Unit renaming based on promotions

Looked around a little, didn't find a discussion on it so stop me if you've heard it already or even implemented it and I just didn't notice.

So my personal naming convention for units is to use just the unit's type name. Once the unit's promoted, I add a descriptor based on that promotion so I can know the unit's combat role at a glance. Managing my units via role seems to make me far more effective as it pertains to military matters.

For instance, a Musketman with one or more city defense promotions would get renamed to "Garrison Musketman", add in a strength promotion and I make it "Elite Garrison Musketman".

Admittedly, it sounds like it would be a total pain to code.

 

I also use something similar.The only problem is the length of the name when there are various promotion types.

 

Personally, I just have 2 types.

1) City defence units, I call them 'Nth' defence of 'X' City or 'Nth' Garrison of 'X' city.

These have the city defence promotions, and 1st strike promotions., with some terrain promotions depending on the base city terrain.

Garrison will have 3 Archer/Gunpowder defence units, 1/2 Anti horse (Front line) and a Anti Melee usually 5/7 in total. Once in Rear 'Core', some defence is moved to new 'Front line' cities or coastal defence.

2) Offensive units, , attacking units, with city offence, strength, anti Horse, woodsman, siege etc. all mixed into to a attacking stack.

I don't name them per qualities, I just have an incremental naming system for the city.

i.e. 1st "Unit type" from "city of origin" of the "Civ" imperial armed forces. as an example.

What your suggesting seems overkill, and is limited by the name editing fields width.

 

I know, but I've learned that ideas should be shared instead of self-censored. If it's a bad one, I learn something. If it's good, I contribute. Either way, I end up with a positive outcome, hopefully without being an annoyance. I've had times where my bad idea clicked something into place for someone else, and I really like that. In this case, I think there might be something to it, but it would need refinement.