Training up aircrews. Whats best?

[crsutton]

My esteemed email opponent says that recon is the best way to train up inexperienced pilots. I don't think so and tout ASW and naval search. Help us out here. Which is better?

[sfbaytf]

If you're playing as Japan send them off to China.

[doktorblood]

Neither ... the best way is to bomb some undefended base or land units that have no AA ...like the Japs or Chinese. Even fighters can be leveled up pretty quick this way.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Neither ... the best way is to bomb some undefended base or land units that have no AA ...like the Japs or Chinese. Even fighters can be leveled up pretty quick this way.

Yeah, that´s the best way in my opinion. I rotate my daitais out regularly and let them bomb undefended ports and airfields at close range and nearly always have high experienced daitais.

[Sardaukar]

Check my topic about "Weird but effective way to train bombers" [:)]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

the best way is to bomb some undefended base ...

greetings...
IIRC, it was stated that in 1.5 bombing of undefended bases will be (greatly) tweaked. Did you guys have notice this, i have no clue because i did not assign my recruits to attack undefended bases in 1.5 (only defended bases).

[&:]

[castor troy]

No I haven´t noticed this. My pilots are doing a good job in training with bombing undefended bases. If they wanted to decrease it it think that´s just nonsense. First they don´t give us a possibility to really train (forget about the training order) our pilots and then they want to decrease it? If Japan had this amount of fuel and supplies like I have whilst playing as Japanese they would´n´t have problems in training their pilots.

[pauk]

Ok, but doesnt seems wierd when japanese recruits come to 70 or 80 exp level with ground attacks on undefended bases????

My impression (i could be wrong, of course) is that air kills doesn't raise exp level significant. Dont ask me for numbers because it is impossible to keep track in the group of 27 pilots for every single pilot.

I suspect that ground attack is nearly effecient as air to air fight (kills), which just doesn't seems right.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: pauk

Ok, but doesnt seems wierd when japanese recruits come to 70 or 80 exp level with ground attacks on undefended bases????

My impression (i could be wrong, of course) is that air kills doesn't raise exp level significant. Dont ask me for numbers because it is impossible to keep track in the group of 27 pilots for every single pilot.

I suspect that ground attack is nearly effecient as air to air fight (kills), which just doesn't seems right.

Don´t have a problem with my bombers doing attacks with real ammunition. How would you train your bomber crews? Sending them to a base with 100 fighters and let them do some airfights?

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Don´t have a problem with my bombers doing attacks with real ammunition. How would you train your bomber crews? Sending them to a base with 100 fighters and let them do some airfights?

look, i'm not arguing that training program/options are suitable for the game. When we compare training options (stay down - for 20-30 exp pilots; training level, CAP, naval search, recon, ASW flight mission) with speed of the operations (massive air attacks, massive A2A battles=massive loses, etc) it is certain that training options are inadequate (too slow).

So, we agree here. I just think that is unacceptable to have such disparity (???) in gaining experience (A2A combat vs. attack empty base).

Next, japan have problems with exp. pilots. We all know that. I'm using "advanced" training program too, i'm not different than you are guys. But, I always attack targets (LCU units) and not undefended bases. Where? PI, defeated and isolated duch units in DEI, China etc....

And i using fighters, dive and LBA bombers...

Anyway, i'm not attacking here anybody i'm just trying to exchange thoughts with other people here.

[pfnognoff]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: pauk

Ok, but doesnt seems wierd when japanese recruits come to 70 or 80 exp level with ground attacks on undefended bases????

My impression (i could be wrong, of course) is that air kills doesn't raise exp level significant. Dont ask me for numbers because it is impossible to keep track in the group of 27 pilots for every single pilot.

I suspect that ground attack is nearly effecient as air to air fight (kills), which just doesn't seems right.

Don´t have a problem with my bombers doing attacks with real ammunition. How would you train your bomber crews? Sending them to a base with 100 fighters and let them do some airfights?

What Pauk is saying and I agree completely is that it is nonsense that Fighters on ground attack missions give you much more experiance with much less losses than A2A battles aginst enemy fighters.

Bombers are another story and nobody expects them to raise exp. in a dogfight [:)]

When all this training starts to get real funny is when Japan deliberately leaves Filipino infantry on those two smaller islands just so it can train up its fighter pilots.

We need a proper training mission and an increase in exp gain after a A2A victory.

I know it is not realistic to expect that improvemtn, but every once in a while I like to post it on the forum just in case. [;)]

[Lord_Calidor]

It's a matter of starting expirience - well trained units, with 70+ exp won't gain as much exp as fresh unit in 30-50 exp range. So, you usually won't send untrained squadrons in hot areas, doing A2A or ground combat, instead, you send well trained ones. However, they still suffer some combat and operational losses and get replacement pilots with lower exp. So it's kinda endless loop - they see more combat, but due to losses and already high exp, average exp gain is lower.

On the other side, setting some fresh, untrained squadrons on attacking defensless LCUs or bases doesn't incur such losses, and they exp is low in the first place, so it doesn't take much to raise it.

[Knavey]

What would be best is if the engine would allow you to dispand a LCU once it is no longer viable.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

What Pauk is saying and I agree completely is that it is nonsense that Fighters on ground attack missions give you much more experiance with much less losses than A2A battles aginst enemy fighters.

My view is that much of this game (heck, any game) is an abstraction. My fighters might be set to "ground attack" or "airfield attack" as a mission in the game engine, but what I'm really doing is spending supply and time, and taking some training attrition; and they could just as easily be doing mock A2A practice as dropping bombs.

Not arguing this is "right", just offering a different way to look at it.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

What Pauk is saying and I agree completely is that it is nonsense that Fighters on ground attack missions give you much more experiance with much less losses than A2A battles aginst enemy fighters.

Not arguing this is "right", just offering a different way to look at it.

This is exactly how I look at this little subsystem. The only problem that I have with it is that it is an unrealistic drain on Allied supply in China. I reallly wish there was a toggle to switch off repairs to worthless airbases!

[Griswel]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: pfnognoff

What Pauk is saying and I agree completely is that it is nonsense that Fighters on ground attack missions give you much more experiance with much less losses than A2A battles aginst enemy fighters.

My view is that much of this game (heck, any game) is an abstraction. My fighters might be set to "ground attack" or "airfield attack" as a mission in the game engine, but what I'm really doing is spending supply and time, and taking some training attrition; and they could just as easily be doing mock A2A practice as dropping bombs.

Not arguing this is "right", just offering a different way to look at it.

Yup. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course, I look at it as guys getting drunk and buzzing farmers, pretending to be aliens, but that's just me.

[Hornblower]

I'm in March'43 in my game. I find for the USN a good way of training them up is to send a 3 CV/CVL group everyso often to the Marshalls to hit a Japanese base. I attach a bombardment TF to them for good messure. Granted I take a few shell hits, but trains up the crews pretty well. Also softens them up for the enevitable assult.

[madflava13]

[/quote]

This is exactly how I look at this little subsystem. The only problem that I have with it is that it is an unrealistic drain on Allied supply in China. I reallly wish there was a toggle to switch off repairs to worthless airbases!
[/quote]

I am behind you on this one 100%... Why repair a place you never plan on using as an airbase??

[bradfordkay]

"IIRC, it was stated that in 1.5 bombing of undefended bases will be (greatly) tweaked. Did you guys have notice this, i have no clue because i did not assign my recruits to attack undefended bases in 1.5 (only defended bases)."


I just checked the "What's New" file and there is no mention of this. It is possible that you are thinking about v1.4 where the "accuracy of level bomber attacks on cities, ports and airfields has been dramatically reduced."