Conquer Club

alex951 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

alex951 wrote:the term units is better that troops, just dont think that its a major thing.

Still seems like a nice thing to customise maps. Why not have mapmakers play around with it?

i might confuse new users, the terms should be the same

Why would you? If you want to make a map and change a few names, I don't see how you'd confuse new users. They'd be ok with "units" as much as "armies" or "legions".

Symmetry wrote:Why would you? If you want to make a map and change a few names, I don't see how you'd confuse new users. They'd be ok with "units" as much as "armies" or "legions".

Different terminology on different maps would certainly increase the confusion for new users.

Thezzaruz wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Why would you? If you want to make a map and change a few names, I don't see how you'd confuse new users. They'd be ok with "units" as much as "armies" or "legions".

Different terminology on different maps would certainly increase the confusion for new users.

You're probably right, though I do wonder why we still use the term "troops" here, just like Hasbro does, when we changed "countries" to "regions" and "continents" to "zones".

ender516 wrote:

Thezzaruz wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Why would you? If you want to make a map and change a few names, I don't see how you'd confuse new users. They'd be ok with "units" as much as "armies" or "legions".

Different terminology on different maps would certainly increase the confusion for new users.

You're probably right, though I do wonder why we still use the term "troops" here, just like Hasbro does, when we changed "countries" to "regions" and "continents" to "zones".

Hasbro uses armies.

72o wrote:

ender516 wrote:

Thezzaruz wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Why would you? If you want to make a map and change a few names, I don't see how you'd confuse new users. They'd be ok with "units" as much as "armies" or "legions".

Different terminology on different maps would certainly increase the confusion for new users.

You're probably right, though I do wonder why we still use the term "troops" here, just like Hasbro does, when we changed "countries" to "regions" and "continents" to "zones".

Hasbro uses armies.

Their Star Wars version uses planets and regions, also. I don't find it all that confusing. It's pretty straightforward, and any potential confusion can be addressed in play-testing of new maps.

ender516 wrote:

hecter wrote:It'd just be a new tag or two (or three) to the XML...

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<map>
   <title>Poker</title>
   ...
   <troops>Chips</troops>
   <territories>Cards</territories>
   <regions>Hands</regions>
   ...
</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:

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<map>
   <title>Fowl Forces</title>
   ...
   <troops singular="goose" plural="geese" />
   ...
</map>

A lot of good suggestions from the distant past were simply ignored when CC was stagnant. Now that the pace of change has accelerated, can we reconsider some of these?

I'm not a techie, but it looks like this could be added fairly easily, no? Make it a user-configurable setting at the very least, or if you want to be truer to the spirit of the OP, make it a mapmaker-configurable setting, so that we could call the units "regiments" in WWII Ardennes but "hordes" in Mongol Empire, etc.

I don't disagree Dukasaur. It's a fun time sifting through the archives here. Moved this back out to the main Suggestions forum to see if there's any discussion to be had on the topic.

The OCD would be pleased, yet why not implement more important suggestions than this one?

BigBallinStalin wrote:The OCD would be pleased, yet why not implement more important suggestions than this one?

Suggestions of many different kinds are being implemented. Some might be called important and some not, but all grant (at least in theory) an incremental improvement to the site.

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The OCD would be pleased, yet why not implement more important suggestions than this one?

Suggestions of many different kinds are being implemented. Some might be called important and some not, but all grant (at least in theory) an incremental improvement to the site.

I don't really think this grants any improvements to the site

Gabriel13 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:The OCD would be pleased, yet why not implement more important suggestions than this one?

Suggestions of many different kinds are being implemented. Some might be called important and some not, but all grant (at least in theory) an incremental improvement to the site.

I don't really think this grants any improvements to the site

To those who think that a map is just a series of pixels (which it is), and that their army is just a numerical entry in a database (which it is), this seems irrelevant. To those who would like something more, who would like a more immersive experience, it means something.

If you can look at the Mongol Empire map and imagine yourself riding with Ghengis, your hair blowing back in the cold wind, you will appreciate thinking of your troops as "hordes". If you look at the Waterloo map and ponder, "If I had been Napoleon, would I have committed the reserve earlier, or would I have waited like he did?" you can probably appreciate thinking of your troops as "regiments". If you sometimes pause while you're playing on the Conquer Rome map, and wonder about the lives of those nameless centurions holding the Dinaric Alps against the Ostrogothi, then your level of immersion may be increased by speaking of your reinforcements as "cohorts".

If you are untroubled by any desire to role-play, and approach CC as a purely mathematical equation, then none of these attempts to enhance the realism will do anything for you. Please allow this enhancement, for those of us who would like the increase the flavourfullness of the game.

Question about coding: would changing the 'unit' name per map affect the many Greasemonkey scripts?

If yes, then how is this suggestion a good idea?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question about coding: would changing the 'unit' name per map affect the many Greasemonkey scripts?

If yes, then how is this suggestion a good idea?

A techie would have to answer. I suspect though, that the scripts only care about the algebraic designation of the units.

I would oppose having different names for the same thing on different maps.
If you want to change it all to units I am fine with that.
Which of those is this suggestion calling for?

spiesr wrote:I would oppose having different names for the same thing on different maps.
If you want to change it all to units I am fine with that.
Which of those is this suggestion calling for?

The suggestion is calling for the mapmaker to designate what the units are called on the map, to maximize the historical realism of the map.

Dukasaur wrote:

spiesr wrote:I would oppose having different names for the same thing on different maps.
If you want to change it all to units I am fine with that.
Which of those is this suggestion calling for?

The suggestion is calling for the mapmaker to designate what the units are called on the map, to maximize the historical realism of the map.

I've always believed the map and the map's legend can have any flavor it wants -- but the log and log mechanics should all stay pretty uniform.


--Andy

Dukasaur wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question about coding: would changing the 'unit' name per map affect the many Greasemonkey scripts?

If yes, then how is this suggestion a good idea?

A techie would have to answer. I suspect though, that the scripts only care about the algebraic designation of the units.

It's not just that though ... think about all the Excel stuff that DaveH writes where he's looking for certain words to pull out the information he needs. It's the same problem as the scripts, but might be more widespread than you suspect.

I know someone else once wrote a script that tracked how many troops a player got throughout the course of the game. If that script is looking for the number to the left of "troops" rather than to the right of "received" this would mess that up.

I like the idea though, these problems notwithstanding. I would just put it low on the list of Foundry-related improvements, IMO.

Dukasaur wrote:

spiesr wrote:I would oppose having different names for the same thing on different maps.
If you want to change it all to units I am fine with that.
Which of those is this suggestion calling for?

The suggestion is calling for the mapmaker to designate what the units are called on the map, to maximize the historical realism of the map.

Okay, that is different than what the OP currently says. Could someone could up with a proposed revision to the OP?