Terminology #2

Rather than just make this a comment on the previous post, here’s what I put in my official proposal for the squad/companies idea:

“Off-side Action”
A formalized action away from Attack Objectives.
“Company”
A player grouping below brigades, with stylized names: Alpha Company, Bravo Company etc;
“Open”
To register a company so that it is visible to players to join
“Activate”
“Active”
To achieve pre-requisites that enable spawning and application of the Company.
“Neutralize”
Non-capture goal of an Off-side Action which causes an effect such as displacement of brigades.
“Engage”
“Engaged”
One or more players of an Active company has reached the objective and begun the “Neutralization” counter.
“Fully Engaged”
A town with one or more Company from each side Engaged.
“Token”
A virtual unit of currency with finite availability.
I note that Easting has already suggested “Mobilize” instead of “Open” and “Deploy” instead of “Activate”, which I like but Deploy … could conflict with other uses of the same term. You aren’t going to position the unit…

11 Comments

Off Side Action == Operation

Company works for me

Open == Mobilize

Activate == “Form up” or “Formation” or “Form”

Neutralize == Seize

Engage(d) works for me

Fully engaged is fine also

Token: How about Esprit de corps for the French, Morale for the British, and Korpsgeist for German forces.

“Operation” smack I know that one was tounge in cheek, right?

Open == Mobilize and Active == “Form up”

Actually, I think the other way around might work:

How about:

Call Up (formerly Open, to make the company visible for selection by other players),
Mobilize (formerly Activate, to get enough people on-board to allow you to start spawning),

Neutralize == Seize. Hrm. “Seize” is reminiscent of “Capture”. It’s more like “Blockade”.

Token … Yeah, something like that… Maybe “Merits”, or “Honor” (hey, I haven’t played wow in months ;-P). FR:EDC, UK:Prestige, DE:Korpsgeist. Hrm. Trouble with Korpsgeist is that it abbreviates to KG :)

Off Side Action = Skirmish

War Bond is good

Call Up = Rally (Troops)

“Off-side Action” = Infiltrate
hmm.. not quite

Semantics is a bitch!

OK. I get your point on Korpsgiest, but with anything govt/military you are going to live in acronym hell. I doubt people will be confusing the two in context, and if they do, the Axis community should have to live with it like the real Germans did ;)

“Off side action” could be as simple as “Mission”. That’s what it is, right?

My “form/form up” is from my experience in the American army. To “Form” is to gather in an area for address/movements. To mobilize means to commit a force to an operation. It can also mean activating (calling up, if you will) a reserve unit.

No, Off-side Action isn’t a “Mission” :) Companies are basically just a “view” on a brigade, so they can have missions under them.

So doesn’t my use of Form Up actually match fairly well with yours? :)

Although, Call Up would work fairly well too.

Open => Call Up (Take the unit out of mothball so that people can see it and join it)

Maybe Special Operation? Just a thought. Off side action just sounds like a penalty in football.

Form up, or form, was used by a NCO to rally the troops in formation.
Call up is more like a senior officer ordering a unit to mobilize. So call up would probably be a better fit.

I agree with Easting that “off-side” has too much American-football illegal-play resonance, and would cause a message conflict.

In the greater scheme of things, is an “off-side action” a “diversionary action”? Plenty of WWII attacks were regarded by their high commands as diversions, even if that’s not how the guys at the pointy end of the stick saw it. Using that term in this system would be a subtle cue to the non-AO players that their action is officially an adjunct to what’s going on at the AO(s).

I don’t care for “skirmish”…historically it’s meant a light-contact engagement for purposes of learning where the enemy’s forward defenses are located, or in the context of a meeting engagement when neither side wants action. Thus it has too narrow a meaning to be the almost-operational-level term you want.

As to terms for tokens…why use up unrelated historically-meaningful terms that might be desired later to properly describe other warfare-aspects? Why not just call them squad points? That aspect of the system isn’t a simulation of morale, or esprit de corps, or war bonds — it’s a synthetic mechanics-element for gameplay purposes. Everyone will understand that.

“Special Ops” has the word “special” in it; a new player seeing a “Special Op” might think “Oh yeah, gimme my green beret”.

So probably “Diversionary Action” is a good one to replace “Off-side”.

“Squad Points” – well, that really depends on their quantities. “Squad Marks” would be better, or “Squad Merits”. I want a term that works for both the side and the squad, though.

Closing comments on this post: please continue comments on this new post.

%d bloggers like this: