Rule Idea: MRBC Employer Ratings

[Daemonknight]

I'm having a rules think-tank day apparently. We all know that the MRBC, and the Dragoons in particular, rate the various mercenary units A, B, C, D or F, depending on a variety of factors, to give employers how good a unit they are trying to hire. What do you guys think about the MRBC rating the various employers(your factions) with the opposite intent?

A* Rating: This employer is extremely generous with it's treatment of mercenaries. Payment for services is excellent, often overpaying for the duties a unit will see. Compensation for combat missions is also extremely good.

A Rating: This employer treats its mercenary forces with respect and care. Payment is generous for services provided, and combat compensation is of good quality.

B Rating: This employer treats its mercenaries as one would expect: they are paid for exactly the ammount of work they do, and are compensated according to the contract. While not treated lavishly, mercenaries can expect prompt payment and fair treatment by this House's liasion officers.

C Rating: This employer treats it's mercenaries somewhat less well than they would like. Pay is sometimes late or less than agreed upon ammounts, and is usually miserly considering the ammount of action it's units see. Compensation for combat operations is poor, although they usually get some support to their units. Still, overall, the experience is not too bad, but elite units should look elsewhere.

D Rating: This employer treats it's mercenaries as disposable assets at best, and tolerable evils at worst. Contracts generally seem lucrative, but are rarely worth the price paid in lost personnel and damaged or destroyed machines. While the faction will furnish resupplies, it is often overpriced, prompting complaints of company store tactics. Essentially, any way this employer could mistreat a reliable mercenary, it has in recent memory. Quality units should consider this employer a high-risk contract, though down-on-their-luck mercenaries might find this employer as their only willing courtier.

F Rating: This employer is anathema to the MRBC and it's registered mercenaries. Stealing equipment, false accusations and convictions, blatant company store policies, suicide missions, repeated breach of contract; all are activities that could potentially land an employer with an F Rating from the MRBC. Such factions will have an extremely difficult time convincing the MRBC to allow them to place bids on any mercenary, relegating their potential market to the independant units and rouge mercenary units. Of course, hiring a rouge mercenary unit in the first place will result in an automatic F Rating from the MRBC, not to be lifted untill the rouge unit is turned in, and a heft fine is paid. Being reduced to this rating requires deliberate and severe mistreatment of mercenary forces, and thus is unlikely to be applied to the Great Houses.

A* Rating means employers gain +2 on all contract offers
A Rating means employers gain +1 on all contract offers
B Rating has no contract modifier
C Rating means employers suffer -1 on all contract offers
D rating means employers suffer -2 on all contract offers
F rating means that faction is unable to place bids on MRBC-registered mercenaries, and permenantly loses it's seat on the MRBC Board, even if it subsequently raises its rating in the future. The employer suffers -4 on all contract offers to rouge and independant mercenaries

[Fatebringer]

In general, I like the idea. It's a Double Edged sword but would be a nice bonus to snag the "A" rated mercs. It very much reminds me of how Nations have credit ratings. But as long as we're talking Mercs, I propose the following expected Contract Bids based on Units Ratings

A - 13/15
B - 10/12
C - 6/9
D - 3/5
F - 1/2

All variations besides F have a +/- build into the range.
Example: C- Rating would = 6, while a B+ Rating would be 12

I would also recommend a bigger value for repairs in Merc Contracts. I thin +1 for Full Repairs is just not enough considering this commitment can cost a bidder more money than then a months pay. It would also be a good indicator to the Mercs on how dangerous a job would be when they aren't getting at least 50% repairs in their contract

No Repairs = 0
25% Repairs = 1
50% Repairs = 2
75% Repairs = 3
Full Repairs = 4

I also propose the inclusion of the following, so that units that don't expect, or historically have not, seen combat can negotiate away their salvage rights for a better base contract rate.

-1 if the bidder will receive all salvage.

With scales like this and the Employer Rating, there would be more options gives more options included getting a +15 would be much more possible.

Also, there should also be some kind of justification of the Mercs rating, High Win / Loss ratio, Skill, Loyalty, Better equipment, etc.

[Daemonknight]

the issue I have with the values you have stated, is that if we sit around and add a dozen new ways to get bonuses, the things that matter most to the mercenaries(base pay, repair/replacements) become less valuable. There are already enough ways to get to high bonuses without having to actually pay alot of RP. While it makes sense that perks would potentially be worth alot on a contract, the money is what drives a mercenary: you can't pay your rented jumpship in repairs, and if you're only making 15% base pay rate, you're signing bonus could be 25% and not really be alot of money.

I really don't want to see full repairs become a +4 modifier. +1 for half, +2 for full is the most I would go. Like I said, I don't want to devalue the monetary aspect, which is main thing that drives the mercs. Some factions don't have alot of ready cash, but thats the problem with playing the smaller factions, you need to be creative.

I'll say it here, if people want to come up with customized RP-based contracts(like the ones I wrote up when I was RPing the Dragoons at the end of 62), I'm all for it, and I'll even assign contract ratings to them so they can fit into the system. That will allow you to more fully use things like the Mercenary Handbook contract bits, to get a more detailed contract. For example, I've basiclly been assuming that these contracts are all Liaison Command contracts for the big units, and perhaps House Command for the single-regiment ones.

Also, these contracts are assuming to be Garrison and/or Planetary Attack contracts. Nothing says you couldn't RP a Cadre contract, where the merc unit engages your defenders on planet X, or defends against your attacks, giving you a chance to gain skill ratings(which now that I've said that, I believe there will be a rush on such contracts in Turn 2).



Anyways, back on topic. I believe that every faction will be started at a B rating. Factions like the LyCom and CapCon, who rely on mercenaries and thus treat them well, would be rated B+. The Combine and FRR, nations that traditionally arn't the friendliest to mercs, would rate a B-. Everyone else would be a straight B, and have to work to improve their rating from there.

[Drakef]

It sounds like a solid idea. Within the BattleTech universe, each faction will have a reputation, and this could allow a fair system to alter mercenary attitudes by systematically approaching it by a definite and agreed-upon reputation for each one. How would the ratings be changed/decided?

[Daemonknight]

I havn't worked that out yet. I'm open to listening to ideas. I know that I could do it in an abstract way, but I have a feeling people would prefer to have a quantifiable set of standards that they can look at. My only reservation to having posted visible markers is that people will match their behaviour to whatever criteria are posted, as opposed to acting like themselves. Everyone's hiring practices would essentially be the same, and everyone would have the same ratings...

[Iron Mongoose]

You might tie Employer Ratings to battlefield success for employed mercs.  If a factions mercs fight often and are winning, then who wouldn't want to work there? If they often lose, then who would?  And if they just sit around...

This rewards factions that fight often and win often, which isn't a terrable thing, right?  And, since the CC's only successful force is the Big MAC, with a few other mercs in there right after the Warrior Houses and right before any regular CCAF unit, it could still work even for a small faction like us.

[Parmenion]

Anyways, back on topic. I believe that every faction will be started at a B rating. Factions like the LyCom and CapCon, who rely on mercenaries and thus treat them well, would be rated B+. The Combine and FRR, nations that traditionally arn't the friendliest to mercs, would rate a B-. Everyone else would be a straight B, and have to work to improve their rating from there.

I'm reasonably agreeable to this.  It has seemed to me over the years that the FedSuns favour some merc units they employ over others.  Although they do also seem to like longevity with their contracts with certain of the larger merc units. 

You might tie Employer Ratings to battlefield success for employed mercs.  If a factions mercs fight often and are winning, then who wouldn't want to work there? If they often lose, then who would?  And if they just sit around...

This rewards factions that fight often and win often, which isn't a terrable thing, right?  And, since the CC's only successful force is the Big MAC, with a few other mercs in there right after the Warrior Houses and right before any regular CCAF unit, it could still work even for a small faction like us.

I don't like this one, if for nothing else IM, the CapCon rating would therefore be in the gutter.  You would have to grade them as taking a huge hit from the 4SW, and only middling redeeming themselves when they repulsed a dumbarse assault from those provincial hicks from next door and they're poor as dirt periphery friends.   Plus how would you grade the engagements?   I think it would be a can of worms for the GMs to manage.

[Iron Mongoose]

Probably, I agree.  But, I can't think of anything I like better, or dislike less.