flykiller
September 24th, 2003, 03:11 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3136428.stm
TKalbfus
September 24th, 2003, 05:00 PM
The idea is to hire contractors to do the non-soldiering work leaving the US Soldiers free to do the fighting. These contractors will naturally be trained for combat as they are going into a combat zone, hence they are Mercenaries, but their main purpose is to do other things.
There have also been some calls to involve foreign troops to help internationalize the conflict. France, and Germany want us to meet their conditions first and pay for the effort, hence in effect we'd be hiring thier soldiers up as Mercenaries.
A better idea would be to hire some Mexicans individually as Mercenaries, they'll work cheaper than the French. I'm not so sure about Muslim troops, I don't feel we can trust them, they and their beards tend to get crazy ideas about Jihads and the like.
There have also been some calls to involve foreign troops to help internationalize the conflict. France, and Germany want us to meet their conditions first and pay for the effort, hence in effect we'd be hiring thier soldiers up as Mercenaries.
A better idea would be to hire some Mexicans individually as Mercenaries, they'll work cheaper than the French. I'm not so sure about Muslim troops, I don't feel we can trust them, they and their beards tend to get crazy ideas about Jihads and the like.
kaladorn
September 24th, 2003, 05:01 PM
For the record, this isn't a bad idea.
What is a bad idea is having Mercenaries operating without an international convention on their employment, rules of operation, bonding, certification, and so on. As well as an appropriate International Court and Contract Oversight Officers.
The United Nations has been tacitly exploring the idea of using Mercenaries (professional soldiers loyal to their paymaster, the UN, posessed of high levels of competence and training in professional armies, and having no political agenda of their own) for some types of peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operations. Right now, if a major power doesn't come along, and even if they do, they're stuck with a mishmash of units, with different standards of equipment, training, and professionalism, each also toting its own ROE from its national command in addition to UN ROE (and they sometimes conflict, if they don't just handcuff the forces into ineffectiveness for fear of political repercussions). There are strong arguments that professional soldiers working on salary could and would make better replacements. Plus they could be setup in such a way as to deploy faster, with little foreign nation's debate once the UN had decided to act. This might have headed off some of the types of unpleasantness we've seen in Africa and the RimPac countries lately.
Mercenaries have been successfully used in several interventions, and have proven even more successful in some cases (cases where they are well organized, professionally led, and held to high standards of training and accountability) than national forces in the same conflicts.
OTOH, unregulated Mercenaries sometimes look like nothing more than brigands, guns-for-hire, and thugs.
So it isn't so much the idea that is bad as it is the implementation.
What is a bad idea is having Mercenaries operating without an international convention on their employment, rules of operation, bonding, certification, and so on. As well as an appropriate International Court and Contract Oversight Officers.
The United Nations has been tacitly exploring the idea of using Mercenaries (professional soldiers loyal to their paymaster, the UN, posessed of high levels of competence and training in professional armies, and having no political agenda of their own) for some types of peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operations. Right now, if a major power doesn't come along, and even if they do, they're stuck with a mishmash of units, with different standards of equipment, training, and professionalism, each also toting its own ROE from its national command in addition to UN ROE (and they sometimes conflict, if they don't just handcuff the forces into ineffectiveness for fear of political repercussions). There are strong arguments that professional soldiers working on salary could and would make better replacements. Plus they could be setup in such a way as to deploy faster, with little foreign nation's debate once the UN had decided to act. This might have headed off some of the types of unpleasantness we've seen in Africa and the RimPac countries lately.
Mercenaries have been successfully used in several interventions, and have proven even more successful in some cases (cases where they are well organized, professionally led, and held to high standards of training and accountability) than national forces in the same conflicts.
OTOH, unregulated Mercenaries sometimes look like nothing more than brigands, guns-for-hire, and thugs.
So it isn't so much the idea that is bad as it is the implementation.
flykiller
September 24th, 2003, 11:46 PM
For the record, this isn't a bad idea.really. it sounds to me like something straight out of "decline and fall".
well, in any case, it might provide some game material.
well, in any case, it might provide some game material.
kaladorn
September 25th, 2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by secretagent:
[QB] OTOH, unregulated Mercenaries sometimes look like nothing more than brigands, guns-for-hire, and thugs.
==============================================
Like the Belgian Congo in the early 1960's?
And other places since then. Unregulated mercenary operations are about as dodgy as poorly regulated military operations or operations by irregulars.
If the mercenaries are US citizens then the Iraquis and Afghan won't distinguish them from US troops and any trigger happy events will rest on US soldiers.
I should have been more specific to say that the *general* use of mercenaries isn't such a bad idea, the specific use that the article mentioned may not have been so wise.
I should have also indicated there are some types of warfare mercenaries perform exceptionally well at and other kinds they aren't suited to.
If a local government brings in Mercenaries to fight a counter insurgency against foreign funded rebels, it can be quite successful.
If the UN or another international body hires mercenaries to provide facility security, escorts for food convoys, or to help bring warlords in an area to heel (or violators of ceasefires etc), then they could potentially be quite effective.
I don't think Mercenaries will be a more effective fighting force than the British Army (which in most limited-war situations I rank as just a bit better than the US forces, principally due to a different ROE and training emphasis for OOTW).
However, for something like the UN, they could be *much* more effective than a mishmash force composed of some former eastern-europeans, a few african units, and a mix of RimPac units. Just the heterogeneous nature is bad enough, but language barriers, different training standards, and different equipment and having N + 1 ROEs all simultaneously applying (N being how many different nationalities are present) plus the chain of command nightmares.... all of that means in this kind of case, Mercenaries could be a much more coherent, rapid, and effectual response force.
2. Merc loyalties are usually to themselves and the highest bidder.
Mercenaries which were regulated under international convention, paid and organized and overseen from first world countries, would have the loyalty to their paychecks and their desire to stay out of jail and the public eye to keep them in line. Oversight would insure scrutiny and insure that war or civil crimes were addressed.
A Mercenary doesn't tend to have an ideology other than pragmatism (at least the force as a whole lacks a common one). This is not true of many national or ethnic forces. Usually, this ideology is less than a useful component.
A Mercenary unit also wants to keep working for some period of time. Proper oversight and regulation as well as setting high standards would serve to insure that the unit's managers and shareholders would be sure the unit adhered to the 'Mercenary Code'. Units that did not would be disbanded, fined, and their directors possibly prosecuted, as well as officers and members. Additionally, members who wanted repeated employment would need to keep on the good side of the Bonding Authority so getting blacklisted would be a bad idea.
3. The Bush League wants to be an imperial power on the cheap. Building nations costs money. I don't claim to know what they want, I wasn't gifted with a telepathic affinity. However, the second part of your statement is very true and not nearly so much a point of opinion.
[QB] OTOH, unregulated Mercenaries sometimes look like nothing more than brigands, guns-for-hire, and thugs.
==============================================
Like the Belgian Congo in the early 1960's?
And other places since then. Unregulated mercenary operations are about as dodgy as poorly regulated military operations or operations by irregulars.
If the mercenaries are US citizens then the Iraquis and Afghan won't distinguish them from US troops and any trigger happy events will rest on US soldiers.
I should have been more specific to say that the *general* use of mercenaries isn't such a bad idea, the specific use that the article mentioned may not have been so wise.
I should have also indicated there are some types of warfare mercenaries perform exceptionally well at and other kinds they aren't suited to.
If a local government brings in Mercenaries to fight a counter insurgency against foreign funded rebels, it can be quite successful.
If the UN or another international body hires mercenaries to provide facility security, escorts for food convoys, or to help bring warlords in an area to heel (or violators of ceasefires etc), then they could potentially be quite effective.
I don't think Mercenaries will be a more effective fighting force than the British Army (which in most limited-war situations I rank as just a bit better than the US forces, principally due to a different ROE and training emphasis for OOTW).
However, for something like the UN, they could be *much* more effective than a mishmash force composed of some former eastern-europeans, a few african units, and a mix of RimPac units. Just the heterogeneous nature is bad enough, but language barriers, different training standards, and different equipment and having N + 1 ROEs all simultaneously applying (N being how many different nationalities are present) plus the chain of command nightmares.... all of that means in this kind of case, Mercenaries could be a much more coherent, rapid, and effectual response force.
2. Merc loyalties are usually to themselves and the highest bidder.
Mercenaries which were regulated under international convention, paid and organized and overseen from first world countries, would have the loyalty to their paychecks and their desire to stay out of jail and the public eye to keep them in line. Oversight would insure scrutiny and insure that war or civil crimes were addressed.
A Mercenary doesn't tend to have an ideology other than pragmatism (at least the force as a whole lacks a common one). This is not true of many national or ethnic forces. Usually, this ideology is less than a useful component.
A Mercenary unit also wants to keep working for some period of time. Proper oversight and regulation as well as setting high standards would serve to insure that the unit's managers and shareholders would be sure the unit adhered to the 'Mercenary Code'. Units that did not would be disbanded, fined, and their directors possibly prosecuted, as well as officers and members. Additionally, members who wanted repeated employment would need to keep on the good side of the Bonding Authority so getting blacklisted would be a bad idea.
3. The Bush League wants to be an imperial power on the cheap. Building nations costs money. I don't claim to know what they want, I wasn't gifted with a telepathic affinity. However, the second part of your statement is very true and not nearly so much a point of opinion.
Jame
September 25th, 2003, 11:41 AM
Something in the article about "political accountability?"
Wasn't Rome doing this at the end; as flykiller said, something out of "decline and fall?"
Wasn't Rome doing this at the end; as flykiller said, something out of "decline and fall?"
kaladorn
September 25th, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Jame:
Something in the article about "political accountability?"
Wasn't Rome doing this at the end; as flykiller said, something out of "decline and fall?" Wasn't Rome doing what at the end? Employing Mercenaries? It was doing that at the beginning, middle and the end. In fact, almost every major nation that has ever been around has used some form of Mercenary at some time.
I have served in the Armed Forces of my country. I took an Oath and served for a paycheck and that Duty. The Mercenary would do the same thing, only his Oath would be to his Unit or his Company. But he'd be bound by the same conventions. And unlike the members of a national force, he'd have a strong incentive to remain as apolitical as possible.
And these operations have been demonstrated to sometimes be very cost effective versus employing your national army as governments (and the Army is a chunk of that) don't always manage money efficiently but a business (the Mercenary one) will tend to encourage just such fiscal responsibility.
As I've said, if all the world could have the Canadian, or Australian, or some US or British armies, there'd be no issue. But much of the world depends on other far less politically, technologically, operationally, or ideologically reliable forces. For many of the types of problems we have in the real world that require a small commitment of troops very early on to head off major crises, and where these troops have to be pros and we don't want to drag international realpolitik into the situation, Mercenaries make an ideal resource.
Don't think "hired gun" (though it is true in the root case) but rather think "professional military consultant". Much of their work may be cadre, training, or leading small counter insurgency actions by the locals. Sometimes small commando or striker tickets.
Something in the article about "political accountability?"
Wasn't Rome doing this at the end; as flykiller said, something out of "decline and fall?" Wasn't Rome doing what at the end? Employing Mercenaries? It was doing that at the beginning, middle and the end. In fact, almost every major nation that has ever been around has used some form of Mercenary at some time.
I have served in the Armed Forces of my country. I took an Oath and served for a paycheck and that Duty. The Mercenary would do the same thing, only his Oath would be to his Unit or his Company. But he'd be bound by the same conventions. And unlike the members of a national force, he'd have a strong incentive to remain as apolitical as possible.
And these operations have been demonstrated to sometimes be very cost effective versus employing your national army as governments (and the Army is a chunk of that) don't always manage money efficiently but a business (the Mercenary one) will tend to encourage just such fiscal responsibility.
As I've said, if all the world could have the Canadian, or Australian, or some US or British armies, there'd be no issue. But much of the world depends on other far less politically, technologically, operationally, or ideologically reliable forces. For many of the types of problems we have in the real world that require a small commitment of troops very early on to head off major crises, and where these troops have to be pros and we don't want to drag international realpolitik into the situation, Mercenaries make an ideal resource.
Don't think "hired gun" (though it is true in the root case) but rather think "professional military consultant". Much of their work may be cadre, training, or leading small counter insurgency actions by the locals. Sometimes small commando or striker tickets.
FlightCommanderSolitude
September 25th, 2003, 07:20 PM
Much of their work may be cadre...Can you explain wtf "cadre" means? Thanks!
PapaGolfWhiskey
September 25th, 2003, 07:54 PM
"Cadre" usually means 'Training Cadre'
Your core troops (veterens of the last war your nation fought perhaps) your professional warriors who set the bar for the rest of your army to follow.
One can argue that national armies are Mercs in the pay of their own nation. Certainly professional soldiers do a lot of things becuase it's their job to to them. And while there may be a few rich dilletants in their nations' militaries who don't cash their paychecks... I sincerely doubt they are very common.
Call them Mercs if you like. but it really sounds like someone is proposing an actual UN Army.
not national troops seconded to the UN but an actuall UN Forces. Perhaps not a bad idea.
(hides from the 'black helicopter' crowd.)
Your core troops (veterens of the last war your nation fought perhaps) your professional warriors who set the bar for the rest of your army to follow.
One can argue that national armies are Mercs in the pay of their own nation. Certainly professional soldiers do a lot of things becuase it's their job to to them. And while there may be a few rich dilletants in their nations' militaries who don't cash their paychecks... I sincerely doubt they are very common.
Call them Mercs if you like. but it really sounds like someone is proposing an actual UN Army.
not national troops seconded to the UN but an actuall UN Forces. Perhaps not a bad idea.
(hides from the 'black helicopter' crowd.)
hunter
September 25th, 2003, 09:16 PM
Politics go in Random Static. Keep them out of discussions in other forums.
Hunter
Hunter
kaladorn
September 25th, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by secretagent:
Not telepathic. Just an educated guess. Consider yourself very lucky that you live in Canada. Your prime minister probably has an IQ in excess of 90. SOTB, down USA way, we ain't so lucky senor :rolleyes: [/QB]Well, in some ways, I consider myself lucky I live in Canada.
I live in a country that is still a reasonably okay place to live despite having an ineffective opposition movement and consequently a run amok government, a PM (not counting Mr. Martin yet) who is like a little god king, and corrupt beyond my ability to put into words, and a replacement who'll end up being acclaimed while the only reasonable opposition is having civil wars.
Oddly, you know things are going somewhere strange when the Green Party starts sounding like a reasonable option to vote for.
I love this country, but I'm starting to hate what it is becoming.
GWB may not be the brightest spark, but I think he'd have to work some to be as integrally evil as our current head of government.
However, I think we should take any such discussions off list since we'll get this shunted to Random Static otherwise.
The ObTrav here is evening having a gov't type of 4 doesn't mean you're going to like any of your options or it is going to feel less like a dictatorship.
Not telepathic. Just an educated guess. Consider yourself very lucky that you live in Canada. Your prime minister probably has an IQ in excess of 90. SOTB, down USA way, we ain't so lucky senor :rolleyes: [/QB]Well, in some ways, I consider myself lucky I live in Canada.
I live in a country that is still a reasonably okay place to live despite having an ineffective opposition movement and consequently a run amok government, a PM (not counting Mr. Martin yet) who is like a little god king, and corrupt beyond my ability to put into words, and a replacement who'll end up being acclaimed while the only reasonable opposition is having civil wars.
Oddly, you know things are going somewhere strange when the Green Party starts sounding like a reasonable option to vote for.
I love this country, but I'm starting to hate what it is becoming.
GWB may not be the brightest spark, but I think he'd have to work some to be as integrally evil as our current head of government.
However, I think we should take any such discussions off list since we'll get this shunted to Random Static otherwise.
The ObTrav here is evening having a gov't type of 4 doesn't mean you're going to like any of your options or it is going to feel less like a dictatorship.
kaladorn
September 25th, 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Garf:
[QB] "Cadre" usually means 'Training Cadre'
Your core troops (veterens of the last war your nation fought perhaps) your professional warriors who set the bar for the rest of your army to follow.
Yep. Training, but not necessarily just that. They can be operational stiffeners too as some training is stuff like active patrolling for counter insurgents and helping manage local units in combat.
One can argue that national armies are Mercs in the pay of their own nation. Certainly professional soldiers do a lot of things becuase it's their job to to them. And while there may be a few rich dilletants in their nations' militaries who don't cash their paychecks... I sincerely doubt they are very common.
Call them Mercs if you like. but it really sounds like someone is proposing an actual UN Army.
not national troops seconded to the UN but an actuall UN Forces. Perhaps not a bad idea.
Well, with one minor exception:
Most nations have a tax base (the UN doesn't, per se) and most nations soldiers would work directly for that nation, whereas what I'm talking about is the UN employing corporations to provide military services so there is still a one step removed. But essentially you have the point.
[QB] "Cadre" usually means 'Training Cadre'
Your core troops (veterens of the last war your nation fought perhaps) your professional warriors who set the bar for the rest of your army to follow.
Yep. Training, but not necessarily just that. They can be operational stiffeners too as some training is stuff like active patrolling for counter insurgents and helping manage local units in combat.
One can argue that national armies are Mercs in the pay of their own nation. Certainly professional soldiers do a lot of things becuase it's their job to to them. And while there may be a few rich dilletants in their nations' militaries who don't cash their paychecks... I sincerely doubt they are very common.
Call them Mercs if you like. but it really sounds like someone is proposing an actual UN Army.
not national troops seconded to the UN but an actuall UN Forces. Perhaps not a bad idea.
Well, with one minor exception:
Most nations have a tax base (the UN doesn't, per se) and most nations soldiers would work directly for that nation, whereas what I'm talking about is the UN employing corporations to provide military services so there is still a one step removed. But essentially you have the point.
Ranger
September 25th, 2003, 10:24 PM
Just remember that the negative connotation to the term mecenary is very modern. Before the modern nation-state many soldiers were mercenaries. The Scotts in particular had a reputation as good soldiers in europe because they faught as mercenaries for many armies. Similarly, the Swittzerland began it's short rise to power in europe because of the quality of their soldiers, which they sold to the highest bidder in the Italian Wars (the Swiss Guard in the Vatican is an historical legacy of this). The modern national army is a product of the Napoleonic Wars. Before then, armies were in personal service of the soveriegn, and often baught and paid for, rather than serving out of a sense of cuase.
kaladorn
September 26th, 2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Ranger:
Just remember that the negative connotation to the term mecenary is very modern.
Before then, armies were in personal service of the soveriegn, and often baught and paid for, rather than serving out of a sense of cuase. Quite right.
And if they did have a cause, it was often related to the leader, not to any larger concept of nationhood. It was personal loyalty, though usually that only in companionship with food and pay, sometimes loot.
Ob Trav:
Since the ineffable Larsen Whipsnade, Esq, has said we think about the Empire from a modern mindset when perhaps a more appropos mindset would be one from the days of Imperial Courts (paraphrased, perhaps even correctly...), then perhaps we should consider that Mercenaries make as much sense in the OTU as they did in similar historical contexts with competing Imperial Systems....
Just remember that the negative connotation to the term mecenary is very modern.
Before then, armies were in personal service of the soveriegn, and often baught and paid for, rather than serving out of a sense of cuase. Quite right.
And if they did have a cause, it was often related to the leader, not to any larger concept of nationhood. It was personal loyalty, though usually that only in companionship with food and pay, sometimes loot.
Ob Trav:
Since the ineffable Larsen Whipsnade, Esq, has said we think about the Empire from a modern mindset when perhaps a more appropos mindset would be one from the days of Imperial Courts (paraphrased, perhaps even correctly...), then perhaps we should consider that Mercenaries make as much sense in the OTU as they did in similar historical contexts with competing Imperial Systems....
Jame
November 8th, 2003, 12:33 PM
Rome was employing mercenaries: German tribesmen who often had no loyalty to the Empire. They just happened to coincide with the time that Rome's social decay allowed someone to come in and push the Western half down.
kaladorn
November 8th, 2003, 01:03 PM
All soldiers are, in some sense, mercenaries. Most armies won't function if they don't get paid, and I extend this even to volunteer forces.
The Romans employed many Auxillia. In the end, the training they gave some of these auxillia, they regreted (if I recall, some German or Thuringian gave them a good beating but he was a former Auxilliary who'd fought with them). But on the whole, this turned out lots of moderately useful troops for them.
The downfall of the Roman Empire had a lot of factors involved in it, and the use of Mercenaries would at best have been a very small one. They used Mercenaries at other times, when they were strong and ascendant, and it was not a problem then.
The Romans employed many Auxillia. In the end, the training they gave some of these auxillia, they regreted (if I recall, some German or Thuringian gave them a good beating but he was a former Auxilliary who'd fought with them). But on the whole, this turned out lots of moderately useful troops for them.
The downfall of the Roman Empire had a lot of factors involved in it, and the use of Mercenaries would at best have been a very small one. They used Mercenaries at other times, when they were strong and ascendant, and it was not a problem then.
TKalbfus
November 8th, 2003, 01:04 PM
I find it interesting that Traveller d20 Mercenaries roll d10s for their stamina points while Army Characters get only d8s. I wonder why that is? Traveller uses three different types of "Fighter" Characters: Mercenaries, Army, and Marines. In D&D, most armies are composed of Warriors and Fighters, with rangers, paladins, and the occasional barbarian thrown in. rangers and paladins have powers though, so they are fighters+.
theSea
November 10th, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Since the ineffable Larsen Whipsnade, Esq, has said we think about the Empire from a modern mindset when perhaps a more appropos mindset would be one from the days of Imperial Courts (paraphrased, perhaps even correctly...), then perhaps we should consider that Mercenaries make as much sense in the OTU as they did in similar historical contexts with competing Imperial Systems.... Truely. In the context of the 3I, Mercs make perfect sense. The Imperrium has a strong interest in having a military force, regulated by the 3I, available for member worlds to solve internal disputes and localized conflicts.
The 3I knows that a Merc corp is not going to risk it's license by violating the Imperial Laws of War and will react very strongly to any force that does.
Professional Mercs also give the 3I a handy route for indirectly influencing the outcome of a variety of local issues in which it cannot be seen ot intervene overtly.
Many of the larger Merc companies are either owned, partly owned or extensively supplied by Imperial Megacorps. Megacorps that are either partially owned by the Imperial family or have a vested interest in the Imperium.
Mercs in the 3I know where their loyalty truely lies - it's with the system.
Lastly it provides a 'safety valve' for these types of local conflicts - allowing them to be fought out with professional hired troops well before things build to the point where the locals are going to go on a complete ramapage against each other. Professionals tend to go after legit military targets - amatures go after women and children with machetes.
It's definitely in the Imperium's best interest to ensure that local conflicts can be settled with hired guns and to make that option financially more appealing than maintaining standing armies.
just my cr0.02
--michael
Since the ineffable Larsen Whipsnade, Esq, has said we think about the Empire from a modern mindset when perhaps a more appropos mindset would be one from the days of Imperial Courts (paraphrased, perhaps even correctly...), then perhaps we should consider that Mercenaries make as much sense in the OTU as they did in similar historical contexts with competing Imperial Systems.... Truely. In the context of the 3I, Mercs make perfect sense. The Imperrium has a strong interest in having a military force, regulated by the 3I, available for member worlds to solve internal disputes and localized conflicts.
The 3I knows that a Merc corp is not going to risk it's license by violating the Imperial Laws of War and will react very strongly to any force that does.
Professional Mercs also give the 3I a handy route for indirectly influencing the outcome of a variety of local issues in which it cannot be seen ot intervene overtly.
Many of the larger Merc companies are either owned, partly owned or extensively supplied by Imperial Megacorps. Megacorps that are either partially owned by the Imperial family or have a vested interest in the Imperium.
Mercs in the 3I know where their loyalty truely lies - it's with the system.
Lastly it provides a 'safety valve' for these types of local conflicts - allowing them to be fought out with professional hired troops well before things build to the point where the locals are going to go on a complete ramapage against each other. Professionals tend to go after legit military targets - amatures go after women and children with machetes.
It's definitely in the Imperium's best interest to ensure that local conflicts can be settled with hired guns and to make that option financially more appealing than maintaining standing armies.
just my cr0.02
--michael
jatay3
November 19th, 2003, 11:54 PM
How are they hired? I think there would be starports-or whole worlds-whose primary industry centers around the mercenary market. There would be a business infrastructure surrounding this. Bankers to provide loans-even insurers perhaps if any will take the risk. There would be brokers negotiating mercenary contracts, landlords specializing in giving billets, merchants specializing in carrying the mercs and so on. There would even be a gambling industry for betting on the prospects of various units(perhaps a morbid thought, but plausible given the situation).
The world would be swarming with spies. The future political stability of a whole subsector can be estimated in part by watching the market here. Every political player will be watching carefully. When the price goes up it will indicate tension rising somewhere. Everyone who thinks they might be involved will immiediatly start bidding wildly, if only to make sure the other side doesn't get the units in question. Sometimes this bidding war will go so far that the would-be-beligerents decide it will cost to much money. Sometimes a richer power will simply try to outbid a poorer in the hope of winning without firing a shot. And sometimes a big megacorporation, or the Imperium will use it's money to manipulate a conflict for it's own purpose. And of course sometimes the bidding war will be a prelude to a shooting war. However suprise attacks may be harder because of the difficulty in hiring without being caught.
However brokers would have a "code of honor-confideniality". And there would be mercenary counterespionage agencies available to delay the knowledge of the contract.
Campaign possibility: The players are Imperial Agents sent to secretly watch the Merc Market. Of course there is someone who doesn't want them snooping around. Actually there are a lot of people who don't want them snooping around. But is something different from normal?
The world would be swarming with spies. The future political stability of a whole subsector can be estimated in part by watching the market here. Every political player will be watching carefully. When the price goes up it will indicate tension rising somewhere. Everyone who thinks they might be involved will immiediatly start bidding wildly, if only to make sure the other side doesn't get the units in question. Sometimes this bidding war will go so far that the would-be-beligerents decide it will cost to much money. Sometimes a richer power will simply try to outbid a poorer in the hope of winning without firing a shot. And sometimes a big megacorporation, or the Imperium will use it's money to manipulate a conflict for it's own purpose. And of course sometimes the bidding war will be a prelude to a shooting war. However suprise attacks may be harder because of the difficulty in hiring without being caught.
However brokers would have a "code of honor-confideniality". And there would be mercenary counterespionage agencies available to delay the knowledge of the contract.
Campaign possibility: The players are Imperial Agents sent to secretly watch the Merc Market. Of course there is someone who doesn't want them snooping around. Actually there are a lot of people who don't want them snooping around. But is something different from normal?
jatay3
December 18th, 2003, 04:58 PM
oh I said that mercenary brokers would have "code of honor-confideniability" or something like that. I meant confidentiality. It's against their ethics(and their self-interest)to tell something an employer doesn't want told.
jatay3
December 18th, 2003, 06:53 PM
Mercenary wholesalers:
In Star Mercs most of the units listed seem rather small. For a small city-state yes. But why would any power of reasonable size go to the trouble of hiring them? Perhaps for specialty jobs(a traditional use of mercenaries). Or their could be wholesalers who collect them into division size lots and contract them out.
In Star Mercs most of the units listed seem rather small. For a small city-state yes. But why would any power of reasonable size go to the trouble of hiring them? Perhaps for specialty jobs(a traditional use of mercenaries). Or their could be wholesalers who collect them into division size lots and contract them out.
Anthony
December 18th, 2003, 07:18 PM
Giving the cost of transporting mercs, they've got to be very high value per unit; this strongly favors elite, high-tech forces. They're probably typically used as special forces, trainers, or to stiffen a local force.
alanb
December 18th, 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Anthony:
Giving the cost of transporting mercs, they've got to be very high value per unit; this strongly favors elite, high-tech forces. They're probably typically used as special forces, trainers, or to stiffen a local force. Exactly.
Of course, most of the mercs IMTU are hired as contractors, rather than as condottieri style units. Either that, or as members of "foreign" units, like the Papal Swiss Guard, the French Foreign Legion, or the British Gurkha Rifles. These latter units are often subsidised by the hiring government's allies...
On occasion, entire units of certain planetary governments may be found as "allies" on other worlds. This is particularly common when one or more of the governments in question is a Megacorporation. (This is one of the ways Megacorps launder their military power.)
All IMTU, of course.
Alan B
Giving the cost of transporting mercs, they've got to be very high value per unit; this strongly favors elite, high-tech forces. They're probably typically used as special forces, trainers, or to stiffen a local force. Exactly.
Of course, most of the mercs IMTU are hired as contractors, rather than as condottieri style units. Either that, or as members of "foreign" units, like the Papal Swiss Guard, the French Foreign Legion, or the British Gurkha Rifles. These latter units are often subsidised by the hiring government's allies...
On occasion, entire units of certain planetary governments may be found as "allies" on other worlds. This is particularly common when one or more of the governments in question is a Megacorporation. (This is one of the ways Megacorps launder their military power.)
All IMTU, of course.
Alan B
jatay3
December 18th, 2003, 11:18 PM
And I believe I did mention "high-value per unit" when I said specialist units. And this also seems to be implied in Star Mercs. However the units given as examples don't all seem to be valueable enough to hire individualy. The Death Head's,or the SB Rangers would be hired like that. But a lot of them seem like they would be lost in the system. The Free Troopers sound a lot like something one would get in a group deal. Imagine a General: "look mister we just hired you so we could get those other units; play games and I'll have you fired"
jatay3
December 18th, 2003, 11:25 PM
What if the ticket includes fighting against the Imperium? Theoretically that's illegal, but it would be done if profitable. However they might have a hard time collecting: the ticket would be legally null and void. So there would have to be special arrangements.
Ganidirsii O'Flynn
December 19th, 2003, 12:30 AM
Good luck cashing in that blood chit, grunt. :eek: Bad War, or what?
jatay3
December 19th, 2003, 12:38 AM
What if employers traded mercenary units like baseball managers trade players?
orc65
December 19th, 2003, 07:03 PM
Mercenary worlds such as the Dorsai in Gordon R. Dicksons, Dorsai series. The Dorsai economy is entirely based on providing mercenary units and advisors to the rest of the known galaxy.
One prime candidate within the Imperium would be the Answerin in Vland. With fear regarded as a disease of the mind these guys would make the coldest, most efficient mercenaries I could think of.
Another example in literature would be the Hammers Slammers Series by David Drake.
These books give you great insight into what it's like to be a mercenary in a starspanning campaign.
One prime candidate within the Imperium would be the Answerin in Vland. With fear regarded as a disease of the mind these guys would make the coldest, most efficient mercenaries I could think of.
Another example in literature would be the Hammers Slammers Series by David Drake.
These books give you great insight into what it's like to be a mercenary in a starspanning campaign.
kaladorn
December 20th, 2003, 11:10 AM
Most mercenaries tend to be employed to either answer an immediate need for a small deployable force (as a striker/security element) or for a cadre to train larger indigenous forces in Counter Insurgent warfare. Some may be used to shore up peace-enforcement operations by the Imperium itself. Others will get used by corporations.
Once you hit a certain size/time frame, it makes more economic sense to train and equip your own standing forces.
I don't imagine you'll see Division sized merc ops too often. Probably Battalion or light Brigade might be the most likely top end.
Also note that many of these will be long-service vets retired from the Imperial forces, a further tie to Imperial policy (at least in terms of not taking contracts the Emperor wouldn't like).
For interesting examples, Rick Shelley's books Officer Cadet, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, etc. featuring the Dirigent Mercenary Corps (and a mercenary world) and also Joel Rosenberg's hard to find "Not for Glory" and "Hero" featuring Metzadan Mercenary Corp/Company. (Expatriate Israelis I think, IIRC)
Once you hit a certain size/time frame, it makes more economic sense to train and equip your own standing forces.
I don't imagine you'll see Division sized merc ops too often. Probably Battalion or light Brigade might be the most likely top end.
Also note that many of these will be long-service vets retired from the Imperial forces, a further tie to Imperial policy (at least in terms of not taking contracts the Emperor wouldn't like).
For interesting examples, Rick Shelley's books Officer Cadet, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, etc. featuring the Dirigent Mercenary Corps (and a mercenary world) and also Joel Rosenberg's hard to find "Not for Glory" and "Hero" featuring Metzadan Mercenary Corp/Company. (Expatriate Israelis I think, IIRC)
jatay3
April 8th, 2005, 03:50 AM
A Mercenary doesn't tend to have an ideology other than pragmatism (at least the force as a whole lacks a common one). This is not true of many national or ethnic forces. Usually, this ideology is less than a useful component.
---------------------------------
I'm not sure that's true. They don't have a political "ideology". They can have a warrior ideology-"brothers in arms", "legion of lost souls", etc. They also can have a patriotic loyalty to their homes if they all came from the same area. Not so much patriotism in the sense of loyalty to their countries political interests, as their country is to far away for their actions to affect it. But more analogical to what an athletic team feels for it's school- win glory and show that OUR planet has the best fighters in the world.
---------------------------------
I'm not sure that's true. They don't have a political "ideology". They can have a warrior ideology-"brothers in arms", "legion of lost souls", etc. They also can have a patriotic loyalty to their homes if they all came from the same area. Not so much patriotism in the sense of loyalty to their countries political interests, as their country is to far away for their actions to affect it. But more analogical to what an athletic team feels for it's school- win glory and show that OUR planet has the best fighters in the world.
Baron Saarthuran
April 8th, 2005, 04:16 AM
I had a Vargr Merc Character once that got conscripted (in the middle of a job, no less) into some local conflict and the one thing I didn't understand was the reaction of the Brass when I had him resist the press ganging because they didn't even discuss payment. A predicament most certainly contrary to vargr nature!
"I kill for money" is an easy (and age old) concept. It should always be about the money. Ideological leanings are no gaurantee of a steady flow of expensive armaments, but good business sense should.
"I kill for money" is an easy (and age old) concept. It should always be about the money. Ideological leanings are no gaurantee of a steady flow of expensive armaments, but good business sense should.
Chuck Anumia
April 8th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Money is the reason that we started the Motorcycle club Caste of Assassins (we were all military members, working for the government for money).
Chuck Anumia
April 8th, 2005, 01:09 PM
See my other post on Mercenary Medals
jatay3
April 14th, 2005, 03:06 PM
One thing that did bother me is that many adventures in Star Mercs seem like typical frontier mayhem. Reasonable enough except for one key point. Such things are usually decided quick. For any faction to summon offworlders would require about two months of lead time, unless it was right next to a Merc depot,or knew weeks in advance that it was coming. Even the "battle of Heya"(Star Mercs,p93-95)requires either a long lull or at least a long period of time while the Heyans are bashing at the Vargr on their own.
I suppose you could do the adventures in the book with the lead-time problem assumed.
Some adventures can't be done. It would really be impossible(and not just uncommon) to hire people for a one mission ticket, because by the time they
arrived the situation will have changed. A be-on-call type would be more likely. The only one missions I can imagine is if there was a coup or first-strike in the works; it wouldn't work for an ongoing war.
The lead-time problem also means that Mercs would have to bring something that the employer doesn't have. Which is another reason they cannot be mere goons; they wouldn't be worth the trouble as goons can be gotten anywhere. Therefore they have to have a minimum of quality.
Still Star Mercs doesn't address the leadtime problem properly.
I suppose you could do the adventures in the book with the lead-time problem assumed.
Some adventures can't be done. It would really be impossible(and not just uncommon) to hire people for a one mission ticket, because by the time they
arrived the situation will have changed. A be-on-call type would be more likely. The only one missions I can imagine is if there was a coup or first-strike in the works; it wouldn't work for an ongoing war.
The lead-time problem also means that Mercs would have to bring something that the employer doesn't have. Which is another reason they cannot be mere goons; they wouldn't be worth the trouble as goons can be gotten anywhere. Therefore they have to have a minimum of quality.
Still Star Mercs doesn't address the leadtime problem properly.
Chuck Anumia
April 14th, 2005, 03:31 PM
I have a mercenary org. that hires out "teams" from 3 people (corporal and two privates) for security work and such as well as squads, platoons, companys and so on up to the entire Corps.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét