Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Battalion Level Suggestions

  1. #21

    USA Lieutenant General

    SilverStaples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    35
    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 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.

  2. #22

    CSA Captain

    Dutchconfederate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Den Haag / The Hague
    Posts
    351
    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
    Richmond Howitzers Battalion EU/NA

  3. #23

    USA Lieutenant General

    SilverStaples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchconfederate View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverStaples View Post
    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.
    3rd Alabama Company A "Mobile Cadets"

  5. #25

    CSA Brigadier General

    rbsmith7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverStaples View Post
    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
    It is literally impossible, at this point. There are too many inactive "owned" companies, and almost no corporations in this community are allied with units of their historical brigades. Hood's Brigade being the obvious exception.
    An unprofitable servant of Christ Jesus,

    'Fighting' Chaplain Bradley
    Company Tool & Steam Profile

  6. #26

    USA Captain

    SwingKid148's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    389
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by rbsmith7 View Post
    almost no corporations in this community are allied with units of their historical brigades. Hood's Brigade being the obvious exception.
    And 9th Corp.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by SwingKid148 View Post
    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.
    3rd Alabama Company A "Mobile Cadets"

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by brentcarter View Post
    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.

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

  9. #29
    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
    3rd Alabama Company A "Mobile Cadets"

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by brentcarter View Post
    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.

    Longstreet's I Corps
    1st Brigade Commanding Officer

Posting Permissions

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