Duplicate names for units

[Becephalus]

I think it would be good if as much as possible (wherever it can be done sensibly and naturally and not seem a stretch) we did not repeat the names of units.

It is obvious people were already trying to do this to some extent, but it can be taken further. It would also just facilitate commincation

Some candidates offhand, and a general list of conflicts

Fighter
Elf
Dwarven Fighter >Dwarven Trooper
Drake
Naga Fighter > Naga Cadet (might imply the Myrmidon's are a kind of caste which I think is cool)

Warrior
Drake > something must stay a warrior
Orcish Warrior > Orcish Chieftan
Naga Warrior > Naga Soldier
Troll Warrior > Troll Enforcer

Archer
Elf
Orc
SKeleton Archer > Skeleton Shooter (like the rest of its line)

Spearman
Human
Goblin Spearman > Goblin Recruit OR Conscript
Merman Spearman > Merman Spearthrower

Knight
Knight
Goblin Knight > Goblin Raider

Assassin
Human
Orcish

[Gauteamus]

This is the post I have been waiting for!
Coincidentally, I made a similar list just two days ago, for translation purposes. In my native tongue, norwegian, alternative translations on the form of Elvish Fighter quickly sound awkward and constructed, and I have been thinking about ways to as far as possible exclude racial distinctions in units names. The possible problem one runs into then is the host of different "Fighter" units. (As far as I know, no two units on the same faction share the same "surname" in default, but in UMC's that could of course easily happen.)

Bottom line:
If there is some consensus to uniqueify unit names on this forum, I applause the idea from my heart and would much like to help in the brainstorming process.

EDITH: Other doublets?
Enchantress
Elf
Mermaid

Rider
Goblin
Gryphon
Elf

Javelineer
Human
Merman

Hero
Elf
Troll?

also the Mermen have both Fighters and Warriors

/EDITH

[Jetrel]

I think it would be good if as much as possible (wherever it can be done sensibly and naturally and not seem a stretch) we did not repeat the names of units.

I strongly disagree with doing this at all - this is a feature rather than a bug, in my eyes. My chief objection is that a title-free name, if such a thing were allowed at all, should imply civillian; I had planned, after finishing the current units, to provide some L0 civillians for a number of our races - an extension of our current peasant units, which are extremely useful for campaigns.


To give more of a real-world example; different human cultures will have troops of the same name.
- There were norman footmen just as well as there were saxon footmen.
- There were french archers just as much as there were english archers.
- There were spanish knights just as much as there were french knights.



I'm really opposed to stereotyping our different races by just inserting a strong verbal implication - that the ordinary dwarf will always wield an axe, or that the ordinary goblin will always wield a spear. This unnecessarily simplifies and stultifies the background of our fantasy world.



All that said, there is one word which has bugged me in it's use; that being "fighter" - simply on grounds of it being an anachronistic, videogamey insert. I wouldn't mind seeing it generally replaced by "footman", depending on the race (though mermen, for anatomical reasons, are forbidden from having footmen).

[Eleazar]

i don't see a problem with these "duplicate" names.
In many cases a name like "archer" or "assassin" is used more than once, because it's the most obvious, natural term available.

[Darth Fool]

i don't see a problem with these "duplicate" names.
In many cases a name like "archer" or "assassin" is used more than once, because it's the most obvious, natural term available.

agreed.

[Eleazar]

But i'm also not fond of the generic term "fighter". Nearly all units are "fighters" in the most basic sense of the word.

You could probably argue that a name change would be better describe the unit in some instances. But the case would have to be strong to overide the benefit from avoiding a change.

Coincidentally, I made a similar list just two days ago, for translation purposes. In my native tongue, norwegian, alternative translations on the form of Elvish Fighter quickly sound awkward and constructed, and I have been thinking about ways to as far as possible exclude racial distinctions in units names. The possible problem one runs into then is the host of different "Fighter" units. (As far as I know, no two units on the same faction share the same "surname" in default, but in UMC's that could of course easily happen.)

I'm not sure i understand what the problem is in Norwegian. Don't all non-human units use their race as part of the unit name in your translation?

[Gauteamus]

I'm not sure i understand what the problem is in Norwegian. Don't all non-human units use their race as part of the unit name in your translation?

I am not sure I should dig too deep into this debate, coming from the direction I do (Wesnoth naming/name display not being dictated by norwegian syntax), but a small clarification: The unit-tree in the wiki is (unfortunately) from the 1.1.x translation, where correct "school-language" was sacrificed for consistence within the list as well as easy reference to the, probably well known, english names. In the current unit translations, unfinished as they are, we have tried to use more flowing language but have had to use some awkward (?) constructions to make the Fighters unique.

The (minor) worries/(lack of imagination?) of norwegian translators should not decide name policies, I was just giving my applause to an idea I find worth discussion, one that could solve some problems in our translation, but of course would raise others (e.g. major rewrite of campaigns)

[Becephalus]

I wasn't implying it was a bug at all. I just think it is not aesthetically pleasing to have 6 different fighters running around, plus it occasionally leads to ineffective communication.

Honestly the only two which really bother me much are all the fighters and warriors, to me it just seems like people couldn't come up with better ideas, end of story (otherwise why are the other units named the way they are).

To put it another way every melee unit could be called fighter, and every archer, archer every spearman spearman. etc. But this was not done.

Why?

Because it is boring and LACKS POLISH. So people came up with some synonyms and I think the game generally benefits greatly on an aesthetic level from this.

I am just suggesting we carry this process through a bit more as right now I think the fighters and warriors are pretty boring.

You are honestly telling me you don't like some of those proposed alternative better? Almost every single person I have mentioned this to before did? And of course I am just making suggestions., there are more creative people than me in the community.

Anyway like I said not a bug, just somewhere I think the game could be polished a bit, and quite simply, for little time investment.

[Eleazar]

You are honestly telling me you don't like some of those proposed alternative better?

Who are you addressing? I don't see anybody saying that. Though honestly i don't like any of your proposed changes to "Fighters" or "Warriors". But i think better options could be found.


Jetryl's response is based on the (if i understand you correctly) mistaken notion that you want "Elvish" and "Skeleton" etc. removed from units' names.

[Becephalus]

Jetryl's response is based on the (if i understand you correctly) mistaken notion that you want "Elvish" and "Skeleton" etc. removed from units' names.

I see, well that was not what i was proposing. Maybe I am just really sick of fighters and warriors . It just sounds so generic to me.

[Jetrel]

Jetryl's response is based on the (if i understand you correctly) mistaken notion that you want "Elvish" and "Skeleton" etc. removed from units' names.

No, but it was partly based on the notion that he was proposing that dwarven fighters be called simply dwarves, with no title of profession.

That notion might be mistaken.

I see, well that was not what i was proposing. Maybe I am just really sick of fighters and warriors . It just sounds so generic to me.

Warriors, I want to keep on principle. The word just rules; it's such a natural and obvious term for a front-line combatant. And it has a very useful implication of middling prowess that makes it doubly useful for implying that the units carrying the title are not green recruits.


Fighters, though, I would not be opposed to changing, although our development team would have a gorgeous row trying to decide on a new one.

I wasn't fond of a number of the suggested names because they have such anachronistic implications; soldier, cadet, conscript, and trooper sound like terms of the 1800s or later. Yes, I'm aware of cadet's archaic meanings, but even for me the vast weight of its more modern meaning overrides that, intuitively; for the same reason that "Thug" just doesn't imply "indian religious fanatic" to the average person these days.


Chieftain is bad because it implies a strong strain of leadership to the unit, and really doesn't imply any of the orc's brutality. (Though on that note, "Brute" would not be a bad name, though it might be a bit on the L1 side in terms of implicit prowess.) Likewise for the troll; here the use of brute might work quite well.

Skeleton Shooter is an especially bad name for the same reason that "Soul Shooter" is a bad name. Bone shooter is fine because it's very literal - the unit fires sharpened shards of bone at it's victims. But Soul shooter and skeleton shooter are bad because the unit is not shooting either souls or skeletons at its opponents.


For the goblin, I wouldn't mind a change to goblin peon, or goblin scrapper, goblin minion, goblin churl, goblin underling, goblin pawn, goblin thrall. Spearman works fine, but is a bit strong for the unit.


I wouldn't mind changing skeleton archer to "Skeletal archer," and "Soul Shooter" to "Skeletal Yeoman", or "Dark Yeoman", "Dark Ranger," etc.

[turin]

Like Jetryl, I don't like the word "fighter".

For the rest of the proposal; if there are two units that are both spearmen, just they're from different races, it seems to me they both should be called "spearman", unless there is a different name that fits with the faction - it isn't a big deal if they have the same name, and we shouldn't try to make up names that don't really fit just so that some units don't have the same name.

For example, calling the level 2 Wolf Rider a "Knight" seems strange to me, so I think that name should probably be changed. "Raider" sounds good to me. However, I don't see that calling the Skeletal Archer a "Shooter" makes any more sense for the unit than "Archer", and it sounds considerably sillier, so that change shouldn't made.

So, to your specific suggestions:

Dwarven Fighter -> Trooper - Trooper sounds too modern, even more modern than fighter, so I vote no.
Naga Fighter -> Cadet - Something along these lines would work, but "cadet" itself is a no-go.
Orcish Warrior > Chieftain - No, I don't think calling the unit a Chieftain makes much sense. It seems to imply that an orc can't improve in combat unless he is head of his tribe. (BTW, in general I think we shouldn't use leadership names for units that don't have leadership. It's confusing.)
Naga Warrior > Soldier - No, soldier sounds too modern.
Troll Warrior > Enforcer - "Enforcer" sounds forced. I vote no.
SKeleton Archer > Shooter - No. Just calling it "Shooter" with no adjective associated sounds silly.
Goblin Spearman > Recruit OR Conscript - Maybe. I vote conscript.
Merman Spearman > Spearthrower - This does seem to represent the unit better, since he's primarily ranged. I vote yes.
Goblin Knight > Raider - Yes. "Knight" doesn't make any sense for a goblin, IMHO.