Regiments?

[Tromez]

Are we Keeping the already MM Regiments from MM to NW? or is it Reset everything new 1st to make it on NW Wins?

 

[Desideratus]

I believe it's first come first serve, there are no real regiment rules, you could even take the 1stEPI, 91st or such if you really wanted to - but most of us probably agree to not step on anyone's toes to get what they want.

 

[Tromez]

hopefully so, :3

 

[RalliX]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

 

[Oldplayer]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

well i dont think (aside from maybe the reddit) any of us have  1000 guys in our units

 

[sinofchaos]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

Are you new to this realism stuff?
We try to reenact things like they were done throughout history. However, we can't get everything right (like the correct number of troops, the tactics, formations...)

Just because we don't have a lot of guys playing in a group, you want us not to use the term regiment or even do any line-battles?

 

[Desideratus]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

I'm not a regiment, i'm a god damn Battalion.

 

[RalliX]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

Are you new to this realism stuff?
We try to reenact things like they were done throughout history. However, we can't get everything right (like the correct number of troops, the tactics, formations...)

Just because we don't have a lot of guys playing in a group, you want us not to use the term regiment or even do any line-battles?

No.
Considering that we can never have more than company vs. company-sized battles in this game, it makes sense that you would scale the ranks/titles and such accordingly.
What I really mean to say is, that if I were to create a group, I would call it a platoon or company, for originality.

 

[Williams_The Great]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

I'm not a regiment, i'm a god damn Battalion.

TRUE DAT.

And its bran new for all regiments..though..if someone took the 91st or 1stEPI..All hell would break lose. But Since NW will be costing around $5-$10 we do not have confirmation from regiments  that havnt posted threads in the regimental section already.

So for all we know some regiments will have only half people go to NW and then wont have enough to continue.

 

[Commander Millander]

I believe it's first come first serve, there are no real regiment rules, you could even take the 1stEPI, 91st or such if you really wanted to - but most of us probably agree to not step on anyone's toes to get what they want.

I think it should be that is a MM regiment hasent transferred their thread over in a week upon launch they are up for grabs.

 

[sinofchaos]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

Are you new to this realism stuff?
We try to reenact things like they were done throughout history. However, we can't get everything right (like the correct number of troops, the tactics, formations...)

Just because we don't have a lot of guys playing in a group, you want us not to use the term regiment or even do any line-battles?

No.
Considering that we can never have more than company vs. company-sized battles in this game, it makes sense that you would scale the ranks/titles and such accordingly.
What I really mean to say is, that if I were to create a group, I would call it a platoon or company, for originality.

I understand where you are getting at. One of my friends also expressed disgust in the way we were doing things in the secession civil war mod. He didn't understand why we weren't forming companies with the little men we had. He also didn't like the way we marched in columns instead of lines, however that can never be changed unless NW's walking animation really holds true to it's image.

 

[Stevon]

It's merely a matter of scale. Each "regiment" represents a regiment and thus the linebattles attempt to represent a pitched battle of the Napoleonic era. That's the way I view it at least (any wargamer knows what I'm talking about). Plus, calling the clans regiments makes it easier for groups to style themselves after historical Napoleonic units, which greatly contributes to the immersion factor.

 

[MaHuD]

It's a bit silly that (almost)every group calls themselves a 'regiment' when in fact, few of them are even above platoon size.
But I guess it is useful if you want to get a certain regiment's 'culture' and history.

Are you new to this realism stuff?
We try to reenact things like they were done throughout history. However, we can't get everything right (like the correct number of troops, the tactics, formations...)

Just because we don't have a lot of guys playing in a group, you want us not to use the term regiment or even do any line-battles?

No.
Considering that we can never have more than company vs. company-sized battles in this game, it makes sense that you would scale the ranks/titles and such accordingly.
What I really mean to say is, that if I were to create a group, I would call it a platoon or company, for originality.

I understand where you are getting at. One of my friends also expressed disgust in the way we were doing things in the secession civil war mod. He didn't understand why we weren't forming companies with the little men we had. He also didn't like the way we marched in columns instead of lines, however that can never be changed unless NW's walking animation really holds true to it's image.

Two weeks ago (NW) we advanced in 3 seperate lines of 5x2 accross some farmland with drummers/captains/flagbearers between the lines. (whilst getting shot by some skirmishers)
It worked great and looked really epic.

 

[Marshal_Ney]

Don't rub it in
Yea, I think that it seems way cooler if we call ourselves a "regiment". Being called a "Platoon" doesn't really cut it.
\Besides, we're not really "regiment", we just want to represent a regiment

 

[Ghost Dad]

Yes, historically speaking, very few groups are above subsection size. But honestly, who cares what you call it, it's all just fancy names for clans. It's a game, people.

 

[marchal davout]

So do you call reenactor regiments silly because they dont have realistic sizes?

 

[Ghost Dad]

So do you call reenactor regiments silly because they dont have realistic sizes?

Typically, reenactors represent a platoon/section from a company from a battalion from a regiment, not an entire regiment itself.

But reenactors are also typically pretty bad at actual history, so yes, I call them silly.

 

[marchal davout]

So do you call reenactor regiments silly because they dont have realistic sizes?

Typically, reenactors represent a platoon/section from a company from a battalion from a regiment, not an entire regiment itself.

But reenactors are also typically pretty bad at actual history, so yes, I call them silly.

stfu. There are so many groups out there who represent the whole regiment. How are they bad at history? The ****ing reenact it

 

[Tromez]

omg o-o what have I started

 

[Ghost Dad]

stfu. There are so many groups out there who represent the whole regiment. How are they bad at history? The ******** reenact it

I appear to have struck a nerve, so I will end this. Right after I leave you with a rather simple question, the answer to which I shall forever judge you by:

What is the primary reason for the shape of the triangular bayonet, and the function of the grooves in the blade?

Spoiler

It's not because of the wound it could cause, and the grooves aren't "bloodlets." If either of those was your answer, you're wrong! And if you're a reenactor, you should really do some more research on the period you claim to represent. If you aren't a reenactor, I wouldn't expect you to know the answer to this, so you get a free pass! You lucky dog, you.