Yay

I say nay. "Unit-placing" is simple and easily understandable. Not that "builds" isn't, but I don't see any advantage in changing it.

Agreed with uraniumfire. Don't change it if it ain't broke, as they say.

yay.

unless i go back and find it refered to as unit-placing in the 1971 rules book...

'69 even.

The reason is in some games the name plus phase plus year is long enough that it extends over two lines, see gameID=14476
Unit-placing is the longest phase name, and the hyphen is occasionally a little awkward, it wouldn't be change for the sake of change

(Awkward in code that is, if you want to name a folder after a phase but hyphens aren't allowed, or if you want to filter all inputs and have to allow hyphens for this one case. Not a huge problem but..)

Really I'm mainly interested if there are objections specifically

Well, kestaskj, when you put it that way I can see where that might be inconvenient. Seeing as it is written in the rulebook as "builds" that would also justify the change, not that one would necessarily have to follow the wording to the letter. If it makes things less confusing or problematic then I'd certainly prefer if you changed it.

Now there will be a lot of objections just to make your life a lot more complicated...

"Builds" would be fine by me, but "Ready"/"Not Ready" has got to go. Was the line length thing the reason for changing from the much clearer "Finalise"/"Unfinalise"?

We got questions/misunderstandings about what Finalize meant pretty often speakertoaliens, time will tell if we get more or fewer now that it's changed

If you want a shorter name, use 'Winter'

It fits in with the other two and you won't ever get anyone asking "Disband/Destroy phase after the Builds phase?" when they play the first time.

Well crap, that doesn't really work.

You'd end up with "Autumn 1906, Winter"

I still like the idea, but it's not meant for what you want.

Maybe just "Units" is good.

Yay.

Shorted is better. We'll get used to it.

I prefer "unit placing"

"Builds" is misleading. What if you have disbands? That isn't "building" - it's the opposite. But it also takes place in that phase.

Would it be difficult to have 'Builds' for a player with a build to make and 'Get rid of one you unfortunate soul' for a player with a disband?

I like the idea of 'Builds' replacing 'Unit- Placing' to reduce the length of the title but as Jamie says, it doesn't really include dealing with a disband.

I prefer the rulebook terminology, "Gaining and Losing Units Phase", but hey, that sort of goes against what you are trying to do. ;-) And I think it depends on your screen size for there to be problems or not. I've got 5/8ths of an inch or 1.5 ACcm of free space before "Next Phase: . . ." (The '71 rules, by the way, doesn't use the word phase, but it says "Gaining and Losing Units" is the title of section XIII., and "Building and Removing Units (Adjustments)" is the title of its sub-section, 2.. (http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/rulebooks/1971GRI.pdf) I personally like the word, 'Adjustments'. It is short, well-known and takes into account both builds and disbands.

And there is no hyphen in 'Adjustments'.

I prefer "unit placement" more than "builds". It just feels more like Diplomacy that way.

Well, I don't think it would be a problem to have it say builds if you had something to build and disbands if you had something to disband. Simple if statement, unless my knowledge of PHP is failing me. (I have very limited knowledge, so it's possible...)

i think its fine to go with "builds". disbands can still be viewed in the same category, i agree that its a pain in the neck to have all the info spill over onto another line or jumble together the way it does.

plus, coming from a mathematician's viewpoint, a disband is simply a build in the negative direction much the same way that a car breaking is accelerating in a negative direction and a -1 is simply a - (+1)

@rlumley - yeah simple, but not ideal, the hypehen thing can be made work, but it's more difficult to code for - similarily i think this is an unneccesary complication for a small gain.

if Autumn 06 was followed by Winter 06/07 and it was understood that you have to perform adjustments in the winter phase then that owuld be great, except for the fact the the "/" is likely more problematic than the hyphen.

Adjustments is probably ideal.

Most people don't build china by dropping chinaware. I fail to see how 'builds' so obviously encompasses disbands. Adjustments makes sense.

So then what should we say, "Unit Adjustments"? Thats even longer than "Unit-Placement". Plus it sounds kind of stupid.

the longstanding season convention would be a start <_<

"Builds" is sufficient. Once the open SCs are taken, for every build there is a disband.

"Adjustments" does nothing to reflect economic sense given by "Builds". Of course, economists would prefer "GNP" or "Produce", but that would be adding a new terms to the game.

"Build" might be better than "Builds": the verb instead of a noun. If so, that also implies "Retreat" instead of "Retreats".

'Adjustments' is a Diplomacy term with a long history. So there is no adding new terms to the game. The game is very abstract, so your comments on economics don't really fit. Plus, the term 'adjustments' refers to military organization and commands, not economics. And it is not actually true that for every build there is a disband. Units are often disbanded in both the Spring and the Fall retreats phases.
jman777: Why would you specify "Unit". 'Adjustments' does not need the specification 'placement' requires. You do not say 'unit retreats'!

In diplomacy games at school we always say, "Remember to turn in builds tomorrow...," however I do think "unit placement" is more accurate.

Builds... NAY! You also potentially have disbands in that phase.
Unit-placing... NAY! Not all unit activity in that phase is unit placment (i.e. builds).

Adjustments... YAY!!!!! This is the most accurate term presented.