Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

You sure aren´t, I totally agree. But I won´t chime in here because I´ve got enough "battles" going on anyway.[;)]

It´s no simulation though and that saves the day. It´s a game, closer to reality than Command & Conquer but still a kind of Command & Conquer in the Pacific. It only gets iffy if the game claims to be realistic or historically correct in some aspects.

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

No..., you aren't. I've had the same experiance. And while it might be reasonable in the 0-40 portion of the "learning curve" (the last thing you need while you are still "getting comfortable" with the challenges of combat flying is to find yourself in real combat)..., above a certain point "reality" becomes a much better teacher than "theory" (the presence of real bullets tends to "focus the mind" wonderfully.).

Well, I find that my fighters do gain exp in combat pretty fast (or die pretty fast) because they fly a lot of missions. This is not the case for my heavies as they do not fly as much and exp gain is painfully slow for them.

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

No..., you aren't. I've had the same experiance. And while it might be reasonable in the 0-40 portion of the "learning curve" (the last thing you need while you are still "getting comfortable" with the challenges of combat flying is to find yourself in real combat)..., above a certain point "reality" becomes a much better teacher than "theory" (the presence of real bullets tends to "focus the mind" wonderfully.).

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

You sure aren´t, I totally agree. But I won´t chime in here because I´ve got enough "battles" going on anyway.[;)]

It´s no simulation though and that saves the day. It´s a game, closer to reality than Command & Conquer but still a kind of Command & Conquer in the Pacific. It only gets iffy if the game claims to be realistic or historically correct in some aspects.

@ CT and MS1
Shame on you for not really looking at this situation and blindly encouraging this sort of half-@$$ed argument. At the rate those bottom 5 pilots are accruing EXP they'll Be elite veterans 65-75 in less than a year. How much shorter do you think this process should be?

ORIGINAL: TheElf

@ CT and MS1
Shame on you for not really looking at this situation and blindly encouraging this sort of half-@$$ed argument. At the rate those bottom 5 pilots are accruing EXP they'll Be elite veterans 65-75 in less than a year. How much shorter do you think this process should be?

ELF. I was simply agreeing with the point made. In my game with Sonny, my B-17's sqdns doing training in Hawaii were gathering experience faster than those actually fighting in New Guinea. No analysis involved, just experience. And I'm speaking of experience gains from the low 40's to 60's. As I said, it would have made sense to me had the levels involved been lower..., but seemed odd as the 50 level was approached.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf

@ CT and MS1
Shame on you for not really looking at this situation and blindly encouraging this sort of half-@$$ed argument. At the rate those bottom 5 pilots are accruing EXP they'll Be elite veterans 65-75 in less than a year. How much shorter do you think this process should be?

ELF. I was simply agreeing with the point made. In my game with Sonny, my B-17's sqdns doing training in Hawaii were gathering experience faster than those actually fighting in New Guinea. No analysis involved, just experience. And I'm speaking of experience gains from the low 40's to 60's. As I said, it would have made sense to me had the levels involved been lower..., but seemed odd as the 50 level was approached.

What experience levels were your B-17 groups in training? 30s? 40s? 50s? What about your combat groups? EXP gain will be faster REGARDLESS of the method when EXP is lower. Learning curves are generally steep, but begin to plateau at some point. It is also a function of the number of combat missions flown. If you low EXP guys aren't flying as many missions as the rest of the group then it follows you won't see them become Veterans in a month.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf

@ CT and MS1
Shame on you for not really looking at this situation and blindly encouraging this sort of half-@$$ed argument. At the rate those bottom 5 pilots are accruing EXP they'll Be elite veterans 65-75 in less than a year. How much shorter do you think this process should be?

ELF. I was simply agreeing with the point made. In my game with Sonny, my B-17's sqdns doing training in Hawaii were gathering experience faster than those actually fighting in New Guinea. No analysis involved, just experience. And I'm speaking of experience gains from the low 40's to 60's. As I said, it would have made sense to me had the levels involved been lower..., but seemed odd as the 50 level was approached.

What experience levels were your B-17 groups in training? 30s? 40s? 50s? What about your combat groups? EXP gain will be faster REGARDLESS of the method when EXP is lower. Learning curves are generally steep, but begin to plateau at some point. It is also a function of the number of combat missions flown. If you low EXP guys aren't flying as many missions as the rest of the group then it follows you won't see them become Veterans in a month.

I was referring to the group "experience levels". All were low 40's when they left the states..., but the guys sitting in Hawaii "training" were reaching 60 faster than the units based at Port Moresby flying combat missions. Obviously the Hawaiian sqdns flew more often..., but I thought that "experiance" over 50 would be gained much faster flying real missions.

I'm not about to claim that I fully understand the air training routine..., but I did have the idea that the benefits of "training" tapered off as the experience levels increased. Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1




ELF. I was simply agreeing with the point made. In my game with Sonny, my B-17's sqdns doing training in Hawaii were gathering experience faster than those actually fighting in New Guinea. No analysis involved, just experience. And I'm speaking of experience gains from the low 40's to 60's. As I said, it would have made sense to me had the levels involved been lower..., but seemed odd as the 50 level was approached.

What experience levels were your B-17 groups in training? 30s? 40s? 50s? What about your combat groups? EXP gain will be faster REGARDLESS of the method when EXP is lower. Learning curves are generally steep, but begin to plateau at some point. It is also a function of the number of combat missions flown. If you low EXP guys aren't flying as many missions as the rest of the group then it follows you won't see them become Veterans in a month.

I was referring to the group "experience levels". All were low 40's when they left the states..., but the guys sitting in Hawaii "training" were reaching 60 faster than the units based at Port Moresby flying combat missions. Obviously the Hawaiian sqdns flew more often..., but I thought that "experiance" over 50 would be gained much faster flying real missions.

I'm not about to claim that I fully understand the air training routine..., but I did have the idea that the benefits of "training" tapered off as the experience levels increased. Am I wrong?

they should. If you are seeing otherwise please advise. We didn't change that aspect of WitP.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

No..., you aren't. I've had the same experiance. And while it might be reasonable in the 0-40 portion of the "learning curve" (the last thing you need while you are still "getting comfortable" with the challenges of combat flying is to find yourself in real combat)..., above a certain point "reality" becomes a much better teacher than "theory" (the presence of real bullets tends to "focus the mind" wonderfully.).

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

You sure aren´t, I totally agree. But I won´t chime in here because I´ve got enough "battles" going on anyway.[;)]

It´s no simulation though and that saves the day. It´s a game, closer to reality than Command & Conquer but still a kind of Command & Conquer in the Pacific. It only gets iffy if the game claims to be realistic or historically correct in some aspects.

@ CT and MS1
Shame on you for not really looking at this situation and blindly encouraging this sort of half-@$$ed argument. At the rate those bottom 5 pilots are accruing EXP they'll Be elite veterans 65-75 in less than a year. How much shorter do you think this process should be?

TheElf, no matter if there are veterans or not somewhere, you know yourselve that you can train a green pilot out of flight school up to 70 skill (whatever wished) in two or max three months. Now if you have doing this same pilot an actual mission for 3 months he won´t even reach 50 skill. I doubt that you´ve missed that and most people are aware of. Of course there´s the ongoing mixing up of exp and skill, but then take it: skill increases faster in training than in doing actual missions. I´ve got PBY pilots flying nav search since day one of the campaign and am now at the end of 9/42 and they´ve still not reached nav search skill 70. While I can produce literally hundreds skill 70 pilots in a couple of months if I want to do so.

So the original post I was referring to about "training being better than actually doing the real mission" is something I definetely stand to. I hope you don´t see this as a flame post or a personal attack against you again, but you can not deny that it actual is like I´m describing it.

In the above example, he was talking about ground bombing experience but actually means skill too. Taking my above example again, my PBY pilots reach nav search skill 70 in three months at the lates when doing training, but it takes them probably 15 months to reach skill 70 when actually doing the mission. Same goes for bombing, I´m able to reach any type of bombing skill 70 within a couple of months on training but pilots being drawn into squadrons right out of flight school need far more time reaching 70 when flying combat missions. This all, of course, in my special edition.

I'm guessing the problem here might be that they maybe only gain skill when being successful at their mission. So a pilot assigned to navel search in a remote corner of the Pacific might be flying over empty waters for years and not learn a thing about spotting ships, because he never encounters one. In this case I think it is reasonable that he would learn faster when training. Making this argument is a lot harder for other kinds of missions though, a pilot should learn more about bombing when he misses a target while being attacked by fighters and being shot at by flak, then when he's dropping bombs right on the marker in an American desert.

A question for you Elf, is it possible that pilots with a higher overall exp. have a harder time learning skills when training ?

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training?

The air combat skill is a different story. Real combat is a much better teacher here. I think the game models this quite well. The air combat skill raises very fast if the pilots get real air combat.

We just need an extra counter for combat experience .

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training? It shouldn't..., up to a point. After you have dropped your practice bombs all over the training area you develop proficiency in the "theory" of bombing. Lot's of crews left Texas thinking they could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". Maybe they could..., in Texas. But over Europe, in less perfect weather and visability, over unfamiliar landmarks, with the flak and the Luftwaffe trying to kill them, was a different "kettle of fish". And a new skill to be mastered.

Castor Troy does have a point here that needs to be clarified.

May need some confirmation about relationship between EXP rating and SKILL (for example NavB).

As far as I know, EXP is gained by flight training, up to limit. This is from getting used to plane etc., but main increase in EXP is combat.

Then there is SKILL (for example NavB). This can be easily trained with Training mission.

Now, if I got meaning of The Elf post, it's folly to commit units in combat before they are *fully trained*. In those cases units in training will benefit more than those in combat, SKILL-wise.&nbsp;

Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...

Training increases skill fast and experience very slowly. Combat increases exp fast (especially there is some real opposition, not only an undefended airfield) and skill slowly. To become a true elite unit, the pilots need both.

In the real war, the Axis believed in combat experience too much. They neglected training and hoped the undereducated rookies would learn all the necessary skills at the front. They didn't. Those guys from Texas flight school were not as effective as they imagined on their first sorties, agreed. But eventually they became much superior. The foundation was laid in Texas.

The game models the training stuff quite well, imho. Using undereducated pilots to combat missions should not be rewarded.

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...

how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack? Guess not that long.

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Castor Troy does have a point here that needs to be clarified.

May need some confirmation about relationship between EXP rating and SKILL (for example NavB).

As far as I know, EXP is gained by flight training, up to limit. This is from getting used to plane etc., but main increase in EXP is combat.

Then there is SKILL (for example NavB). This can be easily trained with Training mission.

Now, if I got meaning of The Elf post, it's folly to commit units in combat before they are *fully trained*. In those cases units in training will benefit more than those in combat, SKILL-wise. 

After having been told very early after release that you need skill to perform your mission (like air and def for a fighter or navbomb and def for a bomber) I concentrated on getting my pilots up in the skill they needed. I didn´t much focus on exp and haven´t found a way to really improve it anyway. Until I figured out that (in my AE version) experience is the most important thing to get something like a "coordinated strike". So while many people on the forum mix up skill and exp all the time I´m really only talking about skill and skill is improved far faster doing training missions than doing actually "combat" missions.

how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack?

Not for some time - this tactic was carried on certainly until '44. Probably few few pilots got back to tell them that it didn't work very well...