Seaplanes not repairing at base w/CS vessel

[Lokasenna]

I tested it. No supply is being used in cases like this.

https://youtu.be/6FjOhNRVed8

Setup runs through the first 7 minutes or so.

At 7:10 you can see the fuel at Eniwetok is 1153, and supplies still 2800. Supplies on the AV is 1640.

At 7:30ish I begin setting the search and targets.

At 9:41 you see evidence of the planes flying.

At 11:06 - supply situation at Eniwetok and on the tender remains unchanged.

I walk through verifying the number of missions flown, etc.

Per the manual:

"All planes flying other Mission types (search, CAP) expend 1/3 of a supply point per plane per Mission."

So the 6 missions per phase should have expended 2 supply points (per phase), for a total of 4 supply expenditure.

This is such a minor thing, but it is a thing.

[Ian R]

At video 7:10ff there is 2800 supply at Eniwetok, and 1640 on the AV as it disbands into port.

Yokohama Ku T1 - transferred from Maleop on December 7, and was stood down with fatigue 7.

At 11.22ff supply states remain the same, pilot fatigue on Yok. Ku T-1. has gone down to 5 pt. Maybe 1 or 2 planes flew.

Your assumption 6 missions were actually flown each phase on December 8 is not scientifically valid - - there are two many variables unaccounted for. If only 1 or 2 planes flew search due to weather, or because of leader/morale rolls, there is no supply expenditure*. Also what is Eniwetok's supply level as a % of needs at base? That also has an effect.

Also, at 12:02, you state an expectation that supplies would be expended from the tender. That is not correct, if supplies on base can be used, then they will be used before supplies on a tender are expended.

As Alfred has said, the usual rule is the code doesn't do fractions**. If 1 or 2 planes flew in a phase, there is no supply expenditure.

[*Unless Michael M says there should be a fraction roundup in this instance, but the plain and ordinary meaning of words:

"All planes flying other Mission types (search, CAP) expend 1/3 of a supply point per plane per Mission."

is 2 planes = 2/3rds - and when you drop the fraction = 0.].

On the on board Pete group, they won't fly if the AV is disbanded in port. Those missions were likely flown on the trip down before the AV was parked.

On board group missions use endurance not supply.

And the expenditure rate is the same - 3 planes on search mission = 1 endurance point (TF wide). The wording is clearer on the threshold:

"For every three planes launched on a Search or CAP Mission, the ships in the TF expend one Endurance."

So if only 2 planes launch.... no endurance is expended.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

At video 7:10ff there is 2800 supply at Eniwetok, and 1640 on the AV as it disbands into port.

Yokohama Ku T1 - transferred from Maleop on December 7, and was stood down with fatigue 7.

At 11.22ff supply states remain the same, pilot fatigue on Yok. Ku T-1. has gone down to 5 pt. Maybe 1 or 2 planes flew.

Brother, did you not count up the number of missions flown? On which days do you think those missions were flown - days prior to the start of the scenario?

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Your assumption 6 missions were actually flown each phase on December 8 is not scientifically valid - - there are two many variables unaccounted for. If only 1 or 2 planes flew search due to weather, or because of leader/morale rolls, there is no supply expenditure*. Also what is Eniwetok's supply level as a % of needs at base? That also has an effect.

So what day(s) did they fly on, then? There were only 2 possible phases when they could have flown the listed 12 missions. If only 2 flew in the first phase, than 10 flew later. Is 10 not greater than 2?

Further, 6 missions being flown per phase exactly matches the settings of the air unit in question, which is size 12 and was set to 50% search. What is 50% of 12? Why, it is 6!

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Also, at 12:02, you state an expectation that supplies would be expended from the tender. That is not correct, if supplies on base can be used, then they will be used before supplies on a tender are expended.

I checked the tender because supplies had not been used from the base first. I don't care whether checking the tender was correct or not, I was checking to see if supplies had been used at all. They were not.

ORIGINAL: Ian R
As Alfred has said, the usual rule is the code doesn't do fractions**. If 1 or 2 planes flew in a phase, there is no supply expenditure.

[*Unless Michael M says there should be a fraction roundup in this instance, but the plain and ordinary meaning of words:

"All planes flying other Mission types (search, CAP) expend 1/3 of a supply point per plane per Mission."

is 2 planes = 2/3rds - and when you drop the fraction = 0.].

On the on board Pete group, they won't fly if the AV is disbanded in port. Those missions were likely flown on the trip down before the AV was parked.

The number of Pete missions flown exceeds the number that would have been flown prior to the AV disbanding into port, and the number of missions flown (like the Mavis unit above) exactly matches the percentage set to search and the total number of daytime air phases since the beginning of the scenario.

Further, I don't care what Alfred said or didn't say about fractions. It's just not relevant here. This is incontrovertible proof in front of us all that supply is not used by float/seaplanes being serviced by disbanded AV*/CS at a base.

ORIGINAL: Ian R
On board group missions use endurance not supply.

And it used zero endurance.

ORIGINAL: Ian R
And the expenditure rate is the same - 3 planes on search mission = 1 endurance point (TF wide). The wording is clearer on the threshold:

"For every three planes launched on a Search or CAP Mission, the ships in the TF expend one Endurance."

So if only 2 planes launch.... no endurance is expended.

This could be true. Why don't I test it next?

I can lead a horse to water, but... Here, why don't I just drown the horse. I'll post another shortly.

[Ian R]

You know what, if you are sure, report it on the tech thread,load your save as an attachment and ask Michael to look at it.

Further, I don't care what Alfred said or didn't say about fractions.

Ah, the truth emerges.

[LargeSlowTarget]

How about this one? No supplies at the base, a dozen Cats on 100% search spotting enemy TF - but neither supplies nor endurance spent by the tenders. The Cats must be flying on moonshine.

[Lokasenna]

I tested it again, this time for nearly a week of in-game time.

On 1 day, the AV appeared to consume some Endurance points when the Petes flew from it while disbanded in port, but this appears to have instead been some kind of rounding error by the code in displaying the endurance level. In no instance did the Mavis unit, set to 100% search and verified by the number of missions flown daily, burn a single solitary point of supply. Tenders disbanded in port service eligible planes at the base for free, full stop. Planes on a tender disbanded in port will fly missions as ordered, full stop. Sometimes those planes on the tender will burn endurance, but sometimes they will not.

Jump to 11:00 if you don't need to see my setup and everything. At that point, missions have begun to be flown by both the Mavis unit and the Pete unit. I was too lazy to do any editing here to remove any of the "chaff" from the replay and whatnot.

I did contaminate the test a little bit with destroyers that showed up with rescued ground troops from an air attack - so they had probably expended AA ammo, and replenished that when they reached Eniwetok. I had a thought that, perhaps, the supply expenditure from the tender on those 2 days (4 points each day) was from rearming the destroyers even though they aren't supposed to. So maybe the supply was burned by the DDs, or maybe it was burned by the Pete unit on those 2 days but not on any of the other days. Regardless, we know that supply was not used for the flying boats at all, not once, and that supply/endurance was not used by the Pete unit in most if not all days.

Interestingly, the tender's endurance actually went up between December 11 and December 12, from 18215 to 18219, while the fuel at the base remained at 1080. It went back down the day after (I noted it going down in my video, but upon re-watching I realized that the endurance was at 18215 before jumping up to 18219 - it was not something I was looking at prior to the turn when it inexplicably went up by 4).

https://youtu.be/byhTU_GMaLk

I attempted to test the SCTF reaction issue in the other thread but it was an afterthought and I did not get any reaction results, either from patrol zones or remain on station, with task forces at DL 10/10 for each side and distances of 1, 2, and 5 hexes (reaction ranges set to 6). So, inconclusive.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

You know what, if you are sure, report it on the tech thread,load your save as an attachment and ask Michael to look at it.

Further, I don't care what Alfred said or didn't say about fractions.

Ah, the truth emerges.

This thread isn't about Alfred. Stop trying to derail it with... whatever this is.

I am sure and I've just done 2 extensive, unedited video tests of it. If you don't want to acknowledge that there is, in fact, a "bug", then that's your problem. I still posted them for everyone else's benefit. It would be nice if, instead of simply calling into doubt other people's assertions (backed up by actual evidence), you provided something tangible to the contrary.

[Ian R]

Guys,

If you are so sure that there is a bug, report it, and load your sandboxed save games.

Why go round in circles with me pointing out the serial logical fallacies in your tests?

I'm not the ultimate arbiter of this.

Interestingly, the tender's endurance actually went up between December 11 and December 12, from 18215 to 18219, while the fuel at the base remained at 1080.

Did you send any fuel there?

Better report that as a bug then, eh [;)]

[LargeSlowTarget]

What serial logical fallacies have you pointed out in my test?

[Lokasenna]

I'm just going to stop feeding the troll.

[Ian R]

Why are you wasting time arguing with me instead of uploading on the tech thread?

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm just going to stop feeding the troll.

Or, you could put your tests on the tech thread and ask Michael M to take a look.

Your choice.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

What serial logical fallacies have you pointed out in my test?

TBF I was responding to the other fellow, but if you are confident about your test parameters and results, and that you have eliminated all uncontrollable variables, why not submit your results to MichaelM as a bug report?

Maybe he'll test it and say you are right.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Why are you wasting time arguing with me instead of uploading on the tech thread?

Because we want you to admit that you are wrong and we are right, a public apology and the promise that you will mend your ways to become a better forumite [;)]

Na, seriously - you are right about possible uncontrollable variables, but with tests being run over weeks it appears to be pretty sure there is an issue.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Why are you wasting time arguing with me instead of uploading on the tech thread?

Because we want you to admit that you are wrong and we are right, a public apology and the promise that you will mend your ways to become a better forumite [;)]

Na, seriously - you are right about possible uncontrollable variables, but with tests being run over weeks it appears to be pretty sure there is an issue.

... [Edited because LST couldn't take the bet]

Edit: That is conditional on you proposing a specific bug to MM, which MM agrees is there, and not some variation on it that is merely related to your proposal.


Against that, if no bug, you send me a case of French Syrah of my choice.


Agreed? He didn't.

[Ian R]

The bet expires in 10 minutes...

And expired ...

[LargeSlowTarget]

Sorry, been afk for supper. Had to google "French Syrah" - although I'm living in France, I'm not into wine, preferring beer, true to my origins. Betting is against my religion, but I'll post in the bug thread in the tech subforum and we'll see.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Sorry, been afk for supper. Had to google "French Syrah" - although I'm living in France, I'm not into wine, preferring beer, true to my origins. Betting is against my religion, but I'll post in the bug thread in the tech subforum and we'll see.

Good enough.


There goes my free case of Shiraz.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I'm just going to stop feeding the troll.

Or, you could put your tests on the tech thread and ask Michael M to take a look.

Your choice.

No choice - there is no "Michael take a look" anymore, the bug fixes are done. I don't think you've been paying attention since you just keep saying that.

This is just about posting so people are aware of what can be done. You're clearly only interested in trying to poke holes and it comes across as some kind of personal crusade that isn't even about the bugs and oversights.

[Ian R]

Just post it on the tech thread.

Edit, don't bother, LST already did - and Micheal already looked and posted today. WAD, apparently.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... 22&mpage=2

Are you going to now apologise for your intemperate & unnecessary personal attacks and accusations of trolling?