'Troops' or 'Armies' or 'Units' ?

[Free Syrian Army]

I have mostly been playing strategic level maps on Conquer Club. 'Strategic' maps would be maps such as 'Battle for Iraq' or 'Imperium Romanum'.

It has struck me that, when I receive reinforcements, these are referred to as 'troops'. The terminology is obviously misleading and the correct terminology would of course be 'armies' or perhaps 'divisions' - but certainly not 'troops'.

However, if I were playing 'Pearl Harbour', it would be equally misleading to speak of 'armies' as we are here dealing with a more tactical level engagement.

I suggest that we henceforth refer to incoming reinforcements in the only term I can think of that would be as equally suitable in describeing a Roman Army in 'Imperium Romanum' as a camel in 'Oasis' or a Zero fighter in 'Pearl Harbour' - 'A UNIT'.

This game is outstanding - let's get right every detail.

[AndyDufresne]

Units may be indeed probably the most neutral and widely applicable terminology for the vast number of geographic, abstract, and other sorts of maps we have at Conquer Club. Additional thoughts on this all?


--Andy

[karelpietertje]

Well, changing the terminology for some maps and not for other maps looks like a bad idea to me.
I don't care much besides that. You can call them marbles if you like

[jefjef]

SP (Strength Points)

[72o]

Units is probably the most universally applicable term.

I like the term "doods".

[djt5483]

i call em guys lol

[cpurcell]

How 'bout "minions"
---C

[wcaclimbing]

why not just build in a quick XML feature that can specify what word should be used with the map?
Then each map can have a custom name for its units. Such as 'soldiers' 'armies' 'warships' 'aliens' whatever you want.

[Thezzaruz]

Well, changing the terminology for some maps and not for other maps looks like a bad idea to me.
I don't care much besides that. You can call them marbles if you like

[obliterationX]

I like to them "ma peeps".

[sully800]

'Units' actually does work a lot better than the other choices, though I also like the sound of 'marbles'.

[MeDeFe]

Cannon fodder!

[lord voldemort]

i call them men..or dudes...

[danfrank]

Does it really matter what they are called ? This is one of funniest threads to date! The game said i was receiving troops , it misled me , how ?

[targetman377]

Does it really matter what they are called ? This is one of funniest threads to date! The game said i was receiving troops , it misled me , how ?

cause troops are different then army and zero fighters gosh silly.


ps this thread i can sum up as this

[Symmetry]

why not just build in a quick XML feature that can specify what word should be used with the map?
Then each map can have a custom name for its units. Such as 'soldiers' 'armies' 'warships' 'aliens' whatever you want.

Seconded. Not anything urgent, but it would be a fun thing to add to the tone of the map. Roman themed maps getting cohorts or legions for example. It'd be a little extra touch for map designers.

[captainwalrus]

I like the term, "schmucks." Just sayn'.

[Symmetry]

I like the term, "schmucks." Just sayn'.

Perfect for the Prohibition Chicago map

[phantomzero]

why not just build in a quick XML feature that can specify what word should be used with the map?
Then each map can have a custom name for its units. Such as 'soldiers' 'armies' 'warships' 'aliens' whatever you want.

Great idea!

[hecter]

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.

[Symmetry]

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.

Yay, cheers!

[ender516]

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>

[alex951]

the term units is better that troops, just dont think that it's a major thing.

[Symmetry]

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?

[alex951]

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