Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: How will bigger units than companies work?

  1. #41

    CSA Captain

    Killobytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtSoldier View Post
    Agreed, some sort of demoting implementation needs to be made so there are smooth and proper transitions of power.
    Well there already is a demoting implementation in regards to the fact that the Captain can make someone else captain, demote themselves, and still have ownership of the company. So really it's all about still having ownership of the company even after being made regimental staff.

  2. #42

    USA Captain


    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    261
    Not too impressed with the unhappy button thing lol. If you don't like the company you're in leave and go make your own unit with the people that share that opinion otherwise years of hardwork by that leader could be washed by the drain because his company has been infected by other units to bring the company down, create mutinies etc.

    I can tell that a lot of the devs haven't played M&B because they aren't familiar with the reality of the politics in games like these.
    Last edited by General. Jackson; 10-26-2016 at 06:03 AM.

  3. #43

    USA Captain

    FakeMessiah27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    356
    The unhappy button is only used for the regimental staff, to be clicked by company commanders, not individual members of companies to rate their company commanders.



    The new post by Trusty sounds like a good system indeed, giving anybody who doesn't want to participate an opt-out option seems like a good solution.

  4. #44

    CSA Captain

    William F. Randolph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Memphis, Tennessee
    Posts
    224
    Things aren't going to be as black and white as they are now 6 months after full release comes out, right now we have to opportunity to create a good system that will ensure a peaceful transition of power free from mutiny. I have been in groups like these for over a year and a half, and I know that this function will surely lead to mutiny.
    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. #45
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtSoldier View Post
    Things aren't going to be as black and white as they are now 6 months after full release comes out, right now we have to opportunity to create a good system that will ensure a peaceful transition of power free from mutiny. I have been in groups like these for over a year and a half, and I know that this function will surely lead to mutiny.
    Either you'll have the power to overthrow a commander you are not pleased with (or perform a mutiny as you put it) or you are not. If you are not I imagine people are going to cry "dictatorship!". If you don't trust the people you invite into your company enough to allow them to vote I'd say don't invite them in the first place.

    - Trusty

  6. #46

    USA Captain

    Dipington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Either you'll have the power to overthrow a commander you are not pleased with (or perform a mutiny as you put it) or you are not. If you are not I imagine people are going to cry "dictatorship!". If you don't trust the people you invite into your company enough to allow them to vote I'd say don't invite them in the first place.

    - Trusty
    Well the mlitary here and back then wasn't democratic, it was a dictatorship. If you see that the leader is out for personal gain then you can find a way to replace him like with the happy/unhappy buttons. The point for the higher CO positions from Maj to Col are to put people in those spots that will do the best for the regiment and the companies within it, on the battlefield and working with other companies and regiments.

  7. #47
    FrancisM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of the Netherlands
    Posts
    114
    So what if there are three companies who like eachother that want to form a single unit, and three other companies of the same historical regiment who want to form a single unit, but they hate eachother?

    It's somewhat foolhardy to assume that everyone is going to act, vote and press unhappy buttons based on their own personal happiness. As with every game and gaming community, there will be a bunch of casuals plus a core of very active players in the command positions. I can already see regiments forbidding their members from pressing the unhappy button to avoid mutinies, or demoted people rallying up the regiment in a coup. I'll admit that I find the system very interesting and I am looking forward in seeing how it will work once the game really releases, but when designing the system, you should assume that while most regiments won't experience problems, everything that could theoretically go wrong, will eventually go wrong.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by FrancisM View Post
    So what if there are three companies who like eachother that want to form a single unit, and three other companies of the same historical regiment who want to form a single unit, but they hate eachother?

    It's somewhat foolhardy to assume that everyone is going to act, vote and press unhappy buttons based on their own personal happiness. As with every game and gaming community, there will be a bunch of casuals plus a core of very active players in the command positions. I can already see regiments forbidding their members from pressing the unhappy button to avoid mutinies, or demoted people rallying up the regiment in a coup. I'll admit that I find the system very interesting and I am looking forward in seeing how it will work once the game really releases, but when designing the system, you should assume that while most regiments won't experience problems, everything that could theoretically go wrong, will eventually go wrong.
    This is exactly my opinion as well. Please do not take an offence, but you can clearly see that the Devs' have not had a major leading part in regiments in other games because they do not see these problems. Whatever can go wrong eventually goes wrong, not to mention that you are basically excluding all the semi-active casuals from the regimental life by a system like this.
    A system like this takes the freedom of designing their own community away from the players in an attempt to structure the community according to the Developers' wish - but that is not going to work out in the long term, that's what nearly everyone with experience in leading Regiments who I've talked to said as well.
    A system like this also actually forces people to build parallel structures outside the "Developers' Community", e. g. Armies and other major groups that are made up out of different Companies and troopclasses can not be formed in this tool and are therefore somehow pushed away from the "official" community.

    Let's take our group, the German Volunteers: We have multiple different companies from different Regiments of Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery. We have NO CHANCE of having our own chain of command and leadership because this system simply does not allow us to do so, possibly resulting in huge drama and salt spreading all over. I do not want to see this game's community ending up worse then NW - this system is going to make it worse though.

    This system forces the people into a 100% simulated Union Army but takes the freedom of designing their own community away from them: I understand that's the developers' vision of a ACW-simulation, but I doubt it is going to work out in the long term.
    Last edited by Ted; 10-27-2016 at 01:00 PM.






    First Sergeant James T. Forester


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


  9. #49
    Hinkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    Let's take our group, the German Volunteers: We have multiple different companies from different Regiments of Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery. We have NO CHANCE of having our own chain of command and leadership because this system simply does not allow us to do so, possibly resulting in huge drama and salt spreading all over. I do not want to see this game's community ending up worse then NW - this system is going to make it worse though.
    .
    We never said, that you have no chance of having your own chain of command?

    I said: Regiments can group up together in fictional brigades, with the regiment leader being able to form a brigade with other regiments, artillery and cavalry units.
    So if the 20th New York and the companies within would like to form a bigger group with the 52nd New York, their colonels can simply form a brigade with the tool.

    I don't see the problem here?
    Last edited by Hinkel; 10-27-2016 at 02:05 PM.

  10. #50
    FrancisM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of the Netherlands
    Posts
    114
    I think he means that, say, 54th Company A, 25th Company C and 4th Cavalry Company D can't form a single unit together without forming their respective regiments first.

Posting Permissions

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