How will bigger units than companies work?

[Lime535]

I just created a CSA company and i now have 10 members. When the game releases, does my company have to serve the regiment we are in (4th Texas) or will we be independent?

Will units bigger than companies be added to the game at all? (Armies, brigades, regiments ect.) If yes how will these work together as a whole?

[FakeMessiah27]

Companies will remain independent, it's entirely up to different company commanders to decide to work together and perhaps form a battalion. Of course if one company grows big enough to start a second one, they could also form a battalion. On the topic of those battalions: the devs have said that they do plan on adding support for forming battalions to the company tool in the future, but I don't know how they plan to go about it.

[Hinkel]

Its more like: Companies within one mother regiment HAVE to work together. The regiment commander represents ALL companies. The regiment commander (or battalion commander) can group up with other regiments to form brigades (2 infantry and 2 batterys for example).

If there are 3 companies using the 20th maine for example, they all share the same commander. If one company might troll the others and make trouble, the regiment commander might have some authority to deal with that troll company.

[Leifr]

And what occurs when the regiment commander is the issue, as opposed to the company commands?
I'm of the opinion that such things should be built on trust and mutual respect rather than relying upon an autocratic system. Give folk the tools to form their own brigades in the Company Tool and leave it at that, rather than enforcing a top-down control of companies within regiments - unless one plans to allow the voting in, and out, of regimental leaders. That said, it is really only the Union so far who have this issue as most of the CSA are spread about different regiments and brigades. It is unfortunate to say that there are folk within this forum who promise one thing and deliver another, I would despair to be locked into that arrangement purely because of our choice in a company designation.

[Hinkel]

I'm of Give folk the tools to form their own brigades in the Company Tool and leave it at that, rather than enforcing a top-down control of companies within regiments - unless one plans to allow the voting in, and out, of regimental leaders. That said, it is really only the Union so far who have this issue as most of the CSA are spread about different regiments and brigades. It is unfortunate to say that there are folk within this forum who promise one thing and deliver another, I would despair to be locked into that arrangement purely because of our choice in a company designation.

People are able to form brigades via the tool, but full regiments and not like 20th Maine Co.A in brigade one, Co.D in brigade 2. Thats non sense, leaving out the battalion lvl complelty.

The Battalion command represents all companies.. even if there are troll companies or hostile companies. His duty is to get them to work together or punish them ;)

+ the regiment command will get voted ;)

[Leifr]

Right. In which case, as the 8th Virginia, we are locked into a brigade with the 19th Virginia (Pickett's Brigade) and are unable therefore to align ourselves with Mr A.P Hill's "Light Division" out of choice? Unless I am misunderstanding you here Hinkel (as you haven't espoused your thoughts in a very clear way), and that only complete regiments must remain in their respective brigades?

[Hinkel]

Right. In which case, as the 8th Virginia, we are locked into a brigade with the 19th Virginia (Pickett's Brigade) and are unable therefore to align ourselves with Mr A.P Hill's "Light Division" out of choice? Unless I am misunderstanding you here Hinkel (as you haven't espoused your thoughts in a very clear way), and that only complete regiments must remain in their respective brigades?

All companies, which are using the 8th VA, will have one regiment command.
The colonel can group up with any other regiments and all his up to 10 companies) will follow. You are not locked into historical brigades. You can group up in "fictional" brigades.

All this is not fully discussed yet. It can change later on :)

[Leifr]

All companies, which are using the 8th VA, will have one regiment command.
The colonel can group up with any other regiments and all his up to 10 companies) will follow. You are not locked into historical brigades. You can group up in "fictional" brigades.

All this is not fully discussed yet. It can change later on :)

Right, fantastic! That's about what I wanted to hear, looking forward to more details being released.

[Hinkel]

Indeed! And it should stay democratic.

Like the colonel can join or form a brigade.. but all his company commanders have to vote for it too.
If the voting fails, the regiment won't join the brigade :)

The company commanders can also vote for a new colonel, who represents the regiment.

[Wildcat]

I think of it like this:
compare it to North and South

Brigade = Army
Regiment = Brigade
Company = Regiment
Platoon = Company

and if you know about North and South you know you don't have to be in a Brigade or an Army just because your historical regiment was. Brigades and Regiments(or battalions) are more like communities than anything.

[Leifr]

Something itches at the back of my mind that would suggest a 'community disinterest' would not displace someone whom is terrible at their command in North and South. I think it's best if we throw North and South out of the window, ignoring it completely. This is War of Rights and certainly not an extension to the Napoleonic Warfare crowd. There's very little resemblence between the two aside from a shared theatre of operations.

[Wildcat]

Something itches at the back of my mind that would suggest a 'community disinterest' would not displace someone whom is terrible at their command in North and South. I think it's best if we throw North and South out of the window, ignoring it completely. This is War of Rights and certainly not an extension to the Napoleonic Warfare crowd. There's very little resemblence between the two aside from a shared theatre of operations.

but most people are coming from North and South and Napoleonic Wars so you can assume the community will be very similar. Hopefully less cancerous

[TrustyJam]

but most people are coming from North and South and Napoleonic Wars so you can assume the community will be very similar. Hopefully less cancerous

Sure, as long as you keep in mind that most of the dev team have hardly every played the mod or the DLC - just to manage your expectations. Naturally there will be some overlap in design but I actually find it rather good not knowing a whole lot of the structures of those games. Makes it easier to keep focusing on what is our vision. :)

- Trusty

[Killobytes]

Indeed! And it should stay democratic.

Like the colonel can join or form a brigade.. but all his company commanders have to vote for it too.
If the voting fails, the regiment won't join the brigade :)

The company commanders can also vote for a new colonel, who represents the regiment.

Here are some important questions:
Will there be set times to vote on a new colonel, or does it have to be initiated by the companies?
If it's initiated, will the companies have free reign to initiate a vote on the regimental staff at any time or can it only be done at certain times during the month/year?
Will there be a cool down on initiating votes if that's the case, and if so what kind of time range would it be?
Does a company only need to reach the 10 man muster number for its captain to have a vote or will there be other thresholds?

[Hinkel]

Here are some important questions:
Will there be set times to vote on a new colonel, or does it have to be initiated by the companies?
If it's initiated, will the companies have free reign to initiate a vote on the regimental staff at any time or can it only be done at certain times during the month/year?
Will there be a cool down on initiating votes if that's the case, and if so what kind of time range would it be?
Does a company only need to reach the 10 man muster number for its captain to have a vote or will there be other thresholds?

Well, we should discuss it of course.

I think the company commander should be able to initiate a vote at any time, after that, it should be locked for him to initiate another voting for some days.
The voting of the regimental commander should be for the company leaders only. So not every men in a company can vote, just the company commanders.

My basic idea so far:

1) Once 3 companies (of one regiment) are formed (so each of them have 10 guys), its possible to vote for a regiment commander.
2) Each company commander can initiate a vote and selecting a person, who should become the regiment commander.
3) When there are 3 companies, the 3 company commanders are able to vote. The person who got the most votes, will be elected as the regiment commander and got pushed out of his company (new position). If a company commander is selected, his adjutant will be the new commander of the company.
4) The newly assigned regiment commander can assign each of his companies into a battalion. So its like the platoon system, just on regimental level.
5) If possible, he can assign a major and lt. colonel to each of the 2 battalions. Those persons will then be kicked out of their companies too, being assigned to the regimental staff.

So thats just the basic idea. We have to discuss the details of course, like if the colonel has any other powers and more.
BUT: Companies should stay untouched and independent, so the colonel has no rights to change anything WITHIN the companies he commands.

[David Dire]

Its more like: Companies within one mother regiment HAVE to work together. The regiment commander represents ALL companies.

I would rather serve the 52nd Company A and the 52nd Company A alone, rather than be forced to function as a regiment under a random colonel who I do not care for. This is a mistake, and destroys the purpose for having companies rather than regiments, as in NaS and NW.

[FakeMessiah27]

What if there are say, six companies formed in a regiment with three of those companies all belonging to the same group that has grown big enough to have three companies, and the other three belong to a similarly large group. The two groups don't have anything to do with each other. Let's say then that there is a seventh company that is not aligned to either larger group, to make sure we have an uneven number of votes. Large group A convinces the random company to vote for them and their guy gets Colonel.

If the Colonel then has the power to create battalions and determine which companies go in them and who leads them, that gives him power over large group B. So what if that colonel doesn't want to cooperate with large group B and assign the guy they want as their battalion commander, to actually be their battalion commander?

I don't think a regimental commander should be able to assign the battalions and their commanders. Several groups in the game are already large enough to want or need multiple companies, and the battalions should therefore be reserved as a means for larger groups to be able to run their operations without outside meddling. Just allow two or more companies (within the same regiment of course) to, voluntarily, form a battalion and vote for a battalion commander amongst themselves.

[Leifr]

Whilst theoretical, I sincerely doubt that such a situation would arise. Groups large enough to form their own companies and expand into something sizeable are likely going to be looking for a regiment that has room to expand in rather than competing with another.

[William F. Randolph]

Agreed, the only regiment that I see for the CSA currently that has more than 2 companies that are not affiliated and possibly conflicting with each other are the 11th Mississippi companies, for example I think all of the 1st Texans are working together, as are the 50th Georgians. Should be a non-issue as far as I am aware of the situation.

[BloodBeag]

It might just be that if the groups can't work together then they have to leave which would just be determnied by the biggest group getting the regiment

[Wildcat]

Sure, as long as you keep in mind that most of the dev team have hardly every played the mod or the DLC - just to manage your expectations. Naturally there will be some overlap in design but I actually find it rather good not knowing a whole lot of the structures of those games. Makes it easier to keep focusing on what is our vision. :)

- Trusty

I know the game won't be like Mount and Blade BUT many people are coming from the mod so the community is going to be fairly similar.

[Ted]

The Battalion command represents all companies.. even if there are troll companies or hostile companies. His duty is to get them to work together or punish them ;)

+ the regiment command will get voted ;)

To be honest something like this is never going to work out in my opinion. Systems like this have failed every time I saw them introduced in any game, because this idea of "democracy" is totally destroying the independence of the smaller groups. A system like this destroys every kind of mutual admiration and respect, because you have people put into ranks where they can take command of people who do not wish to be commanded by them just because of some other people who they do not even know saying "hey, you must listen to him!". This is NOT going to work out I can promise you.

This system is making bigger communities as impossible as small units, I think you should let the players decide how to form their community themselves instead of trying to make them play according to your idea. People play the game according to their own ideas, not to yours - by taking away all freedoms you could - in the worst case - ruin the community by effectively excluding all those who do want to form up their groups according to their own ideas and rules.

[FakeMessiah27]

It doesn't matter if the likelihood of such a situation occurring is low. A system that has these kinds of flaws but is kept in place anyway under the argument of "Aaah, it will be fine, that will never happen" is a bad system.

People are going to end up under the command of people they don't like or otherwise don't want to be under the command of.

Imagine then, a more likely scenario if you will: A company has been around for a while and has a moderate size. So far it's the only company in the regiment to be claimed and therefore has never had any problems with regimental command. Then, a large established gaming community from another game decides it wants to try its hand at WoR and picks the same regiment as our medium-sized friends. They promptly form two companies of their own and vote themselves into power. Suddenly, that small unit who has no affiliation or interest in working together with this larger group that just started playing, is being forced under the command of their freshly appointed colonel.

This same situation could also occur if two medium sized companies have coexisted for a long time and one of them suddenly sees a boom in members. The grown company starts a second one, votes themselves into power, etc.

If the game is going to have a voting system for a colonel, that colonel should have no influence on companies that do not wish to be disturbed. Which brings me back to the point I mentioned previously that battalions should be left for companies to form by themselves, and not be appointed from higher up.

[William F. Randolph]

There is no perfect system. We can make do with what we've got. People might get screwed over in the end but the majority rules in these circumstances, as it should.

[Leifr]

It doesn't matter if the likelihood of such a situation occurring is low. A system that has these kinds of flaws but is kept in place anyway under the argument of "Aaah, it will be fine, that will never happen" is a bad system.

People are going to end up under the command of people they don't like or otherwise don't want to be under the command of.

You're never going to be under the command of other folk though; there is absolutely nothing binding in the Company Tool aside from the eventual integration with Steam. I believe it would be very unlikely for a single regiment to be split into companies that are shared by the minimum of two different people. Has it happened so far? As far as I can work out, all of the Union and CSA companies that share a regiment are already headed up by a single-figure or have an existing mutual agreement to share the regiment between themselves. There has been zero issue so far with any arrangements made public here on this forum.
People are not going to end up under the yoke of some despot; companies will always maintain their integrity and self-control as stipulated by the developers. There is no regulation that you must follow the command of someone on the field of battle.

[William F. Randolph]

It does make for uncomfortable situations for companies with no affiliation, as it causes conflict. But honestly, if we are having multiple companies co-operating, it only makes sense to have the function of voting for regimental staff regardless of whether companies are affiliated or not. It's an organizational necessity, if this game is going to function as intended with people working on a regimental level.

Regardless of anything I have said thus far, as Leifr is stating, Captains of companies don't necessarily have to follow orders given by their Colonels. Especially because they founded their company independently. It is up to the coalition of the companies to co-operate and decide if the Colonel, Lt. Colonel, and Major roles will be utilized.

[FakeMessiah27]

I disagree with the notion that there are no consequences to companies when a colonel is elected. As you can read from Hinkel here:



4) The newly assigned regiment commander can assign each of his companies into a battalion. So its like the platoon system, just on regimental level.
5) If possible, he can assign a major and lt. colonel to each of the 2 battalions. Those persons will then be kicked out of their companies too, being assigned to the regimental staff.


My main issue that I've pointed towards in both my posts is in regards to battalions. That is definitely a situation where two companies belonging to the same group could come under the "yoke" of a colonel if that colonel decides not to adhere to the wishes of the companies in question, and place them in different battalions, or if he appoints someone to Major they don't want.

Currently the company tool is only being used by those who have shown an early interest in this game. The community is still relatively small. But once it opens up to the general public I do not think it's unlikely at all that different, unaffiliated groups will make companies in the same regiments; in fact I think it's inevitable. Didn't we already have at least one thread on this forum where someone complained about company theft? That alone proves that there are very much companies out there in the same regiment that have no affiliation with each other.

Let's not forget there will (hopefully) be a huge influx of players when the game hits open beta and eventually full release who will most likely be a lot less active on these forums as we are now (given that the forum is currently the only place to be, with the game only in Technical Alpha). You will always have bad apples and if you greatly increase the sample size, you are bound to get more bad apples as well. Therefore we need to plan out these systems with that in mind, and not think to ourselves that everything will sort itself out on its own.

All in all I do not fear for single companies as it doesn't matter much to them if they were to be assigned to a battalion if they have no interest in it. As has been stated, captains have no obligation to actually follow their colonel's orders. It's more the larger groups, that might want to form a battalion, that I'm worried about.

Edit: just to clarify: I'm not against the idea of having a voting system for a colonel and regimental staff per se, as long as they indeed do not have any influence on the internal workings of player groups.

[zerosius]

A lot of great points and discussion in this thread. Personally i think the way Hinkel described the system the devs have in mind at the moment, seems like a decent compromise. I can see the problems with some smaller groups of players being obershadowed by bigger communities, but honestly i think that is how democracy works.

One thing to also keep in mind is, that even if you are grouping together in bigger detachements (Regiments, Brigades etc), it takes nothing away from your personal company intern experience. The whole thing is a nice added roleplay fluff, but it wont be nessecary to play the game within larger organized detachements of players if you dont want to as a company.

One thing i want to ask is, what to make of Artillery Units, Cavalry Units to some extent and other specialized Subunits, who historically were not usually formed into bigger detachements. Taking an artillery Battery as an example, will batteries be allowed to join Brigades on their own, without all the batteries from a state having to first vote on an unhistorical "Regiment Commander" and then all joining a brigade together? Giving there are only so many States with Artillery Batteries and all of them running under one "Regiment" in the Company Tool, this will be an issue.

[TrustyJam]

Just a headsup. All of the higher level stuff such as regiments is still very much on the drawing board and thus we can't really give you any real answers just yet nor should you expect ideas we do put forward to you to be included exactly as described.

I'd just like to make sure everyone understands that there will be no forcing companies to work together if they do not wish to do so. :)

- Trusty

[Dingle]

I think the devs have done a great job with the game so far, and I know that my opinion alone probably won't matter much, but I have some problems with the system that has been proposed by the devs in this thread. For the purposes of my argument, I'll be making up some example regiments that each have their own situations.

1,000th United States Volunteer Infantry:
All of the companies in this regiment happen to work in conjunction with each other. They function much like a brigade would in other games (NW, N&S), and they are totally fine electing a leader (probably someone who already has the loyalty of everyone there). These guys would have absolutely no problems with the system; everything would work out fine for them. This seems to be the ideal situation for the proposed system.


1,000th New York Volunteer Infantry:
This regiment has 7 companies. Each of the companies is moderately sized (10-25 people), and none of them know each other at all. They're all just independent groups that decided to make a company in the 1,000th NY. So, the time rolls around for them to vote for a colonel. Each company votes for a random leader (probably just the one in the largest company) because they don't know each other. The Captain of Company A is elected Colonel.

Now What? He's essentially stuck in limbo. He's been pushed out of his own company, so he no longer actually leads a company, but none of the other companies want to obey him because they're all strangers to each other. Luckily, the company that he's from is made up of sound lads who are still loyal to him regardless of the fact that he's no longer the de jure leader of the company. Anyhow, he's still frustrated by the fact that he now can't manage his company in the company tool. This is somewhat of an issue, but it's not too bad.


500th New Jersey Volunteer Infantry:
This regiment has a very similar situation to the 1,000th New York. They have several companies who don't know each other, and the leader of Company D is randomly elected Colonel. This time, Company D isn't quite as stable of a company as the 1,000th NY Co. A is (maybe some of the officers don't get along, loyalty problems, who knows). Now that the ex-leader of Company D has been pushed into Colonel limbo, he ends up losing a grip of the company that he actually made and essentially gets booted out of his own organization, purely because he happened to get elected by some other guys.


999th Maryland Volunteer Infantry:
This regiment finds itself in somewhat of a precarious situation. Some of the companies there know each other, but some of them don't. The companies who all know each other elect a leader, and that person manages those companies. Now the other companies are supposedly "subordinate" to that leader, but they don't know him and will probably just choose to ignore him. This is somewhat of an inconvenience to them, but it doesn't matter too much.


1,000th Maine Volunteer Infantry:
This regiment is in an extremely precarious situation. This time, not one, but two major established communities start forming companies in this regiment. Whichever community manages to fill more companies will ultimately elect themselves as leader, and now the other community finds itself choosing between merging with the other, reforming all of their companies on a different regiment, or just choosing to ignore the regimental structure system while still being frustrated by the fact that someone is technically in charge of them.


Some of these situations might be unlikely, but consider the fact that there will be many more groups once the game actually comes out. I think the proposed system is an attempt at a one-size-fits-all solution, when in reality there will be a lot of problems in certain scenarios. I hope that there will be an option to refuse becoming Colonel if elected, otherwise plenty of people will end up in company-less limbo. I'm not proposing a solution myself, I'm just pointing out potential issues with the current system. If this does end up as the final system, I think companies should be given the option to completely refuse participation in the greater structure of the regiment (i.e. the ability to not vote for a leader or be voted leader and the ability to refuse being appointed to a battalion).

[William F. Randolph]

To solve one of those issues, if you are elected colonel you should obviously be able to step down at an point, and honestly before that able to refuse a nomination.

Second issue, it's so unlikely that people that voted for a man to get more power kick him out of power in the process, extreme lack of logic.

The situations where some companies follow the colonel and some don't seems alright because they are exercising their independence, as they recruited their own men they have control over them.

Still valid circumstances, but either highly unlikely or downright scandalous.

[Dingle]

To solve one of those issues, if you are elected colonel you should obviously be able to step down at an point, and honestly before that able to refuse a nomination.

Second issue, it's so unlikely that people that voted for a man to get more power kick him out of power in the process, extreme lack of logic.

The situations where some companies follow the colonel and some don't seems alright because they are exercising their independence, as they recruited their own men they have control over them.

Still valid circumstances, but either highly unlikely or downright scandalous.
You misunderstood one of them. The person voted colonel is not then kicked out by the people who voted him colonel, he's just not allowed to lead his own company anymore. He wasn't voted as the leader of his company, he simply made it. There has been a vast number of regiments in NW or N&S where things like this have happened (officer disputes, leaders being "overthrown). It's not unlikely or scandalous.

Edit: Also, how can you step down from being colonel if you are pushed out of your company when you become colonel? Will you just automatically return to the company which you came from? Will you still be in charge of it at that point?

[Fancy Sweetroll]

Let me just give my two cents to this discussion.

Nobody will be forced into any regiment.

Lets say we have 7 companies in the 20th Maine.

1 of the companies decides to click the button "Form Regiment".

The other companies will then be notified of the request to form the regiment.

They can accept or deny

If 3 or more companies accept, the 10 soldiers in each company with the highest rank will be asked to vote for a regiment leader (you cant vote on people in your own company) (so no matter the rank structure in the company, 10 soldiers from each company can vote, this is to get enough votes for it to make sense. Only having 2-4 captains in companies to vote for a leader from 2-4 companies doesnt make any sense)

There will probably be a countdown of some days until the voting ends.

Then the voted regiment leader will be promoted

The companies that accepted the Form Regiment request will get some new features in the Company Tool (a new regiment page that tells which companies are part of this new regiment group, there will be stuff for the regiment owner to send telegrams to all members in this regiment/group and promote soldiers to the regimental staff and other things)

The companies that denied the request to form the regiment wont be affected by this and will continue to function as their own contained unit.

This is a fairly accurate description of how I envision it to be.

[David Dire]

Ah, I see. In that case, I have no opposition to it at all, as long as it stays this way.

[Dingle]

Let me just give my two cents to this discussion.

Nobody will be forced into any regiment.

Lets say we have 7 companies in the 20th Maine.

1 of the companies decides to click the button "Form Regiment".

The other companies will then be notified of the request to form the regiment.

They can accept or deny

If 3 or more companies accept, the 10 soldiers in each company with the highest rank will be asked to vote for a regiment leader (you cant vote on people in your own company) (so no matter the rank structure in the company, 10 soldiers from each company can vote, this is to get enough votes for it to make sense. Only having 2-4 captains in companies to vote for a leader from 2-4 companies doesnt make any sense)

There will probably be a countdown of some days until the voting ends.

Then the voted regiment leader will be promoted

The companies that accepted the Form Regiment request will get some new features in the Company Tool (a new regiment page that tells which companies are part of this new regiment group, there will be stuff for the regiment owner to send telegrams to all members in this regiment/group and promote soldiers to the regimental staff and other things)

The companies that denied the request to form the regiment wont be affected by this and will continue to function as their own contained unit.

This is a fairly accurate description of how I envision it to be.
That seems to be a more reasonable system than what I interpreted from the previous posts in this thread. The ability to completely refuse participation in the regimental structure is important to me.

[William F. Randolph]

Ok, then what do we do when there needs to be a new vote for colonel? Can any captain initiate the vote?

[Fancy Sweetroll]

Could be something where there are two buttons you can press. Unhappy with current staff and happy with current staff. Then if 50% or more of the soldiers in the regiment have pressed the unhappy button, then a new vote for new staff will be initialized.

Then if you initially clicked the unhappy button and it turns out the regiment staff isnt that bad after all, you could always click the happy button to do your part in keeping the current staff.

So it would kinda be a fun dynamic thing that each day shifted slightly between happy and unhappy plus the current staff would be allerted that things were bad so they could do something about it, instead of just being removed as staff out of nowhere.

[Killobytes]

Yea this is an important question too:
If you are elected Colonel, and then someone else is elected Colonel, what happens to you? Are you given back ownership of your original company or are you booted into nothing?
What if you retain ownership of the company you were in when elected, so you can still adjust things while colonel but make someone else captain, since the captain and owner positions seem to be separate, and when your tenure as colonel is done, they can just make themselves captain again.

[Dingle]

I agree. One should still retain ownership of their original company even when promoted to Colonel.

[William F. Randolph]

Agreed, some sort of demoting implementation needs to be made so there are smooth and proper transitions of power.

[Killobytes]

Agreed, some sort of demoting implementation needs to be made so there are smooth and proper transitions of power.

Well there already is a demoting implementation in regards to the fact that the Captain can make someone else captain, demote themselves, and still have ownership of the company. So really it's all about still having ownership of the company even after being made regimental staff.

[General. Jackson]

Not too impressed with the unhappy button thing lol. If you don't like the company you're in leave and go make your own unit with the people that share that opinion otherwise years of hardwork by that leader could be washed by the drain because his company has been infected by other units to bring the company down, create mutinies etc.

I can tell that a lot of the devs haven't played M&B because they aren't familiar with the reality of the politics in games like these.

[FakeMessiah27]

The unhappy button is only used for the regimental staff, to be clicked by company commanders, not individual members of companies to rate their company commanders.



The new post by Trusty sounds like a good system indeed, giving anybody who doesn't want to participate an opt-out option seems like a good solution.

[William F. Randolph]

Things aren't going to be as black and white as they are now 6 months after full release comes out, right now we have to opportunity to create a good system that will ensure a peaceful transition of power free from mutiny. I have been in groups like these for over a year and a half, and I know that this function will surely lead to mutiny.

[TrustyJam]

Things aren't going to be as black and white as they are now 6 months after full release comes out, right now we have to opportunity to create a good system that will ensure a peaceful transition of power free from mutiny. I have been in groups like these for over a year and a half, and I know that this function will surely lead to mutiny.

Either you'll have the power to overthrow a commander you are not pleased with (or perform a mutiny as you put it) or you are not. If you are not I imagine people are going to cry "dictatorship!". If you don't trust the people you invite into your company enough to allow them to vote I'd say don't invite them in the first place.

- Trusty

[Dipington]

Either you'll have the power to overthrow a commander you are not pleased with (or perform a mutiny as you put it) or you are not. If you are not I imagine people are going to cry "dictatorship!". If you don't trust the people you invite into your company enough to allow them to vote I'd say don't invite them in the first place.

- Trusty

Well the mlitary here and back then wasn't democratic, it was a dictatorship. If you see that the leader is out for personal gain then you can find a way to replace him like with the happy/unhappy buttons. The point for the higher CO positions from Maj to Col are to put people in those spots that will do the best for the regiment and the companies within it, on the battlefield and working with other companies and regiments.

[FrancisM]

So what if there are three companies who like eachother that want to form a single unit, and three other companies of the same historical regiment who want to form a single unit, but they hate eachother?

It's somewhat foolhardy to assume that everyone is going to act, vote and press unhappy buttons based on their own personal happiness. As with every game and gaming community, there will be a bunch of casuals plus a core of very active players in the command positions. I can already see regiments forbidding their members from pressing the unhappy button to avoid mutinies, or demoted people rallying up the regiment in a coup. I'll admit that I find the system very interesting and I am looking forward in seeing how it will work once the game really releases, but when designing the system, you should assume that while most regiments won't experience problems, everything that could theoretically go wrong, will eventually go wrong.

[Ted]

So what if there are three companies who like eachother that want to form a single unit, and three other companies of the same historical regiment who want to form a single unit, but they hate eachother?

It's somewhat foolhardy to assume that everyone is going to act, vote and press unhappy buttons based on their own personal happiness. As with every game and gaming community, there will be a bunch of casuals plus a core of very active players in the command positions. I can already see regiments forbidding their members from pressing the unhappy button to avoid mutinies, or demoted people rallying up the regiment in a coup. I'll admit that I find the system very interesting and I am looking forward in seeing how it will work once the game really releases, but when designing the system, you should assume that while most regiments won't experience problems, everything that could theoretically go wrong, will eventually go wrong.

This is exactly my opinion as well. Please do not take an offence, but you can clearly see that the Devs' have not had a major leading part in regiments in other games because they do not see these problems. Whatever can go wrong eventually goes wrong, not to mention that you are basically excluding all the semi-active casuals from the regimental life by a system like this.
A system like this takes the freedom of designing their own community away from the players in an attempt to structure the community according to the Developers' wish - but that is not going to work out in the long term, that's what nearly everyone with experience in leading Regiments who I've talked to said as well.
A system like this also actually forces people to build parallel structures outside the "Developers' Community", e. g. Armies and other major groups that are made up out of different Companies and troopclasses can not be formed in this tool and are therefore somehow pushed away from the "official" community.

Let's take our group, the German Volunteers: We have multiple different companies from different Regiments of Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery. We have NO CHANCE of having our own chain of command and leadership because this system simply does not allow us to do so, possibly resulting in huge drama and salt spreading all over. I do not want to see this game's community ending up worse then NW - this system is going to make it worse though.

This system forces the people into a 100% simulated Union Army but takes the freedom of designing their own community away from them: I understand that's the developers' vision of a ACW-simulation, but I doubt it is going to work out in the long term.

[Hinkel]

Let's take our group, the German Volunteers: We have multiple different companies from different Regiments of Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery. We have NO CHANCE of having our own chain of command and leadership because this system simply does not allow us to do so, possibly resulting in huge drama and salt spreading all over. I do not want to see this game's community ending up worse then NW - this system is going to make it worse though.
.

We never said, that you have no chance of having your own chain of command?

I said: Regiments can group up together in fictional brigades, with the regiment leader being able to form a brigade with other regiments, artillery and cavalry units.
So if the 20th New York and the companies within would like to form a bigger group with the 52nd New York, their colonels can simply form a brigade with the tool.

I don't see the problem here?

[FrancisM]

I think he means that, say, 54th Company A, 25th Company C and 4th Cavalry Company D can't form a single unit together without forming their respective regiments first.

[zerosius]

I think he means that, say, 54th Company A, 25th Company C and 4th Cavalry Company D can't form a single unit together without forming their respective regiments first.

Indeed. What if we have 52nd Companies A-E formed, of which only Company A wants to work together and create a bigger unit with the rest of the associated units, who are facing the same problems?
There might be a 52nd New York regiment being formed, but with up to 4/5 of the people in it, and with a fair chance, the elected colonel not wanting to have anything to do with the German Volunteers. That means it will impossible for the 52nd Company A to join up with the rest of the companies in our "out of tool" association into a bigger unit.

[General. Jackson]

So what if there are three companies who like eachother that want to form a single unit, and three other companies of the same historical regiment who want to form a single unit, but they hate eachother?

It's somewhat foolhardy to assume that everyone is going to act, vote and press unhappy buttons based on their own personal happiness. As with every game and gaming community, there will be a bunch of casuals plus a core of very active players in the command positions. I can already see regiments forbidding their members from pressing the unhappy button to avoid mutinies, or demoted people rallying up the regiment in a coup. I'll admit that I find the system very interesting and I am looking forward in seeing how it will work once the game really releases, but when designing the system, you should assume that while most regiments won't experience problems, everything that could theoretically go wrong, will eventually go wrong.

I also agree with this.

[zerosius]

Indeed. What if we have 52nd Companies A-E formed, of which only Company A wants to work together and create a bigger unit with the rest of the associated units, who are facing the same problems?
There might be a 52nd New York regiment being formed, but with up to 4/5 of the people in it, and with a fair chance, the elected colonel not wanting to have anything to do with the German Volunteers. That means it will impossible for the 52nd Company A to join up with the rest of the companies in our "out of tool" association into a bigger unit.

Any Input from the devs on this?

[General. Jackson]

I honestly believe that when someone request form company and 3 leaders from CO. A, B & C Accept are a large unit that have relations with each other and poor old company D is having to be thrown in with them and he wants nothing to do with them at all as he has no relations besides a company name and a new leader he doesn't care for. IMO it's a little silly, if we're going with companies from the start lets stick to companies and battalions and such that want affiliation. We dont need to form regiments unless you're apart of those groups that are affiliated.

[FrancisM]

There's also the question on how relevant the entire batallion structure will be - Great if we have batallions of a 100 players or more, but will our servers actually be able to handle that? How big are the servers in the Alpha anyway, and how big can we expect them to be?

[David Dire]

The larger server size is, also, the less players that will be able to run it on a full server and the less players that will be able to run as well as they can now. Both lag and players' systems' should be taken into account.

[Ted]

There's also the question on how relevant the entire batallion structure will be - Great if we have batallions of a 100 players or more, but will our servers actually be able to handle that? How big are the servers in the Alpha anyway, and how big can we expect them to be?

That's one very important question here, I'ld be interested in how the serversystem is actually going to work.

[michaelsmithern]

it'll be interesting to see... i can see some infighting with the battalion/regiment level business but since the way it was described basically says that the regimental commander can put the regiment into one brigade of his/her choosing, so the brigades don't need to be historical, Example: the 1st Minnesota is historically part of Gormans Brigade, but from what i read it's going to allow me to Join Christ's Brigade so were all together in one brigade even though my regiment would come from a completely different Corp.

If i got any of that wrong feel free to correct and explain it, as i'm just going off the conversations between Hinkel and the other users.

[Rudate]

Say you have a bunch of companies a total of 10. Now it is a good size for a brigade. How in depth are we looking at the rank structure. I.e. Brigade Co's to regiment/Battlions down to companies. So to set up a Brigade, would we have to have the staff at the brigade level and the Battalion level or just at the brigade level? For in game purposes that is.

[michaelsmithern]

Say you have a bunch of companies a total of 10. Now it is a good size for a brigade. How in depth are we looking at the rank structure. I.e. Brigade Co's to regiment/Battlions down to companies. So to set up a Brigade, would we have to have the staff at the brigade level and the Battalion level or just at the brigade level? For in game purposes that is.

from what i've heard, it will be 2 -5 companies for a battalion, a battalion lead by a Major - Colonel, 2 Battalions with make up a regiment, A regiment being lead by a Colonel. 2-5 Regiments for a Brigade, led by a Brigadier General. Now as for Regiment/Battalion level management this will be based on companies that make up those regiments and only companies that were in the same regiment can form that same regiment, for instance you will not be able to have a 3rd Arkansas company, with a 1st Virginia Company, you will instead need 2 or more companies from that regiment to in a sense "merge" and establish a regiment together.

Now this is just what i've heard, it isn't 100% correct and may very well change in the future. From my point of view, this may screw with some of the established brigades/divisions/armys, as some of them just have a rag tag group of companies from different regiments.

[Rithal]

The way I foresee it working is as follows: Two or more companies can form a brigade. If two or more companies exist within an organized brigade that belong to the same regiment, then a partial regiment can be formed and someone can either be elected or appointed to command the partial regiment from within the brigade. If a brigade wishes, it can then place itself under the command of a division HQ to be organized with other brigades. The role of the battalion as I see it should be used within brigades and not have any official status.

So here's a fictional example:

10th Tennessee Company A and 15th Alabama Company C join together to form a brigade. Some time later, the 10th Tennessee Company F joins the brigade. This means the two 10th Tennessee companies (A and F) can join together to make a partial regiment, the 10th Tennessee. I use the term partial because other 10th Tennessee companies could be formed and could have decided to join other brigades or remain independent. Furthermore, the commander of the brigade may decide to detach 10th Tennessee Company A from the 10th Tennessee and form a battalion with the 10th TN Co. A and the 15th AL Co. C mid battle. This wouldn't change the organization of the unit itself as but would just be a mid-battle modification to the structure as the brigadier commander sees fit.

That is how I would like things to work right now, going off of how the community is already organizing. The developers may choose to do something different.

Edit: Looking at the beginning of the thread, it looks like Hinkel initially laid out something a little different from what I proposed. Take a look at what he said to get a rough idea of what the developers are going for. :)