Actually, I have not played UV, as I don't own it. I just noticed that the durability for the weak Japanese fighters seems to be a bit high.
This itself might be the problem as to why the Japanese might have higher survival rates in UV, but it also might be due to players playing the game differently.
I do believe that training experience vs. combat experience is up for debate, much like anything from history.
History is perpetually up for debate, especially military history. Perceptions change over time. For example, every few decates US Civil War history goes through a change of perception. Sometimes General Lee is seen as brilliant, and others seen as actually incompetent (this is usually based around his high reliance on his subordinate commanders to fight battles, supporters noted how well this worked in certain battles like Chancellorsville when he had good subordinates, but failed at Gettysburg after many of his good subordinates were killed). Perception changes, but was Lee either Brilliant or Incompetent? Possibly he was one, or he was a segment of both?
Were the Japanese total experts? Were they incompetent?
Was the USN full of prime pilots? Were they just regulars?
It is probably a combination of all of the factors. Japanese pilots were good, but still made mistakes. US Pilots were better trained, but could training accurately represent combat situations?
Do better flight tactics guarantee better results? Not necessarily. The Luftwaffe had much better squadron tactics in 1940 then the RAF, yet continually experienced higher fighter losses. The RAF used obsolete 3 plane flights, vs the 4 plane flights of the Luftwaffe. Aircraft types were similar, the Bf 109, Spiftire I and Hurricane I were all contemporaries, with slight differences. Luftwaffe tactis were 'superior', RAF 'obsolete'. The RAF operated close to base, the Luftwaffe at their maximum range. The RAF had the benefit of Radar to spot and maximize interception.
When the RAF started to do their fighter sweeps of France in 1941, using better 4 plane flight tactics learned during the Battle of Britain, the losses to kills switched in the favour of the Luftwaffe, even though the Luftwaffe had fewer planes in the region.
Losses for the Battle of Britain
RAF 900 (includes a high number of fighters lost on the ground on bombing raids)
Luftwaffe 1600 (both fighter and bombers, about 700+ fighters)
The attacking force only has one advantage over their opponent, that being suprise. Should suprise be wrecked (for example by Radar), they lose thei only valuable asset they have. They then basically become a sitting target for comparably rested defending pilots.
Both the Luftwaffe in 1940, and the IJNAF in 1942 put more individual sortees then their oponents (movies like to say otherwize), and these sortees were more physically draining. Neither the Luftwaffe nor the IJNAF rested their air groups like the RAF and USAAC/USMF/USN did. Even moving the group to a quiet area for a few weeks did a lot to get back their morale and lower fatigue.
Both the Luftwaffe and IJNAF had more combat experience then their opponents. The Luftwaffe even had better tactics then their opponents (and lost more aircraft over a few months over England then the IJNAF did over 1 year in the South Pacific!).
Combat experience, aircraft quality and flight tactics are only a part to aircraft casualties and success rates. Group missions can determine losses before the battle even begins. Under generally static conditions, like the Battle of Britain in 1940, and SW Pacific in 1942, the attacker has a significant disadvantage when compared to the defender (who has adequate early warning systems).
USAAC/USN/USMC casualties were much higher when the took part in long range missions then when they defend. The USN experience higher casualties during air strike then they did when defending their carriers.
It is a little persumptuous to assume that either the pre-war IJNAF or trained USN pilots were faultless. Citing instances where even the greatest aces mess up does not mean that they were something less of what they were (von Richtofen made many mistakes, and died making a mistake, but he still had 80 kills). Were individual RAF pilots better then their Luftwaffe counterparts as they had a 2:1 ratio of total kills/losses (when they were perpetually tactically outnumbered, in total and even when just fighters were counted), and a 1:1 fighter kill/losses. Most RAF pilots had around 100 hours of flying time during the Battle of Britain (while Germans had 500+, and experience in France, Poland and many in Spain). Logically, the Luftwaffe should have easily beaten the RAF. They outnumbered them, had more training, had more combat experience, had better tactics, aircraft quality was about the same.
This is not to say that US pilot experience was not superior to a comparably new Japanese Pilot. The Japanese had no real combat training beyond actual combat. However, nothing in combat training can put the pilot in the same situation as real combat, where they know if they mess up they die. Training can prepare you for combat, but it cannot take the place of combat experience. I feel that combat and training experience should be separate. Either you are green, regular, highly trained, veteran/elite (I feel that both veteran and elite appear after a regular or highly trained pilot experience a few combat sortees, I don't believe that veteran pilots can become elite, history shows either you have it, or you don't)
Realistically, von Richtofen was no better when he shot down his 70th plane then he was when he shot down his 10th plane. Pilots usually learn or die in their first few missions, and a lot of the good ones die off purely because they burn out (how most German and Japanese aces died). von Rictofen was elite after his first few missions (as early as when he fought Hawker). He really could not get much better, and the only future learning experiences are overcoming new enemy aircraft types, or figure out how to use new planes that the pilot is flying.
I feel that pilot experience should be as following...
Raw (all they teach you is how to take off...)
Green (they teach you how to fly)
Regular (they teach you some combat tactics)
Highly Trained (Advanced training)
Veteran (those green/regular/highly trained who survive their first few battles)
Elite (those green/regular/highly trained who survive their first few battles, but like von Richtofen, A. Galland, Thatch, [and as a comparison for tank combat Michael Wittman] just have an inate ability to fly and fight. There would be a 1/100 random chance that a pilot would be Elite over Veteran)
Once a pilot is veteran, they can only maintain this experience level until they die. They can never become Elite (as either they are veteran or elite).
Pilot rotation versus fly until you die.
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Should WitP retain the 1-99 experience levels, give new USN Pilots 95 experience, give all new pilots 60 experience, use a level system, or whatever, I will still buy this game.
The game will be moddable enough to allow for individuals to create their own version of pilot experience, while Matrix Games will choose their own. It is fairly subjective, and depends a lot on your sources, and what you read from them. Things may not 'go right' for many reasons, which may be related to a 'problem' in the scenario, or possibly player influence.
Indeed, if UV results in very unhistoric combat losses, should WitP have an 'improved' experience system, you will undoubtedly notice that losses will not follow history. To get historic losses one has to fight the war historically. Players will do different things, which will influence losses positively and/or negatively. WitP will offer you way more choice in what goes where, which will really change the course of the war, and losses.
I do think that the game as a whole will be good, but it impossible to find perfection in any game that is supposed to represent history, especially when so much is put into single values as strategic wargames are forced to do this.
The game will be moddable enough to allow for individuals to create their own version of pilot experience, while Matrix Games will choose their own. It is fairly subjective, and depends a lot on your sources, and what you read from them. Things may not 'go right' for many reasons, which may be related to a 'problem' in the scenario, or possibly player influence.
Indeed, if UV results in very unhistoric combat losses, should WitP have an 'improved' experience system, you will undoubtedly notice that losses will not follow history. To get historic losses one has to fight the war historically. Players will do different things, which will influence losses positively and/or negatively. WitP will offer you way more choice in what goes where, which will really change the course of the war, and losses.
I do think that the game as a whole will be good, but it impossible to find perfection in any game that is supposed to represent history, especially when so much is put into single values as strategic wargames are forced to do this.
well **** Jeremy. I had just warmed up the computer, read the latest, and was getting ready for another go-round when i read your last two posts.
Mostly agree on what your saying and where i 100% agree, you said it well so there is little point in being repetetive, more so since you said what needed to be said about as well as it could be.
I too will buy WitP come what may.....my anticipation only grows daily
Mostly agree on what your saying and where i 100% agree, you said it well so there is little point in being repetetive, more so since you said what needed to be said about as well as it could be.
I too will buy WitP come what may.....my anticipation only grows daily
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
my opinion about experience levels is, that they never can model a pilot.... if they are so simple like in UV....
A pilot in war time need more as the capability to fly a plane, or to shoot exactly.... as long as it is just trained, it is bull1****... because as long as no fear to be shot down, these results are worthless....
so, a new pilot should have a special grade of technical art, here the us pilots should be much higher (esp. late in the war) as the japanese pilots, they (like the late war german pilots) still didn´t know how to fly their plane), but on a scala from 0 to 99, the best trained pilot should have 10%, the rest is experience, fatigude and luck...
in the eto most german aces had difficulties to achieve their first kill, after this, mostly they earn a lot more... so the "first kill" is a huge step ahead in the experience, and 99% should be a number, no allied pilot and nearly no axis pilot could reach, because 99% means (IMO) that this pilot attack an other plane and has from the ability of flying and shooting, knowing his plane and knowing most things about the other planes a 99% chance of killing it... so if we have a max of 99, the best historical us aces should have 50 to 55, the best japanese should have 80 (just 2 or 3 of them) and maybe 20 to 30 german aces... because they had so many fights (800+) in 1000+ missions, these pilots you can´t compare to any trained newbe, it would be better if we had a 0 - 999% ratio, and a well trained us pilot should have here 100 - 130 %, every combat mission should rise this for 0,25 to 1,5 %, every kill from 2 - 5%, every survived attack should give points too, etc... so, if you have great pilots (in the game, history is changed, so here pilots from every nation can kill more as historical) they are a huge difference between sucsess and failure of a mission, but such pilots in a trainee-program are very important, too, because they have the experience to survive and win a fight....
Besides this, mdiehls version is really stupid and shows his "americans allways are superior" theory... if 99% is the max. a trained pilot never can get more as 50%, or is this only the "how ready am i to fly a plane and how good do i know (in theory) my place in a combat ???" level... then i agree to him, the very best trained pilots could have 95% of this, but compared to an ace (err, a real ace, so 40+ kills), this ace should have then 1000 or 2000%....
A pilot in war time need more as the capability to fly a plane, or to shoot exactly.... as long as it is just trained, it is bull1****... because as long as no fear to be shot down, these results are worthless....
so, a new pilot should have a special grade of technical art, here the us pilots should be much higher (esp. late in the war) as the japanese pilots, they (like the late war german pilots) still didn´t know how to fly their plane), but on a scala from 0 to 99, the best trained pilot should have 10%, the rest is experience, fatigude and luck...
in the eto most german aces had difficulties to achieve their first kill, after this, mostly they earn a lot more... so the "first kill" is a huge step ahead in the experience, and 99% should be a number, no allied pilot and nearly no axis pilot could reach, because 99% means (IMO) that this pilot attack an other plane and has from the ability of flying and shooting, knowing his plane and knowing most things about the other planes a 99% chance of killing it... so if we have a max of 99, the best historical us aces should have 50 to 55, the best japanese should have 80 (just 2 or 3 of them) and maybe 20 to 30 german aces... because they had so many fights (800+) in 1000+ missions, these pilots you can´t compare to any trained newbe, it would be better if we had a 0 - 999% ratio, and a well trained us pilot should have here 100 - 130 %, every combat mission should rise this for 0,25 to 1,5 %, every kill from 2 - 5%, every survived attack should give points too, etc... so, if you have great pilots (in the game, history is changed, so here pilots from every nation can kill more as historical) they are a huge difference between sucsess and failure of a mission, but such pilots in a trainee-program are very important, too, because they have the experience to survive and win a fight....
Besides this, mdiehls version is really stupid and shows his "americans allways are superior" theory... if 99% is the max. a trained pilot never can get more as 50%, or is this only the "how ready am i to fly a plane and how good do i know (in theory) my place in a combat ???" level... then i agree to him, the very best trained pilots could have 95% of this, but compared to an ace (err, a real ace, so 40+ kills), this ace should have then 1000 or 2000%....
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I think you are stepping too far in by saying his theory is stupid. He does tend to always support the United States, but that does not mean that he is wrong.
While I don't believe that trainig can replace combat experience, no matter how well done the training is, I do believe it can better prepare pilots for combat.
I am personally against using numerical representations for experience that grow over time/combat experience (although I will buy the game if this is how experience is rated). They really are too abstract, and too unrealistic. Pilots did not 'grow' in experience during combat. Even in training, they did not 'grow' but rather 'jumped'. Your first few flights really get you used to the basisics. You are not necessarily '2 points' better after your 2nd flight, as you possibly learned nothing, or learned a lot.
It takes about 100 hours for you to become aquainted to flying, you can do just about anything with your aircraft a civilian pilot should. Combat training is what you learn for the 100+ hours of pilot training. Here would my ranking be.
Raw (representation of 0-80 flying hours)
Green (representation of 80-150 flying hours)
Regular (representation of 200-300 flying hours)
Highly Trained (however many hours Advanced Tactical Training)
Veteran (X many missions)
Elite (X many missions)
The value of the experience levels may follow off this 'crude' system. (not much thought has gone into these numbers)
Raw (old experience level of 30)
Green (old experience level of 50)
Regular (old experience level of 65)
Highly Trained (old experience level of 75 or 80) (only for US)
Veteran (old experience level of 80)
Elite (old experience level of 95)
A similar system like this was used in the game "Carriers at War II". where when you looked at your pilots, you just saw what their experience title was (Ace, Veteran, Regular, Green, etc...). That is all you really need.
So, instead of having pilot values ranging anywhere between 1-99, you would just have them being 30, 50, 65, 75, 80 or 95. Elite pilots would ALWAYS have an experience level of 95, veterans 85, etc... This gets rid of the possibility for EVERY Raw pilot of 30 experience to gain enough experience to all become elite (i.e., 95 experience) which never happened. It also removes the cloud of wondering what a 68 experience valued pilot is, compared to a 65 experience valued pilot (there is not much actual difference)
The disparity between raw, Green and Regular is high, but you note that the experience between highly trained and veteran is not. Realistically, they were given a big chance of survival in being taught what to look out for, however, I still think that veterans have one up on even the highest trained pilot, that being practical experience.
Realistically, once the pilots were deployed in their operational squadrons, especially for the Japanese, not much fuel was avalible for anything other then combat missions. I think that 'on the field training options', like there is in Pacific War, should not exist. It is assumed that a Regular Pilot has been taught just about as much as their IJNAF/IJAAF possibly can, so they only way they can increase in experience is to get 'bloodied'. So, when you get a squadron of 'raw' pilots, and you send them out to combat, you should see the following happen.
X number DIE
Y number remain raw (not everyone learns something on every combat mission)
Z number increase to Veteran status
A number increase to Elite
Due to them being raw...
X > Y > Z > A
Should the group be highly trained:
X number DIE
Y number remain regular
Z number increase to Veteran status
A number increase to Elite
Y > Z > X > A
(the position of X really does depend on the number of casualties, while the position of Z and A depend on the scale of surviors who actually engaged in successful combat)
It is much simpler then a 1-99 system, plus, in my opinion, seems more logical as to what happened to pilots during wartime.
While I don't believe that trainig can replace combat experience, no matter how well done the training is, I do believe it can better prepare pilots for combat.
I am personally against using numerical representations for experience that grow over time/combat experience (although I will buy the game if this is how experience is rated). They really are too abstract, and too unrealistic. Pilots did not 'grow' in experience during combat. Even in training, they did not 'grow' but rather 'jumped'. Your first few flights really get you used to the basisics. You are not necessarily '2 points' better after your 2nd flight, as you possibly learned nothing, or learned a lot.
It takes about 100 hours for you to become aquainted to flying, you can do just about anything with your aircraft a civilian pilot should. Combat training is what you learn for the 100+ hours of pilot training. Here would my ranking be.
Raw (representation of 0-80 flying hours)
Green (representation of 80-150 flying hours)
Regular (representation of 200-300 flying hours)
Highly Trained (however many hours Advanced Tactical Training)
Veteran (X many missions)
Elite (X many missions)
The value of the experience levels may follow off this 'crude' system. (not much thought has gone into these numbers)
Raw (old experience level of 30)
Green (old experience level of 50)
Regular (old experience level of 65)
Highly Trained (old experience level of 75 or 80) (only for US)
Veteran (old experience level of 80)
Elite (old experience level of 95)
A similar system like this was used in the game "Carriers at War II". where when you looked at your pilots, you just saw what their experience title was (Ace, Veteran, Regular, Green, etc...). That is all you really need.
So, instead of having pilot values ranging anywhere between 1-99, you would just have them being 30, 50, 65, 75, 80 or 95. Elite pilots would ALWAYS have an experience level of 95, veterans 85, etc... This gets rid of the possibility for EVERY Raw pilot of 30 experience to gain enough experience to all become elite (i.e., 95 experience) which never happened. It also removes the cloud of wondering what a 68 experience valued pilot is, compared to a 65 experience valued pilot (there is not much actual difference)
The disparity between raw, Green and Regular is high, but you note that the experience between highly trained and veteran is not. Realistically, they were given a big chance of survival in being taught what to look out for, however, I still think that veterans have one up on even the highest trained pilot, that being practical experience.
Realistically, once the pilots were deployed in their operational squadrons, especially for the Japanese, not much fuel was avalible for anything other then combat missions. I think that 'on the field training options', like there is in Pacific War, should not exist. It is assumed that a Regular Pilot has been taught just about as much as their IJNAF/IJAAF possibly can, so they only way they can increase in experience is to get 'bloodied'. So, when you get a squadron of 'raw' pilots, and you send them out to combat, you should see the following happen.
X number DIE
Y number remain raw (not everyone learns something on every combat mission)
Z number increase to Veteran status
A number increase to Elite
Due to them being raw...
X > Y > Z > A
Should the group be highly trained:
X number DIE
Y number remain regular
Z number increase to Veteran status
A number increase to Elite
Y > Z > X > A
(the position of X really does depend on the number of casualties, while the position of Z and A depend on the scale of surviors who actually engaged in successful combat)
It is much simpler then a 1-99 system, plus, in my opinion, seems more logical as to what happened to pilots during wartime.
He does tend to always support the United States, but that does not mean that he is wrong.
Thanks for the rational assessment. It's nice once in a while when the argument I made is the one that actually gets critiqued.
FWIW, in commenting on changes to another game design (TK!, a board game) I was accused of opposing any change that harmed the Axis. For another boardgame, WW2:PTO I wrote a "Tassafaronga" engine to give the IJN the chance to create a surprise night torpedo attack. (It's not a deterministic "Japan Wins Every Naval Combat" mechanic. It's rare, the IJ player has to work to set up the conditions, and the Allied player has to be caught with his attention elsewhere.) The "variant" rules are viewable on grognards. Generally speaking, I tend to advocate positions that (in my view of course) improve the simulation aspect of game design.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
It may very well be that PW/UV has the experience values done wrong, or it may be due to things beyond the game engine (notably player interference) that causes unhistoric results to appear. I do know that most people here could be arguing on the opposite 'side' of the coin in other situations, because this is what they believe to be right. Indeed, everyone here is fighting on behalf of their beliefs, backed up by specific resources, and even interpretatios of specific resources. Realistically, we do know that nobody is 100% right, but also that nobody is 100% wrong.
I cannot really say myself, as I have yet to see an adequate test of the game with both sides fighting historically. Most of the games that I have played/seen usually result in neither side really doing the same things as were historically done.
Historically, the IJNAF sent air groups to the frontlines until they were totally exhausted, and replacement groups were sent in to make up casualties. The IJNAF never bothered to mass aircraft in the South Pacific, but sent them in piecemeil while the Allied tended to concentrate as many aircraft as possible.
I 'think' that in PW Japan might have better results is primarily due to the mechanics of the system. Japan always goes first. So its bombing raids hit allied air bases before theirs are hit, so Allied air power is hampered by being bombed, then flying missions (in the critical first year of the game). Should the Allies go first, I am pretty sure that Japanese plane performance would be lower.
It may well be that Allied training is under-represented, it may well be that combat experience, when compared to training experience is too blurred. Unfortunately we really cannot quantify experience into factors and end up with a system that works 100% of the time. Realistically, Elite pilots were shot down by Raw trainees. It didn't happen that much, but it did happen.
I cannot really say myself, as I have yet to see an adequate test of the game with both sides fighting historically. Most of the games that I have played/seen usually result in neither side really doing the same things as were historically done.
Historically, the IJNAF sent air groups to the frontlines until they were totally exhausted, and replacement groups were sent in to make up casualties. The IJNAF never bothered to mass aircraft in the South Pacific, but sent them in piecemeil while the Allied tended to concentrate as many aircraft as possible.
I 'think' that in PW Japan might have better results is primarily due to the mechanics of the system. Japan always goes first. So its bombing raids hit allied air bases before theirs are hit, so Allied air power is hampered by being bombed, then flying missions (in the critical first year of the game). Should the Allies go first, I am pretty sure that Japanese plane performance would be lower.
It may well be that Allied training is under-represented, it may well be that combat experience, when compared to training experience is too blurred. Unfortunately we really cannot quantify experience into factors and end up with a system that works 100% of the time. Realistically, Elite pilots were shot down by Raw trainees. It didn't happen that much, but it did happen.
I quite agree. By the way I also like your ranking system as a better theoretical model than the 1-99% model, primarily because it seems to level out the differences in some very nebulous and abstract phenomena.
If I had to rank in order of importance just what factors determine the outcome of historical air combats, I'd put them as follows:
1. Brief warning intervals for defending a/c or tactical surprise.
2. Training.
3. Performance characteristics of the a/c, primarily speed.
4. Numerical Superiority.
5. Range to target as it affects fatigue and likelihood of a damaged a/c safely returning to base.
6. A/C ruggedness as it affects survivability.
7. Combat Experience.
Obviously, however, all of these things interact simultaneously, so listing them graphically in sequence as I have should not be taken as an order of evaluation in a sim.
If I had to rank in order of importance just what factors determine the outcome of historical air combats, I'd put them as follows:
1. Brief warning intervals for defending a/c or tactical surprise.
2. Training.
3. Performance characteristics of the a/c, primarily speed.
4. Numerical Superiority.
5. Range to target as it affects fatigue and likelihood of a damaged a/c safely returning to base.
6. A/C ruggedness as it affects survivability.
7. Combat Experience.
Obviously, however, all of these things interact simultaneously, so listing them graphically in sequence as I have should not be taken as an order of evaluation in a sim.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Posted by Jeremy Pritchard
UV is not to much different from the way you described above in terms of pilot experience gain.
Pilots with experience below 50 "jump" quickly to somewhere around the 50 exp mark. Note, the pilot does not even have to fly to achieve this (reaching 45-50 experience). Getting a group of 30 exp pilots is the same as getting a group of 45-50 exp pilots unless you haven't got a week spare to leave the squadron resting at a base.
Once pilots reach the 50's, the increase in experience per missions flown appears to drop right away. A pilot may jump up an experience point somewhere over the next few missions, becoming increasingly rarer as he approaches the 60 exp point.
After 60, its like watching grass grow.
On the other hand, the more combats a pilot is involved with, the quicker he goes up. Once more, the jumps get appreciably harder to get once you pass the 70+ mark. Experience jumps (or growth) from combat seem to be based more on the amount of intercepts per battle a pilot does than on something like a/c shot down or missions flown that result in a combat.
The above is just based observations from playing the game.
Posted by mdiehl
My, my, aren't we UV players lucky to have such a generous bloody guardian protecting us from our own ignorance.
Should I enter you in the Matrix Hall of Heroes now?:p
Pilots did not 'grow' in experience during combat. Even in training, they did not 'grow' but rather 'jumped'. Your first few flights really get you used to the basisics. You are not necessarily '2 points' better after your 2nd flight, as you possibly learned nothing, or learned a lot.
UV is not to much different from the way you described above in terms of pilot experience gain.
Pilots with experience below 50 "jump" quickly to somewhere around the 50 exp mark. Note, the pilot does not even have to fly to achieve this (reaching 45-50 experience). Getting a group of 30 exp pilots is the same as getting a group of 45-50 exp pilots unless you haven't got a week spare to leave the squadron resting at a base.
Once pilots reach the 50's, the increase in experience per missions flown appears to drop right away. A pilot may jump up an experience point somewhere over the next few missions, becoming increasingly rarer as he approaches the 60 exp point.
After 60, its like watching grass grow.
On the other hand, the more combats a pilot is involved with, the quicker he goes up. Once more, the jumps get appreciably harder to get once you pass the 70+ mark. Experience jumps (or growth) from combat seem to be based more on the amount of intercepts per battle a pilot does than on something like a/c shot down or missions flown that result in a combat.
The above is just based observations from playing the game.
Posted by mdiehl
.....regardless of whether you have any idea of how the game plays.Generally speaking, I tend to advocate positions that (in my view of course) improve the simulation aspect of game design.
My, my, aren't we UV players lucky to have such a generous bloody guardian protecting us from our own ignorance.
Should I enter you in the Matrix Hall of Heroes now?:p
Have no fear,
drink more beer.
drink more beer.
Regarding the issue of whether one judges a product by the results it produces: I'm right, you're not. By the way, since you seem never to have played PW you seem not to see the obvious continuities between PW and UV. Some of the continuities include old, dated, erroneous assumptions, judging from the AARs and combat resolution mechanics.....regardless of whether you have any idea of how the game plays.
What can I say in response to the assertion that people don't need protection if they're not aware that they've been low-graded?My, my, aren't we UV players lucky to have such a generous bloody guardian protecting us from our own ignorance.
In the words of W.T. Sherman: "If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve." You may enter yourself wherever or with whatever you like.Should I enter you in the Matrix Hall of Heroes now?
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Adnan Meshuggi
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am
hm, maybe you are right, but mdiehl allways have a (interesting) story way the americans are better as X... so i tend to ignore the still good aspects of his postOriginally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I think you are stepping too far in by saying his theory is stupid. He does tend to always support the United States, but that does not mean that he is wrong.
While I don't believe that trainig can replace combat experience, no matter how well done the training is, I do believe it can better prepare pilots for combat.
I am personally against using numerical representations for experience that grow over time/combat experience (although I will buy the game if this is how experience is rated). They really are too abstract, and too unrealistic. Pilots did not 'grow' in experience during combat. Even in training, they did not 'grow' but rather 'jumped'. Your first few flights really get you used to the basisics. You are not necessarily '2 points' better after your 2nd flight, as you possibly learned nothing, or learned a lot.
It takes about 100 hours for you to become aquainted to flying, you can do just about anything with your aircraft a civilian pilot should. Combat training is what you learn for the 100+ hours of pilot training. Here would my ranking be.
Raw (representation of 0-80 flying hours)
Green (representation of 80-150 flying hours)
Regular (representation of 200-300 flying hours)
Highly Trained (however many hours Advanced Tactical Training)
Veteran (X many missions)
Elite (X many missions)
The value of the experience levels may follow off this 'crude' system. (not much thought has gone into these numbers)
Raw (old experience level of 30)
Green (old experience level of 50)
Regular (old experience level of 65)
Highly Trained (old experience level of 75 or 80) (only for US)
Veteran (old experience level of 80)
Elite (old experience level of 95)
A similar system like this was used in the game "Carriers at War II". where when you looked at your pilots, you just saw what their experience title was (Ace, Veteran, Regular, Green, etc...). That is all you really need.
So, instead of having pilot values ranging anywhere between 1-99, you would just have them being 30, 50, 65, 75, 80 or 95. Elite pilots would ALWAYS have an experience level of 95, veterans 85, etc... This gets rid of the possibility for EVERY Raw pilot of 30 experience to gain enough experience to all become elite (i.e., 95 experience) which never happened. It also removes the cloud of wondering what a 68 experience valued pilot is, compared to a 65 experience valued pilot (there is not much actual difference)
The disparity between raw, Green and Regular is high, but you note that the experience between highly trained and veteran is not. Realistically, they were given a big chance of survival in being taught what to look out for, however, I still think that veterans have one up on even the highest trained pilot, that being practical experience.
Realistically, once the pilots were deployed in their operational squadrons, especially for the Japanese, not much fuel was avalible for anything other then combat missions. I think that 'on the field training options', like there is in Pacific War, should not exist. It is assumed that a Regular Pilot has been taught just about as much as their IJNAF/IJAAF possibly can, so they only way they can increase in experience is to get 'bloodied'. So, when you get a squadron of 'raw' pilots, and you send them out to combat, you should see the following happen.
X number DIE
Y number remain raw (not everyone learns something on every combat mission)
Z number increase to Veteran status
A number increase to Elite
Due to them being raw...
X > Y > Z > A
Should the group be highly trained:
X number DIE
Y number remain regular
Z number increase to Veteran status
A number increase to Elite
Y > Z > X > A
(the position of X really does depend on the number of casualties, while the position of Z and A depend on the scale of surviors who actually engaged in successful combat)
It is much simpler then a 1-99 system, plus, in my opinion, seems more logical as to what happened to pilots during wartime.
His comment about the 95% IS stupid, because everbody else agree, that a pilot without combt experience hardly can have a "elite" status... maybe in his dreams, but beside this, it can´t happen...
But your "jump" system, that sounds good for me, but even in the difference cat´s we should have more differences, because a great ace like the very best pilots in history ARE much better as everything else, they could kill a lot enemies in inferior planes in hopless situations and survive... in history this happened quite often and i wish that my WitP-Aces are truely superior to anything the enemy can launch against me (if i "developted" such an ace), and because in a game everything is fiction, it should be possible to have american aces with 100 kills, if i don´t withdraw them, and these guys should be superior to a trained newbe... i don´t look through a "axis" glasses... even if a axis ultimate elite ace is more possibile as an allied ultimate ace... for many things... I think also, we should be more strict with "elite".... i think the japanese carrier pilots at the beginning of the war should be veterans, with maybe one or to elite pilots, and the allieds with max. some vets, many average pilots....
but i never want to say that an average pilot can´t shot down an elite ace... just the chance in a one to one combat with NO surprise should be very very low....
i think no game will ever be exactly in this, because to many parameters have influence... like fatigute, moral, personal problems (like the loss of a good friend, shot down by the enemy a few hours ago, etc...) but we defintly shouldn´t listen to mdiehl, as long as he want elite newbies for his personal complex (i have give up to think about his behaviour..)
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi
my opinion about experience levels is, that they never can model a pilot.... if they are so simple like in UV....
Of course it's simple. It's a model. When I asked the question I wasn't looking for a redesign, just some consideration of the idea that Allied pilots should be withdrawn after a period of time.
But the argument that people who had flown 3X missions were inevitably better than people who had flown X is wrong. Even for 20X it's wrong. Japanese and German policy produced a few aces like Hartmann and a lot of pilots dead from making stupid mistakes because they couldn't eat soup with a spoon. And the fact that you think the best Japanese aces were any better than the best US (or Italian or Soviet or Canadian or ..) ones suggests to me that you really don't know what you're talking about here.
As I understand it modern research into what makes a fighter pilot suggests that the edge that makes a well-trained pilot into a great one is in the way his brain is wired. Reflexes, situational awareness, good shooting, those are what count in combat and they can only be learned so much. After some missions the guys who will be a Hartmann, a Bong or a Beurling are already superb whereas Joe Blow could fly hundreds of missions and still be just average or worse. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Japanese had any more naturally skillful pilots than the Americans (etc) and there are good reasons for suspecting that a system that washed out so many trainees pre-war wasn't necessarily looking at their flying skill. So they may have had fewer natural talents ...
Experience is important but too much of it is just as bad as too little. Training is important but it can only develop the abilities the trainee has. The UV system as it stands seems as good as anything else for representing this complex state of affairs without too much needless complication. Adding a routine to count how long an Allied pilot has been with a squadron and withdraw him after X days seems to me to be feasible. Creating a completely different system, and one which doesn't represent reality any better, is unlikely to be feasible and wouldn't be an improvement even if it was.
There *are* other problems with UV's pilot ratings. The absurd skill levels given to the crews of the Zuikaku and Shokaku for sarters. And the levels on the other four carriers are too high as well, just not absurdly so. But these are easily fixed if we get a decent editor with WitP [hint, hint]. I'm happy enough with the system as it is, it just needs tweaking IMO.
Angus
my opinion about experience levels is, that they never can model a pilot.... if they are so simple like in UV....
Of course it's simple. It's a model. When I asked the question I wasn't looking for a redesign, just some consideration of the idea that Allied pilots should be withdrawn after a period of time.
But the argument that people who had flown 3X missions were inevitably better than people who had flown X is wrong. Even for 20X it's wrong. Japanese and German policy produced a few aces like Hartmann and a lot of pilots dead from making stupid mistakes because they couldn't eat soup with a spoon. And the fact that you think the best Japanese aces were any better than the best US (or Italian or Soviet or Canadian or ..) ones suggests to me that you really don't know what you're talking about here.
As I understand it modern research into what makes a fighter pilot suggests that the edge that makes a well-trained pilot into a great one is in the way his brain is wired. Reflexes, situational awareness, good shooting, those are what count in combat and they can only be learned so much. After some missions the guys who will be a Hartmann, a Bong or a Beurling are already superb whereas Joe Blow could fly hundreds of missions and still be just average or worse. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Japanese had any more naturally skillful pilots than the Americans (etc) and there are good reasons for suspecting that a system that washed out so many trainees pre-war wasn't necessarily looking at their flying skill. So they may have had fewer natural talents ...
Experience is important but too much of it is just as bad as too little. Training is important but it can only develop the abilities the trainee has. The UV system as it stands seems as good as anything else for representing this complex state of affairs without too much needless complication. Adding a routine to count how long an Allied pilot has been with a squadron and withdraw him after X days seems to me to be feasible. Creating a completely different system, and one which doesn't represent reality any better, is unlikely to be feasible and wouldn't be an improvement even if it was.
There *are* other problems with UV's pilot ratings. The absurd skill levels given to the crews of the Zuikaku and Shokaku for sarters. And the levels on the other four carriers are too high as well, just not absurdly so. But these are easily fixed if we get a decent editor with WitP [hint, hint]. I'm happy enough with the system as it is, it just needs tweaking IMO.
Angus
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I don't think that he said American's produced fewer aces, just that they were withdrawn for training before they could get numbers of victories as high as Japanese and German aces.
US Ace B might have 30 kills.
IJA Ace C might have 70 kills.
US Ace B flew for a year, and then became a pilot trainer.
IJA Ace C flew for 3 years.
This is what he was getting to, not that the Germans/Japanese produced aces with higher kills because they were better, but they stayed in the front lines more.
However, we all know that battles are won and lost not by the aces, but by the regular pilots, who get the lion share of the kills, but are individually insignificant.
US Ace B might have 30 kills.
IJA Ace C might have 70 kills.
US Ace B flew for a year, and then became a pilot trainer.
IJA Ace C flew for 3 years.
This is what he was getting to, not that the Germans/Japanese produced aces with higher kills because they were better, but they stayed in the front lines more.
However, we all know that battles are won and lost not by the aces, but by the regular pilots, who get the lion share of the kills, but are individually insignificant.
No, he said "so if we have a max of 99, the best historical us aces should have 50 to 55, the best japanese should have 80 (just 2 or 3 of them) and maybe 20 to 30 german aces"Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I don't think that he said American's produced fewer aces, just that they were withdrawn for training before they could get numbers of victories as high as Japanese and German aces.
That's that Japanese and German ace pilots are better not just that they have more kills. And I simply do not believe that. They did have more kills, but as you said that's because they flew more missions and because (in the case of the German experten) the wingmen surrendered opportunities for kills to the ace.
Angus
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
You still are missing the point. He started his levelling of experience bases on the PacWar sequential system (not an absolute system where veterans are veterans after their first few missions) , where you gain experience after every combat mission. Realistically US veteran pilots SHOULD have lower experience levels, based on a system that determines experience by NUMBER of combat missions by the fact that they were rotated after X many missions, while Japanese pilots were not.
Lets say that both pilots start off at 40 experience. After 5 missions, they move up to 50 experience (2 experience points per mission). The US pilot is then rotated back to the training area, while the Japanese aces keep flying. So, by the time they are done (if they survive until 1945, like the two he gave credit for) they have 80 experience. The US Pilots never got past 50 experience, because they were rotated back, while the IJ pilot kept on fighting, and using the PacWar experience system, got more experience from it.
I understand his logic, and it is based off of an old system of experience in PacWar. Invariably, experience based off of number of missions a pilot flies WILL give IJ pilots higher experience over the US who rotates their pilots back to rear areas when they reach a certain experience level.
REALISTICALLY, veteran is veteran. Once you get there, you don't really get any better. REALISTICALLY, the Allied pilot who became a trainer had the same 'experience' as the Japanese pilot who kept on fighting for years. HOWEVER, we are not basing this off of realistic factors, but how the game represents them, from 1-99. His basis on experience is based off of the PacWar model, where you perpetually gain combat experience (i.e., aces are made over time) vs. the concept that combat experience is gained over a relatively short time (i.e., aces are aces due to some ability, not formed through lengthy combat experience).
Lets say that both pilots start off at 40 experience. After 5 missions, they move up to 50 experience (2 experience points per mission). The US pilot is then rotated back to the training area, while the Japanese aces keep flying. So, by the time they are done (if they survive until 1945, like the two he gave credit for) they have 80 experience. The US Pilots never got past 50 experience, because they were rotated back, while the IJ pilot kept on fighting, and using the PacWar experience system, got more experience from it.
I understand his logic, and it is based off of an old system of experience in PacWar. Invariably, experience based off of number of missions a pilot flies WILL give IJ pilots higher experience over the US who rotates their pilots back to rear areas when they reach a certain experience level.
REALISTICALLY, veteran is veteran. Once you get there, you don't really get any better. REALISTICALLY, the Allied pilot who became a trainer had the same 'experience' as the Japanese pilot who kept on fighting for years. HOWEVER, we are not basing this off of realistic factors, but how the game represents them, from 1-99. His basis on experience is based off of the PacWar model, where you perpetually gain combat experience (i.e., aces are made over time) vs. the concept that combat experience is gained over a relatively short time (i.e., aces are aces due to some ability, not formed through lengthy combat experience).
abstract model
Greetings, There are two differing systems. One tracks pilots and awards points/skill level to each pilot in a group.
The other system tracks the group and assigns skill after each mission (or subtracts)
In the first system you could have 1 pilot with exp 99 and another with exp 50.
In the second system you resolve combat based on group rating
group 1 rated 50 will defeat enemy group rated below 50.
In first system new pilots come and go but the old exp/high rated ones still allow group to preform missions (they slowly get killed but it takes a while) In second system it is simply a case of hoping your group has equal or higher rating then enemy. (since only missions where you suffer little or no loss increase rating)
What happens in second system is side that throws the most groups into battle achives the better ratings over time. In this system aircraft type and number of them is more important then simple rating. ( 2 40's are better then 1 80)(this seems to out weigh result from even odds battle (where group 50 always defeats group below 50)
There are two differing training questions. First is training on map group and second is what level a pilot has when he first moveds into a on map airgroup. (I can send an on map airgroup to a base and assign training mission. I can keep it there intill I am happy with level. But what rating does brand new pilot have when he gets to group. What effect does new pilots have on old group (really important in system 2 where it might in fact be better to keep group small and trained rather then large and rookie) Both systems work. Both have merits and problems.
I agree the rating by "title" is easier to justify then rating by number. (number really only works if each and every pilot tracked. Title better defines a group the way an operational commander would "The 305th is a veteran outfit" versus "The 305 has several 80's and a bunch of 50s"
the ideal training routine for new pilots would allow player to decide how many to add to group and when (in quiet period I would let new pilots train to higher level before leaving off map "school" and being added to on map group. The player could simply keep new pilots in school as long as he wanted before adding them. The main issue as I see it is off map pilots not on map pilots. (combat will assign the ultimate level) the real question is what is bottom line. The player should be able to decide "I will make a group of untrained pilots" or "I will keep the boys in training intill they are _____(insert number) this much trained"
So in short if game track group I would like to have input into traing level, I might want fewer/better trained new pilots
If game tracks each pilot then I would like to say only place pilots that achive this point rating in new pilot pool.
Long time readers of Matrix forums will know I can never post an idea in one shot. I need to edit each post many times or make new "expansions" to prior posts.
What I am trying to get at is the question how should airgroups be rated? By pilot or by group?
There are then two questions.
First "entry level" rating second "effect of missions"
Entry Level is the skill of an off map pilot when he joins on map group. If tracking pilots then it is not as large as issue then if tracking group
A group allowed 27 aircraft/pilots that has 18
Pilot tracking method you add 9 new pilots the "old" 18 are uneffected and will preform to their rating. The 9 new pilots come it at what ever level of pilot skill the training program produces.
Group method the 9 new pilots drop the group rating to reflect the new pilot skill 18x60 group +9x30(just example) results in 1/3 under strength 60 group becoming a full strength 50 group.
In combat the under strength 60 group (or several of them) would preform better then the full size 50 group (unless the new size made the differance in combat)
In single pilot tracking the rating of each pilot is used for each aircombat so one pilot might score victories while the rest ofgroup was shot down. By using group rating the whole group wins or loses. (is this making sense?)
The other system tracks the group and assigns skill after each mission (or subtracts)
In the first system you could have 1 pilot with exp 99 and another with exp 50.
In the second system you resolve combat based on group rating
group 1 rated 50 will defeat enemy group rated below 50.
In first system new pilots come and go but the old exp/high rated ones still allow group to preform missions (they slowly get killed but it takes a while) In second system it is simply a case of hoping your group has equal or higher rating then enemy. (since only missions where you suffer little or no loss increase rating)
What happens in second system is side that throws the most groups into battle achives the better ratings over time. In this system aircraft type and number of them is more important then simple rating. ( 2 40's are better then 1 80)(this seems to out weigh result from even odds battle (where group 50 always defeats group below 50)
There are two differing training questions. First is training on map group and second is what level a pilot has when he first moveds into a on map airgroup. (I can send an on map airgroup to a base and assign training mission. I can keep it there intill I am happy with level. But what rating does brand new pilot have when he gets to group. What effect does new pilots have on old group (really important in system 2 where it might in fact be better to keep group small and trained rather then large and rookie) Both systems work. Both have merits and problems.
I agree the rating by "title" is easier to justify then rating by number. (number really only works if each and every pilot tracked. Title better defines a group the way an operational commander would "The 305th is a veteran outfit" versus "The 305 has several 80's and a bunch of 50s"
the ideal training routine for new pilots would allow player to decide how many to add to group and when (in quiet period I would let new pilots train to higher level before leaving off map "school" and being added to on map group. The player could simply keep new pilots in school as long as he wanted before adding them. The main issue as I see it is off map pilots not on map pilots. (combat will assign the ultimate level) the real question is what is bottom line. The player should be able to decide "I will make a group of untrained pilots" or "I will keep the boys in training intill they are _____(insert number) this much trained"
So in short if game track group I would like to have input into traing level, I might want fewer/better trained new pilots
If game tracks each pilot then I would like to say only place pilots that achive this point rating in new pilot pool.
Long time readers of Matrix forums will know I can never post an idea in one shot. I need to edit each post many times or make new "expansions" to prior posts.
What I am trying to get at is the question how should airgroups be rated? By pilot or by group?
There are then two questions.
First "entry level" rating second "effect of missions"
Entry Level is the skill of an off map pilot when he joins on map group. If tracking pilots then it is not as large as issue then if tracking group
A group allowed 27 aircraft/pilots that has 18
Pilot tracking method you add 9 new pilots the "old" 18 are uneffected and will preform to their rating. The 9 new pilots come it at what ever level of pilot skill the training program produces.
Group method the 9 new pilots drop the group rating to reflect the new pilot skill 18x60 group +9x30(just example) results in 1/3 under strength 60 group becoming a full strength 50 group.
In combat the under strength 60 group (or several of them) would preform better then the full size 50 group (unless the new size made the differance in combat)
In single pilot tracking the rating of each pilot is used for each aircombat so one pilot might score victories while the rest ofgroup was shot down. By using group rating the whole group wins or loses. (is this making sense?)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I agree with Mogami, there is a big difference between pilot and squadron/group experience.
The Japanese were also keen in putting all of their top pilots in a few Sentai's. It would be interesting to have the ability to transfer pilots around, making these uber-elite formations.
However, to throw another bone into the equation, should every pilot be able to attain the highest level of ability? Should the game allow for every pilot to be an elite? Not every pilot was, nor could they be. To only limit pilot experience by their death/retirement is basically saying that anyone can become a Richtofen, and it takes years of fighting to become one, when not everyone can, and it happens over a short period of time.
It would be interesting to allow a fluxuating pool of pilot replacements.
Many factors would have to be taken consideration of, basically just for the Japanese.
#1. Number of trainer aircraft avalible. A lower number of these mean that if you increase the number of pilots, their flying time/month will be less as there would be more pilots to planes.
#2. Fuel expendatures. If your fuel pool is large, you can either save it for a rainy day, or spend it training more troops (whatever trainer planes will be used more often).
If you want to increase your pilot pool you could do many things.
A) Lower the number of hours required for a released pilot (therefore it takes shorter time to get these guys in the battlefield).
B) Increase fuel use for training (increases numbers of pilots without sacrificing time/quality).
If you want to have quality over quantity you could just do option B), and/or increase the training time.
I also do not think that Japanese training can match US training, primarily due to the lack of combat trainers (there were plenty of pilot trainers, just not combat pilot trainers). I guess this will depend on wether or not the game will allow the Japanese player to send their vets back to become pilot trainers. I don't think it will speed up pilot training, just make whatever pilots there are 'better' at surviving their first rounds of combat.
I am still not comfortable about using a 1-100 system for experience. Experience really does change in forms of jumps when it comes to combat. Either you are green/trained, or you are veteran/elite. There is no real inbetween. Pilots don't win in combat because they are 3 points more experienced then their opponent, they win due to factors such as the attributes of their aircraft, numerical superiority, early warning.
However, if a 1-100 point system is still used I think it is still workable.
The Japanese were also keen in putting all of their top pilots in a few Sentai's. It would be interesting to have the ability to transfer pilots around, making these uber-elite formations.
However, to throw another bone into the equation, should every pilot be able to attain the highest level of ability? Should the game allow for every pilot to be an elite? Not every pilot was, nor could they be. To only limit pilot experience by their death/retirement is basically saying that anyone can become a Richtofen, and it takes years of fighting to become one, when not everyone can, and it happens over a short period of time.
It would be interesting to allow a fluxuating pool of pilot replacements.
Many factors would have to be taken consideration of, basically just for the Japanese.
#1. Number of trainer aircraft avalible. A lower number of these mean that if you increase the number of pilots, their flying time/month will be less as there would be more pilots to planes.
#2. Fuel expendatures. If your fuel pool is large, you can either save it for a rainy day, or spend it training more troops (whatever trainer planes will be used more often).
If you want to increase your pilot pool you could do many things.
A) Lower the number of hours required for a released pilot (therefore it takes shorter time to get these guys in the battlefield).
B) Increase fuel use for training (increases numbers of pilots without sacrificing time/quality).
If you want to have quality over quantity you could just do option B), and/or increase the training time.
I also do not think that Japanese training can match US training, primarily due to the lack of combat trainers (there were plenty of pilot trainers, just not combat pilot trainers). I guess this will depend on wether or not the game will allow the Japanese player to send their vets back to become pilot trainers. I don't think it will speed up pilot training, just make whatever pilots there are 'better' at surviving their first rounds of combat.
I am still not comfortable about using a 1-100 system for experience. Experience really does change in forms of jumps when it comes to combat. Either you are green/trained, or you are veteran/elite. There is no real inbetween. Pilots don't win in combat because they are 3 points more experienced then their opponent, they win due to factors such as the attributes of their aircraft, numerical superiority, early warning.
However, if a 1-100 point system is still used I think it is still workable.
but i never want to say that an average pilot can´t shot down an elite ace... just the chance in a one to one combat with NO surprise should be very very low....
The vast majority of WW2 combat aces, including the German, Italian (yes, there were several), Japanese, and Soviet ones, and many of the UK ones prior to 1942 died in combat. Of these, the vast majority were shot down by people who were not aces at the time. In almost every case the blame may be laid to an ambush situation, or target fixation (ace lines up on a target but is blindsided by some other a/c).
The "one to one combat" thing gives you an excuse to waffle. Fact is, there were almost *no* one to one combats in the war. Pretty much all combats involved multiple a/c on both sides, although the total number of a/c involved "locally" was often in the area of 1:1.
So, if you imagine *one* fantastic veteran Japanese ace in the sky flying any variant of the A6M, and *one* adequately trained, rookie USN/USMC pilot flying an F4U or F6F with which he is very familiar, the smart money bets that the Japanese pilot dies. If the Allied pilot is flying an F4F it's anybody's game. The results from 1942 prove it, and all the ininformed wack wack make-believe fanciful bulls__t about air combat based on what you think ought to happen rather than what really does happen won't make your wishes come true.
By the way, the last time an American pilot shot down an enemy ace that I can recall from the books, wa sin Viet Nam. The USN pilot had combat time but one or no kills. The Chinese pilot, a major, with something like 11 vicitories, was flying a faster, more maneuverable plane (a MiG 19, IIRC, vs. a Douglas F4). The two were engaged in a vertical climbing scissors, when the MiG attempted to roll out. The F4 pilot took him out with an AIM missile.
Anyone familiar with the engagement feel free to fill in the details that I overlooked or got wrong.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
I found a link. The engagement was Cunningham (pilot) & Driscoll (radar intercept officer. Note to AM: that means he was in the back seat, not in another plane) in an F4J based out of USS Constellation, vs. Col. Toom, in a MiG-21.
http://www.aerosphere.com/Magazine/HIST ... ngham.html
[This is not a plug for Cunningham, by the way, it's an anecdote about *GOOD TRAINING*.]
http://www.aerosphere.com/Magazine/HIST ... ngham.html
[This is not a plug for Cunningham, by the way, it's an anecdote about *GOOD TRAINING*.]
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Invariably, there are individuals, irregardless of training, that are very good at something. They are not perfect, but they are good enough that after (at least) 11 contacts with the enemy, they were victorious. Possibly this US pilot flying the F4 was an 'ace' but had yet to get there by this point? Was it necessarily the training that got him the kill? Possibly, but it was also possibly due to his ability.
You can list off the aces of everything, tanks, aircraft, submarines, etc... It does not matter that they die (nobody is PERFECT), but rather that the CHANCE of them killing an opponent over being killed is much higher. Training does increase the chance that a 'new' pilot will survive (not necessarily get a combat kill) their first engagements.
Cunningham's training did help him survive, but he also said it was his own "discipline", which may be one of the key elements of becoming an ace.
Whittman, an undisputed tank ace, had fantastic disipline, as well as a good eye for spotting concieled AT positions. He was well trained, but so too were many other tank commanders, who lived as long, and fought in as many battles, but never came close to the number of victories.
Many "potential aces" were killed in their first few missions, before they became aces. Training increases the chance for these "potential aces", like Cunningham, to survive to become aces. Training alone does not make aces.
You can list off the aces of everything, tanks, aircraft, submarines, etc... It does not matter that they die (nobody is PERFECT), but rather that the CHANCE of them killing an opponent over being killed is much higher. Training does increase the chance that a 'new' pilot will survive (not necessarily get a combat kill) their first engagements.
Cunningham's training did help him survive, but he also said it was his own "discipline", which may be one of the key elements of becoming an ace.
Whittman, an undisputed tank ace, had fantastic disipline, as well as a good eye for spotting concieled AT positions. He was well trained, but so too were many other tank commanders, who lived as long, and fought in as many battles, but never came close to the number of victories.
Many "potential aces" were killed in their first few missions, before they became aces. Training increases the chance for these "potential aces", like Cunningham, to survive to become aces. Training alone does not make aces.