@Dioxine: Marinistic terms, including "komandor", are also used in aviation, at least in the common speech. But an aeroplane is called just "statek powietrzny" = "air ship". Its commander in the sense "dowódca" is called "kapitan"... just like on a water ship. However, in the Polish air forces, names of military ranks are the same as in land armies (unlike in either USA or UK).
I like the pair of translations: "leader" = "lider" and "commander" = "komandor", seeing here just Polonization of the original terms, not a strict translation. They seem to me to be right as I am accustomed to the English version of the game, which I have used for almost twenty years... It is how you said: associations play a huge role in the translating process. For you, "komandor" may associate with definitely human characters. For me, a long-time UFO/XCom player, "komandor" associates with the highest rank of the alien forces. However, "oficer" and "generał" are not bad, either. Even if I am generally against translating by voting, perhaps we should ask what others think of this. Of course still voting on translation of particular strings (as well as on the translation as a whole) is the worst possible solution.
Btw. I can guess that "leader" means probably "squadron leader" (a military rank used in air forces). It corresponds to "major" in the Polish army (just like in Anglophone land armies, with different pronunciation). The strict counterparts of "commander" in the navy and "wing commander" in the air forces are, in the Polish army, "komandor porucznik" and "podpułkownik" respectively. This can cause a translator's hell, indeed... Note also that lieutenant in the navy and air forces = ("kapitan marynarki" or) "kapitan" in the Polish rank system while lieutenant in land armies = "porucznik", just like dictionaries say.
On chrysalid: note also that "poczwarka" = chrysalis (or pupa). Chrysalid (with -id, not -is) is an individual term of XCom inventors, and thus should not be translated. Anyway, it does not resemble a "poczwarka" in any detail. True chrysalises are immovable, as a rule, and immature = they cannot breed. "Our" chrysalid is not chrysalis-like: it is very fast and it treats reproducing as its weapon.
On "sektoidzi" etc.: I would like to ask others what they think about the problem. Still, I am against voting on particular strings and even on the choice between "sektoidzi" and "sektoidy", and between "mutoni" and "mutony" separately. This is one problem, and its solution must be introduced in the whole translation at the same time. Let's vote on alternative general solutions, not on strings!
Anyway, I vote against masculine-personal forms. Look at the Polish substantive ("noun") "antropoid" - a being similar to man but different in some respect. Dictionaries give only "antropoidy". It is for emphasizing the difference. The problem cannot be solved by means of language rules as the masculine-personal gender is conventional to some degree. I mean e.g. "karły" (short people, dwarfs) with no personal form in the normal speech, "chłopaki" (boys) with "chłopacy" used only rarely, etc. I also mean terms referring mainly or even exclusively to animals which are of the masculine-personal gender: "drapieżcy" (predators) and especially "roślinożercy" (plant eaters) - we use "wegetarianie" or "jarosze" when talking of people. But cows are definitely inhuman, and we still call them "roślinożercy". We can speak "ci obcy" (m-pers.!), "kosmici" and also "najeźdźcy" (invaders), and this is still insufficient to imply "sektoidzi". The possiblility of using non-personal forms for personal substantives is yet another problem. Note "bliźniaki", much more frequent than "bliźniacy", and also "chłopy", "doktory" etc., used even in belles-lettres.
@Falko: I would also prefer SupSuper doing coding, and it is the clue! I would not prefer random people doing coding. The same I would not prefer random people doing translation, and especially random people deciding on translation of random strings.
I understand that making translation free for everyone was thought to be an encouragement for more people to help. But it has appeared that this has caused VERY serious problems.
I am not for shutting mouths of all who are able to say something important or wise. I am against making a mess and against destroying the yet-done work.
How would SupSuper feel if somebody did a mess in his code? This is the same how a translator feels when a random man destroys his translation, especially when he changes "komandor" into "przywódca" in one string while it remains as "komandor" in another string. Does such a practice help anyone in anything?
OpenXcom is an open project - but the code is somehow protected against possible vandalism and against random coders who change the code in one place while leave it unchanged in another place, isn't it? The same should be done with the translations - the work of translators should be protected in the same way as the work of coders. You may not know it but translating is a very hard work and it should not be done by random persons - I am sure that Dioxine will confirm it even if we do not agree in some details.
@Yankes: This sounds quite reasonable. I do not think that there will be much problems with choosing the person responsible for the translation. He (or she!) should want to sacrifice his/her time and have enough competence. Special voting may be unnecessary - unless some person says "I will do it" while another person says "I am against it for some reason".
@Sturm: There are pros and cons. I played UFO in English for many years, so personally, I do not need a Polish translation at all. However, not everyone is enough fluent in English, and may just want to understand some details, e.g. in the ingame Ufopedia, for curiosity (I know such people). So, don't be egoistic, think of others as well. Besides, the original game was available in 3 languages from the very beginning. If in 3, why not in 30? English is a kind of modern Esperanto, OK, but why national languages should be worse? I only wish the translation should cost less time and effort. But it does... hence this discussion.
You are right and wrong with the term "karabin szturmowy" (anyway, there is no even the least reason for capitalizing it, such a spelling manner looks like littering our language with foreign spelling customs). Indeed, the newest norm does not have it. Such a term can be met in the literature, however (so, you are wrong thinking there is not such a military term). As it is absent in the norm, and at the same time it is a word-for-word translation of the international term, we may call it popular. Terminological (military, industry etc.) norms, unlike the orthographic norms (or to some degree, language or orthoepic norms) needn't be the one and only law. All depends if a term inconsistent with the norm is widely used or not.
On the other side, I understand that for a person who deals with military things, using an unnormative terminology may be thorny.
As far as I know, no hand weapon may be called "armata" in the modern language. So you may be wrong in this point. "Ciężki laser" would be acceptable but "ciężka plazma" woud not. "Plazma" means a state of matter, not a weapon (shortening of "broń plazmowa" to "plazma" is a slang). Such a translation may appear as thorny for a physicist as thorny is "karabin szturmowy" for an expert in militaries.