Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I'm in full agreement with all but the Theory of Relativity bit, which I'm more or less just neutral on.
Naming Cleanup
- Thread starter Vokarya
- Start date
I'm in full agreement with all but the Theory of Relativity bit, which I'm more or less just neutral on.
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
I'm in full agreement with all but the Theory of Relativity bit, which I'm more or less just neutral on.
+1
I like the name Theory of Relativity but if you want to change it, it's fine with me.
DomariNolo
Chieftain
I like where you are going with the name cleanups...I have been looking at the aircraft to see if there was a more "suitable" naming convention - and it isn't easy. Here are my thoughts (attempting to follow your example regarding "early" or "actual" names):
Airship - Airship
It's perfect, I'd leave it like this.
Early Fighter - Biplane/Triplane
This works great. We know what biplanes and triplanes are, and it gives us a sense of nostalgia for the pioneering days of early aviation.
Fighter - Fighter
I don't think it needs to be changed. This is what these aircraft were for. The only other alternative for me is "Interceptor", but honestly, I don't think it buys you anything. I'd keep it the same.
IL2 - Light Bomber
Now it gets tricky. This does collateral damage, so it is a bomber. At least, I would make that part of a naming convention...bombers always do collateral damage, and they do not intercept other aircraft.
Bomber - Heavy Bomber
Depends I guess on what you decide for the IL2. If you make IL2 "Light Bomber" , then I think "Heavy Bomber" is perfect here. If you decide for something else for IL2, then leaving this as "Bomber" seems most appropriate.
P59 - Attack Jet
Hmmmm. This one is tough. It just sounds like something that conjures images of the early jet aircraft of the '50s and '60s. The name "Attack Jet" just sounds.....retro.
Jet Fighter - Jet Fighter
I think this works fine. Can't think of anything that works better to be honest.
Strategic Bomber - Strategic Bomber
I like the sound of it. The big B-52 is what comes to mind when you think of "Strategic Air Command". I think of long-range, theatre-wide bombers that require significant effort to defend against.
Strike Fighter F15 - Supersonic Fighter
This tells me what I want to know. Since it requires supersonic flight, this seems like a good name.
Modern Fighter F35 - Strike Fighter
This one was tough, but when I saw that it got a +15% to City Attack, I figured that it is built to be not only a fighter/interceptor, but also a legitimate threat to ground targets. The military uses the "Strike" nomenclature to describe aircraft with ground attack roles.
A-10 Thunderbolt - Tactical Bomber
Hardest one for me.....this does collateral damage, but isn't a bomber (to me) in the classic sense. Still, for the purposes of what it does in the game - it unleashes a symphony of death and destruction on stacks of units. It has a short range and is built primarily to destroy certain types of units, unlike the Strategic Bomber, so "Tactical Bomber" seemed quite appropriate.
Stealth Fighter - Stealth Fighter
I don't think it needs changing.
Stealth Bomber - Stealth Bomber
I don't think it needs changing.
Aurora Scramjet - Hypersonic Fighter
Like "Supersonic Fighter", this tells me what it does, and what prerequisite tech I need to get it. Seemed like a natural progression.
Orbital Fighter - Orbital Fighter
I don't think it needs changing.
Orbital Bomber - Orbital Bomber
I don't think it needs changing.
Anyways, just some ideas. Keep up the great work!
Airship - Airship
It's perfect, I'd leave it like this.
Early Fighter - Biplane/Triplane
This works great. We know what biplanes and triplanes are, and it gives us a sense of nostalgia for the pioneering days of early aviation.
Fighter - Fighter
I don't think it needs to be changed. This is what these aircraft were for. The only other alternative for me is "Interceptor", but honestly, I don't think it buys you anything. I'd keep it the same.
IL2 - Light Bomber
Now it gets tricky. This does collateral damage, so it is a bomber. At least, I would make that part of a naming convention...bombers always do collateral damage, and they do not intercept other aircraft.
Bomber - Heavy Bomber
Depends I guess on what you decide for the IL2. If you make IL2 "Light Bomber" , then I think "Heavy Bomber" is perfect here. If you decide for something else for IL2, then leaving this as "Bomber" seems most appropriate.
P59 - Attack Jet
Hmmmm. This one is tough. It just sounds like something that conjures images of the early jet aircraft of the '50s and '60s. The name "Attack Jet" just sounds.....retro.
Jet Fighter - Jet Fighter
I think this works fine. Can't think of anything that works better to be honest.
Strategic Bomber - Strategic Bomber
I like the sound of it. The big B-52 is what comes to mind when you think of "Strategic Air Command". I think of long-range, theatre-wide bombers that require significant effort to defend against.
Strike Fighter F15 - Supersonic Fighter
This tells me what I want to know. Since it requires supersonic flight, this seems like a good name.
Modern Fighter F35 - Strike Fighter
This one was tough, but when I saw that it got a +15% to City Attack, I figured that it is built to be not only a fighter/interceptor, but also a legitimate threat to ground targets. The military uses the "Strike" nomenclature to describe aircraft with ground attack roles.
A-10 Thunderbolt - Tactical Bomber
Hardest one for me.....this does collateral damage, but isn't a bomber (to me) in the classic sense. Still, for the purposes of what it does in the game - it unleashes a symphony of death and destruction on stacks of units. It has a short range and is built primarily to destroy certain types of units, unlike the Strategic Bomber, so "Tactical Bomber" seemed quite appropriate.
Stealth Fighter - Stealth Fighter
I don't think it needs changing.
Stealth Bomber - Stealth Bomber
I don't think it needs changing.
Aurora Scramjet - Hypersonic Fighter
Like "Supersonic Fighter", this tells me what it does, and what prerequisite tech I need to get it. Seemed like a natural progression.
Orbital Fighter - Orbital Fighter
I don't think it needs changing.
Orbital Bomber - Orbital Bomber
I don't think it needs changing.
Anyways, just some ideas. Keep up the great work!
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I like these ideas.
It'd be neat if the Orbital aircraft and the Aurora/Hypersonic had better models, as I think the Stealth Bomber looks so much better than the Orbital Bomber - but that's just my opinion. The Orbital Bomber has a nifty sounding name but such a silly looking model
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
I like these ideas.
It'd be neat if the Orbital aircraft and the Aurora/Hypersonic had better models, as I think the Stealth Bomber looks so much better than the Orbital Bomber - but that's just my opinion. The Orbital Bomber has a nifty sounding name but such a silly looking model
I agree, good job DomariNolo. As for transhuman aircraft, it's a long time since I first planned to change that graphic. There are some nice models here on civfanatics.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
I like these ideas with a little side note:
I >IL2 - Light Bomber< upgrades to >Bomber - Heavy Bomber< than I would suggest simply IL2 ->Light Bomber.
I >IL2 - Light Bomber< upgrades to >Bomber - Heavy Bomber< than I would suggest simply IL2 ->
I'm working on going through all the units in the RoM FPK files and getting rid of the unused models and artdefines -- I think that will reduce some of the stress that I added when I created the new cavalry units and gave them a lot of different models. I agree that we need some new unit models for the Transhuman air units; the Aurora Scramjet, Orbital Fighter, and Orbital Bomber are incredibly similar polygons with slight changes to the meshes and skins.
I am going to make some charts to decide what I think should be done with aircraft names. I am probably going to try and use Fighter-Bomber for some units (most likely the P59 and the IL2). I really don't want to rename either the Strike Fighter or the regular Bomber. Renaming the Bomber violates two of my most important rules; first, don't call anything Something X unless you have an unmodified X first, and second, try not to rename anything that comes out of basic Civ 4 without an exceptionally good reason (I think the only rename that I have done is Forbidden Palace - Summer Palace, and that's because I want to use Forbidden City as a World Wonder).
Hypersonic Fighter is a possibility, but I'm kind of partial towards the Aurora Scramjet name. I think it sounds appropriately futuristic. I suspect that the original model used is an Aurora Starfury that I'm cutting out of the RoM FPK's, but we can add it back in if we need to.
I am going to make some charts to decide what I think should be done with aircraft names. I am probably going to try and use Fighter-Bomber for some units (most likely the P59 and the IL2). I really don't want to rename either the Strike Fighter or the regular Bomber. Renaming the Bomber violates two of my most important rules; first, don't call anything Something X unless you have an unmodified X first, and second, try not to rename anything that comes out of basic Civ 4 without an exceptionally good reason (I think the only rename that I have done is Forbidden Palace - Summer Palace, and that's because I want to use Forbidden City as a World Wonder).
Hypersonic Fighter is a possibility, but I'm kind of partial towards the Aurora Scramjet name. I think it sounds appropriately futuristic. I suspect that the original model used is an Aurora Starfury that I'm cutting out of the RoM FPK's, but we can add it back in if we need to.
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.
Again, this is where I need some charts to figure out fighter vs. attack aircraft vs. bomber.
Just came across another possible rename as I'm looking through art files. The Precision Attack Missile has a pretty long name. I think we should call it either the Cruise Missile or the Smart Missile.
The first two missiles that we have are the Missile (originally the V1 Missile but I cut that name down) and then the Guided Missile. I'm wondering which of Cruise Missile or Smart Missile would work better; the tech required is Military Robotics, so it's an early Transhuman Era weapon. We are not using either name at the moment.
The first two missiles that we have are the Missile (originally the V1 Missile but I cut that name down) and then the Guided Missile. I'm wondering which of Cruise Missile or Smart Missile would work better; the tech required is Military Robotics, so it's an early Transhuman Era weapon. We are not using either name at the moment.
Rezca
The Greatest Jaggi
I think 'Smart Missile' would be a good transuman era weapon name
45°38'N-13°47'E
Deity
I think 'Smart Missile' would be a good transuman era weapon name
I agree, and I also prefer cruise missile over guided missile.
<Nexus>
Traveler of the Multiverse
I vote for 'Smart'.
The A-10 is in the Close Air Support (CAS) category. I didn't make that term up, by the way.
P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
A few more things that I think need cleaning up.
Light Anti-Air Gun shortens to just Anti-Air Gun. We don't have any other anti-air guns to compare this to, so let's take off the word Light. I prefer not to use adjectives unless we actually have two things to differentiate.
Trade Caravan shortens to Caravan. Again, there is no other kind of Caravan to need to be compared to.
Bauxite ore shortens to Bauxite. While I like the mechanics of having Bauxite and Aluminum as separate resources (one natural, one manufactured -- Aluminum is not easy to purify without electricity), we don't need the word ore attached. Also, and this is something that always jars me, but at least in English, every important word in a title gets capitalized.
Finally, Peat Bog seems way too specific for the frequency at which it occurs on the map. I'd like to change this to Swamp. I think it makes more sense. The mechanics are great, but the name needs to be shortened.
Light Anti-Air Gun shortens to just Anti-Air Gun. We don't have any other anti-air guns to compare this to, so let's take off the word Light. I prefer not to use adjectives unless we actually have two things to differentiate.
Trade Caravan shortens to Caravan. Again, there is no other kind of Caravan to need to be compared to.
Bauxite ore shortens to Bauxite. While I like the mechanics of having Bauxite and Aluminum as separate resources (one natural, one manufactured -- Aluminum is not easy to purify without electricity), we don't need the word ore attached. Also, and this is something that always jars me, but at least in English, every important word in a title gets capitalized.
Finally, Peat Bog seems way too specific for the frequency at which it occurs on the map. I'd like to change this to Swamp. I think it makes more sense. The mechanics are great, but the name needs to be shortened.
If you want to have more than one kind of caravans, i saw this idea/mod today
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13236238
It adds 3 kinds of caravans: food, hammers, and culture caravans
I don't think we need this kind of complexity. I think we are better off having just the one kind of caravan. If we really want culture, we can always add in the concept of Entertainers (that act like a mini-Great Artist), but there is a hidden bomb involved in that the Great Work culture-boost also automatically pulls a city out of revolt. This is acceptable with expending a Great Person, but maybe not so much with a buildable unit.
Lord Bigfoot
King
I would like to suggest renaming the Battleship and Modern Battleship. The Battleship should be renamed to Super Dreadnought while the Modern Battleship is renamed to Battleship.
