Skills and skill levels for building an army, intelligence service, bureaucracy

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I agree with Polydamas that it's an important skill. While it's good that the spymaster PC has it (although it probably ought to be higher, since he isn't always getting the Empathy bonus), I think the leader PC also ought to have it.

I discover that the leader PC has it at skill 14, which I agree is not high enough. However, he's a polymath and this is a newly acquired skill for him.*

*Having previously been well educated for rulership, as well as having natural talent, but not having experience at it.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

As for using it for an evaluation, I don't envision it working as any kind of "Sherlock Scan" ability, where you can just "know". I'm thinking it's used as the basis for an interview with the person, quite possibly a "covert" interview where the interviewer is trying to conceal the purpose of the interview from the subject, maybe even masking it as everyday conversation. Of course that means a penalty. It also takes time. And it can tax the patience of the subject, especially if he feels he's being judged, which most people find uncomfortable.

So far, interviews have taken place off-screen, but we've established that they are performed by the spymaster PC, the military chief of staff and the chief of counterintelligence.

The two spies both know spells from GURPS Magic that can be useful in weeding out deliberate plants, madmen or liars, but they will not have the time or inclination to use Truthsayer on every recruit and rule out anyone who lies. We'll rather assume that they save that for those in sensitive positions, trusting in their high Body Language and Detect Lie skills for others.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

If you want to make the supporting skill more important, you could give a larger penalty to Psychology (Applied) and then also award a larger bonus from the CSR, maybe double the normal bonus.

Or you could be more hardcore and use the roll-for-the-lowest-of -principle. That way, if the character has Leadership 14 and Psychology (Applied) 17, he rolls for 14.

Or you could turn it around, and roll for the other skill, but with an optional CSR for Psychology (Applied). Or if legal, make the CSR mandatory.

I'm considering some such methods, yes, because I definitely don't want skill in the skills being evaluated being more or less irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Also, contemplate the rarity of 17/18/19 skills in world demographic terms. These PCs and NPCs in your campaign are true masters. And in my opinion, GURPS is wrong in not allowing great skill to make a larger difference than what you outline: +/- 1, or +/-2 on a critical.

These people are masters, yes, but there exist in-setting people with skills up to 25 or even higher, even if they may not be in this part of the world.

There are individual commanders and generals on the other side that are equal to the PCs in tactical and operational expertise. Fortunately, however, the high command is politically chosen and the over-all strategy, while having been sound when it was chosen, will take a long time to change. And the other side lacks good TL4 naval commanders, which the PCs have, and are instead stuck with TL3 infantry commanders trying to default their Tactics, Operations and Strategy.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

From having read the Mass Combat rules (buth the 3E Compendium II ones, and the new PDF), but not actually played them out, it seems to me that brilliant captains and generals aren't able to achieve results that are at all proportional to their brilliance. Right from the first time I read the PDF, possibly even earlier with the Compendium version, I sat there and wondered "why can't genius strategists kick more butt than that, achieve more with smaller forces?"

Actually, someone with skill 18 against a skill 12 is often able to trounce them with a far smaller force.

On the other hand, the foes that the PCs face usually have skill 14-18 at Tactics and Leadership, with Intelligence Analysis, Operations and Strategy at 12-16, being experienced commanders, if perhaps more used to smaller scale warfare. On the other hand, while there are plenty of people with high Administration skill on the other side, the size of the war effort means that each of these is trying to organise logistics for far too many people (and civilians) and they are operating at skill 12-15 rather than the 15-20 they should have.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I discover that the leader PC has it at skill 14, which I agree is not high enough. However, he's a polymath and this is a newly acquired skill for him.*

I assumed he'd find it relatively easy to learn, with high IQ, or possibly good IQ plus some Talent that gives a bonus.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm considering some such methods, yes, because I definitely don't want skill in the skills being evaluated being more or less irrelevant.

If you use the roll-for-the-lowest method, then you might also use the Evaluate Character Technique that I suggested a minute ago.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Actually, someone with skill 18 against a skill 12 is often able to trounce them with a far smaller force.

How much smaller? That'd be really valuable for me to know. And to be honest, I'm more thiking about a skill 23 vs skill 14 scenario, than skill 18 vs skill 12. If that makes a difference.

[Peter Knutsen]

One important question, in terms of "choosing good suborbinates", is what tier of metal it is you're digging for?

Are you merely digging for something rare, like silver, or for something very rare and very precious, such as gold?

If it is the later, then you're going to have to look harder, and realistically, the gifteds you find will often be impure (rather messing up my analogy here...), with the qualities you seek being accompanied by deficiencies, so that you end up forced to make compromises, and having to assign workload0 carefully so as to avoid the specific ability or personality problems causing difficulties.

Your process might dig up Albert and Bob, both suitable for top posts in military engineering, but Bob has two issues:

He has a high natural aptitude (simulated with the most appropriate GURPS advantage, probably some kind of Talent, plus of course a good basis in IQ), even higher than Albert's, but he's barely trained, so you'll need to somehow educate him before you can make full use of him (he probably has 1 CP in the skill already, but you want to add 3 or preferably 7 more, plus 1 CP in at least a couple of secondary support skills).

And, rather more importantly, Albert and Bob can't stand each other, because 350 years ago, Albert's ancestors hesitated before sacrificing to the Goddess Hoola. So you're going to have to assign each of them to different projects, in different physical areas, all the freakin' time, or else the GM will make random weekly rolls to see if one of them shivs the other, and the most obvious solution to Bob's other problem, apprenticing him to Albert, is not going to work.

Albert is a gem. Bob is a piece of carbon that will turn into a gem if you spend the ressources (including management time) on a real hard squeeze.

1. Hire both.
2. Hire Albert, ignore Bob.
3. Hire Bob, ignore Albert.

?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

One important question, in terms of "choosing good suborbinates", is what tier of metal it is you're digging for?

[...]

1. Hire both.
2. Hire Albert, ignore Bob.
3. Hire Bob, ignore Albert.

?

As a general rule, hire both. They've got long term plans and have more wealth than they have talented people.

The major exception is that since they are in a serious war which they could not survive losing, they cannot afford any genuine liabilities, no matter how useful they might become later.

But they have room for some 10,000 barely adequate people as long as they get enough competent people to carry out the tasks they really do need right now.

Someone who makes an adequate assistant, common soldier or even labourer, but may be expected to be more valuable later will be snapped up. Having to keep him apart from a particular personal rival would be easy. They can station the in different cities or even different countries.*

Basically, I'm looking for input on how much progress they've made with such tasks as improving sewage or changing a moribund refugee economy into a thriving one that delivers orders for their armies.

They've had two months of preparations and enough resources for maybe 300-500 people working and then two months of all out effort and ca $30,000,000 in goods and $10,000,000 in cash.

They want a city which three centuries ago was a great port metropolis of some 200,000 people but had dwindled to half that size and almost stopped trading to be great again. And they want to feed, house and employ the 200,000 refugees outside it and some 500,000 in the rest of the country.

Fortunately, there is enough space and even fallow farmland and infrastructure for that population, assuming the canals, irrigation systems, sewers, aquaducts, roads and other infrastructure are repaired of the damage done by centuries of neglect and decades of war.

On the other hand, economic revival cannot be done using vital military personnel or supplies, so instead of using their own perfectly capable naval and military engineers, they'll need to hire locals (and foreign non-military experts).

And find as many loyal elite** local troops as possible, to supplement their own. Healthy people who are not elite troops may be hired as labourers or logistics troops, but are probably more likely to be conscripted into the local forces for little or no pay beyond upkeep.

*While most of their men and operations are in the theatre of war, they do still retain some purely mercantile interests elsewhere, in addition to recruiting and training posts.
**Given the need for mobility in their strategy, the PC have no need of military units which are not elite. Substituting quantity for quality is pointless if you can only carry 5,000-10,000 troops on your troopships anyway and have no other sensible way to get men to the theatre where you intend to fight intime to make a difference.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I assumed he'd find it relatively easy to learn, with high IQ, or possibly good IQ plus some Talent that gives a bonus.

I'm sure the player will argue that his Planner Talent really ought to include Psychology (Applied) if that turns out to be the most important skill for what he wanted his character to be good at, i.e. being a statesman, organiser and ruler. After all, most of what a ruler does, at any TL past the small clan system, is picking good subordinates.

If picking good subordinates is not a function of Administration or Leadership, that would make Administration and Leadership skills possessed by good middle-managers, not actually be the supreme head of the organisation itself, who'd instead rely nearly on Psychology (Applied). Which seems odd.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

How much smaller? That'd be really valuable for me to know. And to be honest, I'm more thiking about a skill 23 vs skill 14 scenario, than skill 18 vs skill 12. If that makes a difference.

If you outclass the opposition that badly, in intelligence, organisation and battlefield command, I'd think that being only 20% of his TS would still leave you a comfortable margin of victory. Remember, the opposite Strategy rolls are only a part of the picture.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If picking good subordinates is not a function of Administration or Leadership, that would make Administration and Leadership skills possessed by good middle-managers, not actually be the supreme head of the organisation itself, who'd instead rely nearly on Psychology (Applied). Which seems odd.

Personally I'd use Administration in the first place for organizational level staffing and Leadership for small team leaders able to choose teamates from a pool. Pyschology might be used as a complimentary skill, I suppose.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Personally I'd use Administration in the first place for organizational level staffing and Leadership for small team leaders able to choose teamates from a pool. Pyschology might be used as a complimentary skill, I suppose.

That does seem more in line with how GURPS usually stats managers, leaders and commanders.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Personally I'd use Administration in the first place for organizational level staffing and Leadership for small team leaders able to choose teamates from a pool. Pyschology might be used as a complimentary skill, I suppose.

Does that "vet" the potentials/applicants thoroughly, for problems and for complications?

[Peter Knutsen]

Just a stray thought I had, that may be helpful to Icelander:

One can try to define a formal system of tiers of an administrative hierarchy, each higher level having more power and therefore needing to be more trustworthy. To borrow a term from a famous UK comedy show, the higher the administrative level we're talking about, the more important t is that the applicant is "sound". I use mostly military terms, but of course it applies to all kinds of organizations.

So:
Minister
General
Captain
Lieutenant
Soldier
Warrant Officer

Minister is the highest level. You're essentially looking for someone to take responsibility for an entire area of endavour, e.g. All Military Matters, or All Public Health.

General is nearly as high, that's a leader of a powerful organization or unit, with vast resources, typically commanding thousands of underlings.

Captain and Lieutenanet are lower sub-divisions of the same.

Soldier is the lowest level, the one who does the actual work, supervised by the higher ups. And of course of you're building a nation-state or leading a huge revolution, or whatever, then you'll be concerned with the higher levels, usually never further down than Captain, and let the leaders you've selected select their own underlings, whereas if you're operating on a much smaller scale, there'll probably be only 1-2 Captains, or perhaps none, and a dozen or so Lieutenants.

Warrant Officer is the odd man out, in that it's a highly skilled individual who has little or no administrative power. A field engineer, for instance, or a physician. They'll often work under a Captain or General, and may in fact be in charge of underlings such as craftsmen or labourers or nurses, but their poltiical and economic power is very limited in nature.

I'm not sure how useful that is. I see it as a "model of thought".

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Does that "vet" the potentials/applicants thoroughly, for problems and for complications?

On a sufficiently good roll, sure. Acting skill might confound it, though, as Administration and Leadership are skill meant to select the best people for jobs assuming that personal conflicts, occasional dishonesty and the desire to appear better that one is all exist, but the people being chosen don't have perverse ulterior motives. People who pretend to be normal employee but are actually treacherous plants would probably still pass muster as 'able and competent' subordinates, unless a seperate roll to see through their act was made.

As such, Administration and Leadership are not the skills necessary for true counter-intelligence. For that, employ people with Accounting, Body Language, Current Affairs, Detect Lie, Interrogation, Intelligence Analysis, Psychology (Applied), Research, Shadowing and other skills.