Pilot Training Modifications, Proposal

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Banzan

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

If the base values for Japanese and Allied off map training is the same, the balance does not change compared to the
current situation (both sides able to train 70skill pilots without any difference to nationality).

I would agree if both sides would have the same base, but they havn't. If you change the way you get new pilots or their quality, the advantage of the japanese base pilots become a much stronger effect, or, if you would make it more easy, it would lower the japanese pilot advantage.

With the proposed modifications, when this base is gone or reduced, the advantage of the Allied off map training kicks in, which is one base argument for the whole suggestion.
This enables a better representation of the early war Japanese skill advantage getting offset by the better Allied training over the whole war.

And as people start to bring the "historical" argument, how do you fit the japanese ability to research planes into the "vision of historical correctness", without the allied side being able to do it? I guess the US War economy was sooo streched that they were not able to do it, while the japanese economy had lots of spaces to do so. *sarcasm off*

The thread is called "Pilot Training Modifications, Proposal".
Thats what I try to look into. So I´d consider plane related discussions to be off topic, nobody prevents you from putting your thought into this area
in another thread.

My major argument against player governed US (Allied) plane production is, that producing too many long range fighters and heavy bombers would unbalance
the game completely, as there is no Japanese counter to that strategy.

If you got an idea how to avoid this gamebreaker and open a thread on the topic, be sure I will be listening. [;)]

[HansBolter]

This truly isn't meant to be a flippant question, but what is the Allied counter to Japanese player controlled pilot training that throws the game out of balance?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

This truly isn't meant to be a flippant question, but what is the Allied counter to Japanese player controlled pilot training that throws the game out of balance?

Please don´t see this as a flippant answer.
If you feel the game is thrown off balance by Japanese pilot training, then you simply are not playing an opponent of equal skill.

The Allied player has a bottomless influx of ressources in ships, pilots, land units, planes and he knows (contrary to WWII).
He can throw a lot of stuff in the drink and still steamroll the IJA in scen1, in many cases also scen2.
If the Japanese player makes 1-2 grave mistakes it can mean game over in ´43.

When I say pilot training is ahistorical and so leads to ahistorical results in specific battles - and see it as a reason to propose changes - I do not mean it is
currently unbalanced. This affects both sides. It balances quite well, better than you should expect from a game of this complexity without symmetrical setup.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

This truly isn't meant to be a flippant question, but what is the Allied counter to Japanese player controlled pilot training that throws the game out of balance?

Please don´t see this as a flippant answer.
If you feel the game is thrown off balance by Japanese pilot training, then you simply are not playing an opponent of equal skill.

The Allied player has a bottomless influx of ressources in ships, pilots, land units, planes and he knows (contrary to WWII).
He can throw a lot of stuff in the drink and still steamroll the IJA in scen1, in many cases also scen2.
If the Japanese player makes 1-2 grave mistakes it can mean game over in ´43.

When I say pilot training is ahistorical and so leads to ahistorical results in specific battles - and see it as a reason to propose changes - I do not mean it is
currently unbalanced. This affects both sides. It balances quite well, better than you should expect from a game of this complexity without symmetrical setup.

+1

[Crackaces]

The Allied player has a bottomless influx of ressources in ships, pilots, land units, planes and he knows (contrary to WWII).
He can throw a lot of stuff in the drink and still steamroll the IJA in scen1,

I think in real life the US also came to this conclusion and thus the willingness to throw away CV's in '42. As it is the God's and luck would make this a very decisive decision. However, I am thinking the US would have been quite happy with a simple exchange at Midway knowing that the IJ could never match the US industrial machine.

The scenarios like #2 with zero Allied reaction are beyond ahistorical and go into the realm of fantisy... but as I read AAR's it makes for a great game ..

WitP AE will never be a similation and in the true sense of the defintion of 'game' has real trouble .. but as rader so well eludes to ...it is a puzzle like a Gordian knot .. and besides SCLS or boredom ... the Ironman scenario might be the only hope [;)]

But in this context be very careful what you wish for .. because you might get it ..[;)]

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Indeed it seems you do, because that is not what I'm arguing.

What I am arguing is that it it is unfair and inequitable to allow the Japanese player to be unshackled from hard coded historical limitations in an ahistorical scenario that allow the Japanese player to rampage across the map and deliver an ahistorical a** whooping on the Allied player while the Allied player is shackled by hard coded historical limitations that preclude him from delivering a commensurate ahistorical a** whooping in return.

But isn't the all idea of ahistorical scenarios that other player (presumably AI) is stronger, and other player have to cope with it? I think these Japan-on-steroids -scenarios are desinged to be played agains AI. Some players deside to play them as PBEM game, but that's their desision. I presume in that situation player 2 know that the scenario is not balanced.

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Personally I'd like to see every post 6/1942 Japanese plane delayed first 1, then 2, 3 and 4-5 months depending on how late they appear. Idea being that player could get all planes at historical date but would have to drop models if he wanted any of them earlier.

Now Japan gets all planes at historical date or earlier, which I dont think is right as real japan did achieve those dates by putting resources into R&D.

The all idea of R&D is that Japan can get sertain plane models earlier. Your suggestion would totally screw PDU off games, where most of the planes would arrive after historical date while Japan have to produce basicly every plane model... So it would make more sense to get rid of R&D entirely. (And I know what you asked for a trade-off, I really don't know would that be a good bargain for a AFBs [;)]

I think benefit of R&D and PDU are linked. If players like flexibility of PDU, then Japan can also maximize gain of R&D. If players think that R&D is too strong, then they should play game with PDU off. They can't have both. With PDU off Japan can still accelerate sertain plane models, but there's limited number of squadrons that can use them. For example (Scen 1) only 3 sentais can use first Tojo model or Oscar model IIa etc. The problem with R&D (if there is any problem, I'm not convinced) is that plane models worth accelerating are so obvious that there's no point even produce other plane models.


Anyway, I think we are hijacking LoBaron's thread...

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Indeed it seems you do, because that is not what I'm arguing.

What I am arguing is that it it is unfair and inequitable to allow the Japanese player to be unshackled from hard coded historical limitations in an ahistorical scenario that allow the Japanese player to rampage across the map and deliver an ahistorical a** whooping on the Allied player while the Allied player is shackled by hard coded historical limitations that preclude him from delivering a commensurate ahistorical a** whooping in return.

But isn't the all idea of ahistorical scenarios that other player (presumably AI) is stronger, and other player have to cope with it? I think these Japan-on-steroids -scenarios are desinged to be played agains AI. Some players deside to play them as PBEM game, but that's their desision. I presume in that situation player 2 know that the scenario is not balanced.

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Personally I'd like to see every post 6/1942 Japanese plane delayed first 1, then 2, 3 and 4-5 months depending on how late they appear. Idea being that player could get all planes at historical date but would have to drop models if he wanted any of them earlier.

Now Japan gets all planes at historical date or earlier, which I dont think is right as real japan did achieve those dates by putting resources into R&D.

One side bieng stronger while the other remains historically fixed is ONE premise for an ahistorical scenario, not necessarilly the only one. The premise that ione side is stronger earlier to make for a greater expansion and a greater challenge while the other is just as ahistorically stronger later to offset and counterbalance that greater expansion and challenge is another and is just as valid a premise for an ahistorical scenario.

I may be wrong, but I believe your presumption that all of the Japan on steriod scenarios are designed to be played against the AI is not correct. The campaign briefing for Ironman clearly states that it is designed to be played against the AI. Is this true for scenario two and players are simply choosing to disregard it or is the campaign briefing for scenario 2 void of any mention of being designed to be played against the AI?

Since it seems, and again this is my impression and may not be correct, that the majority of games in the AAR forum are scenario 2 that most JFBs won't play anything but a Japan on steriods scenario. So is it really a matter of an abundance of overly masochistic AFBs who willingly agree to receive an a** whooping or is it a case of "if an AFB wants a game he has to give into and placate his JFB opponents refusal to play anything but a Japan on steriods scenario"?

This is exactly what I encountered in my foray into PBEM play in Uncommon Valor.

and yes, we are hijacking Lobarons thread so I'll make this my last post.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: ADB123

Quite frankly, in my mind the best solution is to get rid of pilot training altogether. I find it to be nothing but a tedious click fest and it almost doubles the amount of time that I spend on my turns. Although interesting at first, now that I am in the late war and having to manage so many Allied pilots and units, I just can stand it.

Massive time suck that adds very little to the game. I would much rather see it go so that I could add another campaign game to my schedule.

That's the best suggestion I've heard yet! [&o]

Why not make pilot training as a starting "option" - like PDU On/OFF. This way those folks who want it can chose it, and the rest of us can avoid it.

In AE, pilot training is - and ALWAYS has been - optional.

Simply put your replacement pilots in the units, and play the game. If you feel that starting experience is too low/too high, simply change the value in the editor.

There is no need to change the way AE handles pilot training.

I always considered pilot (on map training) to be a too integrated part of the game to not use it to at least some extent. But
lately I started to think I might be wrong here.

If you play a PBEM you could implement a HR which bans all on-map training.
Has anybody ever tried this? Clearly it requires a lot of trust into the integrity of your opponent, but if this is the case - as it should
be in PBEM games - it is entirely possible.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

If you play a PBEM you could implement a HR which bans all on-map training.
Has anybody ever tried this? Clearly it requires a lot of trust into the integrity of your opponent, but if this is the case - as it should be in PBEM games - it is entirely possible.

No no no! I'm not training pilots, I just have 5 sentais flying CAP over Tokyo in case your carriers show up... [;)]

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

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

That was actually general rule for all combat troops for Western Forces.
Game does not simulate two important factors for both sides:

1) Tour of Duty for Western Allies. All soldiers, and plane crews were supposed to take finite number of missions, and they could then go home (IIRC for bombers it was 25 missions, and UK began with 6 months R&R). I think I read about this in early WITP, the longer rotation (180 days?) was implemented exactly for this purpose, but it was got rid in one of the patches.

2) The main problem for Japan (and Germany), during training, was lack of AVGAS. Since there are no AVGAS in game, and actually pilots can train with 0 planes in unit (so they are not even using some supply), it is impossible to simulate this, except hard-coding penalties


As for original topic proposition, I think we can begin with simple switch. In starting menu there should be button for setting maximum cap for ability training, beyond which it gets really hard to upgrade. Currently it is 70, but it should be pretty easy to implement it as variable.