Mercenaries and Rank

[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.