-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 293
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFE - Add 'filter by intro date of the equipment' option to unit picker #2342
Comments
Under Advanced Search, you can filter by design year. Is this different/does that not fit the bill? |
where is the unit introduction year displayed? not sure which date this is. |
Would this work? |
The calculation would probably work. But we would have to add this somewhat artificial date to our unit cache. It's not a technical problem, but I'm not sure how relevant this really is. |
I think there may have been a misunderstanding. I think (vaguely, these several years later) I was asking to be able to filter by 'design year', not 'earliest possible introduction year'. And it appears that 'design year' is the filter option. (I think it appeared, back in the depths of Oct 2020, that unit date in the picker might have been being based on the equipment loadout, rather than the official design date ... i.e. the reverse to what is actually being done.) So, in other words, oops. Can probably close this, unless anyone else finds it useful. Sorry! |
I'll just close it then :) can be reopened when necessary |
With the change to defining whether units are legal-by-date to being based upon their equipment loadout rather than the 'year introduced' field, would it be possible to add a function (checkbox?) that also allows filtering by unit introduction year (where that is entered on the unit data), so that units that were not introduced by the 'current year' are not available for picking from?
(I know that the intro date is shown on the unit picker, but it just makes it easier to put together 'historically plausible' forces if you're not teased with the unbuilt!)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: