What will they look like?
  • 358 posts
  • Page 24 of 24
aeronautic wrote:
Brought Forward from dough_boy
I threw it together based off of your sprite. So it is the standard/dimensions. It is easier for some to react to and I caveated TWICE that I am not a graphics person and we have some who would do the official job. We have now been talking about this for 3+ years after I first suggested a new Dominator insignia. Further, the last post before that talked about a Field Marshall rank that was never rolled out but was creatively done (and was BELOW the General rank).

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what you want to call them and frankly I don't care what they are called.

1. We have 4 people who are for a unique Dominator insignia (some form of solid gold bar?)
2. We have 4 people who are for a new 3 star rank (requiring rating and purchasing)
3. We have 4 people who are for a new "only 1" rank (requiring auto-assignment above a certain level with maintenance minimums)

We have no one who disagrees with any of this.

Sorry, my last post was not directed at you dough_boy, it was for Matty.... :P
Giving him a reminder that demos and other images here will not be the actual ranks and that they will be the same layout and maximum quality as the current ranks, whoever does them. I should have specified that.
Matty
1. Depends a lot on how it actually looks. Only if it's pretty.

However, this is in reply to your above quote, the Field Marshall rank was never suggested or perceived to be suggested as below the General rank. It was always intended to be a higher rank.
The reason for such a long time on the thread is that it was forgotten about for a very long time.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Matty wrote:
Yeah, the name of the extra general rank is going to be tough.
Maybe even call the new 3 star rank 'general' and add a new rank in between, like 'warrant general' or 'vice general' or something.

But not sure if that makes any sense at all.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strenght lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
aeronautic wrote:
The word Lieutenant means second in command and we already have that.

WWII, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was known as "Supreme Commander" of Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. This is ultimately the highest rank for a military person.
For his command of USA Ground Forces, he was a 5 Star General, known as General of the Army, because they had the same equivalents in each of the Services.

There is a rank higher than Supreme Commander, but it is non-military and basically signifies that a person has ultimate power over their own commanders, i.e. Prime Minister / President and are usually honourary ranks due to their role, known as "Commander in Chief".

In the UK's RAF, the highest Rank is "Marshall of the Royal Air Force" and for the UK's Army, it's "Field Marshall" and for the UK's Navy, it's "Admiral of the Fleet", so it seems that for total command of a branch of service, "Marshall" is mostly used, with Admiral being specific to the Navy. These of course are names given to a 5 Star Position, ultimately the 5th and highest General Rank.
In WWII there were many allied commanders of the same Rank Equivalent and Eisenhower was promoted to 5 Star General so that he could be appointed as Supreme Commander, a condition of the Alliance, personally, I am glad he was appointed, because Field Marshall Montgomery was too cautious and Eisenhower was not only practical, but also intuitive.

Anyway, this is my point for "Field Marshall" being the highest Rank (The 5th General Rank, in this case, with 3 Stars).
If you all decide to have an even higher Rank, then I propose "Supreme Commander", as they would still ultimately be a 5th Level General, but in charge of other 5th Level Generals and in my opinion, this would fit nicely with the suggested Single Appointment of the Highest Possible Rank at D12.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
vikingo1337 wrote:
'Supreme Commander' could also work, although I don't know what its icon would be in that case. And maybe the title, 'Supreme Commander', competes a little with the 'Dominator' rank as well. They have much the same 'alpha' connotations I think.

Personally, I still lean towards 'Field Marshall'. This game evolves around ground battles. There aren't a lot of maps (if any) where one can fly from one end of the map to bomb or strafe the enemy, and ports and sailing in general is limited, too.

Then there's the option that we go with simply 'Marshall'. Down under, the rank is in use in the Australian Airforce ( 'Air Marshall' ), so it's not limited to the army on the ground. Historically, 'Marshall' was also in use first, as a military distinction, seeing as there was no such thing as an airforce in, say, medieval France. The navy didn't play a major role, either, until much later.

So perhaps 'Marshall', just Marshall, could work too? Or 'Marshall of X' as the full title was originally.

Marshall of France:

"Marshal of France (French: Maréchal de France, plural Maréchaux de France) is a French military distinction, rather than a military rank, that is awarded to generals for exceptional achievements. The title has been awarded since 1185, though briefly abolished (1793–1804) and for a period dormant (1870–1916). It was one of the Great Officers of the Crown of France during the Ancien Régime and Bourbon Restoration, and one of the Grand Dignitaries of the Empire during the First French Empire (when the title was Marshal of the Empire, not Marshal of France)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marshals_of_France

Looking into the 'Three-star' rank, which seems to be common in armies around the world, I also stumpled upon this rank: 'Colonel General'. It basically modifies the 'General' rank by adding another high rank to it as a prefix, thereby bridging 'General' with 'Marshall'.

"In the Russian and Soviet armies, the three-star rank is colonel-general (Russian: генерал-полковник) and full admiral (Russian: адмирал). These military ranks, along with other general and admiralty ranks, appeared in 1940. Most Warsaw Pact and Soviet-aligned countries adopted this rank. The rank is often held by commanders of the ground forces, chiefs of military academies and commanders of military districts. Colonel general is considered a stepping stone to the rank of general of the army, itself essential to achieving the high rank of marshal of the Russian Federation. This title also applies to three star officers of the air force, MVD, police and militia, internal troops, FSB/KGB, border guards and some others. In the navy, the three star rank is admiral (Russian: адмирал).[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-star_rank
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
aeronautic wrote:
That's exactly what I was saying about "Marshall"
aero
In the UK's RAF, the highest Rank is "Marshall of the Royal Air Force" and for the UK's Army, it's "Field Marshall" and for the UK's Navy, it's "Admiral of the Fleet", so it seems that for total command of a branch of service, "Marshall" is mostly used, with Admiral being specific to the Navy. These of course are names given to a 5 Star Position, ultimately the 5th and highest General Rank.
We too use Air Marshall (General of the Airforce) and the highest Ranks which would be the same as General of the Army & General of the Air are "Field Marshall" & "Marshall of the RAF".

Why not then use the Ground Forces version as you have suggested are the majority of our Maps requirements.... "Field Marshall"?

The suggestion of "Supreme Commander" was because there was talk of also a Top Rank to be acquired by just one player on the site and will only be held by the person with the highest points.

I think the problem with this discussion is that there are too many possible variations and parameters.
Perhaps we should ask more basic questions first. How about finalising the "should we have one" first?

1) Should we have a new Rank higher than General?
2) Should we have a unique Highest Rank as well, to be held only by the player with the highest points?
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
dough_boy wrote:
I think the question is more so around should we repurpose the 3 stars for something other than dominator.

If the answer is yes, then do we just make the 3 stars available for anyone to purchase?

After those two, then we can talk about adding another "cannot be purchased" rank.
dough_boy is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
In my opinion, the answer to both your questions is yes, Aero. 'Field Marshall' or simply 'Marshall'.

I also think the three stars should be made available for purchase. I refer to my previous post on the matter @ https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/980/premium-ranks/post/66826#post-66826

Someone suggested a survey, though. Perhaps it would be useful now? To get more input and settle this.

There's also the option that we have a trial phase for the new rank(s) and see if it works out or not.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
AlexCheckMate wrote:
Matty
dough_boy
1. For or against using a Solid Gold Bar as the D12 rank (for dominator)?
2. For or against using 3 stars for General (keeping other ranks and points the same)?
3. For or against using the 3 stars for "General of the Army" (adding a new level with points at say 6,000)?
4. For or against creating a "Field Marshall/Supreme Commander" (maybe crossed batons) that goes to the highest-rated player above 6,500?

1. Depends a lot on how it actually looks. Only if it's pretty.
2. Against
3. Assuming the dominator rank is pretty, for.
4. For. I'd prefer it to cost 0 tokens though.

I thought I had already replied; apparently not.

I concur with all off Matty here (in which... "only if it's pretty" means (to me); just decide on something people agree on to be pretty; this should be possible to find; rather than dismiss because there's no consensus).
“Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. How on earth can you explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love? Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

― Albert Einstein
The_Bishop wrote:
AlexCheckMate
[...]
I thought I had already replied; apparently not.
[...]

Neither I:
1. No to a gold bar for Dominator, I hope something cooler can be found;
2. Yes to a 3-star rank, not for General, but for the highest purchasable rank (see below);
3. Yes to a new rank at 6,000 ... 'DXII Marshall' maybe;
4. No to any other rank at 6,500 or higher.
Note: General of the Army, Field Marshall, Supreme Commander or Supreme General all mean the same thing.

5. I would add something to the Brigadier General rank which looks, to me, pretty similar to Private.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
The_Bishop is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
Not fond of the suggested ranks in Post #355 above.
A for effort though.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.
The_Bishop wrote:
Which ones Vikingo and why. Can you try to be more specific, please?

Three stars for Marshall at 6000 points is okay for you... I guess.
I think just under 3-stars should be logical to have 2-stars-and-2red-bars, and so on, so that all Generals have at least 1 red bar.

And for the Dominator title I don't know, I've just tried something having sense and being differentiated from all purchesable ranks..
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
The_Bishop is online.
vikingo1337 wrote:
I believe I’ve already made my opinion clear in earlier posts. Especially in terms of the ‘Field Marshall’ rank.
Ber er hver að baki nema sér bróður eigi.
Bare is the back of a brotherless man.