Incorrect Terms: Cargo
the goods carried by a ship, aircraft, or other large vehicle
the goods carried in a ship, an aircraft or a motor vehicle
the goods or merchandise conveyed in a ship, airplane, or vehicle
TripleA uses the term "cargo" to refer to any land unit being transported by sea or air units, whereas the term implies that such burden is entirely made of "goods" so not persons: infantrymen cannot be cargo, so neither infantry nor any unit implying the presence of personnel can be "cargo" of anything.
For example, it makes no sense to say that an "infantry" unit is "cargo" unless maybe in case the unit is constituted by slaves or robots or other objects which may be considered to be goods.
Indeed, in war, you would have "cargo-ships" and "troop-ships", the former devised for transporting cargo and the latter devised for transporting persons.
A cargo ship or freighter is a merchant ship that carries cargo, goods, and materials from one port to another.
A troopship (also troop ship or troop transport or trooper) is a ship used to carry soldiers, either in peacetime or wartime.
@LaFayette Should such things be posted in GitHub as problem reports (to fix)? I don't think they are technically problems.
@cernel what is your suggestion as an alternative? cargo is a universal term that works for any unit carried by any kind of transport (including planes on carriers) it is also the term used in the rule books. not sure i see the point in changing the term if it's working as things stand and not currently confusing anyone.
It would be easier to answer if you give a set of sentences in which you use the term "cargo", to see what to say instead. I'm not sure the term is necessary at all.
@cernel embarked is a verb cargo is a noun
@ubernaut A participle is a verbal, or a word based off of a verb that expresses a state of being, like a word like "cargo" does.
@cernel Meaning that saying that these units are cargo is about the same as saying that these units are embarked (except that only the second sentence is correct if the unit is an infantry or such).
@cernel yeah none of this makes any sense to me sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@cernel Are there any places this is an actual problem? Is it actually confusing?
'cargo' is a useful homogenizing term. If we talk about transports being able to transport either things like 'aa guns' or 'infantry', and it has a certain cargo capacity, we can refer to the 'aa guns' and 'infantry' both as having a cargo requirement.
If we instead said that the transport had a troop capacity or a cargo capacity, I don't see the value in that distinction. It further gets confusing whether then considering if tanks require troop capacity or cargo capacity.
Renaming terms is a high effort activity. Particularly so because there is a reasonable chance this will break save games.
FWIW, 'cargo' may refer to people in some cases. EG: "Precious cargo" almost exclusively refers to humans (usually babies or young children) and/or their pet animals.
Overall, my 2 cents is that the term 'cargo' is pretty descriptive, universal, and is not terribly confusing.
Thinking about this a bit more, we could rename 'cargo' to be 'transport cost'. Instead of a transport having a 'cargo capacity' it would have a 'transport capacity' and units would have a 'transport cost'.
As-is, cargo and cargo-cost seem to be pretty straight forward though. We also have a good verbage where we can say transported units are considered as 'cargo', which makes it clear they do not participate in battles. With the 'transport cost' verbage, that concept is seemingly harder to explain.
I don't actually know where the term "cargo" is used in TripleA if anywhere. It might be that it is not used and I'm just thinking at the rule-books.
@redrum already renamed the automatic tooltips information labels as "Transporting Cost" and "Transporting Capacity". I don't actually like "Transporting Cost", as that makes me think it is something being consumed for transporting the unit, like a fuel cost charged for transportation.
@cernel Okay, let's try to stay focused on specific desired outcomes when raising new topics : )
Stohrm last edited by
@lafayette I'm just waiting around for a reply to a query I posted late last night (early this AM); but I have to say that I agree with you (and what follows are my 2 cents).
An RC-135 is a Cargo Plane and the Air Force does use it to transport service members and their family members. It's damn cold, but it gets them from point A to B to C, etc.
PS. I don't recall them ever refitting a B-52 to hull troops and do believe there should be a distinction between bombers and Cargo Planes. On the other hand, Cargo planes have been used to hull Paratroopers...