Page 2 of 2
Re: Troops no longer getting replacements
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:49 pm
by BlueTemplar
You've literally drew around it in your first post ??
zgrssd wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:13 pm
[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.
I don't understand this attitude : just because Vic's manpower is limited, we shouldn't suggest improvements ??
Re: Troops no longer getting replacements
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:43 pm
by zgrssd
BlueTemplar wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:49 pm
You've literally drew around it in your first post ??
zgrssd wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:13 pm
[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.
I don't understand this attitude : just because Vic's manpower is limited, we shouldn't suggest improvements ??
I am at a loss how this exchange makes sense to you:
You: "Then that would be the reason for the warning ?"
Me: "Who said the warning has a reason?
Half the important information is missing from the UI, but in turn we have 50% unimportant information."
You: "I don't understand this attitude : just because Vic's manpower is limited, we shouldn't suggest improvements ??"
Please explain the leap of logic.
Re: Troops no longer getting replacements
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:04 pm
by BlueTemplar
The discussion abridged :
Hardradi : "I have a warning about SHQ having problems sending replacements to units."
Me : "Check that you have missing troops in militia units."
Hardradi : "Indeed that this is the case, though it confuses me why it would be a warning."
Me : "Ok, that's probably it then, the warning should indeed be reworked."
You : "The warning might be bugged."
zgrssd wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:13 pm
[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.
Except I didn't. "Should" is not the same thing as "must" in this context.
Re: Troops no longer getting replacements
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:48 pm
by zgrssd
BlueTemplar wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 3:04 pm
The discussion abridged :
Hardradi : "I have a warning about SHQ having problems sending replacements to units."
Me : "Check that you have missing troops in militia units."
Hardradi : "Indeed that this is the case, though it confuses me why it would be a warning."
Me : "Ok, that's probably it then, the warning should indeed be reworked."
You : "The warning might be bugged."
zgrssd wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 4:13 pm
[...]
Blue made the argument "this is on the UI, so it must be important".
Which just is not a valid assumption. That is now how small, single Dev projects work.
I pointed out that faulty assumption.
Except I didn't. "Should" is not the same thing as "must" in this context.
Please explain how this question:
BlueTemplar wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 11:49 am
Hardradi wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:19 am
Yes, plenty of them are missing troops but as far as I know you cant directly replenish them. I think you have to raise militancy to get them to fill back out.
Then that would be the reason for the warning ?
makes sense without the assumption "every warning on the UI is important"?