Merc motivations

KH said (although I find it interesting that H&K is a almost palindrome
of KH)

There can also be arrangements like mercenaries fighting for Government
A but paid for (secretly?) by government B. Or even more complicated:
Soldiers fighting under command of A, but in the interest of B and paid
for
(indirectly) by B. Example: The Gulf War: Us and other forces under
their own command, but financed (to a large degree) by Saudi Arabia.

[Tomb] I've heard rumors to the effect that the German gov't paid for
some "private military corporations" to conduct operations in either
Kosovo or some other former Yugoslav area. But this is unsubstantiated.
This would have fit the bill. 

[Tomb] As for St. Jon's comment about different motivation rules for
different mercenaries, I think that heads the way of a GW codex...
<shudder>. But, I do think there are some cultural or social groups that
merit a brief set of notes on modified morale rules. 

[Tomb] I'm not sure mercenaries have poorer mission motivation. I've
seen some studies that suggest they are _less_ casualty averse than
first world forces! (At least in dirty little wars where no one really
wants them there...). I think mercenary motivation comes down to (as
most troops) their faith in their ability to do the mission required
with minimal casualties and to get paid. They have a greater tendency to
leave if they don't get paid, but EO is an example of a unit that worked
a darn long time without getting paid what it was owed! If they have
faith they can do what they are about, that is a motivational plus.
Also, so is training, equipment, and good leadership. Of course, these
are the same things that give motivational plusses in national armies! I
have more faith in some paid private military corporations than in some
national armies....

[Tomb] I think you will find "mercenary" as a term covers as much ground
as "soldier". There are all types of units (good and bad) and similarly
their are good and bad national armies and subunits within them.
Generalizations in either case are fraught with risk. 

[Tomb] Mercenaries work for pay. Coincidentally, so do soldiers.
National soldiers tend to riot when not paid, as do mercenaries. What
differentiates them is the national soldier may also have other
motivations, and mercenaries (except perhaps for the love of action/war)
probably have fewer other motivations. Foreign units such as those that
fought the Fascists in Spain, the Cuban expats, the Flying Tigers,
Sharpe's Rifles, etc. - they all represent forces which can be
considered Mercenary in nature. Heck, The Duke of Welligton could have
been considered a Mercenenary himself. Two prime separators between
national armies and mercenaries exist: Who they work for (or can work
for) (national armies don't often rent out.... though it is not unheard
of) and their chain of command and where they fit under the nation's
code of military justice and other laws of armed conflict. Mercenaries
allow you to skirt some of these issues of chain of authority and of
legality (They're foreigners!). They also tend to stop working for you
if you appear to not have the ability to pay them a tad bit faster than
national army soldiers do. (At least in professional armies, though I
suspect unwilling draftees will riot/desert pretty fast if the money
stops or it looks like the government is losing its grip). 

[Tomb] Mercenaries are kind of "grey men of war", but this is part of
what makes them effective and part of what gives them a niche to operate
and to profit.