Unit Naming

[Kloreep]

Since this has become an issue...

I really don't see how it matters except for settlers and workers. So far as I know, those are the only two units that can be confused due to stats? Scouts and explorers too, I guess. Can we just agree to keep the unit type in names for these four units and let the rest be named as they will?

[Paddy]

actually thought it was part of the game protocol to do this

[Paddy]

Unit Naming Details

Originally posted by Krill
Paddy, I am only pointing out that some people here demand that everything happen as they want.

the reason that I disagree with having to edit in the names, (I take it that you thought that was "vetoing (sp?)" the battle reports? And I was not around when Devastator was killed, so you should talk to Ormuzd about that...or maybe you have already?), is that the stats are easily readable when you click on the stack. The exceptions are, I believe, some troop transports, and workers/settlers/ and exploers/scouts. These should, ofcourse, be named in such a way that it is easily understandable what is what, with the addendum of a legend etc.

ahhh interesting what you say about the stats... and yes those that play the game as often as some of us know the units by stats pretty much straight away.

yet there are those involved here that do not play everyday, that are here for the enjoyment of community and the adventure of the teamed demo game experience.

so why should they be penalized, and be forever trying to guess what be in a stack etc...

my understanding is that this game is for all levels of players, not just old cold war veterans, and young super-elites types that have a good knowledge of stats etc.

so I ask you, as you are now of a team of two, (being one old cold war veteran, and one young super-elite) would you not like to have some others involved, all be it people that are new to the whole experience?

we here at the Blood Oath Horde have actively seeked out new players and involved them in many aspects of the game structure. It is our hope that other teams would do this as well.

Along with this, as the public relations teams and media hype for Civ IV gathers momentum, then I believe we will see old warriors returning to Poly, as well as new people who have never been here before. It certainly would be good if the game was operating so as to be user friendly... not something that seems too foreign.

[ormuzd]

oh, well, I don't want to interfere with your little private discussion but I'll try to remember to rename our units as you desire.

In all democracy games until now I have never seen this methodology although I have read several times about it.

I think your argument yet there are those involved here that do not play everyday, that are here for the enjoyment of community and the adventure of the teamed demo game experience is not very strong because for someone who doesn't play regularly would be no big difference between spearman or pikeman knowing only their names. The stats are far more important and being in a team with more expirienced players could help them understand. But I may be wrong - you have a lot more expirience than me.

Once again - I'm sorry our team has irritated some of the people involved in this game.

[Aqualung71]

I tend to agree with Krill - the only instance that it is difficult to tell the difference is when Settlers are renamed as Workers, which in itself is an extremely devious tactic designed at camouflaging an offensive combat Settler (not naming any names ).

But it's really no big deal, and I have renamed some of our units as already requested by McMeadows so as not to create excuses for complaints. I have not however, renamed our Warriors, which at 1/1/1 are pretty harmless anyway whatever the context.

[Krill]

OK, Paddy, first of all let me apologise for not making the fact that I was talking about unit naming. I should have made it clearer from the start.

Now that I have read your reasoning, maybe we can strike a compromise; what if we add a title to each of our unit types, such as, replacing warrior with "tribesman", WC with "Postman", Spearman with "Guardian" etc (let ech team decide the names among themselves, and everyone would have to provide the legend to the public, of course, and would have to stick to the naming procedure throughly.

The advantage to this is that it allows the teams to roleplay a little bit, which is one of the things I want to protect.

Your thoughts?

[Paddy]

ahhh I like your thinking on role playing etc, but if ya willing to do that, why not keep the convention as set down by the game creators

Originally posted by ormuzd

..... But I may be wrong - you have a lot more expirience than me.

cheeky blighter

edit: or play the save

[Krill]

Paddy, let me turn around the question: why not roleplay?

I like to roleplay. Simple reason. There is enough complexity in this "young super-elite"s' (BTW, I'm not. I just learnt from other people) life for me to want to wind down.

(and as an answer, I think those names are rather boring. Some may like them, but some probably don't.

And it is not democratic for one group to impose rules on the other...)

[Paddy]

Ahh well I do not think one group is imposing rules on another...

I do not see that is so hard to have the generic unit title in the unit name... nor how that takes away from role playing such matters. Also each nation has their Unique Unit, yours being the War Chariot I believe? Did you not name one Postal Service? Yes indeed you did, and a bloody mess was made of that delivery

Yet my words certainly have little to no effect here, and so I draw back on a simple and yet honourable item, what be then of people who do not understand what you would mean with your role playing.

We of the Horde also like to role play, and if ever you have the opportunity to meet any more of our units you will surely see that they have been well named and retain the unit title at the end of the names that they well deserve. ie Bloodletter warrior

Ahhh then as you have declared many times over that you willl soon be plundering the Home Cities and Lands of the Horde, so you will have a great and wonderful set of victories to dance and sing about. Then these matters will not trouble me and the Horde any longer... so you say



As too your compatriot Ormuzd, and his statements that "In all democracy games until now I have never seen this methodology although I have read several times about it." well I would challenge he to remember back to the wonderful days of the Vikings in the Civ III DG, where such names were the norm.

[ormuzd]

alright, I'll look for the saves and try to refresh my memroies

[Paddy]

Originally posted by ormuzd
alright, I'll look for the saves and try to refresh my memroies

let me know if you would like a save sent over

here is a pic of our lands, and the troops in the capital, taken from those days of old...

[snoopy369]

This thread contains that which we agreed on ahead of time.

It reads in part that you may not intentionally misname a unit to mislead - as Aqua said - but does not require the 'warrior' or 'archer' to be part of the name of the unit.

[ormuzd]

Speaking of this could you explain to me this fragment? I think it is a clear violation of the rules

[Paddy]

hehe, opps indeed

tx, glad you are on the team matey

Long Live the Horde

[Aqualung71]

As snoopy said, there is no requirement to include the type of unit in the name, as long as the name isn't misleading in any way (such as a BOH Sword being called a Warrior )