Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Higher than Captain - Joined Companies - Battalions

  1. #31

    USA General of the Army

    John Cooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    381
    Here, Here!
    Long live the SIB ... Long live the Confederacy she faithfully Serves!
    Last edited by John Cooley; 06-09-2017 at 01:45 PM.
    My Great Great Grandfather, Isaac MacDonal Cooley, served as a Pathfinder Cavalry Scout
    in the 1st Arkansas Cavalry Regiment (Dobbin's) Company K
    My Avatar flies his Unit Guidon to Honor his Service.
    My Credo is a simple one ... Unit before Self with Honor above ALL else.

  2. #32

    CSA Major

    1SGT Shannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South Carolina, CSA
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by 1st LT. Martin T. View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    FrancisM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of the Netherlands
    Posts
    114
    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.

  4. #34
    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.
    Corporal John L.
    Color Guard
    38th North Carolina, Company K

  5. #35

    USA Lieutenant General

    [WoR] Kiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jupiter, Florida
    Posts
    385
    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.

  6. #36

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    592
    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.

  7. #37

    CSA Lieutenant General

    1st LT. Martin T.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by [WoR] Kiff View Post
    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.
    Pvt. Martin Brockenbrough's Battery A, I Corps


    In honor of:
    Sgt. Benjamin J. Martin
    15th Alabama Infantry, Company E.
    Southern Cross of Honor Recipient

    Personal Service Record
    U.S. ARMY SSGT. 11B20/2B/B4/5U
    6 Years Active Duty
    x2 Combat Deployments in OEF
    1-12 INF, 4th/2nd IBCT, 4ID

  8. #38

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by 1st LT. Martin T. View Post
    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?
    Civil War Ancestors:

  9. #39

    USA Captain

    Conway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Stephenville, Newfoundland
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by 1st LT. Martin T. View Post
    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.
    41st Pennsylvania 1stLt C.O / 41st Ensign.

  10. #40

    CSA Lieutenant General

    1st LT. Martin T.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    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
    Last edited by 1st LT. Martin T.; 07-04-2017 at 10:50 AM.
    Pvt. Martin Brockenbrough's Battery A, I Corps


    In honor of:
    Sgt. Benjamin J. Martin
    15th Alabama Infantry, Company E.
    Southern Cross of Honor Recipient

    Personal Service Record
    U.S. ARMY SSGT. 11B20/2B/B4/5U
    6 Years Active Duty
    x2 Combat Deployments in OEF
    1-12 INF, 4th/2nd IBCT, 4ID

Posting Permissions

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