0 range

[Rexor]

Hey gents,

I noticed in the AARs that players often set their training aircraft at zero range. Why? (Sorry if this question sounds stupid, I'm still getting my sea legs...)

[anarchyintheuk]

The shorter the range the less op losses to planes and less fatigue incurred for pilots. 0 range means they only fly in-hex.

[Rexor]

Got it. So the trade-off is less experience gained per day?

[anarchyintheuk]

I've never noticed any difference in results between short- and long-ranged training. Others may have different views.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Rexor

Got it. So the trade-off is less experience gained per day?

Nope. No trade off. There is less fatigue and OPS losses though. It's all good.

[Smeulders]

As a counterpoint, I remain unconvinced that range matters for training missions. My pilots are all training at normal (or maybe even extended) range and I don't notice any significant ops losses in my training squadrons. Personally I have never seen hard data suggesting range has an effect on ops losses in training. It does certainly have an effect on normal missions and I think people are simply assuming it has an effect on training squadrons as well because of this.

[GreyJoy]

Somewhere, FWIW, i read that for what concerns game mechanics, when you think about training you have to think about "classes" and not actual flying missions. That's why a training squadron, even with 0 airframes, still trains up normally its pilots up to 70s

[Rexor]

Thanks for the replies! I think I'll go with zero range for now as a rule of thumb.

(And right now I need as many rules of thumb as I can get my newbie hands on, else I'll lose my mind.)[:D]

[Nomad]

As a further note, I have moved all of the aviation support from a base with 6 squadrons, all on 100% training. None of the aircraft were damaged even weeks later and all of the pilots were gaining experience and skill points.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

As a further note, I have moved all of the aviation support from a base with 6 squadrons, all on 100% training. None of the aircraft were damaged even weeks later and all of the pilots were gaining experience and skill points.

So ka? Really?...

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Rexor

Hey gents,

I noticed in the AARs that players often set their training aircraft at zero range. Why? (Sorry if this question sounds stupid, I'm still getting my sea legs...)

I believe that range 0 benefit is only valid if you do not set the training to 100%. So if you ask me its just a habit to
prevent inadvertedly increasing fatigue if the pilots fly other missions too.
In case you use any other setting than 100% (e.g. CAP30, Training70) range settings factor in.


Training mission is in fact a "theory course", the pilots do not actually fly missions. You will notice that
training 100% does not increase mission count of the pilots, so wherever the fatigue of pilot training comes
from it does not seem to be flying.

As a personal comment, I have always wondered why it was decided to remove training by flying, more so because
historically the majority of casualties and op losses came from pilot training and not combat, but I guess there is, as always, a reason...

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

...Training mission is in fact a "theory course", the pilots do not actually fly missions. You will notice that
training 100% does not increase mission count of the pilots, so wherever the fatigue of pilot training comes
from it does not seem to be flying.

As a personal comment, I have always wondered why it was decided to remove training by flying, more so because
historically the majority of casualties and op losses came from pilot training and not combat, but I guess there is, as always, a reason...

Not quite accurate.[:)]

I have recently described the on map training as "class room" to explain to newbies how pilots without airplanes can still improve their experience/skill. However if there are ready planes available, they will take to the air. This can be seen occasionally when a message flashes by to report "x squadron training mission has been caught up in y raid". Of course if a player conducts all their training deep in their rear areas, away from any possible enemy raids, they won't see this message.[;)]

You are quite correct however that the game comes nowhere near close to replicating the casualty and operational losses incurred during RL pilot training.

Alfred

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

...Training mission is in fact a "theory course", the pilots do not actually fly missions. You will notice that
training 100% does not increase mission count of the pilots, so wherever the fatigue of pilot training comes
from it does not seem to be flying.

As a personal comment, I have always wondered why it was decided to remove training by flying, more so because
historically the majority of casualties and op losses came from pilot training and not combat, but I guess there is, as always, a reason...

Not quite accurate.[:)]

I have recently described the on map training as "class room" to explain to newbies how pilots without airplanes can still improve their experience/skill. However if there are ready planes available, they will take to the air. This can be seen occasionally when a message flashes by to report "x squadron training mission has been caught up in y raid". Of course if a player conducts all their training deep in their rear areas, away from any possible enemy raids, they won't see this message.[;)]

You are quite correct however that the game comes nowhere near close to replicating the casualty and operational losses incurred during RL pilot training.

Alfred

I know that message set, Alfred.

The question is though whether the "x squadron training mission has been caught up in y raid" is truly referring to an airborne training mission
surprised by incoming planes or is a result of pilots scrambling although they are on a training setting - like it happens on "rest setting" - with a penalty.

The message could either describe accurately what happens or may just be a help to visualize an abstraction.

Based on how training setting works (training taking place independent of # of planes, not diminishing with 0 planes and no pilot mission count increase,
no op losses due to training missions, no plane fatigue increase due to training missions) I am rather convinced it is the latter.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Rexor

Hey gents,

I noticed in the AARs that players often set their training aircraft at zero range. Why? (Sorry if this question sounds stupid, I'm still getting my sea legs...)

I believe that range 0 benefit is only valid if you do not set the training to 100%. So if you ask me its just a habit to
prevent inadvertedly increasing fatigue if the pilots fly other missions too.
In case you use any other setting than 100% (e.g. CAP30, Training70) range settings factor in.


Training mission is in fact a "theory course", the pilots do not actually fly missions. You will notice that
training 100% does not increase mission count of the pilots, so wherever the fatigue of pilot training comes
from it does not seem to be flying.

As a personal comment, I have always wondered why it was decided to remove training by flying, more so because
historically the majority of casualties and op losses came from pilot training and not combat, but I guess there is, as always, a reason...

So are you saying that your dedicated training squadrons in restricted HQs for example, do NOT have to have planes? I can have a sqaudron full of pilots, zero planes and still get same effect?

[michaelm75au]

Training without plane time does not improve skills as much as flying.

The on-the-ground training happens indepently of flight training - skill is gained from leader and more experienced pilots so to speak. So can be less effective once pilot skills start to close on each other.

So to maimize training, you need to fly.

[LoBaron]

Thanks Michael! Are you referring to flying as in "flying missions", or do you mean my assumption is incorrect
and a squad on 100% actually does fly its planes even when not target of a bombing attack?
 
I am asking because of the the above mentioned missing mission count and plane fatigue increase as well as
(at least from my experience) the same skill increase independent of number of planes.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Training without plane time does not improve skills as much as flying.

The on-the-ground training happens indepently of flight training - skill is gained from leader and more experienced pilots so to speak. So can be less effective once pilot skills start to close on each other.

So to maimize training, you need to fly.

I have seen numerous posts that leader and more experienced pilots has nothing to do with how fast skill and exp are gained...??

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Training without plane time does not improve skills as much as flying.

The on-the-ground training happens indepently of flight training - skill is gained from leader and more experienced pilots so to speak. So can be less effective once pilot skills start to close on each other.

So to maimize training, you need to fly.

I have seen numerous posts that leader and more experienced pilots has nothing to do with how fast skill and exp are gained...??

Well, michaelm is the coder and has access to code...

[Sredni]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Well, michaelm is the coder and has access to code...

Which leaves me confused as well though now because I've seen those posts too, including some really old ones where people did some pretty thorough and conclusive testing to find this.

I'm wondering now if we're doing something wrong in our training... though what it could be leaves me baffled.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Training without plane time does not improve skills as much as flying.

The on-the-ground training happens indepently of flight training - skill is gained from leader and more experienced pilots so to speak. So can be less effective once pilot skills start to close on each other.

So to maimize training, you need to fly.

I have seen numerous posts that leader and more experienced pilots has nothing to do with how fast skill and exp are gained...??

True, there were tests that seemed to indicate this. If I recall correctly, the test only looked at pilots straight out of the pools, so very low experience. These mainly train very fast no matter the circumstances, so it is hard to see the extra effect the better leaders and other pilots give. If Michealm says there is an effect, there is an effect, though how big is hard to tell.