Author Topic: ISaW and Mercenaries  (Read 5774 times)

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
ISaW and Mercenaries
« on: 24 February 2018, 11:02:52 »
Our group has recently completed a full (game) year and while we have found most of the rules work almost seamlessly there are a few that have had us scratching our heads. The case of mercenary commands stands out as one of these issues.

As per the 'standard combat command' table on page 348 a mercenary command has 1 regiment each of Mech, armour and infantry as well as an artillery battalion and a/s wing. Mercenary command creation is the responsibility of the GM who could change this make up if he so desired but we will stick to the baseline.

Normal supply costs for a mercenary command is 5.5 RPs doubled as per the retention rules to 11RP. If the command sees action that requires the 4x cost and this 5.5 RPs becomes 22 RPs. Each turn a faction must total the required supply of all it mercenary commands and decide to pay the bill or not w/ the 2x or 4x cost depending on the situation each command finds itself in.

If the minimum amout or less is paid then the player roles on the retention table with TN of 8. A successful roll means all is good and the mercenaries continue as normal. If the TN is missed then the MoF is multiplied by 10 and that percentage of the merc leave that faction. A faction can gain a -1 to the TN for every 10% of overall cost paid in addition to the base cost. In our experience the normal 'overage' varies between 20 and 40% in order to avoid defections.

The problem with rules is that mercenaries do not make economic sense over the long term. A House command of similar size (ex: Medium Mech, medium armour, infantry, artillery and medium a/s wing) with reliable loyalty and green quality would cost 89 RP. If dropped on a training centre with a second command these two commands could reach regular quality in about three turns.

What we initially found was that mercenary commands were used until they were shot to pieces and then their surviving armour were used to rebuild other units. I had to put a stop to mining merc commands for armour points for house units (no merc would work for a House that simply broke them up for parts) but allowed combining merc commands. When the commands were rebuilt no one was willing to bid the minimum 22 RPs to hire them except in a dire emergency. Our FWL player simply let them all go after Wolf's Dragoon's left League space. The Combine burnt up his commands and didn't bother bidding on replacements, he (and other players) simply raised similar sized commands to cover quiet areas and cover against the various raids.

The merc command was on its way to extinction.

The solution we came up with was to make the merc command more palatable by having the GM become a version of the MRB. Regular upkeep payments cover the salaries but all over payments now go into a GM controlled fund for paying for repairs and rebuilds (destroyed commands are rebuilt using this fund). Players still pay the 2x (monthly) and 4x (combat) cost and gain extra negatives to the TN for overpayments but now can gain an extra -1 to the TN if they provide at least 10% of the armour replacements or -2 to the TN if they provide 25% of the armour needed (merc refuse more than 25% repairs to avoid hits to their experience points). This lowered the costs (overpayments) and incentivized the players to retain merc commands as viable part of their militaries.

Any thoughts? Have we missed something in the rules that makes the merc commands, as written, less of burden to the budgets?

Cheers.   
 

« Last Edit: 18 October 2020, 10:21:59 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #1 on: 24 February 2018, 11:49:05 »
It does seem the ratio of cost for mercs to regular units is off.  If it only takes three turns and 89 RP to have an equivalent house unit with reliable loyalty, mercs should be cheaper.

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1137
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #2 on: 24 February 2018, 11:51:34 »
One thing that we interpreted was we didn't multiply the amount of merc pay for combat supply.   So no 2.6 multiplier for the balance of combat supply. 

The merc multiplier only applies to the initial cost of the merc unit.

The second was that we elected to change the rules of repair for merc units.  Relying on the employer to repair them as you say simply just doesn't make sense. 

So... I take their pay that they receive and they slowly repair themselves. 

I also house-rule that they may grow with sustained success/employment. 
Agent # 703

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1137
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #3 on: 24 February 2018, 11:55:18 »
The main advantage of the merc units is to have an instantly available, experienced force with lots of mechs, and not so many support units.

In my more limited experience from running smaller border skirmishes, they are useful for short term advantage; keeping a merc force on retainer doesn't seem to make sense. 

In fact, with the Andurien Secession, the Anduriens and Canopian reliance on mercs was partly their downfall; the cost of the merc units they employed meant they couldn't afford larger offensives.

However, the initial push with them was the most handy, especially with the lack of experienced good forces on the Canopian side. 
Agent # 703

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #4 on: 24 February 2018, 12:06:11 »
One thing that we interpreted was we didn't multiply the amount of merc pay for combat supply.   So no 2.6 multiplier for the balance of combat supply.... 

...The merc multiplier only applies to the initial cost of the merc unit.

I don't believe that is the way the rule is written. Supply is 2x basic cost each turn to get TN 8 retention. I haven't found anything stating mercenary commands are exempt from combat supply.

Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1137
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #5 on: 24 February 2018, 12:15:05 »
I don't believe that is the way the rule is written. Supply is 2x basic cost each turn to get TN 8 retention. I haven't found anything stating mercenary commands are exempt from combat supply.

Yup, we give the multiplier of 2x for the basic cost of the supplies.  What I meant was, we did not multiply the cost of combat supply additionally - they'd still pay the "regular" *4 multiplier for combat supply.  Basically, use merc units in combat as much as possible as you get far more bang for your buck.

Agent # 703

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #6 on: 01 March 2018, 12:15:05 »
Ok,... understood.

You may find merc commands a bit fragile once regular commands take the field. A merc command with a comparatively strong garrison can put up a fight but will probably go down after inflicting some solid damage.

We found merc commands need at least one house command in the field to last more that a 2-3 ACS turn in open battle. Good news is they can form one "formation" on their own in a defensive position.
« Last Edit: 04 March 2018, 11:27:30 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1137
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #7 on: 31 March 2018, 14:21:52 »
Thread necro:
After some initial play-testing with mercs, we have a few other ideas for mercs as well.

1.  The GM controlled fund mentioned above was where we initially thought to go to, but that became even more book-keeping.  We went with a simpler answer; self repair at a speed a bit slower than planetary garrisons (we went an arbitrary choice of 5% repaired every 2 turns, rather than 1 like a garrison).   However, units that are completely destroyed (a mech battalion, infantry or whatever) don't get repaired.
2.  Giving mercs a small bonus on raiding missions of some type.  It was a suggestion, but haven't tried mechanically as of yet.  Were thinking either a bonus to the raid results table or instead, if combat occurs, a small bonus in acs for merc stats when on raids only.
3.  Allowing mercs to count as spec ops teams for spec op purposes.  Basically, can dedicate merc units to do a spec op - they scream plausible deniability, after all, as expendable assets...

Giving flexibility to mercs by making them more utilitarian like the above brings back an advantage to actually hiring them.  The self-repair ability means that the House can KEEP using mercs and throwing them into fights as long as they keep regenerating. 


Agent # 703

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25565
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #8 on: 31 March 2018, 15:10:10 »
(makes notes)

Some interesting stuff here, should we ever consider a revision.

One point - mercs really don't fit the paradigm I had in mind for spec-ops teams. OTOH, allowing mercenary spec-ops teams might be of interest - the room for triple- or quadruple-cross operations makes me positively giddy!

The repair rates solution has attractions. And also might lead into a "company store" situation, where the player adds RP to repairs, then has a chance over time of either regularising the unit, or having it go rogue on them.

The question might be, though, how much detail do we look to put in, for what's a significant, but still minor, component of a House's army?
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #9 on: 31 March 2018, 15:17:03 »
Quadruple cross operations?  By the time you get that far, polygraph results are going to be sketchy enough that no one will trust the agent in question...

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #10 on: 01 April 2018, 10:45:09 »
...
After some initial play-testing with mercs, we have a few other ideas for mercs as well.

1.  The GM controlled fund mentioned above was where we initially thought to go to, but that became even more book-keeping.  We went with a simpler answer; self repair at a speed a bit slower than planetary garrisons (we went an arbitrary choice of 5% repaired every 2 turns, rather than 1 like a garrison).   However, units that are completely destroyed (a mech battalion, infantry or whatever) don't get repaired.

Actually, I think you will find that, given a -1 or -2 to the retention TN DR, the Houses will willingly pay for repairs and thus remove the need for GM book keeping (if you have a GM). Those mods to the TN have seen the come back of merc commands and reduced the GM workload to a minimum (almost eliminated it in fact).

...2.  Giving mercs a small bonus on raiding missions of some type.  It was a suggestion, but haven't tried mechanically as of yet.  Were thinking either a bonus to the raid results table or instead, if combat occurs, a small bonus in acs for merc stats when on raids only....

Hmmm,... I'll admit I do not see the rationale. Mercs commands in ACS/ISaW (generally) tend to be used in place of house units due to the cost (Combat supply = 4x basic supply). A regular command that launches a raid will pay ~40+ RP the following turn due to  the "must pay..." rule (provided you have not run out of cash entirely, in which case you have bigger problem than funding raids). A merc command will pay only 22 RP (5.5 x 4).

Mercs already have an advantage in Engagement Control and target to-hit DR mods in ACS (tables on page pg. 308) so I do not really see the need to give them additional bonuses.

...3.  Allowing mercs to count as spec ops teams for spec op purposes.  Basically, can dedicate merc units to do a spec op - they scream plausible deniability, after all, as expendable assets...

As a GM who has seen all five Houses actively using Spec ops teams over 13 ISaW turns now I do not see a need for more "independent' teams. Properly used the 30 teams (plus 9 more for the 3 Periphery States) running around the map are capable of creating a lot of havoc and forcing the players to implement defensive operations in areas they never thought they would have to.

For example, it is now April 3020 and the DC is currently dealing with three acts of terrorism, 2 major and 1 minor factory sabotage, one destroyed fort and the loss of 25% of his Industrial Tech DPs. Not all happened in one turn but the ongoing effects off all of these are currently in play.

More Spec Op teams? I suggest caution.

...Giving flexibility to mercs by making them more utilitarian like the above brings back an advantage to actually hiring them.  The self-repair ability means that the House can KEEP using mercs and throwing them into fights as long as they keep regenerating....

I understand what you are going for but (in our experience) the 10% for -1 or 25% for -2 to the retention DR seems to have kept them relevant and they remain the most economical force for raiding. A similarly sized House command would also cost 22 RP to supply after a raid but repairing it would not help retain Merc commands. With the above mods, hiring more mercs makes sense and is cheaper than raising and training new "raiding commands".

The mercs have a real role to play beyond battlefield ops but are still vulnerable when faced by a full House command. They don't last long without support but then again, they probably weren't intended to.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 01 April 2018, 12:20:17 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #11 on: 01 April 2018, 11:20:27 »
...The repair rates solution has attractions. And also might lead into a "company store" situation, where the player adds RP to repairs, then has a chance over time of either regularising the unit, or having it go rogue on them....

The 'company store' effect is a hard one to fit into a 'grand strategy' game. I haven't been able to come up with a reasonable idea to fit this scale.

...The question might be, though, how much detail do we look to put in, for what's a significant, but still minor, component of a House's army?

Aye. There's the rub. The game is already an intensive record keeping exercise so the less clutter we have for minor issues the better. The game is already more intensive than War in Europe or Terrible Swift Sword and rivals War in the Pacific and Campaign for North Africa. Thank Gawd for spreadsheets, email, Skype and the internet, otherwise ISaW might just be unplayable.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #12 on: 15 September 2018, 12:20:48 »
Good analysis, thank you.

Something to understand is ISW rules went through a lot of last minute edits, primarily for space reasons. These were done not by me and then I didn’t have time to fully read through them. End result is there are some gaps in the ISW rules.

I’d have to check my note, it’s been a couple years now, I think the intention was for Mercs to have a self-repair function not unlike the GM scenario you set up. Mercs turned out to be really hard to do. To make them act like the fiction, they need different rules. Otherwise they become exactly what you say, short term disposable assets.

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #13 on: 15 September 2018, 12:38:01 »
G'day Welshman,


Thanks for the posts. Once we switched over to ACS/IsAW and I started to GM the new system it created quite few questions. I understand the time constraints, space and, probably, budgetary limits that went into an effort such as this. Considering what has been attempted I can't complain too much. I wasn't involved so it would not be fair to *attack* the effort. Any criticism you see in my posts is meant to be constructive and hopefully spur conversation.
« Last Edit: 15 September 2018, 12:45:41 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1137
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #14 on: 15 September 2018, 12:44:19 »
Good analysis, thank you.

Something to understand is ISW rules went through a lot of last minute edits, primarily for space reasons. These were done not by me and then I didn’t have time to fully read through them. End result is there are some gaps in the ISW rules.

I’d have to check my note, it’s been a couple years now, I think the intention was for Mercs to have a self-repair function not unlike the GM scenario you set up. Mercs turned out to be really hard to do. To make them act like the fiction, they need different rules. Otherwise they become exactly what you say, short term disposable assets.

Sweet!  That's pretty much what we are doing, so that works for me!
Agent # 703

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #15 on: 15 September 2018, 14:21:46 »
I'm not so sure they need a self-rebuild rule as much as they need to be used as auxiliaries to the regular House commands. They make good raiders *and* they make excellent consorts for larger commands in a smash and grab mission aimed taking a planet or just landing and shooting up the place before buggering off.


I'll admit,... -1 or -2 to the retention TN for 'support' from the houses has worked out extremely well. I have people fighting over merc commands when odd commands slips between someone's fingers.
« Last Edit: 16 September 2018, 12:26:49 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1137
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #16 on: 22 October 2018, 15:17:22 »
Thread necro:

more for discussion than anything, as it won't occur for my current campaign at the least.

The thought that was elicited after Wave 4 of Operation Rat by my FS player was, why not allow the rebuilding of merc units at a bit of a discount?  His reasoning, which to my mind was sound, is that the House is profiting off the sale of equipment to the merc unit and not having to do their own training and other administrative costs associated with recruiting. 

So damage or perma-losses of units in the merc unit are repaired cheaper than House units.

Thoughts?
Agent # 703

Onion2112

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 120
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #17 on: 22 October 2018, 18:38:32 »
This makes sense the old succession war game had the cost of rebuilding mercs 75% the cost of a house unit (I think it was 6 vs 8  )

But it also makes sense, as a merc unit you'd expect would train/recruit its own replacement personnel, so the house is really just supplying or fixing the equipment.
« Last Edit: 22 October 2018, 18:49:49 by Onion2112 »

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: ISaW and Mercenaries
« Reply #18 on: 22 October 2018, 21:35:11 »
Well,...repairs are already extremely cheap. At 80 armour for 1 RP that is already a huge bargain. We recently had the FWL and LC each pay about 18 RP for about ~1400 armour. This meant as many as 10 CCs could receive 140 armour (keeping the repairs below 25% to protect experience for a CC between 600-700 armour).

At  the same time a new merc command (medium Mech and armour, hvy AS) costs roughly 180 RP (reg/rel) and adds about 250 armour points.


So 1440 armour for 18 RP vs 250 armour for 180 RP.   8)   :)
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

 

Register