Author Topic: Holdfast Look Alike?  (Read 6489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thunderstormer

  • FSE Developer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6311
  • Worse than Hotler
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2019, 12:32:49 pm »
Refleax was never really a dev.  He was just someone who volunteered to help out with running both the forums and official servers.(something he more or less stopped doing back in 2013)    Despite being a Senior Admin in 2013, i never spoke to him once regarding admining.   If anything was discussed, it was between LG, Deo, and eventually Vince.(for NA)   maybe deo(who was community manager and Head admin of all official servers) talked to him now and then about stuff, but both were more or less completely gone by 2014.      Idk what refleax does for holdfast.(coding, PR, etc)

as for some(keyword) of the sounds and models.  They were made by Olaf/admiral when they worked on both games.   It would make since that some of them are the same, or close to it.  They are still releasing assets olaf/admiral made a long time ago. 

as for gameplay itself, you can look at the blogs to see what we are doing.  We will have more coming down the road for cannons, game modes, maps, and among other neat stuff.  While we want to encourage teamwork, we aren't going to shove it down your throat like other games do.  There will always be events that event organizers can set their own rules for, to get their desired gameplay.(like people do for NW)
Should you need to talk to me regarding NA1 or or something regarding admining or the admins, PM me here on the forums and not on steam.  *

*This does not include Official Server Admins.

Offline Olafson

  • FSE Developer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3923
  • #friendsforever
    • View Profile
  • Nick: FSE_Olafson
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2019, 01:45:08 pm »

I hope to god you are not, for me Holdfast was a huge disappointment both in content and community. It went from a popular alternative to NW, then quickly to an arcade bunny hoping shitfest of lonewolves and Disney play style...

I was part of the Holdfast Development team and one of the original founders of the company and the game. I was there from the first second. The game was envisoned and designed to be a naval/coastal only game, but the Maltese Developers (Refleax, Rycon, Dreas) started going a different direction after a while. I left the team shortly after as I could not stand it anymore.

The game is not very good right now, with Naval clearly being the strongest but sadly unfinished part of the game.


It had such promise but ended up a joke, the funniest was its claim at Historical accuracy! They now cant give it away.

The Holdfast Developers (The Maltese Team) know absolutely nothing about history. When I was still in the team, me and Admiral (Who also freelanced for them sometimes) were the ones providing historical details to the Devs. After we left it went down the gutter.
This is clearly visible in their Prussia Patch (Prussian Empire, For the Kaiser).

BCoF is intended to be a historically inspired game, but still be fun to play. We intend to go as accurate as we can, but we will change/scrap history where it is needed to provide good gameplay. We wrote a blog post about it a few weeks ago.
At this point I would like to claim that our Uniforms and Equipment are far higher quality and far more accurate than the Uniforms in both Holdfast and War of Rights.

You can read the part about historical accuracy here:


Quote
Historical Accuracy in the game
When creating a game set in the past, research and staying as close to reality as possible is one of the most time consuming and difficult tasks. It is extremely important to balance both historical accuracy and gameplay to make a fun but authentic gaming experience. Looking back at our previous game, Napoleonic Wars, we could have done a much better job on research. We did not realise it at the time, but we now have a much better understanding of the subject and how to do proper research.

We started re-enacting in June 2014 and joined a Dutch Napoleonic re-enactment group, that reenacts the “85ème régiment d'infanterie de ligne”. At first we thought that everything they did was historically accurate, but a year later we slowly started realising that most re-enactors are anything but historically accurate. This might be a surprise to anyone who is not in the re-enactment community, as it was to us. However, the truth is that most re-enactors do not do much research at all. Many re-enactors even make up their own facts, because “It makes sense”.

With that in mind we decided to instead form our own group that also tries to re-enact the “85ème régiment d'infanterie de ligne”. As we did our research we noticed more and more things that were wrong with our previous understanding of the subject and with re-enactment in general. Ever since then we have been trying to improve our performance/impression of the time and are still continuing to do so.

At about the same time, we also started our own Civil War reenactment group, the “110th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry”. Now with a lot of our research focused on the American Civil War, we started seeing more and more issues with our uniforms and equipment in the game.







Having started work on BCoF right after finishing Napoleonic Wars we barked up the wrong tree due to our poor research and general understanding of the subject. On account of this we decided to redo most of our models and textures for BCoF. Many of them were based on sloppy references and had problems. For example, their colors were wrong, their stitching patterns were all off and on some of them. even the scale was completely off...

Research for the game is now practically no different to the research we do for our re-enactment performances or as a historian might do it. Primary sources, originals and photographs are regarded as the only reliable sources. Secondary sources are only used if it is absolutely impossible to find anything else and preferably if they can be corroborated. This produces not only more accurate content but also much better looking content. Reality always looks better than some made up stuff, at least in period gaming. The problem with this approach is that since we are progressive re-enactors, this is our passion and we sometimes like to focus on unnecessary details like inspector and manufacturer stamps that no player will ever see...

Below is a small series of screenshots showing some of our old and new equipment pieces like haversacks, knapsacks canteens etc. I am sure you will recognize the new models.






Despite that, in terms of gameplay we try to limit ourselves and we do not want to go into extremes. A game has to be playable and in certain aspects we have to cut corners to make it work. For example, if you were to strictly follow the drill manuals, many of the animations would take to long to execute and would destroy the flow of the game. To this end some animations have been sped up by cutting out movements. Some of the actions have also been combined and we also used different drill manuals to create more visibly distinct actions. For example, we are using both Hardees Revised, Gilhams and Caseys manual as a base for our musket animations.

The melee animations in particular had to be made up from scratch and are based on no real manual. We need each swing direction to look visually distinct from another and this would have simply not been possible if we had followed actual manuals.

With our small team it would also not be possible to make uniforms and equipment pieces for all regiments from 1861-65. Certain equipment pieces will be intermixed and worn in a way that does not strictly reflect history. Differences in the time period of 1862-65 are fairly minor though, and it should not be a big issue. For example, the backpack featured above is from 1864, while many of our units are based around 1863. We will obviously continue adding more content to the game during development and after release, so hopefully we will be able to create enough gear to represent all of the years accurately.



We admit that we have made mistakes regarding historical accuracy in the past and we will continue making mistakes. We are not infallible. As such we do not claim that our game is historically accurate, we merely claim to be inspired by history. There are various things in the game that we are aware need to be changed, but are very low on the priority list. For example after making all of the ammunition and ammo crates, we took another look into the ordnance manual and found out that some of our ammo crates and cartridges are wrongly colored. This will have to be fixed, but it is by no means a huge mistake. It certainly can wait until after release.

Anyway, we hope that you now have a better understanding about what we are trying to achieve in regards to historical accuracy in the game, and how we try to approach things.

Quote above is part of Developer Blog 32: (The background is sadly broken, due to our Website being updated some time ago. But while not looking pretty, it should still be readable.)
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40157.0


However I have noted a few alarming similarities, namely the graphics and sound are the same (in some cases they look even like reskins of the Holdfast models), you also have HF Refleax on staff.

You might notice similarities due to several reasons.

1.) Both games are made in Unity
2.) Both games were partly made by me.
3.) We do share some assets like for example a fence model that I originally made for BCoF but then ported over to Holdfast.
4.) BCoF and Holdfast share approx 20-25 sound files. I made some of them for BCoF and also used them in Holdfast. 25 might sound a lot, but it actually is not that much. BCoFs sound design is actually going to be fairly different. You can read a little about sound design here: https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40300.0

That being said, if you play the games you will quickly notice that they actually look quite different. We have a slightly different, less cartoonish artstyle than Holdfast has.
Character models, animations and most other items are all made from scratch in BCoF and share ABSOLUTELY NO similiarities to the Holdfast Models and Textures. They are both completely different.
This will be apparent once you start comparing some of BCoFs uniforms to some of Holdfasts Uniforms. They have different proportions, materials definitions, fold layouts etc.

As such, to compare them, I would like to link you to BCoF Blog 34 and 36:
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40254.0
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40345.0

And to Holdfast Blog 16
http://www.holdfastgame.com/forum/index.php?topic=1228.0

All of which include in-game renders of various uniform and face models.

Refleax was Community Moderator some time ago and he helped to test NW in the early Alpha stages. He and Rycon also created a bunch of maps for NW and helped out for free on NW and early BCoF development. However, they are no longer doing so, as is evident by their missing Developer/Moderator tags on the forums.

If you are not similar how will you avoid the problems Holdfast faces, and how will you attract and promote Team play, formations and army cohesion, instead of a free for all of loners?

You can read a little about our Artillery related teamplay features in Blog 33.
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40210.0

You can also read a little about some of the Teamplay and formation/cohesion features in the Blog 34 and 36 that I have linked above.
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40254.0
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40345.0

We will write a Developer Blog going more into detail about how we intend to encourage Teamplay in a future Blog.

Talking about gameplay, BCoF will play VERY different to Holdfast. This will be immdietly evident if you start looking into BCoFs gameplay.
For example take a look at our Shooting and Bullet mecanichs here:
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40088.0
Or at our Melee Gameplay here:
https://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=40390.0



We have created a Discord Server where you can directly talk to us about the game here: https://discord.gg/3aUrQfm
I suggest you join it and ask us anything else that might be on your mind. Thanks!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 01:58:05 pm by Olafson »

Offline Charles Caldwell

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Command Tent Adjutant
    • View Profile
    • Troup's Artillery, Carlton Battery
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2019, 03:10:13 pm »
@Olafson @Thunderstormer @Xethos

Firstly thank you very much for the time and effort you have taken in responding to my concerns (its appreciated)... clearly you wish to distance yourself from the farce that is Holdfast, and to me thats encouraging. Perhaps remove Refleax from your steam group Admin?

The reason I aired my concerns is that my WoR's company (and many in WoRs) have shown a huge interest in this game and having enjoyed both the teamplay and possibilities in WoR's, the appeal of a truly epic battle of 500 players (with cohesion/realism) would be the icing on the cake. The fear amongst many though was the spectre of the Holdfast connection and the ARCADE element!

I know that the ACW has a huge and dedicated following, the same with NW. If you can tap into that you are onto a winner...... disappoint them, and you'll end in the quagmire of mediocrity.

I will read all your blogs, and no doubt you'll hear from me again. Once again thanks for your time, and how do I get my hands on this game to see for myself?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 03:12:29 pm by Charles Caldwell »

Offline Noorwegian

  • Senior Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 4355
    • View Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2019, 05:56:40 pm »
I will read all your blogs, and no doubt you'll hear from me again. Once again thanks for your time, and how do I get my hands on this game to see for myself?

Right now, there's no way to get access to the game.

The reason I aired my concerns is that my WoR's company (and many in WoRs) have shown a huge interest in this game and having enjoyed both the teamplay and possibilities in WoR's, the appeal of a truly epic battle of 500 players (with cohesion/realism) would be the icing on the cake. The fear amongst many though was the spectre of the Holdfast connection and the ARCADE element!

You should keep in mind that BCoF is not actively trying to be an ultra-realistic game (such as WoR is, for instance), but rather present players with the possibilities to choose how they would like to play the game themselves.

I'm sure that in the future, the game will provide players with the possibilities to either play in a more 'arcade-manner' as you described it yourself (but don't worry, I'm sure it'll be nothing like Holdfast), or play realistically with roleplay and all of that jazz, for those who fancy that kind of gameplay. There should be something for everyone in this game.

Ideally, we'll have the competitive side of regiments and players who enjoy competing with other regiments in melee and shooting, and we'll also have the casual/roleplay side (with the roleplay side hopefully being much bigger than we have in NW) who wish to play in a realistic and historical manner, true to the tactics at the time.

I think that this is the best approach to this, without shoving any particular style of gameplay down anyone's throat, and rather let the players choose themselves how they would like to play. As Thunderstormer said, event organizers (and server hosts, for that matter) will be able to set their own rules to get the desired gameplay they would like in their event/server.

as for gameplay itself, you can look at the blogs to see what we are doing.  We will have more coming down the road for cannons, game modes, maps, and among other neat stuff.  While we want to encourage teamwork, we aren't going to shove it down your throat like other games do.  There will always be events that event organizers can set their own rules for, to get their desired gameplay.(like people do for NW)

Offline Kydric

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • "Sniper Doyle"
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 2ndWI_Sgt_F_Doyle
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2019, 04:54:56 am »
Even, if I was not the one asking these, quite frankly, important questions, I am extremely glad and give props to the developer team that has bothered responding in detail to all matters voiced by my fellow FSE Follower and I would like to say, you have my gratitude sirs. Maybe this discussion could be branded in a some time-near Q&A?

Even, if it is not the right discussion for this sort of matter and perhaps one of the questions I will put in can not be answered at the moment are:

Does Battle Cry of Freedom aim at making a full release, or is there a possibility of an early access release?

Around how many playable units (different unique regiments like the 20thMaine) are planned to be made for both sides?
I was asking this one as the attention to details extremely impressed me, considering the discussion on the high quality uniforms of BCoF and the feature of varying details among companies in the regiments etc. I wanted to basically know wether we can expect a good amount of in-game regimental diversity.

Offline Olafson

  • FSE Developer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3923
  • #friendsforever
    • View Profile
  • Nick: FSE_Olafson
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2019, 05:37:16 am »
We will have to make a new Q&A fairly soon. We will do that for sure.

Quote
Does Battle Cry of Freedom aim at making a full release, or is there a possibility of an early access release?

We will not be going on Steam Early access. We might be doing a smaller scale FSE hosted "Early Access" / Early Alpha. But we are not sure about that yet.

Quote
Around how many playable units (different unique regiments like the 20thMaine) are planned to be made for both sides?

We hope to include a good number of units on both sides, but we are not entirely sure about how many we will manage by release. We will certainly be adding more even after release though.
Making these uniforms and equipment pieces takes a lot of time and we would like to go with the Quality > Quantity approach.


Offline Kydric

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • "Sniper Doyle"
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 2ndWI_Sgt_F_Doyle
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2019, 07:37:14 am »
We will have to make a new Q&A fairly soon. We will do that for sure.

Quote
Does Battle Cry of Freedom aim at making a full release, or is there a possibility of an early access release?

We will not be going on Steam Early access. We might be doing a smaller scale FSE hosted "Early Access" / Early Alpha. But we are not sure about that yet.

Quote
Around how many playable units (different unique regiments like the 20thMaine) are planned to be made for both sides?

We hope to include a good number of units on both sides, but we are not entirely sure about how many we will manage by release. We will certainly be adding more even after release though.
Making these uniforms and equipment pieces takes a lot of time and we would like to go with the Quality > Quantity approach.

Well, thank you for answering, as always.

I didn't know who to contact of the FSE developers for another matter that I have wondered about. In the ABC Regimental System thread, where it is explained what can/can not be done regarding the reserving the regiments etc. I have not found a rule that I think, the addition of, might prove useful, if the team agrees with my opinion.

So, as we know, in Napoleonic Wars regarding that era, compared to BCoF covering the American Civil War, there has not been many issues of this sort even if some have occured, but in regards to armies and brigades reservings, I believe there is one point that should be made.

I think that there should be a rule regarding this matter that I will put the two choices of down here:
Option A: If an individual decides to reserve a historical army/brigade and one of the historical regiments within that brigade/army are already reserved, then the making of that army/brigade will be banned. Note: I am mentioning this, because someone could easily become a subject of this mechanism.
I will put this into perspective with an example: Person A reserves the regimental name of the 69th New York Irish. Person B decides to reserve the Union Irish Brigade, which covers all the regiments within the Brigade. If option A is chosen to handle this matter, then Person B is going to be asked to deform the Brigade as to not infringe on Person A's freedom of an independent unit, so that also Person B can not form a in-brigade copy of the regiment, using the separate brigade as an excuse (which I have bore witness to before).

Option B: If an individual decides to reserve a historical army/brigade, of which containing elements already exist as a sovereign regiment, they are to ask permission to form the Brigade, not necessarily forcing the other individual to work with them.
Example: Person A reserves the regimental name of the 69th New York Irish. Person B decides to reserve the Union Irish Brigade, which covers all the regiments within the brigade. If option B is chosen, then Person B would have to have first asked for permission from the 69th New York and have worked out wether the Brigade will:
1. Not cover the 69th New York, or reserve it, infringing on their independent regimental rights.
2. Not be able to exist, upon Person A, who has reserved the 69th New York, giving his disapproval with the forming of a Brigade containing his independent historical regiment.
3. Assimilate the regiment within itself.

And if no discussions has been had or brought up on the issue, the disagreeing first reserved side will be able to report the infringing of the rules.

Let me know what you think, but I think it is a good thing to cover, if the reserving system is to be fleshed out. Option B, personally I think, gives the most rights for talks to be had between community members and will result in a more diplomatic resolution.



Offline Olafson

  • FSE Developer
  • ****
  • Posts: 3923
  • #friendsforever
    • View Profile
  • Nick: FSE_Olafson
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2019, 11:01:38 am »
I would like to stay away from stuff like that, as community related stuff like regiments/clans are handled by our Moderator Team. As such you should bring your suggestion/question to them.

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2019, 11:11:14 am »
Couldn't the hypothetical Union Irish Brigade simply exist, so long as they don't form a 69th New York? It would seem to me that the precedent is fairly well established that forming a unit that has already been reserved is a no-go, and making it double bad doesn't seem to have any benefits beyond potentially creating more issues should someone decide to be petty.

Edit: Also, there is the concern about units wishing to form larger groups, such as the Army of the Potomac, ANV, etc. where forming would entail contacting dozens or hundreds of groups, any one of which could nix the whole thing.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 11:15:22 am by TheBoberton »

Offline Kydric

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • "Sniper Doyle"
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 2ndWI_Sgt_F_Doyle
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2019, 03:55:13 pm »
Couldn't the hypothetical Union Irish Brigade simply exist, so long as they don't form a 69th New York? It would seem to me that the precedent is fairly well established that forming a unit that has already been reserved is a no-go, and making it double bad doesn't seem to have any benefits beyond potentially creating more issues should someone decide to be petty.

Edit: Also, there is the concern about units wishing to form larger groups, such as the Army of the Potomac, ANV, etc. where forming would entail contacting dozens or hundreds of groups, any one of which could nix the whole thing.

Ofcourse I do voice the same alternate concerns, it is mainly, for me atleast, about preserving the integrity of the solemn regiments, so atleast that when somebody forms the Army of the Potomac, he cant claim every regiment, every brigade, every division under that name. So there must be atleast be something written about that, reserving an entire Army/Brigade would mean you can not reserve all of the impending elements of it, aka Brigades/Regiments.

I actually want to hear more on the thesis. I think you prefer saying that it should be like Person A reserves the 69th New York, Person B reserves the Irish Brigade, but Person B does not have the rights to formulate a sub-group within his brigade being the 69th New York, or if he does, he can be reported for regiment copying.

The main concern about Brigades/Armies is about them having the opportunity of direct reserving of every single asset to it.

Offline TheBoberton

  • Knight of Blueberry
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 994
  • I don't want no pardon for anything I done
    • View Profile
    • Thomas' Steam Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2019, 06:11:51 pm »
The idea is and has been pretty simple; So long as the 69th New York exists and remains active within the community, no one else has any right to the name.

I don't know that any brigade or similar organization has ever just assumed they have the right to claim any and all historically subordinate units.

Offline Shadow

  • Former Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 8314
  • Decorated Soldier, Validated Commander, GHTG
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Shadow
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2019, 12:42:28 pm »
I would like to stay away from stuff like that, as community related stuff like regiments/clans are handled by our Moderator Team. As such you should bring your suggestion/question to them.

I feel like it's pretty much covered already in the thread you mentioned (see the FAQ area(s)), but is there a place where you feel that your suggestion most similarly relates, Kydric?

For the moderation team, it becomes our place when one member is attempting to reserve a regiment/company/squadron/brigade/army, etc. when it's already been reserved. If there's an opportunity to use the same name but a different group, that individual must ask the existing lead(s) for permission - the same way that it has been done in the NW regimental reservation system.

For more ambiguous instances, our Community Representatives are responsible for handling it by bringing both parties together (via PM or TS/Discord/Steam if necessary) to resolve it.

Note that all I said is still fluid, and if you feel there's additional ways we can make it better, feel free to reach out! :) We're planning on looking into the BCoF area after we've finished our work on some templates.
FSE Head Moderator, Feb 2018 - Apr 2022
FSE Community Moderator, Oct 2015 - Feb 2018

FSE Discord Moderator, Dec 2018 - Present

Former Leutnant 19te Prussian Infantry || Feel free to contact me on Steam here

Join the FSE Discord here!

Offline Kydric

  • First Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • "Sniper Doyle"
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 2ndWI_Sgt_F_Doyle
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2019, 03:39:17 pm »
I feel like it's pretty much covered already in the thread you mentioned (see the FAQ area(s)), but is there a place where you feel that your suggestion most similarly relates, Kydric?

For the moderation team, it becomes our place when one member is attempting to reserve a regiment/company/squadron/brigade/army, etc. when it's already been reserved. If there's an opportunity to use the same name but a different group, that individual must ask the existing lead(s) for permission - the same way that it has been done in the NW regimental reservation system.

For more ambiguous instances, our Community Representatives are responsible for handling it by bringing both parties together (via PM or TS/Discord/Steam if necessary) to resolve it.

Note that all I said is still fluid, and if you feel there's additional ways we can make it better, feel free to reach out! :) We're planning on looking into the BCoF area after we've finished our work on some templates.

Again, thank you for answering. My main concern is that whenever the game reaches a date closer to release and eventually releases, more of the regiments will be taken along with it and I can see that there might be a few occasions where someone reserves a brigade that contains a regiment that has already been reserved separately.

Ofcourse, I don't mind it that much myself, but I can see it becoming frustrating, like when nearly most things will perhaps be reserved, even if there is a thousand options in the Civil War.

I guess we will have to wait an see!

Offline Vincenzo

  • Flying Squirrel Dev
  • FSE Developer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2352
  • Dutchman living in Allenstein, Ostpreußen.
    • View Profile
    • Flying Squirrel Entertainment
  • Nick: FSE_Vincenzo
  • Side: Union
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2019, 04:10:14 pm »
if you want to start the 2875 space marines brigade you should be able to do that, as well as make the 69th new York, or some new York brigade independently of that. and do whatever you want really, AFAIK the forum guys only care about somebody taking the SAME name as the other group?

Offline Thunderstormer

  • FSE Developer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6311
  • Worse than Hotler
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Holdfast Look Alike?
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2019, 04:43:40 pm »
Reserving an army, corps etc,. has never given that group the right to own every regiment etc,. that was inside that group historically.  if someone gets upset about not owning every group inside their army historically, they will just have to live with it.   

most armies that were in NW were usually just a collection of different regiments who wanted to be in a larger community.  Sometimes they weren't even of the same nation, let alone members historically of the same army.


personally, i never really cared if multiple people had the same group, as long as the tags and what not that they used were different so you could tell them apart.  or, in some cases, they were the same tags, but because they were in different areas(EU, NA), and thus never played in the same servers, it was never really an issue.(you should talk to the original owners, even if they are in a different zone to see if it is ok.  some regs were global, and not just regional)   the idea was to avoid confusion about which you belong to, and avoid issues of impersonating.  who wants to have people going around with your tags, doing stuff to give your group a bad name?
Should you need to talk to me regarding NA1 or or something regarding admining or the admins, PM me here on the forums and not on steam.  *

*This does not include Official Server Admins.