Messages

1

News & Announcements / Re: Developer Blog 29 - Napoleonic Wars Patch 1.21

« on: October 05, 2018, 05:45:08 am »

I've never heard of or seen this "cav knockdown" until now! Probably never been on a server that activated the option... Does it mean that a cav can get effectively knocked off their horse by a strong hit? If so, that sounds awesome, to me anyway. f*** the pony boys. B)

2

Community / Re: Union Or Confederacy?

« on: May 20, 2014, 05:36:29 pm »

we must just find a new Robert. E. Lee to lead us and will get free from the yanks

I don't know about in real life, but as far as BCoF is concerned, we will find our Robert E. Lee who will lead us to victory, and this time, we're going to fire all those half-assed subpar commanders that lost us the war last time. 

3

Community / Re: Union Or Confederacy?

« on: March 06, 2014, 05:13:34 am »

Ah, then I count that last statement towards Duuring null and void. Still, if this weren't the internet, I would be offended by his statement regarding "the south."

4

Community / Re: Union Or Confederacy?

« on: March 06, 2014, 04:38:13 am »

^ You talk about the power hungry north attacking the south but you forget it was a rebellion and the only natural reaction of a rebelling part of country is to take it back by force so don't try to make it out like the big bad wolf attack another country fact is the south was not another country it received no recognition by any other country in the world all of them view it as a rebellion so any action taken by the united states during the civil war was a action any other country would have done. And yes slavery was just one more reason used by the north to justify the war which it really did not need to use since there is no more reason in the world then taking back what belongs to it.

As if I didn't know I'd stir the bee hive by saying all that, haha! You fellas take me too seriously, but still, you have fallen into my trap of argumentation! Let the pointless battle commence!

The term USA does not stand for "Kingdom" or "Empire" or such single-unit dictated nation. USA stands for "United States" of America, every state is its own governing body with various differing laws but that unite under the constitution and, what is originally suppose to be, a government "for the people, by the people." It's not like half of England was dividing itself and calling itself Southern England and Northern England. These were already separate yet symbiotic states holding under the same constitution and voted in governmental electives.

And about slavery, there comes repercussions when you suddenly decide to release all the slaves in an entire country at once. For one thing, you're creating a huge competition in wages for white workers and suddenly hitting the economy with an army of penny-less and hungry people, and also, the southerners feared for their own security; all those slaves of theirs being freed could instantly turn around to take revenge on them! Even taking a quote from Lincoln who acknowledges this with the abolishing of slavery in the south: Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.

But in all honesty, don't take my word for it, go read a few articles (that way you get a better picture and not just one person's single view) about the issues leading up to the civil war and the secession of the Confederate states. I'm just defending the Confederate side of things because no one hardly does, and because I'm going to be playing as a Confederate officer, so I gotta defend my cause!
 
And hey Duuring, you're an example of that north-south bias I was talking about, as to deminstrate, I'll take the opposite side and say: how's that Obama treating ya, 'left' side buddy? Glad you voted him into office, he sure saved our economy and brought us to a much better place!  Assuming you live in the states...

5

Community / Re: Union Or Confederacy?

« on: March 05, 2014, 04:33:34 am »

Confederate to the end.
I would not desire to be a politically brain-washed Yankee getting horse-drawn into a war by them greedy, power-hungry leaders up north, using ad campaigns with holy marxist ideologies about slavery to pursue their political control and producing national bias about southerns over such things as their "intelligence", and which as stated before, the union didn't remove slavery from their own turf until after the war started, obviously using slavery as fuel to feed the fire. Anyone who thinks it was a good idea getting roughly 620,000 Americans killed over a measly 4-8 percent of Confederates who actually owned slaves is a self-ascended marxist fanatic. The world was advancing quickly and as many have said, it would have died out in the south of natural cause anyway, and without all the death, and we wouldn't have formed such prejudices as "southern redneck illiterate neanderthals" and "yankee brainwashed self-centered city-creeps." This war's main focus was not about slavery, though slavery was a growing concern that was brought to the forefront when the north realized the confederation was forming and wanted to squash the secession. The Confederates power in the senate was shrinking to the point that the southern states felt they needed to act or they wouldn't have their own voice in the senate anymore. The decision was to form their own government. This war was about political dominance and power, and I'll be fighting nobly on the side of freedom and liberation.

^That's just for the sake of defending an old argument, I'm actually a fun-lovin' guy... who's gonna blow all your guts out with ranked volleys when this game is finally released!

6

General Discussion / Re: Which role will you play?

« on: December 17, 2013, 09:39:00 pm »

158 people want to be officers, and judging from the other numbers, it looks like we'll be having 3-5man regiments! (I know, slight exaggeration, but if you've played M&B a while, you know this is a reality to some degree ;P)
What glorious battles we'll have in store! dozens of tiny little rambo-minded regiments running around without any agreed upon strategy or an effectively strong sense of teamwork. Ah, I can't wait to see those giant regiments, which were historically comprised of, usually, multiple battalions made up of several companies each with plenty of men per company... oh wait, why are we calling these individual little lines of muskets entire regiments again? Oh yeah, illiterate traditions from the MM days. We don't want to step on anyone's toes or ask them to try something new... God help us if we bring every misguided ideal from MM and NW into BCoF...
_________
Aside from the usual rantings of historians and strategists and more on the directed topic, I plan on being a southern officer. Why, after my officer rant do I say such a thing? Because I've been playing since the birth of the 1stEPI and have seen most everything from the seat of a grunt musketeer, a sergeant, a flank guide/guard, and secondary line leader when called upon. I've witnessed several leaders from their start to their finish, I've witnessed their methods and their tactics, and have been trained in them all. I've seen what's worked and what hasn't. And for the plus? I can make ah purty good'ol sa'thurn ak'sent!

7

News & Announcements / Re: Developer Blog 17 - Napoleonic Wars v1.1 Public Beta!

« on: May 18, 2013, 05:25:51 pm »

Whatever the case, I don't think we should give riflemen the advantage of having both awesome skirmisher/sniper abilities and a hammer of Thor potential.

8

General Discussion / Re: Best NW Nation?

« on: May 03, 2013, 04:59:21 am »

Well, I'm the best in the NW nation!   

Napoleon Total War: majority play United Kingdom.
Napoleonic Wars: majority like United Kingdom.
Most/any games involving United Kingdom: majority play United Kingdom.

Conclusion? United Kingdom is cliche and abused. Like choosing a Marry-Sue character in a story as your favorite.

Therefore, I choose Prussia, cause Landwehr uniform is boss.

9

General Discussion / Re: Regimental Sub units

« on: April 30, 2013, 08:21:46 am »

Furnardan, I know that feel with NW/MM and the "regiments." But, you have to understand that it's a game, and it is in essence, a regiment. Just, incredibly scaled down. Either way, no matter what NW mod I have played, and MM, I always called my groups by the regiment name, but then defined it to a company. Because, a company is all it'll ever be.

Everything's just a game now days, no one tries to be accurate or take anything seriously anymore... Thanks for being original...

10

General Discussion / Re: Regimental Sub units

« on: April 29, 2013, 06:02:09 am »

Well coincidentally, no one has ever pulled of a "regimental" formation, or even a battalion formation. They're all just a bunch of tiny, tiny companies running around, and calling themselves regiments. But enough of my ranting...

I'm from the earlier EPI(a founder) and obviously, I'd go with the platoons concept, especially because Prussians did historically operate their companies as multi-cooperative platoons in single formation.
You're definitely on the ball with these ideas, I would  say. I'm pretty open-minded about this stuff, but maby that's because I'm experienced with that disciplined style of system, and after being in a couple of much less efficiency-minded and, pardon the insult, lazily-structured "regiments" at times, I know how awesome it is to have this level of structure! I think(or know) that folks that haven't been a part of such a system as this have an innate bias against it, thinking it's too difficult or simply not fun... how foolish they are. 
The only problem I have with your "smaller than platoons" squads idea, is that we hardly have any "regiments" that can host enough men to even split into platoons, much less anything smaller. It's a good idea, but I don't think its very applicable to this community. Unless, of course, we had a huge boost in player count, which could happen with BCoF? It's a hope, if nothing else.

As far as me still ranting off-topic(because it's pointless and I feel like it), I'm still apposed to the stupid and absurdly inaccurate concept of calling a single band of 20-30 men an entire "regiment", which would, in reality, constitute thousands upon thousands of men in many companies, forming multiple battalions.
The many MM/NW regiments work as companies already, and operate in company formation, at least try too... I hope they try to... Anyway, I think it would be perfectly fine to call a band of men a "so-and-so" Company of the "so-and-so" Regiment, instead of the whole regiment itself. A couple of guys already went the more realistic path with starting their "company" for the future BCoF, but I see the miss-guided and completely pointless old tradition from MM caring over to BCoF. It's like me making a 4-man squad in Call of Duty/Battlefield/A-Battle-Game and calling it half the Russian army. 


OH! And the original author of that image is commander Argus. 

11

General Discussion / Re: People's behaving on the Official EU1 server.

« on: April 27, 2013, 07:39:22 am »

I've played MM and NW a long time, and apart from being serious and playing for keeps, I've also "taken a break", I've definitely been in a number of those "negative" categories before. It's a public server, I can do whatever I please, within respectable means of course, such as no vulgar language or team-killing, (Though I tend to kill my cav ally's horses when they keep hitting me, trying to steal my kill. Bastards deserve worse than that) 

12

General Discussion / Re: What environment do you strive for?

« on: April 26, 2013, 02:22:32 am »

I think fun by definition is an individual concept. Exp, some folks have fun kicking baby puppies, some enjoy letting out stress from a hard day by goofing off with their friends, some like recreating history and creating a community that is effective at achieving its goals. Whatever "your" goals are, there are plenty of regiments that fit into different levels of the extremes. I think the only trick is finding the right regiment for you.

My personal thought on the matter, though, is that you can't have lasting fun in our LineBattling community without some discipline. The linebattles themselves have rules, which automatically requires some base level of discipline.
Think of it this way; those guys that chatter the entire time in TS and screw around in-game and horseplay. YA, they get to have their version of fun. But what about the guys who want to be the most skilled warriors in their regiment? To claim all the kills, show off their merit and be a star? And what about the guys that want some peace over the air-waves to hear the orders and focus on their surroundings and excel at the game as well, but maby on a more company-level rather than individually? And then you have the historically minded folks, who enjoy a more serious reenacting environment? To them, being more serious with the game is fun. But without good command and discipline with moderation, all these types of players can't exist together. The goofying off fellows and warrior-rambo guys break orders to get their last shot off, to chase down the straggler when the officer orders the line to reform, to jump out of formation and try taking on all the circling cavalry on his own, which in turn causes more men to follow him out of formation? The players trying to be more immersed or take a more serious approach are at a constant struggle with the loose and even somewhat chaotic fellows, calling one side "Too uptight" and the other "Trollish and annoying".

It's up to the self-claimed commander to decide whether he wants to create a regiment that entertains one side of the spectrum or tries to moderate. From my experience, a regiment of moderation can actually help folks mature on a personal level. I've known goofy troll-like fellows that joined our regiment, and instead of angrily quitting on account of some discipline requirements they didn't like, they stayed(Or were allowed to stay) and maby calmed down a bit, worked with the officers and other players at a semi-bearable level, maby even sparked an interest in the operation and effectiveness of the company/regiment. Other folks who joined seemed to get a nervous break down, shouting at folks to quit messing up the line or head-bobbing so much, or chatting over the orders. Some of those folks stayed too and maby learned a little endurance and patience with the other players.
The other category I mentioned before would be the "rambo-minded" folks, which is what I was(sorta still am), in combination with the historically-minded as well. The rambos of the regiment like to break orders to achieve more personal goals on the battlefield. But my rambo-complex was at odds with my joy of history and actually helping the regiment look and BE the most damn awesome regiment we could be. In a sense, my desire to show off also led to a desire to help the regiment I was in show off. So ya, I was one of those folks that liked to get the men to follow orders effectively and look fit, capable and keen. I think everyone can have the most fun as a whole when there's moderation and some discipline involved. It's like a sandbox game, in a world without a rules and you can be god, life can get pretty boring without goals to follow.

13

General Discussion / Re: They should tweak Combat

« on: April 24, 2013, 03:30:22 am »

I won't get into most of that stuff, but about stabbing speed, I think NW is plenty better than Native about stabbing speed. Swords still shouldn't swing faster than spears stab though, as in Native, what should be the fastest weapon (the spear) is made stupidly slow and under-powered in Native. I know we're talking about rifles with bayonets in NW, which I bet would make a stab slightly slower because of the extra bulkiness of the gun, though I doubt by too much. Take up some historical weapons training or even weapons martial arts,(heck! Go to a renaissance fair and find some different weapons!) and see which is faster, stabs or slashes... just don't come looking for me if you get arrested for swinging swords in public.
 One-handed sword swings of a heavy cav sword should be particularly slower, in my opinion.

Other than that, I would say that I'd like to see the game capable of disabling the ability for someone to stab at the air, then swing their rifle sideways into someone, as if the already thrusted bayonet has the effectiveness of a lightsaber or something... but then, I think high-ping players using bayonets wouldn't have much advantage without the spin-attack (stolen property from Legend of Zelda)

14

General Discussion / Re: Is it worth having stupid ranks/units for the historical feel?

« on: April 16, 2013, 04:03:36 am »

I want a full-fledged band next! Some trumpets, tubas and Trombones... Oh! And perhaps a woodwind section! That, coupled with the drum section. I'll have at least half of the team occupied with a glorious national anthem to Prussia while the rest of the team bitches and complains. Sounds like heaven to me...   

15

General Discussion / Re: Regarding Cavalry

« on: April 14, 2013, 06:26:25 am »

I think that folks who say "infantry just don't know how to fight cavalry" forget the fact that this isn't 1v1 in a Line Battle. This is a swarm of cavalry massing upon you all at once, and hitting you from multiple directions.

It's rather easy to kill cav when its a 1v1, (which is why cavalry in normal battle mode most often just steal kills and stab/slash people in the back who are already occupied or in combat(easy kills)). Unlike infantrymen and even musician/flag classes, I take no pitty or reserve any respect on a de-horsed cavalryman, the most annoying and dishonorable class, I often find that players that have played cav a long time also lack any meaningful skill when dismounted(Not all, but many). My own team's cav TK me more than any enemy cav ever has, always trying to get a kill from whom I'm fighting... and hitting me instead. So nope, I stab that horseless fellow laying on the ground without a hint of remorse.

As far as formations go... We(Referring to the 1stEPI) first developed the concept of, instead of taking the time to form square(very time consuming and risky because of that), we simply halted in our usual 2-rank line and faced outwards, either all blocking in one direction or readying for a bayonet stab. Such a quick anti-cav formation allowed for us to get shots off before the presumed impact as well. And when your formation looks scary, tight and organized enough, you may even scare the cavalry off completely!