I would like to see if GF would change the Long CR to have the full names of the ships instead of the short names in the report.
There are a couple of reasons for this request.
1. This will allow tool developers to use the names from the techtree to parse the combat reports.
2. Developers will not have to collect extra translations just for combat reports
Currently databases must contain tables of translation data. Such layouts may contain entries such as follows:
Ship number 1
Destroyer
Dest.
Zerstörer
Zerst.
...
If the CRs contained consistent data the translation data would be cut down on the unnecessary data and data calls.
Additionally, It would be nice to have GF provide the data in an export format for developers to use so that we don't have to rely on users for translations. We would use what GF is using and update as they update.
Thank you for considering my suggestion. Please feel free to comment/question/criticize as you see fit.
Talidorn
There are a couple of reasons for this request.
1. This will allow tool developers to use the names from the techtree to parse the combat reports.
2. Developers will not have to collect extra translations just for combat reports
Currently databases must contain tables of translation data. Such layouts may contain entries such as follows:
Ship number 1
Destroyer
Dest.
Zerstörer
Zerst.
...
If the CRs contained consistent data the translation data would be cut down on the unnecessary data and data calls.
Additionally, It would be nice to have GF provide the data in an export format for developers to use so that we don't have to rely on users for translations. We would use what GF is using and update as they update.
Thank you for considering my suggestion. Please feel free to comment/question/criticize as you see fit.
Talidorn
