TRACOM Bug

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

3. must not be wounded [to cater for the possibility that a training mission injures them. As the next time this check runs will be a month later, the pilot will probably had returned to duty]
4. can be injured or killed while being treated as an instructor

It's interesting that TRACOM instructors will have the possibility of being injured or killed, because on-map training is completely penalty-free. You can run 100 air units at 100% training for the duration of the war, and won't lose a single airframe or trainee, much less an instructor. Nobody has ever listed this as a bug, but realistically? That's not very realistic. There should be *some* chance that bad things can happen. Even ships on normal supply runs can hit a whale every now and then.

That was answered in the past - along the lines of it would be too much coding to make it a feature of the game, so they adjusted the training numbers to account for the lost pilots and instructors and aircraft.

Right, but that's the off-map pilot training, i.e. the stuff TRACOM assists with. I'm pointing out that on-map training is completely unrealistic since it's impossible to lose planes or pilots to training accidents - since there aren't any. Which is obviously ludicrous.

Edit: Just looking at the US alone, "over the course of the war 200,000 trainees flunked out or died in training accidents." That quote comes from an interesting article on that topic. Reading it carefully, you can see that a lot of the carnage is covered by "Ops losses" in AE and one could even make a case that the 200K trainees noted above are covered by the unseen offmap attrition. But even with that, it should be obvious that flight training is never a casualty-free exercise. Except in AE, where it is completely safe.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Kull




It's interesting that TRACOM instructors will have the possibility of being injured or killed, because on-map training is completely penalty-free. You can run 100 air units at 100% training for the duration of the war, and won't lose a single airframe or trainee, much less an instructor. Nobody has ever listed this as a bug, but realistically? That's not very realistic. There should be *some* chance that bad things can happen. Even ships on normal supply runs can hit a whale every now and then.

That was answered in the past - along the lines of it would be too much coding to make it a feature of the game, so they adjusted the training numbers to account for the lost pilots and instructors and aircraft.

Right, but that's the off-map pilot training, i.e. the stuff TRACOM assists with. I'm pointing out that on-map training is completely unrealistic since it's impossible to lose planes or pilots to training accidents - since there aren't any. Which is obviously ludicrous.

Edit: Just looking at the US alone, "over the course of the war 200,000 trainees flunked out or died in training accidents." That quote comes from an interesting article on that topic. Reading it carefully, you can see that a lot of the carnage is covered by "Ops losses" in AE and one could even make a case that the 200K trainees noted above are covered by the unseen offmap attrition. But even with that, it should be obvious that flight training is never a casualty-free exercise. Except in AE, where it is completely safe.

No, the adjustment was meant to cover on-map training too - because that is where you would need the coding to handle it. Just another abstracted shortcut to keep the game within size parameters and within budget.

[michaelm75au]

A group Training mission should have a chance to 'crash' a plane on landing as with any other landing. I'll have a look but I had thought there were Op losses happening during training.
Low experienced pilots have an increased chance of crashing a plane on landing. The reverse is also true that experienced pilots have less a chance to have a crash.
In-group training is more a case of honing skills rather than training how to fly from scratch.
The off-map training will 'drop' some pilots from each cycle - this represent those trainees washing out or being killed.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: michaelm75au

A group Training mission should have a chance to 'crash' a plane on landing as with any other landing. I'll have a look but I had thought there were Op losses happening during training.
Low experienced pilots have an increased chance of crashing a plane on landing. The reverse is also true that experienced pilots have less a chance to have a crash.
In-group training is more a case of honing skills rather than training how to fly from scratch.
The off-map training will 'drop' some pilots from each cycle - this represent those trainees washing out or being killed.

Looking specifically at on-map training, one would expect that heavy use of airframes would increase airframe fatigue, and that Ops Losses would follow. No need for a separate mechanism to attrit on-map trainees, I completely agree. However, that's the problem. You can run training missions at 100% - forever - and airframe fatigue will never climb out of the low-to-mid teens. As an example, look at this P-39D unit in San Fran. It's been training at 100%, every day since the unit arrived in July 1942. It's now March of 1943, and look at the fatigue numbers. And that is not an outlier - all airframes, regardless of service rating, show similar effects.

[Kull]

And the result is exactly what I called out as a problem. No airframe or pilot losses. Not one. And that is true of every dedicated training unit.