After quick consultation with michaelm, I was able to start Test Scenario under latest beta.
First, quick repeat of Japan side test. Setting as from last modification, so Marcus have 7000 supply:
1) Float Plane unit set to rest, Patrol Planes set to Naval Search at 100% and 50%.
RESULTS: no supply was used. Clear proof, that air unit at rest do not use supply.
2) All air units flying. Results identical to test under latest official patch. Only Float Planes use supply.
So, time to change sides. This time Allies, on Wake, with Wake Base Force (or whatever is the name of this engineering unit there). Marines were removed. Unit have 1000 supply, Wake airfield size 10, and 10000 supply. WILDCATs from wake (12 planes), and Catalinas unit (also 12 planes).
First I wanted to cause LCU not consume any external supply. However it dumped over 800 on first turn into island pool. Both air units set to rest. Next days have not shown any obvious pattern, but external supply was used EVERY turn, with minimum of 2 Supply Points. Seems results will be HARD to determine. I am stating only use of external supply, not the one in LCU:
1) Only CATALINA unit set to Naval Search 100%, maximum range, 6k feet. Consumption:
First day 8. That is actually minimum stated by manual (12/3, and every pilot got 2 missions), however LCU should also used some, so this is BELOW minimum.
Second day 17 supply used
Third day 12 supply used. It seems there is no pattern, and randomization is too large, to get any average.
All pilots had 6 mission after 3 days, so obviously whole unit was flying all the time.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: inqistor
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Nonsense! I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.
Oh yeah, because checking if pilots are actually taken from trainee pool, needs THOUSANDS of testing hours, dozens of testers, and playing every game, for at least 6 months...
OH WAIT!
Actually you just need to fire up ANY GC Scenario, and check first Dutch unit, because their pilot pool is empty, and it should be IMPOSSIBLE to draw new pilots.
So... it can be checked in like... 5 seconds? That is, if ANYONE would actually CARE to test it.
Sid suggested adding several new types of supply and resources to the game - a huge change that would require lots of investigation and testing. I said so, and you countered to the effect that only "*3" needed to be added to supply used by aircraft and implied no investigation or testing was needed. Now you are changing the issue to pilots taken from the trainee pool...
You were clearly implying, that I am NOT doing testing. Any testing. Or that I have suggested that. Nevertheless, FACTS states otherwise, of which I kindly hinted you.
Not only THIS topic is carefully researched, by ME, but I have already made initial tests.
Whats more (my hint),
when I have discovered, that pilots are not taken from trainee pool, I have carefully TESTED that issue, in TWO Scenarios, using dozens of pilots, to get any idea, where they are coming from. Obviously that was example of my insightful testing, but you should already know that. After all, that was YOU, who answered me.
On the other side, your claim that:
I would never pay money for a product that you are in charge of not engineering and not testing, as you imply here.
also suggests, that you bought this game, because current "developers" thoroughly tested WITP AE.
Both JeffK , and me pointed you, that FACTS states OTHERWISE. There are two possibilities for it:
either something is improperly tested,
or something is NOT tested at all
It is pretty clear, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss the fact, that replacement pilots from empty pool, do NOT work as intended. And all is needed is ANY test of this behavior. Not any complicated, few weeks of game. In FIRST turn, you can discover that.
Of course there are dozens upon dozens examples, that even simple testing was NOT done, as it would quickly lead to discovery simple bugs (like NOT working Search Arcs, or Japanese MTBs, which stuck at 1 day production - now seriously, how you could missed THAT, if it was tested?).
I will not respond to your nonsense any further.
Non-sense implies lack of logic, which is HARDLY possible in my case. Let me give an example:
In Thursday I have discovered, that Patrol Planes DO NOT use supply during Naval Search (Post #26).
Your answer, ONE day later, was:
I thought that was fixed?
This is exactly example of nonsense: WHAT was fixed? Use of supply by Patrol Planes?
But I have discovered it ONE DAY earlier! Who was supposed to fix that, and when?
