You could add it to the aircraft tables as well but I don't see much value in it. "Direct upgrade" or "parent equipment type" would be yet another thing to add to the equipment page as a concept. (the archetype one seems to be missing from the quoted list)
It is only used for tanks though, not sure why it says "airframe" there as well. That's another concept to add to ] under either name. "Chassis" seems to be called "family" in the game files (e.g. Maybe it is difficult to boil the two of those buckets down to a single term that is a strong fit for both?
In that regard, it seems like a special case. But then, a ship hull in isolation (in a real-world sense) is fundamentally different to a fully-realised tank, aircraft or ship. When I was writing about ship hulls previously, I found myself using the word 'iterations', which is more generic than 'model'. It could still work, but doesn't feel quite as natural.
In that regard, it seems like it might fit for iterations like 1936 -> 1938 light tank, or 1936 -> 1940 fighter, or ( for non-MTG players) 1936 destroyer -> 1940 destroyer.īut now that you mention ship hulls, that's a perhaps a slightly more awkward fit for 'model', since I would think of a ship hull as a component rather than a fully-realised product. "this year's model" or "last year's model", in the context of products ( although as you rightly point out, the term has some semantic overlap with 'variant'). 'Model' is often used in everyday speech to refer to e.g. We can only try to find a 'least bad option'. Yes, it seems that some ambiguity is inevitable no matter what overall scheme we choose. Click to expand.I wouldn't have guessed that English is a second language for you.
0 kommentar(er)
