Naming Cleanup

Vokarya · Jul 2, 2014

I was going to rename Modern Battleship as Fast Battleship and leave Battleship alone. Super-dreadnought is too close timeline-wise to Dreadnought and there isn't enough space for both of them to coexist, so that won't work (we simply can't show every single improvement in shipbuilding, and I don't really want to try). To some extent, Modern/Fast Battleship is a "what-if" as only one new battleship was built after WWII, but many were modernized, so I think giving it the adjective-added name is better.

The current Battleship is the WWII-era ship; Mechanized Warfare is one of the last techs of the Industrial Era. The last 2 columns of the Industrial Era on the Tech Tree are what corresponds to WWII as far as real-world technology goes.

Lord Bigfoot · Jul 2, 2014

Vokarya said:
I was going to rename Modern Battleship as Fast Battleship and leave Battleship alone. Super-dreadnought is too close timeline-wise to Dreadnought and there isn't enough space for both of them to coexist, so that won't work (we simply can't show every single improvement in shipbuilding, and I don't really want to try). To some extent, Modern/Fast Battleship is a "what-if" as only one new battleship was built after WWII, but many were modernized, so I think giving it the adjective-added name is better.

The current Battleship is the WWII-era ship; Mechanized Warfare is one of the last techs of the Industrial Era. The last 2 columns of the Industrial Era on the Tech Tree are what corresponds to WWII as far as real-world technology goes.

Hmmm.... If you're going to do that might I suggest changing the look of the unit to look like the never-made Montana Class while changing the Battleship to the Iowa?

45°38'N-13°47'E · Jul 2, 2014

Lord Bigfoot said:
Hmmm.... If you're going to do that might I suggest changing the look of the unit to look like the never-made Montana Class while changing the Battleship to the Iowa?

Why should be that? Current battleship model is that of a King George V class battleship, built during WWII while Iowa class battleships lasted until a few years ago.

Lord Bigfoot · Jul 2, 2014

45°38'N-13°47'E;13306044 said:
Why should be that? Current battleship model is that of a King George V class battleship, built during WWII while Iowa class battleships lasted until a few years ago.

Because when you think Battleship the first image that pops into anyone's head is this.

Spoiler :

Plus while the Iowa's served until a few years ago they were still built and served during WW2 and weren't really modern.

Lord Bigfoot · Jul 3, 2014

I believe The Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser and Battlecruiser need to have their names switched around. I don't know who thought having the Battlecruiser being the weakest Cruiser was a good idea but it needs to be the strongest of those three since a Battlecruiser is basically a Battleship with weak armor. Also I would like to suggest that you change the look of the Battlecruiser to HMS Hood.(Whatever the ship the Unit looks like it's currently based on it isn't a Battlecruiser.)

Vokarya · Nov 7, 2014

Here's some more minor changes I want to do. I have never been a fan of the building names that are <Something>'s Hut or <Something>'s Shop or any second word that's just a synonym for "building". If we can cut off that second word without the result being confusing, I would like to do that if at all possible. It won't work for every building, but I think there are at least three buildings that can be shortened:

Weaver's Hut -> Weaver
Tailor Shop -> Tailor
Candlemaker's Shop -> Candlemaker

Also, the Naval Tactics promotion name is clashing with the Naval Tactics technology name. I think Sea Control would be a better name. The word tactics implies unit-to-unit combat, and this promotion is not about direct combat.
On top of that, what do you say to a new icon? I think red icons are supposed to be used for Field Commander promotions, and I don't think we should use icons in more than one place. I put this icon together that we could use as a replacement.

45°38'N-13°47'E · Nov 7, 2014

Totally agree on everything

Rezca · Nov 7, 2014

45°38'N-13°47'E;13548934 said:
Totally agree on everything

Agreed - changes look good

Combat Wombat · Nov 10, 2014

Vokarya said:
I was going to rename Modern Battleship as Fast Battleship and leave Battleship alone. Super-dreadnought is too close timeline-wise to Dreadnought and there isn't enough space for both of them to coexist, so that won't work (we simply can't show every single improvement in shipbuilding, and I don't really want to try). To some extent, Modern/Fast Battleship is a "what-if" as only one new battleship was built after WWII, but many were modernized, so I think giving it the adjective-added name is better.

The current Battleship is the WWII-era ship; Mechanized Warfare is one of the last techs of the Industrial Era. The last 2 columns of the Industrial Era on the Tech Tree are what corresponds to WWII as far as real-world technology goes.

Fast Battleship implies Battlecruiser which isn't what you are going for here. I think Nuclear Battleship would be better. If we had kept building battleships after WWII I think they would have been nuclear powered. I still think we should end the BB line though like the real world and have them upgrade into missile cruisers or something...

Lord Bigfoot · Nov 11, 2014

Combat Wombat said:
Fast Battleship implies Battlecruiser which isn't what you are going for here. I think Nuclear Battleship would be better. If we had kept building battleships after WWII I think they would have been nuclear powered. I still think we should end the BB line though like the real world and have them upgrade into missile cruisers or something...

Actually BB's like the Iowa's are actually classified by the USN as Fast Battleships.

Arakhor · Nov 11, 2014

45°38'N-13°47'E;13548934 said:
Totally agree on everything

I do too.

Combat Wombat · Nov 11, 2014

Lord Bigfoot said:
Actually BB's like the Iowa's are actually classified by the USN as Fast Battleships.

If you can get me an official document giving them that classification I would be interested but as far as I am aware its just an unofficial marketing term essentially that has been used on a wide range of battleships going back a long time thus using it as a name for the modern battleship doesn't really make sense to me.

88GTS · Nov 17, 2014

Vokarya said:
Another note: the A-10 Thunderbolt isn't really a bomber per se, it's a ground-attack aircraft. It's supposed to be more for attacking enemy ground units than bombing cities or improvements. I don't know if there is a good name that encapsulates this unit in two-three words.

Again, this is where I need some charts to figure out fighter vs. attack aircraft vs. bomber.

Reviving this from the dead a bit, but I made some suggestions on this in another (the wrong one, didn't see this one) thread awhile back, but regarding the A-10, SR-71, and IL2:

IL2 -> Dive Bomber --see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_bomber
A-10 -> Close Air Support Fighter or shortened to CAS Fighter OR Ground Attack Jet -- someone beat me to the links here.
SR-71 -> Recon Jet

Regarding some more data on the roles check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ground-attack_aircraft&redirect=no. Based on that I also think it might be worth changing the upgrade tree to better reflect their usage. Specifically I think Stealth fighter should be an upgrade from A-10, not from the fighter line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk. In particular from the link: " It was commonly referred to as the 'Stealth Fighter', although it was a strictly ground-attack aircraft. " I believe I remember hearing it was given the "fighter" name to hide it's true purpose during development.

Vokarya · Oct 13, 2015

Some more things that I have identified to trim down unnecessary words. I look at names a LOT, so bad ones stick out.

Arctic Combat I, Desert Combat I: Drop the I from each. We don't have additional levels of these promotions, so there is no need for an unnecessary numerical identifier. I wish there was a better name for these two promotions, but I can't think of one.

MileHigh Travels International, Mobby Meats International: Drop the International. To me, it just seems to make the names longer.

Leaning Tower of Pisa: Drop the of Pisa. I think Wonders should stay away from geographical names whenever possible, as it is not true that the Wonder will be built in the same city or civilization as it was historically (and I would break out the flamethrowers to oppose any proposal that tried to enforce that).

Finally, and this is going to sound very strange to some people, but I would like to trim the word The from certain wonder names. I don't think it helps identify the wonder any better, and it messes up the alphabetizing in the Civilopedia. Some Wonders will keep their The. The Oracle needs to avoid confusion with the Oracle that is the Hellenic missionary, and The Agency keeps its The to emphasize that it has no other adjective. The Wonders where I would like to start with are Hagia Sophia,Taj Mahal, and United Nations.

<Nexus> · Oct 13, 2015

Vokarya said:
Some more things that I have identified to trim down unnecessary words. I look at names a LOT, so bad ones stick out.

Arctic Combat I, Desert Combat I: Drop the I from each. We don't have additional levels of these promotions, so there is no need for an unnecessary numerical identifier. I wish there was a better name for these two promotions, but I can't think of one.

Maybe Arctic and Desert Wanderer?
Or Eskimo and Beduin? No, maybe not these, but maybe someone gets something similar idea...

MileHigh Travels International, Mobby Meats International: Drop the International. To me, it just seems to make the names longer.

Leaning Tower of Pisa: Drop the of Pisa. I think Wonders should stay away from geographical names whenever possible, as it is not true that the Wonder will be built in the same city or civilization as it was historically (and I would break out the flamethrowers to oppose any proposal that tried to enforce that).

Finally, and this is going to sound very strange to some people, but I would like to trim the word The from certain wonder names. I don't think it helps identify the wonder any better, and it messes up the alphabetizing in the Civilopedia. Some Wonders will keep their The. The Oracle needs to avoid confusion with the Oracle that is the Hellenic missionary, and The Agency keeps its The to emphasize that it has no other adjective. The Wonders where I would like to start with are Hagia Sophia,Taj Mahal, and United Nations.

Why not change the hellenic Oracle too? Some mods use Hierophant. Isn't that good for us too?

dbkblk · Oct 13, 2015

I totally agree with your changes. The shorter, the better names.

45°38'N-13°47'E · Oct 13, 2015

Vokarya said:
Some more things that I have identified to trim down unnecessary words. I look at names a LOT, so bad ones stick out.

Arctic Combat I, Desert Combat I: Drop the I from each. We don't have additional levels of these promotions, so there is no need for an unnecessary numerical identifier. I wish there was a better name for these two promotions, but I can't think of one.

MileHigh Travels International, Mobby Meats International: Drop the International. To me, it just seems to make the names longer.

Leaning Tower of Pisa: Drop the of Pisa. I think Wonders should stay away from geographical names whenever possible, as it is not true that the Wonder will be built in the same city or civilization as it was historically (and I would break out the flamethrowers to oppose any proposal that tried to enforce that).

Finally, and this is going to sound very strange to some people, but I would like to trim the word The from certain wonder names. I don't think it helps identify the wonder any better, and it messes up the alphabetizing in the Civilopedia. Some Wonders will keep their The. The Oracle needs to avoid confusion with the Oracle that is the Hellenic missionary, and The Agency keeps its The to emphasize that it has no other adjective. The Wonders where I would like to start with are Hagia Sophia,Taj Mahal, and United Nations.

I like the idea of removing some THE. I've never understood why some wonders have it while others don't.

platyping · Oct 13, 2015

Because there are many pyramids and Great Libraries. So The Great Library refers to a specific well known one

Noyyau · Oct 13, 2015

In favor of removing "The" from many wonders.

About the Arctic and Desert Combat promotions: didn't we have their 2nd level at some point, giving an attack bonus on the appropriate terrains? (similarly to how Woodsman and Guerrilla get an attack bonus at their 3rd level)
Why not reintroduce them?

Rezca · Oct 13, 2015

Noyyau said:
In favor of removing "The" from many wonders.

About the Arctic and Desert Combat promotions: didn't we have their 2nd level at some point, giving an attack bonus on the appropriate terrains? (similarly to how Woodsman and Guerrilla get an attack bonus at their 3rd level)
Why not reintroduce them?

On the note of promotions and their movement effects... Arctic and Desert combat both shield the unit from the Damage Per Turn effect of Tundra and Desert tiles if you have Harmful Terrain enabled. Is it possible to have Anti-Biological Warfare; and perhaps the Shielding line; give some relief to units crossing Fallout and Biological Fallout?

Crossing Infectious Smog is pretty painful, with how HUGE the PlagueBringer's radius is, and even with Medic III that 50% damage is pretty painful. (Though I guess with Heal and others like March, Nanoids, etc - it can be less painful, but it's still just a thought)

Naming Cleanup

Deity

King

Deity

King

King

Deity

Deity

The Greatest Jaggi

Warlord

King

Dremora Courtier

Warlord

Chieftain

Deity

Traveler of the Multiverse

Emperor

Deity

Sleeping Dragon

Privateer Captain

The Greatest Jaggi

Similar threads