Tanker - the point of
Nelson as example is because it establishes a long-term tacit understanding within GB military parlance that prizes/trophies can/will be rapidly redeployed against their former owners. (That understanding is taught
today as a 'Battlefield Expedient'.)
& I am using the GB military as example because they are located in the ancestral home of the English Language.
You appear to be basing your argument on the fact you speak a form of English. i.e. your understanding of English Language given the vagaries of personal preference, regional variation, cultural variation, level & type of education & class status.
The problem for me with that is, having known teachers of English Language (at graduate level) in the USA, UK & Russia, I know none of us speaks the same language. Nor does the average Joe speak the same language as someone at RMA Sandhurst, Dartmouth, West Point or Anapolis etc etc. & 'strangely' enough a German friend writes/speaks some of the most technically excellent English I have seen/heard.
That said, the argument here is not about what is correct per se but about what is generally felt to be comprehensible.
It is probable that the bulk of semi-English-speaking people will understand '
captured' more readily than '
trophies', but for me it isn't as exclusive a term as you appear to believe.
I agree '
Captured' or '
Captured Equipment/Materiel' covers all angles in both contexts Andrey specifies above.
There is a lot to be learned from the Russian labelling within the game. But we aren't going to bridge the language gap without a fair bit of mutual cross-referencing.
As regards OF
"It is planned to add gathering of trophies by trophy teams after a battle and their subsequent distribution to platoons by the following rules" [- I'd swap 'by' for 'using/under/with' etc depending on what is coming next.]
vs
"It is planned to add enemy weapons gathering by collection teams after the battle"Both are "correct" insofar as they are intelligible, but the second flows better & faster.
Personally I would have used:
'Gathering of enemy weapons by collection teams after a battle is planned.'I think English is inherently reductive in nature, so the whole of the text can be further changed to link & precis all the elements accurately & maximize info vs space/time to read.
As far as I'm concerned
Krabbe is correct in his use of 'OF'. Whilst what you say is true, it doesn't allow for the way English is taught to foreign language speakers nor the reasons for words like 'of' which may seem superfluous in 'modern colloquial' speech.
If you are writing a paper (or a legal document), academia expects the clauses & sub-clauses to be incontrovertibly defined. Thus whilst you can drop the odd word in the spoken tongue, 'formal' documents don't tend to look on the subsequent possibility of ambiguity with leniency.
Krabbes' English is good but he doesn't have the kind of incisive understanding of nuance a native speaker may have. For him, he might not see a clausal difference without extra sign-posts. (The same goes for me when reading something other than English or when looking at legal stuff ).
Teaching someone to use what appears to be an archaic form helps in the long-term scheme of comprehension & clause/sub-clause deployment.
I would not expect '
Trophy team' to appear in English in the same way as it does in Russian. But the Cyrillic language has links to Greek, & the Russian importation of a Greek concept that is still used as it was in Ancient times is entirely logical.
I do frequently hear '
trophy' used correctly on US TV - in shows like Criminal Minds. The overall context is different but it is as it 'always' was - the removal of some token from someone the 'victor' has killed.