Going Merc during the Succession Wars

[SteelRaven]

Been revisiting my older Mercenary characters, looking into expanding their stories.

My original character of the 3rd SW has been written as someone who joined a merc unit after his five year stint with the Lyran Guard. I also got to thinking that the great houses would try to keep their Mechwarriors in their service for as long as possible. I have some good ideas why my character would want to leave the LCAF (a Social General nearly getting his entire unit killed and then getting a commendation for the same battle) though I would like here other possible motivations from other players.

[RunandFindOut]

Most trouble in the history of trouble has started with the words, "there was this boy/girl."  I don't imagine the future is any different, and try to have at least one character in any merc unit that ended up there because of those famous words.  Perhaps they had an affair with the wrong person's partner, or refused an offer from someone of much higher status who didn't take it well.  Perhaps they fell in love with someone completely socially or politically inappropriate.  Either way given human nature and the nature of military life and culture there should be plenty of mercs who have a story about a boy/girl to tell over a beer about why they aren't a member in good standing of their former military unit.

[Daryk]

There's also the whole "the grass is always greener" angle.  From the point of view of a House trooper, mercenaries seem to get "more pay, with less BS".  Of course, House troops get "steady pay, less unpredictability".  Not that either view is accurate, but they certainly are motivators.

[glitterboy2098]

also worth noting that the lyrans and Davions apparently will assign their personnel to merc units for the troop's tour. (see Dan Allard in the Kell Hounds as seen in the Warrior Trilogy.)
i would presume that mercs that are practically house troops (whether due to unit loyalty or company store tactics) would get similar.

so it is possible this mechwarrior never served in a standard house military unit at all during his tour.

[Charistoph]

also worth noting that the lyrans and Davions apparently will assign their personnel to merc units for the troop's tour. (see Dan Allard in the Kell Hounds as seen in the Warrior Trilogy.)

Heh, that could be a good start.  Think of Wolves on the Border and the situation with Tetsuhara and Noketsuna.  Noketsuna eventually became one of the Bounty Hunters.

The character could have been a liaison officer who worked with a Merc group they respected, and then that unit either gets screwed by an officious oaf or time with the unit just lead him to have a deep respect for them and they resigns their commission with no animosity.  It may also be a situation where officially, the LCAF can't officially go after a target the player has gained a vendetta against, but the Merc group can and is going to, so the only way the player can get their revenge is to resign their commission.  And as has been said, it could be "grass is greener" syndrome, or simple compatibility is stronger with the Mercs than it is with the old unit.

Many possibilities and opportunities are possible, it is only the imagination is the limit.

[Natasha Kerensky]

Discipline Case — Your character has issues with authority or a borderline criminal personality or likes to throw their weight around or demonstrated cowardice on the field.  They may have earned a dishonorable discharge, making less reputable mercs their only legitimate employment option.  Or they were discharged honorably but only so their House military could be rid of them and pawn them off on whatever mercs will take them.

Friends and Family Plan — Your character is related to or close friends with the leadership or members of a merc company.  Maybe Commander Daddy (Uncle? Brother?) sent you off to military academy and a couple tours of duty in a House unit to get you ready to take your place in his merc company.  Or maybe you and your academy brothers always planned to form your own merc company after serving a couple terms.

Disinherited and Abandoned — Your character’s House military lost their home world and abandoned their unit in that or a related retreat.  Although the unit survived a daring escape, they have little interest in rejoining the House military that abandoned them and with no source of feudal estate income, they have little choice but to pursue a mercenary lifestyle.  Or maybe the conquering House is short handed after the big battle willing to hire them as mercenaries, for now.

[dgorsman]

Being selected for the Guards means some connections.  But perhaps this character is just a token selection, and is tired of others being selected for higher command slots due to family despite clear ineptitude.

Or maybe he's stuck piloting the lightest (i.e. least Lyran) Mech in the unit.   :D

[SteelRaven]

Or maybe he's stuck piloting the lightest (i.e. least Lyran) Mech in the unit.   :D

Inherited his families Warhammer after his Father died in combat, nearly died in a similar offensive lead by a inept commander (who got his command via nepotism and pro Lyran/pro Alessandro Steiner bravado. Think Armstrong Custer on his way to Little Big Horn) then finds out his mother died during the FWL offensive within Lyran space (thanks to Operation Concentrate Weakness allocating few resources to the planet defense)

Still working on dates that make sense I want to include Merc Unit in the Marik Civil War/Anton's Revolt (found it interesting how many people founded Anton directly or indirectly just to screw over Janos. 1st grade skullduggery)

My friend who ran our original merc campaign in 90's came up with the Lyran Guard angle because he thought it was cool though he also included a Blazing Aces type origin that I though was a bit dated and needed a overhaul. Only some many mechwarrios can have "You killed my father, prepare to die!" as a origin/motivation.   
       

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

  I GMed a series of campaigns, where nearly all the players were military veterans and there was a common theme for being mercs: Screw the Military.
They hated regulars, refused to wear uniforms (one unit wore business suits, another wore clown costumes), all took on silly names (most of which cannot be printed here), and all of them agreed to hate Capellans.

  The units were often dysfunctional, racist, sexist, and psychotic, but fun was had by all.

[Kovax]

I had one campaign where the unit was composed of former arena warriors.  The leader made a relatively modest chunk of C-Bills in a couple of fights, and then decided to get out before his luck broke, forming a "security" mercenary unit with just his light 'Mech and a friend's, plus their million-or-so C-Bills in pooled cash.  Nothing like sitting around for a year, comfortable and safe, and getting paid for it, right?  Then someone shows up with weapons, and suddenly you've got to earn your pay.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

I had one campaign where the unit was composed of former arena warriors.  The leader made a relatively modest chunk of C-Bills in a couple of fights, and then decided to get out before his luck broke, forming a "security" mercenary unit with just his light 'Mech and a friend's, plus their million-or-so C-Bills in pooled cash.  Nothing like sitting around for a year, comfortable and safe, and getting paid for it, right?  Then someone shows up with weapons, and suddenly you've got to earn your pay.

  Regular units sometimes have problems facing foes who decline to adhere to standard military doctrine, an example would be the Third Servile War (73-71 BCE) led by Spartacus, who managed to destroy a number of Roman legions and control much of Southern Italy, with an army of slaves and escaped gladiators (70,000 to 90,000). When facing superior forces, the last thing you do is play their game.

[Daryk]

Agreed... forces designed for symmetrical fights often lose to forces not designed for that (oddly enough)…

[SteelRaven]

Agreed... forces designed for symmetrical fights often lose to forces not designed for that (oddly enough)…

From the cliff notes of How to Eat Soup with a Knife, Larger more ridged forces train to do things one way. If the opposing forces can find ways to counter that one way, the Larger force is at a disadvantage until they learn to adapt (which can be hindered by that ridged part of their structure)

*forget I posted that as it's derailing this topic* This cuts both ways as unconventional forces are usually play to the strengths of their individuals and prey on the common vulnerabilities of their more uniform enemy.       

[Dave Talley]

Heh, that could be a good start.  Think of Wolves on the Border and the situation with Tetsuhara and Noketsuna.  Noketsuna eventually became one of the Bounty Hunters.

The character could have been a liaison officer who worked with a Merc group

yep liason in training, or simply aide for liason who keeps eyes and ears open

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

The WWII vets who talked about the draft as if it was a good thing did so because it made the US forces much more flexible during WWII have so many soldiers from so many different backgrounds. This cuts both ways as unconventional forces are usually play to the strengths of their individuals and prey on the common vulnerabilities of their more uniform enemy.       

   While I was stationed in Europe, I has the fortune to interview WW2 veterans from Germany, the UK and Czechoslovakia, and they had very interesting things to say about military doctrine among the participants. They all applauded the US forces for the fact that the US had endless supplies of equipment and munitions but also agreed that the US was the least disciplined, which proved costly. When the British or Germans planned an offensive, they maintained radio silence, moved units with great caution and more often than not, took the enemy by surprise. Americans never adhered to radio discipline, shouted all the time, and constantly revved the engines of their vehicles prior to an operation, so the Germans usually had plenty of warning and time to prepare. While the British were always impressed by the ability of US forced to pound a target with massed air or artillery attacks, they were also very critical of the habit of Americans to pound the wrong targets, often British units, which led them to consider all US units as trigger happy and lacking the patience to verify targets.

  Personally, I don't believe the draft had any bearing on flexibility. Doctrine originates from the top down, not from the bottom up, and WWII US units merely exhibited lack of adequate experience, from the top down.

  I started GMing BT campaigns after a dispute with a long-time BT GM who forced players to adopt his interpretations of House military doctrines. To me, that's like requiring people to roleplay WW2 battles, instead of using better tactics to win, such as dropping smoke rounds to blind bunkers so they can't fire at my charging Japanese infantry waves. It may not be standard, historical doctrine, but it works.

  The players I GMed were tired of gaming with their hands tied, of being told "Your unit knows nothing of combined arms, so your units can't cooperate effectively." The whole "Combined arms is unknown" notion is rubbish. Units develop fighting doctrine based on what equipment they can field, not some dictate from distant staff officers. The BT universe may have been based on the myth that the battlemech is the ultimate war machine but I have a number of vehicle unit commanders who have crushed that myth time and again. BT rules have evolved to a point that fielding an all-mech force is suicide. Using the current tabletop rules, the Clans would never have gotten as far, I would invite you to play them out, where a lone infantryman spotting for indirect fire units could blunt an attack and blind Clan recon capability. Things get even uglier when experienced wargamers are playing.

  Yes, there was a time where a lance of mechs could conquer a world. Not under the current rules.

[SteelRaven]

  Personally, I don't believe the draft had any bearing on flexibility. Doctrine originates from the top down, not from the bottom up, and WWII US units merely exhibited lack of adequate experience, from the top down.

 
I stopped short of calling it flawed logic (though I should have stated that at the beginning of my post) as you never hear that logic applied to any other conflict the US participated in while the draft was active. Simple thought it was a good Segway for the topic.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

 
I stopped short of calling it flawed logic (though I should have stated that at the beginning of my post) as you never hear that logic applied to any other conflict the US participated in while the draft was active. Simple thought it was a good Segway for the topic.

  I've yet to find any serious doctrinal effect that drafting soldiers had made. Was doctrine changed in the American Civil War? The First World War? Vietnam? Were units made more flexible due to forced "diversity"?

  Equating the draft with slavery is why Nixon ended it.

[SteelRaven]

Think you misunderstood me (the draft is terrible, I was saying people who spoke of it in positive light of using flawed logic) but we are getting off topic.

I'm sorry I brought it up, back to mercenaries and the 3rd SW.

[glitterboy2098]

From the cliff notes of How to Eat Soup with a Knife, Larger more ridged forces train to do things one way. If the opposing forces can find ways to counter that one way, the Larger force is at a disadvantage until they learn to adapt (which can be hindered by that ridged part of their structure)

The WWII vets who talked about the draft as if it was a good thing did so because it made the US forces much more flexible during WWII have so many soldiers from so many different backgrounds. This cuts both ways as unconventional forces are usually play to the strengths of their individuals and prey on the common vulnerabilities of their more uniform enemy.       

"One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine." - apocryphal quote usually attributed to german officers in WW2 and sometimes to soviet officers in the cold war.

though most of that came down to bits of doctrine that derived from the culture.. Nazi germany and the soviet union were rigid top down affairs where personal initiative was not terribly encouraged in most things. and their doctrine tended to reflect this as well.. heavily preplanned, troops drilled to follow the plan at all times, etc. lots of nuances too complex to go into here but that is the gist of it. british doctrine was more flexible but still used intricately detailed operational planning and elevated 'the plan' to the prime position. much to their detriment in operations like Market Garden. American doctrine developed plans as a framework of objectives and goals, and left most of the details to the initiative of the commanders of the units involved, trusting them to adjust methods on the fly. which sometimes resulted in unconventional approaches. which of course had drawbacks as they sometimes hared off on efforts that made the original plans useless.

this aspect certainly applies to BT.. until Theodore's reforms (and even after with some of the more traditional commands), the DCMS had a lot in common with ww2 japan.. rigid planning, 'death before dishonor', riding the plan down in flames. the CapCon similarly (though more russian).

of all the successor states, the most 'american' one in comparison to ww2 would be the FWL.. and that less because they are flexible and more because every member state within the FWL would basically have its own doctrinal philosophy it follows, and you'd never know exactly what you would be up against.

[Kovax]

  I've yet to find any serious doctrinal effect that drafting soldiers had made. Was doctrine changed in the American Civil War? The First World War? Vietnam? Were units made more flexible due to forced "diversity"?

The American draft was changed in WWI when several states objected to having their own state's citizens chosen to charge the machineguns, instead of sacrificing another state's young men for the sake of the overall objective.  The solution was to mix draftees from the various states into the same formations.  That made each unit more diverse, which wasn't nearly as big an issue in this case as doing so in some other country with multiple languages and violently competing religions.  Someone with a New England "twang" to his voice could still understand a Texan's "drawl", and Protestants and Catholics weren't at each others' throats, aside from a few passing remarks mean half-humorously.  Offhand, I don't think it was either a "good" or "bad" thing for the discipline and doctrine of the individual units, but had a significant impact on the culture after the war when those soldiers returned home with a far broader and more open view of "America".

My impression, from extensive reading on the topic, is that the German junior officers at the start of WWII initially had a lot of leeway to "interpret" orders, to the point where it was even "technically possible" to refuse an order (which is different from accepting it and then refusing to follow it), at least on the grounds of moral objection, and have the task assigned to someone else.  That greater freedom and flexibility served extremely well in the confused mess in France, where the situation changed faster than reports could reach the next level of command and orders arrive back, but that loose organization and lack of discipline worked against the Germans deep in the Soviet Union where over-extended logistics and the sheer scale of the operations required a lot more planning and preparation.  The flexibility allowed to the German officers was steadily eroded as the war went on, until by the end it was a "top down" command situation without question, possibly even more so than in traditionally more rigid armies.

That early-war situation is a prime reason for the existence of mercenaries: soldiers given an overall objective, but not necessarily locked into the rigid command structure as to "how" to accomplish those goals.  Basically, they're free to "think outside the box", and get the job done in whatever way works, if they want to be stay in business.  The opposing reason would be as cannon fodder, to be expended instead of House troops, if the mercenaries can be tricked into letting themselves be put in that position.

[Colt Ward]

We saw doctrinal conflict in a 'new' mercenary unit with the Chaos Irregulars- rigid structure from the Hussars and a loose more freewheeling style from the Sabers.  The Sabers were definitely cited as having a Leaguer mentality (by a Outreach Mil Academy prof) while the impression given is the Hussars are more 'professional' in their background- perhaps FS or AFFC background.

Were militaries in the 3SW more rigidly adhering to their doctrine or the formal/ritualized rules of combat?  If so, I imagine that would cause some conflict when a merc force was used to fill out some regulars in any sort of conflict.  We already saw some of that conflict when the Dragoons were employed by the Dragon, how when the mercs adjusted the plan the DCMS regulars were bent out of shape.  The political maneuvering to get the liaisons to adjust the plan while saving face.

Btw, I think its not the draft so much as what it brought in- which is folks who were not lifers and had other skills.  One of my favorite examples is that the first up-armored humvees for garrison patrols in Iraq were created by a National Guard unit.  Simple part of the reason is that it had guys who as civilians were welders . . . so they tacked on some steel to the vehicle's frame.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

  One of my favorite examples is that the first up-armored humvees for garrison patrols in Iraq were created by a National Guard unit.  Simple part of the reason is that it had guys who as civilians were welders . . . so they tacked on some steel to the vehicle's frame.

  Up-armoring equipment is as old as equipment itself. For years, archaeologists wondered why certain Roman helmets had a small visor that served no practical purpose. Surviving examples were found in Gaul and along Rome's German border. The visors weren't meant to shade the legionnaires' eyes, they served as a layer of extra armor, riveted in place, to ward of attacks by taller warriors, some with two-handed weapons not encountered on other frontiers.

  A note on Humvee armor development: For years, the University of Hawaii was contracted to work on armor shielding at a remote island site in Kaneohe Bay. It was kept secret because many UH professors vigorously oppose any form of research devoted to the US military, even medical. An inactive Marine (yes, there is no such thing as an ex-Marine...) friend told me great details about delivering sheets of metal, of various types, to the site and seeing the vehicles being modified. The UH doesn't work on anything that isn't being payed for, so grant money was coming from somewhere.

  My question has never been "Why become a mercenary?" but "Why bother serving a House?" Mercenaries have far more leeway in choosing their opponents and locations, more freedom to develop their own doctrinal practices, all without swearing fealty to any of the corrupt empires that keep warring on each other. Fortunately, only one of the Houses had the giblets to stand up to mercenaries and end the practice of hiring heavily armed civilians to do government work. They even proved that they didn't need mercenaries to survive, but none of the other Houses were able to take that step.

  As a GM, none of my players would ever consider being a regular. Sure, all of them served as regulars in character creation, but none of the sociopaths in my campaign fostered any loyalty to any House, and had no qualms about killing prisoners or civilians of their previous citizenship. When offered a chance to train at Outreach, my players unanimously refused any of the conditions required, the Star League was as dead as the Ares Conventions, so they formed a hiring hall and training cadre that competed with Outreach, and eventually surpassed them, by offering more than Outreach ever could: Legal defense, unit liability and loss insurance, guaranteed ransom payments, and a legal and military force capable of punishing any House for contract violations.
  While Outreach was an exclusive, private club, the AoD (Army of *censored*) was all inclusive. They worked with the vast multitude of units that Outreach rejected or would never even consider. They even offered legal aid (and aliases) to units listed as pirates.
  What could go wrong?
  Half the nobles in the unit had their titles and holdings stripped away (they were warned) for atrocities on the field.
  Several members had to be ransomed after being captured in an abortive assault against a well-defended facility.
  One member was captured and beaten by Lyran police after a botched infiltration attempt (he was Black and the Lyrans could not tell him from a dozen mug shots of perps), so we was charged for several crimes he did not commit.
  It went like this:
Detective Lang: So, Feldwebel  (Sergeant) Johnson, I will call your unit HQ and talk to your superiors. I'll put the speaker on.
Johnson: It's late, so don't be surprised if nobody's there.
  The phone rings in the unit office, the unit mascot, a donkey, ambles over to the phone and touches a button.
Donkey: Eeyaaw?
Detective Lang: Hallo? This is Detective Lang at the local precinct, we seem to have picked up a man claiming to be one of yours. Do you know a Feldwebel Johnson?
Donkey: Eeyaaw.
Johnson: (Whispering) Ugh, that's Oberleutnant Esel, he's just a jackass.
Detective Lang: You should be more respectful of your superiors, Feldwebel! So, Oberleutnant, do I hear a trace of Bavarian dialect? Perhaps Schwabian?
Donkey: Eeyaaw...
Detective Lang: It is so good to know that fellow Bavarians are serving as officers. I'll send your man back to you, if that is okay?
Donkey: Eeyaaw.
Detective Lang: I'll hang up now, tchuss! You, Feldwebel, are fortunate to serve under such a fine officer, I wish the Commonwealth had more like him.
Johnson: Trust me, the Commonwealth has an abundance of officers just like Oberleutnant Esel.
  One of the units appeared in a feature holovid that sparked a Capellan invasion of Carver V, on the rumor of a Star League base under a shopping mall.

  ...and fun was had by all...

 

[Colt Ward]

Oh, I did not mean it was a 'first ever' sort of thing . . . heck, the sandbags and trees attached to Shermans are also interesting.

Since roleplaying and often tabletop gaming is escapism, its not a surprise folks would want the freedom and ability to black hat-  Westworld in miniature.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

Oh, I did not mean it was a 'first ever' sort of thing . . . heck, the sandbags and trees attached to Shermans are also interesting.

Since roleplaying and often tabletop gaming is escapism, its not a surprise folks would want the freedom and ability to black hat-  Westworld in miniature.

  Although hollow charge warheads had been around for years, it was the Germans who made wide use of them. The Allies played catch-up by devising ways to counter HC rounds, mostly by trying to pre-detonate them so the effect would not harm armor. The Russians used bed springs, then grating, as seen in this photo in Berlin:

[Colt Ward]

Lol, great picture and a direct ancestor of . . .

[Easy]

cleanup

[Colt Ward]

New Orleans?

MRC is Comstar, MRBC is Dragoons btw

[Easy]

cleanup

[SteelRaven]

Well, character I'm already has motivation as posted above. My question was really directed to how a Great House would try to keep a MechWarrior with a mech in the fold rather than go Merc to chase the C-bills.

I have been considering changing the character s origin story for that of a Solaris Gladiator similar to one of the examples above but didn't want to toss a decade old back story just yet.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well, character I'm already has motivation as posted above. My question was really directed to how a Great House would try to keep a MechWarrior with a mech in the fold rather than go Merc to chase the C-bills.

I have been considering changing the character s origin story for that of a Solaris Gladiator similar to one of the examples above but didn't want to toss a decade old back story just yet.

There's carrots and there's sticks.

Carrots: Rank, titles, fiefs, bonuses
Sticks: Company Store, being stranded in a unit with no transportation, threat of having a bounty declared, holding loved ones hostage