Company's join Regiments?

[TacticalGaming]

I don't know much in depth of the company tool so I apologize if this has already been discussed or is planned. Anyways, I feel that company's should be able to join regiments. Until then, some companies have to remind their men they are a member of a regiment, not just a company. In order to claim a regiment, you'd need a minimum amount of company's in your regiment, or a minimum total count of troops that are combined from companies. What do you guys think?

[Norwegian]

Yeah, this is planned down the road. If I remember correctly, later on, when three or more companies have formed up under the regiment, they can make the regiment itself.

[J.J. Massey]

I agree with Tactical, however until then we have already started forming a Regiment, Division, Core, etc. with other Regiments/Companies to combine forces for drills, training, skirms, etc.

[SouthCarolina]

Just check what has already been written:

https://warofrights.com/KickstarterUpdate12

No claims /just votes/ free choice between the companies in the same regiment / Brigade / Division

although its all subject to change I hope they stick with this form that are my hopes

[John Cooley]

The biggest problem is the uncertainty.
The Devs have yet to disclose, despite Thread and Messages, how they plan to implement such a Plan. Doubtless, this is because they are still working on it and it is premature to share this information ... NOT as a nefarious action, as has been suggested by some.
Many are forming Higher HQs as well as organizing Brigades, Divisions and Corps. Me included. heh
The real issue is whether Companies will be forced into the Historical larger units. This would result in people having to work with those they don't wish to and drop units with whom they work well together.

There are several statements on both the WoR site and Cryengine page that allude to this planned Higher Authority creation being added to the Company Tool ...
- "Additionally, players will also be able to choose from a list of regiments that fought in each battle as well as what rank to fight as, whether they want to slog it out as a lowly private, or if you want to orchestrate the carnage and mayhem as a major general."
- "As a General, you will operate in your headquarters equipped with a map of the battlefield and constantly receiving reports of friendly and enemy positions. Send out new orders to the regiments to move forward, or fall back - all in real time. The orders will move down the chain of command, to the Colonels, Majors, down to the Captains in charge of the individual regiments, all of whom have the option to follow the orders of their trusted commander, or rebel against his wishes and fight as you see fit."

In the meantime ... we do as we always do ... Hope for the Best, Plan for the Worst and Recruit QUALITY units into Ewell's Division regardless of Historical accuracy.

[SouthCarolina]

The biggest problem is the uncertainty.
The Devs have yet to disclose, despite Thread and Messages, how they plan to implement such a Plan.

I find that a bit weird. There must be a vision? a plan? And I believe the kickstarter link provides that plan. A historical setting with a bit of freedom so if you don't like company A B C but you do like D E you can work with them and not the first three.

[John Cooley]

That is what most read into it and is our Hope, as well.

[SouthCarolina]

I find it disturbing that people are voting for less freedom. So people seem not to mind being forced into a regiment. While the idea in the kickstarter gives you more freedom within the same regiment. So in effect 2 regiments can exist. regiment X ABCDE & regiment X FGHIJ So you can choose and form your own adapted regiment

[yoyo8346]

I find it disturbing that people are voting for less freedom.

The structure and cooperation that comes with battalions/regiments doesn't equate oppression...These things are voluntary.

[SouthCarolina]

The structure and cooperation that comes with battalions/regiments doesn't equate oppression...These things are voluntary.




Ah see you voted against what you are preaching

[yoyo8346]

What? I voted yes and I'm telling you that regiments and battalions don't take away your freedom. They are voluntary, meaning you would only choose to join a regiment if you wanted you...

[SouthCarolina]

You or anybody claiming a regiment just for yourselves ain't freedom. If a few companies from the historical regiment want to work together and they can call themselves a regiment fine by me but if the remaining companies also want to form among themselves that should also be allowed. Because that will provide more freedom then a few companies claiming the sole right to be named the 1st South Carolina Regiment for example. No I believe the freedom should be that from all those companies in the 1st SC among themselves should have the freedom to form there own regiments (groups / clans but not name it as such keep it with with the historical name: Regiment)

quote from the link: " You can form a group and friendship with the other companies, within your mother regiment."

Quote from the thread creator: "In order to claim a regiment"

If it would be to form a regiment that is something different then claiming it

[John Cooley]

That begs the Q ...
What are the Requirements for claiming a Regiment?
First one to get a majority of Companies? two-thirds? Does that also apply to Brigades, Corps and Army?
Just food for thought.

[Lance Rawlings]

That begs the Q ...
What are the Requirements for claiming a Regiment?
First one to get a majority of Companies? two-thirds? Does that also apply to Brigades, Corps and Army?
Just food for thought.

I would say it should be something like is already in place when we made our companies. The simple fact is not everyone is going to get their way. You could have a mustering section for battalions where you need at least 3 or 4 mustered (10 men min.) companies to form. And then when you get to let's say 7 or 8 companies you are "upgraded" to a regiment.

Or.

The battalion could be the "mustering" part and the first to reach about 8 companies in the battalion would then claim the regimental name as their own.

Forming a historically accurate battalion/regiment would restrict people from random companies all joining one unit. That's not to say they can't play together, but administratively I'd say they shouldn't be allowed to be formed as a battalion. I know people won't like this, but they really should've expected it from a game with as much high regard for the real history as it has.

Any thoughts?

[SouthCarolina]

I would say it should be something like is already in place when we made our companies. The simple fact is not everyone is going to get their way. You could have a mustering section for battalions where you need at least 3 or 4 mustered (10 men min.) companies to form. And then when you get to let's say 7 or 8 companies you are "upgraded" to a regiment.

Or.

The battalion could be the "mustering" part and the first to reach about 8 companies in the battalion would then claim the regimental name as their own.

Forming a historically accurate battalion/regiment would restrict people from random companies all joining one unit. That's not to say they can't play together, but administratively I'd say they shouldn't be allowed to be formed as a battalion. I know people won't like this, but they really should've expected it from a game with as much high regard for the real history as it has.

Any thoughts?

Why not let 2 or 3 groups claim the name?
If you have 10 companies (I would agree on a minimum amount of course) and 5 companies want to work together, they can claim the right to be called a regiment.

5 left.. 4 of them also team up together claim the right to be called a regiment.
1 left .. they are in doubt but are now able to choose which one to join. At least this gives a option.

Restricted freedom combined with a historical flavour if you will.

* added: To think bigger would it hurt the game or the history if two similar brigades could be made?

[michaelsmithern]

I don't get this restriction of freedom argument going on around here, while this at its core is a game and should be remembered, The game itself tries and push for historical accuracy. I'm not here to say that we shouldn't be forced into regiments, honestly if you want to go solo be my guest and have fun. I wouldn't want Company M of the 69thNY(just an example, not sure if such company is even real, don't care either) to be forced into the 69th NY company with all the other guys who have agreed to form it. just as in the 1stMN I wouldn't want A company to be forced to work with My guys in B company, it's harsh and makes one aspect of the game unenjoyable.

Now that being said, I do believe that for any real work to get done in game it requires a degree of cooperation, if you can't get along with the guys in your own regiment, whether they are slightly irritating or are just plain terrible people, then how would you expect others to get along with your company. going back to it, if A company were forced to work with us(should they be in the same timezone and whatnot) then I'd expect the captain to put his pride on the shelf for the betterment of the unit, since from what the devs have said over and over and over again, this game is mostly about teamwork and your regiment/company will be scored based on how it does, so that raises the point of are you willing to give your regiment/company a bad name or appear worse than others all because you choose to not work with someone else?, I understand we all want our freedom to choose this, this and that, but when it comes down to it, I believe in Regiment over Company in this argument.

Edit: I think there also might be some disagreement with people who believe a colonel they don't like will be selected when with units that are all working together without you or your company, well if that's the case again bide your time let this new figurehead colonel screw up enough based on his own initiative and then bring it up with the other members of your regiments and get him replaced, were all people at the end of the day and not animals, I'm sure you can talk it out with everyone.

[SouthCarolina]

I don't get this restriction of freedom argument going on around here, while this at its core is a game and should be remembered, The game itself tries and push for historical accuracy. I'm not here to say that we shouldn't be forced into regiments, honestly if you want to go solo be my guest and have fun. I wouldn't want Company M of the 69thNY(just an example, not sure if such company is even real, don't care either) to be forced into the 69th NY company with all the other guys who have agreed to form it. just as in the 1stMN I wouldn't want A company to be forced to work with My guys in B company, it's harsh and makes one aspect of the game unenjoyable.

Now that being said, I do believe that for any real work to get done in game it requires a degree of cooperation, if you can't get along with the guys in your own regiment, whether they are slightly irritating or are just plain terrible people, then how would you expect others to get along with your company. going back to it, if A company were forced to work with us(should they be in the same timezone and whatnot) then I'd expect the captain to put his pride on the shelf for the betterment of the unit, since from what the devs have said over and over and over again, this game is mostly about teamwork and your regiment/company will be scored based on how it does, so that raises the point of are you willing to give your regiment/company a bad name or appear worse than others all because you choose to not work with someone else?, I understand we all want our freedom to choose this, this and that, but when it comes down to it, I believe in Regiment over Company in this argument.

Edit: I think there also might be some disagreement with people who believe a colonel they don't like will be selected when with units that are all working together without you or your company, well if that's the case again bide your time let this new figurehead colonel screw up enough based on his own initiative and then bring it up with the other members of your regiments and get him replaced, were all people at the end of the day and not animals, I'm sure you can talk it out with everyone.

You don't get forums? People discussing and having ideas, yet you present ideas of yourself

[michaelsmithern]

You don't get forums? People discussing and having ideas, yet you present ideas of yourself

you misunderstand, I present the idea that the Regiment is more important than that of the company, it is a public forum and the discussion is whether or not we should be forced within regiments or whether we should have the freedom to make regiments with companies that are our friends.

As demonstrated I argue for my point while against that of forcing people to join regiments. the edit isn't part of my argument it is something I suppose people could take into account when thinking of the subject.

The whole forum basis is like you said for people to discuss and/or have ideas on the current topic at hand, which is what I did, the only idea of myself I present is that of working together to achieve a greater good, I do not present the idea of communistic/fascist regimental system wherein that end no one single member should have a greater voice to speak within the forum or group as a whole.

[Lance Rawlings]

Why not let 2 or 3 groups claim the name?
If you have 10 companies (I would agree on a minimum amount of course) and 5 companies want to work together, they can claim the right to be called a regiment.

5 left.. 4 of them also team up together claim the right to be called a regiment.
1 left .. they are in doubt but are now able to choose which one to join. At least this gives a option.

Restricted freedom combined with a historical flavour if you will.

* added: To think bigger would it hurt the game or the history if two similar brigades could be made?

I don't really think that this would be ideal, and rather confusing. Just like you can't have more than one Company D of 47th VA, I think the battalion/regiment level should not be different. It's a race to the top so to speak.

Now, just because you have a company name should NOT mean that you are automatically placed in the regiment. A invite, request system should be implemented in my opinion.

I really hope that they add a battalion level to the CT soon though!!

[SouthCarolina]

I don't really think that this would be ideal, and rather confusing. Just like you can't have more than one Company D of 47th VA, I think the battalion/regiment level should not be different. It's a race to the top so to speak.

Now, just because you have a company name should NOT mean that you are automatically placed in the regiment. A invite, request system should be implemented in my opinion.

I really hope that they add a battalion level to the CT soon though!!

Not a realistic comparison a company vs a battalion or regiment. Company is yours but a cooperation is another level

[Lance Rawlings]

Not a realistic comparison a company vs a battalion or regiment. Company is yours but a cooperation is another level

I highly disagree. Just as much cooperation is needed for a company as a battalion. They are working parts of each other. So, just like the companies were made and names taken by those who rose first, the same should be true when those same companies (who are already probably identifying as a battalion) are allowed to form a battalion. There should only be one battalion for each regimental name, in my opinion.

[SouthCarolina]

I highly disagree. Just as much cooperation is needed for a company as a battalion. They are working parts of each other. So, just like the companies were made and names taken by those who rose first, the same should be true when those same companies (who are already probably identifying as a battalion) are allowed to form a battalion. There should only be one battalion for each regimental name, in my opinion.
Well sure we can disagree. You think it's the same. And I think it's another level to work together with multiple companies.

But you don't need all the companies to have that effect. And I don't agree the same rules must apply for the regiments and up as they are now in place. I don't see anything confusing in having two similar regiments claimed by the companies involved. Simply they will never be able to fight on the same battle.
Number on the servers will never reach it so a whole regiment can fall in together.

But hey that's all OK different views and all. Some people like to claim single regiments some would like a more open system that still respects the history. All good in the end it's up to the devs

[Lance Rawlings]

Well sure we can disagree. You think it's the same. And I think it's another level to work together with multiple companies.

But you don't need all the companies to have that effect. And I don't agree the same rules must apply for the regiments and up as they are now in place. I don't see anything confusing in having two similar regiments claimed by the companies involved. Simply they will never be able to fight on the same battle.
Number on the servers will never reach it so a whole regiment can fall in together.

But hey that's all OK different views and all. Some people like to claim single regiments some would like a more open system that still respects the history. All good in the end it's up to the devs

Yeah I'm not hating you for your opinion ;) I just believe in a less confusing system that would dampen misunderstanding if there were multiple units. I think having the battalion work similar to the company level would be best since its already the same system, just "recruiting" companies instead of members.

[Frederick]

My main concern with the creation of regiments is that I feel that it's merely an excuse by some to obtain higher rank and influence than is due them.

Folks not interested necessarily in the health of companies but rather expanding their ego/e-penis/power for selfish purposes. Then using these expanded regiments as a form of influence and control.

I feel that established and larger regiments will get an influence that infringes on smaller companies.

A regiment system built in will give them an artificial influence and force smaller companies into them.

There will be those that disagree with the idea that they'll be the asshole regimental leadership, but what powers will the company leaders have to remove regimental leadership?

Will anyone simply be able to form regiments and decide unilaterally who leads it?

Perhaps forcing a vote situation whereby the company leadership can vote who is regimental leadership ..

In any case, it should be absolutely voluntary and regimental leadership should be a leader amongst equals and not be granted a higher rank but rather a title.

I feel that the situation that exists now of unofficial "regiments" is more than sufficient and an official system would only serve to feed egos since servers can only hold so many folks anyway.

[SouthCarolina]

My main concern with the creation of regiments is that I feel that it's merely an excuse by some to obtain higher rank and influence than is due them.

Folks not interested necessarily in the health of companies but rather expanding their ego/e-penis/power for selfish purposes. Then using these expanded regiments as a form of influence and control.

I feel that established and larger regiments will get an influence that infringes on smaller companies.

A regiment system built in will give them an artificial influence and force smaller companies into them.

There will be those that disagree with the idea that they'll be the asshole regimental leadership, but what powers will the company leaders have to remove regimental leadership?

Will anyone simply be able to form regiments and decide unilaterally who leads it?

Perhaps forcing a vote situation whereby the company leadership can vote who is regimental leadership ..

In any case, it should be absolutely voluntary and regimental leadership should be a leader amongst equals and not be granted a higher rank but rather a title.

I feel that the situation that exists now of unofficial "regiments" is more than sufficient and an official system would only serve to feed egos since servers can only hold so many folks anyway.

I fully agree with you. And that is indeed a big problem. Seeing now the bigger companies sending 10 of there guys to form another company within there regiment. while that in itself is not a problem. If they are doing so to controle the whole regiment later on when the claming begins I say that is wrong.

Why I said and I will say it time and time again. You as a player should be able to form regiments with the few companies you would want to work with. The game will not allow you anyways to jump in with your whole regiment on the same map. Why not make smaller "regiments" so people can enjoy the game but also there own structure. It will not go against the historical aim the devs have and gives us the freedom to form up when we want and with whomever we want.

[LBoland]

Leave it up to the Captains if they want to join a regiment. I'm not one for making it a requirement that a company -MUST- join a regiment. Naw man.

[Frederick]

Leave it up to the Captains if they want to join a regiment.

I don't think a regimental system is necessary at all. and if all the other companies have joined a regiment, it's sort of hard for you to refuse to do so also. such regimental organization discourages cooperation with non-regimental companies. also, those who lead regiments will probably have a lot of influence over a large part of the community unduly. An individual company will still be subject to that social pressure.

What if the captain of your company angers regimental leadership of a large regiment? it would be ridiculous to assume that wouldn't have some effect on the experience that company has with all the companies within that regiment.

It's completely unnecessary to have a built-in regimental system, if people want to make free, loose associations thats their business.

but 'formalizing' and 'officializing' people with ranks higher than captain gives them a certain social standing and influence that will give them some inferred power and influence over the companies 'below' him. even if the association is voluntary.

It's harder to revolt or oppose a General's wishes unless it is unanimous in that case. the critical mass necessary to resist becomes higher. if an individual captain doesn't agree with regimental leadership, he could end up facing consequences for that socially. That would be an undesirable situation. It is important that the connection between regiment and company is a situation where the regiment is inherently subordinate to the companies.

[LBoland]

and if all the other companies have joined a regiment, it's sort of hard for you to refuse to do so also.

Can't tell if you agree with what I said or didn't agree. But yeah, sure it'll be hard for the captain of the company, but if a company wants to go it alone and do their own thing while the rest of the companies in that regiment are all coordinated. I'm cool with that, independence.

[Frederick]

Can't tell if you agree with what I said or didn't agree. But yeah, sure it'll be hard for the captain of the company, but if a company wants to go it alone and do their own thing while the rest of the companies in that regiment are all coordinated. I'm cool with that, independence.


I agree that if it exists, it should be voluntary.

Yeah, it would make it difficult. Impossible, almost. It's cool to have cooperation, but you don't need a regiment to have free cooperation. That sort of officialization of regimental leadership is the problem, in my view.

It's difficult to maintain your independence when all the other companies have joined regiments, you would be excluded. why would companies cooperate with you when they're already part of a regiment?

As it is now, companies simply agree to work together and cooperate, and the regimental structures are unofficial.

But with an official and established 'regimental' system, the leadership will be permanent, titles official providing social standing to those who obtain them, promotions will be completely unilateral and artbitrary. That's fine in a small company-level organization(you can always join another company!) but it's harder to abandon an entire regiment.


So it's either you submit to the regiment, it's arbitrary leadership and rules, or you go independent pariah, because companies who are part of regiments have no incentive to cooperate with independent companies outside of their regiments.

it might be hard to see since we're still in alpha and there's not a lot of folks in-game, but i think forming regiments is fine in an unofficial capacity.


No one should obtain a rank higher than captain.

the thing is, once these regiments have been fully established and the player base has stabilized, it would be almost impossible to form new regiments and the regimental leadership will become stale. We'll be stuck with the same generals for the entire life-cycle of the game.

It's important that we don't allow regiments to become stale and the leadership positions to become permanent for whomever happens to occupy those positions.

[LBoland]

That's when all the independent companies form up and work together against the coordinated regiments. Hoorah.

[Frederick]

That's when all the independent companies form up and work together against the coordinated regiments. Hoorah.


I doubt there will be any independent companies left, most of them will have been incentivized to join a regiment.

[LBoland]

I doubt there will be any independent companies left, most of them will have been incentivized to join a regiment.

Naw man.

[Frederick]

Naw man.


we'll see man, but i think it's a bad idea to give people higher rank than captain.

[Lance Rawlings]

I don't think there should be a vote system in the tool, if a certain group wants to vote for a leader go for it, but don't make it a requirement for the regiment tool for those who don't use a democratic military. Just like you could vote for the Captain of your company, but there isn't a tool for it, I think the regimental tool should reflect this. Basically the tool is already set up, just another level would be added to support regimental formation. I don't think there would be an issue of a company being forced into a regiment. There's no pressure into joining and no way you can force them in. Companies should be able to join and leave as they wish.

I really think most of the concern about "big brother" units comes from a history with the MB community. This is a new community, one that respects each other more and works together. Not as big guy helping little guy, but everyone just getting on and shooting. This organization stuff is so simple when you cut the drama.

I guess in the end this topic has been discussed a ton, it's just time to see what the devs decide.

[David Dire]

Again, there's no reason to have people above the rank of captain outside of battle.

[Frederick]

I don't think there should be a vote system in the tool, if a certain group wants to vote for a leader go for it, but don't make it a requirement for the regiment tool for those who don't use a democratic military. Just like you could vote for the Captain of your company, but there isn't a tool for it, I think the regimental tool should r eflect this. Basically the tool is already set up, just another level would be added to support regimental formation. I don't think there would be an issue of a company being forced into a regiment. There's no pressure into joining and no way you can force them in. Companies should be able to join and leave as they wish.

I really think most of the concern about "big brother" units comes from a history with the MB community. This is a new community, one that respects each other more and works together. Not as big guy helping little guy, but everyone just getting on and shooting. This organization stuff is so simple when you cut the drama.

I guess in the end this topic has been discussed a ton, it's just time to see what the devs decide.

The conversation isn't over. Especially not when a dissenting opinion is being expressed. There is a social pressure in joining established regiments for many reasons. For the same reason you don't have to join the NBA or follow its rules to play basketball, or the NFL to play football. Theoretically, the NBA and NFL are both voluntary organizations that you don't 'have' to join, but it is effectually obligatory, even if you can leave and go as you please. If you want to be a professional football player or basketball player, you have to play ball with those organizations. once there are established regiments, that's going to be the effect on the community. Play ball or go home.

Subjecting you to these self-proclaimed 'generals' whose only claim to the title is that they started it first and convinced a couple captains to join with them. legitimized by their 'position' and official 'title' to which they do not deserve nor have earned. They have no more right to the role than any other captain.

You disagree with mandatory democracy, because you don't want 'a democratic military'.

That's just the thing, this isn't a military where you can command others what to do just because you started the regiment or founded the unit. This isn't the military. in a real life military, you have to obey the rules or you will be shot or punished.

This isn't a real life military, it's a video game and the 'military' nature of the structure should represent that.

you may respect and 'work together' with others, and that's fine, but such a trust system will break down when the small community nature of this game changes and it's released to the lower tiers and general public.

The real question is; why do you oppose a 'democratic military'? Is it because you or whom you support for leadership positions isn't capable of garnering enough political support to maintain that position in lieu of permanent status?

Is it because your decisions and actions or those of whom you support would not stand up to democratic scrutiny?

It's hard being a leader when you're held accountable to those you lead, i agree. and certainly, in a real-life military situation, such 'democratic' institutionalisms questioning leadership would be negative. But this is an entirely different situation.

Certainly, a 'military structure' would be beneficial if you wanted to assert some sort of established power over a larger organization without a legitimate claim besides the rank you've purportedly 'earned' and maintain with permanency without the consent of the governed.

The only power an individual player has any claim to is that which the players below them have consented to. No 'general' can rightly claim such a title without the democratically expressed view of the players below them.

There can be no reasoning behind not permitting or requiring a democratic process besides attempting to usurp the power of the player-base they are there to serve.

[Frederick]

Again, there's no reason to have people above the rank of captain outside of battle.



I completely agree with your assessment.

[michaelsmithern]

The conversation isn't over. Especially not when a dissenting opinion is being expressed. There is a social pressure in joining established regiments for many reasons. For the same reason you don't have to join the NBA or follow its rules to play basketball, or the NFL to play football. Theoretically, the NBA and NFL are both voluntary organizations that you don't 'have' to join, but it is effectually obligatory, even if you can leave and go as you please. If you want to be a professional football player or basketball player, you have to play ball with those organizations.

You disagree with mandatory democracy, because you don't want 'a democratic military'.

That's just the thing, this isn't a military where you can command others what to do just because you started the regiment or founded the unit. This isn't the military. in a real life military, you have to obey the rules or you will be shot or punished.

This isn't a real life military, it's a video game and the 'military' nature of the structure should represent that.

you may respect and 'work together' with others, and that's fine, but such a trust system will break down when the small community nature of this game changes and it's released to the lower tiers and general public.

The real question is; why do you oppose a 'democratic military'? Is it because you or whom you support for leadership positions isn't capable of garnering enough political support to maintain that position in lieu of permanent status?

Is it because your decisions and actions or those of whom you support would not stand up to democratic scrutiny?

It's hard being a leader when you're held accountable to those you lead, i agree. and certainly, in a real-life military situation, such 'democratic' institutionalisms questioning leadership would be negative. But this is an entirely different situation.

i don't think shooting people for not listening is all too common especially if it's over something stupid, now if your in combat that's a different story.
as for the game itself, I see it as our duty to support and substain a regiment, everyone is all about what if the rules suck within the regiment, or i don't like the leader or this or that or this or that. when i think of a virtual regiment, with companies making it up of people from all over i don't envision people forcing these freelancing companies in and basically making them slaves to their whim, I think a represented republic style vote should be in place such as captains being the only ones who vote on people of certain rank to achieve the regimental lead position, i wouldn't want everyone voting, for example the 1stMN Co.B has 56 members in it, the next biggest company is Co.A with 10 or 14 members, sorry travis i haven't checked in a while, now if all 56 voted for Jon(our captain) then it'd be a no brainer for him to get it, that's why with 3 or more companies that communicate often they can deside on what is best for the company. And even then the regimental system shouldnt' be feared for it's rules, just imagine brigades and division level leadership, that's where my concern lays, because it's more influence than what one company can deal with.

Another point is, what if we let companies freelance with others to form up a regiment, they wouldn't exactly be a named regiment(like 38thNY) they'd be something else i suppose, custom 1 maybe? and then when we get access to a brigade chain of command, it's would be hell for the commanders, you would see 28thNJ Co.A, with 93rdOH Co.K or something like that, it'd be harder to work with especially if you had for example Co.M 69thNY freelance, while the 69thNY regiment is under your command, of course M company would go with it's free lance regiment, but some people coudl see it as why are the 69th splitting up like that?

To summarize, while a regiment shouldn't be forced into it's mother regiment, I can't support the idea of unhistorical freelance regiments

Disclaimer: to any regiments/companies i used it's purely example and i mean no harm towards you

[Frederick]

i don't think shooting people for not listening is all too common especially if it's over something stupid, now if your in combat that's a different story.
as for the game itself, I see it as our duty to support and substain a regiment, everyone is all about what if the rules suck within the regiment, or i don't like the leader or this or that or this or that. when i think of a virtual regiment, with companies making it up of people from all over i don't envision people forcing these freelancing companies in and basically making them slaves to their whim, I think a represented republic style vote should be in place such as captains being the only ones who vote on people of certain rank to achieve the regimental lead position, i wouldn't want everyone voting, for example the 1stMN Co.B has 56 members in it, the next biggest company is Co.A with 10 or 14 members, sorry travis i haven't checked in a while, now if all 56 voted for Jon(our captain) then it'd be a no brainer for him to get it, that's why with 3 or more companies that communicate often they can deside on what is best for the company. And even then the regimental system shouldnt' be feared for it's rules, just imagine brigades and division level leadership, that's where my concern lays, because it's more influence than what one company can deal with.

Another point is, what if we let companies freelance with others to form up a regiment, they wouldn't exactly be a named regiment(like 38thNY) they'd be something else i suppose, custom 1 maybe? and then when we get access to a brigade chain of command, it's would be hell for the commanders, you would see 28thNJ Co.A, with 93rdOH Co.K or something like that, it'd be harder to work with especially if you had for example Co.M 69thNY freelance, while the 69thNY regiment is under your command, of course M company would go with it's free lance regiment, but some people coudl see it as why are the 69th splitting up like that?

To summarize, while a regiment shouldn't be forced into it's mother regiment, I can't support the idea of unhistorical freelance regiments

Disclaimer: to any regiments/companies i used it's purely example and i mean no harm towards you



I don't mind regiments or other forms of organization, as long as it is democratic in nature. With suggestions, not orders. Rules should be mutually agreed upon for the common good, and not made arbitrarily by regimental leadership. I don't mind captain voting for regimental leadership.

[michaelsmithern]

I don't mind regiments or other forms of organization, as long as it is democratic in nature. With suggestions, not orders. Rules should be mutually agreed upon for the common good, and not made arbitrarily by regimental leadership. I don't mind captain voting for regimental leadership.

i'm sure the rules will be discussed amongst the group within the regiment, i figured if your company didn't like them you could up and leave, but when it comes to a democratic style i still can't hop on board, it should be left to a select few to vote on regimental leadership.

[Frederick]

i'm sure the rules will be discussed amongst the group within the regiment, i figured if your company didn't like them you could up and leave, but when it comes to a democratic style i still can't hop on board, it should be left to a select few to vote on regimental leadership.


I think the captains of the regiments should get the vote.

[Lance Rawlings]

The conversation isn't over. Especially not when a dissenting opinion is being expressed. There is a social pressure in joining established regiments for many reasons. For the same reason you don't have to join the NBA or follow its rules to play basketball, or the NFL to play football. Theoretically, the NBA and NFL are both voluntary organizations that you don't 'have' to join, but it is effectually obligatory, even if you can leave and go as you please. If you want to be a professional football player or basketball player, you have to play ball with those organizations. once there are established regiments, that's going to be the effect on the community. Play ball or go home.

Subjecting you to these self-proclaimed 'generals' whose only claim to the title is that they started it first and convinced a couple captains to join with them. legitimized by their 'position' and official 'title' to which they do not deserve nor have earned. They have no more right to the role than any other captain.

You disagree with mandatory democracy, because you don't want 'a democratic military'.

That's just the thing, this isn't a military where you can command others what to do just because you started the regiment or founded the unit. This isn't the military. in a real life military, you have to obey the rules or you will be shot or punished.

This isn't a real life military, it's a video game and the 'military' nature of the structure should represent that.

you may respect and 'work together' with others, and that's fine, but such a trust system will break down when the small community nature of this game changes and it's released to the lower tiers and general public.

The real question is; why do you oppose a 'democratic military'? Is it because you or whom you support for leadership positions isn't capable of garnering enough political support to maintain that position in lieu of permanent status?

Is it because your decisions and actions or those of whom you support would not stand up to democratic scrutiny?

It's hard being a leader when you're held accountable to those you lead, i agree. and certainly, in a real-life military situation, such 'democratic' institutionalisms questioning leadership would be negative. But this is an entirely different situation.

Certainly, a 'military structure' would be beneficial if you wanted to assert some sort of established power over a larger organization without a legitimate claim besides the rank you've purportedly 'earned' and maintain with permanency without the consent of the governed.

The only power an individual player has any claim to is that which the players below them have consented to. No 'general' can rightly claim such a title without the democratically expressed view of the players below them.

There can be no reasoning behind not permitting or requiring a democratic process besides attempting to usurp the power of the player-base they are there to serve.

Phew, quite a bit there.

I believe that the NBA and NFL has too many variables to be considered viable evidence as to the existence of social pressure in joining a unit. I don't know about the rest of everyone, but I don't get paid more by being in a big unit. For the most part, that's all a bunch of fake drama. People can join or not join whoever they so desire.

Secondly, I DO support people having rank higher than Captain. If you can gather enough men to your flag, go for it. Obviously You'll never need a General in the field, but they may be nice for administrative work if you ever got that many men. I support as high a rank as Colonel, given if a regiment can fill 7 or 8 companies. Of course I know it was historically 10, but 8 would do with the obvious downsizing.

I never said I didn't support a democratic military, though I don't run that way because a unit quickly becomes a clique, with only the most popular, not the most eligible, being voted in for rank. I simply stated that we should not be forced to be a democratic military, just as we don't want to be forced to join a company or regiment. I support the right to choose how an organization is run. If you want to be democratic, fine. If you want to run it as a dictatorship, fine. But don't force anybody to do something they haven't worked for.

On a side note, your use of quotations repeatedly mocks those who HAVE earned a rank. Of course their are 12 year olds running around with Brig Gen in front of their name, but several of us who actually care about what we're doing have put hundreds of hours making our units what they are today.

Now to catch up on the other posts...

[Frederick]

Phew, quite a bit there.

I believe that the NBA and NFL has too many variables to be considered viable evidence as to the existence of social pressure in joining a unit. I don't know about the rest of everyone, but I don't get paid more by being in a big unit. For the most part, that's all a bunch of fake drama. People can join or not join whoever they so desire.

Yeah, but it doesn't have to be official.


Secondly, I DO support people having rank higher than Captain. If you can gather enough men to your flag, go for it. Obviously You'll never need a General in the field, but they may be nice for administrative work if you ever got that many men. I support as high a rank as Colonel, given if a regiment can fill 7 or 8 companies. Of course I know it was historically 10, but 8 would do with the obvious downsizing.

Pointless. A server will never hold that many folks.
It's unnecessary.



I never said I didn't support a democratic military, though I don't run that way because a unit quickly becomes a clique, with only the most popular, not the most eligible, being voted in for rank. I simply stated that we should not be forced to be a democratic military, just as we don't want to be forced to join a company or regiment. I support the right to choose how an organization is run. If you want to be democratic, fine. If you want to run it as a dictatorship, fine. But don't force anybody to do something they haven't worked for.

On a side note, your use of quotations repeatedly mocks those who HAVE earned a rank. Of course their are 12 year olds running around with Brig Gen in front of their name, but several of us who actually care about what we're doing have put hundreds of hours making our units what they are today.

Now to catch up on the other posts...


It becomes a clique when you've got an unelected leadership who are unanswerable to those below them. I think it should be mandatory voting in order to gain official regiment status.

Just because you put x amount of hours into the game doesn't mean you're automatically a better leader than any other Captain who may have less hours but be a vastly more pleasant person and better leader.

Popularity isn't always skill, but your popularity does matter. You're not going to be a popular person if you're a bad leader. Popular people tend to be more socially aware and therefore more effective as leaders.

This is a video game, and while there are definitely great captains out there, any moron can make a unit and recruit some guys on board. I've got personal experience with officer training in the US military and I'll tell you that no one in this game has "earned" anything more than anyone else.

I appreciate those who invest their time into their units, but don't go off thinking that entitles you to anything. Because there is a row of guys behind you just as capable of it.

So if you have contributed as much as you say, then the guys below you will recognize that and vote for you.

It's not about effectiveness, it's about enjoying the game. I think that's what you're missing here. People will vote for leaders that are fun to play with. Who is more "effective" is irrelevant in the context of this game.

[Conway]

I don't feel you'd see many regiments being formed due to outside pressure. Take the U.S.S.S Companies for example. There are like 8 of them and almost all from what I gather are led by a different person. There's a very slim chance of them joining together. I think it will mainly make administration easier for people who currently need to be in multiple companies as a captain in order to admin them all.