Register Register

Author Topic: Mercenaries and Rank  (Read 694 times)

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 844
Re: Mercenaries and Rank
« Reply #30 on: 13 February 2021, 09:23:17 »
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

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Mercenaries and Rank
« Reply #31 on: 17 February 2021, 09:09:30 »
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

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 348
  • Say it, Admiral! Say the line!
Re: Mercenaries and Rank
« Reply #32 on: 21 February 2021, 14:52:00 »
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...
"Inside the Army, we squabble about which part of the Army gets the most stuff.  After a while, some really important general comes down and tells us to knock it off and 'cooperate.' If we don’t, the bad people will whack us and even the Air Force won’t be able to bail us out. This is called 'combined arms.' "  FM 3-0 Operations (Simple Version: "Doctrine for Dummies")