Tactics is typcially considered small groups or battle manuvers. Strategy is typcially considered larger scale (i.e. moving around armies). The scales of the forces moveing with advanced military to me is much more strategic than tactical.

True, opinions did vary. However, the strongest objections to that name was that it still included the word Military, and that tactics was part of military anyway. If, instead we use the name

Tactical Warfare

We eliminate the first problem, and indicate that there is a sense of "warfare", i.e. involving more territories into the battle.



That may be true, but that doesn't reflect how the card is working. That would be more like adding new population token to an area that is involved in battle (i.e. including them into your own civilization).



I disagree. Strategic generally refers to long-term planning (setting up to take advantage of a situation). So, if you wanted to use those pieces during the battle, you would have moved them in during your movement. Instead, the current Advanced Military allows you to ignore a battle during the movement phase, and take a tactical advantage of the immediate situation (based on how the other person attacked or provided supporting defense).

So, based on the words, "Strategy" would have an effect on the preparation (movement phase), while "Tactics" would have effect during the course of the battle (resolve calamities).



Tactics and Strategies have not remained static through the ages. Sun Tsu's "The Art of War" is from around 600 BC, which would be consistent with the late game. I do agree with you, though. I don't think both should be used for cards. Military was the name of the card in AC, and I think those cards (for the most part) should remain consistent.

I offer this as a suggestion to eliminate confusion, since that was the intent of the OP. I think the poll indicates that a name change is still desired.

I think you are right that there are people willing to change the cards' names, but it's just that every person here, wants different options.

Also there are people wanting to keep the names as is.

I think the poll is outdated at the moment, as the discussion has been going on and there is no option to change point of view in the poll, where it is in the topic itself.

My only motivation to change the names, is not changing for changing alone. I was looking for a way to take away the misleading part of 'advanced' that it would be considered as the exact same card but only better. (cause that's not true, it's rather different.)

To me the options posted all are as misleading as the current, or at least confusing. At the moment I even doubt about my own proposal for 'military tactics' and 'military strategy'.

If we cannot seem to convince or explain to eachother the difference between 'tactics' 'strategy', 'military' 'warfare' 'advanced', when we all tried to do some research on the subject, then how would a regular new player soon come to see the difference between these two cards.

I think even changin the names to my last proposal would confuse people. saying: 'could you tell me again which is which?'

To me that's a step back from the current version.

'advanced' may be misleading in one way, but at least it's covering the historical subject.

I agree, that 'military' might be a well known card to players familiar with AC, so only Advanced Military is the new card to get to know. If you change the name of 'military' you also touch the original name-mechanism. Something we already have done by changing 'astronomy' to 'astronvaigation', (but that name was wrong in the first place and 'military' isn't.)

I keep sticking to Velusions' opinion:
We might be coming up with new names, but as long as there is no quick general approval by most users here, it doesn't mean it's a good change.

So with other words, the only name what really lessens the confusing about the cards is Iron Working (and change Metalworking to Bronze Working.) But then we get the problem that Iron Working seems to be a Craft card rather than a Civic card...

No, not to me, cause:

- Iron working historically does not reflect the options the card provides.
- The card handles of military (tactical) subjects, rahter than improved weaponry
- Iron working would be a craft, not a civic.

I also doubt your proposal, but I think that's the only one you're interested in. I get the feeling that you have a "my way or the highway" attitude towards this, instead of encouraging discussion or variations. Please, let's not disagree simply to prevent adoption of something else. I looked at your suggestion, and from that thought of an improvement.

Could you please tell me why the name "Tactical Warfare" is as misleading as "Advanced Military". I've already stated that the name is similar to "Naval Warfare", which has a similar effect. The only argument you've made is "Military Tactics is confusing; therefore, everything related to that is confusing."



Can you please tell me how you disagree with the definitions I've posted above.



Again, you're concentrating on your proposal and the original. I think the word "warfare" is very appropriate to the late game. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" was written in 600 BC - and since a compilation like that usually reflects fairly recent (~200 years) of thought, that would represent the last 3 or 4 turns of the game.





Just because people initially disagree with a name, doesn't mean it's a bad change. Also, I'm not proposing that the name be immediately changed to my suggestion - I want it to be discussed, improved, and thought about. Velusion's opinion is a valid one, but I think you should stop quoting it as a means of shooting down others.[/u]

Oh please don't think my opinion is 'my way or the highway'

It was me heating up this discussion, I tried to look of a renaming was possible. I just see opinions vary much, and I gave mine.

I'm open to suggestions. I'll react to your questions at a later time.

Ok?

The answers:



I don't find this misleading, but confusing as opposed to 'Naval Warfare', (as if Naval warfare wouldn't be tactical)



I am not concentrating on the original. I even was the one that proposed to rename 'Astonomy' to 'Astronvaigation', which is differnet from the original. So I'm not defending original ideas. But If i have to choose between two options, that both are not the best options to me, I'd rather choose for keeping things the way they are.

If we change to something that not everyone agrees with, and it's gonna change again afterwards, or changing it back to the orginal, it's not the right way to me I think.



Mostly it's the fact that it's not clear what these words mean. It's not so much on your account but all the posters in this topic, including me, and related to any new player that didn't do research.
What I meant was: If we do some research or say what we think these words mean or should cover, and still we are correcting eachother in this, it might be a tricky subject. Any new player would not easily see what's what.

I brought some new life in this discussion, because when I was talking to some players, opinions rose, that 'advanced' is misleading. As if it would be equal to military but a step better. So I was seeing if we could do some renaming. As this discussion went on here on the topic, I realized that the options given here might be not misleading but in turn be confusing.
Even the renaming proposal I gave, for which I created cards. This is to say that people might not see at first glance which is which, or see them equally or as a set of two. So I got off of my proposal.
Both this and the fact that we all come with different suggestions, I think it's better to not change the name after all.

But this is my opinion. If more people agree disagree, please say so.
I'm not the one who is deciding, maybe I was just straight in my personal rejection.

Like I stepped of of my first opinion, I can step off of my current. But at least I am not convinced yet.



Sorry about that.
I hope I made my point. I won't be repeating it. Still I might reject an initial idea if I disagree. Still it's just my opinon.

ok?

Now I have another idea for a new name. The name is inspired by the "evil" Sid Meier Civilization game, and can be too recent (since the game used to introduce this invention in the Renaissance Age or something similar) for this game, but I think of the name Feudalism. Late or not, in the computer game for building the wonder "Sun Tzu's War Academy" the invention of Feudalism was required...

But I doubt whether Feudalism is a good name to represent what the card we now call Advanced Military does. Maybe Land Warfare is better, to compare with Naval Warfare

Feudalism is not a good name. It represents the government adopted in the dark ages and middle ages in which "Lords" were largely self-appointed military leaders and battled for power. The term itself was not even used until the 17th century (AD), and then merely to describe the previous government.

I would agree with Land Warfare, though it seems very contrived. Perhaps "Reserve Support", "Military Reserves", "Reserve Formation" or something like that.

From Wikipedia: "Military Reserves: military personnel or groups of units not initially committed to battle so that they are available to address unforeseen situations, bolster defenses, or exploit opportunities."

In the context of the card, this idea makes sense. It is a civil card, because it involves setting up a group of non-active military that are ready to respond when necessary.

This is just a question to those that are not native-English speakers. Do you find that most people who play the game have trouble with the English names of advancements? I have been coming from the perspective of confusion because names were too similar - but if translation is an issue, perhaps we should consider simpler words. Personally, I've never needed to "research" the words 'tactical' or 'strategic' --- they are common terms, and although they have similar definitions, I don't think they need to be avoided, especially among strategy gamers.

And Flo - I'm sorry I was harsh earlier.

In fact, my native language, Dutch uses the following translations:

Tactic - Tactisch
Strategy - Strategie
(or other forms)

So, the words themselves, are not problems to me. don;t know for other languages, but it is for sure, you should speak english if you want to play this game, so it's no translation thing to me.

When talking about difficult words: 'Auxiliaries' covers the subject to me.

This is translated into 'supports'. If we walk this path, I would suggest to add this word somewhere. I don't know how.


Maybe something like 'Army Supports'
Why not "Advanced Army" or something like that.

(maybe no def, but a guide to new ideas)