The Cabinet is currently interested to know the thoughts of the Club Members concerning the current points and rank system. Does it still work? Should the point totals required for promotion be altered in some way? Should rank be determined based solely on the position held within the Army/Club and not on points? Should Members ever be reduced/advanced in rank to reflect Point Total alterations or their current command position? Should higher grade ranks be reserved for those only actively engaged in the running of an Army/Club?

Feel free to post on this thread with any thoughts on this matter that you may have.

STATISTICS
Points Required:
300 = Brigadier General
450 = Major General
600 = Lieutenant General
800 = General

The AVERAGE Point Total per Member in the Armies are -
AotM = 651
ANV = 639
AoA = 651
AoG = 699
AotP = 825
AotT = 701
AotS = 689
AotC = 798

The Average Club Member has roughly 708 OBD Points.

There are (of 370 Members):
39 Full Generals in the Club (10.5%)
37 Lt. Generals (10%)
78 Major Generals (21%)

This means of the 370 Members roughly 41.6% of them are considered Senior Officers.

At Gettysburg the two Armies had (of about 89 Command positions)
1 General (1%)
3 Lt Generals (3%)
23 Major Generals (25%)

I'm not sure I understand the point of rank in a gaming club other than showing the experience acquired that may be usefull in filling leadership roles. That being said, I do think rank/experience should be considered when leadership positions are being filled and more than one person steps up. I would have everyone not in a leadership position hold a non-commisioned rank, I have a lot of points and quite a few of them come from the points we give for losses, so my rank is not representative of my ability as much as it represents longevity. But why should I have a high rank if I don't step up and fill a leadership role?

_________________

Lt. Gen. D. Groce
3rd Brigade
Second Division
VIII Corps
AotS
"Everything will be alright in the end, if it's not alright, it's not the end"

Sirs

I have mixed feeling on this.
On one hand I would like to reward club activity with rank. Of course continuing to award points for game play to some degree, but perhaps adding weight to active leadership positions. This to motivate more officers to become involved in active leadership. My reason for this is that an officer who willingly gives his considerable time and effort to help run the club may actually be getting less points than one who chooses to solely play games. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with just playing games, but I would just like to see more reward given to those who take command positions.

On the other hand, the last thing I would want to do is drive any members away that are happy to only play games, by making it harder to be promoted. Although, I suspect those that are happy playing games are not driven solely by promotions. Especially those that are still around after their first year and still actively playing.

Let me throw out some thoughts to discuss.
I don't think rank should be solely based on leadership position, but I think I would like to see discussions go forward on a change to the current system. Maybe we could set up promotion ceilings for leadership positions held, with points for game play scaled back to some degree and hitting that ceiling based on leadership position held. That would line up more realistically with real life. Maybe we could come up with some addtional ideas for rewards given for game play.
Advancement/reduction in rank to reflect a change taken in this direction may be a painful process to go through, but for it to work I think it would be necessary. That may be easy for me to say as I would gladly accept a reduction in rank, I'm here for the fun. Although it is a source of pride within the club, my rank doesn't buy me a cup of coffee at Panera. And that goes to the point. I think we as club members would be more prideful of our rank if we were not all walking around with 4 stars on our shoulders/neck tabs, be it a brigade commander or army commander.

_________________
Lt. Mark Davis
Army of the Potomac

This is very honest of Mark and David, and I hope that most members feel that way. I personally would love to see rank very closely linked to the responsibilities one holds. Having scores of full generals walk about the forums feels very much like a banana republic to me...
Of course, I am a new member and have nothing to lose - being just a lieutenant - but knowing that my promotion would be capped to colonel (or brigadier) as long as I don't get involved in the club's dynamics would very much motivate me to take responsibilities. Knowing that accumulating points (and regardless of one's victories/defeats ratio) just does the trick is merely demotivating.
As Mark says, I would take much more pride in my rank, and accord much more respect to others' if that kind of reform was undertaken.

_________________
Colonel C.G. de Pecqueur

2 / 1 / I /ANV

Maybe it should be pointed out that in order to hold any rank above Brig Gen, under current rules you must hold a position of responsibility. You must hold a position as a Division Commander or higher and possess the necessary points in order to be promoted to Maj Gen, a position as a Corps Commanders or higher and possess the necessary points in order to be promoted to Lt Gen, and a position as an AC or higher and possess the necessary points in order to be promoted to Gen. Under current club rules, once you've got a rank, there is no demotion without Cabinet action.

The current system is designed to encourage acceptance of responsibility. For most people, it is easier to achieve a high point total by capturing monthly command points for holding down a position of responsibility than it is to do so by playing games. What has to be determined is whether the current system actually encourages members to accept positions of responsibility when they can keep their rank after leaving the position or will the loss of rank after a position is vacated make it harder to find people to accept command positions. I can tell you that finding people willing to devote their volunteer time to taking care of others in this club is already a very difficult task (no volunteers stepping up at any level) and so we sure don't want to make it worse.

What might should be looked at is not the rank structure within the club but how commanders are found and selected. I suspect that there might be plenty of people who would be willing to help but aren't asked except possibly in a blanket announcement where they feel that they are really not asking me. Maybe rank should have it's privileges and when there was an opening anywhere then the ranking member was polled first to see if they wanted it and then the next ranking member on down to the newest Lt that just graduated from an Academy if every one else turned down the position.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
1/1/XIV Corps/AotC
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Gentlemen <salute>

My two cents (maybe three) on the subject.

I don't feel that the problem (if there is one) is a result of the points needed for promotion, and for a new member 300 points for promotion to brigadier general seems like a huge amount. We have a number of members who would remain general officers regardless of what new totals might be implemented simply because they've been around for years and have (literally in some cases) thousands of points. Adjusting the point system as far as points granted for battles, maneuvers, or whatever would be unrealistic if each member's totals were to be recalculated as well.

There is already a system in place to limit promotions to the ranks above brigadier general, basically having held command positions within the club. The basic command position in the club is the brigade command, and brigadier general is the appropriate rank for the position in my opinion. You join as a 2nd Lieutenant and progress through the ranks up until that point, where you stop unless you move up to division command or higher. That's where the current system "fails" if you want to call it that. Once you reach major general, lieutenant general, etc, you maintain it even after giving up the command position which allowed your promotion.

I would vote keeping the point requirements as they are, but a member's rank be limited to the position currently held in the following manner:
Brigadier General: Brigade Command (300 points)
Major General: Division Command (450 points)
Lieutenant General: Corps Command (600 points)
General: Army and Theater Command, Chief of the Armies (800 points)

For example, Colonel Snuffy (200 points) moves up to division command. Over the course of his command he acrues 300 points and would be promoted to brigadier general, and then later acrues 450 points and would be promoted to major general. This would be as high as he is allowed to progress while a division commander, however he would also revert back to brigadier general upon giving up the command and moving back to brigade command. A year later he has 600 points and decides to accept a corps command, at which point he would be promoted to lieutenant general. As before, he would revert to brigadier general should he decide to give up command later and move back to a brigade command.

Just my thoughts for debate,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary

Gentlemen!

Please . . . Not this hoary auld nugget again!

From the Club Rules:

4.1 Military Ranks and Requirements. Rank is determined by accumulated Officer Battle Dossier (‘OBD’) points and club service (as approved by the Cabinet).
a) Cadet - 15 points (approval of Training Academy Commandant required).
b) Second Lieutenant (special case, by CoA appointment) - 15 points (approval of CoA required)
c) Lieutenant - 30 points (approval of Training Academy Commandant required).
d) Captain - 45 points (no Cabinet approval required).
e) Major - 60 points (no Cabinet approval required).
f) Lieutenant Colonel - 75 points (no Cabinet approval required).
g) Colonel - 150 points (no Cabinet approval required).
h) Brigadier General - 300 points (Cabinet approval required).
i) Major General - 450 points and Division Command or higher (Cabinet approval required).
j)Lieutenant General - 600 points and Corps Commandor Chief of Staff to CoA or Chief of Staff to AC or TC or higher (Cabinet approval required).
k) General - 800 points and Army Command or Academy or War College Commandant or higher (Cabinet approval required).

AND

4.2.2 Administration Points. Administration points are earned by serving in designated command positions within the military groups and/or the Cabinet. The Club President and Cabinet Secretaries are not excluded from serving in some command position within their military group. For example, a Cabinet Secretary who also served as a CC would receive 25 points per month. These points are the maximum that can be earned for a given position, but are discretionary based on satisfactory job performance.
a) Club President - 15 points per month
b) Cabinet Secretaries - 15 points per month
c) Chiefs of the Armies - 25 points per month
d) Theater Commanders - 20 points per month
e) Training Academy and War College Commandants - 15 points per month
f) Army Commanders - 15 points per month
g) Corps Commanders - 10 points per month
h) Division Commanders - 5 points per month
i) Chiefs of Staff to CoA - 10 points per month
j) Chiefs of Staff to TC and AC - 5 points per month

AND FINALLY:

4.3 Loss of Points and Rank. Other than the provisions of rule 2.4, “Transfers” (which is voluntary on the part of the officer), the Cabinet and only the Cabinet has the authority to remove OBD points from an officer and, therefore, the Cabinet and only the Cabinet has the authority to lower an officer’s rank. This action should be taken rarely and only for serious offenses against the Club which cannot be resolved by other means.

This system was thrashed out a debated 5-6 Years ago with the result displayed above. At the same time Brevet Ranks were dispensed with. The opinion was arrived at - that General Ranks are EARNED and should only be subject to demotion for seriously bad behaviour or serious breaches of the Rules.

At the commencement of multifareous 150th ACW Anniversaries - there are more important issues than twaddling and faffing around worrying about whether we have 10 Generals Or 11 or m'be even !GASP! . . . the full Dozen!!!!!!

IF 1 in 10 Officers is a General . . . well . . . . it was roughly the same ratio 5-6 years ago, which statistic points to the fact that within every 10 Officers retiring from the Club . . . . at least 1 of them is a General. Quid pro quo.

What about addressing the issues of:

Greater inter-membership interaction?
Establishing a more Uniform distribution of the Troops of each Army?
Proper 'promotion' procedures for Command opportunities within each Army?
Greater Web-presentation of the various Armies?
Better support for those members that actually run/host Army Web-sites?

More of this later . . .

Yours etc . . .

Captain Senior Majorette General,
( with 5 dinky daisies on my epaulettes and suede (blue) toe-caps on me Boots),
Pat.

_________________

I'm with Pat on this one. There are greater issues to be tackled than this. It could even have an adverse action and force people away. One needs to realize we have all these Generals running around, because guess what, we've been around for over 10 years as a Club, a lot of original guys are still here, a lot of folks whom have volunteered over the years in so many positions and have earned their stars/stripes.

As a Lt. Colonel I was placed in charge of the ANV in a crisis time, we shouldn't tie rank into position, if you've got someone who wants the job, give it to them and reward them for their service. Not to sound arrogant, but almost all of my 8 years in the Club have been spent in some sort of command, and I have served at almost every level in the Club, I personally take pride in my service & in the rank I have earned providing that service. BTW I did forgo a promotion to full General, because some of my favorite men from the war were Lt. General's....

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
Commanding Officer & Chief of the Armies (CoA) of the Confederate States of America (CSA)

I do not think there is a problem with the rank system or the way in which promotions above the rank of Brigadier is handled.

Rank, per se, is simply an indication of a members gaming, longevity and/or administrative involvement.

If it AIN'T broke, why mess with it.

The system is simple, workable and reflects the ROLE PLAYING aspect of the club. This ties in nicely with the gaming. Without some type of structure, we turn into a LADDER club, which we are not now and have never been.

_________________
General Ernie Sands
President ACWGC -Sept 2015
Western Theater, Commander, USA


ACWGC Records Site Admin

Thank you everyone for your comments thus far! Keep them coming.

Gentlemen,

I remember my early days, when I drooled over a few precious points from a game ... and each promotion was cherished. It took me two years to make Colonel, and I never dreamed I would ever become a Brigadier, let alone a full General!

I must admit I have enjoyed the ranks I've achieved in the club through the years. However, my personal leaning would be to cap 'permanent' ranks at Colonel and use brevet ranks to indicate command positions within the club (BGen for Division Commanders, MGen for Corps, LGen for Army, and Gen for Theater and CoA's).


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

_________________
ACW - General, AotM, I Corps, 3rd Div., 6th Bgd

I am for that. No change to the points' award, but the introduction of brevet ranks.

Don't forget that generals in real life retire when they reach old age. We guys don't, and end up with 6 dozens of 3-4 stars generals.
General Sands speaks of role-playing. Well it is actually what made me join a club and since the fiction happens on-line and mainly on this forum, rank is the main thing distinguishing all our characters...What I like in a good role-playing game (or war-game, or board game) is its realism (except when playing Smurfs RPG with my daughter). Who would fancy playing an HPS scenario with five general Lee on one side and six general Grant on the other?
For role-playing's sake, I think the brevet system would be good, since it would make characters holding higher ranks (who currently invest themselves in the club and have an active role-play) stand out from the others.
Now, I understand that some people have offered a lot of their time in the past, and that it would perhaps feel unfair to be deprived of well earned rank... but then, what are all those badges to commemorate command and various medals for ?

But I am just a lieutenant...

_________________
Colonel C.G. de Pecqueur

2 / 1 / I /ANV

Pat Carroll - loved the post.

Scott Ludwig - couldn't agree more.

Ernie Sands, Bill Peters, Pat Carroll, Scott Ludwig - might take another 8 years in this Club before those 4 agree on a topic!

Ned Simms - love the concept, need to noodle on how to make that happen, and would love to hear ideas. I suspect Joe Meyer would as well, we used to talk with DS Walter about a Leadership Academy to help us out there.

Our current rank system provides a good balance, and has served us well. I'm unaware of any proposed changes that would either:

A - Improve retention or growth
B - Simplify administration responsibilities for commanders

Seems like most (if not all) of the proposals would potentially make those items worse.

As for rank tied to current position within the Club - if one wanted to keep your General's stars, they wouldn't move out of command positions, and would bottle up growth below them. If we feel that those stars are a motivation to serve (I believe they are, and certainly the Rules are intended to reflect that), then what I described is a likely consequence to any change that would take rank away if not in certain positions.

I also think taking away rank is a lousy way to thank those folks who put in the time and service to achieve them in the first place. Let's face it, other than the blue toe tips for Pat, that's ALL the rank really is - a recognition of THANKS from the Club. Doesn't make you better, doesn't differentiate between wins and losses on the battlefield.

Raising the points totals negatively impacts newer folks. It's good that they have frequent early motivation and reward. At least I found that to be true for me when I joined.

_________________

General Jeff Laub
Iron Brigade
1/1/I
Army of the Potomac

I have to agree with Jeff - the system has served us well over many years, so I am for leaving things as is (easy for me to say I am a General ). If you look hard for faults in our rank system you will find them, but often fixing one issue just leads to another.

_________________
General Cam McOmish

Georgia State Volunteers Brigade
Patrick R. Cleburne's Division
Hardee's Corp
(1/1/1)
Confederate Army of the Tennessee
CSA

(also CoS for the CSA AoT)

Well-written Gen. Laub. I dont agree with everything you wrote but, as always, you are clear and concise. My compliments.