Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Battalion Level Suggestions

  1. #1
    Community Manager, WoR-Dev Hinkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,847

    Battalion Level Suggestions

    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

  2. #2

    CSA Captain

    Dutchconfederate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Den Haag / The Hague
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dutchconfederate; 04-12-2019 at 10:12 AM.
    https://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3262&dateline=1552563  685
    I-Corp 2nd Brigade

  3. #3
    Community Manager, WoR-Dev Hinkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,847
    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?

  4. #4

    CSA Captain

    Dutchconfederate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Den Haag / The Hague
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    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/sho...-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
    Last edited by Dutchconfederate; 04-12-2019 at 10:28 AM.
    https://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3262&dateline=1552563  685
    I-Corp 2nd Brigade

  5. #5
    Community Manager, WoR-Dev Hinkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,847
    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.

  6. #6

    CSA Captain

    Dutchconfederate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Den Haag / The Hague
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Dutchconfederate; 04-12-2019 at 10:35 AM.
    https://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3262&dateline=1552563  685
    I-Corp 2nd Brigade

  7. #7

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    498
    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.
    Texan's always move'em.

  8. #8

    CSA Major General

    Redleader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Kingdom of Belgium
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Hinkel View Post
    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.
    I write for my personal account and from personal experience, unless stated otherwise.

  9. #9

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    498
    Quote Originally Posted by Redleader View Post
    + 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.
    Texan's always move'em.

  10. #10

    CSA Captain

    Dutchconfederate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Den Haag / The Hague
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    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.
    https://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3262&dateline=1552563  685
    I-Corp 2nd Brigade

Posting Permissions

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