Hi all,
ORIGINAL: dereck
Yes I think your testing is flawed. What you're basically doing is overkill and ensuring that if the ASW search routine IS changed it's going to be based on flawed testing and force people in future version to have MORE than your 72 planes on ASW just to be able to spot submarines.
If you want to do a honest and decent test have three levels of searching. A low value, a medium value and a high value - in both number of planes used AND the amount assigned to ASW search. You'd be doing a lot of tests but that way you have a RANGE of spotting instead of a high value which will obviously result in sub spottings.
If, as you say, people in AARs are using hundresds of planes in ASW patrol then YES they're going to spot submarines. That is obvious - all your test did was to show the obvious.
You want to do a serious test vary the test data so if it's the number of planes, the percent assigned to ASW, a combination of both, or an unrelated variable can be determined. It could show that 72 planes at 10% ASW may do just as well as 18 planes at 100% for example. You may also want to run the same tests as both the Japanese and Allied to see if the results are the same or different.
As it is your test is only showing one side and, in my opinion, not objective enough to really be taken seriously since you can have people like me questioning it.
And as far as testing, I've done plenty of program and system testing and test plan writting in my 16 years in IT to know that you have to be objective and plan for a lot of possibilities - you've only planned and tested for one at most.
Have you read what I wrote when I first published this?
I think not..
I asked that WitP community (i.e. all of us who are interested in better WitP) test and check for
_THEMSELVES_!
I
_ALWAYS_ post scenario and
_NOT_ results
_ONLY_ (i.e. where scenario is "hidden" or unavailable so the results can't be verified).
I also wrote that I made one test - more testing can be done by me (when I get time) or by any other interested WitP player who thinks current way of WitP ASW is not ideal.
You can test if you want to help.
BTW, I also have 15+ years in IT and know what testing is - testing (in essence) is:
- controlled environment (this we have - I made scenario that can be tested and tested)
- inclusion of all possible variations and alterations (this we have - I made scenario that can be changed easily)
- need of many runs to establish pattern
So who/what is flawed here?
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
