Alfred
Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred
Just what is the point of anyone who knows how things operate bothering to post.
1. You don't believe what Crackaces is telling you from actual experience. Probably because his correct comments don't fit into your prejudices.
2. You don't accept what previous forum posts from Japanese logistic focussed players such as PaxMondo. Probably because he doesn't play and write up an AAR. After all only PBEM players could possibly know how the game plays out.
3. You don't accept what I have written before on this subject in various threads and in particular in my 2011 Logistics 101 thread. After all I'm not a dev so how could I possible be correct about anything.
4. You don't accept what devs such as Treespider, michaelm and Big62. They must be biased.
5. You don't accept what the manual states on the subject preferring instead to selectively misrepresent part of what the manual states.
No just go ahead with your vanity tests which will not be properly constructed.
It costs supply to "purchase" replacement devices to bring a LCU back up to it's TOE.
Alfred
Show me where you definitively answered this, Oh Wise Master. We looked in your Logistics 101 thread when this came up last time, but to no avail.
Section D(4) of the Logistics 101 thread. I quote it in full.
(D.4) Cost of replacements
The basic supply cost for a LCU replacement device is the load cost.
For air units, the supply cost for each replacement airframe depends on the type of airframe:
• 12 supply points for fighter, fighter bomber
• 15 supply points for dive bomber, torpedo bomber, float plane, float fighter
• 18 supply points for night fighter, recon
• 30 supply points for heavy bomber, medium bomber, light bomber, attack bomber, transport, patrol
Thus the previously mentioned 12 plane Liberator squadron (see D.2 above) consumed 96 supply points to fly the mission. If the squadron had 4 planes shot down, it would need an additional 120 supply points to replace it’s losses.[/I]
That first sentence is rather direct and unambiguous. Which means that your statement:
"We looked in your Logistics 101 thread when this came up last time, but to no avail"
is either a lie or your comprehension failed you.
Numbers don't lie, Great One. You don't need exquisitely crafted test beds to get a general read on whether something is happening or not.
Yet you often come up with inaccurate answers. Considering how often you "test", numbers obviously do lie in your case. In any case where did I say anything about exquisitely crafted test beds. You can't control the variables in your "test" ergo your test is not reliable. Bullwinkle in post #5374 mentioned a variable which you cannot control. So you will come up with a test result which is not reliable and put that as conclusive evidence against the empirical comments already provided in this very same thread by Crackaces in 5 posts.
Stop being an arse. You accuse me of vanity tests, but you're doing the exact same thing with your high-handed manner and numbered list of assumptions and inflated sense of importance.
Lovely language. Did we learn this language at home or at school or on the streets?
Being somewhat emotional with your non logical thought here. I am not doing any vanity tests so whatever I am doing it is clearly not the same thing as what you are doing. Apples and oranges are not the same thing.
Very subjective assessment of me having an "inflated sense of importance" considering the 5 other names of people who are being dismissed. Of course you would have had to do some research to have come up with 4 of those names but instead you had already consigned this issue to "legend" in post #5369. By dismissing the "facts" which are pointed out by others and insisting on running your own flawed "test", it is you who has the "inflated sense of importance".
After all, if you haven't said it, then it can't be true. Isn't that exactly what you're accusing me of doing?
Need to put words in my mouth in order to justify your emotional and illogical response. What about the other 5 individuals I named, and I could have given you more but they are amongst the most prominent contributors to this issue. They are all reliable posters, three of them being actual devs, so one needs to have overwhelming evidence to the contrary to treat their posts as wrong.
Unlike you, I do spend the necessary time researching before posting. My posts are quite accurate. and stand by themselves. Whatever time you put in researching before posting is inadequate because your posts are not sufficiently accurate to stand by themselves.
Before making my previous post (#5374), I spent about 4 hours on homework. Firstly, I did look up my 2011 logistics 101 thread because I was certain I had addressed the issue then and it would have been a significant lacuna if I had not. I was relieved to see that I had addressed it there so obviously you had not properly looked at it when in the past you had tested for aircraft replacements (posts #5371 [referred to by Lowpe], 5372 [and no it isn't a "hidden" cost as claimed by you] and the subsequent to mine, post #5375 [which shows how ramshackle is your "testing" regime]).
Secondly, just in case I was incorrect in my logistics thread, I rechecked the evidence. I went through the entire manual and reread very carefully the nine sections of the manual which comment on replacing LCU devices. This satisfied me that the manual does indeed state supply is consumed in taking on replacement devices.
Thirdly, I searched the forum for both non dev and dev comments on the issue. The former to see whether the old post Lowpe referred to might came from a reliable or non reliable poster. Found the lengthy and detailed posts generally came from reliable posters. Decided to choose PaxMondo as a representative voice because not only had he made several detailed posts on the subject but they all used Japanese exemplars and thus directly rebutting the inference Lowpe was making that the Japanese replacement rules were different with respect to supply consumption. Found many dev posts on the subject, those from Treespider (who wrote the manual) and BigJ62 (who wrote the relevant logistics code) being most on point. Found one from michaelm which dealt only with a Japanese LCU, just to lay to rest any idea that the code treats the Japanese differently.
So exactly how much research did you do? Any was this research just you do doing your flawed vanity testing or misreading what is documented in the manual or on the forum.
What I am accusing you is:
- being inaccurate, again, in your posts (post #5365 encapsulating the incorrect answers perfectly)
- effectively calling Crackaces a liar by not accepting at face value his empirical statements contained in posts #5361, #5364, #5368, #5370 and #5373 that supply is consumed in taking on replacement devices
- not doing proper research before posting and thereby yourself contributing to another AE urban myth
Maybe you should put your gloves back on.
Alfred
|
Printable Version
RE: Unorthodox - 
I don't think either side was wrong, and every game is different, but for me a stronger reliance upon the Jack would have been better. 
) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread