Two new battalions march into the Civil War MMO War of Rights

    
11

The conflict between the North and the South continues to escalate as both the 5th Alabama and 87th Ohio battalions join War of Rights with this week’s Update 108.

The patch also improves some animation, reduces server crashes, and gave melee fighters a boost with faster cooldowns on bayonets and swords. So fix those bayonets and charge already!

To date, War of Rights has raised $751,213 from 11,052 backers through its crowdfunding campaign. The studio said that it is down to around a thousand Steam keys left for the pre-Steam early access version and does not know when it will be able to secure more.

Source: Patch notes
Advertisement

No posts to display

newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Yoshi Senpai

Every article of this game has the same crap repeated about the title. Almost feel like buying the game just due to sympathy for the devs.

Reader
Hope

… War of Rights? Really?

Lost Cause fallacy much?

Reader
Mads Larsen

Hi there! The name was chosen by us as we’re focusing on the Maryland Campaign of 1862 which would enable Lincoln to announce his emancipation proclamation and thus changing the face of the war. The “Rights” in the title reflects two very common stances the people who fought it took. First one is the stance of the “State’s Rights” and the second one is the fight for basic human rights for an enslaved people. :)

Reader
Patreon Donor
Loyal Patron
TheDonDude

Is the Confederation considered the bad guys in the game? Does it work under the assumption that both sides are equally correct?

Reader
Mads Larsen

We’re not here to portray bad or good guys – there is no story mode in the game as it is entirely multiplayer focused. To state that any of the two teams are the bad/good guys would be identical to stating that the red team in Halo (or any other multiplayer game really) is the good one while the blue team is the bad one. :)

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

I fail to understand why some immediately attach the word “Rights” in the title to unilaterally apply only to the Confederacy. The indignation is palpable. I’ve found the developers’ responses over the last year or so to be completely reasonable and should ultimately be taken as the game’s meaning.

The word could also be applied to the “right” of the Union to wage war in order to maintain the unity of the country. There are so many things involved in that complicated conflict. War is by definition a very nasty business, after all.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
thalendor

It’s really quite easy to see why people do that: since the Civil War is often portrayed as being about the “state’s rights” of the seceding states by those who want to ignore or are ignorant of the real cause — slavery — as admitted to in several states’ seccession documents, the Confederate constitution, and Alexander Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech, among others.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
Rees Racer

At no point in United States history has the Civil War been referred to as the “War of Rights”. It seems those with social and political agendas have chosen to appropriate the title to be be offended, despite the very logical position from the developers that “Rights” refers to the many issues that defined the most costly war (in terms of American losses) in the history of the country..including, most importantly “human rights”.

So be angry, if you like. It seems like the United States has more things to tend to than the title of a PC game where the developers have quite clearly explained the title and intended message.

Reader
Kickstarter Donor
thalendor

It was an answer to why many people might “immediately attach the word “Rights” in the title to unilaterally apply only to the Confederacy.” It’s pretty easy to draw a connection, regardless of the intent of the developers. I mean, unless you’re denying there’s a large contingent out there that goes “state’s rights” whenever causes for the Civil War are discussed?

Reader
Max Sand

Clearly all sides felt they were fighting for some right or another, right to secession, right to enforce agreements, and yes, rights of slaves to be free. It’s a very insightful title when viewed in the context of the war, not from modern social taboos. Everyone in the Civil War thought they were the good guys, and were fighting for their rights. 10 years ago, no one would have debated the Political correctness of a Civil War game. It’s infuriating as someone who is a bit of a Civil War Buff that it has been so rare to get good games about the era because people can’t see history for what it was without getting “triggered”. Yet we can have all kinds of WW2 games, where people even play as literal Nazis(Call of Duty WW2 comes to mind) and you don’t see that as an endorsement of the ideology, just a gameplay mechanic.

PurpleCopper
Reader
PurpleCopper

Well, it’s a war based on the rights to own slaves.
It’s a hell of a lot better than some generic name like The American Civil War.