Unit names

For me 'Polynomial' is a clear artillery name candidate.
Shells follow parabolic trajectories, which are 2 degree polynomials.

I don't know who came up with the asteroid KEW idea but their name should probably be attached to the Engines that make it happen.

Polynomial sounds kinda like a energy wave weapon. Something like a wave-type laser (which intersects with 0 a bunch of times :mrgreen: ).

Since there are only 2 tech levels in the game + experimentals maybe we can streamline the names of the tiers. 'T1' and 'T2' has never sat right with me, nor has 'experimentals'.

So instead of
T1 Factory - T2 Factory - Experimental Factory
it's
Factory - Improved/Advanced/Upgraded Factory - Superweapon/Uberweapon Factory

It's my TA bias showing through, but I much prefer the "adv." prefix to anything else denoting that it's the tier 2 version.

And most of the TA unit names were descriptive while also being colourful. Sentinel, guardian, defender, all defense turrets... actually, did you just use a thesaurus?

Is an upgraded factory going to produce high tech units?

Ie. on a technological and scientific level, are they more complicated?

I've always had issues with naming schemes where it's implied that the things that come from it are better, when in fact they're only just different. Why would all the common units actually be simpler?

If the advanced factory is going to be building larger units, then call it a large factory!

Mavor will probably stay artillery. Well, you could also name artillery after the most popular swear used by your enemy after finishing the construction, but Mavor ist just fine.

Polynomial? What about a clustering, interplanetary nuke, just a mixup of the aeon artillery and the experimental seraphim strategic missile launcher, designed for vaporizing meteors from a safe distance.

Also voting for at least one Dr. Who reference, favorite would be to quote the darleks or to even name one unit after them.

Something struck me whilst replaying the Red Alert music for the bazillionth time. Struck me so hard that i changed my mind and had to necro this thread!

In Red Alert the tanks are called Light Tank, Medium Tank, Heavy Tank, Mammoth Tank, MAD Tank, Tesla Tank and Chronotank.

In Total Annihilation the tanks are called Weasel, Instigator, Raider, Crock, Reaper, Goliath, Bulldog, Triton and Panther.

The purpose of unit names in Red Alert was to tell the player what the unit does. The purpose of unit names in TA seems to be to confuse the player and/or embarass him with how silly they are. And all the units are similar looking robots so clear names are even more important. I think these goofy names contributed to the inaccessibility and thus the comparative low popularity of TA. I know I was almost turned off when I tried TA after the straightforwardness of WC2 and RA. "Ok, so I have to build a Peewee? ...WTF is a Peewee?!"

So instead of giving each unit a fancy name I suggest PA goes with the idiot proof Red Alert naming system. It fits even better since there's only one faction. At least the basic units should be named this way; leave the unique names to unique units.

'Kbots' should simply be called Mechs. So you have Gunmech, Lasermech, Rocketmech, Pyromech, Heavy mech, etc. For tanks you could have Light Tank, Battle Tank, Heavy Tank, Monster Tank, Rocket Tank, Pyrotank, Lasertank, Plasmatank etc etc. For air units there's Fighter, Bomber, Gunship and so on. Sea units: Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, Carrier, Submarine.

Some may object on aesthetic grounds. I disagree. I think it would be very Stalinist. And what is more Stalinist than a centralized swarm of brutally efficient self-replicating mechanisms of war. "Indistinctiveness has a distinctiveness all of its own."

Or you could just have the unit name and the unit type displayed:
Stumpy
-Medium Tank

Bulldog
-Heavy Tank

Peewee
-Popcorn

I like this. +10

Incassum, best name ever

I actually think that unit naming is one area where superficial complexity is actually justified. While it would be simpler to have a unit's name be synonymous with its short description or role, this is just too boring.

Units in TA and Zero K have so much more personality than in C&C or even SupCom, where the units even have such unique/interesting names, but the role is more prominent in the player's conceptual framework due to production and unit management UI.

Having units with more interesting gameplay character/personality and variation is very good for gameplay. And having naming personality contributes, albeit indirectly, to having more units, and more interesting units. Having unique naming identifiers contributes to designing units with distinct niches and roles. "Medium tank" has a lot less flexibility for its design simply because at a certain point the player's conceptual framework for "medium tank" becomes incorrect.

However a player had no pre-existing notion of what a "Stumpy" was in TA. Players associating a unit with "Stumpy" has a lot more flexibility to assign meaning than if the tank were simply called "medium tank" even if the stumpy has a short description (as it actually did) saying it is a medium tank.

This is especially important if you want to have a large, diverse unit pool. If units are typically named along the lines of "medium tank" then adding a unit is much harder, as in order to mesh well with the game it must be called "light tank" or "raider tank" or something along those lines. However if the naming conventions are very relaxed, flexible, and specific, then you can add all kinds of units. As happened in TA.

And this doesn't apply only to Uber's unit design additions. Third party modded-in units need to mesh well with the existing game also. In TA, third party units are very convincing extensions of the game, in part because each unit in the game is so unique, and specifically identified. Megamods filled with units from Goblins to Cypher tanks to who knows what else, can coexist perfectly both with the core game, and with each other, due to this personality and uniqueness of highly specific names. And a lot more unit types are possible, of course.

In sum, while unique names will mean that PA takes longer to learn, which is typically a bad thing, on the whole the significant benefits outweigh the relatively small complexity cost of unique names.

I see your point, but do you really think modders will feel constrained by the naming conventions? I honestly don't see why they would care, they can still call their unit whatever they want. Same goes for unit names somehow limiting unexpected use cases: The metagame will ensure all units are fully utilized regardless of their names. And like I said this doesn't have to be the naming scheme for all units, just the 'bread and butter' ones. Mod units can fit into the more unique naming scheme for niche units. I think the accessibility gain outweighs your points.

Unit descriptions should match the reality of how a unit works (and not necessarily how you think it will work).

Unit names can be anything. There's no reason to force some kind of naming convention.

A giant unit should be called "Shadowlord" or "EktoKing"

"Monkeylord" has got to be the most confusing unit name of all time. :lol:

On a side note, I would like to see a superweapon or defense tower called the Doomsday Machine. I built those in TA simply because of their cool name.

Uber doing a naming poll sounds like a good idea to me. When Uber finishes a unit/group of units, they release pictures, we suggest names, Uber then picks their favorites, and then we vote. Foolproof!

I think unit names should be more flexible and fun. Having mech and tank in the names seems like a good idea at first, it will get quite restrictive pretty fast.. :?

Eg: Vampire tank vs vampire. I prefer just Vampire, if it's a mech you can see it's one, if it's a tank you can see it's one, if it steals health you get that from the name.

I really liked the names in TA and I do agree with OP that names should fit the unit in an informational sense.

Should the names be totally unique in the meaning that they does not appear in other games?

Just create a unitname.cfg so everyone can Name units AS he/she wants.

Best to keep is simple and quickly readable. Something like T1 Medium Tank - "Grizzly Tank" is the the most expedient way to convey the information. Not only does this prevent confusion but allows flexibility to expand for any sort of unit type from aircraft to naval ships. A little blurb on the unit description when you hover over the icon in the factory would allow more info without being in the way. It also adds an easy way to expand fluff.

I just realized one thing: The localization site would be perfect for crowdsourcing unit names, wouldn't it?