> I'd like to take issue with this, if I may. Firstly, I don't especially like seeing aggressive language like 'pointless whining'. If it was my post you were replying to, I'd view this as a personal attack.
I think you are right about Edi's language sounding a bit harsh. However, I do not think it is meant to be rude. Edi sometimes sounds that way.
Edi, could you try to sound more nice than you are ?
> I also feel that naming EA "R'lyeh" as "R'lyeh" does not make much sense. After all, R'lyeh is clearly defined in the manual as the name of the sunken city that I thought was supposed to be the remnant of the fallen star. I'd prefer it if the name were changed.
You have a point. The name is a remnant of old coding and a possibly misdirected intention to make newbies aware of a history of the nation and that it is in many ways the same nation. In some cases, as in Sauromatia, I didn't keep the name throughout eras, but in most I did, not to confuse new players. Arco could easily have another name in the early era. But you have a strong point in the fact thet the star is basically the origin of the name. Perhaps the Aboleths took the name from the sacred star they called down on the world.
> As for the unit descriptions... I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect units to exist that differ only in their description, if this is needed to make the background actually make sense. After all, this doesn't seem like it would be a difficult change to make.
Not too difficult, but annoying work. Descriptions are linked to units, so a whole bunch of duplicate units would have to be made and then inserted in the nation data for recruitment, province defence etc. Not difficult, but somewhat bug prone.