Mercenaries in T2K: Thoughts and Questions

[pmulcahy11b]

It just seems to me that the idea of a mercenary might become superfluous in T2K. Military forces don't need them -- you just put them in your own military forces. Marauders are basically predatory criminals, not mercenaries. Maybe if some town hires a bunch of armed people from outside you might be able to term them mercenaries. Or maybe just hired muscle.

[jester]

Mercinaries, I was actualy thinking of the mercenary of old, such as durring the 100 years war and such, since that is what Europe would have devolved into, lots of independant cities, a return of the city state. With these cities siding with PACT or NATO or even declaring their own independance or as free cities such as Krakow. And it is in these instances when a non descript group who seems to be on no ones side would be useful, and deniable.

As for payment, return to subsistance, giving them room and board and a basic materials to do what they are assigned to. But also gfiving them a choice in spoils or a certain amount of whatever that area produces.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by jester

Mercenaries, I was actually thinking of the mercenary of old, such as during the 100 years war and such, since that is what Europe would have devolved into, lots of independent cities, a return of the city state. With these cities siding with PACT or NATO or even declaring their own independence or as free cities such as Krakow. And it is in these instances when a non descript group who seems to be on no ones side would be useful, and deniable.

I agree with you on this. These regional powers may declare broadly for NATO or the WP, but their problems are going to be local ones and they are not going be able to count on the assistance of NATO or the WP to help solve them.

Someone earlier (stainlesssteelcynic) mentioned the "free companies" of the late middle ages. I think that's an excellent example. Check out the wikipedia listing for John Hawkwood.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hawkwood

While the remnants of NATO and the WP wouldn't necessarily have as many reasons to employ mercenaries, these semi-independent city-states would. While the remnants of the various national governments try to maintain control of their armies, local governments, strongmen and warlords are always going to be in the market for muscle. Sure it can come in the form of hiring individual deserters, stragglers, and marauders into your force, but if you need a big force for a big job, but don't want them hanging around afterwards eating you out of house and home, you hire a free company.

They go in, do the job, get paid, get lost.

Back to business as usual for your TW2K city state.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Legbreaker]

Is it a valid to assume Martial Law would exist in areas controlled by military forces?
If so, how are mercenaries dealt with? Are non-military personal allowed to carry firearms, drive vehicles (and thereby use fuel the military need), carry anything even vaguely related to combat?

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Is it a valid to assume Martial Law would exist in areas controlled by military forces?
If so, how are mercenaries dealt with? Are non-military personal allowed to carry firearms, drive vehicles (and thereby use fuel the military need), carry anything even vaguely related to combat?

I think we'd have to assume that in many MilGov or CivGov (or really ANY government controlled areas) there are going to be serious restrictions on what folks who are not members of that government's armed forces can own.

Any resource the players have might be confiscated under some vague "emergency powers" proclamation. Small arms (in America, at least) would be difficult to round up. Too strong a cultural attachment. But if the players drive into town towing a 155mm howitzer, they may not get a chance to sell it to the army. It might just be "commandeered." That's what they call it when the lawful authorities steal from you.

The UK, Canada and (to my understanding) Australia have all enacted extremely limiting laws concerning personal firearms, but except in Australia (which didn't get pranged as bad as the other countries) I can't imagine the authorities being successful confiscating weapons. It would just cause unnecessary fighting at a time when everyone needs their guns to hunt and protect themselves.

Australia wouldn't be in the same position since their national government never collapsed and regional and local governments only temporarily failed and only small areas remain uncontrolled. As such, not everyone in Australia needed a firearm to make sure their bread crusts didn't get stolen by the Smegma Crazies and the Gay Boy Berzerkers. (extra points if you can cite the reference on those!)

But Canada, the UK and the USA are wrecked. Self defense is mandatory so, I can't imagine the governments trying to disarm the population completely.

Big military hardware like tanks or armored vehicles or artillery and mortar, and even belt-fed machine guns... sure, I can imagine the authorities confiscating them for official use only. Guys like Jacques Littlefieldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Littlefield (who collects and restores tanks and armored vehicles) are going to be very sad when MilGov shows up and makes off with their museum pieces... so long as they still run.

I think that any "Free Company" is going to have to camp outside the castle walls, both literally and figuratively, or face being disarmed and their vehicles and equipment confiscated. Choosing to be in a free company is going to be a hard road. While people may need your services, they are going to covet your gear and fear you. So most arrangements are going to be exectuted at arm's length.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Legbreaker]

Even though the government here enacted some pretty draconian laws, there are still sizable numbers of decent military weapons out there in the country. I myself know of a couple of unregistered private arsenals which would definately remain out of the hands of the authorities.

Urban firearm ownership has never been particularly high here and pistols are especially scarce. Bolt action and single shot weapons are relatively common in the country (farmers usually need something to put down sick animals or control vermin), but semi-autos with a mag of greater than 5 rounds (I think) are very hard to come by. This is not to say they don't exist - as mentioned previously, many owners did not declare and hand them in when they were made illegal about 12-13 years back.

Which makes me think as I wrote that - war had been raging for a while when that law was passed. Perhaps in the T2K timeline the restrictions were not applied and anything less than fully auto was still legal? Right up until martial law was declared in an area of course....

What other laws in other countries may or may not have been passed?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Even though the government here enacted some pretty draconian laws, there are still sizable numbers of decent military weapons out there in the country. I myself know of a couple of unregistered private arsenals which would definately remain out of the hands of the authorities.

Yes. An amazing number of banned weapons were declared "stolen" when the really tough bans came in in Australia. In most of those cases "stolen" actually meant carefully packed away and buried by their owners.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

This is not to say they don't exist - as mentioned previously, many owners did not declare and hand them in when they were made illegal about 12-13 years back.

Which makes me think as I wrote that - war had been raging for a while when that law was passed. Perhaps in the T2K timeline the restrictions were not applied and anything less than fully auto was still legal? Right up until martial law was declared in an area of course....

My understanding is that the giant gun control kick off in Australia happened right after the Port Arthur Massacre... which was on April 28 1996! In the canon time line that's dead smack in the middle of the Sino-Soviet War. By October 5, 1996 you've got the Germany Reunification crisis! So maybe with the looming threat of global war and a global economic meltdown, Australian voters are not in that big a hurry to disarm themselves?

I think I'd be willing to add something to my timeline to say that Australia didn't disarm in the late nineties. At least not to the extent that it has. Personally I think that Australia will hold together better with a legally armed populace than without one post Twilight War, even if they are not a direct target for nukes. An armed populace combined with a functional, popular and elected government authority will keep the hooliganism to a minimum.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

The UK, Canada and (to my understanding) Australia have all enacted extremely limiting laws concerning personal firearms, but except in Australia (which didn't get pranged as bad as the other countries) I can't imagine the authorities being successful confiscating weapons. It would just cause unnecessary fighting at a time when everyone needs their guns to hunt and protect themselves.

Australia wouldn't be in the same position since their national government never collapsed and regional and local governments only temporarily failed and only small areas remain uncontrolled. As such, not everyone in Australia needed a firearm to make sure their bread crusts didn't get stolen by the Smegma Crazies and the Gay Boy Berzerkers. (extra points if you can cite the reference on those!)

Australia didn't get hit as hard in the anti-gun hysteria as the UK and Canada but we did get hit with a more insidious form of it. The anti-gun crowd here have not tried to get all guns banned at once, they have been doing it in bits and pieces and reducing what firearms you can own over the course of years. Their ultimate goal is obviously reducing us to a point where nobody owns firearms... oh except for the criminals who don't actually buy them from legitimate sources.

We're going to need those firearms to fight of those Smegma Crazies and Gay Boy Beserkers when we need to protect our guzzaline... Mad Max won't be there to save us (specifically, those gangs are from Mad Max 2)

Originally Posted by sglancy12

But Canada, the UK and the USA are wrecked. Self defense is mandatory so, I can't imagine the governments trying to disarm the population completely.

I think also that most people in those countries would lie about still possessing firearms, claiming they were looted or damaged etc. etc. rather than hand over their few protective items to a "government" that can't really demonstrate that it can protect them.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

We're going to need those firearms to fight of those Smegma Crazies and Gay Boy Beserkers when we need to protect our guzzaline... Mad Max won't be there to save us (specifically, those gangs are from Mad Max 2)

Of course the Australian gets it first. I should have asked the question while you guys were asleep just to give my fellow Americans a fair chance at answering it first.

And nice to see you called the movie by it's proper name too.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing