Improve Military Formations/Units, Military Ranks/Titles, Military Organizations Templates | World Anvil

Improve Military Formations/Units, Military Ranks/Titles, Military Organizations Templates


Remove these ads. Join the Worldbuilders Guild
Go back to the Voting Board

Improve Military Formations/Units, Military Ranks/Titles, Military Organizations Templates

Feature Upgrade · Articles & templates · Created by Delpheus
in-progress
military article template

What functionality is missing? What is unsatisfying with the current situation?

  Functionality is missing for constructing military articles using WA templates, see below.  

How does this feature request address the current situation?

  The list below has suggested actionables for each item.  

What are other uses for this feature request?

  Improvement to WA user quality of life, understanding templates, and improving clarity and productivity.   Military Unit/Formation & Military Type Organization Templates   Overview – There are inconstancies and confusing separation/overlap between both the military unit (formation) template and the organization template (when used as Type: Military, X). There is room for expansion, improvement, clarification, especially for those unfamiliar with how a military, historical and current militaries, are defined and how their components fit together in a hierarchy.   **Note, I’m aware my improvement suggestions can be done with code. This suggestion is not for people who are masters of code or those who have an envious amount of time to dedicate to world building.   This is for people who want world building to be more accessible, easier, less time consuming, so they can create articles that are more comprehensive and at a faster rate. If you want to disagree with me, obviously that’s fine and you’re free to do that, but I know this can be done (if you know how, with code).   Qualification – As a member of the Armed Forces, this particular aspect of world building is of keen interest to me. Military action is a key element of my stories, and I’m sure others, not just veterans, would like a better interface for creating the hierarchy and structure of the militaries in their worlds.   This issue came up in my last roleplay session. I was delighted my players understood a certain military organization was trying to command them, but did not have the authority to do so, since they were outside that chain of command, which led to some great “you’re not my supervisor” memes. It had a direct impact on the story/game.   Maybe you don’t care for that level of detail, but when a military is done wrong or with no care about its organization or believability whatsoever, we notice.   Conversation with Dimitris – I did discuss this with Dimitris in discord, and now I am outlining my specific actionable list and petitioning for community support. In that conversation, they clarified something that really confused me, and for the sake of my argument for improvements it must be brought up here.   Apparently, the intention of the “military formation template” (labeled military unit on the dashboard) is not intended for specific military formations, rather, for generic formation types. As Dimitris explained: “Not the 10th legion, but what a legion is.”   Which brings me to my first points.   # 1A: The dashboard icon and the template title for “military unit” should match, use a different term, or add “/ formation”. Using two different words leads to confusion – unit & formation. The words might be interchangeable or mean different things depending on what country you’re from, what time period, what source you’re referencing, and/or what branch of the military you’re talking about. But they are two different things.   Referencing Wikipedia’s article on Military Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_organization#Commands,_formations,_and_units), Commands, Formations, and Units are explained. Summary, smaller organizations are called units.   # 1A Actionable: For the sake of clarity and sanity, the “military formation” template title and “browse by type” category should be renamed to “military formation / unit.” Same with “Parent Formation” connection, clarify or add “ / unit”.   Example, the slash “/” separator is used on the dashboard for myths / legends already (however, much to my annoyance, the template just says “myth” and the legend part disappears, but the “browse by type” category says “myths & legends.”   # 1B continued: While writing this list, the deeper I dug into WA, the more confused I became. The “Title” dashboard icon is also intended to be used for military ranks (which can be inferred, but it would help to say Rank/Title, like the template name and the browse by type category “Ranks & Titles”.) But the titles template doesn’t seem to support regular military ranks.   Yes, I see there are types for “Nobility, military.” “Religious, military.” And there are two under “civic” but…what if the rank isn’t civic? There is no option for a non-civic rank, which is annoying. Instead of an easy click on the dropdown menu we would have to input our own code to remove the word “civic” which is terribly inconvenient.   # 1B actionable: Rename dashboard icon to match template “rank / title” and clarify description text. For “types” add non-civic military options. Simply — “military, generic” “military, commissioned” “military, non-commissioned.” The word “civic” is extremely limiting and frustrating and should be removed. It means that only citizens could hold the rank. Therefore, the template does not allow us to make ranks for non-citizens.   Also, the current “civic, military, not commissioned” type uses the word “not” which I think is a typo. It should be “non-commissioned.”   # 2: Hovering over the dashboard for “military unit” gives us even more confusing description text. “Military formation prototypes,” I could not begin to guess what that meant. Formation also implies something like the Shield Wall or Phalanx or Wedge formation. And the word “phalanx” (a tactical formation describing how warriors are lined up in a shield wall with long spears) is mixed in with words that more accurately describe a unit type like “swordsmen.” So much confusion is caused by mixing these two entirely different things.   # 2 Actionable: Replace description text with something that explains what a military unit is. (Military unit - a group having a prescribed size and a specific combat or support role within a larger military organization.) Do not put “phalanx” formations with “pikemen.” Also, the word “which” seems to be a typo and should be “what.”   # 3: As explained earlier, based on that discord conversation, these formation templates are intended to be linked to related organizations that are actual and specific organizations using this type of military unit. However, someone not aware of that intention may not understand how to properly link their articles and make that explanation for themselves.   There is a prompt “Used by (related organizations)” but, before I had it explained to me, I had no idea what this meant. (Maybe is obvious to some of you, but I can’t have been the only one confused.) At the bottom of other prompts, there is text to explain for the prompt (for example, under “manpower” we are asked “How many people are implicit within this formation?”) More description text would be welcome to clarify intended use.   # 3 Actionable: Add description text under “Used by (related organizations)” that might say something like “What are specific military organizations that use this type of unit in their armies?” Again, I know it might seem obvious, but the division between military unit and military organization templates and how they connect was very confusing for me as a new WA user, and adding one line of text is a simple remedy.   I spent time to talk about this not only for clarifying this one item, but because there are many other areas of World Anvil that could be improved by a little clarification rather than none. I just hope the idea of “clarification” might stick and apply to improvements to existing features and future features.   # 4A: “Related ranks” is confusing. Is the intent to put every rank from general down the private in a list? I might be misunderstanding the intent of this prompt but it makes no sense to me. This could only be useful if the ranks could be organized by type and order.   # 4A Actionable: Referencing Wikipedia’s article on Field Armies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_army), this page follows the intended use of a military formation/unit WA article. The right-side box breaks the rank structure down into categories (commissioned, non-commissioned, enlisted). I can see “related ranks” being useful in that context, if the ranks could be organized into something comprehensible.   # 4B: more importantly, instead of “related ranks” we need a “commanding rank.” It does us not much good to say a “private” is a rank that is part of the unit. The top rank of a component is far more important in military hierarchy. Referencing (https://www.vetfriends.com/resources/us_military_structure_chart.cfm), we can see a platoon is led by a lieutenant, a company by a captain, a regiment by a colonel, and so on.   # 4B actionable: add a formation/unit commander rank. That’s really all we need since subordinate ranks will be shown in units below and commanding ranks will be shown in unit articles above in the hierarchy.   # 4 note: Does “related ranks” also mean “related titles?” If this is the case, we need more clarification text and the renaming of the prompt to “ranks/titles.” This could indeed be useful for annotating chaplains or medics or nobles or other specialized titles that are attached to a formation/unit.   # 5: The “history” tab directly contradicts the intended use of the military formation/unit template. With prompts for a specific founding and dissolution date, specific history section, and most glaring of all “historical loyalties,” these prompts no longer seem to be for a unit type but rather a specific unit. This is not a problem and I do like this tab, but it does lead to some confusion about the intended use for this template.   Based on our conversation, for example, a “Polish Heavy Cavalry Squadron” would used a unit/formation template linked to a specific organization template that used Polish heavy cavalry, the “Winged Hussars,” probably with the type “military order.” I still don’t know if I understand that correctly.   # 5 continued: There is so much room for information at the unit/formation level template, which is great, but the organization template “military” tab has only 3 options that are painfully bad. You can only pick one formation type (what!?), a blanket training level and veterancy for the entire organization. There is nothing else, just those 3 options!?   # 5 actionable:   Let’s take a look at some specific units, which is what the organization template is apparently intended to be used for.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_Airborne_Division   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501st_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)   The 101st airborne division is the parent organization of the 501st infantry regiment. There is a lot to love about how these Wikipedia pages are set up. These pages give us important information up front about the organization. Please take a look at the wiki pages above.   They display important information in the right box:   --Dates active (very useful for showing historical units, and showing if they are still active) --Country (or allegiance, or whatever “geopolitical” organization they serve) --Type, Role, Size --Engagements (historical, link to “conflict” templates) --Current commander(s) (please!) --Notable commander(s) (historical importance)   Allow us to get specific with specific military details for our organizations. The 3 options we have are not sufficient.   # 6: In closing, there are 3 templates that need review. Military formation/unit, ranks/titles (please add a slash / ranks), and organizations (type, military). All of these are lacking military focused prompt areas that are vital for organizing and explaining a military.

The Team's Response

This suggestion did not reach the required number of votes to be considered   The points made will be reviewed individualy | I would very much like to know what the people that agree with the above agree with because, that is a lot of points to be perfectly aligned and wanting all of them.   Partially accepted / under review
Login to Vote
Current score

106/300 Votes · +13330 points

Votes Cast

Find your way!

Resources

WHO WE ARE

LEGAL

Get the news

Listen to our Podcast

Our Allies

Dungeon Fog
Gold Ennie 2019 for Best Digital Aid
by 3 Armored Kittens · Prodromos v.1.1 - World Anvil 0.9.15.009 © 2017-2024 [en] | Anvil Time: 05:21, Apr 18 2024