Just a humble question here; with a -1 or -2 DM on the board/marine combat resolution charts/tables, Private Security Forces really aren't workable, is that right?

I still think it'r workable as a Die Modifier, but certainly not as a fractional strength BP (a false assumption on my part).

I'm envisioning "Blackwater" type of BPs ("marines" so to speak) who are stationed on various cargo vessels supplying the front lines. And a negative die modifier reflects their lack of total kit and equivalent training that a regular fleet BP has.

I'm not really trying to push the idea, just to flesh out some other possibilities.

Another option to add; in addition to a negative die modifier, how about an additional cost in EPV? Maybe these guys cost two to three times as much as a regular BP (market economics reflected here), but again just aren't as effective. And are only available to base stations and merchant vessels.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 04:49 pm: Edit

George, 'Blackwater'-types are going to be FORMER 'fleet marines', and usually highly skilled ones at that.

And equipped with the same gear (or BETTER).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 05:08 pm: Edit

George M Ebersole:

Just look at the table in (D7.421).

A minus -1 modifer would still give one boarding party a 16% chance of scoring a hit, but at -2, there is no chance for one boarding party to do any damage.

You would also need to look at its effects in passage combat under (D16.0), and consider hit-and-run raids and other actions that a boarding party can normally perform.

In all seriousness, if you wanted to create a special boarding party, you might just take a look at all the missions boarding parties can perform and list some that they cannot.

Like say they cannot do hit-and-run raids at all.

Maybe they cannot disarm suicide shuttles.

Delete those two abilities and they can still have the firepower of a normal boarding party with no modifiers.

At that point, you just get into organizational details of what they can and cannot have.

An example might be that they can never have Heavy Weapons or Commando Squads, but might have a Combat Engineer Squad. They could never have Tanks, or APCs, but might have GCVs.

They would have to be tracked separately, of course.

NOTE: The above is not to say I support this, it is only to give "design advice" that there are other places to look rather than just a die roll modifier.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Well, I still think the private security issue is going to only be possible with a transport deal between the freighter Master and a security company; quarters and board in exchange for full security enroute.

That handles the cost issue for the freighter Master and the BP issue without any additional rules. Yes, you pay BPV for them when calculating a scenario but would be restricted in availablity in a campaign (probably just by the Commanders Option limits and by what you want to pay).
A campaign calculating such things should show narrow profit margins for freighter runs.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 05:14 pm: Edit

*nods*

That sounds reasonable.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Your economic model is badly skewed and heading towards bankruptcy real fast.

The Security Company would have to make a profit, or it would not be able to provide the bully boys. Your freighter just providing room and board does not generate any profit for the Security Company, or profit for the bully boys that they can live off of when they are between assignments.

And you should think about the problems involved on a larger scale.

Captain Loren Knight hires two platoons of bully boys from George M. Ebersole's security company. Loren carries these lads from Earth to Star Base #3 on the Klingon border, the contracted route. From there, Captain Knight takes on a new cargo and heads to Starbase #4 on the Kzinti border . . . but he no longer needs the Bully Boys, so he drops them at Star Base #3. Now, what does George M. Ebersole do? Buy them passage on a Tramp Steamer heading back to earth? Well, gee, that is more of a loss of profit for his company, unless part of the Contract Captain Knight signed including his shipping them back to Earth, but at that point George M. Ebersole is still paying the Bully Boys's wages while they are not guarding anything.

When you start talking about the size of the Federation and long haul cargo runs, a security company would of necessity have to have hundreds of thousands of people just to run all the company offices on different planets and starbases so that people who finish security jobs could be quickly turned around and given a new job and so that they would not have to "dead head" back to the home office for new assignments. And then you get into questions about how many bully boys you can have on the payroll (or at least on retainer) just waiting for a job.

Large shipping companies (like the Federation Express company as envisioned by Jeff Wile and put into Captain's Log) might have such a organization (the administrative work is then partly handled by its already existing administrative personnel, although some additional administrators would obviously be needed). The company could then make plans to pick up teams that completed their delivery contracts on its own ships (which also handles the touchy business of the Bully Boys trying to check their weapons through on an independent ship that might have concerns that they would hijack the ship). Mostly when they make their own rounds, perhaps using the Bully Boys for their own local security.

But without a large shipping organization already in extant, no "independent security company" could operate because its people would quickly wind up spread all over the Empire waiting for transport to their next contracts or the home office. It is simply unworkable.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 07:12 pm: Edit

SPP: I think you missed the original proposal. Such contract guards would only take trips to places they were already going. In the original proposal various companies need to rotate personnel from major planets to various outlaying posts (excluding places where they can hire from the indigonous population). The various freighter masters and the various security companies try to coordinate. In many cases there is NOT a squad available. As such the freighter Master has only two choices. Hire whatever squads he needs out right or go without.

The security company makes a huge profit through money saved and only rarely does its personnel see actual action.

So, security company has postings all over the Empire and must move people to and from there on a fairly regular schedule. So it makes offers to selected freighter companies to provide security in exchange for passage to the intended post (or very close, depends on numorous factors that the security company deems workable). In 98% of the cases the team gets delivered to their post for a very minimal cost (and the old team might return). The freighter Master that can provide the most complete passage with the best record get the deal.

Is that unworkable?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Pretty much (unworkable). You are making too many assumptions about where the men are, where they need to go, and the availability of a freighter going the right way that might not want to sell that bunk to a paying passenger. The security companies wind up with men waiting around for transport, rather than at their assigned places, or getting there in dribs and drabs over long periods of time that is very inefficient. Particularly when you sent the 409th security platoon to Bessabi, but one of the squads was lost due to unforseen events, and Bessabi wants to renegotiate the contract to cover the fact that no one knows when the new squad is going to get there, meaning they have fewer people than the contract stipulated providing security for an extended period of time.

It is just not a good business model.

Ebersole as the Contracting Company would simply not be able to meet his committments in a timely manner.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 07:45 pm: Edit

SPP; I think it's just a matter of assuming that there are many companies will to send personnel to many places, but that they probably have a certain range or stipulations on reimbursing their people once the job is done.

If my security firm contracts for a milk run in the Fed Core (say from Earth to Vega or Al]pha Centauri), then I might sport the cost of bringing them home since the job isn't all that big.

If it's beyond anything what my company can reasonably afford, then I defer the contract to another firm, or make arrangements for bringing my people home. If the shipment is going to SB3, then I can probably arrange via subspace to book passage to bring my folks home without having to pay them, but while still flipping the bill for their for their rooms and food.

But like I said, it would depend on the size of the company. If I had, say, just over two dozen employees, with two ten man squads, then I'm probably only going to hire out for events or local shipping.

Gamewise, however, we'd be dealing with a generic Private Security Unit that cost more EPV than a normal BP, and would not be quite as effective.

I think it could work.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 08:38 pm: Edit

SPP: I'm not talking about the only source of security only the best option if you can get it. And for the security company, most certainly they wouldn't send emergency replacements. This would only be practical of troop rotation so the Bassabi analogy doesn't apply.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about the volume of security post, personnel and security companies but I'm assuming there are a LOT of them. I'd ventur to guess each security company has several hundred post where personnel is rotated on a schedule. Losses would naturally be replaced by faster transport on a per need basis. It would be just plain silly to send emergency replacements via freighter.

Each deal is negotiated.

And I'm not trying to explain all presense of extra security on all freighters that have it. Just one way some friehgters (or maybe even many) manage to afford better security when they need it.

First of all, extra security on a civilian freighter is rare already but given the thousands of freighters of all sizes on thousands of trips I think the security companies would be missing an opertunity to save credits if they didn't do this.

Security personnel would be given regular transport pay and hazzard pay only if the freighter they were on was attacked. In this case it's a losing deal for the security company but on average it's a big win.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Private security forces are probably very expensive because they have a management structure to keep feed and clothed and a roof over their heads.

Personnally I limit the number of additional units to 5 as a reflection of the increased resoarses consumption of such units.

You could also look at guarding against H&R and and woulded rates to reflect the use of stunners rather than phasers. This way you get units that can fight but can't kill and limiting H&R to no H&R raids would also reflect that.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 09:43 pm: Edit

MJC: Interesting thought about the difference of private BP's and military BP's. I like the idea that Private Security Squads cannot conduct H&R or otherwise leave the ship. Otherwise treat them as a standard BP.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 10:18 pm: Edit

You might even look to passageway combat (as SPP mentioned) and state that because of a mixture of the following:- Security know they families are less willing to see them die for a private company that "the corp", they fight or pay and not "loyalty to the corp", and they don't have the body armour of conventional marines.
Therefore in passageway combat they increase their combat effectiveness by increasing their numbers in passageway combat by an extra 50% (rounded up) rather than the conventional doubling.

That would change them signifgantly without messing around with new tables.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Yes, but if they are on their own ship and can't leave then they should not have that sort of penalty (home turf kinda thing).

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 11:57 pm: Edit

I have to wonder about this... given the huge numbers of freighters involved (mostly because of the number of useful planets in each F&E hex) there are likely THOUSANDS (emphasis, not shouting) of freighters going in all kinds of directions, and (unless there were a declared war going on in the area or serious priate attacks are common) few or no convoys.

if the "rent a boarding party" industry did exist... the result would not be what either SPP or Loren knight suggest... I think.

Consider the number of "useful planets" in the Federation in year 168 (IIRC, the Fed Express article in Captains Log#34 stated) that there was some 180,000 listed useful places (planets, orbiting bases etc) in the Federations 278 F&E hexes (including the 18 of map hexes).

I dont know what the normal number of ports of call a freighter manages to make in a time period (day, month, year etc) but if we put a table together showing some estimates, it might give you a perspective on the problem.

# of freighters	# of visits	1day	total
1	180000	180000	180000ship days
10	180000	-	18000
100	180000	-	1800
1000	180000	-	180
10000	180000	-	18
100000	180000	-	1.8
1000000	180000	-	0.18

All I'm trying to demonstrate is that depending on how many ships & ports there are, will affect (to some extent) the number of days between visits by a freighter(on average)... and if we assume that the freighters make many short hauls, the odds that a security team has to wait for a freighter to be heading in the direction they want to go in might not be as long, or as unlikely as either Loren or SPP suggest.

It gets even better if the "security" team has a set route like betwen just two planets (back and forth) or perhaps a established trade route of several weeks or a couple of months duration.

Since SPP has demonstrated the need and effacacy of having extra boarding parties available for freighter anti pirate defense... perhaps its not unreasonable for a "rent a boarding party" industry to exist?

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 02:07 am: Edit

I like it.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile:

No, sorry.

Your numbers assume that all freighters make beeline courses and are 100% predictable.

As I noted, Freighter A may start on a course for location B, and, either because the larger consortium directs it or because the owner/captain (sometimes the owner of a given freighter is also its captain) discovers that he can make more of a profit delivering his current cargo elsewhere. There are also other disruptions.

You may have planned on having your security team disembark on Colony X to catch transport to Colony Y, but the freighter they were on was delayed due to an ion storm it had to go around, so your security team has missed its connection. And while freighters visit Colony X every two or three weeks (it is a pretty well developed colony), a freighter that is going to go to Colony Y is not going to show up for a year.

And of course police emergencies, sudden Government contracts (the government wants your freighter to go to Colony Omega now to help deal with the Plant Rust outbreak that has destroyed their crops), and a host of other sins.

So you can send a new security team out, or the contract goes unfulfilled and you make no profit, plus you have to pay the expenses for the security teams that are cooling their heels on various planets waiting for new connections.

It does not work as a business model to hope that some freighter will be going in the right direction, and you do not fulfill your contracts to deliver security personnel if they are getting shot up while defending freighters or are not arriving in a timely fashion.

Which, I am sorry, gets you back to a large organization like the Federal Express company running a security company as one of its subsidiaries because it has enough ships that it can make and keep contracts to deliver security teams.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Steve petrick:

the numbers were intended to illustrate a concept, not portray an exact model of commerce in the Federation in year 168.

It should also be pointed out, that while INDIVIDUAL Freighters may behave as you suggest... in the aggregate, it is very likely that other unscheduled freighters will arrive for unrelated reasons, at the ports with vacancies and security needs.

Second, I feel that you overlooked a vital factor.

The security teams are CONTRACT WORKERS (emphasis, not shouting.)

As such they are paid per job, not salaried.

Therefore there is NO CHANCE OF the rental security agency having to pay the expenses for the security teams. Like temp workers of today and the real world, they are paid for the work they do, not down time.

if a prosepctive temporary security guard doesnt want to go to BOONDOCK VIII because he had already been there or he knows that the colony only gets 1 freighter every 6 months and he would have to pay his own passage back home... he will not take the job.

It is supply and demand, if the freighter has to have add security they will have to pay higher wages to entice people to sign on. (just like oil workers in Alaska or the Artic circle or the North Sea oil fields. It is unpleasant climate, frigid weather and higer wages are offered because the jobs need to be completed.

Bottomline is, the supply of temporary security guards is fluid, not fixed.

there are some who would prefer to remain on the planet doing whatever they are engaged in, but if an opportunity to earn more money for taking a trip warrantes it, they will agree to "sign up".

The business model is simple:

Freight company A needs security for route #1.

it is unable to attract any guards at minimum wage (the prospective guards make more money staying on the planet.

double wages are offered, and guards are hired.

Freight company B needs guards for route #2, but he normal supply of guards has already signed up with comapny A. company B offeres triple wages. retired marines sally nametaker and Jolene tailkicker decide that they could use a trip to where ever Freighter B is going to , and since the triple wages offered is six time their retired pensions (20 years in star fleet marines) the 37 year old sally and the 38 year old Jolene accept the jobs. (Sally had to have her parents permission to enlist at the age of 17...Jolene, being age 18 had no such prohibition).

Freighter C shows up next, and needs to make a run through pirate space carrying fruit cakes... in addition to the skids and duck tails with F-7 fighters, the customer authorizes additional boarding parties for secuirty, money being no object.

there for the security company is offered quadruple wages, and still more people decide that the lure of high wages is too attractive to ignore... perhaps the 17 year old ROTC member who's term of enlistment isnt set to start for 90 days... and decides that a run to route C and the fringes of Klingon space is just the thing for this youngster...so he decides to sign on for the trip with pre paid return passage from the destination, and so it goes.

And just incase you wish to contradict my examples, I suggest that you consider the security contracts that have been filled for service in Iraq and Afganistan. such is a real world example of the things I am suggesting could occur in the SFU.

By David Crew (Catwholeaps) on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 01:09 am: Edit

I've always found it useful to look at historical or modern models of trade when talking about these sorts of issues.

In my mind, most freighters will have established routes, or (small) defined areas that they work and the reason is simple - information. To move cargo at a profit you need to know the source, and the destination where you can sell it. You are unlikely to have the detailed knowledge required to profitably trade outside of a few markets that you know. Similarly you are unlikely to go to a system to deliver cargo, unless you know you can pick up something else and deliver it elsewhere. Dead heading is expensive.

Think of the trucking industry - trucks and their drivers don't randomly wander about the US like gypsies delivering odd bits of cargo here and there. They have routes and destinations, customers who want the goods, and PLANS for returning to where they started.

A rent-a-BP business could, potentially, do OK if most of the freighters are actually following back and forth routes, or at worst loops. You can still have the romantic notion of tramp steamers, which are family 'homes' wandering the universe following the winds of commerce - but I doubt seriously this is the majority. I can't really think of many periods in modern history where the tramp steamer model of commerce actually WORKED.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 09:02 am: Edit

Actually, a LOT of truckers (and freighters) are owner operated.

So the pods and cargos are arranged by cargo expediters (I think there is another name) that bundle cargos and handle the details.

So if I want to send 100m^3 of machine tools to remotistan III, I consign them to the cargo expediter and they fingure out a way to get them there. You have to figure out a LOT of exports/ imports are smaller scale than an entire pod worth.

The cargo expediter would have warehouses and contacts with the freighter operators guild to arrange for the "Weary Donkey" to make a run by Remotistan as soon as a cargo pod was ready to GO there AND another was ready for pickup.

Hence the subspace relay station for all those messages.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 11:24 am: Edit

It still has to have use even if the freighter doesn't go exactly where you want it to. Maybe the trip half-way accross the empire will lessen costs and then you take a fast transport for another hex or two to your final desination.

98% of the time you Security team will have a pleasent uneventful cruise. This more than covers the few times when something happens. Actually losing personnel might be as much as 0.01% but probably less?

There there is the small private security company that is wanting to get itself to the rim to put itself up for hire in the higher risk (and better paying) areas.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 12:53 am: Edit

I think perhaps the concept of TEMP workers is misunderstood by some.

The players in an A.F.L. team are hired on contracts of up to three years. But players for the Sydney Swans get an exception to the Salary Cap because the rents in Sydney are so much higher than Melbourne.
The lesson we can learn from this...it's all explained in the details of the contract.

Oil rig workers might not be paid to ride in a helicopter to and from the oil rig...but if the company didn't provide this service and instead required the workers to get there by themselves under their own means by spending their own money...the company would find very few people willing to work on an oil rig.
The lesson...it's all explained in the details of the contract.

Finding people who are willing to put the necks on the line is not the same as finding people who are willing to work at a summer camp so the pay and level of fringe-benefits are different.
Off world housing, free transportation, danger-money and special wages for sitting arround waiting for your next transport; can all be worked into the contract.

Hence, a cargo of Monets gets security and a cargo of bulk sand either doesn't or the crew are just handed stunners and told to get back to their regular duties.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Jeff Wile Said: It should also be pointed out, that while INDIVIDUAL Freighters may behave as you suggest... in the aggregate, it is very likely that other unscheduled freighters will arrive for unrelated reasons, at the ports with vacancies and security needs.

REPLY: Jeff that gets back to what I said about administrative overhead. It is not simply a matter of here is a group of bully-boys that need to go from point A to point B and gee you happen to be going that way. It is here is a group of bully-boys that work for David Crew Security. David Crew Security guarantees that these bully-boys are not going to seize your freighter themselves and make off to some pirate kingdom. No ship captain is letting a bunch of bully boys on his ship with weapons without having some guarantee that they are not there with evil intent. They are not going to be hiring Tom, Dick, and Harry from the local flophouse. Obviously in a role-playing adventure when you need to move your group of role-players from planet-A to planet-B, you might have them sign on with a captain that is down on his luck, and willing to take a chance. But in any of the empires in SFB (which includes the Federation) security personnel showing up to be guards on a freighter whether in transit to some other location or what have you are going to have to have their credentials checked. That gets you back to a larger organization that controls and owns these various groups, and in order to do that, it has to offer them job security, or the groups do not exist. That means paying them when they are not currently on the job not to mention the administrative overhead of tracking where they all are, picking them up when their contracts expire, replacing their casualties in keeping with the contract, and etc. Your model does not work and cannot work.

Jeff Wile Said: Second, I feel that you overlooked a vital factor.

The security teams are CONTRACT WORKERS (emphasis, not shouting.)

REPLY: No, you are overlooking the risks of armed men seizing a freighter. The freighter captains have to be certain that armed groups they allow on their freighters are background checked, i.e., have credentials that prove they are not going to seize the freighter. They work for an employer with a reputation of reliability. I understood you wanted them to be hired for short term situations, I am trying to get you to understand what that is unworkable. If you owned a freighter and were going to move it through the straits of Mallaca, would you hire security guards from a reputable company, or hire a group of armed men that simply offered themselves for the job with your having no knowledge of their past history? Freighters have disappeared while transiting the area in the 1990s.

Jeff Wile Said: As such they are paid per job, not salaried.

REPLY: At which point they cannot exist. The time interval between jobs is too long. The risk of their current contracts running out leaving them stranded someplace where they cannot find other work is too great. There are a lot of very minor colonies that get visited very rarely and you just wind up with them becoming dumping grounds for these people and a (local/criminal) security risk for the colony.

Jeff Wile Said: Therefore there is NO CHANCE OF the rental security agency having to pay the expenses for the security teams. Like temp workers of today and the real world, they are paid for the work they do, not down time.

REPLY: And that model DOES NOT WORK (emphasis). You have high value cargoes going one way with guards, cheaper cargoes going another way and not worth the guards, so guards pile up at the end of the expensive run and only rarely get contracts to leave. IT DOES NOT WORK (emphasis).

Jeff Wile Said: if a prosepctive temporary security guard doesnt want to go to BOONDOCK VIII because he had already been there or he knows that the colony only gets 1 freighter every 6 months and he would have to pay his own passage back home... he will not take the job.

REPLY: If he does not work for a reputable company, he would not be hired for the job anyway. Too much of a risk that this unpaid shlub will be working for the Orions he is supposed to be defending the ship against for a higher payday.

Jeff Wile Said: It is supply and demand, if the freighter has to have add security they will have to pay higher wages to entice people to sign on. (just like oil workers in Alaska or the Artic circle or the North Sea oil fields. It is unpleasant climate, frigid weather and higer wages are offered because the jobs need to be completed.

REPLY: Hiring random people is only getting greater risk. You can expect your insurance premiums to RISE rather than shrink, meaning it is all loss.

Bottomline is, the supply of temporary security guards is fluid, not fixed.

REPLY: Bottom line, if there is no larger company providing these people, freighter captains are not hiring them. A crew of eight-to-fourteen people (one crew unit, i.e., the crew of a small freighter) is not going to feel very secure with twenty-some-odd (four boarding parties) toughs who randomly offered themselves as security for the ship. You might go to the local Federal Express office and hire a group. Insurance Companies might have such teams (you hire them and take care of paying them while they are on your ship, the insurance company takes care of them the rest of the time). But random gangs . . . forget it.

As to the rest of your missive, the above has already refuted it.

By George M. Ebersole (George) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 03:36 pm: Edit

SPP; it was just a thought. Sorry for it to cause so much angst.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, July 28, 2007 - 04:21 pm: Edit

George M. Ebersole:

Hunh? What angst?