Unit number poll

[Schuesseled]

Yeah 5 weird persons it seems...

Very eloquent.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I will never use it in my own games as there is no difference between one unit and the next except a few promotions. Numbering the units at the moment of creation doesn't distinguish them based on promotions. So it would be needless fluff and I would thus not use it.

But I wouldn't mind others using it, so I voted optional rule.

I find it weird that (at the moment that I post this) 19 voters (27% of the ones that voted) are against the option. They either want it forced to be numbered (14) or forced to be non-numbered (5). So there are quite a lot of players who are intolerant towards players who want a different way of naming their units. I hadn't expected that.

 

[Schuesseled]

I voted the same way for the same reasons, it would be a feature ill probably never use, but i dont mind it being on the options menu.

 

[Mercade]

Somewhere between don't care and don't understand the question. In Civ4 the units were also automagically numbered "spearman 1" etc, which I actually find more convenient than "1st spearman". So what's the point of the question?

 

[duckofspades]

Somewhere between don't care and don't understand the question. In Civ4 the units were also automagically numbered "spearman 1" etc, which I actually find more convenient than "1st spearman". So what's the point of the question?

Well the differnce between the two is that real world unit's get named 1st Sperman not 1 spearmen. At least the vast amount of time. I did see a documentry on market garden where 2nd para was callled 2 para. So it happens. It wouldn't bother me if they named them in the way you claim. I just don't want to have to figure the count. I don't mind changing 1 spearmen to 1st spearmen.

I played civ 4 and all of it's expansions and the game never numberd my units. Did the game recently get patched to do this? I heard someone released a mod that made this happen.

 

[Aramel]

I find it weird that (at the moment that I post this) 19 voters (27% of the ones that voted) are against the option. They either want it forced to be numbered (14) or forced to be non-numbered (5). So there are quite a lot of players who are intolerant towards players who want a different way of naming their units. I hadn't expected that.

I voted "Don't Care", but there is such a thing as too many optional rules. If I have to scroll through a page of check boxes, most of which I don't understand, to find the option I'm looking for it is too many. You can't just make everything an optional rule.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I voted "Don't Care", but there is such a thing as too many optional rules. If I have to scroll through a page of check boxes, most of which I don't understand, to find the option I'm looking for it is too many. You can't just make everything an optional rule.

A well designed options system wouldn't force a starting user to scroll through lots of options which he or she wouldn't want to change anyway. However, a well designed options system does allow an advanced user access to less standard options to optimise his or her pleasure of the game.

The only real reason to not program some option into the game would be that it would take too much resources to do so relative to the gain achieved. For instance, it almost impossible to design a game with two elaborate combat systems, one based on one unit per tile and another on 9 units per tile. This would also entail two different combat AI's being programmed and as a result also two different production AI's who would produce the units and two different unit costs for each unit as units would need to be cheaper in a 9 unit per tile version of the game. Such a relatively simple sounding option would never be programmed into a game.

However, this naming option is fairly simple. If you pick the non-numbered unit naming as the standard option, then adding a numbered unit naming would probably be a fairly low cost option. It was added in the BUG mod for instance (who got it from another mod IIRC). If you pick the numbered unit naming as the standard option, then adding a non-numbered unit naming option would be a negligible cost option. It would be almost stupid to disallow such an option to the player given this negligible cost.

 

[Schuesseled]

Well the differnce between the two is that real world unit's get named 1st Sperman not 1 spearmen. At least the vast amount of time. I did see a documentry on market garden where 2nd para was callled 2 para. So it happens. It wouldn't bother me if they named them in the way you claim. I just don't want to have to figure the count. I don't mind changing 1 spearmen to 1st spearmen.

I played civ 4 and all of it's expansions and the game never numberd my units. Did the game recently get patched to do this? I heard someone released a mod that made this happen.

i believe the fellow is talking about when you have lots of units in a tile, rather than listing them all individually, it will say spearman (40), catapult (20).

 

[fdgsgds]

I think it's generally a good idea. After all, in Civ4 you can rename any unit to whatever you want. Maybe they should just have a "bulk-naming" system, where you add a pre- or suffix to a bunch of units.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Will NOT happen, period.

 

[duckofspades]

i believe the fellow is talking about when you have lots of units in a tile, rather than listing them all individually, it will say spearman (40), catapult (20).

I'm talking about nameing each unit, not the number of them in the tile. 23rd spearemn not, spearmen (23) as the number of spearmen in the stack. That is if your not referning to the person im quoteing. Anywho... Yep.

 

[Shurdus]

I'm talking about nameing each unit, not the number of them in the tile. 23rd spearemn not, spearmen (23) as the number of spearmen in the stack. That is if your not referning to the person im quoteing. Anywho... Yep.

The BUG mod names the units individually.

 

[Pinstar]

I'd rather be able to just have a default name and be able to re-name them myself if I care to do so.

Then again, it would be nifty to have a cultural identifier in a name. For example, all of England's ships would start with HMS.

Just a thought, but it would be icing on the Civ V cake and its inclusion or exclusion in any form won't hamper my Civ V experience.

 

[awesome]

I voted "Don't Care", but there is such a thing as too many optional rules. If I have to scroll through a page of check boxes, most of which I don't understand, to find the option I'm looking for it is too many. You can't just make everything an optional rule.

this is why i voted no. i'd never use it since i don't usually care if my units are differentiated by name or not. and i don't want to go through tons of check lists to find a single box, either.

 

[Trias]

I'd rather be able to just have a default name and be able to re-name them myself if I care to do so.

This is how it works in the BUG mod. (You can even personalize the naming scheme, default is to number units per city, i.e. Axeman (Rome 10))

this is why i voted no. i'd never use it since i don't usually care if my units are differentiated by name or not. and i don't want to go through tons of check lists to find a single box, either.

Than why not vote yes? The auto-naming of units is very non-intrusive, it is unlikely to hinder players that don't want it in anyway, since those players are unlikely to care what their units are called. (That is I've yet to see somebody that has voiced the opinion that units being named would bother him.) Seen it is enabled for everybody you don't get a pointless option in the menus. Everybody wins.

 

[Frank Drebin]

sure, why not?

 

[awesome]

Than why not vote yes? The auto-naming of units is very non-intrusive, it is unlikely to hinder players that don't want it in anyway, since those players are unlikely to care what their units are called. (That is I've yet to see somebody that has voiced the opinion that units being named would bother him.) Seen it is enabled for everybody you don't get a pointless option in the menus. Everybody wins.

...you're reading neither my post nor your own. let me put it this way: i don't want every single unit to be named "1st this" or "3rd that" because, to me, it would get annoying fast, which would be extremely intrusive.

 

[Schuesseled]

I'd rather be able to just have a default name and be able to re-name them myself if I care to do so.

Then again, it would be nifty to have a cultural identifier in a name. For example, all of England's ships would start with HMS.

Just a thought, but it would be icing on the Civ V cake and its inclusion or exclusion in any form won't hamper my Civ V experience.

I'd like to have all england ships named HMS, that'd be cool.

 

[StStutter]

...you're reading neither my post nor your own. let me put it this way: i don't want every single unit to be named "1st this" or "3rd that" because, to me, it would get annoying fast, which would be extremely intrusive.

The only thing we're wondering is why it would annoy you. We'd understand if you provided a reason, we just haven't seen any yet. I personally don't find those numbers getting annoying. They are so unintrusive. Simply a couple of extra letters in the name that could so very easily be ignored if desired.

I'm fairly sure that if you didn't feel the numbers added any flavour to the game that you's begin to just ignore them when reading the unit's names. Simply some symbol.

Sure, the upside to unit numbers is very small. But my thoughts are that there would be extremly little if not no downsides to everyone.

 

[Souron]

Auto Numbered units would be confusing, especially if the number comes first in the name.

The ability to intentionally rename a unit, however, would be mildly useful.