Rename: "Leadership" -> "Inspiring"

[Ken_Oh]

Not that I think Leadership should be changed, but if it is changed to something like Inspire then the Orcish equivalent shouldn't be Inspire but something that suggest that the leader is whipping their soldiers in the back.

[irrevenant]

Not that I think Leadership should be changed, but if it is changed to something like Inspire then the Orcish equivalent shouldn't be Inspire but something that suggest that the leader is whipping their soldiers in the back.

That's why I like the name "motivate" (not as a replacement for Leadership) - it doesn't stipulate how you're motivating. It could be anything from bullying to siren songs.

[Noyga]

The problem is when people assume that leaders have leadership. It's a language issue giving the wrong impression, corrected by just changing the word.

This is not a language problem - its a lack of education problem. BfW is not just a game, it also appears to be an educational tool.

Depends,
FYI, in french the terms used for "leadership" and "leader" aren't liked closely like in english so a french player won't expect all "leaders" to have "leadership".
Actually the terms used for "leader" (leader of your side) and "leader" (a unit that have leadership) are two different words here...

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This is not a language problem - its a lack of education problem. BfW is not just a game, it also appears to be an educational tool.

Depends,
FYI, in french the terms used for "leadership" and "leader" aren't liked closely like in english so a french player won't expect all "leaders" to have "leadership".
Actually the terms used for "leader" (leader of your side) and "leader" (a unit that have leadership) are two different words here...

That's rather interesting, actually...

If I may add my own personal experience, this one did make me wonder slightly, I did kinda think leaders had leadership. Playing HttT (with Konrad the leader) didn't help. I can see why a new player would be confused.

[turin]

There's nothing wrong, exactly, with the current set-up, but it is unnecessarily confusing. If a better name is thought up, we shouldn't not change it just because it's already "good enough".

That said, I don't think "inspiring" is that better name, and I'm doubtful about motivating as well.

[JW]

There's nothing wrong, exactly, with the current set-up, but it is unnecessarily confusing. If a better name is thought up, we shouldn't not change it just because it's already "good enough".

That said, I don't think "inspiring" is that better name, and I'm doubtful about motivating as well.

Leadership is only given to units that really are in leadership roles anyway.

Lieutenant
Marshall
Death Knight
Rouser

That's it, right? (and their trees)

[turin]

Is the Rouser in a "leadership role", though? That certainly wasn't my interpretation of the unit - the description just says that the other goblins "respect his veteran status", and are thus inspired by his presence, not that he has any actual authority over them...


And in any case, like someone else pointed out, having a "leadership" ability that isn't associated with every leader is like having an "archery" ability that not every archer has, only some of them. It's not illogical, but it's not ideal either. Wouldn't you find it strange if "marksman" was called "archery"? That's basically the same situation we're in here, except we don't have any word "marksman" to take the place of "archery"...

[JW]

And in any case, like someone else pointed out, having a "leadership" ability that isn't associated with every leader is like having an "archery" ability that not every archer has, only some of them. It's not illogical, but it's not ideal either. Wouldn't you find it strange if "marksman" was called "archery"? That's basically the same situation we're in here, except we don't have any word "marksman" to take the place of "archery"...

Well, aren't there more than 1 marksman?

Anyway, I don't really care that much, just pointing out my opinions. It's up to you guys.

[irrevenant]

That said, I don't think "inspiring" is that better name, and I'm doubtful about motivating as well.

I specifically stated that "motivate" was not intended as a replacement for Leadership . It was intended for non-level-based equivalents to leadership ie. What "motivate" is for the Free Goblins and what it sounds like "Inspire" is for EoM.

We don't want different UMCs with "inspire", "motivate", "boost", "galvanise", "cajole" (etc. etc.) abilities that all do the same thing. That's confusing, and IMO it would be better to use "motivate" (which fits all of them) for all of them.

IMO "Leadership" is not a bad name for the ability and it would probably make more sense to change the title "Leader". "Commander" is a much better name, IMO but is unfortunately already associated specifically with Konrad.

[Rhuvaen]

I don't really see the issue here.

"Leadership" is clearly an ability, whereas "inspiring" or "motivating" sounds more like a trait.

Also there is no unit type "Leader" or "$some_race leader", so there's no connotation with certain unit types.

WINR, but in real life there's often a discrepancy between a person's position as leader and their ability to lead.

I just don't see how the meta-term "leader" that's much used conflicts with particular units and abilities, because it's used in an entirely different semantic context/level.

[AI]

A plus for the term 'leadership' is the fact that leadership only helps units of lower levels, and the bigger the difference, the more effect. This implies (to me) that a unit with leadership is able to confer his experience to the people around him through whatever he does to express his leadership.

To me (again) inspiring or motivating are a flat bonus that have more to do with soldiers that have motivational problems

[Edward V Riley]

Funny thing. Before I logged on to the Forums, I was thinking that the leadership ability really doesn't bear water by it's name. If the leader recieved an experience point every time he "does his thing" then maybe.

Otherwise, inspiring sounds like a better name for it.

[irrevenant]

A plus for the term 'leadership' is the fact that leadership only helps units of lower levels, and the bigger the difference, the more effect. This implies (to me) that a unit with leadership is able to confer his experience to the people around him through whatever he does to express his leadership.

Yup, my position exactly.

To me (again) inspiring or motivating are a flat bonus that have more to do with soldiers that have motivational problems

Yup, my position exactly (except maybe for the second bit ).

I'm basically saying two things (and yes, my position has changed over the course of the thread):

(1) Let's rename "Leaders" to "Commanders" since many of them don't have leadership.
(2) Let's pick a standard name to be used by all UMCs for "leadership that gives a flat bonus" to avoid confusion (thus far I only know of EoM and the Free Goblins with this, but I'm sure more UMCs will have it over time). I vote for "Motivate" 'cos it covers a broad range of causes (inspiring, browbeating, rallying etc.).

[Darker_Dreams]

I think leaders -> commanders is a great idea, for one thing it indicates what the unit always does (command) as opposed to something it may do (I've had a lot of campaigns where my leader never "led," they sat in a keep recruiting and ordering the other units about.)

edit; stray typo correction.

[AI]

seconded