PDA

View Full Version : Battalion Level Suggestions



Hinkel
04-12-2019, 10:56 AM
Hey guys,

as you know, we would like to add a battalion level for the Company Tool.
I would like to hear your suggestions, how such a system could work.

There are a couple of issues, which might cause some problems:

1)
There are 10 companies in each regiment. Who will take command of the battalion as Colonel? Will there be a voting, that each Company creator can suggest and vote a battalion commander?

2)
What, if some companies are not friendly to each other and don't want to work together?

Looking forward to your suggestions, so we can create a good and interesting battalion level :)

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 11:06 AM
Hey guys,

as you know, we would like to add a battalion level for the Company Tool.
I would like to hear your suggestions, how such a system could work.

There are a couple of issues, which might cause some problems:

1)
There are 10 companies in each regiment. Who will take command of the battalion as Colonel? Will there be a voting, that each Company creator can suggest and vote a battalion commander?

2)
What, if some companies are not friendly to each other and don't want to work together?

Looking forward to your suggestions, so we can create of good battalion level :)


I would suggest to allow non-restricted(non historical) mixes(infantry/ artillery/ cavalry) simply because like point two states, could be that companies are not friendly with each other, or have different times zones, different play styles. I do not hope there will be a whole historical discussion because its very simple later on when the whole Antietam map will be playable you would have companies roaming battlefields they never fought on. So there you go not historical. All the companies are apart of the same army its just how you look at it and how restricted you would want to allow players to form up battalions and higher.


The company that starts the initiation to invite companies into a battalion(etc.) would distribute the roles towards the companies invited, they can then accept or decline this. You would suspect that before starting something in the company tool this would already be something that has been discussed between the companies involved.

The company owner should be active not only in the company tool but traceable on steam. Could you allow a requirement of a steam id to be filled? So you know it is a real person that leads a company. I can imagine letting all the members do this will prove to be a hassle but at least the company leaders.


**Have to think more about the options and keep my eye on what the rest of the community comes up with.

Hinkel
04-12-2019, 11:10 AM
Hmm, mixed up with cavalry and artillery. How should that look like?

52nd New York Company A, grouping up with Ohio Battery D and Maryland Cavalry C? So different states mixed together in a battalion?
How would the name of the Battalion be then? :)

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 11:18 AM
Hmm, mixed up with cavalry and artillery. How should that look like?

52nd New York Company A, grouping up with Ohio Battery D and Maryland Cavalry C? So different states mixed together in a battalion?
How would the name of the Battalion be then? :)

I don't know something to think about. Now artillery get implemented in the future you would want mixed clans to be able to form up in the company tool.
And the question is how far will that be open or restricted where is that historical line you are going to draw?

What if 52nd NY company A enjoys playing with the Ohio Battery D and are looking for form up a cooperation? I am not saying i have answers but that is something that can happen and why would you restrict that.

Just as an example not any ill meaning or with bad intentions:

https://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?6164-Longstreet-s-I-Corps-(NA-EU)

Units which make up this Army Corps:
Anderson's Division
Evans' (Independent) Brigade
Hood's Division
Jones' Division
Longstreet's Corps Artillery
McLaws' Division
Walker's Division

Mixed / different regiment states / different brigades / different branches

*** You name it according the company that takes the initiative to invite companies.

52nd NY's Battalion / Brigade

Hinkel
04-12-2019, 11:27 AM
I do understand what you mean, but such "groups" or legions won't fit to a battalion level I have to say.
Mixed groups could be an option for a second level, on top of the battalion level, like Brigades or "fictional" Legions.

But keep it going :)
Maybe we have to skip a battalion level and have to think of something different, so individuell companies from different states can group up.

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 11:31 AM
I do understand what you mean, but such "groups" or legions won't fit to a battalion level I have to say.
Mixed groups could be an option for a second level, on top of the battalion level, like Brigades or "fictional" Legions.

But keep it going :)
Maybe we have to skip a battalion level and have to think of something different, so individuell companies from different states can group up.

Yeah I miss-used the name Battalion in my replies. The focus was on how strict you lay those lines of being historical.
And the naming well you could keep that as in my previous post you could have the name according to the state that has taken the imitative in the company tool to start a Brigade or Legion.

LaBelle
04-12-2019, 11:42 AM
Forgive me if this has been suggested, as I'm at work and unable to read much at the time, but my suggestion would be that a single company can "muster" a battalion, name it whatever they like, and then any interested parties can join. Once the battalion reaches 3 or so companies, it musters and becomes a full fledged organization.

Redleader
04-12-2019, 11:47 AM
I do understand what you mean, but such "groups" or legions won't fit to a battalion level I have to say.
Mixed groups could be an option for a second level, on top of the battalion level, like Brigades or "fictional" Legions.

+ Good idea on having multiple levels like brigades, divisions, corps ... (in theorie how bigger the number of regiments having an 'strategic alliance', the higher level organisation can be formed)

Due to the approach to organisation & structure, the way such 'org' work may be entirely different, let's take the example of II corps & 1st Texas (correct me if I'm wrong)



II corps : Col. Paioletti & Col. Fubar are the 'owners' of multiple regiments where officers get assigned, but like for example 3rd Arkansas (H) was 'owned' by Minister Bob while all being part of II corps.
II corps : The difference here lies within company autonomy.
II corps : Company owners (can) have multiple accounts(emailadresses) in order to manage company tool (not ideal)
1st Texas : if I'm correct in 1st Texas leaders can be voted upon, which is a different approach.


So the issues here are :


Does the Major General (example) get voted upon "unanimously" by the participating companies.
What if that Major General is the orginal owner of these companies, can he be voted away (or can't because he's the effective owner of the participating companies)
Can a Major General manager regiments company tool ? (change roles, accept & remove members) Would this be a setting a regiment can (dis)allow


I agree to interregimental relationships historical accuracy of participating regiments/batteries might be an issue.
We can at least keep the name historical accurate.

LaBelle
04-12-2019, 11:57 AM
+ Good idea on having multiple levels like brigades, divisions, corps ... (in theorie how bigger the number of regiments having an 'strategic alliance', the higher level organisation can be formed)

Due to the approach to organisation & structure, the way such 'org' work may be entirely different, let's take the example of II corps & 1st Texas (correct me if I'm wrong)



II corps : Col. Paioletti & Col. Fubar are the 'owners' of multiple regiments where officers get assigned, but like for example 3rd Arkansas (H) was 'owned' by Minister Bob while all being part of II corps.
II corps : The difference here lies within company autonomy.
II corps : Company owners (can) have multiple accounts(emailadresses) in order to manage company tool (not ideal)
1st Texas : if I'm correct in 1st Texas leaders can be voted upon, which is a different approach.


So the issues here are :


Does the Major General (example) get voted upon "unanimously" by the participating companies.
What if that Major General is the orginal owner of these companies, can he be voted away (or can't because he's the effective owner of the participating companies)
Can a Major General manager regiments company tool ? (change roles, accept & remove members) Would this be a setting a regiment can (dis)allow


I agree to interregimental relationships historical accuracy of participating regiments/batteries might be an issue.
We can at least keep the name historical accurate.

Correct, our Lt. Colonel and Major position are voted on by the Officer Club every 6 months.

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 11:58 AM
Forgive me if this has been suggested, as I'm at work and unable to read much at the time, but my suggestion would be that a single company can "muster" a battalion, name it whatever they like, and then any interested parties can join. Once the battalion reaches 3 or so companies, it musters and becomes a full fledged organization.

yeah something like that was the direction I was thinking also.

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 03:47 PM
Leaders confirmed by steam id and activity?

Hinkel
04-12-2019, 04:04 PM
What happens if the Colonel (or whatever) suddenly goes inactive?

Colonels could get voted by other leaders, but also being able to get demoted, by starting another voting after a certain time.

Redleader
04-12-2019, 04:14 PM
What happens if the Colonel (or whatever) suddenly goes inactive? A friend to many of us in this community passed away and his company is forever now in limbo in the Company Tool. There ought to be some way to protect companies and any larger organizations to come from this sort of situation.

Probably having multiple roles at a certain 'level' would mean continuity is assured.

In the current CT members who have admin (minimum role required is the same or lower) can remove players if they have been inactive (for example).

I do believe if registered regiments fall below a certain level, someone else can pick it up … however if some fill a regiment and never show that will leave it frozen in time. (a cleanup was proposed a while back)

A few of my biggest grievances in the current deployment are :



It show the soldiers name in the roster, but players usually go by their nickname … so you'll have to open up enlistment papers sometimes to find out who that person is.
Promoting, changing role, assigning platoon can't be done in one take, when you press to confirm it executes directly making you return to the roster.
Currently there is no relationship between CT & ingame mechanics.
The minimum required rank is on another screen (maybe admin stuff can be reworked) and it confuses owners.

LaBelle
04-12-2019, 04:45 PM
What happens if the Colonel (or whatever) suddenly goes inactive? A friend to many of us in this community passed away and his company is forever now in limbo in the Company Tool. There ought to be some way to protect companies and any larger organizations to come from this sort of situation.

I'm tellin' you guys, voting for leaders works and if it's enforced by the Company Tool itself, even better. Elections would be automatic every 3-6 months, or could be called by a majority of players. I say players because enlisted and NCOs should have a say too, just in the extremely unlikely case that all officers go MIA.

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 04:58 PM
I'm tellin' you guys, voting for leaders works and if it's enforced by the Company Tool itself, even better. Elections would be automatic every 3-6 months, or could be called by a majority of players. I say players because enlisted and NCOs should have a say too, just in the extremely unlikely case that all officers go MIA.

I am all for freedom in options(voting or other ways) as long as there is a option to (automatically) remove the leadership positions due to inactivity and each company in the group keeps their freedom to stay or go as they please.

Lord Drax
04-12-2019, 05:30 PM
Hinkel,

I think your initial instinct to first address the battalion/Regiment tool first was correct. Lets get that working before we move on to the Brigade and corps levels.

That being said if it is operating on a database query code, the simplest way to accomplish implementation would be to allow the owners of the mustered companies in a regiment to select themselves or a contemporary via a drop down selection for the position of Regiment commander. Let the selection process take 24 hours and the selected person with the most votes by the company commanders gets the position and then they can appoint a major and a Sgt major as those are already in the system.

To address the concerns regarding inactive or toxic individuals in the regimental leader position you use the same selection process to remove them at any time using the 24 hour selection process. If a majority of the mustered companies don't select (abstain) or vote for the incumbent to stay it is a non factor. That way it always requires a majority of the mustered companies to have their say.

This has been brought up before in a similar discuss and should be implemented.

How regiments select their leaders can be done internally through an election or just through the system I just described. Either way it requires people to work together to maintain a system and prevents rogue actors from destabilizing it.

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 05:54 PM
I think if you do get busy with it than go all the way so we can test all the pros and cons.

Redleader
04-12-2019, 06:31 PM
I think if you do get busy with it than go all the way so we can test all the pros and cons.

Agreed, let's see what can be cooked up .. soup is best served hot :)

A. P. Hill
04-12-2019, 06:41 PM
What happens if the Colonel (or whatever) suddenly goes inactive? A friend to many of us in this community passed away and his company is forever now in limbo in the Company Tool. There ought to be some way to protect companies and any larger organizations to come from this sort of situation.

This is a good point. Only let's not limit this to just Colonelcy positions. There should be a mechanism in code that will allow for ownership of unit pages to either clear the members of said unit, or allow for newly elected replacement leaders to assume editorial rights to the unit's Web pages.

SilverStaples
04-12-2019, 08:58 PM
Hey guys,

as you know, we would like to add a battalion level for the Company Tool.
I would like to hear your suggestions, how such a system could work.

There are a couple of issues, which might cause some problems:

1)
There are 10 companies in each regiment. Who will take command of the battalion as Colonel? Will there be a voting, that each Company creator can suggest and vote a battalion commander?

2)
What, if some companies are not friendly to each other and don't want to work together?

Looking forward to your suggestions, so we can create a good and interesting battalion level :)

I've had conversations in the past with a few other Company Commanders on this subject. Specifically in reference to the rank of the commanding officer.
My issue with this is of course the scale in respect to historical accuracy vrs the amount of players in the game.
Example: Burnside Bridge. Currently WarOfRights only allows 150 players on a server, The actual battle obviously had a much larger group of soldiers on either side. So in my mind, 75 per side needs to represent and scale to how many people were actually involved in the battle.
1 company = 100 men 1 Battalion = 1000 men. In game this is obviously not possible.

As far as Rank goes, I think that needs to scale as well. I know each Company/brigade/battalion/Corp commander probably has a different opinion on this.
For myself and the 1stCav, 1 Company Captain, 2 Major, 3 Lt.Col, 4 Col. and so on.

We do have a affiliation with the 9th Corp. Mainly because we have a good relationship with the other Companies in that organization. 9th NY, 17thMI, 11th CT
But in the long run, I think throwing already formed companies into a Battalion based on historical accuracy will create a mess.

Problems between company commanders, differences in play style, higher and lower attendance numbers per company within that Battalion. (We all know numbers on the company tool rarely translate to numbers in game) and this absolutely includes 1stCav. We have 160 people and we rarely have over 30 people in game. Due to time zones, players becoming inactive, event times or any other number of reasons.

I'm definitely interested to hear everyone's opinion on this issue. I believe this could be a game killer if this goes into effect.

Dutchconfederate
04-12-2019, 10:09 PM
I dont believe this will be a game killer, It is natural for at least a Cavalry / Artillery to team up with 1 or 2 infantry units to get the best experience especially later on in the game and to have that manageable in the company tool

SilverStaples
04-12-2019, 10:17 PM
I dont believe this will be a game killer, It is natural for at least a Cavalry / Artillery to team up with 1 or 2 infantry units to get the best experience especially later on in the game and to have that manageable in the company tool

Agreed, but forcing Arty.Cav.Sharpshooters and Infantry to group up in a battalion based on where there companies were historically speaking, is a recipe for disaster. That doesn't take into account the relationships (or lack there of) that current companies have formed with others.

brentcarter
04-13-2019, 11:46 AM
Agreed, but forcing Arty.Cav.Sharpshooters and Infantry to group up in a battalion based on where there companies were historically speaking, is a recipe for disaster. That doesn't take into account the relationships (or lack there of) that current companies have formed with others.

No I don't believe that is a good idea, also don't believe anybody from the community has said(requested) this should be a thing. The historical aspect should be in the game-play itself not how we as players / communities / clans want to form up. But that is my opinion of course.

SwingKid148
04-13-2019, 01:23 PM
The battalion tool should be just that for historical battalions within a regiment. No cross breeding between branches for this level.

To Staples point, you are in the 9th Corp because you were in the 9th Corp at Antietam. :) So if we ever get a Corp tool, we would be in the same level.

I would not support any of the developers time/energy/resources on developing a tool for non-historical accurate associations. If someone from the community can make something, all for it.



almost no corporations in this community are allied with units of their historical brigades. Hood's Brigade being the obvious exception.

And 9th Corp. :)

brentcarter
04-13-2019, 01:59 PM
The battalion tool should be just that for historical battalions within a regiment. No cross breeding between branches for this level.

To Staples point, you are in the 9th Corp because you were in the 9th Corp at Antietam. :) So if we ever get a Corp tool, we would be in the same level.

I would not support any of the developers time/energy/resources on developing a tool for non-historical accurate associations. If someone from the community can make something, all for it.




And 9th Corp. :)
Okay then you should only fight your historical opponent. And be historical correct. Stay only on your skirmish map and don't walk around to much on the Antietam map outside of your historical battle area.

Nothing against you or the 9th in any way just pointing out the historical restrictions you want to enforce on the company tool.

Lord Drax
04-13-2019, 02:14 PM
Okay then you should only fight your historical opponent. And be historical correct. Stay only on your skirmish map and don't walk around to much on the Antietam map outside of your historical battle area.

Nothing against you or the 9th in any way just pointing out the historical restrictions you want to enforce on the company tool.

Whoa we are talking across purposes here. What was being said is that the battalion/Regiment tool be used for is historical regiments: like 4th Texas, 7th Michigan, etc. The Brigade/corps tool is what is being suggested for later for different a historical regiments to group together with artillery and cavalry if they so choose.

So the distinction needs to be made between both.

The common recommendations seem to be to allow rhe companies in a Regiment to band together first and select their leadership. Once we have that system working the next level can be created by the dev team. Small steps gents... No is suggesting historical forcing through the whole system. But I agree lets start small and get the regiments/battalions working first on the website and then go from there.

brentcarter
04-13-2019, 02:27 PM
I don't agree with small steps that only work for a tiny part of the community. Work on the bigger picture long term.

And my comment is true to the fact that some members are all into historical accuracy which you will only find to a small extend. So working on a small step like that what's the point. It's a management system for clans

Lord Drax
04-13-2019, 03:00 PM
I don't agree with small steps that only work for a tiny part of the community. Work on the bigger picture long term.

And my comment is true to the fact that some members are all into historical accuracy which you will only find to a small extend. So working on a small step like that what's the point. It's a management system for clans

I am sure its all going to get worked on but Rome wasn't built in a day. Instead of trying to do it all at once with coding you have to show proof of concept. The voting or selection methods being discussed here need to get rolled out in stages to make sure it works. First for regiments/battalions and then brigades and corps. It's not about being for a small group of the community it's about design, implementation, and workflow for the dev team. They are not a AAA studio and we all want things like artillery and South Mountain / etc. Let's make sure we can give them good suggestions on what we would like to see as far as group management from regiments to corps and let them test the implantation. It's easier to do it in stages instead of all at once, hence why we have the company tool first.

brentcarter
04-13-2019, 03:07 PM
im sure its all going to get worked on also. Lets make sure we can give them good suggestions on what we would like to see as far as it being a clan management tool yeah exactly what I suggest. Suggestions are also given in sharing opinions about the feedback from others on this matter. Nobody has to agree with each other here, nobody has to share the same views.
And thank you for letting me know they are not a AAA studio I did not know that after 2 years.

SilverStaples
04-13-2019, 07:17 PM
The battalion tool should be just that for historical battalions within a regiment. No cross breeding between branches for this level.

To Staples point, you are in the 9th Corp because you were in the 9th Corp at Antietam. :) So if we ever get a Corp tool, we would be in the same level.

I would not support any of the developers time/energy/resources on developing a tool for non-historical accurate associations. If someone from the community can make something, all for it.




And 9th Corp. :)

I guess I should be more clear about my meaning here. The 9th Corp discord/ organization within the WarOfRights community. My point earlier was that I wouldn't have been part of this group; if we didn't already have a pre-existing relationship with the Companies and their Commanders in game. Historical accuracy is all well and good, but it doesn't work in game if the actual people representing these units don't work well together. We work well with Tyler/ the 9th and Lindy/the 17th. So for us, being part of the "9th Corp" makes sense. Others may not feel the same way about the Corp that they would be thrown into.

Just an opinion.

Lord Drax
04-13-2019, 07:32 PM
Well if I understand properly kind of like LtCol Redleader said if you dont want to form a corps or Brigade you dont have to, but I think we all agree no one should be forced into one on historical basis. Let it be ahistorical and go from there. There are currently only 3 groups organized as corps right now anyway; I Corps, II Corps and IX Corps... Js

Dutchconfederate
04-13-2019, 07:51 PM
Even smaller settings would be welcomed. Might even open up more organisations which I think would help the community to get better organisation and more activity and competition. Needs at least a tool to verify the leader of each unit to be active on a regular base

SUWAROW
04-13-2019, 10:16 PM
I think the idea with battalions is fine, however it would be even cooler if this Toolkit was directly related to the game. In my opinion, the developers had such ideas. Sorry for offtopic, but here will be important in my opinion.

About the system with the battalions, it is likely you will need administrative plan? Now I don't know about larger associations than the 2nd Сorps. And whether there is from it some applied sense or only as a fad? Could anyone satisfy my interest in this topic?

Lord Drax
04-13-2019, 10:37 PM
I think the idea with battalions is fine, however it would be even cooler if this Toolkit was directly related to the game. In my opinion, the developers had such ideas. Sorry for offtopic, but here will be important in my opinion.

About the system with the battalions, it is likely you will need administrative plan? Now I don't know about larger associations than the 2nd Сorps. And whether there is from it some applied sense or only as a fad? Could anyone satisfy my interest in this topic?

There are currently 3 organized Corps of regiments. Two in the CSA (I and II) and one in the Union (IX)

SUWAROW
04-13-2019, 11:41 PM
Thank you, but i saw only 2 corps on my mind. It's my fault ofc. But what about applied sense? What that battalions need doing? i read this topic but don't know how this work in game. I would like to see a good tool that will allow you to take/fire fighters right in the game. To raise in a rank and to appoint to positions that they had the functionality allowing them to realize the official duties. And of course the tags that will define us as soldiers of a certain company is a member of the battalion. So far it is a very good tool, but there is not enough implementation in the game.

This way it is possible to solve another problem. Nicknames.

I would certainly like to see battalions that can show us a larger scale in battles with good organization and discipline, but so far I see only that few are ready to unite. This is a subjective my opinion is not claiming the truth for all.

Dutchconfederate
04-14-2019, 08:17 AM
I do hope that if and when the company tool gets integrated with the game, we will have the option that with our made organisations we as players can fall in where needed. As an example if the richmond howitzers are in a clan together with the 2nd Virginia Infantry and the 1st Virginia Cavalry we can fill up each others spots when needed and to give players a option to try out other branches mix up the game play on the historical battle mode.

LaBelle
04-14-2019, 01:12 PM
Not sure why there's so much talk about "Corps" in game when there's much smaller(in scale)units like regiments that match these "Corps" numbers. Let's keep this idea somewhat realistic for now and go with a "regiment tool" first, then open up the field later on down the line. The "Corps" can still band together ad-hoc like they are now, while someone like 4th Texas or 6thLA can also organize themselves by regiment within that framework.

brentcarter
04-14-2019, 01:23 PM
You can implement requirements that will give you a curtain title.

Have x amount of companies involved to get names: regiment -(Battalion)- brigade - (division - corps seems to big for the game but okay.. not against it)
You could make regiments and have attached other branches.

Example 3rd AL regiment + Attached such and such.
So you don't mess up the name but have the organisation and visible connection possible in the company tool

You can get a Legion included for the a-historical clans if they wish to be named as such.

LaBelle
04-14-2019, 01:58 PM
You can implement requirements that will give you a curtain title.

Have x amount of companies involved to get names: regiment -(Battalion)- brigade - (division - corps seems to big for the game but okay.. not against it)
You could make regiments and have attached other branches.

Example 3rd AL regiment + Attached such and such.
So you don't mess up the name but have the organisation and visible connection possible in the company tool

You can get a Legion included for the a-historical clans if they wish to be named as such.

That'd work, I hadn't thought of a system that scales to the number of companies involved. Legions could be an organization like the type Ted E. Bear and Lenin are trying to set up; no direct chain of command etc.

Dutchconfederate
04-15-2019, 11:15 AM
So a automatic system where the company tool dictates your organisational name? I think that can work
Suited for those who can and want to start a historical correct organisation, and a system for those groups who enjoy playing together although not historical in the same organisation, they will have a place in the company tool to get organized.

Options for Leadership: By vote & By appointing a leader so people can choose which fits their play style

Because someone needs to start a organisation it would be wise to have a Company Captain starting a organisation to set up the rules about:
- Voting or appointing a leader
- How will companies be able to enter? Does every company initially involved agree that a new company can join?

Example:: 1st Texas A B C D are friendly with each other they start up a battalion/regiment. Company K wants to join. A B C agree with company K to be aboard but company D does not like the guys in company K.
How will that work?

- Allow other branches to be Attached. Example 6th Louisiana regiment (attached 1st Virginia Cavalry B)
So 1st VA Cav. will fight under the 6th LA regimental banner in the company tool.


Legion besides the historical Legion's this setting could also be used for A-historical mixed branches wanting to team up.

WhoHowY27
05-19-2019, 05:59 PM
Forgive me if this has been suggested, as I'm at work and unable to read much at the time, but my suggestion would be that a single company can "muster" a battalion, name it whatever they like, and then any interested parties can join. Once the battalion reaches 3 or so companies, it musters and becomes a full fledged organization.

This is a really good idea, and I think that this is definitely the direction we should be taking with a larger organization system.

Josef Tišer
12-26-2019, 10:44 PM
I think that the "battalion" should be created on the same principle like forming a company. Simply choose and click. Commander of the battalion can then invite other companies to join his unit or commanders of the companies can volunteer to join battalion, same principle like soldier making a volunteer to join a company. Simple and practical. If the commander of the company would not be satisfied with their membership in the unit, they can simply leave the battalion.

Definitely do not mix other army branches together in one battalion! War of Rights is supposed to be historically accurate and thats how the true community of this game like it! No fiction units!

SwingKid148
12-26-2019, 11:33 PM
Definitely do not mix other army branches together in one battalion! War of Rights is supposed to be historically accurate and thats how the true community of this game like it! No fiction units!

Don't worry about Company K of the 9th NY. :cool:


This regiment, Col. Rush C. Hawkins, was organized in New York city, and there mustered in the service of the United States for two years, May 4, 1861; it was accepted by the State, and received its numerical designation, May 13, 1861. One company was formed of members of the 18th Regiment, State Militia, and Company K was equipped as an artillery company, and served as such until November 10, 1862.
http://dmna.ny.gov/historic/reghist/civil/infantry/9thInf/9thInfMain.htm

Galahad
12-26-2019, 11:43 PM
Damn, I really wanted to make the 23th HI

Josef Tišer
12-27-2019, 07:21 AM
That doesnt mean that every infantry battalion can have artillery company attached to it. Cases like this are a very few. Developers could make a exceptions for units like yours.

Josef Tišer
12-28-2019, 04:46 AM
There can be two methods of creating a battalion.
Example for the first method:
You are company commander of 8th Florida Infantry Company A and you want to create a battalion, you then simply click and create 8th Florida Infantry Battalion and your Company A will be automatically attached to your created battalion.

Example of the second method:
You want to be regimental commander right away, so you then simply create 18th North Carolina Battalion and other Companies of 18th North Carolina can join your battalion.

Companies can join your battalion if they are from the same origin! Example: If your Company is 23rd Virginia Company A and you want to join 8th Florida Battalion it is not possible!

Only if your company has the same origin like the battalion you wish to join, then it can join the battalion.

Southern
12-28-2019, 05:38 AM
someone is so eager to start a battalion, but this is a game and historical accuracy you are talking about is to an extend, or are you telling me 8th Florida company C was a Czechia company way back then? Did the 8th FL fought on every battlefield? No they did not, or do you restrict yourself to play on just the battlefields they fought on for historical accuracy? So let people make there clans how they see fit. I think some good ideas have been mentioned before in this thread.

Bravescot
12-28-2019, 07:59 AM
Really like your idea Tišer! Simple and to the point.

Josef Tišer
12-28-2019, 09:41 AM
someone is so eager to start a battalion, but this is a game and historical accuracy you are talking about is to an extend, or are you telling me 8th Florida company C was a Czechia company way back then? Did the 8th FL fought on every battlefield? No they did not, or do you restrict yourself to play on just the battlefields they fought on for historical accuracy? So let people make there clans how they see fit. I think some good ideas have been mentioned before in this thread.

The origin of people who represent historical units plays no role in this. The point is that until now Campfire Games made fully historically accurate display of the game. Units, battlefields, you can even play the units which fought on the battlefield where they truly were. Company Tool is basically the same thing. Campfire Games meant to make it historically accurate, Company Tool shows only units which trully fought there. Why should they lose their path and make possible something like 1st Texas Legion or 8th Florida Artillery Battalion? That sounds horrible! Company Tool is historically accurate and should remain historically accurate in my opinion.

If you want to create a connected group of more units, for example 1st Texas and 14th Virginia and call it "Southern Battalion" then go and create a Steam group or Discord channel. Company Tool is historical roster not community hub.

Josef Tišer
12-28-2019, 09:46 AM
Really like your idea Tišer! Simple and to the point.

Thank you Stone! Merry Christmas!

Bl1zzt3r
05-26-2023, 12:46 AM
This topic should make a return.

The O'Neill
06-22-2023, 08:02 PM
Let me throw my ha'penny into the mix -

I served in two different re-enacting Battalions over the years, one Reb and one Yankee.

The Reb Battalion was made up of only various Virginia Companies from the ANV 2nd. Corps under Longstreet. No other Branch attachments. There were plenty of re-enactors back East so it didn't matter.

The Yankee Battalion was what we called a "Provisional" Battalion, made up of Companies from Various States. Started out as 6, ended up with 4 as we weeded out the Farbs and Companies shrank and/or were consolidated. No other Branch attachments. (Occasionally we got stuck with a Company of dismounted Cavalry (2nd. Massachusetts _ real Farbs). I'd through them out as Skirmishers just to get them out of the Line of Battle. Our real Horse troopers and Artillery were seperate under their own commanders.

So my point is keep the Infantry separate with no attachments.

Tisor has it right.

Jack O'Neill