Mod idea for getting rid of horrid pilot training

[crsutton]

Optional rules.
 
Pilot training on, click! Pilot training off, click!
 
 
Got no problem with pilot training. Could go either way. It can be kind of fun but takes a lot of time. Notwithstanding, I would like to see max level to train up any Japanese pilot. Perhaps by year. This is in skill levels and perhaps experience. For example, any pilot trianed in 42 would max out at 55, 43 would be 45, 44 would be 35 and 45 would be 30. This would reflect loss of instructors, lack of fuel and training aircraft and the need for pilots at the front.  Just too many quality Japanese pilots being cranked out as it is.
 
Allies could have some variance as well. For example 42 could be 50 max, 43 could be 55, 44 could be 60.
 
After that, any experience gained would have to be in combat.

[jwilkerson]

getting rid of horrid pilot training

Note that "horrid, horrid, horrid pilot training" has been pretty much the same since day one of WITP. So hopefully those who find it horrid now also found it horrid 5.5 years ago!!!
[:D]


I found then and I find now that I do spend a large chunk of my time looking at units and manipulating their training status and I do question whether that belongs in an operational level simulation - but I guess I have gotten used to it after all these years - and the word "horrid" doesn't much come to mind when I think about it.

[Nikademus]

Personally.....i find the grand campaign too huge to even want to, much less be able to attempt to manage individual pilots. I'm lucky to get my turn done in time as it is.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

getting rid of horrid pilot training

Note that "horrid, horrid, horrid pilot training" has been pretty much the same since day one of WITP. So hopefully those who find it horrid now also found it horrid 5.5 years ago!!!
[:D]

Horrid, horrid, horrid.......... wicked, wicked, wicked Zoot! [:D]

[TheElf]

Some thoughts on pilot training:

1. It was designed to give the Japanese player a chance. It wasn't intended to be an Allied tool, but we knew that if we didn't make it available to the Allies the mob would cry foul. It really isn't necessary to the Allies.

2. It isn't designed to give the Japanese player an edge, it's meant to blunt the formerly precipitous curve with which the IJ player's Airmen dropped off in EXP back in WitP.

3. We've added automatic features that can be set to your priorities. Use them if you don't like to micro manage

4. Finally, if you do NOTHING. You will get what you had in WitP. The basic structure of replacements, aside from an across the board lowering of EXP is the same.

Not sure what the excitement is about...

If you find a like minded opponent, just agree to not use it or limit use to the automatic functions.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Some thoughts on pilot training:

1. It was designed to give the Japanese player a chance....It really isn't necessary to the Allies.

That's not what I'm hearing from other players in a variety of threads. Most players are saying that an Allied player who doesn't micromanage pilot training will be at a decided disadvantage in the air war to the Japanese player who does. I'm sure the vice-versa would be the same.

2. Finally, if you do NOTHING. You will get what you had in WitP. The basic structure of replacements, aside from an across the board lowering of EXP is the same.

Respectfully, I don't think this is accurate. In WitP Allied pilots arrived with fairly high experience later in the war. In AE they arrive in the 20s or 30s sometimes. Secondly, in WitP it was very easy/quick to train pilots by flying combat missions. In AE I have pilots with experience in the 40s after flying milk runs for a year or more.[/quote]

Not sure what the excitement is about...

I think what excitement there is may be three-fold:

1. As we go deeper into PBEM games we are learning that micromanaging pilot training is necessary for one air force to compete on a level playing field against the other.

2. There was a recent thread about AE being a "simulation" instead of "a game." The ability of the Japanese to replace and train green pilots in vast quantities is divorced from history. If that's what we have then this aspect of AE is a game, not a simulation. For many players that is fine or even welcome as a game-balancing tool. For some it isn't.

3. As we go deeper into the games some of us are learning that we do not enjoy the pilot micromanagement aspect in an operational/strategic level game. [Not that we don't enjoy the game as a whole, or the great majority of it.]

This is not intended to be a slap at the overall game or quibbling with Elf. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
The ability of the Japanese to replace and train green pilots in vast quantities is divorced from history. If that's what we have then this aspect of AE is a game, not a simulation.

But the entire game is divorced from history. There is a loud vocal group that has always advocated for historical accuracy in game, but has always been over-ruled by the play balance side of things.

From day one of WitP almost six years ago, the entire game has been this way. Someone in the games infancy made the mental decision that play balance would win out over history, and the game pretty much has stayed along that theme ever since.

Historically the US alone trained something like half a million or more pilots during the war and the other allies probably added another quarter million to that. Japan trained probably less than 50k and most of those were hastily trained pilots.

I forget the specific numbers, but this entire issue was hashed out once years ago during AEs development with all kinds of historical facts brought to the table including historical pilot counts, but obviously play-balance won out and Japan can still out-produce the US in planes and easily keep their pilot quality at very high levels all game.

So we have a balanced game that simulates history, but it is not a historically accurate simulation of the war in the Pacific, not by a long short.

Hopefully someone will someday do a historically accurate mod. But given how many years it took the team to do AE, it would probably be impossible for an individual or two to do a mod before their lives came to natural ends.

I think the only chance of a historically accurate game ever being done was lost for good when the AE team went with balance over accuracy.

Jim

[Canoerebel]

Thanks, Jim.  That helps me understand the game better.  And it reminds me:
 
1.  The reason Miller and I are locked in such a balanced, fun game is partly due to these things.
2.  I need to temper my tendencies to think I'm facing historic capabilities and impacts.  Just because the Japanese pilots were lacking in numbers and training in the real war due to high attrition (and low replacement numbers) doesn't mean the Allies will face the same thing in the game after high attrition to Japanese pilots.
 
Perhaps that's fine - we have a more balanced, complex, very playable game that had to compromise on certain realities to achieve those qualities. 

[mike scholl 1]

Personally, I think it's a joke.  Remember those Japanese Pilots and A/C that went down like so much confetti at the "Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot"?  They had all been in training since the beginning of 1943 (18 months).  Apparently the real Japanese Commanders didn't know how to work the pilot training system either.

I wish the designers would have left pilot training out of the game entirely, and just provided both sides with the historic numbers of pilots at the appropriate training levels.  For those that wanted more "balance" they could have provided another "what-if button" (like the working US Torpedoes button).  To me it always makes the most sense to make a project as accurate as is humanly possible..., then offer options for players who don't want accuracy to "customize" their own game.  Best of all possible worlds.

[Grotius]

I wouldn't mind a toggle, and of course people are welcome to abolish all on-map training with House Rules, but personally I like the pilot-training system. It's only "ahistorical" if it allows us to train pilots to physically impossible levels without tradeoffs. If it does impose historically-defensible training rates and tradeoffs, then I'm all for it. There certainly is one giant tradeoff in scenario 2: Japan pays a gigantic "heavy industry" tax for all those extra pilots in flight school, tends of thousands of whom will never see action in the game. That means I'm required to expend resources training pilots who will never see action, instead of generating or stockpiling supply, instead of building guns, etc. As for the training rate, I'm sure not converting my level-30 pilots to aces anytime soon. I see skill increases and only the occasional XP increase. But my game is only in January 1942, so admittedly I need to see more evidence.

I teach history for a living, so I'm as interested in historical accuracy as anyone who claims to be a historical purist here. I think AE is the most historically-accurate wargame about the WITP that I've ever played, and I've played many of them, including several of the boardgame versions. I don't think it's fair to say that AE opts for "balance over history" in AE. Instead, it opts for player decisions over automated software decisions. If you want a perfectly accurate historical simulation, then you must remove all player decisions, not just pilot-training. The "players" should not be permitted to reconfigure task forces, should not be permitted to attack any bases other than those attacked historically, should not move an ounce of supply in different direction; instead the player should watch as the software executes these tasks automatically. That would be a historically accurate piece of software. I wonder if anyone would buy it?

Have you guys played Japan in AE? It strikes me as a much more "historic" approach than in WITP. No more torpedo-toting Betties all over the Pacific. No more rearming BBs from level 1 ports. No more dropping 100,000 tons of supply on a dot base in one turn. And even in the "Japan fantasy" scenario 2, my pilot quality is already dropping dramatically in January 1942. (In fact, in some ways scenario 2 makes the economic situation worse than historical for Japan, as you must pay double the "pilot school" tax on those thousands of extra useless pilots you get.) I haven't seen any AARs of Japan conquering all of India or Oz, as occurred in WITP. Heck, I have trouble taking all of the SRA on the historic Japanese timetable against the AI, and I *know* I won't take it all against my current PBEM opponent. But I'm not complaining that the game is ahistorical. Quite the contrary.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Well said Grotius.

[Andy Mac]

Scen 2 was designed before the new HI tax on pilot training was implemented if I was doing it again now I would not have quite the same level of increase in pilot numbers as well as xp.

[pad152]

I still find it odd, that you get all sort of messages about pilots (wounder, captured, etc.) but, nothing when an Admiral is killed! Tracking the loss of a single pilots but, not LCU's (1000's of men) just makes no sense!

[byron13]

I think Grotius has identified the real issue in the love it v. hate it groups. The ultimate historical "game" would be nothing more than a turn-by-turn pre-programmed replay of the entire war with no input from the players. What's the use? The idea is to see "what if." Sliding to the far opposite end of the scale is what if Japan had a nuclear weapons program, devoted more to building carriers, the Germans sent many U-boats to the Pacific, India revolted, the U.S. had a Pacific-first philosophy - the "what ifs" are endless. The trick for the designer is build in enough realistic variability and options without making the game an alternate reality bordering on pure fantasy. Where the line is drawn is purely subjective; some would want the line drawn here, others there. Should players have the option of not converting ships that were historically converted to some other task? Should the player have the option of training more Marines and fewer soldiers? Building more carriers and fewer battleships than was historical? Devoting R&D to building jets? Permitting Commonwealth forces to keep more of their ground forces intact later in the war at the cost of lower production of supply and resources? And, in line with this, should the Japanese player be able to train more and better pilots than they did historically? It's all part of where the line should be drawn. I'm sure the decisions were tough ones. Certainly a number of options were historically possible, just not undertaken - and often for very good reasons for which we are unaware or are beyond the scope of this game. I remember well the debates that went on well before WitP was ever released over how much control the Allies would have over production, shipping resources, etc. Every option is a trade-off and moves the scale from being a pure re-enactment toward the fantasy end. There is also the question of: at what level is the player assumed to have control? Is he just a field commander that has to accept what the nation and its politicians give him, or is he more of a supreme leader/god that can also dictate policy? One player may want to play as field commander and see if he can do better than his historical counterpart given the hand dealt by Tojo, Marshall, or Roosevelt. Others would like to play at a higher level, actually making decisions made by Tojo, Marshall, and Roosevelt, wanting to change policy (abandon China to take India, eschew battleships for a strictly carrier force, etc.). To each his own, but this issue immediately implicates itself on the first day you sit down to design the game. Obviously, there is no one right answer.

The salient point of all of this is that there is no "sweet spot" at which the game is perfect. There is simply a sliding scale of options that moves the game closer to or further away from the extremes of pure history and fantasy. The game is perfect only if your desires of what the game should offer happen to coincide exactly with what the game actually offers - and even then the implementation will probably be an issue. The desires of the vast majority of us lie somewhere else on the scale, and it could not be otherwise since the game was designed for sale to more than just one person. Apparently, pilot training is a hot-button issue unlike ship conversions and other issues. Since it seems divisive, it would be nice to have the option to turn on or off, but I think that it a tougher challenge than simply adding a toggle. In the end, it is not a game breaker either way, and both sides need to recognize that their desires simply fall on different places on the scale, and I don't think anyone can know for sure what a real majority would want. I think the present training is a reasonable implementation of a good idea and that the designers - and especially the team that created AE - have struck a darned good balance of history and alternate history.

My main point has been made, so the rest here is more in the nature of rambling. This issue must the next on the list of "we should have the option." In thinking about it, I'm actually quite impressed with the number of options built in to permit the player to move the slide on the scale. Alternative first-day options (or was that just WitP?), including a December 8 scenario for the hard-core historian. Options to upgrade a/c historically or player defined upgrades. Ship conversions. The entire options screen. When you think about it, what other game on the market provides as many options as this one does? This is all a way of thanking the designers and developers for producing a superior game that is unique in the market. Is anyone working on more scenarios by the way?

Oh, and thanks, Andy, for contradicting me on the good balance of things. Here I was supporting your work an you go and make a statement that things are borked! [;)]

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: pad152

I still find it odd, that you get all sort of messages about pilots (wounder, captured, etc.) but, nothing when an Admiral is killed! Tracking the loss of a single pilots but, not LCU's (1000's of men) just makes no sense!

Don't you know? Designed by pilots who think that the air war is all that counts. The same guys that thought Desert Storm could be won solely from the air. A single pilot is a lot more important that a thousand grunts, jarheads, or swabbies. The latter are fodder provided for the sole purpose of either supporting the pilot or providing targets for the pilot. If you haven't noticed, the Allies win the game when a pilot walks through the gate of the imperial palace.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
It strikes me as a much more "historic" approach than in WITP.

No one is saying the game isn’t fun, but trying to say it is historically accurate is really hard to fathom. This is a fantasy scenario for Japan when compared to history no matter what aspect of the game you look at.

Production is probably the biggest offender, Japan can produce so much more stuff than they could have historically it throws off pretty much anything else when accuracy comes into the equation. AE has done a lot to mitigate some of the most glaring issues with the original release, as you’ve pointed out. But they did make an effort to balance the game rather than make it an historical game.

Take the tanker ship shortage issue that the allies face in game, or the lack of armor production for the allies (Soviets get no armor from early 42 until late 44, NONE, even if they get attacked not a single replacement). Neither of these design decisions are based on the factual production abilities of the allies.

Rather they tied them to historical numbers the allies used in theatre based on historic losses they took and advances and conquests the Japanese made. The problem is once the game ventures into non-historical territory (as most do), the draconian numbers they chose to use as limits become totally bogus.

Had the allies lost more tankers than they historically did, or suffered extreme armor losses in India or Australia, the allied production system would have geared itself to make up the losses or already existing units would have been diverted to make up for any shortcomings. None of which can happen in game.

Now counter that to the fact Japan only built about 2,500 tanks for the entire war. Yet in game if it sees its armor units get depleted it can immediately fill them up again. Even if that happens to the units 100 times, Japan can always make up the losses and has the potential to build tens or even hundreds of thousands of tanks if needed, something it simply could never have done in reality.

Of course this applies to ANY production item in game, not just ships and tanks. In WitP and now AE, Japan has the resilient flexible production economy while the allies are tied to draconian historical limits and in many cases intentionally shorted limits for play balance reasons.

It’s completely opposite of the actual history of the war. It was Japan who never made up losses to its combat units in the field, and the allies who rebuilt their units after fights. I think the 1st USMC Division was basically rebuilt 3 or perhaps 4 times during the war as were most other units. But in game once a division gets shredded, replacements are so low it’ll take years to rebuild because so many other units are vying for the tiny trickle of equipment items and troops they get.

A good example of them engineering balance is why no Burma squads after the first couple game months? What if Japan never attacks Burma? Shouldn’t the allies then be able to draw that manpower for use in the game?

The decision to cut off Burma squads had to have been a balance decision pure and simple based on something that historically occurred. But no regard was given to allied capabilities if Burma never got invaded, so the forces there are pretty useless in game even if they never get attacked because they’ll have no replacements to make using them in combat a viable option as would be the case had Japan never attacked them.

Another aspect of the game that isn’t historical is the Japanese advantage in the air. Historically the allies enjoyed a 4-1 kill ratio in the pacific in 1942. A big part of the reason more allied squadrons weren’t sent to the Pacific in 42 is because they weren’t needed. The allies were doing fine with what they had.

But in game the reverse is usually true with Japan enjoying the higher kill ratios, yet the allies get no extra planes to help them deal with this upside down part of historical fact, so they end up with lots of depleted squadrons that historically they didn’t suffer from very often. Which of course makes the sea a lot safer for Japan when venturing into allied air space when compared to the historical reality.

I could go on and on. The point is when you look at the historical details, Japan has been pumped up greatly in almost every regard in the interest of play balance.

There’s nothing innately wrong with that from a game perspective (I still enjoy playing it), but from an historical point of view, it has left me frustrated about the games fantasy scenarios for years.

Jim

[Altaris]

*sigh* I wish I had just left the word "horrid" out of this thread title, and maybe it would've stayed focused on what I was actually trying to determine... what good numbers to set in the scenario editor would be.

Along the lines of what others have posted, I'm looking at ways to modify the pilot numbers coming out of training so that those of us who don't like the current pilot training have a viable option out of it. For anyone who doesn't have an issue with the current training system, there's really no need to debate it over and over, it's one of those love-it-or-hate-it things that's not going to change others minds by arguing non-stop over it.

I think I'll start a new thread later tonight when I can get some numbers from the editor, and try to keep that thread focused on the actual goal in mind.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Some thoughts on pilot training:

1. It was designed to give the Japanese player a chance....It really isn't necessary to the Allies.

That's not what I'm hearing from other players in a variety of threads. Most players are saying that an Allied player who doesn't micromanage pilot training will be at a decided disadvantage in the air war to the Japanese player who does. I'm sure the vice-versa would be the same.

Let me rephrase. All else being equal the Allies don't need the pilot training mechanism. That is to say that if neither player uses it the Vanilla WitP pilot EXP and quantity advantage will remain with the allies. If this is what you seek, I suggest a civil discourse with your PBEM oppponent about the omission of the feature as a house rule.

2. Finally, if you do NOTHING. You will get what you had in WitP. The basic structure of replacements, aside from an across the board lowering of EXP is the same.

Respectfully, I don't think this is accurate. In WitP Allied pilots arrived with fairly high experience later in the war. In AE they arrive in the 20s or 30s sometimes. Secondly, in WitP it was very easy/quick to train pilots by flying combat missions. In AE I have pilots with experience in the 40s after flying milk runs for a year or more.

[/quote]

All national EXP levels were lowered, not just the allies. if you look at the values the relative edge still exists. As far as training on Milk runs, how much more quickly would you like them to gain EXP? As I recall milk run training was a failing of WitP that we set out to do away with. Perhaps this is what you are seeing...

I think what excitement there is may be three-fold:

1. As we go deeper into PBEM games we are learning that micromanaging pilot training is necessary for one air force to compete on a level playing field against the other.

you just summarized every IJ player's experience from Vanilla WitP. Which is why you now have a pilot training feature. You can use it or not.

2. There was a recent thread about AE being a "simulation" instead of "a game." The ability of the Japanese to replace and train green pilots in vast quantities is divorced from history. If that's what we have then this aspect of AE is a game, not a simulation. For many players that is fine or even welcome as a game-balancing tool. For some it isn't.

UV, WitP, and AE are games. We try to be as historically accurate with the unit stats, and their relative strengths. Some game features are designed as toggles so each player may inject or reject as much history as they want. Pilot training is essentially a toggle. Some players will always find a way to grossly exaggerate real world relationships into something retarded. It is human nature, particularly on this forum and this community for players to seek an overwhelming street-fighter ( A-A-B-B up down down left right) secret move that allows them to crush their enemies before them and hear the lamentation of their women. Those people cannot be made to see reason. I recommend you don't play them.

3. As we go deeper into the games some of us are learning that we do not enjoy the pilot micromanagement aspect in an operational/strategic level game. [Not that we don't enjoy the game as a whole, or the great majority of it.]

you seem to be a perfect candidate for option # 4. Just make sure your opponent is on the same page.

This is not intended to be a slap at the overall game or quibbling with Elf. Just my thoughts on the matter.

no worries, I am used to this communities revisionist wishlists....

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Personally, I think it's a joke.  Remember those Japanese Pilots and A/C that went down like so much confetti at the "Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot"?  They had all been in training since the beginning of 1943 (18 months).  Apparently the real Japanese Commanders didn't know how to work the pilot training system either.

I wish the designers would have left pilot training out of the game entirely, and just provided both sides with the historic numbers of pilots at the appropriate training levels.  For those that wanted more "balance" they could have provided another "what-if button" (like the working US Torpedoes button).  To me it always makes the most sense to make a project as accurate as is humanly possible..., then offer options for players who don't want accuracy to "customize" their own game.  Best of all possible worlds.

Yay team! Constructive as ever Mike. Congratulations....

[Grotius]

Remember those Japanese Pilots and A/C that went down like so much confetti at the "Great Mariana's Turkey Shoot"?  They had all been in training since the beginning of 1943 (18 months).

Well, my pilots with 12 months of "flight school" arrive with average experience of 32 (IJA) and 39 (IJN) -- in late 1941. Maybe I'm missing something, but I doubt I will train them up from 32 to 75 in another six months. The 18 months of training you describe seems to be replicated in the game. Moreover, not every PBEM will feature a battle of Midway. Unless we automate the game. Not every PBEM will replicate a Turkey Shoot. Unless we automate the game.

The point is when you look at the historical details, Japan has been pumped up greatly in almost every regard in the interest of play balance.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Have you tried Japan in a PBEM against a competent Allied opponent in Scenario 1? I can't beat the historical timetable in the SRA even against the AI. And in 1944 the Allies come at you with a Navy the size of Alabama, no matter what Japan does with Production. Also, few PBEM games of Scenario 1 have yet made it to 1945; you're judging outcomes based on the early war, which of course was when Japan was ascendant. Nor do I think that the production system tilts toward Japan; even in Scenario 2, I will have to shut Armaments off to pay for all that pilot training. Endless tanks? I have 150 Vehicle points stockpiled. There may be individual game systems that (unintentionally) tilt one way or the other, but if so they seem to cancel each other out, because the outcomes the game generates seem quite plausibly historical to me. If we see a spate of Japanese stomping victories from full-out PBEM games that have run through 1945, I might change my mind, but I doubt we'll see that.

I'll say it again: The designers have opted for more player decisions, not less fidelity to history. I think Elf and his colleagues are to be commended for that. If there's a better, more historical treatment of the war in the Pacific, please tell me where I can buy it.