American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=19815		 Page 2 of 5
Author:  Smiley [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
It seems to be a consensus, I too agree with option C.
Admin duties overly complicated,
overlapping army awards not needed or officer dossiers. Minimal upward
reporting as most members just want to play the games.
I too volunteer my services for admin as my field is accounting but
have no expertise in web site maintenance.
Author:  Dejan Zupancic [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Some streamlining is in order. Either we organize two strong armies or two weak armies. Strong army means three corps with three division, each with 4 brigades, for a total of 36 brigades in the army (plus 9 div commanders and three corps commanders). Weak army means two corps per army with two to three divisions, each with 4 brigades, for a total of 16 to 24 brigades (plus 4 to 6 div commanders and two corps commanders).

But I think the key is to simplify the administrative duties. So army home pages should be unified, following one design. And maybe we can reduce the number of medals and ribbons…

Maj. Gen. Dejan Zupancic
1st/III/AoA
Author:  Scott Ludwig [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
I too agree Option C is the best. It'll help us grow a stronger organization. As someone who has done admin for 11+ years, it can wear on a volunteer after a while, so we need a thinner system where we can still get fresh folks to those spots while reducing burdens on those who still serve. :)

Cam did an excellent job thinking this through!! :D
Author:  Trooper Al [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Gentlemen;

While I would prefer to not change the present structure but rather offer training to present officers and recruit more into command positions, the hope of that happening soon seems doubtful. Option "B" attracts me as it keeps more of the commanders we now have though some of are lacking in conduct. Of those lacking in conduct, and in that group I place myself, many would perform better with training in how "The System" works. Training in spreadsheets and the details of forum arrangements, etc. are of what I speak.

That leaves Option "C". The reduction of command positions would be beneficial in that those officers not inclined to administrative duties could bow out with grace. The others who choose to stay must understand that the duties assigned to their positions must be carried out in a timely manner. This is where the training I feel necessary becomes of some import.

Lastly, a great deal of thought need be given to how the command positions will be doled out. What qualities in the candidate are to be used in that determination and how important is each one.

As others have mentioned, Thank you General McOmish! Your efforts in the past, present and hopefully future have caused the club to thrive and survive. Hats off to you, Suh!

With Highest Regards;
LG Allan Hovey
Army of Alabama
Commanding
Author:  Gambrinus Glubbe [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
I support Option C.
Author:  Neal Hebert [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Gentlemen <salute>

I've been pretty much a non-entity for a bit, and I first offer my apologies to the members of the CSA that I was unable to continue my duties as CoA. 2014 has not been a good year and as it progressed I found myself with less motivation or ability to get much accomplished. I thank General McOmish for stepping forward once I resigned and again offer my apologies to everyone for my shortcomings.

I also believe option C to be a good move.

Highest regards,
Author:  TReneau [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Fellow Officers <salute>

First, many thanks to Cam for the thought put into his proposals and the need for a change. I'm all for simplifying the administrative tasks, and like everyone else "Option C" appears to have the general consensus as being the best plan in my view. My only concern is that certain division identities could be discarded in the rush to consolidate. I love the Gator Alley Div, love the fighting spirit repeatedly demonstrated by such fine officers as Neal Hebert, Jim Garner, Dave Peek, Chris Newcomb, and Robert Webb. I wouldn't want that to vanish.....and would hope some consideration might be given to solid organizations such as "Gator Alley".....

Cam, once again, many thanks for your efforts!
Author:  JEdwards [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Option C seems like the best solution. Lowering the amount of admin work seems to be the best way to combat the lack of volunteers for the admin work
Author:  jmedeiros [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
I also agree that Option C seems to be the most feasible choice. The lack of members who are willing to accept top positions necessitates restructuring and streamlining.

Lt. Gen. Joe Medeiros
I Corps
AotM
Author:  CSAML872 [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Provided we can find the leadership "c" seems a good option. However, I wonder if it is not the default, as people who are active prefer this over other even less structured options. Oh well, if they choose not to heard, they will not be.
Please speak up those who we don't normally hear from.
ltg Laabs
Author:  Bklem [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
I concur with option C. Cam has done a nice job of outlining the issues. If I had some confidence that we could improve the situation option B might make a good interim step if we felt it could be turned around, but that does not seem likely. I must admit more of a gamer than an admin type. Now that I've retired that may change and I may be able to devote more time to admin. At any rate I support Option C.

LTG Bruce Klem
Cdr II Corps, AoA
Author:  DChambers [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
I cast for Option C.

My concern is is with the system of mustering. I personally dislike the current system of automatic mustering. To reduce it even further is something that I would find distressful to see. Something a little more organized than either the automatic mustering, or the "everyone post in a thread that they're present for duty" mustering that came before, would be desirable in my opinion.
Author:  Michael Lauer [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
<Salute>
Gentlemen, I feel option C would be our best step forward at this point but I feel this is only a reactive measure. Speaking from experience I joined this club long ago and then due to a mixture of my military service in the Marines and a number of other issues my participation in the club has dwindled. In my attempts to return I found that after months of officially requesting reinstatement into the club my name had still yet to be added back into the roster. While this is trivial and I do not know the circumstances behind the delay. The point I am terribly attempting to make is we need to figure out why people are leaving and what we can do to keep those we have active and bring in new members. I am sure this has already been discussed and wont go into details here. We need to keep the initiative on this and not lose it and become totally reactive.
Author:  Scott Ludwig [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
[quote="TReneau"]My only concern is that certain division identities could be discarded in the rush to consolidate. I love the Gator Alley Div, love the fighting spirit repeatedly demonstrated by such fine officers as Neal Hebert, Jim Garner, Dave Peek, Chris Newcomb, and Robert Webb. I wouldn't want that to vanish.....and would hope some consideration might be given to solid organizations such as "Gator Alley".....[/quote]

I don't see this as an issue, especially in the case of Gator Alley, which will be joined into a completely new formation of the Army of the West, so no existing divisions will be in that entity. Plus I am hard pressed to find a division that enjoys the long history or notoriety that Gator Alley has enjoyed. Most divisions and corps for that matter take on a new identity when a new commander at that level or another comes along. There might be more need to negotiate in the East as you are merging two existing armies with their own very long history of identities. But hey someone once renamed the old III Corps ANV which was nicknamed Hill's Corps, for both AP Hill & a former member Tony Hill who had run it for a long time years ago. But it was known as the Swamp Legion too.....most people never make a peep over these things unless there is someone who really feels strong about it. I think most folks who hold strong feelings about stuff, especially stuff like this are long gone from the Club now.
Author:  CSAJG1136 [ Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restructuring the Armies of the Confederacy
Having served as csa adjutant and aom commander, I have quit any leadership for the reasons you have stated. Hours of dickering with spreadsheets made me feel more like a clerk than a leader.

I will restrict my comments to the west. I have been in both armies and found them very different. I left the aoa for leadership opportunities, and these opportunities will decrease with consolidation.

I found an active aom in gator alley. We flourished. We participated I'm mp games, we battled each other, we communicated.

I found leadership in communication through my division commander and corps leader. Tim Reneau and Neal Hebert showed effort in thinking about their troops and letting them know it. I believe that the corps and division leaders are the key to success.

I see change in the aoa, I love their historical naming, although I am not sore why they chose woods over lowery. Change keeps things fresh, fresh keeps interest.

The aom is waiting for someone to fill general Heberts giant shoes. This appears to be a cycle.

I will have my states rights views satisfied as long as gator alley stays together.

If we go with option 3,then the west becomes the army of Tennessee. Please keep portraits of Bragg and hood out of our halls.

Count you corps leaders and division leaders and eliminate pretend brigades and you will have your answer. But then, you probably already have.
Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/