|
|
Post by Burningapple3 on Sept 6, 2021 18:39:12 GMT -6
Hello. I have something that might be a bug. The number of tertiary bullets is determined by the secondary If there are fewer secondaries and more tertiarys, the tertiary ammunition will be consumed sooner.   When did you start the game =1900＆1920 What nation were you playing? =Germany、Great Britain etc. What version of the game were you playing =1.24＆1.25 P.S.I'm not confident in my English, so I'm using google translation. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Sept 15, 2021 20:44:03 GMT -6
Related: Suggestion made to give the designer tick boxes so we can issue reduced/normal/extra shells for the secondaries and tertiary. This is even more useful when these become dual purpose guns consuming rounds for HAA
|
|
|
|
Post by Burningapple3 on Sept 16, 2021 3:29:14 GMT -6
Related: Suggestion made to give the designer tick boxes so we can issue reduced/normal/extra shells for the secondaries and tertiary. This is even more useful when these become dual purpose guns consuming rounds for HAA That's great. Is it correct that more tertiary does not mean more ammo? |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Sept 17, 2021 10:39:35 GMT -6
Related: Suggestion made to give the designer tick boxes so we can issue reduced/normal/extra shells for the secondaries and tertiary. This is even more useful when these become dual purpose guns consuming rounds for HAA That's great. Is it correct that more tertiary does not mean more ammo? Can you explain some sample entries in your chart as there 2" 3" 4" guns and Im not sure if you are saying 2 of 3" or 3 of 2" etc |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Sept 17, 2021 12:41:35 GMT -6
My reading of the table:
All secondaries are 8" and all tertiaries are 3".
The first table has two 8" secondaries in each case, with two/four/six/eight 3" tertiaries. In all cases the tertiaries have a pool of 400 rounds.
The second table has two/four/six/eight 8" secondaries, with two 3" tertiaries in every case. In this case the tertiaries get an increasing pool of ammunition despite there only being two such guns - such that for eight 8" secondaries the tertiary guns have a whopping 1600 rounds of ammunition in the pool.
It looks like there is a minor coding error, a reference that should point to the tertiary guns is instead pointing to the secondary guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Burningapple3 on Sept 17, 2021 15:24:05 GMT -6
My reading of the table: All secondaries are 8" and all tertiaries are 3". The first table has two 8" secondaries in each case, with two/four/six/eight 3" tertiaries. In all cases the tertiaries have a pool of 400 rounds. The second table has two/four/six/eight 8" secondaries, with two 3" tertiaries in every case. In this case the tertiaries get an increasing pool of ammunition despite there only being two such guns - such that for eight 8" secondaries the tertiary guns have a whopping 1600 rounds of ammunition in the pool. It looks like there is a minor coding error, a reference that should point to the tertiary guns is instead pointing to the secondary guns. That's the way I read it. I had another person check 12" and 6", 7" and 5", etc. The result is the same as this table.
Sorry for the confusing table. |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Sept 17, 2021 16:46:27 GMT -6
Sorry for the confusing table. Thanks for clarifying. Not so much confusing just that there are few possible conventions. I tweaked my writing long ago from # x # to # of # e.g. 2x3 to 2 of 3" Learned to edit my writing based on how it could be misunderstood. Especially when we were talking about products that could carry high-pressure, high-temperature, removes-flesh steam. |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Sept 18, 2021 16:06:22 GMT -6
Thanks for the report - So it appears that "Ter ammo count= Sec ammo count", which may imply (as stated) a cross-reference issue. I will promote this to our internal threads for evaluation.
|
|
