Pilot Training Modifications, Proposal

[LoBaron]

Michael and all others who would like to chime in, below there is a early initial concept
of how pilot training could be remodelled.

If you got questions about how this idea developed, you might want to read:
tm.asp?m=2997688

Please limit comments to the concept below, or modifications of the theme, I welcome a
discussion about alternatives but prefer them to take place in another thread.


I am aware that I know not much about how the game models the training/combat exp/skill increase
in detail - I might have few good guesses -, so I am unable to estimate whether such changes are
still possible. So any dev familiar to this part of the game, any participation would be highly
apprechiated.

The concept was chosen by the following prerequisites:

- enhance "realism" and "hisorical accuracy" of the training/skill/exp part of the game
- reintroduce the currently obsolete off map training as a system with impact
- avoid increase of gameplay complexity by the changes
- avoid unbalancing gameplay by the changes (very difficult to estimate currently, negative
impact on Allied side early war, negative impact on Japanese side late war?)


If we limit our discussion to what I currently see as "doable but high impact"
and do some testing besides the usual beta (e.g. a separate .exe), would the below
(or part of the below) be possible?

Changes proposed:

- lower the threshold/cap for skill gain through training to 50
- keep avg. training time required to reach 50 as it currently is to reach 70
- decouple speed of skill gain through training from exp value (?)
- govern skill threshold/cap below exp 50 by exp value (e.g. exp 30 -> max potential skill 30)
- increase skill gain through combat (just a tiny notch)
- slightly lower the exp cap required to use Allied late war bombs (?)


Effects on the Grand Campaign on first glance (primary effects and implications
of those effects on further game aspects):


- lowers overall percentage of high skill pilots without combat experience (realism)
- reduces disadvantage for high exp training (realism)
- increases disadvantege when training vlow exp pilots
- restores offmap training as a system with impact on pilot quality (and so a historical quality curve
to a certain point)
- increases value/impact of the smaller percentage of high skill pilots
- reduces success rolls in calculations involving pilot quality (any combat involving a/c)

I wonder if this is something worth pursuing. None of the above would increase complexity
gameplaywise, I did try to take this into account when searching for possible modifications
to the current model.
I am aware about potential balancing changes introduced by these modifications but consider them
to enhance historical feel of the game without offsetting balance for one side completely. To
estimate the impact GC playtesting would be required anyway.

[awadley]

LoBaron, I have followed your thoughts and like the concept. I hope some additional constructive thought can be put into the thread.
++

[Cavalry Corp]

I like the idea of more exp from combat than training
I do not have issue with exp over say 50 in training but as it gets over say 50 it should slow. Right now it seems a bit fast on map. I am sure training did not mean flying everyday.

[witpqs]

I think there is more discussion on this going on in LoBaron's other thread. Pulling back training is probably not the best recommendation.

[ADB123]

I like the current Training System so I am opposed to any changes to it.

My opinion is that LoBaron's suggestions will make Training even more onerous, and thus detract from the enjoyment of the game.

My preference would be to see the suggestions implemented into an alternative scenario, similar to what is done in the "Babes" scenarios.

So for the sake of those of us who like the current system in the official releases, please don't change it.

Thanks -

[JuanG]

My 2 cents on this issue...

I find the biggest problem to be that rate of skill gains goes noticably down after around 50xp; this means that getting 30/30 pilots out of the offmap pool is preferable to getting 50/50s out, as the former will develop skills to 60-70 by the time xp hits 50-55.

My suggestion would be to simply remove the penalty for skill gains above certain xp levels, or even make high xp help learn skills much below the xp level, though this should probably only be allowed for related skills like GrndB to NavB (to stop ASW proliferation of LBA squadrons).

This would make the availability of 50/50 pilots more of an advantage, as in the time the IJ player trains at 30/30 to 50/60, you could train them to say 60/70.

However, I think there should be more control over the offmap portion along with clearer effects for sending veterans to TRACOM beyond just increases in quantity.

This, coupled with being a little stricter with on map training (needing a full squadron of aircraft to train all the pilots, instead of 48 guys flying 2 Ki-27s, and maybe harsher fatigue buildup for training rates above 60-70%?), should fix most of the problems.

[Barb]

I would like to see NIGHT skill introduced (or exchanged for some other skill). Could have significant impact.

[Heeward]

The cost of training for both sides seems to small.
There needs to be more wastage of planes and pilots - especially planes.  Right now there is no significant downside for Japan to train pilot in large quantities right from the start.

This may mean adding advanced trainers to the game as a new plane(s).

Number of pilots that may train a day in a squadron  is equal to X times number of planes in the squadron. - Decide on how many training sorties can be launched a day per plane - say two to four.

 The experience number and skill value needs to be defined in terms of:
Hours of Training
Number of Combat Sorties.

Therefore
What does 30 hours of basic training mean?
What does 350 of advance training mean?
What does a 50 mission pilot with 200 hours of training mean?

Are you going to introduce advanced training on map for the allies?

The most important thing you can do though is to allow players to select more then one pilot at a time.
Example I want to graduate seven pilots from a squadron - let me select all at once and then one click transfer them. Right now I only look at my training squadrons twice a month to graduate and replenish pilots, as it such a onerous task.

Lastly - How are your going to model individual pilot replacements that come from Europe in August 1945 plus?

[CT Grognard]

ORIGINAL: Heeward


Lastly - How are your going to model individual pilot replacements that come from Europe in August 1945 plus?

Also, how do you model the US policy of rotating experienced pilots out of combat units into training units or sending them on bond and publicity tours back Stateside?

[CT Grognard]

JAPANESE PILOTS

The IJNAF began the war with extremely well-trained pilots. None of the pilots involved in the Pearl Harbor strike had logged less than 600 hours flying time, whereas many flight leaders had more than 1,500 flying hours logged. IJNAF training emphasised quality over quantity; selection was so strict that some years no more than 100 candidates were accepted. The training course took more than two years and was brutally demanding. Emphasis was placed on aerial maneuvers appropriate for dogfighting such as the "falling-leaf" maneuver and navy pilots were trained to work in the three-plane shotai; this training continued after assignment to operational units, so that the pilots in a shotai developed a sixth sense for each other's next movement.

IJAAF training was slightly less demanding; the complete training course took two years and graduation was after 300 hours' flying time. After graduation IJAAF pilots were assigned to a flying training unit for six months and then posted to a fighter squadron, where they received a further three months' training before entering combat.

There was no system of regular rotation of pilots. Japanese pilots usually flew until they died or were crippled.

Ultimately, Japan was set up for a quick, knockout type of war. In December 1941 there was almost no skilled pilot reserve. As attrition set in, particularly during the Guadalcanal campaign, the Japanese training system was entirely inadequate to replace losses.

In December 1941 the average IJNAF pilot had 700 hours' flight time. This dropped to 275 hours by 1 January 1945. By late 1944 a new IJNAF pilot graduated with only 40 hours' flying time.

In December 1941 the average IJAAF pilot had 500 hours' flight time. This dropped to 130 hours by 1 January 1945. By 1945 a new IJAAF pilot graduated with only 60 to 70 hours' flight time.

[CT Grognard]

US PILOTS

During the 1920s until around 1935, the US Navy trained its pilots almost as thoroughly as the IJN. Candidates had to be college graduates meeting strict physical requirements. All were commissioned officers. Flight training took two years and emphasis placed on deflection shooting and co-operative tactics. However, from around 1935 the Navy shifted its focus on producing large numbers of good pilots rather than small numbers of superb pilots. Flight time requirement for pilot graduation dropped to only 305 hours. Therefore, on 7 December 1941, 75% of US Navy carrier pilots had logged less flight time than the least experienced IJ Navy carrier pilot.

However, the US could expand its training program quickly - it had a massive pool of potential pilot candidates to draw from. It was estimated in 1942 that there were 500,000 men in the US with the necessary aptitude to become pilots, but eligibility requirements cut this figure to a total of 193,400 pilots trained during the war (including 35,000 USAAF pilots) - more than four times the number of Japanese pilots that graduated during the war (46,000).

The US also had a policy of rotating experienced pilots out of combat units into training units before combat fatigue made them careless.

With the large numbers of reserve pilots and the size of the training program and with the Essex-class carriers not due to start becoming operational until late 1943, the US Navy actually increased its training requirements. US Navy pilots graduating around late 1943 all had a minimum of two years' training and 500 hours' flight time.

With regards to the USAAF, its fighter pilots were given solid flying training but almost none in aerial gunnery. USAAF fighter pilots at Pearl had between 200 to 300 hours flying time, but some had never fired a weapon. Since the USAAF required large numbers of pilots for use in Europe, its training program emphasised quantity over quality, and USAAF pilots graduated after 9 months with 200 hours' flight time. Bomber pilots were deployed to combat units with less than a year's training.

The USAAF did, however, in December 1942 organise Fighter Replacement Training Units (FRTUs) where new fighter pilots polished their skills for two months. P-38 Lightning fighter pilots were selected after 350 hours' flying time.

Similar to the US Navy, USAAF pilots were also regularly rotated out of combat.

[CT Grognard]

In line with the above historical circumstances, I'd think that the most accurate representation in game terms would be as follows:
 
IJNAF
Average experience for all (existing) IJNAF pilots Dec 1941: 75
Average experience for new IJNAF pilot graduating Dec 1941: 70
Average experience for new IJNAF pilot graduating 1943: 45
Average experience for new IJNAF pilot graduating 1945: 20
 
IJAAF
Average experience for all (existing) IJAAF pilots Dec 1941: 60
Average experience for new IJAAF pilot graduating Dec 1941: 45
Average experience for new IJAAF pilot graduating 1943: 35
Average experience for new IJAAF pilot graduating 1945: 25
 
US Navy
Average experience for all (existing) USN pilots Dec 1941: 50
Average experience for new USN pilot graduating Dec 1941: 45
Average experience for new USN pilot graduating 1943: 60
Average experience for new USN pilot graduating 1945: 60
 
US Army
Average experience for all (existing) USAAF pilots Dec 1941: 45
Average experience for new USAAF pilot graduating Dec 1941: 40
Average experience for new USAAF pilot graduating 1943: 40
Average experience for new USAAF pilot graduating 1945: 40

[CT Grognard]

I believe that this is one thing to look at in terms of gameplay and for reflecting historical situations. Japanese pilots swept the floor with US pilots in the first few months of the war.

I firmly believe that the replacements also need to be unforgiving to the Japanese player, in that he must very carefully look after his highly-qualified pilots he starts with. He must try to avoid a situation where he loses elite pilots due to attrition battles over enemy-controlled territory.

Ultimately the Japanese player must also be rewarded if he manages to keep his elite pilot core more or less intact since they would be able to outclass any American pilot graduating throughout the war (assuming they fly similar airframes).

[Banzan]

Keep in mind, the engine is quite old. Adjusting small things should be possible, but don't expect a complete overhaul of pilot training, skills or recruitment. Maybe WitP is different, but in general playing around with avaible variables is quite different to creating new ones.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

I believe that this is one thing to look at in terms of gameplay and for reflecting historical situations.

Why do you think game should reflect historical situation? Japan lost its veteran pilots because allies fight back and killed them. Japan also recklessly wasted pilots for unreasonable offencive operations. Replacemnt pilot quality deteriorate because Japan needed more and more pilots to replace losses.

If player 2 is doing nothing before 1943, there's no reason why japanese replacement pilots should get worse.

There might be a need for a fine tuning, but hard coded pilot quality is not the right one.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

I believe that this is one thing to look at in terms of gameplay and for reflecting historical situations.

Why do you think game should reflect historical situation? Japan lost its veteran pilots because allies fight back and killed them. Japan also recklessly wasted pilots for unreasonable offencive operations. Replacemnt pilot quality deteriorate because Japan needed more and more pilots to replace losses.

If player 2 is doing nothing before 1943, there's no reason why japanese replacement pilots should get worse.

There might be a need for a fine tuning, but hard coded pilot quality is not the right one.

+1

If you hard code in Japan's mistakes, you lose the point of the game. What we have to capture are Japan's capabilities/capacities.

EX: The hard coding of the KB air group size. That they start the game as historical (under strength) is accurate. That they cannot (hard coded) expand to their capacity until July 42, this is an issue. I understand why it is there (historical accuracy ... the IJ went into Midway with understrength groups), but that was an outcome of decisions made by the IJN. Players shouldn't be restricted to that as IJ was capable and had the capacity to increase those group sizes. All you have to do is be willing to short change other groups early in the war. In game, one of the first things IJ players do is add additional groups to the KB to get around this hard coded restaint. In my personal mod, the first thing I did was to create "new" KB CV's in different slots to get around the hard coded limitation.

[joey]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

I believe that this is one thing to look at in terms of gameplay and for reflecting historical situations.

Why do you think game should reflect historical situation? Japan lost its veteran pilots because allies fight back and killed them. Japan also recklessly wasted pilots for unreasonable offencive operations. Replacemnt pilot quality deteriorate because Japan needed more and more pilots to replace losses.

If player 2 is doing nothing before 1943, there's no reason why japanese replacement pilots should get worse.

There might be a need for a fine tuning, but hard coded pilot quality is not the right one.

+1

If you hard code in Japan's mistakes, you lose the point of the game. What we have to capture are Japan's capabilities/capacities.

EX: The hard coding of the KB air group size. That they start the game as historical (under strength) is accurate. That they cannot (hard coded) expand to their capacity until July 42, this is an issue. I understand why it is there (historical accuracy ... the IJ went into Midway with understrength groups), but that was an outcome of decisions made by the IJN. Players shouldn't be restricted to that as IJ was capable and had the capacity to increase those group sizes. All you have to do is be willing to short change other groups early in the war. In game, one of the first things IJ players do is add additional groups to the KB to get around this hard coded restaint. In my personal mod, the first thing I did was to create "new" KB CV's in different slots to get around the hard coded limitation.

I agree! Why play the game if every thing is going to happen historically? Isn't the point to improve on history to make the game interesting and challenging? I created a personal mod to play as the Allies in which I provide the Japanese every possible industrial advantage as possible while removing all the wasteful Japanese raids. This provides a much more difficult and challenging game as the Allies.

[HansBolter]

Pax, both you and Puhis seem to be the one's missing the point.

It is exactly the hard coded rate of plane production for the Allies that necessitates hard coding of the Japanese.

All the arguments about giving the player the freedom to deviate from history need to swing both ways.

For how long now have Allied players been pleading with the devs to give them an ability to increase plane production rates in response to Japanese player actions? How long now has this plea fallen on deaf ears?

Do you two, as players, truly believe the Allied players should be forced to play with one hand tied behind thier backs by hard coding while the Japanese players continue to have both hands free?

Do either of you truly believe this is fair?

[jeffk3510]

Us AFBs are not playing with a hand behind our back...believe me..[8|]

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Pax, both you and Puhis seem to be the one's missing the point.

It is exactly the hard coded rate of plane production for the Allies that necessitates hard coding of the Japanese.

All the arguments about giving the player the freedom to deviate from history need to swing both ways.

For how long now have Allied players been pleading with the devs to give them an ability to increase plane production rates in response to Japanese player actions? How long now has this plea fallen on deaf ears?

Do you two, as players, truly believe the Allied players should be forced to play with one hand tied behind thier backs by hard coding while the Japanese players continue to have both hands free?

Do either of you truly believe this is fair?

I would agree with you in allowing the allies to "switch" production but not to increase, thats to much.