upcoming patch - question

[tigercub]

I think there is a case for bomber crews flying combat mission (not training mission) getting more experience from there missions, fighters can shot down planes and get a benefit... bombers can sink a BATTLESHIP and get nil experience if I am not mistaken.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: tigercub

I think there is a case for bomber crews flying combat mission (not training mission) getting more experience from there missions, fighters can shot down planes and get a benefit... bombers can sink a BATTLESHIP and get nil experience if I am not mistaken.

In WWII, fighter pilots quickly learned a lot about defence by being involved in combat. Not very much about shooting other aircraft down. Strangely enough, bomber crews improved a lot more by engaging in training than they did on live bomber missions. In each case, I think it reflected the availability or non-availability of immediate and relevant feedback.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs...

not really, in the case of the Japanese it´s not experience based (if it´s still the same as in WITP, which it is for the Allied). If there enough shis spotted in a port, your Kates/Nells/Betties will drop 800kg bombs, no matter if 30 exp or 80 exp. If they hit, well that´s another story.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

yeah, doubt it has something to do with being biased one or the other way in this case.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs...

not really, in the case of the Japanese it´s not experience based (if it´s still the same as in WITP, which it is for the Allied). If there enough shis spotted in a port, your Kates/Nells/Betties will drop 800kg bombs, no matter if 30 exp or 80 exp. If they hit, well that´s another story.

Really? Because I just a few turns ago bombed one port, and there was only a few xAKs in that port (5 my recon planes told), and all kates used 800 kg bombs. But these guys were my elite carrier pilots...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Puhis



I think this same rule applies for japanese too. Kates/Nells/Bettys dropping 800 kg or 250 kg bombs...

not really, in the case of the Japanese it´s not experience based (if it´s still the same as in WITP, which it is for the Allied). If there enough shis spotted in a port, your Kates/Nells/Betties will drop 800kg bombs, no matter if 30 exp or 80 exp. If they hit, well that´s another story.

Really? Because I just a few turns ago bombed one port, and there was only a few xAKs in that port (5 my recon planes told), and all kates used 800 kg bombs. But these guys were my elite carrier pilots...

I have never seen a port in WITP being bombed with 800kg bombs if there were no ships. And I can´t remember having heard about an experience need to use the 800kg bomb, could be wrong about it though as I never had inexperienced frontline IJN bomber pilots in WITP. [:D]

[JohnDillworth]

So maybe bomber experience is what needs to be patched? I have played through to 1945 and had maybe 1 or 2 pilots hit 7o experience. Many stayed the 50's despite 50+ missions. This becomes a particular problem when b-29's show up and you are sending out crews with 40's and 50's experience. No way to train crews and combat seems to do little for them.

[Canoerebel]

Wow, I hope the developers are reading this thread. This was my experience in my game with Miller, but I attributed it to my lack of of an intense pilot-training regimen. Even then, though, I was surprised that pilots in fighter and bomber squadrons that were regularly engage in successful attacks over months or years into 1945 had experience levels from 40s to 60s. I never got anything close to the kind of pilot quality you would expect to find with the Allies.

Judging by the comments in this thread to this point, it appears that Allied players are uniformly having this experience as they go deeply into the game - 1943, 1944 and even 1945. Ominous.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

Mike - this is untrue and unfair to the development team. [:(]

I wasn't referring to the development team..., but to the forum discussions from which pressure for game change develop.

[n01487477]

Not that I'm contributing a lot to the above discussion but while I was doing the R&D test for the other thread I also had two groups training...

The one below is for LB on general training (ok so not the best setting). 582 turns, exp 35 -> 56.

And I had a fighter group 100% training on escort started 35 -> 71.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: tigercub

I think there is a case for bomber crews flying combat mission (not training mission) getting more experience from there missions, fighters can shot down planes and get a benefit... bombers can sink a BATTLESHIP and get nil experience if I am not mistaken.

In WWII, fighter pilots quickly learned a lot about defence by being involved in combat. Not very much about shooting other aircraft down. Strangely enough, bomber crews improved a lot more by engaging in training than they did on live bomber missions. In each case, I think it reflected the availability or non-availability of immediate and relevant feedback.

For one thing, on a bombing run when you are under enemy fire, it is really hard to justify sticking around to see if your aim was true or not, where on a practice run, you can see where you dropped, where they landed and learn to adjust your aim.

Also it makes sense that bombers don't get a lot of xp from being under fighter attack...bombers don't manuevre as a general rules (particularly the heavies) they just stay on course and hope their guns can manage to hit the bad guys. If there was a defensive gunnery stat, then bombers should be able to improve at that.

[Flying Tiger]

ORIGINAL: War History

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: War History

The game "Pacific War" (Grigsby SSI 1995) had it set up so there was a percentage chance from 70 to 90 (over 90 experience was a 100% chance) so 5% per experience point of using alternate ordinance. I wouldn't be surprised if this same formula made it into stock WitP, but I can not confirm this.

(I'll point out that in Pacific War, the Japanese got sig int rolls BTW. Players were allowed to target various bases and could do so multiple times to obtain more info on the base and yes if memory serves, the allies got 3 to 4 times the amount the Japanese got).

Well in Civilization, the barbarian hordes can appear without need of a city to spawn them from. Try and do that as the human player!

I guess I don't understand your point. Would this be an example of "trolling" that gets so many people banned from this forum? Because I can't see another reason for it other than trying to start something. Please stop.

"trolling"???? No, thats when some guy wanders through threads trying to find something to pick on and start a fight. "joking" is totally different, but it requires "humor" - which is apparently a scarce resource!

[Sheytan]

[:D][:D][:D] Sad, but true!

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Like I´ve mentioned earlier, having squadrons with a total of several hundred missions and the average exp is around 65. These bomber squadrons have been bombing since day one of the war and are now in Nov 43. And experience is only going up due to missions, no chance to use the training mission, you will never reach 70 within the war using training so that´s not a possibility either. So, I think it should be definetely lowered because the expectation to train these groups up was a misinterpretation of how the game turns out IMO. Please don´t take this as a negative critism, I just think that if the feature is still there and the ppl in charge thought it should stay there, then the feature also should be changed to meet the new conditions in AE as you just can´t take WITP standard for AE.

A reasonable request..., but I wouldn't hold my breath for implementation because it would only help the Allies. You can get a serious (sometimes heated) discussion going over even the most rediculous ideas if they will help Japan---but even a well documented and grounded idea that helps the Allies runs into the "But the Allies are going to win anyway" complaint. It's like the political situation some pundit commented on last night. All of the heat in this election has been about RIGHT vs. LEFT..., when what's important is RIGHT vs. WRONG".

[:D][:D][:D][:D]