Pilot training methods - acceptable or gamey?

[Yakface]

The complexities of the new air and training model provide a huge number of opportunities for maximising efficiency. Some legit others....les so. Wanted to run through a few different techniques to see whcih the population found generally acceptable and which crossed the line.

Clealy many people will have different opinions, which is fine. List is in increasing order of dodgyness (IMO)

1. Extracting the pilots with high defence ratings from transport aircraft and transferring them to a fighter squadron to provide them with some A2A training before use in frontline fighter units

2. Extracting the excess pilots from groups due for withdrawl.

3. Putting floatplane units on sweep trainig to create a pool of pilots that can be used in fighter squadrons

4. using the 'resize to fit ship' to create a massive single units to increase pilot training numbers

5. extracting all the trained pilots from units due for permanent withdrawl by replacing them with trainees.

6. similar to 3 and 4. As Japan - Taking some of the very small ship based FP's, resizing on a CS to enlarge from 1 to 24 planes and training pilots for use on other planes (sweep or bombing training)

And any others people can think of....

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

The complexities of the new air and training model provide a huge number of opportunities for maximising efficiency. Some legit others....les so. Wanted to run through a few different techniques to see whcih the population found generally acceptable and which crossed the line.

Clealy many people will have different opinions, which is fine. List is in increasing order of dodgyness (IMO)

1. Extracting the pilots with high defence ratings from transport aircraft and transferring them to a fighter squadron to provide them with some A2A training before use in frontline fighter units

2. Extracting the excess pilots from groups due for withdrawl.

3. Putting floatplane units on sweep trainig to create a pool of pilots that can be used in fighter squadrons

4. using the 'resize to fit ship' to create a massive single units to increase pilot training numbers

5. extracting all the trained pilots from units due for permanent withdrawl by replacing them with trainees.

6. similar to 3 and 4. As Japan - Taking some of the very small ship based FP's, resizing on a CS to enlarge from 1 to 24 planes and training pilots for use on other planes (sweep or bombing training)

And any others people can think of....

the "resize" thing is the only thing that I don´t like as this is what only works for one side, which means the Japanese side. The Japanese seem to be able to resize their untis at any time, while the Allied are stuck with the historical resize dates, that´s why the Allied carriers run around with only 2/3 ac compliment until mid 42.

All other things should work for both sides. With the resize "trick" the Japanese not only can outproduce the Allied in first line aircraft but they can also "outproduce" the Allied in trained pilots. I doubt that pilot quality will ever be a real problem for the Japanese anyway if the Japanese player is focussing on training. So basically the WITP training methods of on map "bombing" have been changed to on map "training" with the enhancement that you now also have a reserve pool where you can transfer pilots around. Time to "train" is equal.

[Yakface]

Extracting pilots from groups due for withdrawl is really only works for allied players because Japan will get their back anyway.

[Mistmatz]

As far as I understand the number of pilots you can train in a squadron is not depending on the number of airframes you have in that squadron. As you can pull as many pilots into a group via the 'request veteran' button I don't think group resize is that much of a problem, especially given the sheer amount of training units that are on map anyway.

I keep most of my squadrons at 4/3 pilot strength (or less), so I don't know if there is any benefit in having even more trainees in a squadron or if the training effect is simply distributed among a bigger bunch If it wouldn't than this could be a cheesy training method as it has no natural limit.

Regarding the float planes on sweep I'm not even sure this is possible for the allies. I'm certain though it's not neccessary. For the japanese this is different as they have some float fighters, so fair game IMO.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Extracting pilots from groups due for withdrawl is really only works for allied players because Japan will get their back anyway.

didn´t know that, never played the Japanese so far, but is it unfair then for the Allied doing so when it´s hardcoded that way for the Japanese?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

As far as I understand the number of pilots you can train in a squadron is not depending on the number of airframes you have in that squadron. As you can pull as many pilots into a group via the 'request veteran' button I don't think group resize is that much of a problem, especially given the sheer amount of training units that are on map anyway.

I keep most of my squadrons at 4/3 pilot strength (or less), so I don't know if there is any benefit in having even more trainees in a squadron or if the training effect is simply distributed among a bigger bunch If it wouldn't than this could be a cheesy training method as it has no natural limit.

Regarding the float planes on sweep I'm not even sure this is possible for the allies. I'm certain though it's not neccessary. For the japanese this is different as they have some float fighters, so fair game IMO.

I think you can set all your float planes to Cap/escort/sweep so I guess you can also set them to train air and def skill via the train escort/sweep mission. IMO, the Japanese won´t ever run out of trained pilots until very, very late in the war. Trained means 70 skill for me. 70 is something you can reach in no time but higher takes an awful long time.

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Extracting pilots from groups due for withdrawl is really only works for allied players because Japan will get their back anyway.

didn´t know that, never played the Japanese so far, but is it unfair then for the Allied doing so when it´s hardcoded that way for the Japanese?

My personal opinion - if the game/scenario is designed to take into account the transfer of trained pilots to the western front, it would be gamey to circumvent it by pulling them out first and just sending rookies over. The reason Japan does not have pilots permanently lost is that they have only one theatre.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Yakface


2. Extracting the excess pilots from groups due for withdrawl.


5. extracting all the trained pilots from units due for permanent withdrawl by replacing them with trainees.

These I have no problem with and don't think they are gamey

1. Extracting the pilots with high defence ratings from transport aircraft and transferring them to a fighter squadron to provide them with some A2A training before use in frontline fighter units


3. Putting floatplane units on sweep trainig to create a pool of pilots that can be used in fighter squadrons

4. using the 'resize to fit ship' to create a massive single units to increase pilot training numbers


6. similar to 3 and 4. As Japan - Taking some of the very small ship based FP's, resizing on a CS to enlarge from 1 to 24 planes and training pilots for use on other planes (sweep or bombing training)

I don't think these are real gamey either, I can see they might be abused a bit:

#1: I don't do that, I don't think you really need to go that far as Japan
#3: I don't do this either, I would just leave them on floatplanes
#4: I have done this once, but it can be abused, so should be limited/stopped. The Japanese have enough "Home-Bound" units for a good training program
#6: I have done this to a limited extent; the Japanese get very few land-based Float Plane units at start.

The pilot model does not mirror history. The game is a great one the way it is, but if you wanted to make it match history, I would make the following changes:

1. END on-map TRAINING. You can still build skills in Combat; maybe that should be enhanced
2. In lieu of on-map training, REPLACEMENTS should have higher skill levels; the Allies should get them in the 60-70 range, and Japan in the 50-ish range. That will produce the historical divergence in pilot quality after the first cadres are killed off

OR, Japan can train in pool up to 70, but you have to leave them in 2 years to do so, and the number of replacements is reduced.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Extracting pilots from groups due for withdrawl is really only works for allied players because Japan will get their back anyway.

didn´t know that, never played the Japanese so far, but is it unfair then for the Allied doing so when it´s hardcoded that way for the Japanese?

My personal opinion - if the game/scenario is designed to take into account the transfer of trained pilots to the western front, it would be gamey to circumvent it by pulling them out first and just sending rookies over. The reason Japan does not have pilots permanently lost is that they have only one theatre.

If the squadrons are withdrawn yes IMO, if they are disbanded then no IMO.

[Miller]

No IJN training method in AE is as gamey as the "Lets bomb an abandoned Chinese base for ever" used by most IJN players in WITP.

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: Miller

No IJN training method in AE is as gamey as the "Lets bomb an abandoned Chinese base for ever" used by most IJN players in WITP.

Very true

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Yakface


2. Extracting the excess pilots from groups due for withdrawl.


5. extracting all the trained pilots from units due for permanent withdrawl by replacing them with trainees.

These I have no problem with and don't think they are gamey

1. Extracting the pilots with high defence ratings from transport aircraft and transferring them to a fighter squadron to provide them with some A2A training before use in frontline fighter units


3. Putting floatplane units on sweep trainig to create a pool of pilots that can be used in fighter squadrons

4. using the 'resize to fit ship' to create a massive single units to increase pilot training numbers


6. similar to 3 and 4. As Japan - Taking some of the very small ship based FP's, resizing on a CS to enlarge from 1 to 24 planes and training pilots for use on other planes (sweep or bombing training)

I don't think these are real gamey either, I can see they might be abused a bit:

#1: I don't do that, I don't think you really need to go that far as Japan
#3: I don't do this either, I would just leave them on floatplanes
#4: I have done this once, but it can be abused, so should be limited/stopped. The Japanese have enough "Home-Bound" units for a good training program
#6: I have done this to a limited extent; the Japanese get very few land-based Float Plane units at start.

The pilot model does not mirror history. The game is a great one the way it is, but if you wanted to make it match history, I would make the following changes:

1. END on-map TRAINING. You can still build skills in Combat; maybe that should be enhanced
2. In lieu of on-map training, REPLACEMENTS should have higher skill levels; the Allies should get them in the 60-70 range, and Japan in the 50-ish range. That will produce the historical divergence in pilot quality after the first cadres are killed off

OR, Japan can train in pool up to 70, but you have to leave them in 2 years to do so, and the number of replacements is reduced.

1. Yep, training needs an overhaul as the Japanese players just get to create too many quality pilots. End on map training or fix it.

Perhaps have Allied pilots come on in the 45 range in early 42, 50 in late, 55 in early 43 and 60 thereafter. Japanese will follow the reverse course. 50 in 42, 40 in 43, 30 in 44, 25 in 45.

Allow on map training in skills but limit it. The rest to come in combat. I am already starting to see Japanese bombers nail my subs way to frequently in mid 42. Just as in WITP

As it is now, I am hard up for pilots in 9/42 and my Japanese opponent seems to be swimming in them. Something ain't right.

[khyberbill]

3. Putting floatplane units on sweep trainig to create a pool of pilots that can be used in fighter squadrons

Many float units upgrade to dive bombers so I put them on naval attack training or asw training. I have enough squadrons as it is training fighter pilots.

[jrlans]

My only sugestion would be that you limit indvidual pilots skills to no more than x% above thier current xp. So that the basline xp of the pilots actualy matters.

[khyberbill]

My only sugestion would be that you limit indvidual pilots skills to no more than x% above thier current xp. So that the basline xp of the pilots actualy matters.

That is too much micromanagement for me. I look at pilot training once a week (in real time). I dont want to be a slave to it. I only look at EXP for determining transfer to training pools. I also look at individual expertise if I am requesting a veteran for a divebomber/fighter etc.

[erstad]

As it is now, I am hard up for pilots in 9/42 and my Japanese opponent seems to be swimming in them. Something ain't right.

I'm about at the same point and don't have a shortage of "OK" pilots. But then I've been training since day 1. There's a bazillion restricted airgroups in the US, and in places like Oz, India, etc. my units which are not in active use are typically training.

[AcePylut]

How many of these ideas are based on Scenario 2, not Scenario 1?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Miller

No IJN training method in AE is as gamey as the "Lets bomb an abandoned Chinese base for ever" used by most IJN players in WITP.

where´s the sense behind this in AE? In my experience crews on "training" are gaining skill FASTER until 70 then crews doing actually opposed bombing runs. [&:]

[Mark Weston]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

1. Extracting the pilots with high defence ratings from transport aircraft and transferring them to a fighter squadron to provide them with some A2A training before use in frontline fighter units

Nothing wrong with this. I'm sure re-assignment and cross-training were reasonably common in real life. More to the point, I'm not even sure I see an advantage. Most training choices seem to train Defn and the chosen skill simultaneously anyway.

2. Extracting the excess pilots from groups due for withdrawl.

Lots of commanders (at all levels) would try to keep the best equipment/personnel of units they were forced to transfer elsewhere. No reason players can't.

3. Putting floatplane units on sweep trainig to create a pool of pilots that can be used in fighter squadrons

This one's a little closer to the edge of gaminess IMO. Would your average search/recon float-plane really have the flight characteristics for decent A2A training? On the other hand fighter pilots are among the quickest and easiest to train so it's probably not a big deal.

4. using the 'resize to fit ship' to create a massive single units to increase pilot training numbers

This pushed to the limit is hugely abusable. It's possible to create up to 100 extra training slots per CV. That's an increase in the IJN air capacity by over 1000 in total, which means the ability to create a huge pool of trained pilots and then possibly just as huge a surge in front-line IJN air power (if the factories can keep up). I think that is a genuine game balance issue. Suggested house rule; no air group to be expanded beyond size 27.

5. extracting all the trained pilots from units due for permanent withdrawl by replacing them with trainees.

Same answer as 2.

6. similar to 3 and 4. As Japan - Taking some of the very small ship based FP's, resizing on a CS to enlarge from 1 to 24 planes and training pilots for use on other planes (sweep or bombing training)

This is another area I'm unsure of. Japan can quite seriously increase its naval and ASW search capabilities by resizing lots of FP squadrons. Now none of it's free of course, all those pilots and airframes have to be paid for. Again, pushed to the limit it's an approach that could massively increase the size of the IJN air forces. Thoughts?

[bilbow]

4. using the 'resize to fit ship' to create a massive single units to increase pilot training numbers

This pushed to the limit is hugely abusable. It's possible to create up to 100 extra training slots per CV. That's an increase in the IJN air capacity by over 1000 in total, which means the ability to create a huge pool of trained pilots and then possibly just as huge a surge in front-line IJN air power (if the factories can keep up). I think that is a genuine game balance issue. Suggested house rule; no air group to be expanded beyond size 27.

Pushed to the limit is also pointless, since land-based aviation support for the Japanese is very limited. I expanded a few float groups to 24, same for a couple of small carrier groups, and find I've pretty much maxed out my aviation support in the HI. The resize feature is useful, but also self-limiting.