Anvil Game Studios

Author Topic: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)  (Read 4464 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Furrnox

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • 9e is great mah dudes. #Trust
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2017, 05:10:36 am »
1 week? lol

Offline General Shepherd

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 344
  • Peace at Home, Peace in the World
    • Steam
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Lt.Gen Shepherd
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2017, 05:40:06 am »
I ask something. If the regimental leaders are interested in negotiating, how about this issue?

Offline UguroBi

  • Able Seaman
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Major UguroBi
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2017, 04:01:36 pm »
I feel like think that this is an excellent idea, the sad thing is that rules actually had to be in place for regimental names, I personally believe that if there is a dispute between regiments that they must solve it themselves in a calm and mature way. As I would believe that the people on our forums are somewhat mature adults, that can easily solve a simple name issue and if it leads to toxicity, insults and what not.
Then moderators may step into the conflict, I didn't think that it had gotten this bad for guidelines to be written out.
Anyway, I support every decision made by the Moderation Team and hope this works out in future.

I agree with you. If there is an regimental name conflict between 2 regiments, they should just settle the problem their own but nowadays some people are not being too mature and just straight go for arguing about it but i'm not against the moderator making a rule about it, players make it this way.

Offline Blaze

  • Server Administrator
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 875
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2017, 11:54:43 pm »
It's sad that people can't be mature enough to sort their own disputes.

Offline NiPhix

  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 1177
  • 92nd Rec Lachlan Stewart
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2017, 12:22:06 pm »
I think moderators should be more strict. Having bannable punishes when a user doesn't want to rename to keep the useless discussions and drama of the forum. It's getting too old. There has finally to be a line no one should cross.

Offline Charles Caldwell

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Retired Founder of the SLRN [Naval Action]
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [1st L KGL]
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2017, 01:21:38 pm »
Is there a problem with two or more regiments sharing the same name?

Why cant you have 3 95th's with 1st Battalion, 2nd or 3rd Battalions? Its realistic?


Offline Knightmare

  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 894
  • paki
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: S.Williamson
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2017, 01:41:31 pm »
Is there a problem with two or more regiments sharing the same name?

Why cant you have 3 95th's with 1st Battalion, 2nd or 3rd Battalions? Its realistic?
There are way too many problems to your solution.
1st:Confusion between all 3,all 3 might be different regiments or 'battalions' but the name is still the same.
2nd:Tags might help this solve confusion but the name is still the same.
3rd:1 or 2 of the regiments wouldn't want a name they rightfully believe belongs to them to be used by another.
4th:In response to your 3 95th's,there are 2 at the moment,one is EU and the other Oceania-based,so that's one of 2/3 ways to save people from confusion.

There are more,but those are limited to in-regimental problems.

Offline Charles Caldwell

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Retired Founder of the SLRN [Naval Action]
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [1st L KGL]
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2017, 02:42:29 pm »
Is there a problem with two or more regiments sharing the same name?

Why cant you have 3 95th's with 1st Battalion, 2nd or 3rd Battalions? Its realistic?
There are way too many problems to your solution.
1st:Confusion between all 3,all 3 might be different regiments or 'battalions' but the name is still the same.

Confusion why? In War of Rights there are a number of same name Companies, that happily divide themselves up in A, B, C Companies without fuss or tantrums. Just because you are the first to claim a name shouldn't give you rights over it. Also see below!

2nd:Tags might help this solve confusion but the name is still the same.

[95th A] [95th B] etc etc wants the issue?

3rd:1 or 2 of the regiments wouldn't want a name they rightfully believe belongs to them to be used by another.

Who says, lets act with some maturity.... no one OWNS names here, its merely a suggestion to have it solely owned. However why should we impose rules on a US based group who wish to play as a 3rd 95th Rifles?

4th:In response to your 3 95th's,there are 2 at the moment,one is EU and the other Oceania-based,so that's one of 2/3 ways to save people from confusion.

There are more,but those are limited to in-regimental problems.

So having Regiments divided works then, as we already have 2 95ths happily formed alongside eachother.


Offline Knightmare

  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 894
  • paki
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: S.Williamson
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2017, 03:53:29 pm »
Spoiler
[close]
As said before,there would be too many problems for us to even comprehend.

For your first question,WoR has a different regimental system,companies are known by some callsigns,so that saves them from bein confused,ere we don't,instead regiments are known by famous names such as the 28th The Slashers or the 30th The Triple XXX's.Having 2 regiments by those names is nigh confusin,so it's better just to have 1.

Onto your second one,do you really think regiments will be satisfied by having simple alphabetical tags?No offence ofc,but they want to be known for their own number and tags,not just have another duplicate regiment with the same name.This would cause too much drama and anyway's who would be A and who B?That's a question I'll leave for you to ponder.

For the 3rd one,we all know some people ere aren't as mature as we all wish they would be,ofc we can't take names used over 200 years ago,but remember this is a video game,some people tend to take their historical approaches quite seriously.Say if we have 2 66ths,both leaders want to have the same historical leader's name,now only one of them can be known by that name,yes?This is something we as a community can't really change about people.

4th one,yes that solves it,but as of yet we don't have sub-boards for EU,NA and AU/NZ events,so for just now,we'll be confused between both 95th's unless they reach some sort of mutual understanding.

Sorry for the long passages,just difficult to give answers :P.

Offline Napoleonic Wars

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 1112
  • 42nd Regiment of Foot/Anglo-Portuguese Army
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2017, 05:11:48 pm »
Regimental and naval crew names in the Holdfast community are claimed on a "first come, first serve" basis. When two regiments are in dispute over a common name, the unit which has established itself first on the forum has precedence.
^ Regiment Rule ^

Is there a problem with two or more regiments sharing the same name?

Why cant you have 3 95th's with 1st Battalion, 2nd or 3rd Battalions?
Sorry but this is not War of Rights. That game uses a different system called companies and it's terrible to say the least.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 05:21:52 pm by Napoleonic Wars »


Offline Charles Caldwell

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Retired Founder of the SLRN [Naval Action]
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [1st L KGL]
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2017, 05:18:53 pm »
Quote
WoR has a different regimental system,companies are known by some callsigns,so that saves them from bein confused,ere we don't,instead regiments are known by famous names such as the 28th The Slashers or the 30th The Triple XXX's.Having 2 regiments by those names is nigh confusin,so it's better just to have 1.

Sorry? A regiment is a regiment, we have 3 1st North Carolina Companies A B and mine the C

Historically the 1st 95th and 2nd 95th fought together and apart in different theatres with different historical commanders so I cant see the issue at having 'Battalions' in HF.

Quote
Onto your second one,do you really think regiments will be satisfied by having simple alphabetical tags?No offence ofc,but they want to be known for their own number and tags,not just have another duplicate regiment with the same name.This would cause too much drama and anyway's who would be A and who B?That's a question I'll leave for you to ponder.

Whats the problem with having Regiment and battalion in the TAG. I still dont get the problem you are having.

Quote
For the 3rd one,we all know some people ere aren't as mature as we all wish they would be,ofc we can't take names used over 200 years ago,but remember this is a video game,some people tend to take their historical approaches quite seriously.Say if we have 2 66ths,both leaders want to have the same historical leader's name,now only one of them can be known by that name,yes?This is something we as a community can't really change about people.

So the majority must cater for the few cases where two players pick and squabble over the same name? I tend to think the community should be considered mature first, and let the immature fight amongst themselves.

Quote
4th one,yes that solves it,but as of yet we don't have sub-boards for EU,NA and AU/NZ events,so for just now,we'll be confused between both 95th's unless they reach some sort of mutual understanding.

The only confusing thing here the fact you seem not to be able to differentiate between two separate groups with the same name. Surely currently the two 95th groups clearly specify their player base? So whats the issue again?


Offline Napoleonic Wars

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 1112
  • 42nd Regiment of Foot/Anglo-Portuguese Army
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2017, 05:20:29 pm »
Quote
WoR has a different regimental system,companies are known by some callsigns,so that saves them from bein confused,ere we don't,instead regiments are known by famous names such as the 28th The Slashers or the 30th The Triple XXX's.Having 2 regiments by those names is nigh confusin,so it's better just to have 1.

Sorry? A regiment is a regiment, we have 3 1st North Carolina Companies A B and mine the C

Historically the 1st 95th and 2nd 95th fought together and apart in different theatres with different historical commanders so I cant see the issue at having 'Battalions' in HF.

Quote
Onto your second one,do you really think regiments will be satisfied by having simple alphabetical tags?No offence ofc,but they want to be known for their own number and tags,not just have another duplicate regiment with the same name.This would cause too much drama and anyway's who would be A and who B?That's a question I'll leave for you to ponder.

Whats the problem with having Regiment and battalion in the TAG. I still dont get the problem you are having.

Quote
For the 3rd one,we all know some people ere aren't as mature as we all wish they would be,ofc we can't take names used over 200 years ago,but remember this is a video game,some people tend to take their historical approaches quite seriously.Say if we have 2 66ths,both leaders want to have the same historical leader's name,now only one of them can be known by that name,yes?This is something we as a community can't really change about people.

So the majority must cater for the few cases where two players pick and squabble over the same name? I tend to think the community should be considered mature first, and let the immature fight amongst themselves.

Quote
4th one,yes that solves it,but as of yet we don't have sub-boards for EU,NA and AU/NZ events,so for just now,we'll be confused between both 95th's unless they reach some sort of mutual understanding.

The only confusing thing here the fact you seem not to be able to differentiate between two separate groups with the same name. Surely currently the two 95th groups clearly specify their player base? So whats the issue again?
I only see the War of Rights community having a problem with this known rule.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 06:19:37 pm by Napoleonic Wars »


Offline Charles Caldwell

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Retired Founder of the SLRN [Naval Action]
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [1st L KGL]
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2017, 05:30:27 pm »
Sorry but this is not War of Rights. That game uses a different system called companies and it's terrible to say the least.

WHAT its not, damn no wonder I was confused by those red coats!!!

Joking aside, we are talking about the names of units are we not, whether its the 35th, 42nd, the Bloody 11th in the Napoleonic wars or the 1st NC, 10th NY or the 5th T in WoR the discussion is about players taking and claiming the names for themselves. Im saying that both HISTORICAL Army structures further subdivided themselves into easily workable Battalions and in the USCW Companies. Yes WoR has the company tool, but HF doesnt...perhaps oneday they'll have the Regiment Tool!

My argument is why impose harsh rules, when we have the ability to further subdivide 'historically' those famous units.

Its seems your anti 'battalion' argument is.... NO, its my precious, and I want itz for meeezzzz!!!





Offline Charles Caldwell

  • Regiment Leaders
  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 204
  • Retired Founder of the SLRN [Naval Action]
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: [1st L KGL]
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2017, 05:32:08 pm »
Continue playing War of Rights if you don't like the regiment reservation rule. I only see the War of Rights kids having a problem with this known rule.

Im going to play both thank you.... and Im old enough to be your dad! ;)


Offline Knightmare

  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 894
  • paki
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: S.Williamson
Re: New rules regarding regimental names (open for discussion)
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2017, 05:36:37 pm »
Let's not have this escalate into a hostile discussion guys,aren't we all mature ere?And please don't double post Charles,you could have easily edited your earlier post.