/k/ - Weapons

>>604029

Just pay a reward per enemy head and the higher ranked the eney the higher the reward.

You just need proper mercenary companies to be allowed so that you can hire anyone besides guys too poor to prohibit and enforce the things. Would stop anti gunners dead as a bonus.

>>604038

That's how it used to be. Everyone who took part in a raid took their fair share of the loot.

Then those who contributed more (the biggest and badest dudes) started collecting more, because they contributed more.

Then the guys leading the raid collected even more, because they organized everything and lead the whole troop into a victorious battle in the first place.

Then there was nothing left for the lesser guys, so the upper guy paid them a small wage or gave them some of the raid's profit as pay.

Then it turns out that it is stupid to just raid faggots, when you could threaten to raid them once every year and receive taxes instead.

But now even the biggest and baddest dudes don't get anything, because instead of raiding faggots you spend all year going around threeatening to raid faggots, which means no loot for them and taxes to the big boss.

So the big guys just fuck off into the wilds and either capture some castle or force the local population to build one for them.

And thus the concept of Kings and Lords, Knights, men at arms and peasants was born.

>>604029

Many armies did this in the past. It is the reason why higher ranks get paid more than lower ranks. It is simply assumed that a solider who has been soldiering for longer has more experience and is more valuable to the army than a lower ranking one, thus he gets more money. The ranks (within a rank group) are just there to show the amount of time someone has been in the unit, and how much experience and training they got during that time.

The wage difference between officers, non-coms, and crews are due trust issues. You can lead fire team without a non-com, but try to lead an army without officers. A squad alone rebelling won't be dangerous, but what if the leaders of two companies band together and demand better pay?

This creates a direct dependency of the higher ranks on their lower ranking officers, which means that they have to pay them more than the common rubble they can pick up from anywhere.

Generals are a whole other issue. War on that scale turns into logistics and strategy instead of tactics and footwork. You have to compete with the private sector to get proper logistics guys, but guess what: armies have never been able to compete with the private sector when it comes to the pay of generals. The highest ranking German general (Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr Zorn [Best name ever]) is in charge of all Soldiers of Germany, that's nerly 180.000 men, not to mention the countless civilians the army hires for maintenacne and logistics and cooking and so on he gets to boss around too. That's the same responsibility (probably more) as that of the CEO of a medium to large company listed on the stock market.

Do you want to know how much General Zorn earns per month? 12.830,70€. Maybe add some extras and take away a very minor church tax.

The CEO of any company even remotely as large as that earns somewhere in the hundred thousands. That's more than a factor 10 difference between being literally the highest ranking general of all of Germany, and being the boss of some medium sized company nobody even knows the name of, and it requires nearly the same skills. Generals don't become generals because they want the money, they become generals because of other reasons, which is why their pay isn't as important.

Though you have to pay them enough too, because if a Generals gets into financial trouble and some other nation comes along and offers to pay his debt if he simply decides to lower the state of alert of all your troops for this one day, or sends some super secrit info to someone, or decides to waste money on some stupid project nobody even cares about… You get the idea. The higher the rank the greater the risk of bribery or financial pressure, so they pay them enough that they won't have to worry about that too much.

This abhorrently formatted and terribly ad-hoc post was brought to you by: autism

Just repeal the NFA and encourage veteran bringback.

>>604051

So what's the ultimate solution autisman?

>>604133

Keep the system as it is, lower the basic wage, but pay soldiers with more training more.

Capable of driving a car? +10$ a month. A truck? +15$. A tank? +20$.

Can you shoot an MG? +5$. An AT weapon? +10$. A HMG? +10$. An ATGM? +20$.

Can you lead a fireteam? +10$.

Are you capable of fixing a car? +10$. A tank? +15$.

Of course all of these numbers can be changed around based on requirements and difficulty of training. A higher rank still earns more by default, but a low ranking soldier with lots of experience in different topics can buff his salary quite a lot. This means that soldiers are encouraged to pursue multiple trades at an entry level, and if they happen to find a trade they are very interested in they are encouraged to pursue it further to earn even more than just the average bonus.

This would also mean that certain easy courses would be very popular, because you can invest a day or two of training and get a few bucks a month extra, but you could simply give less bonuses for courses that receive too much attention.

Of course every course would come with a test at the end (practical, theoretical, or both, maybe multiple test throughout longer courses), and some courses would require you to do regular knowledge checks. Like advanced first aid, or weapon proficiency. This would prevent a soldier from just learning for the test and then forgetting everything they learned.

Being employed in a certain role would require a set of qualifications, and if you have collected that set of qualifications you get another bonus. This means that soldiers are encouraged to pursue skills that benefit each other and allow them to effectively fill desired roles. For example "truck drivers license", "warehouse logistics" and "logistic bureaucracy basics" could be combined to a bonus of +100$ a month. Even if the soldier isn't a logistics grunt, he can be deployed as such if required. Once he is actually deployed in that role the soldier receives a minor bonus for actually working in that role.

This would encourage soldiers to pick up different trades and be qualified in different fields, which makes the multipurpose. A soldier can chose to remain a stupid grunt, or pick up trades and skills that are useful for the army, and earn him a better wage.

Of course getting the balancing right is going to be a difficult challenge, as will be tracking what soldier has which qualification. On top of that you don't want a soldier to go on and waste all of his time with courses, while not working his actual job. So a superior would have to allow the soldier to go on a course in the first place.

They could also order soldiers to take certain courses if they believe that it would be beneficial for their unit.

>>604192

It would probably work just the same.

You get a (very small) regular wage and smal bonuses for your skills.

Very low paid skills should be removed from the bonuses for reservists to avoid them buffing up their shit salary to a medium one by taking literally every entry level course available to them. Instead the more advanced to top level skills should receive the normal amount to encourage people to further their education outside of the force as well.

Civillian companies could also offer skill training and refresh-courses. So if you are a mechanic in a workshop you could just do the refreshing course at the place you work at without wasting much time. The employer would also benefit from offering their workers a better education. The army could pay for a certain percentage of the education cost, and as long as only certified individuals (masters of their trade) get to lead the courses, and the actual testing at the end is done by the army (which could be done on weekends), there shouldn't be any quality difference.