07-12-2000 10:26									#1
	Company, Battalion, Division, Corps ... Yikes! Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Here is my amended proposal:

Army:
1 unit = 1 Battalion
3 units = 1 Brigade (3 Battalions)
9 units = 1 Division (3 Brigades )
More than 9 units = Corps or Army depending on the size of the entire army a player has, as something like
this happens in the true world. (Small armies do not have corps where big armies do.)

Air Force (including Space units):
1 unit = 1 Air Squadron
3 units = 1 Wing (3 Air Squadrons)
9 units = 1 Air Division (3 Wings)
More than 9 units = Air Command

Navy:
1 unit = 1 Ship (Submarine, etc.)
3 units = 1 Naval Squadron (3 Ships)
9 units = 1 Task Force (3 Naval Squadrons)
More than 9 units = Fleet

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited February 26, 2001).]

	07-12-2000 04:04									#2
	Suffering from ads?

That's interesting but honestly Quinns, You'll never have too many Armies or Army groups. Where as in reality when wars break out, you have entire armies moving.

In most of my games I work in the following way

1 Unit= Battalion
9 Unit= Division
Army is a subjective amount. It is basically all the units I have assigned to do a certain task. Defend a border, attack a country. It is 1 group of all the fighting units that are carrying out a certain task.


But I like your idea. Except that, After corps the numbers get too high.
I suggest.

1 Unit = Battalion
3 Battalions = Brigade (3 Units)
3 Brigaes = Division (9 units)

No. Corps.

Army is abstract. It could be a brigade, it could be a Division. It could be several divisions. Etc.

=====
Also these numbers change.
Armies in the ancient times were very small, (about the size of a division today MAX). Armies of 10,000 were considered to be immense in the dark ages.

We also have to keep that in mind.

[This message has been edited by King Thor (edited December 06, 2000).]

	07-12-2000 04:37									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Good points, Thor. Sounds like a plan then, i.e. stop at Division level = 9 units, (3 Brigades).

Anyone else? It would be good if we could all talk the same language. I know some people are calling a single unit a "Division". Very confusing, especially if it is your ally!

	07-12-2000 04:44									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Early on in the game ( until modern age)

I too call a single unit a division. And anything more than one unit (or even one unit depending on how early in the game), is an army. Because thats how it was back then. Armies were small. In the modern age it makes more sense to use the Battalion/brigade/division/army system.

	07-12-2000 06:00									#5
	Support Apolyton

Stupid U.S. Army convention?!? Actually, it's quite okay, but i use the Australian convention (at least the WWI convention);-

116 soldiers = Company
8 Companies = Battalion
4 Battalions = Brigade
3 Brigades = Division
3-5 Divisions = Army

However, this makes it difficult to correlate to CTP Units, with stacks of 9 and so forth. We either end up with an army with just three or four 9-stacks, or 12 9-stacks just to make up one division! Therefore, for ease of use, and in fitting with the costs of units in CTP, i use;-

1 CTP Unit = Company
3-5 CTP units = Battalion
8-9 CTP Units (1 stack) = Brigade
3 stacks = Division
8-12 stacks = Army

This allows for multiple armies for huge civs, as did the Russians and other in WWI. Otherwise, in order to build an entire army, you would have already had to conquer most of the world. Alternatively, you end up with everyone running around with a dozen or so armies, which is equally ridiculous.

I must admit, though, that i used to call a 9-stack a division until i realised that i had about 5 armies, and was still losing a war I also called single units a Regiment, until i found out that Regiments are something else altogether (in the Australian army, at least). The Australian Army does (or at least did) use Corps, but i don't know how that fits into the scheme of things. I found my info on a historical website dealing with Australia's involvement in WWI.

I guess it doesn't matter much, but i think a standard for CTP in PBEM would be ideal.

	07-12-2000 06:30									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

How would we be dealing with air and naval forces?

1 unit = 1 squadrom?
9 Quadrons = 1 wing?

Dunno

And naval vessels?
What makes a Task force?

The point is, we cant come up with a standard (without a whole bunch of complications). Some armies are bigger than others.

Besides what about early on in the game? we'll need to set it up stage wise. ie. for the first 50 turns (blah blah blah) for the next 100 turns (blah blah blah). .etc. etc.

	07-12-2000 06:57									#7
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Gee, my post was almost out of date by the time i sent it! No one had replied at that stage, but i forgot to send it.

Anyway, the size of an army is academic, as in reality, an army is the total of force a country has at it's disposal. In cases such as WWI and WWII, armies has long been divided into battlions and so forth, and had become so large, that some countries had multiple armies.

I guess the question is - how does this relate to CTP? Well, i think your army is either your entire land force, or perhaps a single massive invasion force if your army is enourmous (as often happens in PBEM, at least). I only use the terms 'division', 'brigade', etcetera if my forces are combined for a single purpose. For example, in the case of war, if i have, say, three 9-stacks, i will refer to them on the messageboard in total as "1st Australian Division", which usually includes many types of units. One stack may be the "2nd Australian Infantry Brigade" if they're all Musketeers, or a 3-stack of Cavalry providing hit-and-run support referred to as "5th Australian Cavalry Battalion". A stack defending a city might normally be referred to as a "Garrison", particularly in ancient times, but if more than 3-4 units, i might refer to them as being supported by certain Battalions or whatever.

What hasn't been mentioned so far is Air Forces and Navies. I actually like a strong Navy, because they're the only units where 1 unit equals 1 ship. I can (and often do) name ships, and only if it's ahead of it's time will a ship be named HMAS Lung, because i can't risk it being sunk

As for an Air Force, i consider a unit to be an entire squadron, but i don't know what larger groups of aircraft are called, but would like to find out.

As i like the historical aspect of Civ games, i only ever use a given name once, so occasionally i end up with "12th Brigade" and "17th Brigade" but no Brigades with single figures, because they've already died

Hopefully, in long PBEM games, when they're finished i will compile a history of that world and refer to such units by name in whatever war they were involved in. Although, by then, everyone will be playing Civ3 and it will probably never be read

Does anyone feel similarly about naming units and creating a standard for naming unit sizes? I don't really car ewhich model is used, as long as it's standard.

	07-12-2000 07:56									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well that's about the stupidest thing I have ever heard, Lung! But I guess it's quite alright, really. So what are you saying? A unit can be a Division or a Brigade or a Battalion or what ever you feel like calling it at the time, is that it? That sure clarifies it. Stupid Australian convention!

Just kidding Lung . Hey, when are we going to get you on our rating system anyway?? You've beaten Deity on solo, right? We'll put you down as 21.000 (Deity) unless you say otherwise.

But I do still like King Thor's suggestion. Just stop at Division Level (9 units). I think it's good enough. "I'm sending 6 divisions... 10 divisions... etc." We don't need to go higher than that. AND STOP CALLING A SINGLE UNIT A DIVISION THOR! No wonder I'm all confused all the time (among a variety of other reasons )

Proposed Air Force and Navy groupings:

1 Air Unit = Squadron
3 Air Units = Wing (3 Squadrons)
9 Air Units = Air Division (3 Wings)

1 Naval Unit = Ship (Name it whatever you like, HMAS Lung!)
3 Naval Units = Task Force (3 Ships)
9 Naval Units = Fleet (9 Ships)

The reason for sticking with the 1,3,9 groupings is simply because you are only allowed to put 9 units in one tile.

	07-12-2000 09:20									#9
	Got spare money?

How bout this.

1 unit = an army
3 units = a big army
9 units = a really big army

	07-12-2000 09:28									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Here here! .. I vote for the convention suggested by deleted!!

...
The reason I use Division for one unit in the pre-modern stage of the game is because that's exactly how it was. Armies were small. Divisions were smaller. Therefore, these are the naming conventions I propose.


=====================
Pre-modern

1 unit = Division
3 units and up Army.


Modern- post-modern

1 unit - battalion
3 battalion - Brigade
3 brigade - Division
Army = 1 or more divisions.

----------------------------
Air Force (just like quinns suggested.
--CUT-N-PASTE--
1 Air Unit = Squadron
3 Air Units = Wing (3 Squadrons)
9 Air Units = Air Division (3 Wings)

1 Naval Unit = Ship (Name it whatever you like, HMAS Lung!)
3 Naval Units = Task Force (3 Ships)
9 Naval Units = Fleet (9 Ships)


===================================
All in favour say Aye!.. All opposed. say Aye!

	07-12-2000 12:13									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sorry, Quinns, but the Great Lung has not beaten CTP solo on deity. Why not, you ask? Not enough RAM to play a large game, baby! I have to win quick, or i can't finish the game! That's my excuse, anyway

Okay, so i've only beaten CTP on King level, but i have won a PBEM game of three players in under 150 turns on Warlord, i think. And i beat the mighty Don to boot! Sneaky, conniving, flanking Don, the bastard

Obviously you didn't read it correctly, Quinns! Either that, or i didn't write it correctly Anyway, as long as players don't go around claiming to have 20 armies, i don't care. And you can ignore anything that Sophix says, regardless of what name he uses

	07-12-2000 16:34									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

O' Infinitely Stupid Quinns, The Great Lung was entirely consistent in his use of unit naming, and in the case of Quinns, consistent in his use of name calling

The only loose use of a term was in army. Have you ever heard of the Nigerian "58% Army"? No. And neither have i. Your army is your entire force, i admit i said, but a battalion being anything from a blind policeman and a three-legged dog to a billion bisexual alien drag queens i don't recall saying. In fact, with these new computer internet thingies, i can look up and see what i wrote before Gasp! Lung is positively psychic! He can see into the....PAST!!!

Sorry, my sarcasm is running rampant at the moment, but i couldn't resist the opportunity to insult a rookie pbem player, particularly one as prolific as Quinns

Besides, how could anyone not understand a drunk and deluded Aussie?!?

	07-12-2000 17:11									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Sophix is into joking around all the time

Interesting topic Quinns!
I always had the question what terms to use to refer to a single unit or to a stack of units combined with a historical aspect.
I always use the term unit or untis to refer to one or more units together but I would prefer to use some of your suggestions. I had only once refered to a single unit as battalion and it was a warrior. I don't think that division would be right for a single unit Thor even at early ages. There where large armies in the ancient times also. Remember the Persian army sent to Greece and the legions the Romans had. They were quit big. Of course there was not as large as the German army or the American or Russian army at the WW2 but in the other hand this has nothing to do with the size of the army that you are able to build in any time in the CTP. We need a common term to refer to a size of unit formations independently ages.

My proposal is:

Army:
1 unit = 1 Battalion
3 units = 1 Brigade (3 battalions)
9 units = 1 Division (3 Brigades )
more than 9 untis = corp or army depending of the size of the entire army of a player as something like this happens in the true world (Small armies do not have corps when big armies do). It could be convinient to refer to corp for large armies for 2-4 division or to army for the same number for a smaller army.

Air Force:
1 unit = 1 ???
3 units = 1 Squadron
9 units = 1 Wing (3 squadrons)
more than 9 units = Air Group or Air Division

Navy:
1 unit = 1 ship (or submarine, etc.)
3 units = 1 Task Force (3 ships)
9 units = 1 ???
more than 9 units = Fleet

Finaly it's up to anyone to refer to any unit with any term he feels like! It would be nice to use universal terms but as I said it's up to anyone

	07-12-2000 19:01									#14
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

ROOKIE! Well let me tell you something Lung, I've played more than 10 turns on PBEM!! ...
Okay... Maybe I am a Rookie PBEMer, but I've been playing war games for over 35 years! ...big deal ... So why don't you go change your diapers, Oh Great Lunger, and maybe I will grace you with my presence once again, for I can no longer bear the SMELL!

Alright Lung, all kidding aside, I'll put you down with a rating of 18.000 (King), but wait a minute, who is this "Don" that you defeated? (This rookie CTP PBEMer don't know all first names yet.) Is he rated higher than 18.000? If so, you will receive the same rating as him.

	07-12-2000 19:22									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hey Quinns (your old man).

Don't underestimate Lung (and Don for that sake)

If I remember right from earlier posts, also games where you were in a CLEAR winnerposition, but not played to an end, counts

Don't let him slip away with a rating lesser that 19.000.

It's not fun to be a "21.000" and be beaten by a "17.000" or "18.000"
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited December 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by TheBirdMan (edited December 07, 2000).]

	07-12-2000 19:44									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree with Keygen on this one, Thor. There is no way we can be historically accurate with a consistent naming convention of groups of military units for hundreds of nations over a period of 7000 years. I think it is important to remain "consistent" with our names, though, throughout all the ages, in order to minimize confusion.

I go along with most of Keygen's suggestions. And you're right Keygen, of course, people can call them whatever they like, but it would be good if at least "allies" can talk to each other in the same language.

Here is my amended proposal:

Army:
1 unit = 1 Battalion
3 units = 1 Brigade (3 Battalions)
9 units = 1 Division (3 Brigades )
More than 9 units = Corps or Army depending on the size of the entire army a player has, as something like this happens in the true world. (Small armies do not have corps where big armies do.)

Air Force (including Space units):
1 unit = 1 Air Squadron
3 units = 1 Wing (3 Air Squadrons)
9 units = 1 Air Division (3 Wings)
More than 9 units = Air Command

Navy:
1 unit = 1 Ship (Submarine, etc.)
3 units = 1 Naval Squadron (3 Ships)
9 units = 1 Task Force (3 Naval Squadrons)
More than 9 units = Fleet

	08-12-2000 02:31									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I DONT CARE!! My civilizations are not signatories of any agreement that compels them to obey any standard.

Our military counsel states that 1 unit = 1 division is the best convention to use.

.....

I like the last version proposed by quinns and will stick to it. ..... more or less. I still feel that I am at liberty to call my phalanx DIVISION a division. It just doesn't sound right to me to call is a battalion. Doesn't have the right ring to it.

My warrior Battalion ... My warrior Division.

MArine Battalion sounds good.

What about Paratroopers? Paratrooper battalion???

Cool. I think we havea standard

	08-12-2000 04:36									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oops! I was wrong. Quinns not just a mere rookie, he's an OLD rookie!!

Don't underestimate the Great TweetyBird, either. I know a formidable foe when i see one Not to mention the Donster. He nearly pulled off the coup of the century by nearly coming back from a seemingly hopeless situation against me in Lungmatch 1.1, not that i'm that hard to outsmart

As for King Thor, thou looketh forward to meeting thee in battle, so thou shalt have thy honour of seeing thee fall by many divisions at once! Ain't it better to just lose a few battalions than a few divisions in one battle?

Oh, and no self-respecting warmonger would call their fleet a "Task Force"! A "Death Force", maybe, but Task Force screams WUSS!!! Also, i think that unless you have a large Navy, a fleet could be as little as 7-9 ships.

	08-12-2000 04:56									#19
	Support Apolyton

Of course, King Thor, you can call them whatever you like! I only ask that if you happen to be my ally in a game, and you tell me that you are sending a Division of Warriors for support, I hope that NINE Warrior units show up, not ONE!

Thanks for your support, Thor. I am sorry to have proposed a system that doesn't have the right historical "ring" to it, but I think it will be helpful in regards to operational communications.

Paratroop Battalion? What's wrong with that? See below partial command structure of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division:

82nd Airborne Division

	08-12-2000 05:01									#20
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ummm...... I don't SEE no Paratrooper Battalion in there!! :-/

	08-12-2000 05:07									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree with Thor that an Army is an entirely abstract concept in the same way that a 'Front' or an 'Army Group' is. You also have the added factor of the way in which Armoured and Artillery Units are organised. Armour follows, in the British Army, the old Cavalry protocols and you do not have Artillery Divisions or Brigades as they are solely used as 'attached' Units. Even Brigade or Division vary according to circumstance and Regiment is a purely ceremonial term and individual Battalions from the same Regiment will see service in many different Brigades.

Time also alters things a huge amount as you have to look at the number of men under arms that composed these different An Army in the days of Alexander was nothing but a reconaissance patrol in WWI terms.

I regard an Army as being sufficient to give Lung a good kick, an Army Group as being sufficient to take anything he has from him and anything more as just a way to hasten the inevitable!

	08-12-2000 05:14									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

That's what the the 1st of the 504th means. It is the First battalion of paratroopers of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. (It is really the 1st battalion of the 1st brigade of the 82nd airborne division, but they still use the regimental numbers for designation.)

	08-12-2000 05:22									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm not sending parachutes to fight by themselves, I need people attached to them!
Those are battalions of Parachutes, what good are they gonna do!!!
=========
jokes apart, Quinn, honestly look at how they put it too. They too dont like the sound of Paratrooper Battalion, so they say 1st Battalion, of 504th Paratrooper Infantry regiment.

I told you. Paratrooper battalion just doesn't sound right.

Also, Quinns a word of advice. If I say a division of warriors is coming to help, its gonna be a battalion. Somehow I just dont like the sound of. "Yes Yes.. my I will dispatch a phalanx battalion to help you defend your city" .. Doesn't sound BIG.

I mean half the time I just use big military terms to make matters sound more official and large scale.

I mean in the World Scenario, when I "completely Annihilated the Assyrian Northern Army" . In reality, I had just killed a 6 pile up. No biggy!. It just Happened to be their only pile up in the north and the only one they sent against me. Therefore, it was their northern army. Made it sound like a decisive battle. It was to some extent, but it didn't cripple the Assyrians to the extent that it made it sound. The Assyrians weren't exactly covering in their beds, they probably had some good defense left, but no offense.

[This message has been edited by King Thor (edited December 07, 2000).]

	08-12-2000 05:28									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

HA! I see that Lung has insulted more people than just me! Lung obviously enjoys insults being flung back and forth. Well, at least he's honest. This is, after all, a WAR GAME FORUM, not a SELF HELP FORUM! (Though, Lung could use one of those! )

	08-12-2000 05:43									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hey Lung: "I AM The King!"



We'll battle soon. For now, I believe your war with St Jon requires your urgent attention.

	08-12-2000 07:32									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And there you have it. Standards set. Now what was it that we decided?

	08-12-2000 08:08									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Quinn I think your last suggestion sounded pretty good. However, entire Fleets , Armies and Air Commands should not have size restrictions since sometimes a country can have a small navy, a small Army, a small air force and still have it be their entire Fighting force.

Basically, I think if we just modify it to say that "Army, Fleet, Air command" can be equal to anything provided the navy is small enough.

ie. My country has 5 ships. That is its Fleet.

But If my country has 30 ships. I cannot call a grouping of 3 or 8 ships a fleet. Its either a Naval Squadron or a Tast Force.

The reason I gave an example of 8 ships was to deal with numbers that are not multiples of 3. . The closest approximation can be used.

So. You could have a naval squadron of 2,3,4,5 units. Or a Task force of 6,7,8,9,10,11,12 units. Fleet of 8,9,10,11... units.

Same goes with Air and Land units.

What do you think?

	08-12-2000 08:28									#28
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sounds pretty good, Thor. As that's very close to reality. As long as we are "close" in numbers. So if someone talks about a Brigade sized force crossing the border, I can understand that it is more than 1 but probably less than 6, (like you said 2 to 5). Good enough! At least we won't think that maybe it is just one unit or maybe it's 27 units, (27 platoons, from someone who calls one unit a platoon!) I could understand disinformation from enemies, but not from allies. The enemy is going to lie and bluff anyway, so wrong information from them is expected.

	09-12-2000 01:37									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I must admit that using those terms for ancient unit is not effective. It would be better to refer to those units with it's name. Phalanx, Legion etc. Don't forget that a Legion was an ancient formation and not a single unit. But I think it's rediculous to use the term division for a single unit even if the size of an army is small (no offense Thor ). I'll stick with quinns latest proposal but the numbers should not be strictly restricted to the proposed. Meaning that a brigade could have two or four battalions, etc. Also regarding the term "army" my opinion is that - as suggested from the most - should be used also to describe the whole army of a nation regardless of size or nation's important army formations also regardless of size.

Finaly quinns those terms would be better to be used just for historic realism and fun!
And it's better, when mails come and go , when alliances are created and secretly contacts are made to refer to units and to its type and not battalions and etc as it would be really confusing

And Thor if I ever hear that you have sent an entire division to kick my butt I will just ...laugh my head off
Just joking

[This message has been edited by Keygen (edited December 08, 2000).]

	09-12-2000 02:12									#30
	Support Apolyton

Point taken, Keygen. Yes, for fun, but also it makes it a little easier to talk about. As in, "I have a Division defending my northern border." As opposed to, "I have 3 Phalanxes, 2 Warriors, 1 Mounted Archer, 2 Knights, and a Diplomat defending my northern border." It's comfortable to talk in general terms, sometimes, without being too misleading or too detailed.

As far as the historical ring to the game, I would recommend the use of the term "regiment" as opposed to battalion, division, or army to refer to a single non-descript unit or group of units, (so as not to get confused with the conventions stated). That is, a "regiment" could be pretty much anything less than about 9 units, including a single unit. For example: Warrior Regiment, PARATROOPER REGIMENT (just for you, Thor )

So much for my two cents worth.

[This message has been edited by quinns (edited December 12, 2000).]