Page 2 of 3

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:27 pm
by wdolson
The search mission took a lot of special training.  Early in the war the US put up every plane that could stay up for more than a couple of hours on coastal search.  Along the East Coast and into the Caribbean German U-boats were operating with impunity.  One U-boat sank a bunch of ships within sight of Miami others operated off the ports in the north.

US search efforts were terrible.  Search aircraft frequently missed u-boats on the surface or crash diving when they came near and the few attacks they made were mostly fruitless.  They made lots of reports of enemy warships that turned out to be friendly, or in some cases freighters.

Even later in the war sighting reports were maddeningly vague and inaccurate.  Even experienced search crews would miss the obvious or report ships as different types than they were.  It was not uncommon for DDs to be reported as BBs.

Ship ID is an important skill for which there is often never enough training.  Air sea rescue, which was another job of patrol squadrons is a tricky operation that requires a lot of training.  Landing on the open ocean is very tricky.  One of the PBYs that picked up one of the downed VF-8 pilots got caught in rough seas and barely made it back into the air.  When it landed at Midway, the hull started leaking badly and the plane just barely made it to the beach before sinking. 

Search crews also need extra navigation training.  Flying over the ocean is more difficult than flying over land and knowing exactly where you are in the middle of nowhere is critical to getting off an accurate spotting report.  Flying combat from a carrier, you just need to reverse your heading to head back and when you've flown x number of miles, you start searching around for the carrier, you'll usually find it.  Flying over land, you look for landmarks to reorient yourself.  Flying a search mission, the navigator needs to know where you are in the search leg so when something is spotted, an accurate location can be sent.  A bad location will send the strike off in the wrong direction.  Search planes also return from a search on a different vector than a carrier strike would do, so again, they need better navigation.

Good naval search is one of the most difficult missions to train for.  The mission itself is mostly boring, which makes it all the more imperative to train crews to stay alert and search constantly.  Having poorly trained search crews can make the difference between victory and defeat in a naval battle.

Transport crews probably don't need tremendous training, though they do need extra nav training if they are flying over water.  The Pacific is full of small islands and if you miss one, you could end up vanishing forever.  Amelia Ehrhart is one example.

I also haven't noticed any big difference with transport crews that had a lot of training vs those who didn't.

Bill

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 9:37 pm
by TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only problem I see so far is that the game does not provide any Naval air units that can provide that advanced training. The only solution I have found is to take all the air units off on a CV and replace them with Marine units and use the Naval ones to train replacement pilots. Doesn't seem right that all of those USN training units on the West coast got ignored.

Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.


RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 10:00 pm
by erstad
By the end of 1942, I had in the vicinity of 400 dedicated USN training slots. Not counting the training CV pilots can sneak in when not in a combat zone.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 10:16 pm
by witpqs
Use a Catalina squadron to train USN torpedo pilots.

From reading - I think it was called - The Big E, the carriers used radio beacons to guide in aircraft. Perhaps not all the time, but it was mentioned plenty in the stories of pilots returning to the carrier.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 5:53 am
by LoBaron
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
2. Other than avoiding some OPS losses, I couldn't care less about the EXP level of my NavS exclusive air groups, so long as I have high NavS skills in the pilots. EXP is a tertiary issue in my mind for non-combatants. It's a secondary issue for combatants.

I disagree on this Chickenboy. Exp is THE attribute. Op losses, coordination. Both suck if you fly with theoreticians...
On the long run you lose too many airframes if you don´t look at the exp value of pilots imo.

So if I want to train a pilot on naval search I set part on nav search and part on training, reduce the range to a couple of hexes to avoid fatigue and leave the squad alone for
some time.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 11:56 am
by TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I disagree on this Chickenboy. Exp is THE attribute. Op losses, coordination. Both suck if you fly with theoreticians...
On the long run you lose too many airframes if you don´t look at the exp value of pilots imo.

Yes, this general EXP is indeed important. But the fact is that you really cannot raise that "experience" via training. Well, you can... but it takes a very loooong time. As I see it (on my game that is), you are forced to throw the pilots to combat (as long as their specific skill is good enough): the specific skill will be around 60, the general exp will be around 40 or 45. After a few COMBAT missions those who survive will easily reach 55 or 60 exp.

Witpqs, I hadn't thought about the Catalinas. Right! They can train pilots for the Torpedo Bombers. I would like to have TRAINING squadrons though. The Kingfishers I mentioned above would be good as ASW units. And the Catalinas, well, you just have few units.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:53 pm
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only problem I see so far is that the game does not provide any Naval air units that can provide that advanced training. The only solution I have found is to take all the air units off on a CV and replace them with Marine units and use the Naval ones to train replacement pilots. Doesn't seem right that all of those USN training units on the West coast got ignored.

Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.


How do you train fighter pilots with these units? I don't see where you can put them on "escort". Am I missing something? They are fine for training divebomber crews but you still have the problem with fighter pilots and torpedo bomber crews until you get the CVEs. This is a serious handicap if you plan on fighting your carriers in early to mid 1942-especially with the Japanese overly effective AA fire.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 6:56 pm
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: witpqs

Use a Catalina squadron to train USN torpedo pilots.

From reading - I think it was called - The Big E, the carriers used radio beacons to guide in aircraft. Perhaps not all the time, but it was mentioned plenty in the stories of pilots returning to the carrier.


That is a great tip. Never did think of that. Of course, I don't have enough cat squadrons as it is.....[:(]

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 7:41 pm
by TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only problem I see so far is that the game does not provide any Naval air units that can provide that advanced training. The only solution I have found is to take all the air units off on a CV and replace them with Marine units and use the Naval ones to train replacement pilots. Doesn't seem right that all of those USN training units on the West coast got ignored.

Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.


How do you train fighter pilots with these units? I don't see where you can put them on "escort". Am I missing something? They are fine for training divebomber crews but you still have the problem with fighter pilots and torpedo bomber crews until you get the CVEs. This is a serious handicap if you plan on fighting your carriers in early to mid 1942-especially with the Japanese overly effective AA fire.


crsutton, not on escort, but on SWEEP. It will do the trick [:)]

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 8:25 pm
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Think of it this way... if you're actually out there searching (Naval Search), you're not going to report anything unless you spot something.  You are in "combat ROE".  If you don't spot anything, you won't get any experience figuring "that" their exact location, plotting bearings and distances... you won't get any experience using proper radio calls. 

If you are "training", you are going to "fly a search pattern looking for "this" (if over water - a special boat perhaps... if over land, then maybe a significant building, whatever), and once you find "this", you are going to plot it's dist/bearing, radio it in, practice whatever maneauvers are necessary to id "this" correctly... etc. 

In short, you're guaranteed all that "sighting" practice every flight, whereas with an actual naval search, you aren't.

So it makes sense that you gain exp/skill faster via training - up to a point.  I think, though, that above that point, (60exp/skill?) it makes sense that you only gain via "combat" or actual spotting, because that would be "real world" experience and not "they aren't shooting at me or trying to avoid me" type of experience.  

Training maxes out at 70 and pilots gain experience slower as they approach 70. Getting into the 50s is easy, then it will be a slower learning curve to 70.

Bill

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:38 am
by erstad
Training maxes out at 70

I hate to question a dev, but I'm pretty sure I've been able to train past 70 (in skills, not experience). It is definitely much slower. I'm pretty sure I've seen 72 and 73, not sure about 74+

Unless... if they started at, say, 69 and a random gave them a couple points at once.


RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:40 am
by erstad
crsutton, not on escort, but on SWEEP. It will do the trick

This is correct. Another option worthy of consideration is to do general training and get the defense up before worrying about air skill. Reason being is that an active unit can still accumulate air skill (say, 40% CAP and 10% training) but won't easily gain defense.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 1:03 am
by SuluSea
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.

I do this as well with two of the units on the east coast.



ORIGINAL: witpqs

Use a Catalina squadron to train USN torpedo pilots.

From reading - I think it was called - The Big E, the carriers used radio beacons to guide in aircraft. Perhaps not all the time, but it was mentioned plenty in the stories of pilots returning to the carrier.




I hadn't thought about the Catalina's for Torpedo bombing training either. Very nice tip, thanks.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 1:08 am
by Nomad
I don't have the link but I am sure that one of the developers stated that when you have a pilot switch between major aircraft types( fighter, bomber, patrol ) they will take a skill and experience hit. So some of that gain is lost. Besides, I use my Cats for Naval Search, not training torpedo tactics to TB pilots.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:20 am
by witpqs
A few people have thanked me for the cat tip, so I have to fess up that I saw someone else post that tip a while back. Sorry that I forget who!

I only use one squadron because, as pointed out, cats are needed for search. Using one squadron - after you get your cats up to speed - is worth it because you gotta have some torpedo trained pilots to fall back on.

Also on search, you must train your 4E bombers in Pac/SoPac on naval search early on to help fill the gaps and supplement your cats. Search is very porous in AE, and low experience search is really, really porous! You need all the assets you can get to overlap in critical areas and provide at least some coverage elsewhere. Of course, you still train then/use them for ground bombing as needed.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:21 am
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: Nomad

I don't have the link but I am sure that one of the developers stated that when you have a pilot switch between major aircraft types( fighter, bomber, patrol ) they will take a skill and experience hit. So some of that gain is lost. Besides, I use my Cats for Naval Search, not training torpedo tactics to TB pilots.

Interesting! It would be good to know about that for sure.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 6:51 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: Nomad

I don't have the link but I am sure that one of the developers stated that when you have a pilot switch between major aircraft types( fighter, bomber, patrol ) they will take a skill and experience hit. So some of that gain is lost. Besides, I use my Cats for Naval Search, not training torpedo tactics to TB pilots.


It was said that this should be the case but isn´t in my version of the game. I noticed when I wanted to get some high air skill pilots into one of my fighter squadrons and sorted by the wrong column (navbomb), so I drew around a dozen 70 navbomb skill pilots (BOMBER pilots) into my fighter squadron. None of them took an experience or skill hit. If they did, then it must have been a one point exp lost for one or two pilots but nothing you would notice. Not a single point of skill lost, all staid at 70.

Someone would have to do a test but if you train your fighter pilots flying float planes and send them to fighter squadrons then there is either no exp lost or only minimal that it doesn´t matter anyway. That way you can pretty much exploit the game IMO if you do one of the tricks to enlarge your squadrons.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:23 am
by SuluSea
ORIGINAL: Nomad

I don't have the link but I am sure that one of the developers stated that when you have a pilot switch between major aircraft types( fighter, bomber, patrol ) they will take a skill and experience hit. So some of that gain is lost. Besides, I use my Cats for Naval Search, not training torpedo tactics to TB pilots.


I moved R Carlson from fighter to bomber and didn't take a hit. I'll be testing this more as I go however.

Image

The two Carlsons at the bottom of the picture is Carlson in the fighter reserve and Carlson greyed out the first day he showed up in the unit.

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:57 am
by TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: castor troy

Someone would have to do a test but if you train your fighter pilots flying float planes and send them to fighter squadrons then there is either no exp lost or only minimal that it doesn´t matter anyway. That way you can pretty much exploit the game IMO if you do one of the tricks to enlarge your squadrons.

I don't think this is gamey. The fact is that if after a catastrophic battle you lose many USN [carrier] pilots, you should have trained replacements. This is historically true for the Americans (and as everyone here knows, this is historically false for the Japanese). So either

1) you use these Kingfishers to train USN pilots
or
2) you fill your depleted carrier units with rookies (average experience 38 or 39) AND you are forced to wait like 2 months until they are trained (specific skill)... In other words, your CVs should NOT be seeing combat.

I choose 1), at least it is historically correct (I mean, running out of trained pilots is not what happened in real life).

Which is why I think they should bring back the Training Squadrons

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 11:18 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Someone would have to do a test but if you train your fighter pilots flying float planes and send them to fighter squadrons then there is either no exp lost or only minimal that it doesn´t matter anyway. That way you can pretty much exploit the game IMO if you do one of the tricks to enlarge your squadrons.

I don't think this is gamey. The fact is that if after a catastrophic battle you lose many USN [carrier] pilots, you should have trained replacements. This is historically true for the Americans (and as everyone here knows, this is historically false for the Japanese). So either

1) you use these Kingfishers to train USN pilots
or
2) you fill your depleted carrier units with rookies (average experience 38 or 39) AND you are forced to wait like 2 months until they are trained (specific skill)... In other words, your CVs should NOT be seeing combat.

I choose 1), at least it is historically correct (I mean, running out of trained pilots is not what happened in real life).

Which is why I think they should bring back the Training Squadrons



this will lead to a non depletable pilot reserve pool with an endless number of 70skill pilots though and is then by no far better than WITP with an unlimited pilot "on map training" doing bombing runs. In fact it seems to be even worse as you then actually can send the pilots where you need them one by one while in WITP you had to take whole squadrons out of the frontline when you reached a certain loss level of experienced pilots.