|
Post by huillaume on Dec 15, 2020 9:26:55 GMT
Now hat Huillaume is Brevet Brigadier, several questions:
after having given my arguments seveal posts above, can he finally have an aide?
If so, and as the aide would be campaigning with him, which regimental DMs would the aide have (as Huillaume is serving with a RFG company, but attached to a FR)?
I guess the Regimental command is kept by the Regiment officer (in this case a Major, and Huillaume will not try to impose his rank). Right?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 15, 2020 12:00:34 GMT
Yes.
Same modifers as Hulluame.
Yes, because you're attached to the frontier regiment but not technically part of it.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 16, 2020 13:38:16 GMT
Note: not sure if this should come here, as it is about section 33 (Special Military units).
According 33.10 and 33.11, if the King visits the frontier at least 1 RFG and 1 KM companles and at most 3 RFG and 2 KM companies will go with him.
Suggestion: should at least 4 Comapnies of both units accompany him, and if the king takes command, they act troguether as another Regiment, under the command of the Commander of the Guards as Colonel.
I'd also would give a DM of +1 to King taking command if last turn's Commander BR was 5-6 (representing the King taking the risponsability after the Commander failure).
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 16, 2020 13:41:37 GMT
While I'm not rewriting that bit next this seems as good a place as any to put it in.
Something else I'm thinking of adding is secondment.
Essentially, someone taking a full time appointment is seconded from their regiment rather than leaving it. When they rejoin they can do so at the highest rank where there's a vacancy, up to their original rank. If they're forced to join below that they'll be automatically promoted as gaps arise. What do people think?
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Dec 16, 2020 15:04:53 GMT
Let me check my understanding with an example:
JBO, Colonel and Regimental Commander is appointed to a full-time appointment. He is on an extended leave of absence from the Regiment and relieved of all official duties with the regiment (no going to the front). At the end of his appointment, the only open vacancy is for a Lieutenant, thus he loses two ranks and the associated SP and Income until such time as higher ranks open up.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 16, 2020 15:52:39 GMT
Let me check my understanding with an example: JBO, Colonel and Regimental Commander is appointed to a full-time appointment. He is on an extended leave of absence from the Regiment and relieved of all official duties with the regiment (no going to the front). At the end of his appointment, the only open vacancy is for a Lieutenant, thus he loses two ranks and the associated SP and Income until such time as higher ranks open up. Correct. The other option is that the rank is left open until he returns. The main problem I can think of there is that it will actively close off that rank for other PCs with no chance of that changing. (Which is what differentiates it from the army commander etc. posts who can obviously die or get promoted out of the position).
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Dec 16, 2020 17:59:46 GMT
Here are the options as I see them:
Option 1: Relieved of all Regimental Responsibilities and frees up the rank/role for others. Returns at the highest, open vacancy and suffer the loss (albeit temporary) of Pay and SP.
Option 1a: Same as option 1 but has the option to transfer to another non-enemy regiment with a vacancy at their rank at no cost.
Option 1b: Same as option 1 but retains rank and privileges (pay, appointment eligibility and SP) even though they are in a role for a lower rank.
Option 2: Relieved of all Regimental Responsibilities but still occupies the rank/role preventing advancement of others. Returns to rank and role.
Option 3: Relieved of all Regimental Responsibilities and frees up the rank/role for others. Returns to rank and role, pushing down on those currently in the role. Those pushed down retain rank and privileges (pay, appointment eligibility and SP) even though they are in a role for a lower rank.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Dec 16, 2020 18:02:04 GMT
I like the idea of the position being open while the officer is on "detached duty" but the penalty of loss of SP seems a bit extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 16, 2020 18:28:50 GMT
All of those seem reasonable to me. What do other people think?
This isn't likely to come up that often I suspect. Only for people in Jacques' position where they have a title but don't yet have the Brigadier General position!
|
|
|
Post by Renald De La Azur on Dec 18, 2020 10:09:41 GMT
I would go with option 2.
|
|
|
Post by Monique Adelina De'Ath on Dec 18, 2020 10:54:30 GMT
I go for Option 1
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 18, 2020 12:06:19 GMT
Anyone else want to weight in before I make an executive decision? (I'd rather get this one decided before putting out the revised version of the revised military rules).
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Bougiedure on Dec 18, 2020 12:14:12 GMT
I would be satisfied with Option 3 or Option 1b
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 18, 2020 12:58:17 GMT
I would be satisfied with Option 3 or Option 1b Ditto See that this is (more or less) how adjutants and similar posts are treated in Original Rules, when one officer does not hold th eeffective command his rank would mean.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 18, 2020 13:47:47 GMT
It's worth noting this is a very specialised situation and is only going to arise for Colonels and Brevet BGs potentially. Above that there's no issue returning to active duty.
I'm leaning towards either option 1a or 1b.
Enough people think that 1 is too punishing to avoid it.
2 risks stagnation as people take full time appointments over multiple years. (There's no way that a PC not at the front will die or be promoted, aside from the Guards regiments).
3 Feels too punishing in the opposite direction, where PCs who have been active in the regiment lose out to those who've been on detached duty.
|
|