Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. the only thing similar in them, is the word General( ), technically with how structures actually are, a Battalion General wouldn't go into direct combat, if anything a Battalion general would not go into combat situations at all, so General-ly ( :P) along your basis you shouldn't be called a Battalion General, so in the end the names are completely valid. In the end the only similarity is within the word General. If people couldn't exactly tell the difference between BC and AC , then they'd need a checkup
  3. *pack* it up fam, i've got an american umbrella, meaning it'll blow your punkass away
  4. Yesterday
  5. The ranks are very different and distinguishable, the high command I have suggested are 1*, 2* and 3* generals, none of which are you, who is only similar due to having general in it...
  6. Yes I read this and already know you're using naval ranks at present but the two hierarchies should be distinguishable from each other rather basically two sets of army commands.
  7. Well if you do research you would find out that believe it or not we are following navy ranks and in turn have changed it to the high command of the British army ranks none of which actually go into battle or lead the battle but are more on the admin side, which is what fleet is.
  8. Multi-Star Generals exist, and they never lead anything.
  9. There's a difference between operating a base and leading an army though that's my point because you can't call yourself a general if you sit at a base occasionally pressing bind keys and dealing with the occasional angry man in open comms? (Ironic, perhaps depending on the situtation and personal need for my involvement). I'm aware that this list was basically pulled from a Command Heirarchy Wikipedia page for army ranks (huh, would you look at that) but I think this needs a little more revision to better fit a CWRP server.
  10. -1 Ik Fleet is in dire need of a name change, but the names just don't fit right, they're just... off?
  11. Only 1 rank is similar to army command and its only because it has general in it
  12. The lower ranks are fine as I said before (although Under Officer is still weird to me) it's just high command that needs revising to be less similar.
  13. Mate the theres only 4 ranks that sound the same compared to right now that has 3 like come on....
  14. The current naming needs changing that's a general fact (;P) but I don't think it makes sense to make the two naming structures so similar that it causes confusion and in a way that doesn't fit a CWRP server as Alydus mentioned. Also, yes, we delegate combat and are not always involved with it but you get the general idea (two for two :P) of what I'm saying.
  15. No jobs would be changed though? we would simply get a name change not a role change
  16. when u saying pack do u mean me, cus if u are u need to watch out since the forecast saying its raining hands in ur location
  17. Actually that depends if they want to get involved or delegate troopers to perform combat (pretty much the job of MCOs/BG) and the same would go for Fleet or Base Command delegating base operations to lower ranking command members (CE would handle engine operations and CG security detail) and any combat related situations to the general or marshall commanders to take care of because it's our job.
  18. well sorry to be a General ass ( c ; ) and to second Pack, this would be more fitting compared to normal fleet, as General themselves only went into combat for special occasions ( real world reference ; D-Day, has a general walking around with a cane and pistol guiding the forces) , so your point is invalid
  19. You are the only one that sounds similar to the ranks I have proposed. But current ranks mix with other ranks all the same. (response to second reply) Generals dont go into combat, they run the place aswell as the army.
  20. Generals dont fight, they run the army and run the base
  21. I agree with this, -1 Current fleet naming format is admittely not appropriate for a base map, but I don't think this new set of names is appropriate for a Clone Wars server.
  22. General-ly speaking (:P) you're not because you don't handle actual combat rather base operations so the names aren't fitting.
  23. Mostly holding issue with high command ranking, low ranks are fine apart from Under Officer being a strange rank name to me. You aren't generals.
  24. Im not sure what you mean by confusing because myself, wolf and Pac are able to understand it fine. As for the ranks that are similar to army ranks, there are 3 ranks that are the same and only 1 of those are one we propose are brought in. The current Fleet ranks have 3 that are similar to the army ranks, we are simply just swapping Commander with Captain. Not much of a difference.
  25. -1 due to the rank names and ordering being confusing and too similar to that of army.
  26. +1 Basically, what Pac said. I feel like the names really need a change, it'll be a hell of code to change but it'll all make sense.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...