Author Topic: Minimum ranks?  (Read 17592 times)

GOTHIK

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 897
Minimum ranks?
« on: 20 April 2023, 18:16:55 »
I've been away from the game for a couple of years and I'm trying to find something that I'm not certain exists.
Is there a table with professions like mechwarrior, jumpship "captain", etc. and any corresponding minimum (or average) rank for that profession?

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9467
  • Just some rando
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #1 on: 20 April 2023, 18:43:49 »
There are ranks in ATOW and specific ones for factions in the Companion, but does it mean you're suddenly a Mechwarrior or Jumpship Captain?
Not necessarily.
Part of that is the fluff of the nations in general.
Here's what I mean, on the ATOW Companion at pg 28 if you're a Officer 1 to 2, then you're a lance commander or warrior in the Sphere and Star Commanders are Officer 2.
Yet if I flip a few pages out to the Fedsun chart, Mechwarrior Sgt is Enlisted 7.
Others don't really list out "Mechwarrior" in their ranking chart either, so I suppose someone could get a Field Manual and research that.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

GOTHIK

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 897
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #2 on: 21 April 2023, 14:39:13 »
There are ranks in ATOW and specific ones for factions in the Companion, but does it mean you're suddenly a Mechwarrior or Jumpship Captain?
Certainly not. But there's probably some kind of minimum pre-req. I mean, we probably don't see too many Chief Petty Officers commander aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines. And even if we did, it's reasonable to assume that the bonus for achieving your E7 doesn't include the keys to a new ship just waiting around in drydock. LOL
Here's what I mean, on the ATOW Companion at pg 28 if you're a Officer 1 to 2, then you're a lance commander or warrior in the Sphere and Star Commanders are Officer 2.
Yet if I flip a few pages out to the Fedsun chart, Mechwarrior Sgt is Enlisted 7.
Others don't really list out "Mechwarrior" in their ranking chart either, so I suppose someone could get a Field Manual and research that.
I thought there was already such a table, and perhaps I'm thinking of the ones you referenced.
And sure ... Field Manuals ... but why reinvent the wheel if the table already existed. LOL
I'll check out the ones you referenced; thank you!

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #3 on: 22 April 2023, 09:34:29 »
A more complicated answer to your question can be found in the prerequisites for various Skill Fields and Schools.  Does lack of a Field or School diploma prevent you from doing any given job (e.g. MechWarrior)?  Certainly not, but it does make it harder to be GOOD at it.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3016
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #4 on: 05 July 2023, 04:26:20 »
Mech warriors tend to be O1 or E5 I believe.  Tank commaders are E3 . Lance commanders O1 or E6 and company commanders O2 for mechs and O1 for tanks .

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #5 on: 05 July 2023, 17:25:17 »
I usually use O-0 (Warrant Officer) for MechWarriors.

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #6 on: 07 July 2023, 20:52:11 »
While not specifically germane to AToW rankings/rules, I am also a believer in MechWarriors being ranked as Warrant Officers if not in leadership positions, whereupon they would be commissioned officers. While it may not be especially realistic, I tend to rank my MechWarriors as MW1 (Green) to MW4 (Elite)*, because it is easy on the spreadsheets.

In universe, it makes too much sense. Even a ten-year-old me thought it silly to have a private in charge of a BattleMech, especially when the conceit back in those golden olden days was that a MechWarrior generally outranked nearly every other conventional soldier (within reason, work with me here). Too much power in the hands of someone that would have had (again, remember the contemporaneous milieu) years of training before their first active-duty posting to simply be an entry-level enlisted slob.

So make them non-commissioned officers? Negative. That is an important part of any military worth its salt, and it has to be earned (see the US Vietnam experience, where many rose to the occasion, but even more did not and were derided for their entire tour, if they even made it that far.)

Commissioned officers, the lot of them? This ain't the USAF, bub. Besides, Starship Troopers taught me a lot of things, and one of them was to watch my enlisted-to-officer ratio. I want my officers leading, commanding, or learning new and interesting things staff-side while they wait for a line billet. Besides, why should I pay everyone top C-Bill if I don't have to? (Back when I made my first mercenary regiment, I took a military payscale chart, divided by five, and that is what everyone got. Easy. But I knew even then I didn't want a hundred-plus lieutenant salaries!)

So, warrants they quickly became. Cool, calm professionals that could focus on their profession of arms, not take orders from random infantry squad leaders and tank commanders, but still have to listen to their lance commanders (you know, when t hey felt like it because, well, warrant officers). And, bonus, they were only a polishing school away from being fully commissioned themselves. Nice.


*It would be even easier to reverse the numbering system to make it reflect closer to the nominal skill numbers, but I'm too used to US warrant officer rankings (dem crusty CW4's...) to let it go.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #7 on: 15 July 2023, 12:47:55 »
The warrant officer model for MechWarriors who aren't lance (or above) commanders does make sense. (Adding the idea of a MechWarrior sergeant almost seems to veer into U.S. police force rank structures.) I don't recall seeing discussion of specific ranks within "MechWarrior as a (warrant officer) rank" in the BT material I've read, but it could make sense. I don't think I've ever really gotten a solid sense as to whether the MechWarrior "career track" (if that's even a relevant concept in a feudal, nobility oriented military structure) is supposed to have everyone aiming for unit command or whether there's a separate track for those who aim to become the best MechWarrior possible (or just survive to retirement) without taking on command responsibility. (My familiarity with the RPGs is limited to MW1e and Destiny so perhaps there's more detail in that line of products.)

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #8 on: 15 July 2023, 12:53:11 »
The US Air Force has a career option where pilots can give up on the Command Track to keep flying for as long as possible.  That caps them at Major, though... still a commissioned rank (and not a junior one, either).

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #9 on: 15 July 2023, 15:50:48 »
Yeah, but when you exist in a continuum where everyone around you is an officer as well, O-5 is still middlin'.

From my personal experience, Majors were groovy. Not too high up to be unapproachable and not too low that they have to prove themselves to everyone below them. Of course, I'd say that most officers were good people and leaders, far outweighing the (notoriously memorable but nevertheless stereotypical) bad ones.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #10 on: 15 July 2023, 16:03:42 »
You're not wrong!  Most people are "good" people, and the "bad" ones are certainly memorable.  But I also have to say, people change.  I ran into one my worst leaders much later in my career, and they were perfectly civil.  I believe "people" are a combination of who they are and their circumstances.  That moves them (and me!) around a bit, depending...  :undecided:

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #11 on: 16 July 2023, 03:26:53 »
Hear, hear. But a lot of people--the uninitiated mostly, I feel--have some warped perception that most officers are intrinsically poor human beings and worse leaders, and all junior officers are actively useless.

That was not my experience at all. I can think of three lieutenants from the 11th ACR alone that were worth their weight in gold to a young E-3/4. And one from the 10th Mountain that managed to outshow his two replacements (who were nice people, but way out of their depth in an infantry platoon). Captains were a mixed bag, but every O-5 and above I dealt with was at least competent and someone worth following around for a bit.

Now, senior enlisted...well, let's just say that being in the service for twenty years doesn't make you tactically or technically proficient, nor a worthwhile person either. But, as you say, there are situational factors at play, and for every bad NCO, there is at least another good one.

Regardless, I cannot countenance a MechWarrior being a "Private" or even a "Sergeant". Their training time alone would preclude that, for the most part--but officers and warrants get a pass on that, because they are cadets until the end of training and enlisted personnel are--wait for it--enlisted and getting time-in-service/grade. Sneaky. And they just have too much responsibility for it to be any other way.

So, they are warrants and officers for me, and it is unlikely canon will change that personal worldview. I grew up with Privates Kaufmann and Wong and their Griffin and Wasp from 2nd Edition, and it irked my then, too!
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #12 on: 16 July 2023, 06:06:37 »
Cheers, brother! :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #13 on: 21 July 2023, 08:58:35 »
Regardless, I cannot countenance a MechWarrior being a "Private" or even a "Sergeant". Their training time alone would preclude that, for the most part--but officers and warrants get a pass on that, because they are cadets until the end of training and enlisted personnel are--wait for it--enlisted and getting time-in-service/grade. Sneaky. And they just have too much responsibility for it to be any other way.

Mentioned in passing above, but to me the only way a MechWarrior sergeant seems to make sense is in more of a police force rank system (U.S. style) as I understand it, at least in terms of career progression.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #14 on: 26 July 2023, 03:49:48 »
So an optimum organization would have companies led by Captains, with 1st Lieutenants leading lances and 2nd Lieutenants as their lance XO, with two Warrant Officers filling out the rest of each lance.  Since the organization is built around transport requirements, your company Captain is doublehatting as their own lance commander as well...I'm all for the idea of 14 'Mech companies with a CO and XO supernumary to the three lieutenants leading individual lances in the company, but there's no 14 'Mech Union DropShip or 42 'Mech Overlord without modifying things.

Here's a question for officers in 'Mechs - at what rank should an officer be leading from a command vehicle instead of a 'Mech?

ravensword

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 199
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #15 on: 26 July 2023, 09:19:44 »
Here's a question for officers in 'Mechs - at what rank should an officer be leading from a command vehicle instead of a 'Mech?

Probably once you get to the battalion level, but BattleTech is very "lead-from-the front," so it might not happen until you get to the regiment level.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #16 on: 26 July 2023, 17:36:34 »
I believe that's close enough for government work... ;)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #17 on: 26 July 2023, 20:10:10 »
In the US Army, at least, battalion commanders have their own AFVs. Well, they did in the 11th ACR (two, actually: a gun truck and a tank or IFV as appropriate to the squadron type).  Now, a lot of times, those tanks will be sitting behind the FEBA, but they are available for the commanders and XOs as needed. But, beyond that, I wouldn't want my brigade--or even battalion--commander riding a tank into contact; they have better things to do, and part of that is not (literally and figuratively) getting in the way of the troopers who are doing the work.*

Another inexcusably strong vote for 14-element companies. Shipping capacity be damned. Everything else in the BTU can be modified at the drop of a hat...


Mentioned in passing above, but to me the only way a MechWarrior sergeant seems to make sense is in more of a police force rank system (U.S. style) as I understand it, at least in terms of career progression.


Fair enough. If LEA rank structures made any sense (or at least the badges associated with the rankings), that is.  :grin:
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #18 on: 26 July 2023, 20:27:42 »
I'm reminded of the scene in Band of Brothers where the Regimental Commander reminded the Battalion Commander he wasn't supposed to charge out there and lead the Company into battle.  I know that's not historical, but the point stands...

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #19 on: 26 July 2023, 22:37:59 »
I'm reminded of the scene in Band of Brothers where the Regimental Commander reminded the Battalion Commander he wasn't supposed to charge out there and lead the Company into battle.  I know that's not historical, but the point stands...

I'll say it does. Historically accurate or not, it is entirely realistic and, more to the point, believable.

There have been times where E-4s, -5s-, and -6s have said much the same thing. Back when I was younger, it would be a cold day in Hell before I let even a 2LT or SFC in front of me. It would have been a personal and professional embarrassment.

There are elements of personal and professional pride, self-preservation, and self-reliance at work here. Please note this is viewed through the lens and from the paradigm of an infantryman.

Besides, ridiculousness about Jaime Wolf aside, who would really want a forty or seventy (!) year-old leading an assault? Nah, leave the killing to the youngsters, and the heavy planning to those who have the experience, schooling, and training to do it properly. There is a reason commanders should stay, at best, one element back from the formation they are leading. It keeps them in the mix without getting bound up in it, lets them feel the pulse of the fight their unit is getting in, and allows them time to make the right decision(s).

Now, as far as 'Mechs (or tanks for that matter), I can see lance leaders leading from the front in certain instances--though I'd rather have a trusted senior/experienced MechWarrior still riding point in just about every situation. I definitely would not want my company commanders literally leading the charge, if for no other reason than they would get shot out of their machine first, all other factors being equal. And what good does that do to the company, battalion, and regimental missions, let alone the eleven other MechWarriors behind him or her?

Battalion commanders should have no place trading shots during a normal operation. Maybe in some esoteric, last-ditch, Hollywoodeqsue scenario (e.g. the ragged remnants of Second Battalion form up to give the DropShips time to lift, say), but certainly not in some deliberate attack or defense; they should be monitoring the fight and winning it through delegation, not misguided personal heroics*.


*See the bombing mission in September 1943 over Stuttgart, where the group's commanding general's decision to circle the target three times let to, shall we say, deletrious results. And this was by a commander, BG Travis--a hell of a combat leader who did fly 35 combat missions as it happened--who was at the head of the pack. The decision, in this case, was not about personal heroics so much as professional requirements foisted on a man to accomplish what the bigger boss (Hap Arnold) wanted: a good result that could be used to foster the then-nascent daylight bombing campaign and to keep the heavy B-17s in Army hand, and in Europe. But the point stands--let the lower ranks do the fighting and the higher-ups figure out how to do it best. If Travis had not been along with the proverbial Devil breathing down his neck behind him, the raid almost certainly would not have been as costly as it was.
« Last Edit: 26 July 2023, 22:40:06 by Failure16 »
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #20 on: 27 July 2023, 02:57:21 »
To be fair to the youngsters, Battletech lifespans are pretty long compared to nowadays - that 70 year old in the cockpit has been Through Some Shit and has the skills to speak for it.

I agree with the idea of Warrant Officers for the pilots in a lance, it makes more sense than the enlisted corporal driving a Battlemaster for example.  And Warrant Officers have their own progression W-1 through W-4 in the US IIRC, so you can have different folks with different ranks.

So as far as the organization goes, 14 'Mech companies are preferred - and I would assume, a 46 'Mech battalion, with three 14 'Mech companies and a 4 unit command lance - probably three 'Mechs and a Command Truck.  Transportwise...that'd be an Overlord and a Leopard to get enough 'Mech bays, but maybe you can put a recon lance in the Leopard and drop them ahead of your main body of troops.  Same would go for tanks...which is where you're hiding all your enlisted men, with only a single officer leading the platoon.  The infantry would end up the same.

What ranks would a battalion command lance have, based on the above organization?  Obviously a major for the battalion commander, but what would you put as his XO and 3rd 'Mech?

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #21 on: 27 July 2023, 03:33:34 »
Probably a more junior Major... :)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #22 on: 27 July 2023, 18:55:14 »
Naw; a senior captain. The Leaguers [at least used to] have the rank of Force Captain, which I have coopted for that Battalion Exec spot.

I am torn--and have been for years--about who gets that fourth machine in a BHQ lance. You have the CO, XO, S3...and someone else. When I was younger--and still bought in to the concept of enlisted MechWarriors however begrudgingly--that spot went to a CSM. But, CSMs (like 1SGs) have other things to do in combat than participate in the front lines, so that went quickly away. Then it became some kind of supernumerary senior lieutenant with duties ranging from special scout, messenger, liaison officer and so on. That is where it has stayed, for me, since all the other common staff positions do not require a line CMF, and they have duties that supersede them being line officers.

Back in the days before I went whole-hog into converting ASF bays into BattleMech cubicles, I indeed used to put a recon lance into a Leopard and have the rest of the troopies ride in an Overlord or triple-Unions. Great minds think alike (or fool seldom differ).
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #23 on: 28 July 2023, 08:23:24 »
Would a battalion be best led by a command lance of 'Mechs, then, or a command truck in the fourth position?  Or are those rare enough to be regimental command only? 

nerd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2392
  • Nunc Partus-Ready Now
    • Traveller Adventures
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #24 on: 28 July 2023, 11:20:50 »
Would a battalion be best led by a command lance of 'Mechs, then, or a command truck in the fourth position?  Or are those rare enough to be regimental command only?
Depends on the era and how your BattleTech Universe works. Outside of prestige regiments, I don't see BN level commands having Mobile HQ's. The 2nd Sword of Light was mentioned as having the original Daimyo HQ attached to the 2nd Battalion in TRO 3026 Revised.

On the other hand, if you aren't going to have NCO MechWarriors, I'd put the Deputy Operations Officer in as the fourth. That way the BN Co and XO can run around with someone to help them run it all. Another suggestion is the Master at Arms/Weapons and Tactics Instructor. Someone who can keep the command lance alive, provides a staff function, and may be too senior to have a normal role.
M. T. Thompson
Don of the Starslayer Mafia
Member of the AFFS High Command

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #25 on: 28 July 2023, 16:16:32 »
I think it depends on your appetite for custom units.  A Heavy APC makes a perfectly functional command vehicle with half the infantry compartment replaced with Communications Equipment.  That simple of a refit should be ubiquitous.  4 tons (equivalent) of Communications Equipment gets you +1 Initiative AND Satellite Uplinks.  The full Monty 7-ton versions (that give +2 Initiative) should be reserved for Regiments and above.  Heck, you can cram two tons of the stuff into a standard 10-ton APC for just the +1 Initiative.

All that is a long way of saying:
7 tons of Communications Equipment (+2 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Regiment and above
4 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Battalion level
3 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative): Why not Company level?  Definitely Company plus...

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #26 on: 28 July 2023, 16:57:29 »
All that is a long way of saying:
7 tons of Communications Equipment (+2 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Regiment and above
4 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Battalion level
3 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative): Why not Company level?  Definitely Company plus...

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

On the other hand, if you aren't going to have NCO MechWarriors, I'd put the Deputy Operations Officer in as the fourth. That way the BN Co and XO can run around with someone to help them run it all. Another suggestion is the Master at Arms/Weapons and Tactics Instructor. Someone who can keep the command lance alive, provides a staff function, and may be too senior to have a normal role.

I dunno. Any O1-3s in my Three Shop will be at the TOC as battle captains, to share the daily/nightly load with the already extant S2 and any other command-free lieutenants who find the need to show their faces in such a place (and more the fools them). Twenty-four-hour ops ain't no joke, as you probably well know. I do like the second option (the old Hans Vogel and Jaime Wolf paradigm). It sounds like the equivalent of a US Army Master Gunner in, say, a Mech Inf (Bradley) outfit.

Would a battalion be best led by a command lance of 'Mechs, then, or a command truck in the fourth position?  Or are those rare enough to be regimental command only? 

I think every level from company up should have some kind "headquarters" vehicle, but that would not detract from the combat machine presence. Still, at a company level, my headquarters section would only have two machines for the CO and XO. If I could get away with it, I'd also include an air-defense 'Mech and IDF ("mortar") 'Mech--pr two of the latter and attach the former from the battalion air-defense lance. Really, I'd have a pair of each, but that is starting to get a bit munchy, even for me. (It might make sense to me, but every other player would throw them into the line as maneuver elements, simply making the company into a short battalion by the end of it all! And that is not my point.)

Eh. Starting to drift pretty far from the original target. Apologies.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14472
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #27 on: 28 July 2023, 17:18:35 »
Mechwarrior "Academy" graduates start out at E5/Sgt if they didn't qualify for OCS to get O-1 Lt.

They promote up through E-ranks till they get promoted to O-1 from what I recall.

Long Term High E-Grade seems to be rare in the Successor Houses since they lack a lot of grades of SSG/SFC/MSG+

There are exceptions but it seems making O-1 is entirely possible as a MW if given time.

The only exceptions to MW-Sgts minimums are those that end up getting into the military w/o going to an Academy
  (Davion Training Battalions, Family Training/Heritage, or, outstanding performance in another branch)

I don't see WO ranks in mechwarriors much, if at all, in fiction.   But I have seen a couple in the ASF field as the lower ranking of the 2 in a Flight/Pair.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #28 on: 28 July 2023, 17:22:23 »
Hellraiser: That's what I'm arguing against that TPTB seem to have settled on...

F16: I like the way you think too... what I'm hearing you say (and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong):

A company command "lance" should have two "command" vehicles (of whatever variety, as long as they have some Communications Equipment), an AA unit, and something that can carry a Thumper (and any of the former could be combined, of course)... :)

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14472
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #29 on: 28 July 2023, 17:33:05 »
I think every level from company up should have some kind "headquarters" vehicle, but that would not detract from the combat machine presence.
Soooo....  A  "Marauder-3C"   (AC2 & 2 Tons of Coms Gear for the AC5)

Command Console BattleMasters for every Heavy Battalion Command Lance.


3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #30 on: 28 July 2023, 17:40:02 »
Those could both work, yep! :)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #31 on: 28 July 2023, 20:51:53 »
Hellraiser, I think we all acknowledge that enlisted MechWarriors are part of the canon. I, personally, just refuse to include it in my world-view! If I did, my mighty MechWarriors would be outranked by their technical assistance teams. And that would be plum embarrassing. (Not to mention most infantry squad and platoon leaderships, tank gunners and commanders, company and batallion training NCOs and much staff-shop personnel...like I said, embarrassing. And unsustainable.)

Daryk, yes, but I would still call it a headquarters section fronting three line lances. The headquarters vehicle would be just that: a part of the headquarters section but not supplanting the CO or XO's ride. Think about it: is the company commander climbing up four stories every time he has to field a call on the commo net? Or to check the situation on the planning board?

On sustained operations, not every lance or part of a lance will be on a mission, and the CC certainly will not be on every mission. Even O-3s need to sleep, their attentions or presence may be required elsewhere, and operational tempo and/or taskings from higher echelons will require companies to support more than one mission.

So, the company leadership needs to hang out somewhere when they are not riding their shining metal steeds towards the windmills on the sunset. And that place would be the "headquarters vehicle", which is separate from the "command 'Mech/tank/IFV/etc." which is what the CC rides into a fight.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #32 on: 29 July 2023, 06:05:21 »
It sounds like combined units are the way to go for the CO and XO rides.  As Hellraiser pointed out, it's pretty easy to cram a couple of tons of Communications Equipment into a 'mech.  Attaching a "Command" APC should be easy too.

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #33 on: 29 July 2023, 09:14:22 »
Just to complicate things further in terms of ranks and positions, the BT universe (or at least early publications) didn't seem to really distinguish between first and second lieutenants; there seemed to be a flavor of one grade of lieutenant (i.e. lance commander). That actually leaves some room for the idea of "all MechWarriors are officers" as it leaves room for "MechWarrior" as O-1 with "lieutenant" as O-2.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #34 on: 29 July 2023, 09:17:32 »
That could work too. :)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #35 on: 29 July 2023, 09:24:29 »
That is a good point. But BT2E explicitly shows a lance comprised of a lieutenant, sergeant, and two privates.  :undecided:
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

nerd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2392
  • Nunc Partus-Ready Now
    • Traveller Adventures
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #36 on: 29 July 2023, 10:40:26 »
Just to complicate things further in terms of ranks and positions, the BT universe (or at least early publications) didn't seem to really distinguish between first and second lieutenants; there seemed to be a flavor of one grade of lieutenant (i.e. lance commander). That actually leaves some room for the idea of "all MechWarriors are officers" as it leaves room for "MechWarrior" as O-1 with "lieutenant" as O-2.
IIRC, In the old House Steiner Sourcebook, that's mentioned as their set up. It's also what the CCAF does as well.

That is a good point. But BT2E explicitly shows a lance comprised of a lieutenant, sergeant, and two privates.  :undecided:
An older source, and explicitly overruled by later sources where the universe is more developed.
M. T. Thompson
Don of the Starslayer Mafia
Member of the AFFS High Command

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #37 on: 29 July 2023, 12:37:37 »
IIRC, In the old House Steiner Sourcebook, that's mentioned as their set up. It's also what the CCAF does as well.

As does the FWLM and most other Inner Sphere militaries.

An older source, and explicitly overruled by later sources where the universe is more developed.

Not overruled at all.  :huh: Indeed, my response was directly tied to drjones's reply that "the BT universe (or at least early publications) didn't seem to really distinguish between first and second lieutenants; there seemed to be a flavor of one grade of lieutenant (i.e. lance commander). That actually leaves some room for the idea of "all MechWarriors are officers" as it leaves room for "MechWarrior" as O-1 with "lieutenant" as O-2." So, quite germane within that dialogue, thanks. But, it is a good idea and way through things regardless on his part.

So, if we are talking about early sources, then the early sources are clear lower-level enlisted troopers pilot BattleMechs. Many of the second and third generation unit/scenario sourcebooks include sergeants as lance-seconds, and the Warrior Trilogy is perhaps notable in its treatment of AFFS MechWarrior institutionalization.

Now, having said that: is every graduate of a Inner Sphere military academy a commissioned officer? Field Manual: FWL (FASA 1699) explicitly states so in conjunction with the Allison MechWarrior Academy (p. 28) and one assumes this rule carries on through the other academies (and similar institutions in the other major states). Which means that, at least in the 3020s-3050s, there was an additional codified pipeline for MechWarriors (like the Hero Academy or Davions Training Battalions) which would thus become the source of "enlisted MechWarriors". I personally believe so--this is borne out by subsequent RPG fodder--so this question is, in a sense, rhetorical. Taking Rolling Thunder (FASA 1651), for example, into account, we know that sergeants exist in the FWLM MechWarrior arm, and that academy graduates (such as Mikhail Cherenkov and poor Esteban Rodriquez) are subordinate to non-university MechWarriors (such as Lucas McCain)--and that academy graduates themselves can be sergeants (such as Peter Jensen). Vexing, to say the least.

Now, the Waco Ranger's inclusion of the rank of MechWarrior Sergeant was notable (see The Mercenary's Handbook, FASA 1616, p. 86, 89). For context, the ELH of 3025 did not use the rank of Sergeant for MechWarriors (but did elsewhere for conventional arms, so the omission was not due to a lack of understanding on the author). Little of the fiction/prose provides substantial clarity because it rarely involves the interaction between the various arms at an interpersonal level (and it is written by non-veterans in large part, at least until relatively recently, who might well have had little drive to highlight such an event). Many mercenary outfits use sergeants (Wolf's Dragoons, the Kell Hounds, Northwind Highlanders to name but three prominent ones--see The Fourth Succession Wars Scenarios, Volume 1 (FASA 1654)--as well as the AFFS, LCAF, and DCMS (the latter of which is more sparing--see the rank of Master Sergeant in House Kurita: The Draconis Combine, FASA 1620). The CCAF uses only commissioned officers to pilot 'Mechs (the implication here being akin to drjones's interpretation of the O1/2 split for Sub-Commander/Commander ranks). 

EDIT:  The LCAF does indeed use Leutnant as an interim rank for MechWarriors--it is effectively a cadet-ranking, like midshipman in the Age of Sail--with the actual lieutenants being First Leutnants that would then be in official command of a lance/platoon. But the use of Sergeant has occurred in canon, so it cannot be dismissed outright (see FASA 1654, p. 28 as one example).
« Last Edit: 29 July 2023, 12:56:16 by Failure16 »
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #38 on: 29 July 2023, 12:59:09 »
I think it comes down to "how many C-Bills do you entrust to an individual?"

Tanks seem to be Sergeant level, but Fighters are commissioned officers.  'Mechs are somewhere in between (like helicopters).  Warrant Officers seem perfect for that in my opinion.  TPTB seem to have evolved over time, but the rules are somewhat lagging... 

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #39 on: 29 July 2023, 13:31:27 »
Roger, for me and mine, They Shall Be Accorded Warrants. Canonically, I am down with the midshipman/graduated cadet/etc. notion where the blanket term "MechWarrior" is applied until they pass their field-boards and are presented their full commission. I grudgingly accept that is not how actual canon works (especially in my beloved FWLM), but it is easily sidestepped--and, in real terms, has effectively been just that for the last forty years!
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #40 on: 29 July 2023, 14:52:01 »
And the nice thing about mercenary units is that you can make up your own rank structures without violating canon!

Personally I'm in the mindset that MechWarriors should be officers, either commissioned or warrant.  The comparison is too close to fighter pilots (single unit, single pilot) in my civilian opinion, and it reinforces the Succession Wars-ideal of the noble MechWarrior having the status of a knight in the nobility.  Baron Corporal Shaun de la Muerte just sounds strange to me, while Duke Colonel Morgan Kell feels right.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14472
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #41 on: 29 July 2023, 18:36:37 »
Hellraiser, I think we all acknowledge that enlisted MechWarriors are part of the canon. I, personally, just refuse to include it in my world-view! If I did, my mighty MechWarriors would be outranked by their technical assistance teams. And that would be plum embarrassing. (Not to mention most infantry squad and platoon leaderships, tank gunners and commanders, company and batallion training NCOs and much staff-shop personnel...like I said, embarrassing. And unsustainable.) 

Why would MW be outranked by their Tech Teams or infantry Squads?
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #42 on: 29 July 2023, 21:51:48 »
Um, because my technical assistance teams and infantry squads are not staffed solely by recruits? And a MechWarrior ranked as a private will be outranked by likely half of any normal infantry squad (and tech squads are colloquially assumed to follow the same structure as infantry squads for simplicity's sake--a lead tech, some skilled assistants, and a few laborer apprentices). You know, there was a little hyperbole in my statement, but a MechWarrior Private (or even Sergeant) is still unsustainable for me.

But they do exist in the BTU, and that's just the way it is.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5296
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #43 on: 30 July 2023, 09:20:57 »
I think it depends on your appetite for custom units.  A Heavy APC makes a perfectly functional command vehicle with half the infantry compartment replaced with Communications Equipment.  That simple of a refit should be ubiquitous.  4 tons (equivalent) of Communications Equipment gets you +1 Initiative AND Satellite Uplinks.  The full Monty 7-ton versions (that give +2 Initiative) should be reserved for Regiments and above.  Heck, you can cram two tons of the stuff into a standard 10-ton APC for just the +1 Initiative.

All that is a long way of saying:
7 tons of Communications Equipment (+2 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Regiment and above
4 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Battalion level
3 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative): Why not Company level?  Definitely Company plus...
very nice idea.. consider it stolen.

My take has been for years..
Mechwarrior non-officers had to Warrant Officers, much like helicopter pilots. 
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #44 on: 30 July 2023, 11:06:26 »
Consider it given freely, good sir! :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #45 on: 04 August 2023, 12:48:33 »
IFair enough. If LEA rank structures made any sense (or at least the badges associated with the rankings), that is.  :grin:

Well, I don't have enough knowledge of the LEA rank usage to really comment on how appropriate it is, but at least to U.S. ears I think the ranks sound better than the British style ones. :grin:

I think my main takeaway is that the rank of sergeant doesn't always mean the same thing. It's something I try to keep in mind when looking at BT structures, since my understanding is that sergeant meant something somewhat different in medieval rank structures as well. (If I have it right -- and I should research the topic more -- a medieval army was mostly conscripts who were called up to fight only when needed. The term sergeant was applied to the men-at-arms who served the nobles full time; these were the professional soldiers. I think that the link leading to the modern usage of sergeant may be that when the conscripts were called up these professional soldiers served an NCO type function among them.) So, in the BT universe, I wouldn't immediately go with the idea that a MechWarrior sergeant is the same as the current rank. Here's an interesting possibility: if a MechWarrior is a warrant officer, and a lieutenant is an O-2, a MechWarrior sergeant might even effectively be an O-1. Another possibility is that a MechWarrior sergeant is a chief warrant officer; that would help fill in the lack of multiple warrant officer ranks. Neither of these is a great fit from my perspective, but again that might be modern ideas creeping in; a MechWarrior sergeant may be something different that isn't captured by modern military rank structures. Here's a possibility. Going back to LEA structures, my local police department has a rank of Officer 1st Class, which appears to basically recognize experience and capability. I believe some other agencies use a rank of corporal similarly. Also, in the BT context, a MechWarrior sergeant rank formally defines the line of succession if something happens to the lance commander. (This might be important to outside parties, even if the remainder of the lance knows who is most senior; if you accept the idea of a lance being a lieutenant and three MechWarriors, the hierarchy is pretty flat at that level.)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #46 on: 17 August 2023, 09:16:04 »
I picked up a copy of AToW and noted the table on pg. 124, which gives ranks but doesn't really definitively answer the question of MechWarrior rank; it actually gives two different ranks with the title MechWarrior. One is on the enlisted table and apparently corresponds to E5. The other is on the officer table and is one rank junior to an O1, but senior to a cadet. (Incidentally, this table does call out a lance leader as an O1.) Two possibilities I see are that either the AToW writers are acknowledging a split in opinion among players/authors or that (as proposed by others in this thread) different factions in-universe handle ranking of sub-command MechWarriors differently.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #47 on: 17 August 2023, 17:59:34 »
I think it's the latter and am (obviously) in the camp of those that think they're Warrant Officers. :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #48 on: 26 August 2023, 09:04:37 »
I favor that take as well. I can see the idea of different handling of MechWarrior rank in-universe too. For example, if I understand correctly, the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War Two (don't know if their army did the same) had petty officer ranked aviators (pilots) and my impression is that this was the norm for that navy, not an experiment or track in very limited use. This contrasts with modern, at least U.S. and European (as far as I know), ideas on aviator rank. I suppose this could lead to a corresponding interpretation for BT: most MechWarriors are warrant officers but one power (or a minority of powers) ranks them differently (as NCOs, E5 according to AToW).

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #49 on: 26 August 2023, 20:30:22 »
The IJN did indeed rely heavily on their enlisted pilots (the Sōren in colloquial usage), especially as the war went on and their training pipeline's deficiencies began to become insurmountable. By all accounts, their life alongside the commissioned officer students (not to be confused with the enlisted trainees) was a living Hell, but the same could be said for every enlisted serviceman (and even junior officers relatively speaking) in Imperial Japanese service in that era.

They will be warrant officers for me, even allowing for institutional naming differences. But we do know for certain that many BTU factions have enlisted MechWarriors, as has already been elucidated.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #50 on: 01 September 2023, 12:36:04 »
One other reference possibly relevant to the discussion of a 'mech being too much responsibility for a private would be Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie). I don't have a copy around to cite, but there's a discourse acknowledging the amount of training that a Mobile Infantry private receives, something like it being equivalent to a master craftsman in other fields. In the book, that private is operating something that by description seems pretty closely equivalent to BT battle armor. Admittedly, you could probably argue a qualitative difference between battle armor and 'mechs from the perspective of whether an officer is required based on responsibility. However, Heinlein's setting does explore a case where a junior enlisted member needs very extensive training and is entrusted with considerable combat capability, stated in the book to be superior to a platoon of tanks (if I recall correctly) so we're talking 'mech level -- or above -- abilities even if the suit's description sounds more like battle armor.

I do fall on the "MechWarriors are at least warrant officers" side of things, but it's an interesting counterargument.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #51 on: 01 September 2023, 14:46:20 »
Heck, I think Heinlein gave his grunts nukes... ;)

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #52 on: 01 September 2023, 15:06:14 »
Sub-kiloton ones, but yes, atomics were something carried by the Marauder suits in that novel.  Rico gets his Big Screw Up with one in training.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #53 on: 01 September 2023, 15:07:45 »
Even a sub-kiloton nuke is still a nuke... ;)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #54 on: 01 September 2023, 17:32:20 »
Heinlein said almost exactly the same thing, actually.

It's not a bad corollary, drjones.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #55 on: 09 September 2023, 09:48:54 »
Of course, thinking about it a bit more, one of Heinlein's themes that he appeared to advocate in the book was that the modern (in his case, late-mid-20th century) military had too high an officer-to-enlisted ratio. So, that might have influenced his perspective on what level of responsibility to give to who. It would be pretty hard to simultaneously argue for a lower percentage of officers and yet make your standard individual battlefield unit require an officer to operate it.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #56 on: 09 September 2023, 09:56:37 »
I think there's a difference between "standard unit" in universe and in game.

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #57 on: 09 September 2023, 10:42:37 »
Daryk has an intereesting point. We, as players--and assuredly myself for all my distinct love of conventional arms--focus very pointedly on BattleMechs. They are, after all, the point of decision in-universe, and the raison d'être for the game and resulting milieu. So, I feel that our point-of-view is skewed compared to how things are in the actual Inner Sphere. As an example, there has to be a very heavy logistical base for a BattleMech formation that is rarely talked about and almost never seen; a 'Mech regiment is considerably larger than 120+/- combat machines and pilots.

I subscribed very heavily to Heinlein's conceit and driving theme in Starship Troopers. I still do, generally. But, having served in the military, and lucky enough to do what I did and go where I went, I came to gather an intrinsic understanding of commissioned officers, including why they are what they are, do what they do, and inhabit the roles that exist.

But, you know, warrant officers sidestep all of this "head-to-body" ratio. Which is but one reason why I chose them as my go-to for MechWarriors (as well as the aforementioned reasons of relative ranking/responsibility, etc.)
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #58 on: 15 September 2023, 12:39:35 »
I was thinking of Heinlein's powered armor when I mentioned a standard unit; I think he may have boxed himself into a corner there with his thoughts on officer-to-enlisted ratios. My impression was that powered armor was the basic combat unit for the Terrans in the book, with anything else being specialized (admittedly, the narrator, as Mobile Infantry, might have had a biased perspective). BT is a different situation, where the 'mech occupies a privileged position (but Heinlein's musings muddy the water by presenting his powered armor as having 'mech-like capabilities). Within the BT universe, I continue to see warrant officer ranks (or something roughly equivalent, with an easy and routinely exercised but not automatically expected promotion path to commissioned officer ranks) as making the most sense for (non-command) MechWarriors.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #59 on: 09 October 2023, 19:32:07 »
I know, probably a little late to the game, but the various Field Manuals (the originals) have the information regarding the ranks for the various unit commanders, as well as the minimum ranks for actual Mechwarriors.  FM:Mercenaries is the most generic of them, with probably the closest to the old SLDF style of ranks.

Having gone through all of those manuals, I can tell you this much:
  • There are only 2 military formations (including generic merc units) that actually give command of a single BattleMech to anyone roughly equivalent to a modern-day private:
    • Outworld Alliance's AMC (pre-Snow Raven takeover):  since they have a completely voluntary military, all initial Mechwarriors that exit general training start off as a Defender (E0 to E2), rising to Protector (E3 & E4) after a year of problem-free service, Guardian (E5 & E6) after 2 years of problem-free service, & Preceptor (E7+) after 3 years of problem-free service (& at that point usually considered assistant to the Lance CO).
    • Mercenaries:  not so much that they have a low rank as that they don't have an actual rank.  Although technically based around the old SLDF, they are unlike the SLDF in that Mechwarriors are treated like other specialists (techs, spaceship crew, etc.) & in that unit you're probably starting off somewhere between E0 & E4 (Corporal/E5 is not very likely, as FM:Mercenaries say they are primarily limited to infantry formations).  It's not until you hit Sergeant/E6 or Mechwarrior Sergeant/E7 that you're given any command responsibilities anyway (& then as a Lance XO)
  • CCAF is the only military where all Mechwarriors have officer rank, with Mechwarriors starting at Sao-wei (Commander Squad Leader, O2), equivalent to Lieutenant; Warrior House members have the rank Bang-zhang.  However, until they actually pass OCS, they are not considered actual commanders, as Lances are commanded by Sao-shas (Captain, O3).
  • Of the militaries, 2 make a distinction in rank titles for Mechwarriors:
    • Kungsarme:  Mechwarriors are equivalent to Korprals (E5), but are called Kavellrists (Cavalry Soldier).
    • DCMS:  Mechwarriors that are noble-born or own their own 'Mech are Kashira (Talon Sergeant, E7).  If they are not noble-born & don't own their 'Mech, they are Shujin (Master Sergeant, E6).
  • Unlike in our real world, most of the militaries do not view their military academies as being strictly meant to teach officer candidates.  Although Mechwarrior curriculums are generally limited to the academies (with the exceptions of the Training Battalions for the AFFS & LCAF; I would still classify the CCAF's Warrior Houses as military academies of sorts, they just include a level of personal loyalty to that particular Warrior House, & stand somewhat outside the CCAF's standard command hierarchy), only those Mechwarriors that attend OCS end up having an officer's rank (usually O1 to O2 level).
  • For most of the militaries, the progression in O-levels for the unit COs are pretty standard:  O2/O3 for Lances, O3/O4 for Companies, O4/O5 for Battalions, O6 for Regiments, and O7 for larger units (Brigades, RCTs, Combat Commands, etc.).

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #60 on: 09 October 2023, 19:59:10 »
Mercs can literally do it anyway they want, so that's not surprising... :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #61 on: 20 October 2023, 09:18:09 »
The discussion of enlisted grades used by the Outworlds Alliance reminded me that, if you're going to have enlisted MechWarriors, specialist actually might be the most appropriate place they'd start. It could sidestep some of the concerns about techs and infantry outranking the MechWarrior.

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #62 on: 20 October 2023, 18:45:55 »
Sure. By all rights, with time in grade counted from acceptance to an academy, they should be Spec5s or Technical Sergeants and thus cannot be ordered around by squad leaders and TCs.

Still, no one has convinced me about straying from the Warrant Officer path. It leads to a more natural progression to a commission especially.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #63 on: 21 October 2023, 20:59:54 »
Sure. By all rights, with time in grade counted from acceptance to an academy, they should be Spec5s or Technical Sergeants and thus cannot be ordered around by squad leaders and TCs.

Still, no one has convinced me about straying from the Warrant Officer path. It leads to a more natural progression to a commission especially.

Which works if the faction actually uses the Warrant Officer ranks, but I don't think any of them actually do so...or at least not the way that the US Army does.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea.  It especially meshes with how GI Joe did it -- in the 1980s toy line, the pilot for the Dragonfly (GI Joe's version of the AH-1 Cobra) was, IIRC, a CWO-4...

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #64 on: 21 October 2023, 22:01:18 »
I'm not arguing canon rank structures. They are often silly but exist regardless of my feelings.

In my own personal mercenary regiment and in my view of the BTU, warrant officers exist, and in the BattleMech arm, they are called "MechWarriors".

Sure, Wild Bill was a CW4. Lift Ticket (of the Tomahawk/Chinook-Sea Knightalike) was a "W-2" as I just checked.

As an aside (and personal appreciation of the warrant program)...Back in the dark ages, the pilots who were allowed to run the VISMODded UH-1s ("Sokol Flights") at NTC were old crusty CW4s or 5s (a few of which had time in Vietnam). Many of them had a Wild Bill flair about them. They just wanted to do things that UH-1s shouldn't be doing nor having done to them, so that is what they did.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #65 on: 22 October 2023, 07:37:24 »
I think the OG Lyrans had Warrants, but not as MechWarriors (as theagent said).

nerd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2392
  • Nunc Partus-Ready Now
    • Traveller Adventures
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #66 on: 22 October 2023, 11:54:29 »
I think the OG Lyrans had Warrants, but not as MechWarriors (as theagent said).
Yes. The Lyran Warrants are techs, according to both House Steiner and FM:LA, which re-introduced the traditional LCAF ranks.

If I were able to re-do the BattleTech rank structure, I would have MechWarriors as Warrants, and graded based on what officer position they could step in as following losses. However, to maintain good communication with other fans, and to avoid IMBTU, I stick with published information.

OTOH, the British Army Air Corps has NCO pilots to this day, who, on completion of training, become acting Sergeants. The book Apache by Ed Macy provides an interesting look at how the AAC operated attack helicopters in 2007.
M. T. Thompson
Don of the Starslayer Mafia
Member of the AFFS High Command

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #67 on: 22 October 2023, 11:57:18 »
As nerd said first, there are indeed four warrant ranks in the LCAF. Interestingly, LCAF leutnants are effectively active-duty cadets or midshipmen and are not formally commissioned until they achieve first leutnant.

If I were able to re-do the BattleTech rank structure, I would have MechWarriors as Warrants, and graded based on what officer position they could step in as following losses. However, to maintain good communication with other fans, and to avoid IMBTU, I stick with published information.

My position as well. No sense in arguing against the wind, which is why we have mercenary outfits where we can do what we want.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #68 on: 22 October 2023, 12:50:36 »
+1 for mercs doing what they want! :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #69 on: 27 October 2023, 10:00:27 »
As nerd said first, there are indeed four warrant ranks in the LCAF. Interestingly, LCAF leutnants are effectively active-duty cadets or midshipmen and are not formally commissioned until they achieve first leutnant.

Interestingly, that sounds somewhat like Heinlein's "third lieutenant" grade for cadets on their graduation exercise.

Which works if the faction actually uses the Warrant Officer ranks, but I don't think any of them actually do so...or at least not the way that the US Army does.

That reminded me to look at the setting itself which by presenting itself as largely feudal argues in favor of MechWarriors, being presented as (at least minor) nobility, equating to officers (in a more historical sense, not necessarily the modern one). There might be some correlation between MW rank systems and adherence to the feudal side of the setting in any given work...

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #70 on: 27 October 2023, 16:26:24 »
Yep!  AToW Companion has the rules on pages 45-46... :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #71 on: 03 November 2023, 12:16:51 »
Yep!  AToW Companion has the rules on pages 45-46... :)

Rules for feudal title to military rank equivalences/comparisons?

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #72 on: 03 November 2023, 16:10:27 »
Yes!

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #73 on: 10 November 2023, 09:36:22 »
I don't have a copy of AToW Companion -- is there a general description of what those rules provide? I wasn't going too deep into the potential relationships (i.e. this noble title equals that modern military rank?), just noting that, if I understand correctly, knights historically were effectively officers in status (whether or not they brought their own retinue with them) and that this would seem to argue in favor of MechWarriors (also feudal and essentially knights) being at least warrant officers.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #74 on: 10 November 2023, 10:57:54 »
This first paragraph of the section on pages 45-46 says it best:
Quote
In the BattleTech universe, military titles often grant a person a degree of clout even in the social orders of noble peerage (see Military Ranks, p. 354, AToW), but how much or how little clout is provided often varies by state. To reflect this, the Officer Rank to Title Equivalency tables provide a guide to determining the effective social rank a military officer will enjoy in the various royal courts of the Inner Sphere.

Last I checked, the pdf of the Companion is only about $15... totally worth it!

Horsemen

  • Four for the price of one!
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 338
  • CDT Agent #191
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #75 on: 12 November 2023, 23:55:54 »
This first paragraph of the section on pages 45-46 says it best:
Last I checked, the pdf of the Companion is only about $15... totally worth it!

I second that even if you are paying CAD!

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #76 on: 17 November 2023, 13:23:40 »
That does go deeper than I was envisioning! I think my initial observation had a different flavor: more at a meta level, I was wondering if there is any relationship between how feudal the setting appears in a given author's BT fiction and what rank structure the author assumes; more feudal interpretations of the setting (e.g. MechWarriors are highly influential landholders who own their own 'mechs) might correlate with "MechWarriors are officers" rank structure presentations... (I'm working my way through the Warrior trilogy again; it leans toward modern military structures. I'm still forming an opinion of its take on the social structure.)

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #77 on: 17 November 2023, 17:25:19 »
The rules would help an author calibrate their "feudal-ness" by realm, even if they have an overall idea of that level is.

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #78 on: 25 November 2023, 08:53:32 »
Right -- of course, the current rules might (unsurprisingly) in turn have been calibrated by the preexisting fiction  :smiley:

That kind of leads back to different rank structures for different states; all MWs are officers in one, not in another. I sort of wonder if that is a bit of canon welding to handle different fiction authors (and rule writers) having had different takes on how BT rank structures worked?

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #79 on: 25 November 2023, 09:21:19 »
Maybe, but that's a writer question... ;)

Grand_dm

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 365
    • Ultanya
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #80 on: 04 December 2023, 09:21:03 »
Command Private Major: The rank of every bad 'Mechwarrior.

Big ideas and gaming outside the box. #Gametavern proprietor. Plus Ultra.

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #81 on: 04 December 2023, 18:18:19 »
Naw, that's just a Private Major First Class. Now, having said that, there is indeed a Command Private Major in every battalion, and they are seldom to be trifled with.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14472
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #82 on: 13 December 2023, 14:13:26 »
Who needs a Corporal to run a Police Call detail when you have the CPM around ?   :evil:
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

TheOldDragoon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • From Royal With Love
    • The RDG Facebook Page
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #83 on: 29 January 2024, 14:19:34 »
In our various MechWarrior campaigns since I was a JROTC and later ROTC cadet, we came up with our own kinda explanation and work-around to try to explain the strangeness that is MechWarrior privates, etc.

So, we took the idea of Law Enforcement Rank, where in some jurisdictions promotion from the patrolman ranks to Sergeant is one track, but one can also promote to Detective. Detective Sergeant, then, is a higher rank than a beat cop Sergeant.

So, MechWarrior Private is a Private in the sense of "Private Soldier," but much more "Gentleman Ranker" in the  Napoleonic sense. A member of the societal upper crust waiting for an opportunity to slide into an officer billet. So while an infantry Corporal might seem to outrank a BattleMech Private, that is not functionally the case as MechWarriors are considered to be a senior service. This might be like the discussions my retired USAF friend and I had over the push to re-instate the Warrant Officer ranks into the USAF. There are pilot officers who are pushing to bring back USAF Warrants because they want to fly, not command, and as was noted upthread expressing a desire for such is a career-limiting move. They argue that pilots who wish to concentrate on flying would be better off as Warrant Officers so as to avoid all the mandatory bonus fun that is leadership training and other professional military education requirements.

So, we have in our Regiment in the fiction an enlisted track parallel to, but explicitly above, the other arms of the unit. The insignia is similar, but with a 'Mech silhouette identifier inside the chevrons. This is Master MechWarrior, E-7. Sort of like the old Spec-5 through Spec-7 (-9?) ranks.

This seems to iron out the wierdness of Academies producing Sergeants, if that Sergeant is explicitly senior to those in the more mundane combat arms by virtue of being a Mechwarrior Sergeant. It also doesn't overload the TOE with too many by-God officers, or a crapton of Warrants.

I mean, if your formation is mostly warrants, you don't have a formation. You have dozens of pilots who disappeared to get coffee and were never seen again until Drill Weekend is over.

But seriously, given the idea that each 'Mech is like a Knight, and has a retinue of techs, astechs, etc. to support it, the idea that a MechWarrior is basically a Warrant Officer with an enlisted entourage fits both the social cachet of the setting and the officer/enlisted balance of a modern military better than having to jump through the mental hoops of MechWarrior Privates. The system we use in our games is the same thing, just under a different name, and minus the salutes and the "sirs/ma'ams" and "misters/misses" for every MechWarrior.
« Last Edit: 29 January 2024, 14:21:56 by TheOldDragoon »
JEFFREY A. WEBB
Sergeant Major
Regimental Sergeant Major
The Royal Dragoon Guards

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #84 on: 29 January 2024, 18:31:31 »
Cool patch!  But I still prefer my Warrant Officer solution, especially since TPTB have acknowledged AsTechs exist, and are REQUIRED to make 'mech formations work.  I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: a properly supported 'mech formation is actually one echelon up.  It takes a Company of people to support a Lance of 'mechs, and a Battalion to support a Company of them.

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #85 on: 03 February 2024, 09:24:30 »
I seem to recall that astechs weren't necessarily permanent members of a formation; they could be hired locally and temporarily. However, I can't find a citation for that at the moment. The closest my search found was CO pg. 190 stating that upon concluding travel the unit's technician would obtain astechs from a pool of personnel. That being said, it probably doesn't change the effects on the rank structure as there are current and historical examples of "top heavy" units where the permanently assigned personnel's ranks reflect their organizational position during the unit's anticipated increase in size when circumstances dictate.

nerd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2392
  • Nunc Partus-Ready Now
    • Traveller Adventures
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #86 on: 03 February 2024, 09:57:54 »
Cool patch!  But I still prefer my Warrant Officer solution, especially since TPTB have acknowledged AsTechs exist, and are REQUIRED to make 'mech formations work.  I've said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: a properly supported 'mech formation is actually one echelon up.  It takes a Company of people to support a Lance of 'mechs, and a Battalion to support a Company of them.
That would be the case more for independent units. I'd expect a great deal of duplication in shops to be reduced with a larger force. Using the title of "Commander" or "Captain" for the smallest forces makes sense.
M. T. Thompson
Don of the Starslayer Mafia
Member of the AFFS High Command

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #87 on: 03 February 2024, 10:06:15 »
I think the "locally hired AsTech" thing was from MW1e...

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #88 on: 10 February 2024, 08:17:37 »
I think the "locally hired AsTech" thing was from MW1e...

It does show up there; pg. 107, talking about the households associated with a unit, discusses the concept of astechs and hiring them on site.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #89 on: 10 February 2024, 08:20:42 »
Just glad to have remembered it right after all these years! ;D

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5296
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #90 on: 07 April 2024, 23:19:48 »
I think the "locally hired AsTech" thing was from MW1e...
I don't have my books handy but I thought it was in Merc Handbook/field Manuals as well.
It was always 1 of the lack of base security features I tried to avoid in the campaign field, maybe in a garrison/cadre contract. 
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"