Wiki related questions Options

[WarWolf_1]

1.) Is there any objection to removing the units' descriptor term from the titles of unit pages that possess such (i.e. Crusader Tank, Kodiak Tank, Nighthawk Stealth Bomber)?

2.) What are thoughts on what the Unitbox template's "Role" should describe? Should it possess the unit's descriptor term (i.e. "Main Battle Tank", "Helicopter Gunship", "IFV", "Bomber", etc.) or individual functions/ roles (i.e. "Anti-Infantry", "Anti-Air", "Detector", "Transport", etc.)?

My opinion thus far is that it possess individual functions/ roles. The descriptor term can be placed underneath the unit's render [as an in-game quote can reside with the unit's in-game screenshot].

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Personally, I'm against it. The terms help describe them better
and for role, Main Battle Tank, Heavy Tank, Super Heavy Tank, IFV, Reconnaissance Vehicle Strategic/Tactical Bomber Fighter and so on

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 13 Mar 2013, 6:48

[WarWolf_1]

But does the name not "describe them" specifically enough, while isn't having the term in the title and Unitbox template redundant? [Again, couldn't the descriptor term be captioned under the unit's render?]

It would also seem that using such in the "Role" section might also not do the best job at defining the unit, as to say that a unit is a "Helicopter Gunship" doesn't mean the same for every Gunship [the Comanche compared to the Viper for example, so far the only thing both have in common is anti-personal/ anti-light vehicle capability).

Thus I am for only having unit's name in the title, in my opinion that makes category pages cleaner.

[SpiralSpectre]

The thing is having the unit's descriptor term in it's name sometimes makes it easier to navigate in some category pages, specially for new people. Like only having names like "Lynx" or "Pandur" in the "ECA" or "Light Vehicles" category page might confuse someone about what that unit is. But if the descriptor term is there he would know what it is without actually having to go to that unit's page to find out what it exactly is.

Again yeah having only the names might help make the category pages cleaner. So I actually don't mind either way.

BTW MARS did once tell to add descriptor terms to some ECA units which initially didn't have descriptor terms in the names of their pages - like Leopard, Lynx etc (feeling to tired to dig that up and quote now but I am pretty sure he did). So they probably should stay.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Calling them by "Anti-infantry" or such gets overly pointless.
They're helicopter gunships. it means they shoot missiles and stuff.
We don't need overly pointless terms like Anti-infantry. It already has the info right when we play when it says "Strong against X" and "Weak against Y"

[Karpet]

Calling them by "Anti-infantry" or such gets overly pointless.
They're helicopter gunships. it means they shoot missiles and stuff.
We don't need overly pointless terms like Anti-infantry. It already has the info right when we play when it says "Strong against X" and "Weak against Y"

Agree.

Put description terms such as MBT in, that's what I'm for.

Maybe someone wants to find APCs for a comparison.
Description terms make it easier to find the vehicles you want.

[WarWolf_1]

The thing is having the unit's descriptor term in it's name sometimes makes it easier to navigate in some category pages, specially for new people. Like only having names like "Lynx" or "Pandur" in the "ECA" or "Light Vehicles" category page might confuse someone about what that unit is. But if the descriptor term is there he would know what it is without actually having to go to that unit's page to find out what it exactly is.

Again yeah having only the names might help make the category pages cleaner. So I actually don't mind either way.

BTW MARS did once tell to add descriptor terms to some ECA units which initially didn't have descriptor terms in the names of their pages - like Leopard, Lynx etc (feeling to tired to dig that up and quote now but I am pretty sure he did). So they probably should stay.

Well I suppose to keep the names as the same as the unit's in-game one makes the most sense. A derp on my part haha.

Calling them by "Anti-infantry" or such gets overly pointless.
They're helicopter gunships. it means they shoot missiles and stuff.

Pointless? Referring back to my last post, not every helicopter gunship is the same. Yes, such helicopters may shoot missiles, but anti-air or anti-tank might be something a newer player wants to know.

We don't need overly pointless terms like Anti-infantry. It already has the info right when we play when it says "Strong against X" and "Weak against Y"

If you're going to make the point of information being present in game, then I'd might as well rest my entire case [as why would there need to be a wikia? All the basic info, excluding lore, is in-game...].

Maybe someone wants to find APCs for a comparison.
Description terms make it easier to find the vehicles you want.

There are categories for that.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Anti-Infantry and such are the absolute worst idea i've ever heard.

Both a pathfinder and a toxin tractor are "Anti Infantry".
Both a Superweapon and a claymore are "Anti-Building".

See?

[TheCeLL]

._. what?
if you don't have anti-infantry then infantry would own everything.

That's like saying we shouldn't have Anti-tanks.
Both missile launchers and anti-tank guns are "anti tank"

[X1Destroy]

For things that kill both infantry and tanks, the term anti-surface would be the most accurate.

Superweapon should be in it's own term, not in any anti- thing.

[SpiralSpectre]

^As far as I know Superweapons are already classified as "Superweapons". Some people keeps classifying anti-surface units (to be more precise they classify the Shock Trooper) as "siege" for some reason. I keep them "anti-surface" though.

._. what?
if you don't have anti-infantry then infantry would own everything.

That's like saying we shouldn't have Anti-tanks.
Both missile launchers and anti-tank guns are "anti tank"

I think he meant classifying units as "anti-infantry" is pointless, not that having anti-infantry units is pointless.

Anyway how about mentioning both the descriptor term and the unit's role in the role section? Like Shock Troopers can be "anti-surface infantry", Pathfinders can be "anti-infantry infantry", you get the point.

[SpiralSpectre]

Pardon the double post. Someone added "FB-40 "Aurora" Bomber" as Griffon's exclusive unit. Does Aurora still have that designation?

[Serialkillerwhal...]

FB-40?
Makes no sense to me.
FB would indicate Fighter-Bomber.

Good luck dogfighting in a aurora.

[MARS]

As far as I'm concerned, we can use that designation, assuming it did actually pop up in an update. As for the reasoning, the update consciously acknowledged that its service history was a total disaster due to inappropriate combat roles. There was a literal political/military scandal about this after the GLA War, so giving it this odd designation as a fighter-bomber was a conscious choice to highlight the oddness. Additional meta-explanation: While the designation 'B-40' would be more appropriate for a pure bomber plane, people would sub-consciously associate that kind of designation with big bombers like the B2, B1 and B52 which are reserved for General Powers. Since this plane is not only buildable but also considerably smaller, we gave it another designation to draw a clearer distinction.

[SpiralSpectre]

That guy added "FB" before Aurora's name while only added "bomber" after it's name. I got no real idea if that can be done but sounds incorrect to me.

And just to clear some things up,

Will Thorns still require the Firebase upgrade after it becomes unique to him?
Is it safe to add Yusuuf is getting old Scorpion?
Is Patriotism and/or Bunker unique to Chen?
Is it safe to add Zhukov is getting Tor?

[MARS]

- Thorn will have exclusive access to the Firebase and the upgrade will most likely remain as well.
- Likely yes.
- Bunkers will be available to all Chinese Generals. Patriotism will be an exclusive upgrade of Chen who starts with Nationalism by default.
- Most likely yes.

[SpiralSpectre]

Is the Helix a KA-50? Apparently some say it is, some say it isn't.

[X1Destroy]

Is the Helix a KA-50? Apparently some say it is, some say it isn't.

That was me.

This is the Helix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-27

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 24 Mar 2013, 11:55

[X1Destroy]

Wait? How come Charles is going to get a Centurion Tank? Wasn't it supposed to be a Challenger?

[MARS]

Wat?
Charles is getting the Challenger instead of the Leopard. The GLA Scorpion is technically a Centurion though.

[X1Destroy]

http://generalsrotr.wikia.com/wiki/Fire_Su...General_Charles

It's from this page.

Who edited it?

BTW, why does the new GLA Scorpion is refered as the Cheetah in the INI?

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 25 Mar 2013, 9:57

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Old names.

Just like the basilisk being the T28 in shockwave.

[MARS]

Not a mistake. The new Scorpion will actually be renamed into 'Cheetah' once the old Scorpion is re-added for Yusuuf.

[X1Destroy]

I see. So the old scorpion will be back with a remade model just like the paladin, isn't it? And this Cheetah will be the vanilla tank for the other 2 GLA generals.

And both the old and new scorpion will have different stats? Or just the look?

Just like the basilisk being the T28 in shockwave.

It didn't suprise me much, as the Basilisk is a bascially a T28, in look.

This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 25 Mar 2013, 10:14

[MARS]

Yusuuf's Scorpion might end up being lighter and even faster than the Cheetah.