Rename the "Fighter" units?

[Becephalus]

Well the names are a personal pet peeve of mine. I think a lot of them are pretty uninspired. The problem I see is that we are very unlikely to get any sort of agreement at all. While I tend to side with the hating soul shooter crowd, large portions of that crowd disagree with me about other units names.


I think the best way would be to come up with a framework or some rules possibly.

Personally I would prefer something like:

Names of non-lvl 3s must be intelligible. So things like Eidolon and Draug are good on lvl 3s, but much less good on lvl 2s. We don't want things to be needlessly obscure, add flavour, not incomprehensibility.

I would strongly prefer not using the same adjectives twice. It is confusing when talking to people, when you just cannot unambiguously use the word "fighter" because it refers to 7 units, and lacks flavour IMO.

They should generally strive to be of the era etc.

We should if all possible try to be different and original.

etc.

anyway that is my 2 cents...yada yada yada

[Jetrel]

I generally agree with Becephalus, with the exception of "I would strongly prefer not using the same adjectives twice. It is confusing when talking to people, when you just cannot unambiguously use the word "fighter" because it refers to 7 units, and lacks flavour IMO. "

For this exception, I view each race/faction as a namespace, and don't see a huge issue with collisions, since if you tell an elven player fighting a loyalist to "attack his fighter with your fighter," the elven player has only one "fighter" that he can apply either action with.

I don't personally like "fighter" either, but in most of the other shared name instances, they're the most appropriate name for the unit, and I think that appropriateness per unit trumps namespace collisions across faction/race boundaries (though it doesn't trump such collisions _within_ those boundaries). It would be strange, for example, to call the skeleton archer anything other than what it is (save perhaps skeletal bowman).

Units should only have race-only names if they're using purely inherent racial abilities, and aren't outfitted or trained deliberately for fighting, such as the wose and troll. If they're outfitted in any way, their name should generally reflect their training/outfitting/education/station-in-life in some way. If, for example, we had an "elf" unit, I'd want him to be as generic as possible (and probably be an unarmed civillian). But even then, a name like "elven villager" might work better.

[Jetrel]

I don't personally like "fighter" either, but in most of the other shared name instances, they're the most appropriate name for the unit, and I think that appropriateness per unit trumps namespace collisions across faction/race boundaries (though it doesn't trump such collisions _within_ those boundaries).

Wow, that was really badly phrased. Let's try a supplemental remake, to clarify things:

I don't like the word fighter for anything but a hand-to-hand brawler, either. It's an unconventional use of the word, seems contrived*, and you, Becephalus, can probably supply several reasons not to use it that I agree with. There are a number of good, non-anachronistic terms we could use to replace it, and I wouldn't mind doing so down the road, for some or all of the "fighters".

Most of the other terms that are "reused" between races, though, are very appropriate - archer is a prime example. Archer is just the best term for a basic soldier who uses a bow.


* probably the only place I've seen it used is in goofily-translated japanese video games; the same wonderful font of linguistics that brought us "all your base are belong to us".

[irrevenant]

I only really like 'fighter' for the "Elvish Fighter", because it describes a mixed melee/ranged unit that doesn't really have a human equivalent. Maybe the Drake Fighter for similar reasons (but probably not).

But there's no real excuse for the "Dwarvish Fighter", "Merman Fighter" or "Naga Fighter".

Hmm, I've just noticed that the description of "Naga Fighter" is actually just a description of "Naga". Ditto "Merman Fighter". Makes it hard to come up with a name that fits their context when they don't have any!

A couple of ideas:

* Dwarven Recruit (emphasising Dwarves' physical power by equating a rookie dwarf to L1 like a skilled human such as a spearman)

* Dwarven Soldier or Dwarven Serviceman. Dull, but accurate.

* Merman Sorrow (reflecting that they are a peaceful race and regret that they must go to war).

* Maybe we could make the L2 Naga a "Wardancer" and free up the title "Warrior" for the L1?

[Shadow]

I would like clan warrior for the dwarves to emphase their togetherness.
Perhaps not that hot but I've always thought most good unit names are a kind of nicknames.

As an example Games Workshop called one of their units Longbeards.While the name itself isn't really meaningful it was a good analogy because these dwarves were especially old and well they had really long beards.

Most soldiers have nicks for other military units for example the artillery is nicked in Germany as thud pates or pioneers as armed craftsman. Not really complimentary but they don't get paid to be nice.

[Weeksy]

I think that the word 'infantry' could be applied to the dwarf and the elf, and possibly the naga/mermen.... Although I do like 'Elven Fighter' the way it is. Merman sorrow sounds cool, but perhaps better as a a level 2 unit... put that as the current merman warrior and make the level 1 the warrior, or would the naming inconsistency confuse?

[Cuyo Quiz]

Merman Conscript- Descriptions says that warriors/lvl2 are the standing army, so the lvl1 must be something else. Although obligatory service may seem awkward for peaceful Mermen, i find solace in the excuse they are tested for the standing army, or have other requirements (do they have a treaty for supplying military help to the Loyalist army, maybe?).

Elvish Militant/Guard- If Elves are naturally graceful, makes sense most of them do know something about a sword or bow, and just answer the call to arms. It could also provide a more natural progression to Hero, since the first rank ain't really a drilled force, and leaders (Captains etc) emerge naturally.

Dwarvish Recruit/Infantryman- Dwarves have a very organized feeling to them, so there must be a rank before Steelclad. The progression from low cadet to plate-clad defender feels very exploitable. Incidentally, given Dwarven archetype, Fighter seems a good enough name.

I'm blank on Drakes. Squire/Vassal?, they do have a certain feudal flavor to them.

[TL]

"Conscript" for mermen sounds a bit odd since it implies an organized, authoritarian government military force to do the conscripting, which seems out of place for mermen. "Militia" or something along those lines might work a little better, since it sounds more voluntary and spontaneously organized.

I actually like "fighter" for elves. Fighter -> Hero -> Champion seems like a good progression to me.

[Thrawn]

"Conscript" for mermen sounds a bit odd since it implies an organized, authoritarian government military force to do the conscripting, which seems out of place for mermen. "Militia" or something along those lines might work a little better, since it sounds more voluntary and spontaneously organized.

I actually like "fighter" for elves. Fighter -> Hero -> Champion seems like a good progression to me.

Though wesnoth has no official background on mermen. They are lawful though, meaning that they are an organized civilization (one of the commonly accepted differences between neutral and lawful--see drakes, zB) Though militia would work as well, I guess.

I agree that elvish fighter is the best us of fighter

[Blarumyrran]

i think "fighter" should remain for all the level 1 that currently are it.

however,

* Skeleton (the melee one) should gain "fighter" in its name, to further separate it from skeleton archer, as skeleton as a racial term can include them both.
* Drake Warrior needs to be renamed, warrior is almost synonymous to fighter.

[Jetrel]

warrior is almost synonymous to fighter.

At least in my sense of the words, warrior seems a lot more potent than fighter. Fighter evokes an image of boxers, or sport-style martial artists (c.f. "prize fighter"); it also evokes an image of partisan combatants against an external aggressor (farmers rising up to fend off raiders, "indian fighters" being conscripted to fend of tribal agression).

Warrior, on the other hand, evokes an image of people who don't do play fighting, but whose livelihood is warfare; things like viking/barbarian warriors, like mongol raiders. Warrior has a far more savage/primitive connotation than soldier, at times; but in the same fell stroke, it also has a more honorable connotation than the modern soldiers, who lack several practices that warriors of old used to have, such as personal combat with an opponent, or even being able to see the people you're killing (many modern soldiers never set eyes on the victims of their weapons. For example: the thought of two champions in a medieval fight facing off against each other, while their compatriots (who aren't actively embroiled in melee) stand aside and watch, is reasonable - the thought of two modern soldiers having a "wild-west" style standoff is just preposterous.

So, a "fighter" would be someone who is normally a farmer, but ends up in soldiery temporarily; a "warrior" would be someone who's been holding a sword since he could walk.

[Jetrel]

* Dwarven Recruit (emphasising Dwarves' physical power by equating a rookie dwarf to L1 like a skilled human such as a spearman)

My thoughts would be:
- Dwarven Recruit, Trooper
- Elven Footman
- Merman ... Recruit, Armiger (lit. "one who bears arms"), Guard, Protector, Defender, etc.
- Naga ... ?
- Drake - ?

A few floating names (most of an unpleasant nature):
reaver, raider, assailer, marauder, ravager, plunderer, brigand, butcher, minion (I rather like minion; I'd like to see it used somewhere).

A few nicer-themed floating names:
sabreur, combatant, foilsman, swordplayer, protector, guardian, warden, veteran, reeve (word root that makes for "Shire Reeve -> Sheriff"), steward, sentinel, sentry, lictor



With the drakes, during our TC redraw of them, it's possible that the current fighter-warrior-blademaster line might be redrawn to use first their natural claws, and then claw-attached-blades - no changes to the stats, just a change in the visual representation. This could free us up to pick different names for them.

Another possibility we could employ would be to drop down the use of warrior so that no level-2 units use it, and it becomes a L1 name; this would mean coming up with alternate names for the two warriors we currently have (which probably wouldn't be hard), and then being able to use warrior in a few level-1 cases, like for the naga. Changes in this case would be:

Orcish Warrior -> Orcish Brute, Orcish Savage, Orcish Butcher
Drake Warrior -> ?, Drake Reaver
Troll Warrior -> Troll Brute, Monstrous Troll, Gigantic Troll, Troll Behemoth, Troll Monstrosity, Enormous Troll
Merman Warrior -> ?

[Freighter]

all these new names make the game sound like wesnoth will slowly turn into an age of mythology RTS sort of game IMHO. it's the words like behemoth or recruit that make it sound like an RTS.(actually recruit could be put to good use in my custom era)

[CIB]

Thought RTS meant real time strategy..

[Freighter]

[quote='CIB']
Thought RTS meant real time strategy..
[/quote]

true,
that is what i meant

things like dwarvish recruit and drake reaver sound more like RTS units to me but i'm not saying it's a bad thing.