|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 12, 2004 5:40:08 GMT -5
Right, just thought that I would post this link since, at present, this is the rough structure for the Imperial Guard that we should be utilising in the Anargo Sector Project... as much as possible, anyway. I can only post the link to the first article at the moment since the second has not been published yet (though I've seen it and like the first I broadly agree with it). Anyway, here's the first Tactica Imperium... Enjoy... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 12, 2004 12:59:51 GMT -5
Erm, Sojourner replied to this thread but, for some reason, when I deleted my reply it also deleted his... Erm, sorry... Care to repost, Sojourner. While I disagreed with the comments that you made since, in part, I felt that misinterpreted the essence of the article... But then again I've always felt that the 'fluff' on the Guard was pathetically glitchy, much like other parts. So much potential, but so badly done. Anyway make that repost and accept my apologies for being a klutz with that darned delete button... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 12, 2004 21:20:19 GMT -5
Bah. I don't save my work so I'm not repeating all that...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 12, 2004 23:56:41 GMT -5
Ah well... A combined reply/repost from memory of what Sojourner had to say. First off he said that it was the first time that he almost entirely agreed with another "fluffer", but then went on to post a quote (I forget exactly which one) and stating that it was "completely wrong". There was then some 'discussion' that the Guard Regiments had always been 'combined arms' foundings, athough the examples that I've read in the 'fluff' - and I remind people that I don't keep up on what I consider an overt 'wargaming' part of the 'fluff' - do not seem to agree with this. I then believe Sojourner went on to state, on other terms, that he believed that unlike Brussie's assertion that the 'battalion' was the core of the Guard, not the regiment as hinted at in the 'fluff', but rather the Regiment was broken down into Company level or smaller and then redistributed throughout the conflict zone... the idea seemed to hint at an entirely diffuse command structure - hinting more of a broken structure - but there we have it... Obviously I've only remembered the bits of the post that were significant to me, mostly because I disagred with them... part of the reason that I deleted my original post! For me Brussie's argument for an extended command structure beyond the regiment makes a sense although it does tend to create a slight bias towards certain types of batallion... an extended regiment, as it were. Although this time one that you don't have the restricted approach of 'specialist regiments' (Tanith, Volpine Heavy, or whatever), but rather more generalised battalions which can have the hint of dedication. Ah well... that's where my knowledge of military structure falls down... For me, it just makes sense despite Sojourner's comment that it 'flies in the face of the 'fluff'', or somesuch... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 13, 2004 3:42:05 GMT -5
Sorry, was a bit unclear in the original.
While I like Brussie's approach and would choose to integrate it myself, I don't think the fluff suggests that it is so in any way shape or form.
As for the regiment - While the fluff does suggest that the regiment is a combat unit, I don't like it that way. A combination of portent discussion and common sense suggests that it's unwieldy and impractical to use in a fighting scenario - considering that regimental size is so varied.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 13, 2004 4:02:00 GMT -5
Ah, fair enough. I rather like the diffuse approach to 'regiments', but only when integrated into the larger battalion and post-battalion structure. To be fair I probably need to read up more on modern military structure... It should be interesting to see your comments on Brussie's associated organisations... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 13, 2004 4:15:32 GMT -5
High command is a bit of a fudge for me - I don't really have much of an opinion on it. I'm just wondering where Warmasters fit into this whole thing.
This leads me to the idea of whether there are different structures for Crusades vs. retaliatory deployments - or rather, how far up the division goes. It seems that Warmasters are only assigned in Crusades or whatever they're called in that millennium, possibly with an equivalent rank in the 'regulars' - Lord-General perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 13, 2004 4:50:23 GMT -5
That's where things start to get interesting... it's the point at which a more feudal/noble approach to command is integrated into a more standard military structure... Surely? And that itself gets into the concept of how the military, Fleet and other aspects - including "Imperial governership" - are handled both on the subsector and sector level... Kage
|
|
Raider
Scribe
The Anti-Christ
Posts: 53
|
Post by Raider on Jun 13, 2004 10:15:32 GMT -5
The rank of Warmaster is assigned when a particular Lord General goes far "beyond the call of duty" and has the not inconsiderable political acumen to capitalise on it, as well as a suitable area to liberate for the Imperium.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 13, 2004 10:29:09 GMT -5
<grin> Yep. Which really still does beg the above question(s) that I posted. Indeed, Sojourner has opened up a new thread to discuss this specific topic since it not only includes military organisation but expands to the civil administration, etc... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jun 14, 2004 8:28:44 GMT -5
Firstly, I am reminded of a bit I was reading the other day reguarding the period immediatley before the New Model Army with reguards Masrton Moor in 1644, where the regiments were of such variety in size that they were often brigaded together just to make up the right sizes, and that Cromwell's own was a "doubble regiment" of around 800 when the standard cavalry regiment, on paper at full strength, was 500.
My arguments with Bruslov on portent over his article have ceased for the moment because my account there seems to have broken, but refer there for my objections.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 14, 2004 9:21:06 GMT -5
Well, I'm all for a varied structure if we could be consistent about it... Too many people feel that it is sufficient just to point out the 'fluff', grunt and go "that's what it like". What we aim to do with the ASP is open up the 40k universe to a wider audience! So, then, perhaps we could use it as a basis and then move from there? You'll have to forget my minimal input, but this topic is generally "wargame-y" for me except when it integrates at the upper echelons with a political structure... kage
|
|
|
Post by Lordof on Jun 15, 2004 2:09:58 GMT -5
I thought the entire idea behind varied structure was the lack of consistancy.
By simply having what the "Generic" Guard regiment should look like and placing a statement at the end saying "Due to injuries, fatalities, Desertion and sickness, specialisation and battlefield pressures these numbers and operational structure are hardly ever maintained for any length of time" is simple enough to keep the oppotunities for other peoples fluff open whilst having an adequete explanation about what a standard Guard command structure and numbers in force looks like in theory.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 15, 2004 3:28:15 GMT -5
The point is, generally, that providing a good, solid framework which integrates the various features is a step forward both in terms of 'fluff' and the ASP in general...
It's like human genes. If you believe some researchers, there are genes which encode for obesity and, believe it or not, for infedility (primarily in women!)... But we're more than the sum of our genes. While they provide a framework upon which we, the individual, are built and determine gross features (presence of eyes, nose, limbs, etc.), they do not define every little bit of us...
Thus with the idea of creating a structured framework. It indicates broadly what we should have, but specific variation is permissible through the creative application of, well, imagination.
GW's main problem, which I thought was a good thing about Brussie's article and something that we're meant to be attempting in the ASP, is the lack of this information... It's not like building on sand, but trying to build a house in a swamp.
What we need is how Guard structure is extended beyond the 'troop' level into the wider scheme...
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jun 15, 2004 11:38:20 GMT -5
The agreement on numbers is that a regiment of Imperial Guardsmen (or at least an infantry only or infantry based one) will be within the 2,000-10,000 range when it enters a combat theatre, unless there are extenuating circumstances. If the regiment falls below this it will either be broken up into specialist units for attatchment to another formation, retired or amalgamated with one or more other regiments. If the regiment is a large one, there will be two or three batalions within the regiment, commanded by either a lieutenant colonel or a major.
|
|