I have mostly been playing strategic level maps on Conquer Club. 'Strategic' maps would be maps such as 'Battle for Iraq' or 'Imperium Romanum'.
It has struck me that, when I receive reinforcements, these are referred to as 'troops'. The terminology is obviously misleading and the correct terminology would of course be 'armies' or perhaps 'divisions' - but certainly not 'troops'.
However, if I were playing 'Pearl Harbour', it would be equally misleading to speak of 'armies' as we are here dealing with a more tactical level engagement.
I suggest that we henceforth refer to incoming reinforcements in the only term I can think of that would be as equally suitable in describeing a Roman Army in 'Imperium Romanum' as a camel in 'Oasis' or a Zero fighter in 'Pearl Harbour' - 'A UNIT'.
This game is outstanding - let's get right every detail.
Units may be indeed probably the most neutral and widely applicable terminology for the vast number of geographic, abstract, and other sorts of maps we have at Conquer Club. Additional thoughts on this all?
Well, changing the terminology for some maps and not for other maps looks like a bad idea to me. I don't care much besides that. You can call them marbles if you like
why not just build in a quick XML feature that can specify what word should be used with the map? Then each map can have a custom name for its units. Such as 'soldiers' 'armies' 'warships' 'aliens' whatever you want.
karelpietertje wrote:Well, changing the terminology for some maps and not for other maps looks like a bad idea to me. I don't care much besides that. You can call them marbles if you like
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
danfrank wrote:Does it really matter what they are called ? This is one of funniest threads to date! The game said i was receiving troops , it misled me , how ?
cause troops are different then army and zero fighters gosh silly.
wcaclimbing wrote:why not just build in a quick XML feature that can specify what word should be used with the map? Then each map can have a custom name for its units. Such as 'soldiers' 'armies' 'warships' 'aliens' whatever you want.
Seconded. Not anything urgent, but it would be a fun thing to add to the tone of the map. Roman themed maps getting cohorts or legions for example. It'd be a little extra touch for map designers.
wcaclimbing wrote:why not just build in a quick XML feature that can specify what word should be used with the map? Then each map can have a custom name for its units. Such as 'soldiers' 'armies' 'warships' 'aliens' whatever you want.
Tada... We're done. If the tags aren't there, then it simply goes to the default. Not the most complicated thing in the world, and would add an interesting dynamic to the game. It shouldn't be difficult at all. And it could easily be added to any new or existing map.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
Tada... We're done. If the tags aren't there, then it simply goes to the default. Not the most complicated thing in the world, and would add an interesting dynamic to the game. It shouldn't be difficult at all. And it could easily be added to any new or existing map.
Tada... We're done. If the tags aren't there, then it simply goes to the default. Not the most complicated thing in the world, and would add an interesting dynamic to the game. It shouldn't be difficult at all. And it could easily be added to any new or existing map.
This would probably require a change to the Greasemonkey scripts, but would be quite feasible from that angle. And, it might be important to give the singular and plural forms of the words, so perhaps something like this:
