I'm writing up background & rules for a mercenary stargrunt campaign when the
issue of mission motivation hit me: mercenaries are not (usually)
ideologically engaged in conflicts - so obviously their motivation is
going to be more...well mercenary (and I win the prize for obvious statements
of the century!!) I thought that their mission motivation would be closer tied
to the current status of the payment, their current state of supply and the
perceived reliability of their employer. The importance of the mission
according to the employer will probably have some impact
I'll probably not formulate a matrix to take all these factors into account,
and will just assign a motivation as I feel it's deserved.
Has anyone done anything like this before? Any input from anyone, especially
good accounts of mercenary operations and historic motivations for modern
mercenaries
Thanks
> Has anyone done anything like this before?
Donogh,
Good ideas here.
Sorry I cannot contribute mercenery stories or the like.
Perhaps how close a given mission puts the Mercs towards a contract's
completion should be a factor.
Also if things are going pretty much as planned I'd expect them to be more
highly motivated than if the Mercs had encountered some unexpected twists
along the way. ("You said the Opfor would be militia! Where'd they get the
power armor?) Although this may already be covered in your concerns for
employer reliability.
Sounds like a fascinating project. Please keep us informed.
Regards, Bob
> _________________________________________________________________
> On 6-Feb-02 at 10:00, Donogh McCarthy (donoghmc@hotmail.com) wrote:
> I thought that their mission motivation would be closer tied to the
I would say a large part of a mercenaries motivation would be based on their
confidence in their top command. I know I would be much more motivated if the
one leading the show were a competent combat vet than I would be if the boss
was a faceless financial institution.
> I'm writing up background & rules for a mercenary stargrunt campaign
ideologically engaged in conflicts - so obviously their motivation is
going to be more...well mercenary
That's not always the case--there are certainly instances in modern
history of mercenaries who volunteered to serve another country for
ideological reasons. Lafayette Escadrille and Flying Tigers might be the best
known to an American but there are other examples in Africa, SE Asia and
Central America.
> laserlight Wrote:
> That's not always the case--there are certainly instances in modern
> reasons. Lafayette Escadrille and Flying Tigers might be the best
> America.
Also the RAF Eagle Squadrons (early in their inception, Americans ran the risk
of arrest by the FBI for violating US neutrality. They had to travel to
Halifax, NS to go to Britain), the Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War,
plus a multitude of examples from US history, particularly the Revolution, in
which we were the RECIPIENT of such help.
2B^2
> On 6-Feb-02 at 10:00, Donogh McCarthy (donoghmc@hotmail.com) wrote:
This is a fascinating topic, probably with no real answers.....! Just some odd
thoughts to add to the discussions: I'd expect units like Japanese Corporate
Troops to have a fanatical loyalty to their Corporation, for example,
including laying down their lives for it; "cheap" Merc cannon fodder units
from certain other nations (I'm NOT opening this particular thread again....)
may have very little staying power. Highly professional Merc units with good
reputations may have high Motivation in terms of getting the mission
accomplished, but may NOT be prepared to accept many casualties if faced with
more than minimal
opposition - I would think that excellent casevac and medical support
would be prerequisites of such units.
Maybe we should actually have a different set of Mission Motivation parameters
and effects specially for Mercs of various flavours, to reflect their
different priorities compared with the "national" soldier....?
> laserlight Wrote:
Not wanting to be too nitpicky, but if they're fighting for ideological
reasons (even for a foreign power) then surely they're not strictly Mercs?
Mercs generally fight for payment, in money or in kind....
Also of factor would be the reputation of the unit. The better the reputation,
the better the job (pay, type, etc.) you will be offered.
While probably very unrealistic, I liked the Battletech background's ideas for
mercenaries. The units with a good rep usually had "extras" added to the
contract (transportation, supplies, salvage rights, equipment replacement,
etc.), recieved the jobs most likely to increase thier reputation (garrison
duty does nothing for your rep), increased thier credit rating (for when they
needed new equipment) and helped with recruiting. Units with bad reps more or
less expected to be left hanging, or stuck guarding some depot in the back 40
of nowhere.
The advantages of a Mercenary unit are:
- reduced training cost
- reduced equipment cost
- reduced cost of standing military in peacetime
The disadvantages are:
- higher cost for the unit when activated
- nonstandard supplies may be required (logistics)
- questionable loyalty
- retainer fees in peacetime
- chain of command integration
- reputation as employer
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
> From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.keme.co.uk>
> Not wanting to be too nitpicky, but if they're fighting for ideological
That's what I originally thought, but I've since been lead to believe that
anyone who fights for a foreign power is considered a mercenary.
2B^2
From: Ground Zero Games jon@gzg.keme.co.uk
> I'd expect units like Japanese Corporate Troops to have a fanatical
Since you mention it... :-)
IMHO, the Islamic Fed produces several types of merc units.
a. independent gang--these usually start out as groups of armed
teenagers. Sufficient to strongarm civilians and may beat militia, but no
match for properly trained troops. Probably Green 1 and 2's with
medium/high mission motivation, although Yellow/1/High is a possibility.
Weapons are rifles (often obsolete), a few SAWs and IAVRs, sometimes other
direct fire weapons. Usually hired as a "lesser of two evils" to hold off
bandits, or paid to attack someone else as a method of getting them to go
away.
b. co-opted warband--usually a gang which has recruited ex-military
personnel or survived contact with regulars and see the benefit of
organization and training. These often get coopted by an ambitious local
vizier or sheikh and used as auxilliary forces for light infantry missions.
Use standard issue rifles, SAWs, mortars, IAVRs; sometimes GMS (P, L, or AA);
and captured equipment. Sometimes they think consider themselves independent
but are being supplied by outsiders and used as proxy forces. Mission
motivation is usually medium to low, quality anywhere from Green to veteran,
and the likelihood of treachery is fairly high.
c. deniable regular forces--when an amir or the Sultan wishes to meddle
in a neighbor's politics, the fledgling Islamic party on the neighbor's planet
often receives "donations" from "concerned citizens who wish to support their
oppressed Muslim brethren"; these "donations" are used to
hire an "independent professional self-defense force" composed of
"volunteers with prior military service." This is usually a
thinly-disguised first rate Regular battalion, equivalent to a Guards
unit if provided by the Sultanate. These units are usually proud, tough and
nasty, not bound by Merc Code conventions, and always remember they follow
their employer's orders only when those don't conflict with the amir's or
Sultan's orders
> Not wanting to be too nitpicky, but if they're fighting for
Well, the dictionary definitions (I looked it up at dictionary.com) all say
the same basic thing:
-paid to fight for a foreign government (foreign army, in foreign
service, etc)
*all* the "historical" mercs mentioned, includingt the Layfayette Escadrille,
the Flying Tigers, the Eagle Squadrons, etc., would qualify
-
they were indeed paid, and fighting in a foreign military.
As would, for example, members of the French Foreign Legion. And Executive
Outcomes, in all its operations (which were all for foreign governments).
What about mercenary units or soldiers hired by a non-governmental
group? Would they still be considered mercs? For example, my rebel group hires
some merc advisors. The Japanese corporate mercs - who aren't fighting
for
a foreign government at all - but a Japanese company. Or the "big evil
megacorporation" who hires a military unit to take over a colony so they can
exploit the natural resources...
------------
And about the mission motivation for merc units - another factor based
on the reputation of the unit: mercs in a unit that is professional, high
quality, and has a good reputation would be more motivated to uphold that
reputation, all other things beings equal, than a less professional, lower
quality unit. Esprit de Corps goes a long way! Guys who fight in units like
the Foreign Legion don't do it because they want to be loyal to France
- they do it because they're loyal to their buddies in the next foxhole,
and don't want to look like they're letting their buddies down.
Tradition and reputation can play a big part in morale and motivation. If
you're in a unit that has a reputation for winning, that will in and of itself
increase the motivation to keep the rep, of not "letting your side down", etc.
***************************************
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> KH.Ranitzsch Wrote:
> Depending on the precise circumstances and conditions, they most likely
Complicated and Mercenary arrangements tend to go hand-in-hand....
2B^2
I think folks are hitting on some good points. Mercenary motivation can
generally start high but it is certainly more brittle than someone fighting
for a cause. Lose more than a few folks and it starts to look like it could
happen to anyone. Once that happens, survival is much more important than
money.
So I would propose that casualty factors would be much more important to
mercenary mission motivation.
No actual figures, I will leave those to Tomb <G>
Magic
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.keme.co.uk>
> Not wanting to be too nitpicky, but if they're fighting for
If you define "mercs" as "people who fight strictly for cash", then no,
they're not mercs, and there aren't very many mercs in the world. If you
define "mercenary" as "someone who voluntarily fights for a country not his
own" then I think you'll find that ideology and desire for adventure rate
pretty highly as reasons to fight. Turning it about, do you call a states own
servicemen "mercenaries"? No, but
they still get paid (at least in western countries--if you're in
G'day,
> What about mercenary units or soldiers hired by a
Personally I'd say they're still mercs... though I don't doubt they'd be given
a much less culturally sensitive name by the company in question
;)
Cheers
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.keme.co.uk>
> Not wanting to be too nitpicky, but if they're fighting for
International Law is moving towards making no distinction. If you're not a
part of a nation's uniformed military forces, or one of its allies,
If megacorporations are a part of the GZG universe (and they appear to be with
the Japanese Corporate Mercenaries), they would be likely to push legislation
through the UN legalizing thier "security forces" (both ground forces and ship
escorts). Likely the ground forces authority would be limited to the property
of the corporations. From there it is not too far a strech to have a Mercenary
Charter spelling out the rights and responsibilities of mercenaries and thier
employers. Unregistered mercenaries would be treated as "illegal combatants".
=>BOOM<=
Bother! stepped on a landmine.
> If megacorporations are a part of the GZG universe (and they appear to
Given the number of references to Merc forces in the background (remember a
lot of this is down to Steve Blease - it's not all my fault!! <grin>),
I've
always assumed that some kind of legalisation/general acceptance of Merc
operations is in force - something like the ideas in
Dorsai/Slammers/Falkenberg et al......
Jon (GZG)
> -----
OK,
firstly, thanks to all for the replies
secondly, lots of food for thought for the weekend, I have a few ideas on how
I'm going to approach the problem (especially since there's not much
agreement on what's important in motivating mercenaries or even on what
exactly mercenaries are!)
I'll do some work on this over the weekend and send the results to the list
some time Monday
Thanks again