Re: Ranks

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:10:01 +0000

I'll try to keep the "but that's what I just said"s to a minimum, but no promises...

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 04:06:26AM -0500, Svechin_at_... wrote:
> > Regimental generic would most obviously be 'colonel'. (With due apologies
> > to British Army, I think we can drop the Lt. <g>) I think ILH-1 gives
> > the regional terms, sorry, don't have it to hand.
>
> I don't get this guys, there is _no_ generic term for a regiment in the
> Imperial Army.

I think you're misunderstanding the motivation: it's not "let's impose an 'anachronistic' set of terminology _in the game world_ just to piss off Martin", it's "let's use shorthands _for our discussion_ so as not to confuse each other pointlessly with 8 different polysyllabic noninterconvertable  faux-ancientisms for otherwise simple concepts like 'company commander'". And as I pointed out, even this is _not feasible_ above regimental level.

However, since you bring the topic up, I think it's unlikely that there's _not_ a New Pelorian 'generic' term for the sakes of being able to form meaningful sentences such as "deploy those three regiments along that low ridge" and "summon my regimental commanders to my command pavillion" without implausibly long conjunctions for the haplessly tongue-tied YT Warlord commanding a force of mixed cultural backgrounds. (Which isn't to say they don't individually prefer/insist on their own native-linguistic titles when they get any say in the matter.)

> > One questions arise is, where do vexilla commanders fit in?
>
> A vexilla is effectively a regiment and is treated as such.

OK, thanks, that makes sense. I suppose that if it were much bigger than a regiment in total size, vexilla organisation wouldn't be very organisationally logical anyway.

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail