Re: [GZG] Interesting mercenary idea

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:35 AM, John Lerchey <lerchey@gmail.com> wrote:

> First, we have a huge potential for corruption.  Mercs might not get
paid on
> time, might get substandard supplies, or might be given missions that
are
> more about propaganda or personal motivation on the part of the
contracter
> than they are about winning anything.

Possibly--although mercenaries who don't get the pay and supplies they
contracted for have a tendency to turn on their employers.  More
likely is diversion of supplies from a regular forces to the mercs and
the resulting friction causing the regulars to not support the mercs.

> Second, we have issues of ROE.  Most games don't bother with ROE at
all. I'd
> love to hear thoughts on how to write such for games.  I can think of
a few
> things, like "your units may not fire unless fired upon" and "oh, TBW,
you
> can't fire at any structure that might house civilians".

Depends on who gets to write the ROE.  Some things that you might see
could include a requirement for Positive Identification.  In other
words, you have to eyeball the guy with the AK and direct aimed fire
at him, rather than "OMG, we got shot at, Iraqi Death Blossom!!!".
You might see a restriction on what sort of weaponry you can employ in
a built up area--perhaps if you take fire you can shoot direct fire
weapons at the building, but you can't shoot artillery or rockets at
the village.  Or to use certain heavy weapons, perhaps permission of a
higher headquarters is required.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l