Replacement pilots experience change

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

May it be you base your opinions about how the game plays on stock scenario games? And extrapolate this on RHS without taking into consideration vast changes done there?

Could be. But at least we think about what the "vast changes" will/should/ought to do. And we run tests. [ Long game test 288 running now ] - to find out.

[Elladan]

Well, the results from stock have nearly nothing in common with what can happen in RHS. You have changed the A2A system, which should effect in much less losses for both sides due to elimination of things known as uberCAP etc. It will result in bombers getting through to their targets, so carriers will be no more invincible. On the overall, much more realistic/better than stock. And of course change in replacement pilots experience and pool growth is really enormous. In stock Japan will deplete it's pools in Jan 42. From then they will struggle with keeping their squadron's experience in some shape. Allies doesn't have such problems, they will always have enough competent pilots to fill their ranks. A completely different game.
As for tests, you really have to test it in pbem for longer time. AI v AI can do only so much, they won't show you some creative ways people will find to exploit their assets to maximum.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I understand. I don't see what that has to do with setting exp rates however.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
If you survive more, you will get more experience, and if you fight against Japanese greener pilots, the gap will increase.

My surprise it`s to discover that the manual is wrong and the experience table is not used for both replacements and reinforcements.

I knew the +/-10 experience variable, but I didnt know also that you got the best of them.

That changes a lot of things, if correct

I had that misconception at first too, but Section 15.2.3 of the manual (with the experience table) only refers to reinforcements. No mention is made of replacements.

I have never seen anything in the manual on the experience levels of replacement pilots over time. I think it's been pretty thoroughly tested and found that the pilot replacements stay the same throughout the war.

Bill

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Well, the results from stock have nearly nothing in common with what can happen in RHS. You have changed the A2A system, which should effect in much less losses for both sides due to elimination of things known as uberCAP etc. It will result in bombers getting through to their targets, so carriers will be no more invincible. On the overall, much more realistic/better than stock. And of course change in replacement pilots experience and pool growth is really enormous. In stock Japan will deplete it's pools in Jan 42. From then they will struggle with keeping their squadron's experience in some shape. Allies doesn't have such problems, they will always have enough competent pilots to fill their ranks. A completely different game.
As for tests, you really have to test it in pbem for longer time. AI v AI can do only so much, they won't show you some creative ways people will find to exploit their assets to maximum.

All this is true. And we are about to embark in an extensive PBEM test series. We expect to learn a lot - in particular about players interactions with the mods. It is indeed true that Japan will deplete its pilot pools later in RHS than in stock - because for one thing that is historical - and for another we are using different quantities. Note - however - that we did not increase the experience base for IJN at all - it is not any worse in RHS than it was in stock. We actually decreased many experience ratings for various services over what existed in the particular version of CHS we branched from (which was then ahead of the release curve - but is now long out of date). We did try to limit uber CAP, nuclear bombing, nuclear shelling, and increase the effect of AAA - all of them successfully. So in that sense it is deliberately different. None of it is cast in cement - and we will change anything that can be changed for the better - whenever it is clear what that might be?

[Elladan]

I would just advise to take a look again at pilot experience change in time. It was set with false assumption that replacement exp values change according to the table in manual. So there is a need for correction. PBEM games will surely show a major flaw there.

[el cid again]

Correction by whom? Correction how? IF it is a false assumption - and I don't think we (or indeed anyone) knows that -
it is beyond our reach. In my view the ONLY things I could control was the INITIAL table in the Scenario Editor and individual values set in units. And what matters critically is that the INITIAL values are right - so the INITIAL campaign is right. If it is wrong - we have no chance of knowing what happens anyway. And the Allies have such advantages in numbers of everything it is not worth a lot of worry about their having a lot of problems. It is far more a question of how they manage what they have than it is what they get. Pilots - in units or replacing into units - can and should be trained up BEFORE they commit to combat - only the initial units forward are exempt from that. Players who don't do that are being foolish - and I never try to protect players from shooting themselves in the foot by giving them automatic and free things when they have the tools to do it right.

I continue to see perfect 100% neglegence of the germane topic: how to do ANYTHING later at all WITHOUT screwing up the initial settings??? Whatever happens later is mainly a function of code - and beyond our control - and if it is wrong Matrix will probably fix it - since this is a product in development. To the extent that is not true - players can make things right - and should do so.

I also continue to see perfect 100% neglegence of the basic fact of life about complex code of the sort we have here:

a) We do not know how it behaves

b) It may not behave as intended even by its designer

c) It is undocumented both in house and externally - wholly ignoring that whatever document might theoretically exist is subject to (a) above and might mislead rather than inform

d) Testing can reveal a great deal - but it is hardly foolproof - and this matter is so involved with many factors - and die rolls - that unraveling should not be regarded as difinitive - even if it unexpectedly were perfect. A professional attitude will always treat this sort of thing as very uncertain - because it probably is.