pilot leader ratings

[tiemanjw]

Is there a way to see the air ratings (experience / air / navB / etc) when you select a leader for an air group? I keep selecting pilots with skill sets for different squadrons - such as great bomber pilots (with excellent leader stats) for fighter squadron leaders and vice versa. With the PP cost to change a leader I don't what to do a trial an error - and with hundreds of pilots I don't want to look for a good leader(s) than cross check them in the list of pilots.

[jcjordan]

I don't think there is other than cross checking IF there happens to be a pilot entry for the ldr (has the * after the rank if it does if you didn't know that)

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

Is there a way to see the air ratings (experience / air / navB / etc) when you select a leader for an air group? I keep selecting pilots with skill sets for different squadrons - such as great bomber pilots (with excellent leader stats) for fighter squadron leaders and vice versa. With the PP cost to change a leader I don't what to do a trial an error - and with hundreds of pilots I don't want to look for a good leader(s) than cross check them in the list of pilots.

Not relevant and pointless.

When you click on the leader field, the ensuing screen with alternative leaders provides you with all the relevant criteria to inform your decision. What you are asking for is not found on that screen because it is not relevant and of no use for leaders.

Alfred

[tiemanjw]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

Is there a way to see the air ratings (experience / air / navB / etc) when you select a leader for an air group? I keep selecting pilots with skill sets for different squadrons - such as great bomber pilots (with excellent leader stats) for fighter squadron leaders and vice versa. With the PP cost to change a leader I don't what to do a trial an error - and with hundreds of pilots I don't want to look for a good leader(s) than cross check them in the list of pilots.

Not relevant and pointless.

When you click on the leader field, the ensuing screen with alternative leaders provides you with all the relevant criteria to inform your decision. What you are asking for is not found on that screen because it is not relevant and of no use for leaders.

Alfred

I disagree that it is "not relevant and pointless". Potential leaders that are pilots have 2 ratings - one that is leader ratings, and the other which have to do with how well they fight (bomb / whatever) when they fly a mission.

For example, LCDR Leslie of VB-3 is an excellent leader (63 leader / Air 70 / Aggr 69), and a fantastic dive bomber pilot (see picture). However, I can assign him to any squadron as the leader. In the example below, I'm looking for a leader for VF-3. I can choose Leslie, and he will lead the squadron well. However, when he flies a mission, he will be fighting with a measly 44 air skill. I also don't want him dropping torpedoes, with a pathetic 38 navT rating.

I ask this question because I have found many fighter squadrons with leaders that either:
a) suck as fighter pilots (such as Max Leslie here), or
b) they are excellent fighter pilots I want in a forward squadron, and not supervising a bunch of trainees in the states (such as 2LT Andrews B. who has 81 exp, 74 air and is currently leader of 328thFG/327thFS [training squadron] because his leader stats say 80 leadership)

[Alfred]

To paraphrase Symon, disagree all you want you are still wrong.  Plus exhibiting a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game operates.
 
There are two ways of getting a squadron leader.  By far the most common one is getting a squadron with a leader already pre assigned.  In a relatively few instances this pre selected leader is also on the pilot roster but usually the leader is not on the pilot roster.  To change this leader you click on the squadron's commander name which is in yellow.  The screen shot you posted shows this screen which is the leader database, not the pilot database.  As can be seen, there are 7 leader rankings displayed.  These are the only relevant rankings for a leader.  You can fantasise as much as you want about pilot skills being used by leaders but you are just plain wrong.
 
The second way is when the AI automatically picks a pilot from the unit's pilot roster to be the leader.  This happens either when a unit arrives with no leader or pilots and the player populates the pilot roster first or the leader is also a flying pilot on the unit's pilot roster and is removed (usually as a result of combat).  Non flying leaders never die which is a very good reason (there are others too) why one should not have a leader who is also an active pilot on the roster.
 
So if pilot skills are not used by squadron leaders, why are you wasting your time trying to assess the worth of a leader by cross referencing pilot skills?
 
Alfred

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Related question: Is there any benefit on having one "elite" pilot in a training squadron?

from time to time I hear advice about the optimal training squadron being =

a) leader with good leadership skill
b) one "elite" pilot with high proficiency in the skill you want to train; example "Air" >=80
c) trainees of similar experience levels

a) is correct
c) also; I had made the mistake of mixing exp=50 and exp=35 with the end result that those at 50 exp didn't improve a lot after many months' training

About b) : many experienced players recommend it, but I haven't found any authoritative developer's comment

[tiemanjw]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

To paraphrase Symon, disagree all you want you are still wrong.  Plus exhibiting a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game operates.

There are two ways of getting a squadron leader.  By far the most common one is getting a squadron with a leader already pre assigned.  In a relatively few instances this pre selected leader is also on the pilot roster but usually the leader is not on the pilot roster.  To change this leader you click on the squadron's commander name which is in yellow.  The screen shot you posted shows this screen which is the leader database, not the pilot database.  As can be seen, there are 7 leader rankings displayed.  These are the only relevant rankings for a leader.  You can fantasise as much as you want about pilot skills being used by leaders but you are just plain wrong.

The second way is when the AI automatically picks a pilot from the unit's pilot roster to be the leader.  This happens either when a unit arrives with no leader or pilots and the player populates the pilot roster first or the leader is also a flying pilot on the unit's pilot roster and is removed (usually as a result of combat).  Non flying leaders never die which is a very good reason (there are others too) why one should not have a leader who is also an active pilot on the roster.

So if pilot skills are not used by squadron leaders, why are you wasting your time trying to assess the worth of a leader by cross referencing pilot skills?

Alfred

I'm sorry to be difficult, but I can, and do, have pilots in squadrons that I manually assigned as leaders that are active pilots in the squadron. Not all of my squadrons are this way, but many of them are.
Just looking at 6 army squadrons, I have the following leaders that are also on the flying roster (* means it is a pilot I manually selected at one point):
Maj Cullen*
2LT Andrews*
Maj Jenkins*
Col Morgan
LTC Franklin
Col McDaniel

None of these present too big a problem, though I'd like to move Cullen, Andrews, and Jenkins to the front - but they themselves were replacements for guys of similar air stats that I did send to the front already.

I also have a few pilots that are in some navy squadrons that don't match their skill set:
LTJG Irvine is CO of VT-5. He has good experience and navB skill, but his navT is not up to snuff. He has mixed leader ratings (good leadership and inspiration, ok air, not so hot aggression)
and the man who inspired this thread:
LCDR Short, CO of VF-8 because I really need a good CO for that squadron (62 Leadership, 69 inspiration, 68 air, 70 aggression), has a [fighting] air skill of 39. I hand picked him based explicitly on leader stats - and found he is a bomber pilot and somehow ended up on the flying roster. And before you ask, he was NOT on the active roster for this squadron before becoming CO. I manually picked the pilots in this squadron based on air skill and experience because of the mission I was sending it on.

For what its worth, the screen shots I posted are both the leader selection screen, and the pilot skill screen. The pilot skills are for LCDR Leslie, as he is an active pilot in the squadron. I didn't want to show the whole squadron as it is a PBEM game.

Furthermore, there is a large amount of cross talk between the leader selection list, and the pilot reserve pool. The attacked screen shot shows both. Note that the following pilots (at quick glance) appear on both:

Fighter Reserve & selectable leader for VF-60
LGJG Simpson, F.H.
CDR Brewer, C E.
LTJG Keene B.
LTJG Turner O.
LT Cross R.
LTJG Vaughn H (below cutoff in screen shot)
LTJG Sampson E. (below cutoff in screen shot)

Bomber Reserve & selectable leader for VF-60 (not in screen shot)
ENS Ferguson T.
LT Farrell T.
LT Raymond R.
LT Pierce I.
ENS Hodges, F.G.
ENS Muller, H.A.

Only LT Kline H., LTJG White V., and LT King P. do not appear to be in the reserve pilot pool. They also don't appear as pilots in the squadron.

The answer "there is no easy way to cross reference pilot skill and leader skills" is a perfectly good answer for me. I apologize for sounding snarky... I do appreciate all the of the extra information in your post - I did not realize that most pilot leaders were not on the active roster. Looking around, I see many of my army squadrons on the front lines have non flying leaders (and I'm happy to see that for reasons you mention). Combining this information with jcjordan's post above leads me to think I want to look at that * and try to pick leaders that don't have it (as they will be non flying leaders?).
But I don't appreciate being told I am nothing but wrong when I can see a few manually selected leaders on flying rosters that would be better off in other squadrons (either as leaders or as pilots).

[Lokasenna]

tiemanj -

You should try to select leaders that, in the leader selection screen, do not have a * next to their rank. A * means that they will be a "flying leader" - they will be an active pilot.

Unless you want to risk the leader dying in combat (or to an OPS loss crash landing), you don't want to pick them. You should pick other leaders.

If there is one specific leader that you really want to use for their stats but they have a * next to their name, you can select them and then assign them to Group reserve where they will not fly at all (to my understanding). Or you can check using different units. For the longest time, I tried to get Tomonaga as a group leader, however he wanted to fly just about everything. I finally found a unit that I could assign him to where he didn't have the * next to his rank. Try that also.

[Alfred]

tiemanj,
 
It is not my fault if, without basis, you take offence.
 
The OP clearly pointed out that you select leaders on the basis of pilot skills and as a result wanted some assistance on making that exercise easier.  My first post (#3) clearly stated that the request was not relevant and pointless as the relevant ratings were already provided.
 
Your next post (#4) quoted in full my post so there is no doubt the following comments were made directly in response to what I had posted.  And what was your initial opening sentence in post #4?
 [center]I disagree that it is "not relevant and pointless". [/center] 
This clearly demonstrates that in your eyes, it is me who is in the wrong.
 
You then proceed, in post #4, to introduce new material not contained in the OP.  Material which further compounded the pointless and irrelevant position outlined in the OP.  For this material again dealt with pilot skills which I had already told you were irrelevant.  One could say you were stuck with flogging a dead horse but for your own reasons you were not prepared to accept that truth.
 
Your irretrievable flawed premise, which you keep repeating in all your posts, is that pilot skills matter for leaders.  When someone adduces irrelevant material in support of an irretrievably flawed premise in arguing with me, my response is seen in post #5 viz, you can disagree all you want you are still wrong.
 
Now in post #7, still flogging that dead horse, you state that as you can move pilots to other squadrons you take offense at me saying you were wrong.  As that issue was not the point of the OP, which I remind you was about selecting leaders on the basis of pilot stats, it could not have been what I addressed in post #3.
 
Logical precision is required, particularly when someone wants to argue that I am wrong.
 
Let me now point out another error which you make because you simply cannot accept you are flogging a dead horse, this time in post #7.  There you refer to
 [center]the screen shots I posted are both the leader selection screen, and the pilot skill screen.  The pilot skills are for LCDR Leslie, as he is an active pilot in the squadron[/center] 
This is simply not true for post #4, which must be the one you mean as the above quote uses the past tense and identifies LCDR Leslie.  The two screen shots you put up in post #4 were:
 
(a) the leader stats summary found on the squadron unit screen, and
(b) the leader change options screen which is arrived at by clicking on the yellow commander name in the squadron screen.
 
Nor can it be the two screens (which at least are leader change and pilot skill screens) at the bottom of post #7 as LCDR Leslie does not appear in either but he does appear in the screen shots in post #4.  All of which makes it difficult to see how it advances your central flawed premise put forward in the OP.
 
What is clear to me is that you cannot reconcile yourself to the fact that your preconceived notion of what should be the basis of selecting leaders is divorced from how the game is coded.  Accordingly you keep on changing the goal posts to flog the dead horse.  You can select leaders on any irrelevant basis you want and I will keep on telling you that you are wrong with regard to how the game operates.
 
Your personal feelings are of no interest to me but ensuring that other players do not get the wrong information is important.  Often that means I have to be very direct.  Especially when it is being argued that the error lies with me.
 
Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Related question: Is there any benefit on having one "elite" pilot in a training squadron?

from time to time I hear advice about the optimal training squadron being =

a) leader with good leadership skill
b) one "elite" pilot with high proficiency in the skill you want to train; example "Air" >=80
c) trainees of similar experience levels

a) is correct
c) also; I had made the mistake of mixing exp=50 and exp=35 with the end result that those at 50 exp didn't improve a lot after many months' training

About b) : many experienced players recommend it, but I haven't found any authoritative developer's comment

Ah, one of the perennial questions which is shrouded in the mists of conventional wisdom but with little to no foundation.

You will not find me ever having posted that trinity of virtues. Nor am I surprised at all that you have never "found any authoritative developer's comment" for when I have researched this very same issue in the past, neither did I. Doesn't mean one of the devs has never commented, merely that I have not found one, and I usually do manage to retrieve relevant dev comments.

Without doing my usual research before answering, I will make a few short comments re your three questions.

(a) leader qualities are a matrix. Do not assume leadership is the only relevant one here.

(b) I pay no attention when this one is trotted out. Plus I am certain this is the result of misreading some "official" advice which often occurs here when so many fail to be precise and diligent.

(c) Often said, always on anecdotal evidence. Another one I pay no attention to when uttered.

Improving a pilot's experience and skill ratings above 50 just from training, slows down. This is particularly noticeable in the case of experience. Hence, with the greatest respect, I attach zero weight to your own experience of having 35 and 50 exp pilots in the same unit.

When people post about pilot training I usually detect a lack of familiarity with the Pilot Management Addendum. Even that document has some pitfalls as it was created when editor designated Training Groups existed. What I do see often is in the rush to get their post numbers up, many give imprecise (and sometimes just downright wrong) answers which then pass into "conventional wisdom" and are passed along to new generations of AE players. When I take umbrage at such carelessness there are always people who in turn criticise me. There are a lot of precious egos on this forum who satisfy their egos peddling the first thing which comes to their mind.

Here is some more "conventional wisdom" which is regularly peddled out regarding pilot training.

1. Set range to zero to minimise training mishaps.

The correct answer is set the range to not exceed normal range. It is the same principle which applies to flying combat missions.

2. Set a percentage to rest.

The correct answer is that squadrons set to 100% training will not result in pilot fatigue levels reaching a high enough level that additional training mishaps ensue.

3. The full TOE is necessary to maximise training.

The correct answer is training occurs even if there is not a single plane in the squadron.



I doubt you will receive much comfort from the above comments.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

The only dev comment I have ever seen is from Bill* and he said that inspiration was the only relevant skill that impacts training. Hopefully, Alfred, you will be able to find that and then add it to the manual under pilot training.

This was within the last year and it was in a thread that diverged from the OP ... that is all I remember about it. And 90% sure it was Bill who wrote it ...

[msieving1]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

So if pilot skills are not used by squadron leaders, why are you wasting your time trying to assess the worth of a leader by cross referencing pilot skills?

Pilot skills are used by pilots, and some squadron leaders are also pilots. You normally would not want to assign a pilot to a type of squadron for which he lacks the appropriate skills. Why would you make an exception just because the pilot is also the squadron leader?

[LargeSlowTarget]

You normally would not want to assigned a "flying leader". You should not use an active pilot as leader of an air unit if it can be avoided because pilots can be killed and thus pilots leading air units can be killed - but leaders of air units who are not pilots and do not fly cannot be killed. So in order to keep a good leader safe, do not let him fly - i.e. do not assign pilot & air unit leader combos.

Now, that is how the game works but not necessarily how it was done IRL, where squadron and group leaders often were pilots and did fly. If you really want to insist on "flying leaders" for historical reasons, then you must cross check pilot skills and leader skills and there is no easy way to do this.

[wdolson]

Non-flying air units leaders are historically impossible. The game pretty much allows them because nobody had the fortitude to make sure all possible air unit leaders also had a corresponding pilot slot. This probably goes back to Uncommon Valor. It definitely predates AE.

Bill

[tiemanjw]

Alfred,
I don't know what happened here. I respect you, and the extensive amount of research you have put in to this game. I think every post you type, I learn something I didn't know. It is because of this respect that I feel the need to explain myself (and my chaotic and sometimes wondering thought processes).

I thank you for the information that I could have non-flying leaders in pilot squadrons. I honestly did not know this, and I hope to put it to use.

But with respect to our little disagreement, I think we have both misunderstood each other, and are now just shouting past each other.

My OP asked a simple question - with a hazy reference to the game situation that inspired the question. In your response, you gave a short answer "not relevant and pointless" (with a bit of a qualifier after it). I implied this to mean that you thought it was impossible to have (and later select) a leader for a squadron that could also be on a flying roster. Perhaps I was mistaken, and you were just saying that it is not a good idea to select a pilot who will fly - or maybe something else. If that is the case, I apologize.

At any rate, my next 2 posts were an attempt by me to show that it was in fact possible to have a leader who was also on the flying roster. And since it is possible to have a pilot who CAN fly (regardless of whether or not I should) - it is not a pointless exercise to see what "flying skills" that pilot has in addition to the leadership skills.
I tried to use LCDR Leslie as an example. To that end I posted a screen shot. Because I don't know how to post multiple screen shots in a single post on this forum (or even if it is possible), I cut and pasted 3 screen shots into 1 file and posted that. You are correct in that I included the leader change screen (with Leslie's leader stats) and his leader skills from the squadron screen. If you look at the top of the picture, there is one additional line which I promise you is from the "pilots" page accessible from the squadron home page. Because this is a PBEM game, I did not want to include the whole squadron. But the bottom line is LCDR Leslie was assigned by be to lead this squadron - and LCDR Leslie is on the flying roster. Fortunately for me, this happens to be a bomber squadron (I removed him from leader earlier in the game, and put him back in charge recently). In my second followup, I listed several other squadron leaders (as seen on the squadron home page) who are also on the flying roster (as seen on the "pilots" page). So to circle back to a point I made earlier in this post, I interpreted what you said to mean that you could NOT have (later select) a leader who doubles as a pilot. If this is infact what you meant, that I'm sorry to say, that "in [my] eyes, it is [you] who is in the wrong" on this narrow and singular point.

I also said (though not very clearly), that I was concerned with some good pilots were ending up as leaders... pilots who I would rather have as pilots in a fighting squadron, and not leading a training squadron in CONUS. So a good portion of my second followup was dedicated to showing that one could pull "leaders" from the pilot reserves. In this case I'm not worried about their flying skills with respect to the squadron they end up in - but rather the opportunity cost of losing those flying skills in a front line squadron. If I have 2 potential leaders with roughly equal leadership skills, I would want to pick the one with less flying skill to lead a squadron he won't fly (either because he is a non flying leader, or because he is in a training squadron - and 80+ experience pilots don't train effectively).

Again, I'm sorry this has come to such a disagreement between us. I hope that we can "part as friends" - or failing that, that you have either retained or regained enough respect for me that you will continue to answer my questions when I post them. I know that I will continue to read your answers to my, and other posters, questions. As I said before, I think I learn something with every one of your posts.

[HansBolter]

Anytime Newkirk, the default starting commander and a flying pilot of the AVG 2nd, dies or is wounded, Boyington becomes the default new commander.
He is the best pilot in the Allied inventory at game start and is a damn good leader to boot. Why would anyone NOT want to keep him as both commander AND flying pilot.

The commanders pilot skills DO matter when the commander is also a flying pilot.

Alfred can bury us in BS as much as he wants trying to claim otherwise, but he will remain wrong on this point.

[jmalter]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Related question: Is there any benefit on having one "elite" pilot in a training squadron?

I really don't think so. IMO, Training benefits depend on the airgroup commanders stats, where he should have certain leadership skills. Principally:
Inspiration –Influences air group morale recovery.
Leadership – Influences the air group’s experience gain.

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
from time to time I hear advice about the optimal training squadron being =

a) leader with good leadership skill
b) one "elite" pilot with high proficiency in the skill you want to train; example "Air" >=80
c) trainees of similar experience levels

About b) : many experienced players recommend it, but I haven't found any authoritative developer's comment

I sign up w/ your points a & c, but believe that point b is 'not proven'.
For my (anecdotal) money, it's best to transfer pilots to keep each groups pilot EXP within a range of 5 points or less. This holds true for any group, if it's on operations or training.

If an active-ops group has too much EXP differential, the high-EXP pilots fly more often than the low-EXP pilots, they'll gain fatigue & be more likely to die during a mission.

Similarly, low-EXP pilots in a 'training' group get the majority of skill-gain, whilst the med-EXP pilots gain little.

So I'm all about click-festing my pilots, to organize them into groups of similar EXP-level.

If a particular group got creamed from a strike, it's gonna haveta stand down & rebuild. Mebbe it's got some survenging pilots, they'll go to Reserve to other sqds, while the airgroup flies to a rear-area base for new planes & a new draft of trainee pilots.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Anytime Newkirk, the default starting commander and a flying pilot of the AVG 2nd, dies or is wounded, Boyington becomes the default new commander.
He is the best pilot in the Allied inventory at game start and is a damn good leader to boot. Why would anyone NOT want to keep him as both commander AND flying pilot.

The commanders pilot skills DO matter when the commander is also a flying pilot.

Alfred can bury us in BS as much as he wants trying to claim otherwise, but he will remain wrong on this point.

So this time you abuse me of sprouting BS. You are so desperate to find fault that you lose your comprehension skills entirely.



1. The OP, and the entire rationale of this thread, was what pilot skills were appropriate for selection an air unit leader.

2. On several occasions in this thread I have pointed out that pilot skills are not used by a leader in their leadership role. Ergo pilot skills are irrelevant in determining who to select as the leader.

3. A commanders pilot skills, if the commander is also a flying pilot, only impact on that individual's performance as a pilot. Which is not what this thread is about.

4. The unit leader's individual pilot skills have zero impact on how the unit performs and on the other flying pilots in the same unit.

5. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the human player can not turn a rostered flying pilot into the unit leader. A human player can only select a new unit leader from those residing in the leader database.

6. The leader database and the replacement pilot pool are separate. They track different skill sets. They do this because the roles are different. The former is populated with historical figures, the latter is predominantly populated with fictional characters.

7. Your above example is just irrelevant and pointless to this thread. Irrelevant and pointless because:

(a) Boyington is code selected automatically, not by the human player. How quick you forget, probably because it reduces your personal attack, the countless times players have complained that they could not place Boyington in his historical role

(b) even you admit that he has leader stats, else why would you say he "is a damn good leader to boot". It is those leader stats that are used by the code in determining his impact upon the unit. His pilot skills are used when he himself, and only he, is engaged on a mission.

8. As you are prone to misrepresenting what I say, I will give a hypothetical example which cannot be misrepresented.

Assume a fighter unit has John Citizen as it's leader and he is also a rostered pilot in the unit. His pilot stats are 99 in every category. His commander ratings are 1 in each of the categories leadership, inspiration, admin, aggression, naval, air and land. John Citizen would be magnificent in carrying out his part in a mission, such as in shooting down his opponent in a dogfight, in bombing etc. However none of the other pilots in the group would benefit from those high stats. In everything else which uses John citizen's leader stats to modify the group performance, his contribution would be atrocious, such as unit morale recovery being abysmal, as would be pilot training, and air coordination etc.

I will therefore repeat it again. Pilot skills are irrelevant for selecting a unit leader. Unit leaders should be selected on the basis of their commander ratings. Which would you rather have, a unit leader with poor commander ratings but excellent pilot skills or a unit leader with excellent commander ratings but poor pilot skills? The former will have a detrimental impact on the performance of the unit whereas the latter enhances the performance of the group.

Leaders in the game, just as in real life, are there to enhance the performance of those answering to them.

So rather than just throwing mud and stating that I BS, identify the exact statements I have made which are incorrect and provide some objective evidence to prove they are incorrect. Do it publicly, in this thread and not as you are prone to do which is to send me an abusive PM. Otherwise it is just your usual sour grapes which have been on display over many years against many others, usually devs who in the past have consistently pointed out your BS.

Alfred

[alimentary]

I value your the information that you contribute to this forum, Alfred, and am impressed by its accuracy. Nor do I know of any factual error that you have made in this thread. However, I cannot see that the points you make above support the position that I thought you were arguing for: That a prospective leader's flying skills are never relevant when selecting a new leader for a squadron. Possibly I have misunderstood and the point you are trying to make is narrower -- that only an individual's leader skills are relevant for determining the effects of that individual on the squadron in his leadership role.

1. Given a choice of two leaders, both of whom are also pilots and whose leader stats are identical, it seems clear that, at least as a tie-breaker, one would wish to select the one with the better flying skills. Accordingly, flying skills would appear to be relevant to leader selection in such a situation.

2. If the Pilot Management Addendum is to be believed, there is one situation in which the leader's pilot skills apply in what one might term their "leadership" role.

e.g. "2. if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills) and less than the leader's skill"

My reading of the above passage is that the relevant skill is the one in which the leader's group is currently training.

However, it is perhaps more plausible that this passage refers to the leader's Leadership skill since that skill would be guaranteed to exist and be directly associated with the leader as opposed to being associated with leader's pilot alter-ego.

[I have difficulty deciding whether a pilot's missions and kills are supposed to make him more trainable or less. My assumption has been that they make the pilot less trainable, but the most natural reading of the above passage indicates the opposite. If you have any insight, it would be welcome]

3. This thread is (I thought) about what attributes contribute to determine which leader is the best chosen to replace the current leader. As indicated in (1) above, the leader's flying skills can factor into that decision. Albeit rarely and not strongly.

4. If the leader is also a squadron member, his flying skills determine how his plane performs when he flies it. This averages into the group performance, of course.

5. Agreed. For non-flying leaders, their (non-existent) flying skills are irrelevant.

6. Agreed.

7a. No argument

7b. Agreed.

8. This is a cherry-picked example. One cannot prove a universal statement with an example. One can only disprove a universal statement with an example.

Again, I'm not trying to be an idiot or a jerk. Just trying to figure out what the argument is about.

[tiemanjw]

ORIGINAL: alimentary

I value your the information that you contribute to this forum, Alfred, and am impressed by its accuracy. Nor do I know of any factual error that you have made in this thread. However, I cannot see that the points you make above support the position that I thought you were arguing for: That a prospective leader's flying skills are never relevant when selecting a new leader for a squadron. Possibly I have misunderstood and the point you are trying to make is narrower -- that only an individual's leader skills are relevant for determining the effects of that individual on the squadron in his leadership role.

1. Given a choice of two leaders, both of whom are also pilots and whose leader stats are identical, it seems clear that, at least as a tie-breaker, one would wish to select the one with the better flying skills. Accordingly, flying skills would appear to be relevant to leader selection in such a situation.

2. If the Pilot Management Addendum is to be believed, there is one situation in which the leader's pilot skills apply in what one might term their "leadership" role.

e.g. "2. if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills) and less than the leader's skill"

My reading of the above passage is that the relevant skill is the one in which the leader's group is currently training.

However, it is perhaps more plausible that this passage refers to the leader's Leadership skill since that skill would be guaranteed to exist and be directly associated with the leader as opposed to being associated with leader's pilot alter-ego.

[I have difficulty deciding whether a pilot's missions and kills are supposed to make him more trainable or less. My assumption has been that they make the pilot less trainable, but the most natural reading of the above passage indicates the opposite. If you have any insight, it would be welcome]

3. This thread is (I thought) about what attributes contribute to determine which leader is the best chosen to replace the current leader. As indicated in (1) above, the leader's flying skills can factor into that decision. Albeit rarely and not strongly.

4. If the leader is also a squadron member, his flying skills determine how his plane performs when he flies it. This averages into the group performance, of course.

5. Agreed. For non-flying leaders, their (non-existent) flying skills are irrelevant.

6. Agreed.

7a. No argument

7b. Agreed.

8. This is a cherry-picked example. One cannot prove a universal statement with an example. One can only disprove a universal statement with an example.

Again, I'm not trying to be an idiot or a jerk. Just trying to figure out what the argument is about.

I'm on my phone, and won't be near a computer for a while, so I can't respond in detail right now, but a quick clarification on points 5-7b:

It appears that there are selectable leaders that also show up in the pilot reserves. I believe it is post 7 of this thread, I show a screen shot of both the leader selection screen for a VF and a screen shot of the select pilot from reserve (filtered for fighter reserve), and there are several pilots / leaders that show up in both. If you include the bomber reserve, then 11 of the 16 "leaders" can also be selected as pilots, in this or another squadron. (note, these are all currently unassigned pilots, not pilots in the group getting promoted to leaders or some such... they can be brought into the group as a pilot (not leader) and just contribute flying skills, or as a leader and contribute their leadership skills).

I state this because part of the reason I originally posted the question (though perhaps not stated well at the time), was my concern for the opportunity cost of selecting a good pilot (flying as a pilot, not leader, in another squadron). In this case, if I have 2 prospective leaders of comperable skill, I would want to leave the better pilot for selection as a combat pilot (and not be a leader at all) in either this or another squadron.