The Company Tool [Suggestions]

[Hinkel]

http://www2.pic-upload.de/img/28755791/companytool.png

Suggestions

Before we kick these off, we’d like you all to please keep in mind that the mechanics are still very much a work in progress. Things will get added, removed or completely overhauled as the development continues and we begin playtesting. So feel free to give us your feedback and share some usefull suggestions, what you would like to see and use in such a tool!

You can have a look at the tool here:
http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?703-The-Company-Tool-Feature-Preview

Thank you! :)

[Jonny Powers]

When can we begin? Also, does out unit have to be a historical one (i.e. in the battle), or can we use a unit that wasn't involved or is fictional, though historically based?

[Hinkel]

You can create your company threads in this forum! :)
The tool will be released during the next months.

You can of course form a unit, which did not fight in the Maryland Campaign. But those are not available in the Company Tool at first.

[CjkCJkCjk]

So i can take 72nd Pennsylvania Company H here?

[Hinkel]

So i can take 72nd Pennsylvania Company H here?

You can start a Company thread in this forum, yes :)

[Hinkel]

Regiment: 72nd Pennsylvania
Company: H
Leader: Cleburne Captain
2nd Corps
2nd Division
2nd Brigade

You can open a new thread in this board please. This is just a suggestion thread ;)

[Devmc99]

Maybe add a most kills with a certain weapon? For the individual player profile. And a small picture of that weapon next to it.

[Bravescot]

SO much nope for how this forum handles threads! It really needs to be edited

[Unstoppabro]

Will a realistic name be required? Can I name my character Unstoppabro or would I have to be something like "John Carpenter"?

[Hinkel]

Do what ever you like. But some role-play names are always great! ;)

[conquistador]

So, can I start my own thread about any company I want?

[Bravescot]

So, can I start my own thread about any company I want?

Indeed you can now sir!

[Bravescot]

Trying to make the threads is proving the be very tough! Fancy Sweetroll assisted me in making mine and I really appreciate him doing so but it turned out seriously differently to how I actually wanted to thread to look.

The current forum format for making thread is proving to be a great set back currently and a change should probably be considered. Making a professional thread is one of the key ways of attracting new recruits but currently there is a lack of an easy to use system.

[Fancy Sweetroll]

Trying to make the threads is proving the be very tough! Fancy Sweetroll assisted me in making mine and I really appreciate him doing so but it turned out seriously differently to how I actually wanted to thread to look.

The current forum format for making thread is proving to be a great set back currently and a change should probably be considered. Making a professional thread is one of the key ways of attracting new recruits but currently there is a lack of an easy to use system.

If you have any suggestions to make. Please try and be more specific as to what you would like added or changed.

[Bravescot]

If you have any suggestions to make. Please try and be more specific as to what you would like added or changed.

Okay then. One suggestion is the images should not be effected by the text and be reduced in size by it. The text should format to the image and not the other way around.

[TrustyJam]

I've deleted a bunch of posts containing no suggestions what so ever. Please only post on-topic posts.

- Trusty

[A. P. Hill]

If you have any suggestions to make. Please try and be more specific as to what you would like added or changed.

Anyone with enough experience with the boards software formatting should be able to make good threads. I do suggest that links auto color and underline by your administrative tools.

[Celt]

You can create your company threads in this forum! :)
The tool will be released during the next months.

You can of course form a unit, which did not fight in the Maryland Campaign. But those are not available in the Company Tool at first.

I'm very thankful that units which didn't fight in the Maryland Campaign are allowed, as I'd love to play as the original Louisiana Tigers under Major Wheat, who were disbanded just one month shy of the campaign.

[Fancy Sweetroll]

Okay then. One suggestion is the images should not be effected by the text and be reduced in size by it. The text should format to the image and not the other way around.

Images no longer scale depending on the size of the browser window.


Anyone with enough experience with the boards software formatting should be able to make good threads. I do suggest that links auto color and underline by your administrative tools.

I'll have a look at that now

Edit: Now links are bold and black, should help.

http://warofrights.com/

I also added some extra tags to make the forum better compatible with other types of forums when copying posts from other forums. When you get to a foreign country, you cant expect the locals to speak the same language as you until you teach them how. Wisdom from Fancy.

[A. P. Hill]

Thank you Sir.

[Hinkel]

This suggestion thread is for the company tool also ;)
If you would like to see special features, just give a suggestion.

[CjkCJkCjk]

This is more of a question and i might add a suggestion afterword

When you enlist for a company will it be accepted by an officer at a later date? or are you automatically assigned to the company?

and For the Image if your the leader of the Company will the image be of an officer or still of an enlisted man?

[Hinkel]

This is more of a question and i might add a suggestion afterword

When you enlist for a company will it be accepted by an officer at a later date? or are you automatically assigned to the company?

and For the Image if your the leader of the Company will the image be of an officer or still of an enlisted man?

There are 2 options:

1) If there is an Apply button, the CompanyOfficer has to accept your application
2) If there is a Join button, you will join the company asap.

[Jonny Powers]

You can of course form a unit, which did not fight in the Maryland Campaign. But those are not available in the Company Tool at first.

When you say at first do you have plans to allow for custom units to be created and be listed in the company tool?

[Hinkel]

When you say at first do you have plans to allow for custom units to be created and be listed in the company tool?

Yes, thats what I mean ;)

[Todesengel]

How will be the Ranks there? Just Private / NCO and Officer?
It would be awsome if everybody can spawn with the correct Rank. Now, It doesn't matter if you are a Sergant Major or a simple sergant you have to spawn with a Sergant-Uniform. As an enlisted or an officer it's the same. It would be AWSOME if you could play your Rank ingame. Yes, I know that you have to implent tons of different textures. But maybe, I have an idea for a solution.

[Hinkel]

How will be the Ranks there? Just Private / NCO and Officer?
It would be awsome if everybody can spawn with the correct Rank. Now, It doesn't matter if you are a Sergant Major or a simple sergant you have to spawn with a Sergant-Uniform. As an enlisted or an officer it's the same. It would be AWSOME if you could play your Rank ingame. Yes, I know that you have to implent tons of different textures. But maybe, I have an idea for a solution.

The rank you have in your company, will be the rank you will have on your uniform ingame ;)
At least, if the server has the option for it!

So if you are a first Sergeant in your company and you spawn as a NCO, you will have your First Sergeant stripes on your uniform.

[A. P. Hill]

Ummm. Just thought Emil & Mads said forum companies are not tied to game status, but if you have a rank in a non game association, you get that rank in game? Now I am truly confused.

[Etherton]

Ummm. Just thought Emil & Mads said forum companies are not tied to game status, but if you have a rank in a non game association, you get that rank in game? Now I am truly confused.

The company tool that will be made will directly link ingame, so you make your company say 1st blah blah Company A. ingame your rank and company will carry across. Think of it as clan tags that other games use, it carries over so you have preset tags :)

[Hinkel]

Ummm. Just thought Emil & Mads said forum companies are not tied to game status, but if you have a rank in a non game association, you get that rank in game? Now I am truly confused.

Forum Company is not the same as a Company, which is formed in our official tool ;)
The Tool is linked ingame.

[TrustyJam]

Ummm. Just thought Emil & Mads said forum companies are not tied to game status, but if you have a rank in a non game association, you get that rank in game? Now I am truly confused.

We're going to be supporting "Company matches" (or clan matches). In these, it is our wish to tie the selected company via the company tool directly to the in-game experience.

- Trusty

[A. P. Hill]

Rgr that! As has been noted my being old probably accounts for my lack of picking things up quickly. ;)

[Devmc99]

so.. uhhh..... anyone like my suggestion? :confused:

[Bond121]

What about faction neutral groups?

[Hinkel]

What about faction neutral groups?

That would be unrealistic, if you don't want to represent a border state :D

[A. P. Hill]

What about faction neutral groups?


That would be unrealistic, if you don't want to represent a border state :D

And even then "border states" were not faction neutral, as they all provided troops to both sides.

And, sorry but the nations of France and Britain are not included. The only "faction neutral" chance.

True "faction neutral" would be not to play.

[Arkansan]

[What I would like to see:
1: I hope to see the skirmish gamemode to be the most played, seeing it gives people who aren't in a Company on the tool a chance to lead and experience everything the game has to offer.

2: I'd like to see the Company tool work on all game modes, except the skirmish game mode. Company/Community events are going to be bigger than ever, and I believe this tool will be a huge part of the game.

3: If Colonel/Lieutenant Colonel/Major are apart of the Company tool, they should be voted in by all the companies of the regiment. 1st place gets Col, 2nd LtC, ect. After set periods of time, these polls should occur again to maintain the regiment with active leaders. Because life happens and people leave.

[Etherton]

[What I would like to see:
1: I hope to see the skirmish gamemode to be the most played, seeing it gives people who aren't in a Company on the tool a chance to lead and experience everything the game has to offer.

2: I'd like to see the Company tool work on all game modes, except the skirmish game mode. Company/Community events are going to be bigger than ever, and I believe this tool will be a huge part of the game.

3: If Colonel/Lieutenant Colonel/Major are apart of the Company tool, they should be voted in by all the companies of the regiment. 1st place gets Col, 2nd LtC, ect. After set periods of time, these polls should occur again to maintain the regiment with active leaders. Because life happens and people leave.

I mostly agree with the first 2, i think the Skirmish gamemode will likely be more of a public thing def. For Number 3 its only start off as Companies which were led by a Captain. Whoever create a company will be given the rank Captain as far as im aware and can choose the rank of his men beneath that. In the future they plan to slowly allow larger groups such as regiments, brigades, divisions and maybe corps. This would then allow ranks from Major all the way upto Major General!

[A. P. Hill]

... In the future they plan to slowly allow larger groups such as regiments, brigades, divisions and maybe corps. This would then allow ranks from Major all the way upto Major General!

The developers said "Corps", that would make the leaders Lt Generals in the Confederate ranks, and several full Generals in charge of multiple corps or the army.

[Alexander]

Seeing as the current arrangement is avatar -> face in game, has there been any thought of switching that around to face in game -> avatar and using a face making tool like what Warband has to get more customization, or is that too open to abuse?

[A. P. Hill]

We already have too many avatars that look like the developers now! ;)

[Bravescot]

http://i.imgur.com/yD242fk.png

^ This is evidence for the Company system being a good idea!

[A. P. Hill]

I see a pattern ...

[Etherton]

http://i.imgur.com/yD242fk.png

^ This is evidence for the Company system being a good idea!

Indeed. 69th Best Name :cool:

[HWMHall]

Friendly reminder: There are no "J" Company designations in the civil war as in handwriting it was confused with "I". Instead they bypassed it and went along to the next Letter "K".

[Mercuri]

So Hinkel, is there any list of the regiments that will be on the companies tool?

[Hinkel]

So Hinkel, is there any list of the regiments that will be on the companies tool?

No, but most likely the entire units, which fought at Antietam. So some hundrets of regiments available ;)
You can have a look at the Order of Battles.

[A. P. Hill]

So Hinkel, is there any list of the regiments that will be on the companies tool?

There are rosters of the armies that fought at Sharpsburg Here! (http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?656-Some-in-depth-information&p=11728&viewfull=1#post11728)

[Mercuri]

No, but most likely the entire units, which fought at Antietam. So some hundrets of regiments available ;)
You can have a look at the Order of Battles.


There are rosters of the armies that fought at Sharpsburg Here! (http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?656-Some-in-depth-information&p=11728&viewfull=1#post11728)

Ok thank you guys!

[DomDowg]

2nd Maryland Volunteer Infantry Co. A & Co. B

[Mi'kmaq]

What do you want this to be like everyone slugging out at actual Sharpsburg, MD. B/c 100 men regiments that is 1/5 of the server you guys are nuts and are idiots do the math before you come up with these do stupid ideas. This will never be the actual Civil War an you should respect that you made a realistic game. This is a terrible way for new regiments from NW coming to the Civil War Gaming side of things to be put in. Ask the people who helped fund your game/ people who are going to buy and play it before taking a shit on them. This straw poll gives you a taste of what the Dixieland Army thinks of this bullshit. http://strawpoll.me/5998968/r now this a 500 man NA gaming community growing everyday now this is just 8 outta the like 32 regiments but it brings a point. (the strawpoll result link will be updated every 1 week for you devs to see what the community thinks.)

No one cares. lol

[MawLr]

No one cares. lol

Couldn't agree more.

[Rithal]

What do you want this to be like everyone slugging out at actual Sharpsburg, MD. B/c 100 men regiments that is 1/5 of the server you guys are nuts and are idiots do the math before you come up with these do stupid ideas. This will never be the actual Civil War an you should respect that you made a realistic game. This is a terrible way for new regiments from NW coming to the Civil War Gaming side of things to be put in. Ask the people who helped fund your game/ people who are going to buy and play it before taking a shit on them. This straw poll gives you a taste of what the Dixieland Army thinks of this bullshit. http://strawpoll.me/5998968/r now this a 500 man NA gaming community growing everyday now this is just 8 outta the like 32 regiments but it brings a point. (the strawpoll result link will be updated every 1 week for you devs to see what the community thinks.)

No where have mandatory 100 man companies ever been brought up. The only change that has occurred is the developers are no calling player run units (originally regiments in NaS) companies now. This is to reflect the historical nature of the game as a company, like you said, was historically 100 men. This 100 men number is significantly closer to the size of community run units.

I think of it like this. Which is more believable. A 25 man line is a company? or a regiment? Considering a regiment was hundreds of men, I think the term "company" fits that 25 man unit much better.

I looked at your poll, and it is very misleading. It asks if one thinks that the developers should force units to merge. This is not the case however. The developers will not be "forcing" any unit from previous games to merge. The only thing that has changed is the term "regiment" that was originally used to describe player run units in NaS and NW, has been replaced with the term "company". Reasoning for this change can be found above.

You also speak of the Dixieland Army. While communities such as this will make up a considerable portion of the playerbase initially, you must understand that we have hundreds of followers and backers who have never heard of Mount and Blade: Warband. To assume your group's opinion is all that matters in this case is ill-sighted.

In the future, please attempt to understand what it is you are upset with before creating a wall of text about it.

Thanks! If you have any questions about the company system specifically, feel free to message me, Hinkel, or one of the developers. Hopefully we can clear things up. :)

In the mean time, I suggest you read up on the "Company Creation Tools" kickstarter update. A link for it can be found here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1947432146/war-of-rights/posts/1407779

[Hinkel]

This straw poll gives you a taste of what the Dixieland Army thinks of this bullshit.

I am in close contact to the leadership of the DA. Nobody is sharing your opinion, cause you did not understand the entire system.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

I am in close contact to the leadership of the DA. Nobody is sharing your opinion, cause you did not understand the entire system.

Pls do it.

Ans now let us forget his unpolite and nonserius comment.

@DownDowng

Your main thread is closed so pls stop discuss about that in other threads.

Bring us serius arguments and we will discuss with you


Sry for mistakes wrote it on Phone.

[Bravescot]

I am in close contact to the leadership of the DA. Nobody is sharing your opinion, cause you did not understand the entire system.

Just do it. Even if the DA are not pleased with the Company system then so be it, the world does not revolve around them.

[Gandalf]

I looked at your poll, and it is very misleading. It asks if one thinks that the developers should force units to merge. This is not the case however. The developers will not be "forcing" any unit from previous games to merge. The only thing that has changed is the term "regiment" that was originally used to describe player run units in NaS and NW, has been replaced with the term "company". Reasoning for this change can be found above.

Thanks for clearing this up Rithal! Before now people some in the DA have been making the change from regiment to company sound like the apocalypse...

I'm honestly fine with this, it will help with the realism; we just thought before that we were all going to be split up. :p

[Leifr]

Apologies for the brevity, writing on phone on German wifi.
The devolution from regiment to company should not be a cause of concern. The number of folk present in each company we have here will likely be much closer to the reality of the ACW than anything seen before. Nominal strength on paper was never achieved but for the initial formation. The absolute rule of thumb was that each company, and therefore regiment, proceeded understrength.

[Killobytes]

Here's a suggestion
Maybe for custom companies that people can make, allow full regiments to be made
Like the normal regiments, except they are owned by the colonel that made it. Maybe allow them to turn off or on the planned voting for a regiments colonel
For example, if I had my own company and I wanted to have my own regiment with 2 or more companies, I could make the reg, be the colonel, and companies can join my regiment or be formed in my regiment (but with my colonel approval, so that unwanted companies are not in the reg)
And perhaps take it a step further and allow the custom planned brigades and divisions to be completely player owned, so that we have a system similar to the DA & UA supported in game

[Jamez]

One of the reasons they developed this company system is to prevent what you suggested, a certain regiment being "locked" from the public. They do want to create a player owned system like you suggested but the ideas for that have not been put in place as of yet.

[A. P. Hill]

... They do want to create a player owned system like you suggested but the ideas for that have not been put in place as of yet.

AND, when it comes to fruition, it WILL be glorious! Have no doubt.

[Jamez]

AND, when it comes to fruition, it WILL be glorious! Have no doubt.

I have no doubt of that, I am just interested how it will be implemented.

[Killobytes]

One of the reasons they developed this company system is to prevent what you suggested, a certain regiment being "locked" from the public. They do want to create a player owned system like you suggested but the ideas for that have not been put in place as of yet.

But there are already going to be so many regiments, why not allow custom regiments to be reserved like that?

[Jamez]

But there are already going to be so many regiments, why not allow custom regiments to be reserved like that?

The whole system is stop a group of people taking the name of a regiment and simply saying "no one else can use this name now".

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

And that's why you can't reserved a regiment. ;)

[Bravescot]

The worst crime is when they bookmark it then never actually become active

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

that's why I like the company tool

[FancyPants]

Maybe a system linking the in-game Company system to either this forum or a different website. You can possibly view the roster, make changes to it. As well as the notes for each member

Also is anything going to be done for the guys reserving like 4 Company's just doesn't seem fair, you should only make another company once your bringing like 50 guys to LB's

[A. P. Hill]

... Also is anything going to be done for the guys reserving like 4 Company's just doesn't seem fair, you should only make another company once your bringing like 50 guys to LB's

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Chocolate cookie post!

[Gandalf]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Chocolate cookie post!Tsk Tsk, favoritism... ;)

We want cookies too. ;_;

[Jamez]

Also is anything going to be done for the guys reserving like 4 Company's just doesn't seem fair, you should only make another company once your bringing like 50 guys to LB's

Well people are used to the system they are in and these people are not popular to change.

[A. P. Hill]

Tsk Tsk, favoritism... ;)

We want cookies too. ;_;

There's cookies a plenty in the Light Division ... :)

[Arkansan]

We need the Company Tool ;)
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/aa/aa6501e5dbe6a133b248e51bfd6da09b4168d178b4de0a3548 d5d69147790677.jpg

[Challis89]

If I may suggest could your player model be linked to the company tool so that when your playing company events your rank is be it cpl or Sgt etc is already on the character? I would also stop every nco looking the same so to speak and the officers all being captains etc. Just a thought and possibly add a brevet system from when no nco is active and a private needs to act up. This is for companies events tho as in random battles you take what you can get haha

[BloodBeag]

If I may suggest could your player model be linked to the company tool so that when your playing company events your rank is be it cpl or Sgt etc is already on the character? I would also stop every nco looking the same so to speak and the officers all being captains etc. Just a thought and possibly add a brevet system from when no nco is active and a private needs to act up. This is for companies events tho as in random battles you take what you can get haha

i'm extremely sure this will happen but it could be that when you join the game each member of the company has to select their rank

[BloodBeag]

You're saying it prevents reserving companies but almost every company forum post people explicitly say that they have reserved that company. Also, it makes things worse and better as a group of people could jump in when the company tool is launched and "steal" the name of the company that someone has made a forum post for. They could also get a group together and take every company in a regiment if they cared that much. It does make it better though by having individual companies so that if 5 different groups wanted to be the same regiment, they all could.

[LTC Philip A. Work]

Any word on a release date for this feature?

[Jamez]

Any word on a release date for this feature?

It is an in-game feature, so most likely it will be released with the game. Don't expect it anytime soon anyway.

[Challis89]

Just a thought will when a battalion or regiment is formed will there be an hq company formed? Possibly containing the serjent major colour party and the colonel and adj?

[Wallace]

can NCO's have the ability to use the company tool also because if the officers are all shot and you still had like 15 guys an and NCO it could be helpful for the NCO to be able to use the tool.

[55thNY Col J-Man11]

Well I just want to start off by saying... Hi everyone :)

And a reccomendation for companies, let us have more then 2 companies maybe, especially if it is a big regiment..

[BloodBeag]

I think you should be able to have atleast 30 people in each company if you're going to have more than one otherwise its not fair on other people trying to get companies for a regiment

[Mississippi]

In my opinion, one should only make another company if their existing company has reached 50-100 members!

[GeorgeCrecy]

Well I just want to start off by saying... Hi everyone :)

And a reccomendation for companies, let us have more then 2 companies maybe, especially if it is a big regiment..

Hello there Col. J-Man11, I might remind you that there is the possibility of 10 companies for each regiment, with company letters A to K, exempting J, are available.

[Bravescot]

Well I just want to start off by saying... Hi everyone :)

And a reccomendation for companies, let us have more then 2 companies maybe, especially if it is a big regiment..


Hello there Col. J-Man11, I might remind you that there is the possibility of 10 companies for each regiment, with company letters A to K, exempting J, are available.

Also they were all infantry in an infantry regiment.......not infantry and artillery

[Arkansan]

I look forward to the day we are able to utilize the Company Tool. I can see it being a very important aspect of the game.

[55thNY Col J-Man11]

I think it would be cool to have regiments and then companies..

[A. P. Hill]

... but anyway.. I think it would be cool to have regiments and then companies..

Nope, not going to happen that way. Regiments were comprised of companies, not the way you have it stated. So companies will be formed first.

[Hinkel]

I think it would be cool to have regiments and then companies..

We explained, why its stupid to form regiments in a multiplayer game. Its just causing trouble and its unrealistic!

Why Companies?

Wait: Why are we going for companies? Isn't it more realistic to form regiments?
Answer: Not at all. Let me explain that with a small example!

You are a fan of the 20th Maine and would like to fight in their name? You are welcome to form the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry - Company A - [20thME(Co.A)]
In most games, that regiment would be "locked" and unavailable for others now. In War of Rights you have the option to form another company, for instance the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry - Company B - [20thME(Co.B)]

There are some good advantages to use the smaller company scale:

1) No more hatred and problems, cause the most famous regiments are locked and reserved
2) You are able to form a group and friendship with the other companies, within your mother regiment
3) The player size fits better to the company level

[Wallace]

+1.

[Landree]

I know that when I make my unit, promotions will only be given out based on event attendance. Too many people are focused with the tinsel and patches to actually see that the job of command is one of service to their enlisted.

Besides, too many officers and not enough enlisted reminds me too much of silly war reenacting. i.e. if you're not a captain then no one listens to you. It makes my head spin in frustration. A company sized formation is a "brigade". C'mon.

[Arkansan]

Besides, too many officers and not enough enlisted reminds me too much of silly war reenacting. i.e. if you're not a captain then no one listens to you. It makes my head spin in frustration. A company sized formation is a "brigade". C'mon.

It also reminds me of North and South. Most "regiments" there only have a handful of members and couldn't maintain a platoon today, let alone a regiment. True power comes from your men on the battlefield. I don't care if you have a couple 'experts', they won't stand up to a full volley of lead flying their way.

I hope to see a minimum number of men enlisted in a company in order for them to maintain their company status in the upcoming tool.

[Bravescot]

I know that when I make my unit, promotions will only be given out based on event attendance. Too many people are focused with the tinsel and patches to actually see that the job of command is one of service to their enlisted.

In personal experience I'd warn against promoting on attendance alone, it can lead to come messy results.


Besides, too many officers and not enough enlisted reminds me too much of silly war reenacting. i.e. if you're not a captain then no one listens to you. It makes my head spin in frustration. A company sized formation is a "brigade". C'mon.

You'll always find that this happens across games where you form clans like this there will always be a large amount of groups that form with only the officer. Often they have the unfortunate mindset that simply by forming it men will come flocking to them, an unfortunate disposition. I must agree with Arkansan and voice my hope that there will be a minimum number established to weed out all those one man Companies that are clogging the system.

[Challis89]

I hope to see a minimum number of men enlisted in a company in order for them to maintain their company status in the upcoming tool.

I think a safe number should be 10 as a minimum after all you don't want to discourage small groups of friends playing together in their own unit and for a random getting 10 peoples could be quite difficult.

[Arkansan]

I think a safe number should be 10 as a minimum after all you don't want to discourage small groups of friends playing together in their own unit and for a random getting 10 peoples could be quite difficult.

10 seems like a solid starting number. Considering the tool will really be implemented in the big campaign battles, this number will really cut down on what would seem like rambos on the field.

[BloodBeag]

10 is too high, some people on NaS take months to get up to 10 and its difficult to have 10 people at start unless you're part of a clan or regiment from another game. It's sort of elitist if that's the right word seeing as (I think) all you are in/running companies that already have a load of members. Maybe have a limit of 5 people and have it so the companies that do not have the minimum number of members are in another section of the company tool so that people can still actually start companies.

[Bravescot]

10 is too high, some people on NaS take months to get up to 10 and its difficult to have 10 people at start unless you're part of a clan or regiment from another game. It's sort of elitist if that's the right word seeing as (I think) all you are in/running companies that already have a load of members. Maybe have a limit of 5 people and have it so the companies that do not have the minimum number of members are in another section of the company tool so that people can still actually start companies.

The Devs have made it clear time and time again the N&S and WoRs are two completely independent things. As far as they are concerned they couldn't give a toss about North and South ergo 10 is a fine number as nobody wants to fight a unit of 5 men who will die in a single volley. This is a game that is being made to play in large numbers on large servers, not a bunch of tiny units on a scrubby 200 pop. server.

The sooner people get it into their heads that the Devs will never listen to anything that tries to group North and South together with War of Rights the better.

[Challis89]

10 seems like a solid starting number. Considering the tool will really be implemented in the big campaign battles, this number will really cut down on what would seem like rambos on the field.
But it does take time to build numbers so i wouldn't expect the minimum to be a short term thing before it opens the company up to others people need a chance to grow tho it should be kinda easy once the games out as there hopefully will be a tab showing companies that are actively recruiting and those passively doing so that are at a steady number and not needing new people but accepting invites.

I would imagine of private events minimum line numbers will come into it more than the official battles.

[SemajRednaxela]

The Devs have made it clear time and time again the N&S and WoRs are two completely independent things. As far as they are concerned they couldn't give a toss about North and South ergo 10 is a fine number as nobody wants to fight a unit of 5 men who will die in a single volley. This is a game that is being made to play in large numbers on large servers, not a bunch of tiny units on a scrubby 200 pop. server.

The sooner people get it into their heads that the Devs will never listen to anything that tries to group North and South together with War of Rights the better.

"Loud Applause"

[Landree]

In personal experience I'd warn against promoting on attendance alone, it can lead to come messy results.

Rather, paper roster. So until I get about 25 people on the roster, there won't be a Lt. Besides, the people who usually get promoted are active regardless. If they aren't around, Cpls and Pvts can stand up.

[BloodBeag]

MNAH, i'M A COMPLETE A RETARD WHO THINKS THEY'RE THE SAME GAME. Caps lock was accidental but makes sense. It's the the closest thing to compare to in regards to starting up companies/regs of players to fight in a civil war based shooter. Yeah sure the game is meant for big groups of people but how are you supposed to make and grow your company if there's a minimum member limit of 10? It's pretty rich coming from you since the 42nd is the largest (i think) company so far anyway. At least make a section on the company tool called "mustering companies" or something so that people can set-up companies by themselves without needing atleast 9 other friends to join with them straight off.

[FakeMessiah27]

Perhaps a bit of a compromise? I like the idea of a minimum number of people, especially with a system like the company tool. To take N&S again (I know, shame on me), it's not as big a deal there if someone claims a name and then proceeds to do nothing with it. Worst case scenario: somebody else just starts a thread with the same name and starts playing under that name. If the original guy that claimed the regiment is indeed inactive he would never even notice.

But with the company tool you do actually completely lock a company down, and get a spot in the list of companies. Although the fact that we'll be picking companies rather than regiments will prevent people from locking down entire regiments, tiny - five or less - man companies will start to clutter up the tool. A certain rule to prevent that would therefore not be out of place.
On the other hand, you don't want to make it too hard on new groups to join the community, so maybe a sort of, probation period would be an idea? Allow people to start a company below the minimum number (let's stick with 10) and give them a certain period of time to grow their own numbers to match the required minimum. If they fail to do so within the allotted time frame, they could be issued a warning, and a small extension to the probation time, before being disbanded entirely.

[Legion]

I think what they meant was that groups have to have at least 10 people in one company before forming another, that way small groups cant claim whole regiments for themselves.

[Arkansan]

Yeah sure the game is meant for big groups of people but how are you supposed to make and grow your company if there's a minimum member limit of 10?
There is something called advertising. This is basically what we are all doing at the moment anyways.

At least make a section on the company tool called "mustering companies" or something so that people can set-up companies by themselves without needing atleast 9 other friends to join with them straight off.
You might be able to set it up, but you shouldn't be able to claim it. (In my opinion)

[Hinkel]

Well, I will get into this now! ;)

We don't want to have a company ingame, which just consists of 5 guys. So I think a company, which has at least 10 activate soldiers, should get full support.
While everybody can form a company with that tool, we should have 2 types of companies:

"Muster" and "Enlisted"

Muster: This company is in progress and doesn't consist of 10 soldiers yet. The company does not leave for the drill camp yet.
Enlisted: This company is formed and is part of the army now. The company is already on the field.

Once a company reachs 10 soldiers, the company commander can try to enlist into the army.
The company needs to be approved by an admin/company moderator.


Anyone has better words for Muster and Enlisted?! :D

[Legion]

Good plan Hinkel I never would have thought of that. It also adds a bit more realism

[Challis89]

Well, I will get into this now! ;)

We don't want to have a company ingame, which just consists of 5 guys. So I think a company, which has at least 10 activate soldiers, should get full support.
While everybody can form a company with that tool, we should have 2 types of companies:

"Muster" and "Enlisted"

Muster: This company is in progress and doesn't consist of 10 soldiers yet. The company does not leave for the drill camp yet.
Enlisted: This company is formed and is part of the army now. The company is already on the field.

Once a company reachs 10 soldiers, the company commander can try to enlist into the army.
The company needs to be approved by an admin/company moderator.


Anyone has better words for Muster and Enlisted?! :D

One amendment I'd make to your cracking idea would be mustering companies be allowed to use the drill square to practice but maybe limited facilities given the low status of the company?

Would you implement a time limit to get the company enlisted in the army before its opened up again? Something like 5 weeks to get active?

[Mississippi]

Well, I will get into this now! ;)

We don't want to have a company ingame, which just consists of 5 guys. So I think a company, which has at least 10 activate soldiers, should get full support.
While everybody can form a company with that tool, we should have 2 types of companies:

"Muster" and "Enlisted"

Muster: This company is in progress and doesn't consist of 10 soldiers yet. The company does not leave for the drill camp yet.
Enlisted: This company is formed and is part of the army now. The company is already on the field.

Once a company reachs 10 soldiers, the company commander can try to enlist into the army.
The company needs to be approved by an admin/company moderator.


Anyone has better words for Muster and Enlisted?! :D

+1
I am liking the sound of this!

[FakeMessiah27]

If you guys were to go for Challis89's suggestion of allowing companies that don't have 10 people yet to use the drill camp, you could call ''mustering'' companies simply ''in training'', whereas companies that have 10+ people are actually done with their training and are ''enlisted'' or ''in the field'' or whatever.

[BloodBeag]

I fully support and endorse this idea. What would the limit be for when a company could expand into having two companies?

[A. P. Hill]

Without a doubt, the maximum would be 100 as it was historically.

As for what a minimum might be we could start at 30, I don't know .... any suggestions?

[Bravescot]

As for what a minimum might be we could start at 30, I don't know .... any suggestions?

No....no no no no no......This clearly shows a lack of any prior knowledge to community gaming!

Most small clans dream of have 30 men regular attendance! The best most small units get is 10 -15. The smallest unit should be a 10 man company else this game will be dead on its feet.

[FakeMessiah27]

Just looking at all the different threads on the company forum right now, there aren't an awful lot of units can come even close to 30. I reckon 10 would be a better number.

[A. P. Hill]

You have obviously missed the post I was responding to, which I failed to quote. Please go back and read the post above mine.
(Okay so the post is the last one on the previous page)

Thanks.

[FakeMessiah27]

Ah, I indeed misread that. That makes a lot more sense.

[Bravescot]

You have obviously missed the post I was responding to, which I failed to quote. Please go back and read the post above mine.
(Okay so the post is the last one on the previous page)

Thanks.

Ah, fair. Maybe next time a quote might have been better.

[Commissariat]

Forgive me if it has already been said, but I think it would good to have realistic names be the norm as opposed to "suggested". Players, with the freedom to use any name they want, have the possibility of creating very offensive names or names that may ruin the feel of this realistic game.

[Void]

I look forward to the company tool, it is a shame though that non campaign companies wont be in it at first. But will we still have some way of being in the tool at release, or is all of the organizational part fall on us till the rest are added in?

[Challis89]

I look forward to the company tool, it is a shame though that non campaign companies wont be in it at first. But will we still have some way of being in the tool at release, or is all of the organizational part fall on us till the rest are added in?

I would hardly call it a shame tbh the devs made it quite clear about non Maryland Campaign companies not being added. No there fault people ignored them. Anyways I don't think it will be too long after release before they slowly add more. I hope never to see custom named ones tho.

[BloodBeag]

There should be nothing forced on players with respect for names. If you want to have 100% realistic names of players then go for it with your company. If I want to call my player Sgt Shrek'sDick and my company commander is fine with that then you can't tell me to change it.

[Challis89]

There should be nothing forced on players with respect for names. If you want to have 100% realistic names of players then go for it with your company. If I want to call my player Sgt Shrek'sDick and my company commander is fine with that then you can't tell me to change it.

Nobody's talking about player names tho. :-/

[Legion]

Nobody's talking about player names tho. :-/

He was referring to an earlier post.

[Shifty]

Well, I will get into this now! ;)

We don't want to have a company ingame, which just consists of 5 guys. So I think a company, which has at least 10 activate soldiers, should get full support.
While everybody can form a company with that tool, we should have 2 types of companies:

"Muster" and "Enlisted"

Muster: This company is in progress and doesn't consist of 10 soldiers yet. The company does not leave for the drill camp yet.
Enlisted: This company is formed and is part of the army now. The company is already on the field.

Once a company reachs 10 soldiers, the company commander can try to enlist into the army.
The company needs to be approved by an admin/company moderator.


Anyone has better words for Muster and Enlisted?! :D


I think a safe number should be 10 as a minimum after all you don't want to discourage small groups of friends playing together in their own unit and for a random getting 10 peoples could be quite difficult.

Well what could be done is to present another option for smaller groups of friends.
Something like "mercenaries" (guys purchased from border countries),who could then during a battle strenghten numbers of
(1) a permanent company (if someone would accept them)
or
(2) a new temporary company (name randomly generated?) could be formed on each side before the start of battle, giving smaller groups or even lone wolves the possibility to take part in larger scale battles. Then they could vote for a leader (or someone capable could be assigned by an admin), who would then lead them during the battle.

I know this game is aimed more on groups than individuals. With this possibility the troll-rate (:D) would increase and these companies would ofc. lack discipline most of the time(but wasn't that always the danger of mercs? :D). If so, then for a newcomer such an unpleasant experience may encourage him to find a permanent group (a company) to play with, which in the final effect would strenghten the aspect this game mainly aims at and that is teamplay.

Hopefully you understand how I mean it. :)

PS: The last paragraph seems kinda philosophical :D

[Void]

I would hardly call it a shame tbh the devs made it quite clear about non Maryland Campaign companies not being added. No there fault people ignored them. Anyways I don't think it will be too long after release before they slowly add more. I hope never to see custom named ones tho.

I believe I read something from BraveScot that said the tool would be released in the next few months, so hopfully the whole tool is out by release

[Void]

Well what could be done is to present another option for smaller groups of friends.
Something like "mercenaries" (guys purchased from border countries),who could then during a battle strenghten numbers of
(1) a permanent company (if someone would accept them)
or
(2) a new temporary company (name randomly generated?) could be formed on each side before the start of battle, giving smaller groups or even lone wolves the possibility to take part in larger scale battles. Then they could either vote for a leader (or someone capable could be assigned by an admin), who would then lead them during the battle.

I know this game is aimed more on groups than individuals. With this possibility the troll-rate (:D) would increase and these companies would ofc. lack discipline most of the time(but wasn't that always the danger of mercs? :D). If so, then for a newcomer such an unpleasant experience may encourage him to find a permanent group (a company) to play with, which in the final effect would strenghten the aspect this game mainly aims at and that is teamplay.

Hopefully you understand how I mean it. :)

PS: The last paragraph seems kinda philosophical :D

I think this would be a great idea, as of now there are alot of small regiments in the North and South community that cant attend battles because of numbers, so if the devs integrate something like this, then no one will have to be left out

[Challis89]

Kind of counters what the devs have said in earlier posts that the tool to start with will only contain companies from the Maryland Campaign as it fits with them wanting to at the start to be historical. Only sometime after release of the main game will the ability to add non historical and companies from other campaigns be added.

[Bravescot]

I believe I read something from BraveScot that said the tool would be released in the next few months, so hopfully the whole tool is out by release

Never said anything like that mate. I know as little about the time of release as you.

[Etherton]

Tool had to be set back due to a dev leaving, its being made by other people now so its having to be remade, as far as im aware its a fair while from completion

[Norwegian]

So what if a company decides to change it's regiment name?
Would that be possible with a quick and easy name change, or would the entire company have to be deleted and THEN re-made as a new company in the new regiment?

And also, will there be a feature grouping up battalions?

[Beanbomb]

I don't know if this had already been asked but I will ask it here: If I wanted to join a Union company and a Southern company, could I be in both at the same time? If so, what would I do if both were at the same event?

[Legion]

I don't know if this had already been asked but I will ask it here: If I wanted to join a Union company and a Southern company, could I be in both at the same time? If so, what would I do if both were at the same event?

I think that depends on the leader of the company. Why not just be in one company, I'm sure they'll play as the opposite team ever now and then

[Jamez]

I don't know if this had already been asked but I will ask it here: If I wanted to join a Union company and a Southern company, could I be in both at the same time? If so, what would I do if both were at the same event?

The current idea in place is you create a character for either the union side or the confederate side and then you log into a server as that character with whatever company you chose for him. Now I don't know if there is a limit but you can definitely create a character for both sides

[Prisoner]

You can create your company threads in this forum! :)
The tool will be released during the next months.

You can of course form a unit, which did not fight in the Maryland Campaign. But those are not available in the Company Tool at first.

so does it have to be a american regiment that was in the civil war. or can we make one up e.g: 1st Russian Dragoons.
just wondering.

[Locke1740]

so does it have to be a american regiment that was in the civil war. or can we make one up e.g: 1st Russian Dragoons.
just wondering.

You can make a unit up, it just isn't very historically accurate and you won't have a unit in the Company tool

[Challis89]

so does it have to be a american regiment that was in the civil war. or can we make one up e.g: 1st Russian Dragoons.
just wondering.

To add to what Mr locke has said you won't have non civil war uniforms in the game either so kind of pointless to form a foreign company. That said the choice is yours so best of luck with whatever you choose :-D

[Norwegian]

This is more of a question than a suggestion, but will companies be able to decide what ranking structure they want themselves?

I understand that you guys might want the companies under one regiment to vote a Colonel to head it all, but some companies might not wish to be under said Colonel, and their leader might wish to have the colonel rank himself, only within his comapny though. Will this be how it will work? Or may you grant me some further insight as to how this ranking system will work?

Thank you. :)

[Lyman Trumbull]

This is more of a question than a suggestion, but will companies be able to decide what ranking structure they want themselves?

I understand that you guys might want the companies under one regiment to vote a Colonel to head it all, but some companies might not wish to be under said Colonel, and their leader might wish to have the colonel rank himself, only within his comapny though. Will this be how it will work? Or may you grant me some further insight as to how this ranking system will work?

Thank you. :)


http://img.prntscr.com/img?url=http://i.imgur.com/Fb9TKFL.png

From the Company Tool Feature Preview: "While the company creation is the first step for a player based organization, we want to extend that system in the future. For example, companies will be able to vote a regiment leader". So it does look like the Colonel will be voted in, however, if all the companies within the regiment know each other or are in the same group, then they will all vote on their group commander to be the Colonel.

Colonels were regimental ranks so it would not be possible to have a Colonel commanding a company, that was the captain's job, and from the picture above, the creator of the company will have the power to set ranks, promote and kick players.

Hope this helps in some way :)

[Challis89]

This is more of a question than a suggestion, but will companies be able to decide what ranking structure they want themselves?

I understand that you guys might want the companies under one regiment to vote a Colonel to head it all, but some companies might not wish to be under said Colonel, and their leader might wish to have the colonel rank himself, only within his comapny though. Will this be how it will work? Or may you grant me some further insight as to how this ranking system will work?

Thank you. :)

well you will choose to group up with another company so if you choose to merge into a battalion or regiment then you will have to vote i suppose on the colonel and accept it if you dont want to be under them then the only options to form with other units you work better with.

[Norwegian]

Alright. I see. I do think there could be some drama that would happen should some companies refuse to work together and be unable to choose a colonel. But we'll see how that'll work out in the future.

Thank you for your quick responses :)

[Challis89]

Then you don't merge your company with another its pretty simple to avoid the drama :)

[Norwegian]

Then you don't merge your company with another its pretty simple to avoid the drama :)

No I meant it in the way that a certain company would not wish to be under a certain Colonel that was elected by others. :P

[Challis89]

No I meant it in the way that a certain company would not wish to be under a certain Colonel that was elected by others. :P

Well they would be under a captain so sorry for the confusion and the officers would generally be already in place when the company goes live given that will generally be the ones who formed the company and its a free world dont like the staff then leave and join or form another. :D Like i say there should be no drama as its easy to move.

[Norwegian]

Well they would be under a captain so sorry for the confusion and the officers would generally be already in place when the company goes live given that will generally be the ones who formed the company and its a free world dont like the staff then leave and join or form another. :D Like i say there should be no drama as its easy to move.

Yup! I really do love this system though, looking forward to seeing more! :)

[Darel]

Hey, there, Norwegian! I'd rather be a sgt commanding a line or platoon, than a col or capt. walking around in fancy officer uniforms. :p :cool:

100 pushups? Nooo! Lets make it 50. You know, I am frigging too old for that.

[Stroodle_Humpervich]

How do i register my N&S regiment for war of rights?

-signed Cpt. Brothers 19th Indiana "Swamphogs"

[Hinkel]

How do i register my N&S regiment for war of rights?

-signed Cpt. Brothers 19th Indiana "Swamphogs"

You can't register your N&S regiment for War of Rights.. 2 different things.

You can form a company using the company boards. :)

[Stroodle_Humpervich]

yes how do i do that lol our regiment is newly formed and we will be active with WoR. I created a group for our regiment does that help lol? BTW we r company A
- Signed Cpt. Brothers 19th Indiana "Swamphogs"

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

You can create a thread in the right section, but thats NO reservation!

You have to wait until the Tool is released.

[Stroodle_Humpervich]

thx maximus how did u put that NYVI image there i would like to put one for my reg under my profile like that

[Lyman Trumbull]

thx maximus how did u put that NYVI image there i would like to put one for my reg under my profile like that

http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?633-How-to-add-signature-images

There you go mate.

[General. Jackson]

Woah woah sorry, let's back up here. May have misread if someone could correct me.

So this vote feature means let's say I created a company etc, after a certain time members get to vote people in?

I don't know if you guys are familiar with the military but there's a reason there isn't a democracy when they select someone as a certain rank. If I'm right is there a possibility to disable this said vote feature? I don't really want to put all this work in as a leader and then have some member persuade everyone to mutiny, vote him in and take the company lol. The amount of drama this tool would cause.

True story here. What happens if some asshole sees all the work you e done, all the people you've recruited etc. Plants a lot of his mates in the company, gets them to begin a mutiny, spread etc. That years of work you put into your company? Gone. If this is an actually feature, I really don't see the point in even trying. If a member is unhappy with the company, they are free to leave but they won't be taking the hard work of others.

I'm praying I read wrong if someone could correct me.

Also Hinkel stated the following on the 2nd post, first page:


You can create your company threads in this forum!
The tool will be released during the next months.

You can of course form a unit, which did not fight in the Maryland Campaign. But those are not available in the Company Tool at first.

That was somewhere in 2015 I believe xD I really cannot wait for it! But am willing to for the best experience with it, really good job and innovative thinking with the 'muster' and 'enlisted' companies, it's awesome.

(Bad grammar and spelling, on a phone right now.)

Regards,
Jackson

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

next months can mean 2 up to X months. ;)



thx maximus how did u put that NYVI image there i would like to put one for my reg under my profile like that

Just follow the instructions which are on the side before.

[Bravescot]

I don't know if you guys are familiar with the military but there's a reason there isn't a democracy when they select someone as a certain rank. If I'm right is there a possibility to disable this said vote feature?

Say hello to 1860s American Volunteer Regiments where all ranks were voted into their posts at muster.

[General. Jackson]

I understand that this is a realistic feature but I'm going to share in my experience from running a clan, 12 divisions, being in over 6 regiments in NW, MilSim Clans ARMA III, Call of Duty, Battlefield etc are all games and clans I've taken a role in. Please from my experience this will be a breeding ground for broken friendships, mutinies and so much drama. The amount of drama this tool could possibly bring in the feature is insane, this toxicity levels of NW will be multiplied by 10 here and little wars will spread across and sides will be taken. I really don't want to put all the work in, do everything and then have it taken out of my hands because some bloke mutinied the regiment and destroyed the values we were built on. I can already see this coming.

Soon as a bloke who tries to attack me daily, is obsessed with 4RAR and tries to bring 4RAR down. He's going to come in and do the exact same thing. I believe if you make the company, it's yours when you hit 10 members, you go active. If they don't want you as a leader, the members may leave and let your company die but not let your hard-work die.

We don't need to fix something that's not broke and this isn't broken, it has worked in all the games I've played.

[Challis89]

Jackson with all respect I get that you have experience but many like how the tools going to be set up and have joined the game for the realism so kinda sucks seeing people want to dilute that. Ita the reason many have pledged maybe more than they would have. I for one hope the core realism isn't diluted otherwise we lose what's going to be unique about this game.

As to the voting I've always been under the impression it's when your creating a battalion or higher formation not something that can be done at will but to decide who will be leader of this new flrmation. as the company creater will be the clan leader so to speak so will be I'm charge of the company in all aspects.

[General. Jackson]

I'm not asking for the realism to be diluted but what I am is asking for them to consider the major issues this will cause since regiments/companies are a major part of this game.

See that's fine with me haha, thank you for clearing that up.

[Challis89]

Fair enough but I can't see any problems it's going to be good and the company system will stop any arguments over 2 people reserving a full regiment etc. Also keeps the ranks universal and keeps with realism.

[Wildcat]

more of a question but, What if you had a company on the forum made for example im in the 1st Louisiana Zouave Battalion Company B and we created a thread, But what if someone went in game and just created the Company who isn't affiliated with the our company? Would we need to make a whole new company or what? (sorry if this has been answered before) Because now all I can think of is someone having an argument with a leader of a Company, And he gets kicked from the Company, And it is now a race to see who can first create it in game so the guy who got kicked is trying to get revenge and destroy the Company.

[Alexander Greene]

more of a question but, What if you had a company on the forum made for example im in the 1st Louisiana Zouave Battalion Company B and we created a thread, But what if someone went in game and just created the Company who isn't affiliated with the our company? Would we need to make a whole new company or what? (sorry if this has been answered before) Because now all I can think of is someone having an argument with a leader of a Company, And he gets kicked from the Company, And it is now a race to see who can first create it in game so the guy who got kicked is trying to get revenge and destroy the Company.
That's where resurving a company comes in, I believe. If the company is already reserved then no one should be able to create the company in game.

[Wildcat]

ah.. That makes sense now lol.

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

ähhm no.

The last statement of the devs was (so far i know) that our threads are NOT a reservation. The tool will be early announced so that you can prepare you for it.

[Wildcat]

The only way I see getting past this then is if the devs private messaged all leaders of Companys the tool and they could have it a day earlier or something? But idk I can see alot of Drama in WoR tbh, I already know of WoR drama and the game isn't even out!

[Alexander Greene]

ähhm no.

The last statement of the devs was (so far i know) that our threads are NOT a reservation. The tool will be early announced so that you can prepare you for it.

Dude, what about the Company post that Lyman has set up? All those companies that are listed in the beginning are the companies that have been reserved right? I'm not trying to say that I'm right but that's what I thought it was for. If your right then is Lyman wasting his time? And if it isn't a reservation, then I agree with Wildcat and that the devs should send out the tool to the listed company commanders early.

[Magner]

Question for the devs, will it be possible to include custom imagery, like recruitment posters, icons, flags and all that sort of thing on a regimental front page/ application page or similar? Or is that to be limited to forum threads only?

[Maximus Decimus Meridius]

Dude, what about the Company post that Lyman has set up? All those companies that are listed in the beginning are the companies that have been reserved right? I'm not trying to say that I'm right but that's what I thought it was for. If your right then is Lyman wasting his time? And if it isn't a reservation, then I agree with Wildcat and that the devs should send out the tool to the listed company commanders early.

well, i read it one time. i will try to find it.

[ethan2016]

I'm in :D

[SouthCarolina]

ok thanks for the information.







Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Science admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/adichunchanagiri-institute-of-medical-science.html) Al-Ameen Medical College admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/al-ameen-medical-college.html) BAMS Colleges Bangalore direct admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/ayurvedic-bams-colleges-course-direct-management-nri-quota-admission-bangalore.html) Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/jawaharlal-nehru-medical-college.html) Shri BM Patil Medical College admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/shri-bm-patil-medical-college.html) Sri Siddhartha Medical College admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/shri-siddartha-medical-college.html) Yenepoya Medical College admission (http://www.admissioninfo.co.in/yenepoya-medical-college.html)

okay thank your for spamming us thank you.. Now bye bye okay?

[dmurray6]

As to the voting I've always been under the impression it's when your creating a battalion or higher formation not something that can be done at will but to decide who will be leader of this new flrmation. as the company creater will be the clan leader so to speak so will be I'm charge of the company in all aspects.

Was just reading some old posts, and as the company tool has been implemented to an extent already, I suppose this is old news. But I would like to comment about the voting to determine company command as referenced in this quote. As per an example pulled directly from A HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-FIRST VIRGINIA REGIMENT VOLUNTEERS, C. S. A., I'd like to include the paragraph that actually references the Company in which my Great Great Grandfather eventually enlisted, as follows:


Company E was enlisted at Monterey, Haveners Store, and Camp Bartow by Felix H. Hull. A few were enlisted by Captain M. Karicofe. Hull served as first commanding officer but was transferred to the brigade quartermaster department where he died on October 31, 1861. First Lieutenant John M. Myers was elected captain on November 23, 1861, but was replaced by Lieutenant Samuel A. Gilmer who was elected captain in the elections of May 1, 1862. Captain Gilmer resigned in January 1863 and was replaced
by Lieutenant Jacob C. Matheny. Lieutenant Matheny was promoted to captain when he assumed command. In the early months of the war the company consisted of 8 officers and 68 men.

source: Muster and Pay Rolls, Thirty-first Virginia Infantry Papers


I'd like to recognize that on various dates, in this case November 1861 and May 1862, that this company held at least 2 different elections in respect to replacing commanding officers. Thought that some might find this information useful. The first chapter of the History of the 31st, entitled "FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION", is ripe with references of such elections, 7 to be exact. They seemed to have been prevalent at not only mustering, but also many reorganizations.

Here is an excerpt of each, these are for various Company's within the Regiment:

In May of that year the company was reorganized and William W. Garnett was elected Captain.

The Reverend J. E. Mitchell was commissioned captain, but resigned on June 20. In July he was succeeded by J. S. Kerr McCutcheon, who was elected captain.

First Lieutenant John M. Myers was elected captain on November 23, 1861, but was replaced by Lieutenant Samuel A. Gilmer who was elected captain in the elections of May 1, 1862.

In the elections of May, 1861, First Lieutenant George F. Thompson was elected captain. He was captured in 1863. First Lieutenant John W. Bosworth then assumed command..

In the reorganization of May 1862, he was elected lieutenant colonel and became second in command of the Thirty-first Virginia Regiment.

[Apple]

Can there be a way to link Companies to an organized battalion or brigade or even division soon?

[Hinkel]

Can there be a way to link Companies to an organized battalion or brigade or even division soon?

There will be one day, yes. But not as soon as we would like to present it :)