Hastati team colour change?

[phoenixffyrnig]

Atm, the only bit of team colour on Hastati is the helmet plume and a small belt. Given that the rest of him is mainly red, 2 opposing hastati can look very similar. Should we add a bit more team colour in there, probably on the shield?

Also as a side question, should he and his comrades be renamed in their singular form, hastatus, princeps and triarius, and also veles for the velites, and eques for the equites? Seems odd for them to be the only ones named in the plural.

[Endru1241]

I can replace image if someone makes an improvement.
Preferably creator.
@DreJaDe , do you have time and will?

As for name change - I'd rather opt for the reverse.
Changing most other units to plural.

Singular should only really be buildings, big ships, trebuchet, maybe ram.
Those are probably the only singular ones if it was more realistically presented.
Plus probably some support units and huge part of map editor units (heroes) - as those are probably with some guards/ commanded men.

[L4cus]

But all other units are singular names as well: swordman, spearman, pikeman, knight, etc...

[Endru1241]

But they represent a unit, a group of people.
Let's take a scale of biggest things in the game, e.g. even smallest full ocean prepared ships, like carrack or caravel would need a crew of at the very least 20 or 30 people.
Don't tell me you think we could compare it to 1 single man as the same "unit".
No. It must be something like a band of at least similar size or rather 50+ or maybe even a hundred.

[phoenixffyrnig]

From my view, we are naming the unit itself, not what it stands for, so although we are using one thing to represent many it is more technically and linguistically correct to use the singular. Like in collective nouns, we would talk about a pride or a flock, even though we are talking about many lions or many sheep. The collective name is a singular used to describe a plurality of individuals - our units are also a single entity that is representative of many.

[DreJaDe]

I'll do it later.

My health is not good for now.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Get well soon Dre

[Endru1241]

From my view, we are naming the unit itself, not what it stands for, so although we are using one thing to represent many it is more technically and linguistically correct to use the singular. Like in collective nouns, we would talk about a pride or a flock, even though we are talking about many lions or many sheep. The collective name is a singular used to describe a plurality of individuals - our units are also a single entity that is representative of many.

I am an engineer, so I don't agree with most philosophical stuff.
It equivalent to bla-bla in my ears.
If you need naming - you create a convention for it and every number or letter stands for something. It is commonly a model number.
It's marketing role to find good name for, well marketing name to sell it.
So I mostly just accept whatever was in unit topic proposition and make my own unitTypeName parameter or filename, which follows my convention.

But in your own example - it's singular "unit", just like flock or pride, but a unit of archers, like a flock of ducks.
When a tourist or some park ranger says - "look, a lion", I very much doubt he would ever mean whole pride.

Also - in my country military units are named like "7. Brygada Strzelców", meaning 7th Brigade of Shooters. Plural. Always plural.
In english it makes sense to use singular only if along with word corps, division, brigade, army, unit etc. , because singular type designation takes the role of adjective (noun adjunct).
As far as I know - because someone in the past stopped using proper possesives.