|
RE: Rank Structure and New APL Games
"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon." - Napoleon I
1. I have no problem with the system the way it is, I appreciate anything that adds to the satisfaction of personal accomplishment in playing the game - ribbons, awards and rank structures are a fun incentive to be part of the community, in a virtual or real world - they help form a shared community and recognition of someone's time in the hobby.
2. Since we are thinking "out of the box" here are some random brain storming ideas.
a. Rank structure linked both to #plays and bountys - more value for unique plays, but someone who replays the same game gather experience an perspective that warrants rank recognition
b. Link high ranks to being a greater part of the community (with authority comes responsibility) - someone who writes articles, posts in forums, etc. might be given credit in the rank structure because they demonstrate a commitment to the community as a whole, worthy of a being an officer/NCO. This may or may not be weighted as much as "fighting on the line/AARs"
c. To earn ranks COL/ General Officer perhaps requires having actually played a campaign game (BN, Cassino, Mega games of 100+ turns, etc.) These are the discriminators that a Senior Field Grade officer or General Officer would be expected to understand - not just the low tactical level of fire and maneuver, but understanding the operational art.
d. You could, of course link receiving a General Officer rank just like it is in the U.S. - requiring a Congressional Approval... i.e. nominations are provided based on meeting prerequisites, but they need the confirmation by a majority of seniors, "peers" or other community members. This of course is probably more "political" and subjective system that is not the intent of the website, but just thinking.
|
