Jonno, what's you opinion on changing these names at the moment.
Still waiting for more reply, or made a descission yet?

Well, as no two people seams to agree, I'm going to be conservative and keep the names for now...

ok. It's not so much for a big issue, neither is the 'cloth making' 'metalworking' 'roadbulding' thing.

Since we've been taking closer looks at the civic-branch lately we came to the discussion again about whether those names are right.

I think renaming the cards might be a good thing in the next version.


For now I'm most happy with

'Military' to 'Military Strategy'
'Advanced Military' to 'Military Tactics'

It might be something to get used to, but for new players it easier to understand.

Just because Adv.Mil is no upgrade from mil.. They're just two different things.

We could change 'Naval Warfare' to 'Naval Military' to complete the row, but I think the current name for that card is a better name.

anyone?

I'd like to heat up this discussion.
We've been talking about this apart from this forum and several opinions are to change the names for a new version.


I've created cards with this new names.

I'd like to see what people think.






(metalworking has to change as well because of the specific credit)

I will make a complete list of what to change exactly in the rulebook and quickchart and what's needed more.
hold on...

I agree with the name changes to Military Strategy and Military Tactics.

I also agree with limiting the amount of tokens destroyed during civil war to five on each side.

In the eight or so games our group has played with the new rules no one has ever bought Advanced Military. Military is generally only bought in the mid-late game by the game leader and those seeking to attack him. Our group tends to play rather passively though.

DG.

Can you enter reply to the poll on page 1?



Ok please make a mention of this here:

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=498

I don't particularly feel the need to change names really, but if we come up with some good names it might work. Especially as it allows us to one day

I don't like the Tactics/Strategy rename though. To me tactics and strategy are just two parts of war. They had tactics and strategy when they invented war... those just changed with technology, resources, culture and leadership.

I suppose I would prefer something like:

Military > Military Organization
Adv Mil > Professional Soldiers

In my mind the first military means that the nation has an organized single military apparatus.

Adv Mil to me means that the civ has a standing army made up of professional solders - rather than seasonally raised conscripts.

First I removed it from the topic 'possible changes in v2.11

I see opinions still vary.
I'm not happy with both 'military organization' and 'professional soldiers'

in fact 'military organization' is a word for 'military' in general and can apply to both 'military' and 'advanced military'



'Professional soldiers' doesn't mean that the soldiers fighting when using 'military' weren't paid.

In fact the roman way of fighting included a highly organized system rather than using a randomly amount of soldiers.



Still 'military' and 'advanced military' cover the subjects. The main reason for changing the names was to take away the misleading thought that 'advanced military' is an cumulative upgrade of military.

'organized military' and 'professional soldiers' don't take away that misleading thought.


I suggest to NOT change the names cause opinions vary too much.

One more idea.

What if we keep Military is it is, but try to give a new name to Advanced Military that is equivalent to Naval Warfare rather than Military?

Given it's ability, Advanced Military is something like 'warfare on land', rather than the 'warfare on water' of Naval Warfare. It would be in line with Velusion's idea:

Military > Military Organization
Adv Mil > Professional Soldiers

Military would be the more 'general' organisation warfare, where the other two are specialised in a certain type of warfare. The problem is that I don't know a suitable English expression that states this...

anyone?

sorry

'Military' can be 'warfare on land' as well.

It's not that the cards can be divded into:

Military - general
Naval warfare - on sea
Advanced mil. - on land

but this is just a historical / definition thing.

In our rules though, it is a little bit true.

Military changes the order of attacking, giving the developer benefit.
(like first strike)

naval warfare give the devloper the option of removing additional sea unit.
Advance dmilitary gives the developer the option removing additional land units.
(though ships are not counted as units, with naval warfare they do)



In fact the word military and warfare can be switched.
'Naval Warfare' could as well be called 'Naval Military', but it covers a bit more on the 'naval' aspect. (historically the invention of the penteconter added the option of warfare on sea.)

where the historical thing that is represented by 'advanced military' is not an addition.

In fact, 'Advanced Military' cover its subject well. It is Military, but more developed and better structured. what the romans were famous for.

The only reason to change the names to me, was because it might be confusing.




Right now I stay with my opinion:

Let's not change names, because opinions vary too much.

Changing names, would make one person happy and the other unhappy.
Also changing names to one option would leave other thinking it should have been another.

I once heard: "A good diplomat should leave both sides unhappy to get the best result."
Maybe not changing a thing, is this result.

Okay, fair.

Agreed.

People can keep suggesting names - but unless we all suddenly agree that a suggestion is really great it probably isn't going to change.

I am a native English speaker, but I think I represent the American view of the language, rather than the British view.

I think that Military embodies the idea of long term planning -- moving your troops in an organized, responsive way -- much like the Military card.

However, I think the idea of taking troops from one area, and using them for a nearby battle "on the fly" (which is essentially what the current Advanced Military allows you to do) does not indicate planning that the word Military conveys, but more of a Tactic (as discussed earlier). Sure, tactics can be combined with "Military", but the idea itself sounds more like Warfare -- the idea of a large-scale conflict, as opposed to small territorial battles.

I think that the name of Advanced Military should be Tactical Warfare. That wat the Military card still matches the name of the original card (from Advanced Civ), and has the benefit of matching the card Naval Warfare, which has a similar effect in the game.

It has been suggested before in this topic to change this:

Military - no change
Advanced Military - Military Tatics

opinions varied on this change.

You mentioned 'military' does not really apply to the mening of our card 'advanced military'. But the card is about a long term planning as well. It provides the army with a 'advanced' system of an exact amount of soldiers fighting in groups. Trained soldiers that cooperate. A sytems that takes soldiers from other areas and grants citizenship of this area afterwards. That's really 'military' to me.

'The Roman army is famous for being
highly developed and structured.
Auxiliaries (from Latin: ‘auxilia’ meaning
‘supports’ ) formed the standing non-citizen
corps of the Roman army of the Principate
(30 BC - 284 AD), alongside the citizen
legions. Auxiliaries were non-citizens
recruited mostly from the provinces.
At the end of their service the auxiliaries
were granted Roman citizenship. '

The only difference that can possibliy be made to the words 'military' and 'warfare' to me is 'warfare' is 'going to war' in general, and 'military' is any organized form of that. I believe going to war unorganized is never done on a large scale, so the 'war' in our game is 'organized' in any way. At least when we are talking about a 240 card that covers our 'advanced' subject'.

"Naval Warfare" implies "going to war by sea". Ofcourse, that should be organized as well, but the main thing about that card's name lies in the 'naval' part, where 'advanced military' still speaks about the idea behind the way of fighting so: 'military'. Actually an 'advanced' way of organizing.


Still opinons vary about changing these names like this.

To me, changing 'advanced military' in Tactical Warfare doesn't seem to be much better than the current naming.