Deagantio
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
- Messages
- 145
- Thread Author
- #1
Logistics time, baby.
Deagant's new schizoid brainstorm idea - Give the MAA a new technicality system for what it can or can't afford, given that it lacks the same funding as CP and OTA. Instead of its faction lead petitioning to Administration for each and every shipment/item they're allowed to bring, allow Administration the means to create a new monetary system for the volunteer mercenary outfit.
What do I mean by this? I propose a GMP-like credit system to:
>Purchase their equipment
>Transfer an -allowed- portion of their earnings into Credits to pay the group's members following expeditions
>Request 'unlocks' of more equipment. Think a system similar to MGSV R&D but instead of research and development it's basically administration bickering on whether or not the shitty mercenary group has 'earned' RPGs, NATO gear, and helicopters.
(Determine what kinds of expeditions the group can go on based entirely on whether or not they can afford it. For example, it'd be very expensive for them to go to Greenland - meaning they would have to request and complete more 'local' expeditions to build up the reputation and funding required to go on bigger endeavors. AKA, don't send the one-victory division into London monkaS)
>Recruit members
GPC - Gross Performance Credit - would be allocated in different 'tiered' packages based on the MAA's performance during their deployments. Have everything cost GPC, from outfits to food, training, insertion/exfiltration costs, communications support, etc. At the end of each deployment, they're able to liquidate an administration-allotted amount of their allocation package GPC into credits to issue pay to MAA soldiers at their leaders' discretion.
This sounds more complicated than what it is. So here's a decent-enough breakdown.
>Minor Outland Alpine deployment. Aerial insertion VIA a shitty old helicopter (or dropship, if you insist) gets them closer to their target but is more taxing GPC-wise. Arriving by ground, however, is far cheaper but brings its own obvious dangers as the group has to walk on foot.
>8 members, 8 uniforms. 8 AK-47s, some medical supplies, food, water, radio communications. 16-32 ammo boxes. Perhaps a vehicle if top brass is feeling generous with the group's funding. Combat knives.
>Exfiltration costs. How are they going to get out? If it's aerial exfiltration, that's expensive. If it's driving out, that's also expensive since there are not a lot of gas stations in the outlands.
Civil Administration determines the cost of the equipment and services allocated to the MAA for use in their deployments.
However, should the MAA have suffered casualties or significant losses, their allocations may receive some deductions.
>Member fatalities would cost the group 100 GPC if the member was a recruit, but an additional 100 GPC for every rank above recruit that member held.
>Member injuries (ones that prohibit duty) would cost 50 GPC.
T1 Allocation Package - +500 GPC - Outland Infrastructural Repairs, Hazardous Environment Cleanup, Battlefield Cleanup, Outland Infestation Control
T2 Allocation Package - +1,000 GPC - Outland Disturbance Investigations, Convoy Protection/Escort Deployments, Foreign Division Augmentation(24th in Short Stories)
T3 Allocation Package - +1,500 GPC - Prolonged Campaign, Stabilization Augmentation (uprising suppression in failing sectors)
T4 Allocation Package - +2,000 GPC - Asset Recovery, Hostage Rescue, Critical Defensive/Offensive Operations
T5 Allocation Package - +2,500 GPC - Vital Asset Recovery, Priority Target Elimination (or capture), Priority Hostage Rescue, Critical Overwatch Augmentation (important short story involvement. Probably won't happen unless the MAA have built themselves a strong reputation or a lower-paying deployment experiences a sudden development.)
At the same time - certain objectives can revolve around acquiring enemy equipment, personnel, or information. These successes may be added up, recorded, and reported to Civil Administration for 'Bonus' Allocations. Such as -
Establishment of a Forward Operating Base - +100 GPC
Establishment of Communications Support (Towers) - +50 GPC
Establishment of Logistical Support (Vehicle Routes/Supply Lines) - +100 GPC
Acquisition of Local Resources (Harvesting for food or crafting supplies - +50 GPC
Infection Extermination - +50 GPC
Destroying Enemy Equipment (Communications, artillery, vehicles) - +50 GPC
Capturing Enemy Equipment (Guns, emplacements, artillery, food/medical stocks, vehicles) - +100 GPC
'Suppression' of Enemy Combatants - +50 GPC (each)
Capture of Enemy Combatants for Penal Conscription - +100 GPC (each)
Interception of Enemy Intel - +50 GPC
Successful Interrogation of Prisoners - +100 GPC
Service Detail (In case we encounter refugees or locals we want to put to work) - +50 GPC
Witness Sterilization (in case we ever do anything requiring that) - +100 GPC
Target Elimination - +500 GPC
Target Capture - +1,000 GPC
What would possibly be required?
Well, an OOC spreadsheet on what the MAA realistically needs in terms of services and equipment - adjusted by CCA to set its costs accordingly. Along with an active-kept spreadsheet on the MAA's current acquisitions and supplies. A stock spreadsheet of gear that the MAA has access to, and what it brings with them. This would be the most pain-in-the-ass part. The Logistics Corps exists for a reason, though. AKA we'd just have to make a Google Doc and update it when needed.
In addition, should the MAA become 'too' well equipped - we can quickly fix that sending our resources and firepower to 'other divisions'. In return, we may receive surprise shipments from these 'other divisions' - a crate of vodka, for example.
Lead members would have to keep track of what's happening on the battlefield. Our supplies now have a price tag. However - outside of what is set in stone based on what equipment they physically bring back, much of the battlefield's events would be lost in the fog of war. Leading to... Opportunities for exploitation.
After all, who is to say that civilian wasn't an enemy combatant?
Who is to say the intel discussed by some soldiers, overheard by some passing refugee in a war-torn city, wouldn't have fallen into enemy hands? Witness Sterilization was required, and such services for the Combine don't come cheap.
It would also require more expeditions, and more 'kinds' of expeditions. I provided some basic ideas in the tier packages. Ideally the field is loaded with resources any party can use - encouraging scavenging. For a lot of the 'low end' deployments, I recommend NPCs on a barebones experience just for the group to have things to do/ a way to earn income.
These deployments can quickly turn into a good RP session if the Expedition Team wants to invite and add some Non-MAA chars or use it to experiment with some event ideas. After all, what do you do if you're out in the Outlands and The Fog comes? Go wild with it, give the soldiers shit to talk about.
Deagant what the fuck are you talking about?
More adequately. How would this improve the faction concept?
Two ways.More adequately. How would this improve the faction concept?
1.) It gives the 24th a means to grow its mutually grow its reputation along with its capability.
2.) It allows the 24th to fail.
3.) It gives the group goals to work towards.
Primarily leaning towards #1.Adding a technicality system like this based entirely on the scrutiny the group already faces is a great way to incentivize members into draft and proposing expeditions to the team. Really, the only thing the group 'needs' is - well, jobs. And monetary pressure is the best incentivization to start 'looking' for work.
In my eyes, a lot of the group's main 'issues' come from it being more supported than it has any business being. Do I think the 24th should have fought in the Egypt campaign with BB-guns? No, because that'd make me look like a fucking psycho since I didn't attend.
I think a lot of the IC and OOC bias against the concept itself stems from it having more than it's earned. The group can't build its reputation organically because the reputation has already been decided for it - despite being one of the more open citizen groups, it feels static. Making it jarring to those unfamiliar with the idea. Not to say the group shouldn't have tanks, but tanks should be a goal to work towards rather than a position to work from.
Also deployment mentality would go from 'kill. all. hostiles' to the Serbian conscript mindset of confused indecision on whether or not to steal your washing machine or plant a landmine in it. Which would be really funny.
I have this bad habit of having opinions on things I apparently shouldn't have opinions on. So this is nothing more than a brainstorm thing to help promote ideas on how to improve things. Apparently that's the foundation of any healthy community idfk. Let me know what you think of this concept.
I'm just a rat.
