Mercenaries and Rank

[Moragion]

So, I'm working on a mercenary unit campaign, where one of the players is the unit leader and the rest are part of the command lance. I expect the unit to be of company size at most.
Now, creating the leader of the unit, he finished with a Rank trait level of 4, which by the table at the ATOW book it means an Lt/Lance leader. So here comes the question:
What stops a mercenary from bestowing himself the rank of captain if he is the leader of the unit? It makes sense on a House army that you have the rank they give you, but in a mercenary unit, the leader can decide to bestow himself any rank no? Obviously a commander of a company size unit styling himself a colonel will be looked as a clown, but on the case of a captain, no one will say anything. Grayson Carlyle did essentially that.

[victor_shaw]

It all comes down to the unit.
If the leader wants to call himself/herself captain and no one objects, then that's what they are.
There are no rules excepted by everyone in the Innersphere as to what rank a mercenary unit command has to have.
It just comes down to being taken seriously.
You don't go around calling yourself a General if you command a lance.

[Moragion]

Yes, that's it, but from a fluff point of view. When it comes to game mechanics, it means that this character doesn't have to pay all the trait levels to be a captain. He is by trait a lieutenant, but calls himself a captain, and "magic", he has a rank trait of captain.
I have no problem with gifting the character with the new rank for free (not gonna be a problem really). But I was curious if anyone had encountered this issue, and how they had resolved it.

[victor_shaw]

Yes, that's it, but from a fluff point of view. When it comes to game mechanics, it means that this character doesn't have to pay all the trait levels to be a captain. He is by trait a lieutenant, but calls himself a captain, and "magic", he has a rank trait of captain.
I have no problem with gifting the character with the new rank for free (not gonna be a problem really). But I was curious if anyone had encountered this issue, and how they had resolved it.

My personal opinion on the subject is that I would let any players in a mercenary unit command structure refund any of their rank points for uses elsewhere in their build.
I mean the rank service no purpose outside of character creation anyway.
The only thing I would ever use it for would be to end arguments between players about who was in charge.
So outside of a structured Clan or house unit, I don't think it is a useful trait.
This is one of the issues I have with the Life path system, as it seems to be build to produce certain types of generic character and fails to take into account the nuances of others. Its one of the reasons I feel it should be redesigned to provide flavor packages and not be the main source of skills and traits in the non-point buy system.

[Moragion]

My personal opinion on the subject is that I would let any players in a mercenary unit command structure refund any of their rank points for uses elsewhere in their build.
I mean the rank service no purpose outside of character creation anyway.
The only thing I would ever use it for would be to end arguments between players about who was in charge.
So outside of a structured Clan or house unit, I don't think it is a useful trait.
This is one of the issues I have with the Life path system, as it seems to be build to produce certain types of generic character and fails to take into account the nuances of others. Its one of the reasons I feel it should be redesigned to provide flavor packages and not be the main source of skills and traits in the non-point buy system.

Humm, seems like a good point. Maybe I will use it, will probably wait until all the players have their characters made and then decide. But thanks!
About the lifepath system, well, I kind of like it, as it gives a good structure, specially to players new to the game, who don't really know what kind of skills they really need to make the kind of character they want. But I can see your point, and creates similar characters easily. At least you have the option of optimization to iron the details. It is not a perfect system, although you always have the point-based if you prefer. One thing that I miss from mw3 is the different academies having their own package, which kind of make them more unique, but it would make the lifepath part more crowded. On a sourcebook, as optional, would make more sense (in fact I expected it on the Companion, but alas)

[victor_shaw]

Humm, seems like a good point. Maybe I will use it, will probably wait until all the players have their characters made and then decide. But thanks!
About the lifepath system, well, I kind of like it, as it gives a good structure, specially to players new to the game, who don't really know what kind of skills they really need to make the kind of character they want. But I can see your point, and creates similar characters easily. At least you have the option of optimization to iron the details. It is not a perfect system, although you always have the point-based if you prefer. One thing that I miss from mw3 is the different academies having their own package, which kind of make them more unique, but it would make the lifepath part more crowded. On a sourcebook, as optional, would make more sense (in fact I expected it on the Companion, but alas)

While I to like the idea of the Life paths and agree that they are good for new players and older players trying something new. I have played many games that use a similar mechanic for character creation to great effectiveness.
I feel that 4th edition handled them wrong.
For a Life Path system to work you have to approach it as either a minimal or maximum system where IMHO 4th approached it from the middle.
1. Minimal: Life paths are a minor guideline to character creation. They provide suggestions and with a small amount of required skills with most points left over to customize.
2. Maximum: Life paths are bought in full and provide everything you need to fulfill that function with few points left over to customize.

4th provides to many unfulfilled requirements and uses way to many points on useless (non complete) skills and traits and gives the false feeling of being customizable.
When you give 195 points in an attribute that the player is required to have a 4-5 in there is little room for making them unique with only 632 points left. and this was a common occurrence with the 7 characters I created recently to retest the system. Another issues was how 5 out of the 7 character finished pre-optimization creation with negative edge as low as -75 with one. So they needed to bring this up to at least 1 before doing anything else.
The characters also had way to many (for lack of a better word) fluff skills and traits that served no real purpose to the narrative of the story.

overall the system fails at both make a fully flushed out character or just provide guidelines.

[Daryk]

I've had the opposite experience, and made hundreds of characters.  Yes, I use a spreadsheet.  To me, that's a feature, not a bug.

As far as the rank question, to me, it comes down to what credentials are presented to the bonding authority and potential employers.  The CO may present themselves as a Captain, but if their credentials (i.e., Trait Points) only come up to a Lieutenant, then a Lieutenant's pay is the default.  If you want more than that, you have to negotiate for it.

[victor_shaw]

I've had the opposite experience, and made hundreds of characters.  Yes, I use a spreadsheet.  To me, that's a feature, not a bug.

As far as the rank question, to me, it comes down to what credentials are presented to the bonding authority and potential employers.  The CO may present themselves as a Captain, but if their credentials (i.e., Trait Points) only come up to a Lieutenant, then a Lieutenant's pay is the default.  If you want more than that, you have to negotiate for it.

I am not sure what you are talking about?
Math is math, you can't have an opposite experience to me as number add up to what they add up to spreadsheet or not.
You may have missed the part about them being pre-optimization.
The point I was making is that the system without the optimizing leaves you with a lot of incomplete underpaid attributes/traits and to many overpaid skills.
You also wind up with way to many flavor skills (Interest/arts?) skills that are for the most part useless 99% of the time that you spend points on and can't get rid of.
To many prerequisites that are nowhere near their requirements at that point.
The system also tends to make age the most important factor for skill.

On the rank idea, you run into the same issues while you can give any justification for them, what if I go from the military to a civilian job?
My character decides to leave the military and become a professor or mechanic. What uses is the rank trait, it doesn't apply. I probably will never use it for any reason but I have still paid 100 x rank points for it. It's nice background info that I was once a (let say captain) but it's still points wasted.

This is another major issues with the way they decided to approach the Life Path system.
I most if not all the other system I have played the designers have either broken the attributes/traits/Skills into separate pools or the system just makes the character with a few points left over to customize.
4th is a point-buy system masquerading as a life path system.

[Daryk]

The Life Path system gives organic suggestions as to where to spend your optimization points.  Optimization seems to be your issue, really.  It's 100% necessary to optimize if you're using the Life Path system.  That's where the customization comes in, with built in sign posts on where you should think about spending those points.  Again, to me, that's a feature, not a bug.

[Maelwys]

One thing about rank is that while its mutable in the merc world and can be handwaived away and the points used elsewhere, for characters that went through a military before becoming a merc, it could be more useful.

"Yeah, that's Captain Planet from the Eco Warriors Merc group." "Oh yeah, he's a Captain now that he runs a merc unit, but he mustered out of the AFFS as just a Sergeant so..."

So you could let him ditch the points, or maybe you could let him use the points spent as a equivalent contact trait if it would apply.

[Marveryn]

One thing about rank is that while its mutable in the merc world and can be handwaived away and the points used elsewhere, for characters that went through a military before becoming a merc, it could be more useful.

"Yeah, that's Captain Planet from the Eco Warriors Merc group." "Oh yeah, he's a Captain now that he runs a merc unit, but he mustered out of the AFFS as just a Sergeant so..."

So you could let him ditch the points, or maybe you could let him use the points spent as a equivalent contact trait if it would apply.

and there historical precedent for this.  There been many Lts, Captain that work started as a corp or serg in another army only to sell there service and pretend they where an officer and getting the rank as an officer in the military.   I am thinking a particular officer in my head at the moment but the name escape me. 

[Maelwys]

Well, not only that but similar to reputation.

Sure, you're a captain now, but that Lyran general over there, that you're trying to convince that Kurita is on its way to destroy the ammo dump, remembers you mustering out as a Lt, and so isn't taking you seriously...

[arachneo]

On the rank idea, you run into the same issues while you can give any justification for them, what if I go from the military to a civilian job?
My character decides to leave the military and become a professor or mechanic. What uses is the rank trait, it doesn't apply. I probably will never use it for any reason but I have still paid 100 x rank points for it. It's nice background info that I was once a (let say captain) but it's still points wasted.

You can treat the rank as a reputation, applicable only to military spheres (or related), if you're retired.
In case of self-imposed promotions, even if you call yourself captain, you only have earned the respect (reputation) of a lieutenant and you may only be treated as such.

Just like this:

Well, not only that but similar to reputation.

Sure, you're a captain now, but that Lyran general over there, that you're trying to convince that Kurita is on its way to destroy the ammo dump, remembers you mustering out as a Lt, and so isn't taking you seriously...

A general who doesn't investigate such a report shouldn't be a general ... oh, sorry, I just saw it's Lyran xD

[Moragion]

Grayson Death Carlyle had no rank at all in his father company if I remember correctly. He was still getting trained and, although he was probably going to succeed in command once his father retired or died, he was still following orders from sergeants (could be wrong, been a long time since I read the first novel). Yet he became captain of his own command just by gathering some people and founding a unit. So don't think rank of the founder means much. Once the unit is founded, well, the bigger the unit becomes, the more organized and regimented it will become, and rank will mean more and more.
And you could have been a major in an House army, but if you hire yourself as a merc your previous rank may not mean much either. Rank seems to work in a regular army, but in a merc or pirate unit, not really much. Plus not making players to pay for rank in a merc unit is a good way to allow them to round up their characters with more points to spend in attributes, skills or traits.

Just to point out that I have yet to play or gamemaster a game of ATOW, so don't really know how it will work out

[monbvol]

My two thoughts:

1.  The Companion does give a Rank/Title conversion table that helps guide the GM in how much respect someone who has only Rank with no Title or whose Rank is higher than their Title what kind of social respect the character can be afforded and as suggested this can also be used as the basis of a reputation system.

2.  Even with that this really points out what I consider the biggest flaw of the whole Rank and Title traits in representing Battletech's neofeudalistic setting.  It's all too easy to dismiss Rank and Title entirely as nothing but XP sinks.  Especially if the PCs get together to form a small Merc lance with one of them being in charge.  They can set pay to whatever they agree upon and Mercs are largely going to be regarded poorly by most people.  It is one of the larger overhauls I've done in my house rules.

[Daryk]

*snip*
...he was still following orders from sergeants (could be wrong, been a long time since I read the first novel).
*snip*

Maxim 2: "A Sergeant in motion outranks a Lieutenant who doesn't know what's going on."

I'm shocked nobody else has quoted that yet...  ::)

[victor_shaw]

I think this tread encapsulate the problems with the AToW Character creation system nicely. It tries to give every aspect of the game a point value.
The problem is, it doesn't work.

100 points of Attributes is not the same as, 100 points of Traits, 100 points of Skills, etc.

You also run into the problem that roleplaying traits like Rank, Reputation, and Title are not the same as combat traits like Combat sense, Toughness, etc.

That's why for all its faults IMHO 3rd edition had a far superiors Life Path system, minus the Random tables.

[monbvol]

I think this tread encapsulate the problems with the AToW Character creation system nicely. It tries to give every aspect of the game a point value.
The problem is, it doesn't work.

100 points of Attributes is not the same as, 100 points of Traits, 100 points of Skills, etc.

You also run into the problem that roleplaying traits like Rank, Reputation, and Title are not the same as combat traits like Combat sense, Toughness, etc.

That's why for all its faults IMHO 3rd edition had a far superiors Life Path system, minus the Random tables.

I think part of it is that AToW is trying to emphasize the non-combat and even to an extent non-mechwarrior aspects of the setting.

Which I honestly think it does better than 3rd.

But here in lies the problem.  It still failed.  How much is because Battletech is a combat centric universe which causes players and GMs to focus that direction more and how much is the game mechanics being setup to fail no matter what I doubt we'll ever know or agree upon but I have no doubt it is both and the next RPG needs to do a better job of addressing some of this.

[Daryk]

3rd Edition was sub-optimal for a number of reasons, the random tables being among the least of them.  While AToW could certainly be better, I think it was a definite improvement over 3rd.  It did make some progress toward balancing non-combat oriented characters, but that relies on the kind of campaign the GM is running to a HUGE degree.  If a GM is running a combat-centric campaign, all the balancing in the world is irrelevant.  What matters in that instance is how the combat bonuses are balanced against each other, and I think AToW does a decent job of that.  SPAs have pretty steep prerequisites, and that's completely appropriate.  Non-combatant characters are appropriately superior in their specialties, and that's enough for me.

[five_corparty]

I think a good reason for a lance-sized Merc commander to still call themselves a Captain would be while working with their employer.

An LT leading a lance would be organized under a company command.  But since COMMANDERS work for COMMANDERS, a captain probably wouldn't get put under another captain.  A captain lance commander -could- be organized under a company that's commanded by a major, but -really- the unit would probably get assigned as a short-company under a battalion commander.  A merc unit might use this trick to ensure they get a -little- independence and freedom to maneuver, compared to obeying the orders for whatever dumb-butt hauptmann managed to buy their way into a company command.

Just my take on why a commander might want to take the bump in rank, even if there wasn't associated perks and pay involved.

[victor_shaw]

3rd Edition was sub-optimal for a number of reasons, the random tables being among the least of them.  While AToW could certainly be better, I think it was a definite improvement over 3rd.  It did make some progress toward balancing non-combat oriented characters, but that relies on the kind of campaign the GM is running to a HUGE degree.  If a GM is running a combat-centric campaign, all the balancing in the world is irrelevant.  What matters in that instance is how the combat bonuses are balanced against each other, and I think AToW does a decent job of that.  SPAs have pretty steep prerequisites, and that's completely appropriate.  Non-combatant characters are appropriately superior in their specialties, and that's enough for me.

Sorry but you just used one of my three major trigger words for RPGs. Balancing, Streamlining, Simplifying.
You can't balance non-combat and combat characters, they don't correlated. This is a trap that a lot of RPGs fall in to.
As I was pointing out above, Non-combat traits and skills are not the same as or, could ever be the same as combat Traits and skill.
1. Non-combat skill are not used the same way or in most game with the same mechanics.
2. Non-combat traits tend to be highly RPG oriented, and less mechanically driven.
3. Attributes have little correlation with either on a cost bases.

When you start assigning point values to everything the game becomes less and less balanced as traits, skills and attributes are not the even with each other let alone the other categories. This is why in most game MW2 included you have dump stats and power stats.

You also wind up with issues like "How is being a Rank/Captain (600 xp) worth only 100 less then sixth sense and toughness combined (700 xp)?"
"How is level 4 in Interest/Arts worth the same as level 4 in Gunnery/Mech?"

[monbvol]

Sorry but you just used one of my three major trigger words for RPGs. Balancing, Streamlining, Simplifying.
You can't balance non-combat and combat characters, they don't correlated. This is a trap that a lot of RPGs fall in to.
As I was pointing out above, Non-combat traits and skills are not the same as or, could ever be the same as combat Traits and skill.
1. Non-combat skill are not used the same way or in most game with the same mechanics.
2. Non-combat traits tend to be highly RPG oriented, and less mechanically driven.
3. Attributes have little correlation with either on a cost bases.

When you start assigning point values to everything the game becomes less and less balanced as traits, skills and attributes are not the even with each other let alone the other categories. This is why in most game MW2 included you have dump stats and power stats.

You also wind up with issues like "How is being a Rank/Captain (600 xp) worth only 100 less then sixth sense and toughness combined (700 xp)?"
"How is level 4 in Interest/Arts worth the same as level 4 in Gunnery/Mech?"

Yes and no.

Most systems do work the way AToW does for their skills in terms of how much it costs to invest in them.  Perception is the same 1 skill point as Diplomacy in D&D/Pathfinder.  World of Darkness it costs the same XP to up Small Arms as it does a Crafting skill.  At least to the same number of dice to roll.

I can go on with d6 Star Wars/WEGs generic systems, Palladium, and plenty others.

As far as mechanics?  I can grant that being true to an extent as many systems do have mechanics for the RPG elements.  D&D and Pathfinder are both fairly infamous for their social 'combat' elements and while World of Darkness isn't as bad it still has some pretty substantial mechanics behind the less combat oriented stuff.

As for your questions and how to answer them, that is largely up to your gaming philosophy.

Under mine the first one is the harder one for me to answer as I do admit Rank/Title as presented are pretty terrible.  Even with the Companion's attempts to make them more useful/interesting.  But trying my best Officer Rank 6 is actually pretty low in the officer hierarchy of all militaries.  In Battletech it grants command over around 100 men or so(depending on faction variation, unit types, and combat losses).

The second is easy.  It's the same level of competency in the skills.  As I've pointed out plenty of systems have non-combat skills and advantages/feats/traits valued the exact same as combat traits even if they mechanically do something vastly different.  As such to an extent it is part of the person running the game to make them feel at least close to the investment or use the concession of every system I've come across that says as long as it's fun for you and your group you can change/ditch any rule you want.

[victor_shaw]

Personally, I always feel Shadowrun handle interest/knowledge skills the best by making them there own separate pool.

[Elmoth]

I put my players in a scene speaking with a colonel. He had 2 light mechs under his command (and had never had more) but they didn't know that and took his title at face value and deferred to hi. As a consequence despite them being a full armor lance and a mech lance.

[Daryk]

five_corparty: A Mercenary 'mech lance includes it's own organic support.  When you factor in all of that, it's really a company, and "Captain" is appropriate.  House forces will have those support elements under other command arrangements.

Victor_Shaw: Interest/Background skills COULD be handled differently, but that's a different category than "non-combat" skills.  Negotiation in Shadowrun is HUGE, and NOT a background skill.

[Failure16]

and there historical precedent for this.  There been many Lts, Captain that work started as a corp or serg in another army only to sell there service and pretend they where an officer and getting the rank as an officer in the military.   I am thinking a particular officer in my head at the moment but the name escape me.

Could be Costas Georgiou, the notorious Colonel Callan (or Cullen), who was at best a corporal before he went full-psycho in Angola.

Maxim 2: "A Sergeant in motion outranks a Lieutenant who doesn't know what's going on."

I'm shocked nobody else has quoted that yet...  ::)

C'mon, Daryk. You know it works in the real world. I've seen a [too-] hard-charging staff sergeant relieved for cause by a relatively green second lieutenant. The SSG was trying to Do Right, but the 2LT was even more right in correcting a bigger wrong, the unpardonable sin of insubordination. 

[victor_shaw]

five_corparty: A Mercenary 'mech lance includes it's own organic support.  When you factor in all of that, it's really a company, and "Captain" is appropriate.  House forces will have those support elements under other command arrangements.

Victor_Shaw: Interest/Background skills COULD be handled differently, but that's a different category than "non-combat" skills.  Negotiation in Shadowrun is HUGE, and NOT a background skill.

Sorry I have a different definition for non-combat skills.
To me Negotiation is a verbal or social combat skill, but maybe I should have said non-interactive skills.

[victor_shaw]

3rd Edition was sub-optimal for a number of reasons, the random tables being among the least of them.  While AToW could certainly be better, I think it was a definite improvement over 3rd.  It did make some progress toward balancing non-combat oriented characters, but that relies on the kind of campaign the GM is running to a HUGE degree.  If a GM is running a combat-centric campaign, all the balancing in the world is irrelevant.  What matters in that instance is how the combat bonuses are balanced against each other, and I think AToW does a decent job of that.  SPAs have pretty steep prerequisites, and that's completely appropriate.  Non-combatant characters are appropriately superior in their specialties, and that's enough for me.

A second issues with this is no matter how you try to sugarcoat it or jazz it up the game is trying to hard to include every possible play group that anyone could ever think of, but at its core the Battletech RPGs (all of them) are RPG wargames.

You don't play Legends of the Five Rings to be a peasant.
You don't play Wrath & Glory to play a factory worker.
You don't play Twilight 2000 to play a salon worker. Which by the way has a far superiors lifepath system to anything in 3rd or AToW, and handles Rank way better.
You don't play D&D to play a shop owner.
You don't play AToW to play a archeologist/Professor/Beat Cop/etc.
I my experiences Players that want these type of characters in a combat focus game are normally either:
1. Bored with the game system.
2. Intently looking to be an issues.

The point is most (non all) of these non-combat oriented characters should be IMHO NPCs not player character. So trying to balance them in a combat oriented game does nothing but hurt the game overall.

[monbvol]

A second issues with this is no matter how you try to sugarcoat it or jazz it up the game is trying to hard to include every possible play group that anyone could ever think of, but at its core the Battletech RPGs (all of them) are RPG wargames.

You don't play Legends of the Five Rings to be a peasant.
You don't play Wrath & Glory to play a factory worker.
You don't play Twilight 2000 to play a salon worker. Which by the way has a far superiors lifepath system to anything in 3rd or AToW, and handles Rank way better.
You don't play D&D to play a shop owner.
You don't play AToW to play a archeologist/Professor/Beat Cop/etc.
I my experiences Players that want these type of characters in a combat focus game are normally either:
1. Bored with the game system.
2. Intently looking to be an issues.

The point is most (non all) of these non-combat oriented characters should be IMHO NPCs not player character. So trying to balance them in a combat oriented game does nothing but hurt the game overall.

Or it could be your expectations and the players are different and that's the reason they come across as bored or an issue.  It's okay to want different things.

Now yes some systems are better geared toward certain aspects than others but that doesn't mean you can't have some really compelling campaigns that go against the system's strengths.

Dialing in on the AToW specific ones an Archeologist can actually be a really good role to play for the dark days of the Scavenger Era(3rd-4th Succession War) digging up only lost Star League caches/bases.  A Professor could be the target of Holy Shroud or the Wars of Reeving.  A beat cop can actually be an incredible resource to have in a group for an armed insurrection campaign.

[Daryk]

I have to say, when I first introduced my kids to D&D, they actually DID want to "just be peasants".  It wasn't until I had a goblin nab one of their sheep that I was able to motivate them to do more!  My point being, Monbvol is absolutely right: different players want different things.  Providing a big tent is no sin.

[victor_shaw]

I have to say, when I first introduced my kids to D&D, they actually DID want to "just be peasants".  It wasn't until I had a goblin nab one of their sheep that I was able to motivate them to do more!  My point being, Monbvol is absolutely right: different players want different things.  Providing a big tent is no sin.

It is when the game suffers for it.
Look I can name or find a lot of games that will do other types of campaigns well. I don't need one RPG to rule them all.
From the poll I ran on BTU RPGs it showed that MW2 and MW3 total more players then AToW with MW2 almost running neck and neck with it.
And CGL seems to have had little motivation to reprint AToW.  Which tells me it never sold well in the first place.
As almost every review slams the game for a horrible character creation system, and over complicated mechanics. I would say that the lifepath system did a good job of driving players away.

[Col Toda]

The rank a mercenary  bestows on themselves ought to reflect the hardware deployed and as reference to the customers as to payscale . The history and experience of the commader effects recruitment . The protocol and negotiation skills effect terms . The hardware and the competency of the troops are the initial qualification.  The lynchpin is can you convince the client that you can competently manage the hardware under your command.

[five_corparty]

five_corparty: A Mercenary 'mech lance includes it's own organic support.  When you factor in all of that, it's really a company, and "Captain" is appropriate.  House forces will have those support elements under other command arrangements.

I'd argue that, for purposes of discussions, we have to use the terms as they are intended: a lance is a lance, a platoon is a platoon.  Sometimes the platoon might have six vehicles (like in Marik space) but it's still a platoon.  For purposes of discussions, if someone says "a BattleMech lance commander," we can't say, "oh, and a bunch of other stuff that's invisible and assumed."  In the game and fiction, you're right, a lance always has support elements.  But for discussions, I think clarity is better: Lord knows people argue enough when things are clear, no sense muddling the language.  ;)

That said, however, a Captain is 100% appropriate for a combined arms company, which is what you're describing.  And I also DO see said unit being hired as a "BattleMech Lance" because that's what the employer wants, and a lance with support elements (theoretically) would be cheaper than "combined arms company."

...In fact, that might be how that custom came about!  Because employers pay less for lances, they tended to hire that way, and units either learned to advertise as the employer wants, or get left behind as the employer goes for the "lowest bidder."

Hmm- not canon, but logical...

[guardiandashi]

my 2 cents is that a merc's rank is flexible, if they have a Rank from military service it would likely affect how people from the former military view them, and could be used if they get any pension, also it could easily function as "contacts" in the former military if they try to call on it.
to be honest though its kind of like the Equipped trait after character creation the best way to consider it IMO is that it represents the permits you have and or can get (relatively easily) to allow you to get controlled or illegal gear.

[PurpleDragon]

so, if you're using lifepaths, the rank is only for whichever faction they are in.  The lifepaths assume you are making a very specific type of person.  If you are using military lifepaths, then you are making a affiliation soldier.  If you are using Solaris, then you are making a arena jock or insider. 

Rank only applies if you stay in the affiliation you received it in.  It can be helpful to have if you ever have to deal with said affiliation in game.  For example, if I make a mechwarrior who is a SGT for the Fed Suns and then leave the AFFS, go start a merc unit, contract to the FS for, say a objective raid.  The contract says I will have a Liaison officer assigned to the unit.  Maybe that officer, not knowing my character personally, would treat me more like the SGT I was in the AFFS than the CPT I call myself.  As stated before, however; you could buy off the ranks giving points back to place somewhere else.   But then that liaison officer might look at my character as a civilian puke warrior wannabe, rather than a SGT. 

[epic 2.0]

For me, I tend to have the rank be the indicator of the maximum size of force that the commander is capable of commanding.  Without the comcomitant rank purchased, I assign penalties to administration, leadership and strategy checks for the commander of said force.  I'll even give a penalty to init (tactics) if they don't have at least a rank sufficient to command the forces present on the battlefield (and I tend to run company on company games, so someone better have the Captain rank)

This means that I then have a great limitation on how big a force the PCs can make before having to get their ranks up again.  In my instance, as I have often overly ambitious PCs (career aims of Division or Brigade level commands), this helps to slow down the overall growth using game mechanics.