol]

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]

I think you're making it more complicated than it needs to be, but to each their own.

[cray]

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.

[Daryk]

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]

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.

[Daryk]

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]

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]

6 for Enlisted, or Enlisted and Officer?  Leaving it 3 for Officers means not having to errata AToW...

[monbvol]

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]

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...

[boilerman]

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.

[Daryk]

In the workbook, I see your AToW multipliers are adding the experience level vice multiplying... I don't think that's right...

[monbvol]

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]

AToW clearly says add the multipliers, p335.

[Daryk]

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

[cray]

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?

[Daryk]

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]

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]

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.

[monbvol]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[cray]

Alright, revisiting this topic with 10 days to create errata for Campaign Operations...

It is possible to fully rewrite all the examples in Campaign Operations so I can revisit rank 0 and, depending on errata, ATOW pay scales. Since there's no room to significantly change word count, let alone page count, I can't incorporate some of the discussion on warrant ranks and wide pay scales. But we can get a cleaner take on pay for force operations.

[cray]

So for Enlisted, the formula would be:

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

...

Now, for officers, I recommend keeping the multiplier at 3 to align with AToW.

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

And perhaps give Clans an enlisted-like pay scale? They're frugal.

If I understood the earlier comments about adding the modifiers, the goal would be to add the Rank multiplier to the Skill multiplier, then apply those to the base salary?

[monbvol]

The Clans are much more of a command economy so it would make sense that Clan Warriors wouldn't be paid very much at all.

And yes that is the way I read the math and would do it.

[Daryk]

Hmmm... looking at the table in Campaign Ops (page 25), the "Rank" row actually uses 3 lines!  I think that means you have room for both Officer and Enlisted formulas (if you stretch them out so they take up a single line each).  It could look like this:

Simplified:
Enlisted/Clan: 1 x base pay
Officer: 1.2 x base pay

Detailed:
Enlisted/Clan: ((Rank TP-3)/6 + 1) x base pay
Officer: ((Rank TP-3)/3 +1) x 1.2 x base pay

As far as adding the multipliers, that certainly is the AToW procedure, but not how CO reads on pages 24-25.  Looking at the first example, which ends on page 27, it also strikes me the "Officer" multiplier was intended to be used in lieu of rank (i.e., your troops are either Enlisted and get base pay, or Officer and get 1.2 x base pay, leaving gradations solely in the hands of the experience modifier).  The experience modifier appears to be straight multiplied, not added.  If it were added, an officer of Regular experience would have a final multiplier of 2.2, not 1.2.  It's the rank 0 problem again.  By the AToW formula, the only people that get "Base Salary" are those with Rank 0.  Even Rank 1 will be getting 1.33 or 1.16 of Base Salary.

I would just leave the Rank 0 issue to AToW and the Companion (which need their own errata anyway).

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

And perhaps give Clans an enlisted-like pay scale? They're frugal.

  I envision the Clans military modelled after the early Soviet military -Everybody had the same rank and pay, but only a few people had job descriptions, like Platoon Commander, or Company Commander, to reflect their actual duties and role in command structure. That system was revamped after Stalin's purges but it took until the middle of WW2 to finalize the ranking system they finally adopted.

  As a GM, I pondered over the pay system and its rationale. I was a union representative at the time in a FAA facility and seniority was among employees always a heavily debated issue, as seniority determined who got priority on shift selected, vacation time, etc., and some members would almost get violent over how seniority was determined. It was a combination of years in federal service, facility time and qualification time, with the same handful of people getting the top slots, no matter what method of calculation we used. It didn't matter to me so I left it up to the membership to vote on the issue.
As a veteran and historian, I applied Army skills testing criteria and what I knew about Medieval guilds to create a pay scale that made sense to me. Army skills testing was based closer to what medieval guilds used as a criteria for pay: An Apprentice should accomplish a number of tasks at a demonstrable level of expertise, and so on, up to the rank of Master.
  I applied the above ratings to characters in a campaign and the players who cared about rank and pay weren't happy, as they believed that only gunnery/pilot makes a Mechwarrior. I even wrote up a fanfic based on a RP session where one of the "Gods of the battlefield" applied for a mercenary position wholly based upon his G/P skills. It's been years since I ran the campaign but I shall try to find the details of the pay scales I used.

BTW, current union pay scales are based on multiples of government-set Minimum Wage laws, modified by employment time.

[cray]

Current proposed edits to ATOW wage scale here:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5954.msg1370092#msg1370092

[Daryk]

Those edits make sense, but don't impact the procedure problem.

[idea weenie]

Detailed:
Enlisted/Clan: ((Rank TP-3)/6 + 1) x base pay
Officer: ((Rank TP-3)/3 +1) x 1.2 x base pay

As far as adding the multipliers, that certainly is the AToW procedure, but not how CO reads on pages 24-25.  Looking at the first example, which ends on page 27, it also strikes me the "Officer" multiplier was intended to be used in lieu of rank (i.e., your troops are either Enlisted and get base pay, or Officer and get 1.2 x base pay, leaving gradations solely in the hands of the experience modifier).  The experience modifier appears to be straight multiplied, not added.  If it were added, an officer of Regular experience would have a final multiplier of 2.2, not 1.2.  It's the rank 0 problem again.  By the AToW formula, the only people that get "Base Salary" are those with Rank 0.  Even Rank 1 will be getting 1.33 or 1.16 of Base Salary. 

Got bored, and ran some numbers in a spreadsheet, using the Detailed calculations to get the multiplier:

TP	Enlisted	Officer
3	1	1.2
4	1.167	1.6
5	1.333	2
6	1.5	2.4
7	1.667	2.8
8	1.833	3.2
9	2	3.6
10	2.167	4
+1	+(1/6)	+(0.4)

Not sure if it will help, but sometimes seeing the actual numbers can make a difference.  Off-hand, the increase in officer pay is 2.4 times as great as the increase in Enlisted pay, for the same +1 increase in TP

[Daryk]

Seems you have a typo in Enlisted Rank 4... I think that's supposed to be 1.167.

[idea weenie]

Seems you have a typo in Enlisted Rank 4... I think that's supposed to be 1.167.

Corrected