TRACOM: to send or not to send?

[vonTirpitz]

ORIGINAL: mc3744

Ok, I got to the point in my first game with the AI (March '42) where I have some fighter pilots that can be sent to TRACOM (do the Japs have TRACOM too?).

Now the question is: do I want to deprive myself of the few good fighter pilots I have?
Is it worth it to send them to TRACOM?
I guess the answer would be yes if the squadron is to be withdrawn, but what about when it's not?

Thanks guys [:)]

I chose to make use of Tracom from the start and it seems to be doing a good job IMHO.

So far, the accelerated pilots have helped smooth out and reduce the HI spend each month and has helped pilot XP as the war progresses. Towards the end game I hope to still have enough elite pilots assigned to Tracom to make a difference.

In the end, the whole Tracom concept is simply another tool that can be used or not used however the player sees fit. While I have found it useful for my game I understand that others may not have the patience to fully appreciate the benefits it offers.

IJ Army instructors accelerate training of 150 pilots from month-cycle 10
IJ Army instructors accelerate training of 9 pilots from month-cycle 6
IJ Navy instructors accelerate training of 1 pilots from month-cycle 9
IJ Navy instructors accelerate training of 4 pilots from month-cycle 8
IJ Navy instructors accelerate training of 14 pilots from month-cycle 7
IJ Navy instructors accelerate training of 2 pilots from month-cycle 4
IJ Navy instructors accelerate training of 282 pilots from month-cycle 1

[Cap Mandrake]

Well...OK....maybe Von Tirpitz knows what he is talking about..but he is the only one!

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: olperfessor

Parking 81+ pilots in TraCom . . . Doesn't that mean that their own development is stopped, whereas an 81+ pilot in a rear-area on-map squadron can gain sills while being held back for use later in the war? I realize that once a fighter pilot reaches a certain air-to-air rating further training will not
Increase this skill, and I realize that training a fighter pilot in other skills is often irrelevant.

The only drawbacks I can think of to keeping aces training on-map are the slight chances of operational loss or surprise enemy raid if those grainy squadrons are not far in the rear.

Here's another TraCom puzzle to me: do 81+ pilots accelerate training of all pilots, regardless of type (fighter, bomber, patrol, transport)?

Thats the reason. Op losses. As I said already, I personally dont use TRACOM. And yes, the pilots moving through the pool have no affiliation to fighter, bomber, ect until they are actually drawn from the pool ao all would be affected. And for the record, you do NOT need pilots in TRACOM to get pilots acclerated. I just had 7 Chinese pilots accelerate last turn [:D]

Exactly, I've lost good pilots to 'ops losses' before, even sitting in a backwater on just cap/training. You can risk an ops loss by leaving them in squadrons, or completely remove that risk in TRACOM. Plus in TRACOM they can't get hit by the occasional attack on the base that they would be subject too in an active group.

Save the good pilots for the good planes, during the first (and especially the middle) put mediocre pilots in mediocre planes.

[vonTirpitz]

I cannot claim to fully understand what I am talking about though. [:D]

However, it is important to note that the advantages of TRACOM were not really that noticeable until I got into 43. Up until that point whatever advantages it gave me were much more subtle and less obvious to me.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Well...OK....maybe Von Tirpitz knows what he is talking about..but he is the only one!

[CV 2]

Any idea what fields I am missing trying to upload to post a .jpg? (and yes I know how to do it, but after I select the file and tell it to upload I get an error that says missing required fields).

Im not saying that TRACOM doesnt accelerate pilots. Im saying that accelerating them doesnt matter. I have a save from a ways back in a no-holds-barred game where I had put over 2000 navy pilots into squadrons for training (most have experience in the mid-30s). The pilots "In Pool" numbers were reduced, but the ones "in training" werent. If I can figure out what the "missing fields" error is, I'd post the screen shot.

[WLockard]

ORIGINAL: vonTirpitz

I cannot claim to fully understand what I am talking about though. [:D]

However, it is important to note that the advantages of TRACOM were not really that noticeable until I got into 43. Up until that point whatever advantages it gave me were much more subtle and less obvious to me.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Well...OK....maybe Von Tirpitz knows what he is talking about..but he is the only one!

Can you tell us about how many pilots you have in TRACOM?

[Sardaukar]

I used to use TRACOM as Allies to create pool of elite pilots you can use to reinforce front-line units in heavy combat with elite pilots easily. Allies can use just General Reserve  for that or Get Veteran (tho TRACOM makes it easier to find ones you want and prevents you accidentally assigning them into other units). And Allies really do not need TRACOM, it is more of tool for Japanese.

[vonTirpitz]

ORIGINAL: WLockard

Can you tell us about how many pilots you have in TRACOM?

Over the first 12 months of the war I built up slightly under 300 IJN and 100 IJA pilots in TRACOM. About every 3-4 months I would grab as many veterans as possible and move them into training command. It was rather Ad Hoc as the methodology was fairly random over that time period. I haven't paid much attention to it outside of those moments.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

(like China), but you will hardly have any qualified pilots to send there [:D]

Rare doesn't mean never though. Take a look at this screen shot where I have two Chinese pilots competing for the top pilot kill spot (in third and fourth places).

The AI decided to start sending unescorted Bettys to Ghengtu since I am landing supply there from Ledo.

The Chinese I-16 drivers rose to the occasion.

[Shark7]

Honestly, I think the Chinese AF would have done better given some better airframes to work with. Their pilots were probably trained as well as any pilot in the sponsor nations, but even a well trained pilot will have problems in airframes that are 2 generations obsolete.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Honestly, I think the Chinese AF would have done better given some better airframes to work with. Their pilots were probably trained as well as any pilot in the sponsor nations, but even a well trained pilot will have problems in airframes that are 2 generations obsolete.

Agreed. Later in the war, when they began to receieve ample supplies of phone books so they could see over the instrument panel, their success rate soared.

[mc3744]

IMHO the AI as Japan (I haven't tried it yet from the Japanese point of view) is quite good for the first couple of months, then it collapses.
I'm in 42/04 in my first game vs. the AI and it's already taking an unbelievable beating (no reload, I play it as a PBEM).
It has decided to take Lunga and Tulagi and keeps getting hammered by my strong garrison already in place.
Port Moresby and surrounding area it's another massacre of Japs.
And it got stuck in Moulmein with naval sorties up to Akyab where they are sunk by my LBAs and surface TFs.

Frankly I was surprised it was so good the first few months given the huge amount of variables to consider.
But I feel the AI is just a training dummy, there's no comparison whatsoever with a human opponent.

I don't think you could get those results with any decent human player. But I might be wrong of course.

What I'm saying is that my original question referred to PBEM games. They are completely different from the AI (again my humble opinion).