Anvil Game Studios

Poll

What sounds better for small regiments?

Colonel
Captain

Voting closes: August 23, 2018, 02:51:05 pm

Author Topic: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.  (Read 5663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carruthers

  • Midshipman
  • *
  • Posts: 653
    • 4th ROF
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2018, 07:34:01 am »
Corporal is where it's at.  8)

YEAH!!!!

Offline General Shepherd

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 345
  • Peace at Home, Peace in the World
    • Steam
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Lt.Gen Shepherd
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2018, 10:14:11 pm »
Corporal is where it's at.  8)

YEAH!!!!

General or Colonel is better, Corporal you are rank up need Serjeanto :)

Offline Chainsor

  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 991
  • Bad Name Studios Member - 5thKGL Cpl
  • Faction: Neutral
  • Nick: BNS Chainsor
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #77 on: January 30, 2018, 06:16:31 pm »
Depends on how many bats/companys a regiment has (ma opinion), but i'd go with the Colonel

Offline Jean-Baptiste

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 564
  • 89e COL | AGS/HCL Admin
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2018, 07:56:30 pm »
Again, I've gotta stress that Colonel is the way to go. It's convention and it helps people identify that you're the leadership for a given regiment.

I would never have guessed that Sjt. Henry Evans was in charge of the 4th.

Offline Cytiuz

  • Able Seaman
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [73rd] Cytiuz
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #79 on: February 11, 2018, 09:35:46 am »
Personally I believe it is just a rank in the end. It can go down to what u feel suits you and your regiment the best.

Offline Carruthers

  • Midshipman
  • *
  • Posts: 653
    • 4th ROF
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #80 on: February 11, 2018, 11:49:16 am »
Corporal is where it's at.  8)

YEAH!!!!

General or Colonel is better, Corporal you are rank up need Serjeanto :)

My CO of 94 members is a Serjeant. So Serjeant is best.

Offline Secian

  • Ordinary Seaman
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Joseph Harris
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2018, 04:50:20 am »
Corporal is where it's at.  8)

YEAH!!!!

General or Colonel is better, Corporal you are rank up need Serjeanto :)

My CO of 94 members is a Serjeant. So Serjeant is best.
^^ who used to be a Corporal. He should just title himself Serjeant of the Master Serjeants Most Important Person of Extreme Serjeants to the Max. So he would be SjtMSjtMIPESjtMax. Henry Evans

Offline Saga

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Post-Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1351
  • Bite my shiny metal ass.
    • 4th Regiment of Foot
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Henry Evans
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2018, 06:44:37 am »
Master Private... 3rd class

Offline LePoof

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Talk is for lovers, lets fight!
  • Faction: French Empire
  • Nick: Le poofster
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #83 on: March 10, 2018, 02:26:56 pm »
COL Mustard did it with a Candlestick in the Dining room

Offline TheProTaco

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Midshipman's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 656
  • Nulli Secundus
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [49th]Taco
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #84 on: April 10, 2018, 07:28:41 pm »
The leader of a regiment is a Colonel. That is a historical fact for every regiment in every army of this time period. You could have a lower ranking individual leading as the "Acting Colonel" of whatever rank, but the leader must be a Colonel.

All this nonsense with regiments creating General ranks or having their leader be a lower rank than Colonel is simply wrong.

Click the signature to go to my Steam profile!

Offline Amit

  • Server Administrator
  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • 47e Rég't d'Infanterie; NALTA Head Admin
    • Steam Profile
  • Faction: French Empire
  • Nick: [47e]Capt_Amit
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #85 on: May 06, 2018, 09:05:28 pm »
Again, I've gotta stress that Colonel is the way to go. It's convention and it helps people identify that you're the leadership for a given regiment.

I would never have guessed that Sjt. Henry Evans was in charge of the 4th.

Has that ever been a problem? If people are trying to conduct relations with a regiment based on looking at a rank alone, then they aren't trying hard enough. A simple search on these forums will more than likely produce information about who the leaders of that regiment are. Or they can ask their existing Holdfast contacts. As for a Serjeant being in charge, that's not a great idea because, in practice, people will not expect anyone below a Lieutenant or Captain to be leading a regiment. It will confuse them. Even then, it's not hard to ask the Serjeant who the leader is. If they are the leader, then it's not like you wasted hours of your life trying to figure it out.

The leader of a regiment is a Colonel. That is a historical fact for every regiment in every army of this time period. You could have a lower ranking individual leading as the "Acting Colonel" of whatever rank, but the leader must be a Colonel.

All this nonsense with regiments creating General ranks or having their leader be a lower rank than Colonel is simply wrong.

It's a historical fact that the Colonels didn't lead single companies from the front. It's also a historical fact that line infantry regiments were comprised of battalions, each of which employed over a thousand men, in most cases. I have yet to see any regiment in this game bring even one hundred men to an event. Of course, that's a ridiculous expectation to have, the same way that it is a ridiculous assertion to make that it is wrong to use any rank other than Colonel for the top leadership. The use of ranks should be proportional to the type of unit that is being represented.

There are two ways to easily achieve that:

1. Use scale to base your group on a specific unit within a historical regiment. Choose a level of the regiment, such as a well-known company or battalion and base the leader's rank on that. For a British company, it's either Lieutenant or Captain. For the Battalion, it's a Major or Lieutenant Colonel. Using scale that is dependent on rank, you can create a respectable regiment with a lower amount of people that doesn't scream "I want to be important so I'm making myself a Colonel!". It's very cringey to see a Colonel leading a group of 6 people in a battle.

2. Use a combination of the above scaling and customize it to suit your needs. This is what we do in the 47e. We have a single company under the larger regiment, but we do not replicate any specific company under a battalion. Instead, we have modelled ourselves according to our actual in-game operational needs as 3 platoons under a single unnamed company, led by the company commander and directed by the Colonel. Our leader is the rank of Colonel, primarily justified on our structure and our average daily attendance is over 40 people. Open the spoiler if you seek further explanation.

Spoiler
[close]
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 09:13:49 pm by Amit »
Who the fug am I? Read up here.

Offline TheProTaco

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Midshipman's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 656
  • Nulli Secundus
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [49th]Taco
Re: Vote if Colonel or Captain is better for regiments.
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2018, 10:24:12 pm »
It's a historical fact that the Colonels didn't lead single companies from the front. It's also a historical fact that line infantry regiments were comprised of battalions, each of which employed over a thousand men, in most cases. I have yet to see any regiment in this game bring even one hundred men to an event. Of course, that's a ridiculous expectation to have, the same way that it is a ridiculous assertion to make that it is wrong to use any rank other than Colonel for the top leadership. The use of ranks should be proportional to the type of unit that is being represented.

There are two ways to easily achieve that:

1. Use scale to base your group on a specific unit within a historical regiment. Choose a level of the regiment, such as a well-known company or battalion and base the leader's rank on that. For a British company, it's either Lieutenant or Captain. For the Battalion, it's a Major or Lieutenant Colonel. Using scale that is dependent on rank, you can create a respectable regiment with a lower amount of people that doesn't scream "I want to be important so I'm making myself a Colonel!". It's very cringey to see a Colonel leading a group of 6 people in a battle.

2. Use a combination of the above scaling and customize it to suit your needs. This is what we do in the 47e. We have a single company under the larger regiment, but we do not replicate any specific company under a battalion. Instead, we have modelled ourselves according to our actual in-game operational needs as 3 platoons under a single unnamed company, led by the company commander and directed by the Colonel. Our leader is the rank of Colonel, primarily justified on our structure and our average daily attendance is over 40 people. Open the spoiler if you seek further explanation.

There's a lot of talk about scale here so let's crunch the numbers:
The average size of a regiment in this time period is approximately 1,000 men. Your average Napoleonic era battle would be approximately 60,000 men on both sides.
So, generalizing grossly, approximately 60 regiments per side on the battlefield of ~1.7% of the total army size each.

The largest events in Holdfast right now are 200 players. So, if each regiment should comprise approximately 1.7% of the total army size then each regiment would number 3.3 people.
That's realistic scaling.
That's stupid.

So, using averages based on how many regiments typically are on a server during an event, approximately 7 per side, that means that each regiment comprises 14.3% of their army's total strength on the battlefield.
That would mean each regiment on the battlefield should have 28.6 men on average.
Considering at this moment only about 5 regiments (NA) have daily attendance of that size, we can also consider that fairly un-achievable, for most regiments, at least during dry season with exams.

So what has the community been doing instead for the last several years? We each call ourselves a singular regiment, realism be damned, and who leads a regiment? A Colonel.

Of course I don't disagree that obviously Colonels, or most staff ranks in general would be seriously leading their men from the front. But this is a game, and the highest position possible in any regiment is a Colonel, so the highest position you should be able to achieve in your regiment, is Colonel.
That deals with the absurdity of someone naming themselves a General.

As for having a rank below Colonel and leading your regiment, I'm not particularly bothered by what people do to be honest. But the highest rank attainable in a regiment is Colonel, so if you're calling yourself a regiment and are leading one, it only makes all our lives easier if you call yourself the Colonel of that regiment, just as everyone's always done.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 10:27:35 pm by TheProTaco »

Click the signature to go to my Steam profile!