Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: How will bigger units than companies work?

  1. #21

    CSA Captain

    Wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Halifax, West Riding of Yorkshire
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Sure, as long as you keep in mind that most of the dev team have hardly every played the mod or the DLC - just to manage your expectations. Naturally there will be some overlap in design but I actually find it rather good not knowing a whole lot of the structures of those games. Makes it easier to keep focusing on what is our vision.

    - Trusty
    I know the game won't be like Mount and Blade BUT many people are coming from the mod so the community is going to be fairly similar.
    2nd Lietuenant "Robert Fleming" for Company B of the 1st Louisiana Zouave Battalion

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    The Battalion command represents all companies.. even if there are troll companies or hostile companies. His duty is to get them to work together or punish them

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

    This system is making bigger communities as impossible as small units, I think you should let the players decide how to form their community themselves instead of trying to make them play according to your idea. People play the game according to their own ideas, not to yours - by taking away all freedoms you could - in the worst case - ruin the community by effectively excluding all those who do want to form up their groups according to their own ideas and rules.
    Last edited by Ted; 10-25-2016 at 04:45 PM.






    First Sergeant James T. Forester


    Battery A, 1st New Jersey Light Artillery
    The German Volunteers


  3. #23

    USA Captain

    FakeMessiah27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    432
    It doesn't matter if the likelihood of such a situation occurring is low. A system that has these kinds of flaws but is kept in place anyway under the argument of "Aaah, it will be fine, that will never happen" is a bad system.

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

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

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

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

  4. #24

    CSA Captain

    William F. Randolph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Memphis, Tennessee
    Posts
    227
    There is no perfect system. We can make do with what we've got. People might get screwed over in the end but the majority rules in these circumstances, as it should.
    Last edited by William F. Randolph; 10-25-2016 at 05:53 PM.
    50th Georgia Co. C "Coffee County Guards"
    1st Lt. Soldier


    Have you lived off of poor rations, dehydrated, in horrible boots and feared for your life while running half a mile and then brought your sights up? If you can answer yes to those questions I'll consider your suggestion to reduce aim sway. -Trusty
    I did shoot a deer at 100m once in 20 degree weather with Ugg's boots on and I hadn't eaten breakfast, closest I could get to your description -Me

  5. #25
    Moderator

    CSA Major

    Leifr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by FakeMessiah27 View Post
    It doesn't matter if the likelihood of such a situation occurring is low. A system that has these kinds of flaws but is kept in place anyway under the argument of "Aaah, it will be fine, that will never happen" is a bad system.

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

  6. #26

    CSA Captain

    William F. Randolph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Memphis, Tennessee
    Posts
    227
    It does make for uncomfortable situations for companies with no affiliation, as it causes conflict. But honestly, if we are having multiple companies co-operating, it only makes sense to have the function of voting for regimental staff regardless of whether companies are affiliated or not. It's an organizational necessity, if this game is going to function as intended with people working on a regimental level.

    Regardless of anything I have said thus far, as Leifr is stating, Captains of companies don't necessarily have to follow orders given by their Colonels. Especially because they founded their company independently. It is up to the coalition of the companies to co-operate and decide if the Colonel, Lt. Colonel, and Major roles will be utilized.
    50th Georgia Co. C "Coffee County Guards"
    1st Lt. Soldier


    Have you lived off of poor rations, dehydrated, in horrible boots and feared for your life while running half a mile and then brought your sights up? If you can answer yes to those questions I'll consider your suggestion to reduce aim sway. -Trusty
    I did shoot a deer at 100m once in 20 degree weather with Ugg's boots on and I hadn't eaten breakfast, closest I could get to your description -Me

  7. #27

    USA Captain

    FakeMessiah27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    432
    I disagree with the notion that there are no consequences to companies when a colonel is elected. As you can read from Hinkel here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    4) The newly assigned regiment commander can assign each of his companies into a battalion. So its like the platoon system, just on regimental level.
    5) If possible, he can assign a major and lt. colonel to each of the 2 battalions. Those persons will then be kicked out of their companies too, being assigned to the regimental staff.
    My main issue that I've pointed towards in both my posts is in regards to battalions. That is definitely a situation where two companies belonging to the same group could come under the "yoke" of a colonel if that colonel decides not to adhere to the wishes of the companies in question, and place them in different battalions, or if he appoints someone to Major they don't want.

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

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

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

    Edit: just to clarify: I'm not against the idea of having a voting system for a colonel and regimental staff per se, as long as they indeed do not have any influence on the internal workings of player groups.
    Last edited by FakeMessiah27; 10-25-2016 at 08:41 PM.

  8. #28

    USA Captain

    zerosius's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    86
    A lot of great points and discussion in this thread. Personally i think the way Hinkel described the system the devs have in mind at the moment, seems like a decent compromise. I can see the problems with some smaller groups of players being obershadowed by bigger communities, but honestly i think that is how democracy works.

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

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






    Cpt. William Hexamer
    Battery Commander


    Battery A, 1st New Jersey Light Artillery
    The German Volunteers


  9. #29
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,554
    Just a headsup. All of the higher level stuff such as regiments is still very much on the drawing board and thus we can't really give you any real answers just yet nor should you expect ideas we do put forward to you to be included exactly as described.

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

    - Trusty

  10. #30

    USA Captain

    Dingle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    43
    I think the devs have done a great job with the game so far, and I know that my opinion alone probably won't matter much, but I have some problems with the system that has been proposed by the devs in this thread. For the purposes of my argument, I'll be making up some example regiments that each have their own situations.

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


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

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


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


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


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


    Some of these situations might be unlikely, but consider the fact that there will be many more groups once the game actually comes out. I think the proposed system is an attempt at a one-size-fits-all solution, when in reality there will be a lot of problems in certain scenarios. I hope that there will be an option to refuse becoming Colonel if elected, otherwise plenty of people will end up in company-less limbo. I'm not proposing a solution myself, I'm just pointing out potential issues with the current system. If this does end up as the final system, I think companies should be given the option to completely refuse participation in the greater structure of the regiment (i.e. the ability to not vote for a leader or be voted leader and the ability to refuse being appointed to a battalion).
    Last edited by Dingle; 10-26-2016 at 12:13 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •