Higher than Captain - Joined Companies - Battalions

[2010115]

I know that some people who are in command of more than one company refer to themselves as major, colonel, general, etc. I think there should be a system in the company tool where multiple companies can join together under one higher leader. For example, two companies together might make the leader a major, and there would still be the rank of captain. Three, lieutenant colonel. Four, colonel. Five, brigadier general. The highest rank should be able to control all of the companies under him/her, as well as allowing people below him/her to command companies within that division. Of that, I mean: Lets say there's a colonel in command of 4 companies. This colonel can assign a captain to command one and a lieutenant colonel to command the other three, or two majors, and these majors could then assign captains for the two companies they have.
This would be complicated, but it could help people with multiple companies together be more organized and it would be easier to control.

[John Cooley]

Would also need to add the higher Ranks to the drop down menu
Also wouldn't mind seeing Sniper added to the Set Role drop down menu
And additional platoon numbers added to Assign to Platoon drop down menu

[A. P. Hill]

IF this is done, I'd sooner see companies joined to for actual historical regiments, Brigades, Divisions, then Corps. I mean after all the Devs have promised this to be as authentic as practical. :)

I'm not really into the humbo jumbo of "yeah we'll take anyone just to have a massive army look."

[brentcarter]

IF this is done, I'd sooner see companies joined to for actual historical regiments, Brigades, Divisions, then Corps. I mean after all the Devs have promised this to be as authentic as practical. :)

I'm not really into the humbo jumbo of "yeah we'll take anyone just to have a massive army look."

Yeah and some aren't really into to joining people who give themselves a historical name thus that must be historical accurate to join. Everybody can make a historical name sit back and say join me to be historical. Some people make there own battalion / legion or whatever to work with the companies they actually enjoy playing the game with. Do not see a wrong in that people trying to build something to have the best gaming experience. Freedom the game offers right

[Lance Rawlings]

I am very much hoping for the Company Tool to support battalions/regiment size. It's a little tricky taking care of multiple companies at the moment.

[Captain Armistead]

The typical infantry regiment of the early Civil War consisted of 10 companies (each with exactly 100 men, according to Hardee's 1855 manual, and led by a captain, with associated lieutenants). Field officers normally included a colonel (commanding), lieutenant colonel, and at least one major.

I am content with companies because to me, it makes the most logical sense when I sit back.

I think if a huge push on making Battalions and Regiments were to come, Battalions is really the highest we should or even could go, but
That's just me.

[Lance Rawlings]

The typical infantry regiment of the early Civil War consisted of 10 companies (each with exactly 100 men, according to Hardee's 1855 manual, and led by a captain, with associated lieutenants). Field officers normally included a colonel (commanding), lieutenant colonel, and at least one major.

I am content with companies because to me, it makes the most logical sense when I sit back.

I think if a huge push on making Battalions and Regiments were to come, Battalions is really the highest we should or even could go, but
That's just me.

I would say that for now, yes, battalions are the probably the highest unit level of command realistically speaking. I don't doubt that eventually someone could pull out a full regiment out of that battalion. While your assessments for unit sizes are accurate according to what the manual called for, you'll see many units have much less in each company throughout the war. For example, on the 3rd day at Gettysburg, the 26th North Carolina only had about 212 men total. They started with 800.

I know there are already multiple units that are forming legit battalions and already have over 100 men, so I see a battalion support in the Company Tool as a great asset for those wishing to solidify the affiliation between companies.

[David Dire]

I would be fine with higher organisation, but no one should be able to achieve a rank above captain.

[Lance Rawlings]

I would be fine with higher organisation, but no one should be able to achieve a rank above captain.

Why? There's guys out there with organizations with 300+ guys. That would merit a Major. I would say the highest practical realistically speaking rank would be Colonel.

[David Dire]

There should only be captains, who themselves could vote on anything needed, and in any battle where something higher is required one captain is randomly chosen to be that major/colonel

[Stalin]

There should only be captains, who themselves could vote on anything needed, and in any battle where something higher is required one captain is randomly chosen to be that major/colonel

What if the randomly assigned team leader either doesn't want it or is woefully incompetent? also sure if that Major/Colonel doesn't start trying to throw around their weight why does it matter to another company what rank a separate associations may have for their leader. In my mind I believe that War of Rights events(the grand battle ones) will be companies and associations cooperating together rather than having a single army chain for an entire team unless it that team is filled with a single association.

[Profender]

Options are always good to have.

Freedom to create a battalion or larger
Freedom to stay just a company and find others to cooperate with
Have a set leadership or rotate the leaders

As long as you have these freedoms it will solve itself and people will find there place and structure that works best for them

[Hinkel]

There is still a problem with the next level of command!

For example the battalion problem... (with a Major in command):

Should it be possible just for companies of the same regiment? (authentic)
Or should it be possible to form battalions with companies of different regiments? (historically wrong)

Fancy and I would like to go the authentic way, the problem will be with those companies, who share the same regiment, but hate each other and are not able to work together.

[Stalin]

There is still a problem with the next level of command!

For example the battalion problem... (with a Major in command):

Should it be possible just for companies of the same regiment? (authentic)
Or should it be possible to form battalions with companies of different regiments? (historically wrong)

Fancy and I would like to go the authentic way, the problem will be with those companies, who share the same regiment, but hate each other and are not able to work together.

I guess it comes down to whether the developers will force authenticity on the game or if they will try to encourage it but not force it. In my opinion forcing authenticity would near enough remove any chance of a company tool association for most of the associations in the game(mine included). Obviously i have a vested interest in the developers not forcing authenticity but I would understand it if it had to happen. I hope the developers let the community have the freedom to chose if they wish to use a historical association or if they wish to work with other companies that they are friendly with even if it isn't authentic.

[Profender]

There is still a problem with the next level of command!

For example the battalion problem... (with a Major in command):

Should it be possible just for companies of the same regiment? (authentic)
Or should it be possible to form battalions with companies of different regiments? (historically wrong)

Fancy and I would like to go the authentic way, the problem will be with those companies, who share the same regiment, but hate each other and are not able to work together.

Yes that will be a problem in some cases. You can already see that problem with the regiments battalions brigades formed and fallen apart.
Reason why a few of us companies formed our own group to drill and skirmish with. The combination of our companies is not historically correct but I would not say it is wrong either. We are all respecting our company's history that is for sure. It stays a online game and it would be much more wrong to force people to work together in a setting they do not enjoy compared to the historical authentic approach.

But might I ask which ever road you take on this. Best to make this known soon so we as players know what we can form for the future.

[zerosius]

There is still a problem with the next level of command!

For example the battalion problem... (with a Major in command):

Should it be possible just for companies of the same regiment? (authentic)
Or should it be possible to form battalions with companies of different regiments? (historically wrong)

Fancy and I would like to go the authentic way, the problem will be with those companies, who share the same regiment, but hate each other and are not able to work together.

I think it would be really cool to see authentic regiments and brigades form, but i am almost certain that it wont work out for a number of reasons, including them "hating" each other, or simply enough not wanting to be forced to work together with random people just because they chose the same regiment.

I think in the end if also comes down to what exactly the planned implentations of higher level associations look like. If it is intended to actually function as an out of game organizational tool for communities with lots of member companies, then it really can only work imho when you allow the formation of ahistorical associations of brigades or legions.

[John Cooley]

Have to Agree with you two ...
- Time Zones can also be a factor in making it unmanageable
- One of the things that drew me to Southern Independent Brigade is the fact that it is a coalition of Like-Minded Commanders who want to rotate Higher Command (for engagements) so that everyone gets a chance to Lead and Learn.

[A. P. Hill]

Put me in the 100 percent authentic camp, but I'm sure you already knew which way I'd swing. ;)

[Stalin]

Put me in the 100 percent authentic camp, but I'm sure you already knew which way I'd swing. ;)

Considering what you are trying to form you would benefit very heavily from the devs forcing people into historical command chains, compared to others who have formed their own associations and bringing previously unassociated groups together into communities, prime example being the Southern Independent Brigade.

[zerosius]

Considering what you are trying to form you would benefit very heavily from the devs forcing people into historical command chains, compared to others who have formed their own associations and bringing previously unassociated groups together into communities, prime example being the Southern Independent Brigade.

Same for us at the German Volunteers. I mean we would just play together anyway, but it would be cool if we could actually form a legion ingame.

[Profender]

Same for us at the German Volunteers. I mean we would just play together anyway, but it would be cool if we could actually form a legion ingame.

Indeed Language / timezones / and experiencing the game with companies(players) you enjoy.

[Lance Rawlings]

I would say keep it historically accurate, however just being in the same regiment in name doesn't automatically move you into a battalion. I would maybe have an invitation system where the Captain of each company can accept an invitation from the Major forming a battalion to join. The restriction would be that it must be the same regiment. So you would have to be in the same regiment to join, but being in the same regiment in name does not require you to join.

Does that make any sense?

[2010115]

That would work, but what about artillery batteries? Those should be able to join any regiment's battalion, as they are their own separate thing and will need infantry to work with. Same with cavalry, and other special units.

[Lance Rawlings]

That would work, but what about artillery batteries? Those should be able to join any regiment's battalion, as they are their own separate thing and will need infantry to work with. Same with cavalry, and other special units.

Hmm not sure how to do that historically speaking.

[Profender]

I would say keep it historically accurate, however just being in the same regiment in name doesn't automatically move you into a battalion. I would maybe have an invitation system where the Captain of each company can accept an invitation from the Major forming a battalion to join. The restriction would be that it must be the same regiment. So you would have to be in the same regiment to join, but being in the same regiment in name does not require you to join.

Does that make any sense?

Well it all depends on the other people in that regiment. Let's say a part of the companies are friends among each other they will form up not want you in it , few companies you can not stand to play with, few companies form there own thing because they are German speaking companies. There you go not many choices to join something. Also those companies in the same regiment can form something that isn't 100% authentic. So where is that limit to stay historical authentic? What if a normal line company historical speaking would now become a skirmish / sharp-shoot company because the maker of that companies wishes so?

Seen companies that will work in little squads they say on there company page and basically make a sort of modern day structure for there companies(not a fan of such but it is there company can not stop that)

So I say at least hope to hear from the devs how they will deal with these sort of things. Either you go for the full 100% or you make it completely free up to the people. Being a game I would suggest the second.
I am not sure every company that was in the light division will actually join the light division well there goes to historical authenticity to give another example. I think it will be to hard to manage.

Then indeed with Artillery and Cavalry in the future take that in account..

[Lance Rawlings]

Well it all depends on the other people in that regiment. Let's say a part of the companies are friends among each other they will form up not want you in it , few companies you can not stand to play with, few companies form there own thing because they are German speaking companies. There you go not many choices to join something. Also those companies in the same regiment can form something that isn't 100% authentic. So where is that limit to stay historical authentic? What if a normal line company historical speaking would now become a skirmish / sharp-shoot company because the maker of that companies wishes so?

Seen companies that will work in little squads they say on there company page and basically make a sort of modern day structure for there companies(not a fan of such but it is there company can not stop that)

So I say at least hope to hear from the devs how they will deal with these sort of things. Either you go for the full 100% or you make it completely free up to the people. Being a game I would suggest the second.
I am not sure every company that was in the light division will actually join the light division well there goes to historical authenticity to give another example. I think it will be to hard to manage.

Then indeed with Artillery and Cavalry in the future take that in account..

I'm not quite sure as to what you meant in the first paragraph, but as to sharpshooter/skirmish companies. There isn't really such a thing. A regiment would've broken off one of their own companies to deploy as skirmishers. Some regiments were designated as sharpshooters, but when you have the same equipment, it doesn't really matter. Either way, that point is irrelevant.

It may end up working like it did when we were all forming companies. First to a certain number wins the name. Either way, I hope the integrity of historical accuracy is not broken when it comes to forming a battalion. I wouldn't make sense to not allow units that weren't at Sharpsburg to be there, and then let any random company join a battalion. A battalion is always the same regiment. If that means if someone wants to join another battalion, making it easy to change their company from one to another just by renaming it or something could work.

[Profender]

I'm not quite sure as to what you meant in the first paragraph, but as to sharpshooter/skirmish companies. There isn't really such a thing. A regiment would've broken off one of their own companies to deploy as skirmishers. Some regiments were designated as sharpshooters, but when you have the same equipment, it doesn't really matter. Either way, that point is irrelevant.

Well your kind of pointing out what I meant. It wasn't really a thing but I see people starting a line company and promoting it as we will make a shock troop / skirmish / sharp shoot company out of it. People and luckily only a few are starting a company making it in something that is not historical authentic. thus how far the restrictions on that sort of freedom. Even if it does not make sense same weapon type and all its happening. Talking about pushing for historical accuracy can not even control how someone manages his company how you want push battalions. What if a company does not want to be attached to any regiment? Does that mean that company can not take part in the bigger battles thus forcing them.

Idea is very cool to keep it historical just pointing put the hurdles

[John Cooley]

Organizationally accurate and picking a specific Role to play is a different thing.
As an example ... Cav had 3 different styles or purposes and irl one unit served all 3, as the Mission required.
In-game it appears most Cav want to be 1880s+ Charge Cavalry ala Custer and John Wayne.
This leaves the Recon and Mobile Infantry roles woefully under populated.
Mobile Infantry being the least glorious yet most critical role IMHO
In Our Brigade we have 3 Cav Troops and each plays a different style to allow a Trooper to choose their desired role.
Will it work? who knows? We shall learn and see as we go and make the necessary adjustments.
Point being ... Historically Accurate is greatly desired but not completely do-able in a game ...especially where the players have been schooled on modern military tactics.
Example: As a Drill Sergeant the 1860 commands are a bit difficult for me to hit all of the time because modern commands are so ingrained.

I do have high hopes for the game and expect we have enough intelligent and dedicated players that we will find Balance.

[Profender]

Organizationally accurate and picking a specific Role to play is a different thing.
As an example ... Cav had 3 different styles or purposes and irl one unit served all 3, as the Mission required.
In-game it appears most Cav want to be 1880s+ Charge Cavalry ala Custer and John Wayne.
This leaves the Recon and Mobile Infantry roles woefully under populated.
Mobile Infantry being the least glorious yet most critical role IMHO
In Our Brigade we have 3 Cav Troops and each plays a different style to allow a Trooper to choose their desired role.
Will it work? who knows? We shall learn and see as we go and make the necessary adjustments.
Point being ... Historically Accurate is greatly desired but not completely do-able in a game ...especially where the players have been schooled on modern military tactics.
Example: As a Drill Sergeant the 1860 commands are a bit difficult for me to hit all of the time because modern commands are so ingrained.

I do have high hopes for the game and expect we have enough intelligent and dedicated players that we will find Balance.

Indeed balance and also a part freedom it is a game after all

[1st LT. Martin T.]

I am just going to go ahead and state a fact in all of this.

A large number of members in the community (personally known 229+ Members of the Southern independent Brigade that is composed of 10 Infantry Companies, 3 Calvary Troops, and 3 Artillery Batteries all hailing from the states of Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Maryland ) have either formed or joined there own Battalion, Brigade, Division etc that is not "Historically Accurate"..... To then make it to where these formed companies who have worked so hard already in building these units as well as forming bonds, and loyalties with their fellow soldiers, NCOs, and Officers must now be poised with the idea that all they have worked for to build, with the idea of working together with each other under one "banner" must now be threatened for the sake of "Historical Accuracy".

I will preach 'Historical Accuracy" all day long, but in this matter i think it should not be a thing... To do this would force people to join these "Historical Units" under who? Some keyboard combat killers who think since they read a book/manual, participated in a reenactment, (or my favorite) has lead a unit in Arma/Mount and Blade NW/ what ever other combat oriented game, or has pledged x amount of dollars to support the game, and now feel that they are entitled to command large bodies of men (sounds like every pompous senator/noble to hold a command position from the Napoleonic Wars and Civil War, thank god we did away with buying rank irl we all know how well that would turn out nowadays) but most likely has never had any real form of leadership experience at any level let alone a Brigade or god help us a Division (if there are any real players here that are, or at some point has been an actual Brigade or Battalion Commander in the Army or Marines this excludes you of course) so why force players into what could ultimately be a disaster waiting to happen. I mean just think of how low moral will be...

Regardless of all this I as always leave the decisions up to our hard working developers and hope them the best in finding the proper way of making it to were everybody can be happy, but we all know that even in a perfect world, that is impossible but they do a damn fine job of it anyway.

If any of my fellow CSA members feel offended I offer you satisfaction by either pistol or saber on the server of your choice..... If you are a yank just get over it.

Respectfully.

(See signature below)

[John Cooley]

Here, Here!
Long live the SIB ... Long live the Confederacy she faithfully Serves!

[1SGT Shannon]

I am just going to go ahead and state a fact in all of this.

A large number of members in the community (personally known 229+ Members of the Southern independent Brigade that is composed of 10 Infantry Companies, 3 Calvary Troops, and 3 Artillery Batteries all hailing from the states of Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Maryland ) have either formed or joined there own Battalion, Brigade, Division etc that is not "Historically Accurate"..... To then make it to where these formed companies who have worked so hard already in building these units as well as forming bonds, and loyalties with their fellow soldiers, NCOs, and Officers must now be poised with the idea that all they have worked for to build, with the idea of working together with each other under one "banner" must now be threatened for the sake of "Historical Accuracy".

I will preach 'Historical Accuracy" all day long, but in this matter i think it should not be a thing... To do this would force people to join these "Historical Units" under who? Some keyboard combat killers who think since they read a book/manual, participated in a reenactment, (or my favorite) has lead a unit in Arma/Mount and Blade NW/ what ever other combat oriented game, or has pledged x amount of dollars to support the game, and now feel that they are entitled to command large bodies of men (sounds like every pompous senator/noble to hold a command position from the Napoleonic Wars and Civil War, thank god we did away with buying rank irl we all know how well that would turn out nowadays) but most likely has never had any real form of leadership experience at any level let alone a Brigade or god help us a Division (if there are any real players here that are, or at some point has been an actual Brigade or Battalion Commander in the Army or Marines this excludes you of course) so why force players into what could ultimately be a disaster waiting to happen. I mean just think of how low moral will be...

Regardless of all this I as always leave the decisions up to our hard working developers and hope them the best in finding the proper way of making it to were everybody can be happy, but we all know that even in a perfect world, that is impossible but they do a damn fine job of it anyway.

If any of my fellow CSA members feel offended I offer you satisfaction by either pistol or saber on the server of your choice..... If you are a yank just get over it.

Respectfully.

(See signature below)

Here! Here! I could not have said it any better and agree whole-heartedly. I have no desire to move my men yet again (it has been done twice already) and is always highly disruptive. People who pledged "x" amount have no additional authority over anyone who pledged less. I find the idea unacceptable. I pledged $176. So what? I have willingly followed others and gave no thought to how much they pledged. No, I cannot give my consent to a forced move into pre-organized, historical brigades, etc. I won't.

[FrancisM]

People, including me, have mentioned this obvious upcoming problem before. The company tool is great and serves a great purpose, but as soon as the devs start enforcing anything, hell will break loose. I'm not saying the possibility to create regiments shouldn't be added, but at the same time one can seriously question the use of such a tool. Many companies are completely independent from eachother and are in different, player-created brigades.

[2010115]

No one thinks you should be forced into a battalion for historical accuracy. I think that companies should be able to join together, but not forced to, as it would help organize battalions very well.

[[WoR] Kiff]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the developers have previously stated that Regiment tools, Brigade tools, and even Army tools will be implemented in the future. Please correct or alter this if I am wrong.

[LaBelle]

If battalions are allowed, it should be an option only for companies who agree to it. It's either that, or we stay where we're at.

I've been around long enough to see battalions fall apart just because some pompous keyboard warrior loses his grasp on reality. It can kill entire communities if you let it.

[1st LT. Martin T.]

Kiff;63816']If I'm not mistaken, I think the developers have previously stated that Regiment tools, Brigade tools, and even Army tools will be implemented in the future. Please correct or alter this if I am wrong.

Yes this is known, but this conversation is more directed towards if they will make the forming of said units either "Historical", or if they will allow units to form there own none historic battalions, brigades, divisions in the future.

[dmurray6]

Yes this is known, but this conversation is more directed towards if they will make the forming of said units either "Historical", or if they will allow units to form there own none historic battalions, brigades, divisions in the future.

Is this something that is easily mitigated by having an outside-game unit like the SIB mapped to a historically accurate unit present during the period of the in-game campaign? Or is this a matter that you're going to be terribly upset if you can't spawn into game as the SIB? For example, couldn't the SIB spawn into game at the West Woods as part of companies under whatever Regiment they wish to play as, under Jubal Early's Brigade, Richard Ewell's Division, without interrupting the outside-game unit structure? This is just an example, say for instance, you look at the order of battle from all the skirmish areas represented in game, and you determine which historical unit you wish to spawn in as, for that skirmish? Another example, you'd be able to completely spawn in to the Miller Cornfield skirmish as the Alabamans, as they were present at the cornfield. Of course, this probably becomes a bigger issue to satisfy if/when the company tool ties directly to the game. My guess would be that everyone is still going to have their gamer tag once in-game, you'd just have to find a pseudo-unit that you wished to portray at each historical skirmish.

Does what I'm saying make sense, or is this completely off base?

[Conway]

thank god we did away with buying rank irl we all know how well that would turn out nowadays)
I can't believe I'm going to be so much of a nitpick on this but...
The system of purchasing ranks is what allowed the British army to beat the French and thus ended 20 years of war in Europe :/

I'm sorry.

[1st LT. Martin T.]

I can't believe I'm going to be so much of a nitpick on this but...
The system of purchasing ranks is what allowed the British army to beat the French and thus ended 20 years of war in Europe :/

I'm sorry.

Much respect to you Brits, (I served with the 2nd Battalion "Scots Guards" and "The Rifles" in Kandahar and Helmand province Afghanistan), but thankfully you all had a handful of Senior Commanders with experience, as well as Senior NCOs and Veteran Soldiers from past wars. Those men are what allowed you to stomp the french. Not the unknown numbers of "Entitled" individuals who used money to obtain rank, and took positions of leadership from more experienced, and deserving men just because they knew the right people. As well as having the money to make it happen. Rank should be earned, never given.

No need to be sorry

[John Cooley]

I can't believe I'm going to be so much of a nitpick on this but...
The system of purchasing ranks is what allowed the British army to beat the French and thus ended 20 years of war in Europe :/

I'm sorry.
And is the ability for anyone with a God complex to purchase the game, sign on then create their own company ... poof I am a shake and bake Officer .... really much different? heh

[Conway]

Much respect to you Brits, (I served with the 2nd Battalion "Scots Guards" and "The Rifles" in Kandahar and Helmand province Afghanistan), but thankfully you all had a handful of Senior Commanders with experience, as well as Senior NCOs and Veteran Soldiers from past wars. Those men are what allowed you to stomp the french. Not the unknown numbers of "Entitled" individuals who used money to obtain rank, and took positions of leadership from more experienced, and deserving men just because they knew the right people. As well as having the money to make it happen. Rank should be earned, never given.

No need to be sorry

I know this is going off topic but...
Only 10% of British officers at the time where promoted from the ranks. Majority never got past Cpt because they where very poor company leaders. Good Sgt's usually made bad officers.
The one who beat the French, Wellington, would never have risen as high had he not purchased his Colonels commission. He ended up become field marshal and was never defeated in battle because of this system.

[1st LT. Martin T.]

I know this is going off topic but...
Only 10% of British officers at the time where promoted from the ranks. Majority never got past Cpt because they where very poor company leaders. Good Sgt's usually made bad officers.
The one who beat the French, Wellington, would never have risen as high had he not purchased his Colonels commission. He ended up become field marshal and was never defeated in battle because of this system.

You continue to read around my comment and see only what you want.

I mentioned nothing about men rising from the ranks, as much of a fan I am of "Sharpes Rifles" I do know that it was rare. I already stated that thankfully you had a "Handful of Senior Commanders with Experience" The Duke of Wellington included, and I never stated that they didn't purchase their commissions. That is just one man though, how about the 'hundreds of thousands' of men that died foolishly because they were lead by some rich upstart that purchased his rank but had no prior experience in leading men in battle, and worried more about their honor, dignity and reputation than the welfare of their soldiers. How about the Royal Scots Greys and the rest of the Household and Union Brigades that were cut to pieces at Waterloo because as your Wellington said "Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of maneuvering before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve". That is a direct reflection of the poor leadership ability of those senior officers that purchased their commissions. Those good sergeants hopefully stayed good sergeants for those men where, and still are the backbone of the Infantry, and other branches. So again I state the obvious fact that your battles were won off the backs of the Private Soldier, and not off the brains, or leadership abilities of all the purchased Commissions, but off the very few men that had the mind to wage war in that period of time.

I now return back to your previous comment on my post: Example A.

"thank god we did away with buying rank irl we all know how well that would turn out nowadays)"

I can't believe I'm going to be so much of a nitpick on this but...
The system of purchasing ranks is what allowed the British army to beat the French and thus ended 20 years of war in Europe :/

I'm sorry.
______________________________________________

As you see I stated that (We know how well that would turn out nowadays). By saying the word "nowadays" I was obviously referring to the present time, and if any man thinks that some Joe Snuffy who happens to have some money could buy a commission, and lead men on the Modern battlefield is in the sense of the word an absolute idiot and should probably go suck start a pistol.

So your petty attempt to be critical and 'Nitpick"/"Go off topic" serves no other purpose then to do as you say and bring this conversation off topic.

I hope this clears up any of your remaining confusion of this and that we can now bring this topic back to bear on the subject it was meant for. Which is not for this chaps petty argument about the purchasing of commissions.