Messages

31

Whigs & Tories / Re: Bugs / Issues

« on: August 22, 2015, 12:12:06 am »

Black Cannons, with no texture beside the barrel.

Spoiler

[close]

32

Whigs & Tories / Re: Bugs / Issues

« on: August 22, 2015, 12:04:54 am »

NA servers will most likely be on Fastest per usual, most likely that is.

I understand that, but melee still feels incredibly non responsive and slow even at the fastest.

I second this, the melee needs tweeked a bit
 Also the lack of riflemen for the mod is upsetting, I did read your post on the "lack of rifles" thread but I disagree with your opinion on how they react to in events.

*Edited* I changed it before the response r.i.p. I am not reporting the lack of rifles as a bug but more of an issue <3

33

Whigs & Tories / Re: Ranks (1770 +)

« on: August 21, 2015, 08:40:41 am »

13 Colonies Ranks
(sauce)

Early Uniform Ranks

   

[close]

Late Uniform Ranks

[close]

34

Media / Re: WaT Official Youtube

« on: August 21, 2015, 07:31:35 am »

Soon..

35

Confederates / Re: 11th Alabama Infantry Regiment *Important Update*

« on: August 20, 2015, 09:18:30 am »

Important update bump <3

36

In Development / Re: Whigs & Tories Regimental Reservation Thread. - USE FORMAT!

« on: August 19, 2015, 10:51:39 pm »

Seriously? No one has taken 23rd Welch?

Why in Gods name not!

Fools, bloody fools..

37

In Development / Re: Whigs & Tories Regimental Reservation Thread. - USE FORMAT!

« on: August 18, 2015, 04:10:58 am »

Spoiler

Regiment Name?: Queen's Rangers
Regiment Type?: Light Infantry
EU,NA or Aus?: EU/NA
Leader steam contact(link) https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198094733266/

[close]

Thats a shame, I had an empty steam group called the Queens Rangers. I wish I coulda added you so you could use it </3

38

In Development / Re: Whigs & Tories Regimental Reservation Thread. - USE FORMAT!

« on: August 17, 2015, 05:38:34 pm »

Regiment Name?: 2nd Maryland Regiment of Continental Infantry
Regiment type?:Line/Light Infantry
EU,NA or Aus?:NA
Leader steam contact(link):PolarBeats ☧

39

Union / Re: 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment " First Fire Zouaves " EU/NA

« on: July 25, 2015, 05:13:19 am »

Good luck bump <3

40

North & South: First Manassas / Re: STRENGTH OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMIES & MORE TAKE A LOOK !

« on: July 22, 2015, 06:35:31 am »

Huzzah for the 11th Alabama and Longstreet's division!

41

Confederates / Re: 11th Alabama Infantry Regiment [NA]

« on: July 21, 2015, 10:28:15 pm »

They're your intestines. It leads to your butt though!

Why are we talking about bowels... I'm frightened.

Anywho, Good luck Polar!

"If you are a combat veteran: This is your chance to lance that bayonet inside the bowels of a damn yankee." thats why lol

And thanks guys

42

North & South: First Manassas / Re: Thoughts about "Confederate Flag" being banned

« on: July 11, 2015, 12:02:15 am »

Y'all should read the article I linked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?postshare=811435843106111

There are quite a load of inaccuracies in that article that even their correction didn't note and I couldn't even mention without completely re-writing the article , as well as they do not give proper context to South Carolina's specific Deceleration of Secession but instead jumble their reasons with other reasons and the going hysteria. Its a much rather biased article, interesting as it is I wouldn't rely on it as defense to an argument or even to prove a point. When I went to school (Alabama btw) when the civil war was mentioned it depicted the war as being the conquest to end slavery in the south, there was never a glorified southern cause in that book, wasn't till I did independent research now that I am in my adult years that I truly formed an opinion. I see the cause of the abolition of slavery as nothing more than a parlor trick, to help the civilians rally behind a "righteous" cause to help make the Union not seem like the bad guy for invading the south. When the Union declared war, it wasn't for slavery but the containment of the Southern States and the tariffs as well as the agricultural industry they planned to take with them. It simply was a War of Northern Aggression. In the span of seven months the South formed and the North invaded.. Nothing more and nothing less.

Spoiler

If the war against slavery can be called a war of aggression, then how should we call slavery? Slavery is a permanent state of war and aggression. And this horrendous system was the main "right" of the South, its "peculiar institution". Defending the so-called 'rights' of the South meant violating the fundamental rights of Man.

Moreover, this war was a civil war, not just a war between North and South. Many people in the South were loyalists. Why don't you build memorials for the loyalists?

"Many southern soldiers remained loyal when their states seceded; 40% of Virginian officers in the United States military, for example, stayed with the Union.[4] During the war, many Southern Unionists went North and joined the Union armies. Others joined when Union armies entered their hometowns in Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and elsewhere. Over 100,000 Southern Unionists served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised at least a battalion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist#cite_note-5

The Confederate flag is definitely not the flag of the whole South.

[close]

Neither was the Stars and Stripes for the American Revolution, loyalists were a thing. People will always choose a side and it may not be the side that you live in, and memorials are usually erected to remember those who died in defense or died with the intent to do something or even to honor their triumphs. Slavery also is not a state of war, nor is it always a state of aggression, most people you find who support the actions of the confederacy such as the SoCV or DoCV demonize the institution of slavery. The War also was not a war against slavery but to end the southern rebellion and slavery was a "wargoal" added. In 1783 at the end of the American Revolution and America was a free country, the brave men who advocated for every man to be free never abolished slavery and even took on slaves of their own. I view it as hypocritical to damn the Confederacy for their views on Slavery when the US didnt and had no intentions of solving slavery till after the rebellion. There is no difference from the Continental United States and the Confederate States of America.

43

North & South: First Manassas / Re: Suggestions and feedback

« on: July 10, 2015, 10:33:39 pm »

Haha, Parrot. So true. 

Indeed very true, but when I attend events I would enjoy having all my regiment have fun not having to deal with them crashing. The old textures weren't bad, so maybe an alternative download would be nice. SD vs HD

44

North & South: First Manassas / Re: Thoughts about "Confederate Flag" being banned

« on: July 10, 2015, 10:27:14 pm »

Spoiler

Nobody thinks the flag only represents racism. Of course it is a part of history, but when it is still flying on a government building and was set there for the soul purpose of opposing the civil rights movement, there shouldn't be much question in your mind as to its legitimacy. I don't support a ban on the confederate flag, and these companies like Apple who are removing it from the app store are being silly - clearly just to appease their shareholders.

The thing is though, regardless of its legal status in the US, the confederate flag does not really represent a noble cause. You can claim all you like that the confederacy did not fight for the continuation of slavery, but every historical document and source of information speaks otherwise. It simply is not true that the civil war was not fought primarily over slavery. It was a debate that had been raging for decades before the outbreak of the war, and in almost every single declaration of secession published from each state of the confederacy, upholding slavery was clearly stated as their primary cause. The south plainly and simply did not want to abolish slavery. It's understandable of course, considering the entire livelihood of the south dependent on slavery as an established institution, and I'm not entirely sure how anyone could deny this with the historical resources available to us on the internet today, but all the same, it's quite clear what the confederacy stood for, and it's quite clear to me that their cause was not one of honor or nobility.

[close]

I view it as a War of Northern Aggression, to prove it you must look at the events of the year 1860/61. December 20th, 1860 South Carolina secedes.. stating simply that the soon to be crusade against slavery would threaten their constitutional rights. The word slavery is mentioned six times in their deceleration of succession but never about keeping their slaves, just that the Union would use it as a base to deny their rights. By the end of January 1861, six more states would leave the Union as independent republics, by February these seven states would join together and form a provisional government and label their nation as a confederation. In the months leading to April of 1861, the south would have taken over the garrisons of abandoned forts as well as arsenals in their states with the exception of South Carolina specifically, as well as visit Lincoln in Washington asking him to recognize their independence. By April 12th, the state of South Carolina will have asked on multiple occasions for the US to abandon Fort Sumter due to the Union's lack of jurisdiction, South Carolina is a independent state now. When they refuse Confederates and South Carolina bombard the fort, and with no casualties sustained the Union surrenders and returns home. Upon word of Sumter Lincoln calls to arms 75,000 troops to end what he called the "insurrection" of South Carolina which eventually leads to the other four states of South to secede and form an army by July and have those armies merge at Manassas and Bull Run Creek.

This is a noble of cause as is any, the ideals of slavery can't be denied and nobody truly argues that. Mississippi and Texas specifically mention the ability to maintain the institution of slavery. But the maintenance of this institution was mainly political, normal people who didn't own slaves (and even many confederate officers and generals who never owned slaves) didn't much care for the ideals of slavery. But when a force bigger than your own demands you to raise your arms against brothers, then invades your lands, destroys your houses, and occupies your inhabitance under military rule.. its something you fight for. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free all the slaves, it only freed the slaves in the South where they had no authority, meanwhile Union slave states like Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were allowed to maintain slavery and some didn't fully abolish the institution til the 1880's. So to demonize the Confederate cause as strictly slave related is incredibly incorrect.

45

North & South: First Manassas / Re: Thoughts about "Confederate Flag" being banned

« on: July 10, 2015, 10:00:06 pm »

In the case of South Carolina Capitol, the flag was set there in the 1960's or 1970's to oppose the Civil Rights movement, so this flag was indeed actually used as an offensive and racist symbol.

It is next to a Confederate War memorial and those dead soldiers deserve that flag more than any living person, a flag should never be removed from a memorial so that politicians gain the votes of incompetent and uneducated people that fill today's society.

The flag of the confederacy does not represent the soldiers who fought for it. Removing it does not defile their memory. What a retarded statement.

That actually is quite the retarded statement lol, The Battle flag of the Confederacy was specifically designed to represent the soldiers on the battle field and is used to memorialize them today. The problem are modern groups like the Klan and Neo-Nazi's and even the NAACP that have given an era of disgrace to the flag and ill representation. I am not going to take away from the tragedy of the SC shooting, but to be quite honest it has nothing to do with the flag or history, just some bitch ass kid looking to cause a race war. Men that have been dead for 130+ years didn't walk into that church, this wave of "political correctness" sweeping the nation is nothing more than a desecration of graves and a blatant attack at the dead who cant defend themselves. Whether you like it or not, 11 states left the Union in search of their own fate and rights as given to them by the Deceleration of Independence of 1776 and faced a War of Northern Aggression. 397,000 killed and wounded boys, young men, grown men who fought bravely in defense of their homes and their way of life.. They should be honored just like the 647,000 killed and wounded of the Union, not erased, not disgraced but honored.

When I look at the flag I see a lost cause, a failed chance at independence, the denied rights to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and denied the ability to abolish a destructive government and institute a new government to lay its foundation on these principles, years of ruin for the South and years of propaganda. Nobody said history was pretty, nobody says that just because the other side wins or loses that the noble men weren't honorable. The flag simply does not represent racism or ill will to any form of people, and you are foolish to believe so.