is it me or are there only big regiments left?

Currently viewing this thread:

DarkOmega

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
JohanBorg163 said:
Personally i would join a small one. Easier to know eachother and more fun.
From what i have heard bigger regiments have better trainings for the most part.
 

Commander Millander

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
When I first got MM a year ago I was in the couple small fail HM regiments. The regiments leaders always said to us that small regiments were better and large ones were worse and destroyed the community.

When I came to eventually realize how much I liked big regs when I joined my first one. More stable.
 

1thecop

Knight
Best answers
0
Commander Millander said:
When I first got MM a year ago I was in the couple small fail HM regiments. The regiments leaders always said to us that small regiments were better and large ones were worse and destroyed the community.

When I came to eventually realize how much I liked big regs when I joined my first one. More stable.
More stable, definitely. But if you can find the right people in charge and the right equipment to survive and thrive, joining a small regiment is more socialized.
 
Best answers
0
dwarlord said:
1thecop said:
TheBoberton said:
The problem I've found in the community is that people tend to join the larger (Giant, with 50 or more people) regiments. They generally prefer having numbers over skill*. A great example of this is the fact that I haven't had a recruit in weeks, regardless of the fact that when me and my lads get on, we usually have quite a lot of fun, and occasionally top the scoreboard. Yet some lads come in, and advertise the 'huge' number of members they have, and get quite a few recruits out of it. This leads to smaller regiments stagnating, due to a lack of members, and collapsing in on themselves, whereas larger regiments can withstand losing a few members, due to a continuous influx of recruits. And to add onto the worries of a smaller regiment, they might lack the numbers to go to any kind of event, meaning they have to keep the interest of their members for weeks, until they get enough recruits from spamming the Official Server's chat.

[* This is not to say that larger regiments lack skill, however some people join based on the numbers.]
I agree with you and see that as well. The bigger regiments can see Euro regiments like the 51st, 77y, 63, 91st, and others and are trying to model their regiment after that. For the NA community to be able to grow, larger regiments should be a little pickier with their recruits, allowing the smaller regiments to be able to pick up some recruits. In the 89th we have 33 enlisted members but we only get 15-20 actively attending events. If larger regiments were more picky with their recruits smaller regiments would have a bigger chance.

Some of this is also due to publicity. A problem we have in the 89th is that we don't have many members active here on the forums. Having members constantly getting your name on the forums where people looking for regiments can possibly see it. Deo has a good guide about things such as these. It'd be nice to see the bigger regiments (the FKI does this) support smaller regiments in helping them get a clean thread etc.
dwarlord said:
the 85th have the same problem, we have around 20 members in our regiment, but only about 8 active members. we try to recuit a lot, but it seems most people who play NW regularly are in regiments now. that means we really struggle to pick up new members, i think we have got 1 new guy in about 2 weeks. we post regularly on the forums, and make recritment threads, but with no sucess.
Founding a Regiment is easy. After you took a name the most difficult challenge is to form a structure, make rules, create an officersstaff, establish ranks, get you and yourself known in the community and the two most important things (imo) being disciplined and to get respect from new members and community members...

Most smaller regiments fail in at least one of my points. Bigger regiments already done that. They formed a good structure, made rules, created officers or general-staff, there are many ranks and they are known...

But I personally don´t like people how are just superficial. They see a big regiment and assume the big regiments is better than the small regiment.
Back in the MM days there was a regiment called the KpA ( I think it is disbanded ) it was new and suddenly it was also very big. They had 90+ members in a few months. I have seen some videos from them and I have talked to ex-members. They told me that there was no structure there weren´t many rules and there was one boss comanding everyone. A member left their regiment and joined again! "Eh, there are many people that´s why I join" Shame on him.

I can be proud to lead a "smaller" regiment. They are all friends. ;D
But there is one problem with "friends"
If you want to command as one of their friends they think they can talk to you while you are commanding...
If you are a guy who is often funny you are not taken seriously.
That´s another problem.

And now you see why rules are great.
And structure and such stuff.

Big regiments should help small regiments.
And don´t steal members  :evil:

 

DarkOmega

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
Obviously not a member of the NW regiment leaders steam group constant request for 10vs10 Linebattles.
 

Kator Viridian

Master Knight
Best answers
0
Feldmarschall_Ben said:
And don´t steal members  :evil:
"Fish are Friends not food!"

But other than Nemo, the main thing to remember is people have a brain of their own, yes they want to be in a reg but its of their own choosing, you can't force them to stay if they would prefer it somewhere else ... because thats what your practically saying "You can't join that reg because they are stealing you, you have to stay with me" ... no just No. NEVER say someone is stealing members for these quite simple facts ... also if people are leaving its either your fault or they just don't like the atmosphere ... simples.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
being disciplined and to get respect
52nd - undisciplined, lack of rank structure, plays just for a laugh ... respected and liked by a lot of regiments ... For example walked up to Jasper of the FK on sunday ... got my guys into the sunday line battle ... are we respected? Yes ... are we Disciplined? No.

Disciplin does not equal respect.

Respect is earnt through making sure your guys enjoy their time, getting to know other regiments, spending time with the community and generally having a laugh when you play the game, quite often taking a line battle seriously and trying to be all "Historically" accurate can really make you look more like an idiot than you might think.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
And now you see why rules are great.
And structure and such stuff.
Sorry to say this but ... just ... No.
 

lFortune

Squire
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
HarbingerOfDoom said:
lFortune said:
Somehow this whole community is like a forest with big trees and smaller ones. The trees themselves are regiments and their own communities.
The shade of the larger ones tend to keep the sunlight off of the saplings, but some still seeps through.
And big trees have tree rings with the oldest members closest to the middle of course.
Makes me wonder who or what a lumberjack would be...
4chan das poet

[email protected], for 51st not showing up much, it's probably cause we barely play on the official servers. We still get good attendances and all during trainings. It's just lazy season atm. Very, very lazy...*melts away in chair*
It's kind of odd, back in bg2 everything and everyone became more active during the summer.
Well, tis laziness at it's finest... *melts away in armchair*
 

rapier17

Baron
Best answers
0
Feldmarschall_Ben said:
Founding a Regiment is easy. After you took a name the most difficult challenge is to form a structure, make rules, create an officersstaff, establish ranks, get you and yourself known in the community and the two most important things (imo) being disciplined and to get respect from new members and community members...
Actually the most important thing is to have the charisma to lead & the knack of leading. Which most people don't have, frankly. It is something you can learn but it takes time & effort. When you start a gaming group you have to accept several things, chief among them that the people looking to join you will expect you to help them to have fun within the game(s) that you play together.

Edit: Note; Anyone can lead, but it's being a good leader people have difficulty with.

Something else you have to do as the 'leader' is include people. This means when you recruit new members you should be including them in stuff involving the veterans. It helps one hell of a lot for new people to feel that because the core members are treating them like an 'equal' that they've been truly accepted - helps to get people involved and, above all, keeps them keen & eager, as well as preventing them from being shy - when people feel intimidated into silence then they'll hardly ever speak on voice-comms. It also helps shy people, like myself, to come out of our shells - I've always found it intimidating to go into other peoples TS channels for events & stuff, or when I used to be a part of guilds/clans/squads, and meet people for the first time.

The above, I think, is more important than any structure, rules, ranks etc, as without a strong leader you won't recruit so well, won't keep members as easily & won't help members to have as much fun as they could otherwise.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
there are many ranks
I really do dislike the notion that lots of ranks are better and I've never seen an argument, beyond the groups size, that really says 12 ranks are better than 6 - and I've heard quite a few 'reasons' including the age-old 'progression' one. The number of ranks should be proportionate to the units size. It's no good having 20 members & 12 ranks. Why start off so big? Why try and start with going for a full Battalion/Regiment? Why not start off with a Company? For a British Line Company that's six ranks (Private, Corporal, Serjeant, Ensign, Lieutenant & Captain) and makes sense if you have low numbers. After all what's better - 20 people trying to represent 600 or 20 representing 60? I know this is all my opinion but I've always found the more ranks you have the more complicated it gets, the more irritating it is to keep an eye on who to promote to which rank/role & how ranks actually mean almost bugger all. Oh woo I've gone from this rank to this rank, what has changed? Nothing.

Leaders should be there to direct, other 'officer' ranks should be there as back up or to lead in the absence of the group leader which is why it is important to make sure that those who are your officers are capable of doing what you do as the leader when you're not about. It can be nice to have a rank for long-time members so that they have the inkling of feeling rewarded for their dedication but generally having loads of ranks is detrimental, especially when you turn up with 9 'leader*' ranks & just 11 rank & file out of 20 members.

*Let us take a British Line Regiment as an example; Lt. Colonel, Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Ensign, RSM, Colour Serjeant, Serjeant, Corporal, Private, Recruit. If you filled up those upper ranks you've a disproportionate number of leaders to rankers - best to keep the rankers to a maximum & 'officers' to a minimum. Note I did not include Lance-Corporal as that rank did not exist during the Napoleonic British Army until years later. Also the correct spelling of Serjeant for the period is with the 'j'. The spelling only changed officially in the 1953.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
I can be proud to lead a "smaller" regiment. They are all friends. ;D
But there is one problem with "friends"
If you want to command as one of their friends they think they can talk to you while you are commanding...
If you are a guy who is often funny you are not taken seriously.
That´s another problem.
This is where that little thing called charisma & having the ability to lead come in to it. The three Warband 'clans' I run all contain the same group of friends - we've all been on the same TS together for rather a long time, we're all veterans of M&B & we have a damned good laugh together. However when I am 'properly' leading them in games, such as in M&B:Warband The Deluge events, they shut up & listen. They might pipe up with suggestions because of something they can see but I can't, for whatever reason, but other than that they trust to my ability & authority. Personality is 99% of leading people and if you don't have the right personality then they won't follow or take you seriously.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
And now you see why rules are great.
And structure and such stuff.
They can be helpful but are not the be-all and end-all.

 

LtSpearing

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
rapier17 said:
Feldmarschall_Ben said:
Founding a Regiment is easy. After you took a name the most difficult challenge is to form a structure, make rules, create an officersstaff, establish ranks, get you and yourself known in the community and the two most important things (imo) being disciplined and to get respect from new members and community members...
Actually the most important thing is to have the charisma to lead & the knack of leading. Which most people don't have, frankly. It is something you can learn but it takes time & effort. When you start a gaming group you have to accept several things, chief among them that the people looking to join you will expect you to help them to have fun within the game(s) that you play together.

Edit: Note; Anyone can lead, but it's being a good leader people have difficulty with.

Something else you have to do as the 'leader' is include people. This means when you recruit new members you should be including them in stuff involving the veterans. It helps one hell of a lot for new people to feel that because the core members are treating them like an 'equal' that they've been truly accepted - helps to get people involved and, above all, keeps them keen & eager, as well as preventing them from being shy - when people feel intimidated into silence then they'll hardly ever speak on voice-comms. It also helps shy people, like myself, to come out of our shells - I've always found it intimidating to go into other peoples TS channels for events & stuff, or when I used to be a part of guilds/clans/squads, and meet people for the first time.

The above, I think, is more important than any structure, rules, ranks etc, as without a strong leader you won't recruit so well, won't keep members as easily & won't help members to have as much fun as they could otherwise.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
there are many ranks
I really do dislike the notion that lots of ranks are better and I've never seen an argument, beyond the groups size, that really says 12 ranks are better than 6 - and I've heard quite a few 'reasons' including the age-old 'progression' one. The number of ranks should be proportionate to the units size. It's no good having 20 members & 12 ranks. Why start off so big? Why try and start with going for a full Battalion/Regiment? Why not start off with a Company? For a British Line Company that's six ranks (Private, Corporal, Serjeant, Ensign, Lieutenant & Captain) and makes sense if you have low numbers. After all what's better - 20 people trying to represent 600 or 20 representing 60? I know this is all my opinion but I've always found the more ranks you have the more complicated it gets, the more irritating it is to keep an eye on who to promote to which rank/role & how ranks actually mean almost bugger all. Oh woo I've gone from this rank to this rank, what has changed? Nothing.

Leaders should be there to direct, other 'officer' ranks should be there as back up or to lead in the absence of the group leader which is why it is important to make sure that those who are your officers are capable of doing what you do as the leader when you're not about. It can be nice to have a rank for long-time members so that they have the inkling of feeling rewarded for their dedication but generally having loads of ranks is detrimental, especially when you turn up with 9 'leader*' ranks & just 11 rank & file out of 20 members.

*Let us take a British Line Regiment as an example; Lt. Colonel, Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Ensign, RSM, Colour Serjeant, Serjeant, Corporal, Private, Recruit. If you filled up those upper ranks you've a disproportionate number of leaders to rankers - best to keep the rankers to a maximum & 'officers' to a minimum. Note I did not include Lance-Corporal as that rank did not exist during the Napoleonic British Army until years later. Also the correct spelling of Serjeant for the period is with the 'j'. The spelling only changed officially in the 1953.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
I can be proud to lead a "smaller" regiment. They are all friends. ;D
But there is one problem with "friends"
If you want to command as one of their friends they think they can talk to you while you are commanding...
If you are a guy who is often funny you are not taken seriously.
That´s another problem.
This is where that little thing called charisma & having the ability to lead come in to it. The three Warband 'clans' I run all contain the same group of friends - we've all been on the same TS together for rather a long time, we're all veterans of M&B & we have a damned good laugh together. However when I am 'properly' leading them in games, such as in M&B:Warband The Deluge events, they shut up & listen. They might pipe up with suggestions because of something they can see but I can't, for whatever reason, but other than that they trust to my ability & authority. Personality is 99% of leading people and if you don't have the right personality then they won't follow or take you seriously.

Feldmarschall_Ben said:
And now you see why rules are great.
And structure and such stuff.
They can be helpful but are not the be-all and end-all.
Agreed entirely. It is much more worth it to have a ranking structure that makes sense.

I must say thought, it is definitely worth it to keep in mind that promotions are not handed out as rewards. I have often seen people elevated to ranks of prominence and power, who have the capacity of a fly, but were simply handed the job for either A) Being there at the right time, B) For being a veteran. Most people overlook the fact that a Cpl still has power, and that he will expect promotions in the future as well. Promotions mean power, so give them wisely, and carefully, with the future in mind.