Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Finally, for ease of reference (also from the Elf):

... TRACOM was originally designed for the IJ player because historically the norm was that the Allies were in fact swimming in well trained replacements. So much so that by 1943 they realized they had a surplus and began trimming back the fat. If you [ALLIED PLAYER] are not using the feature then that is to be expected. Hardcoded replacement rates SHOULD suffice.

Hope that helps (as long as it didn't change somewhere down the track).

Back when The Elf wrote that, players were IJ playing the game with little knowledge of how to maximize the industry. Now, with Player-Defined Upgrades ON, the IJ player can produce sophisticated aircraft far earlier than historic, and run a very good training program for the pilots. This increases Allied losses and pilots in some service branches and national pools can become very scarce.

So, yet another example of lets let the IJ get away with all sorts of ahistorical stuff, but woe betide anyone who has the temerity to suggest the allies can react to non-historical circumstances non-historically.

Good summary?

My use of TRACOM is to stash aces to throw into front line combat when needed.

So, my use has nothing much to do with training but storage.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
It is a good place to stash pilots until you need the experts for night fighters and/or sweeps against the late war Allied fighters.

I seem to recall you need to put them in in multiples of some number, so that they will have an effect. Maybe it was 50?

10

I've read many times recommendations to set training squadrons to zero to reduce operational losses. It seems to me that this wouldn't be very historical. A training squadron wouldn't simply fly in a 40 mile box around a base. Fighters would fly to gunnery ranges and bombers would make cross county flights.

One has to realize that this game is not an exact copy of all historical facts, but a game with many compromises. One could complain about it (as I did in former times) or just accept the facts. So advice and hints from the most cherished and experienced fellow players are not based on historical facts, but on their experience with the game over many years.[;)]

ORIGINAL: boxof9

I've read many times recommendations to set training squadrons to zero to reduce operational losses. It seems to me that this wouldn't be very historical. A training squadron wouldn't simply fly in a 40 mile box around a base. Fighters would fly to gunnery ranges and bombers would make cross county flights.

As with many other issues, the player has some degree of control here. Simply set your training %, training range, and training altitude to levels that will begin to ramp up the loss rates. It can be a self-imposed rule, sort of like the way some folks won't load fuel in xAKs.

The aircraft would also have emergency airfields to land on, get repaired, then make it back to base but that does not happen in the game.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Finally, for ease of reference (also from the Elf):

... TRACOM was originally designed for the IJ player because historically the norm was that the Allies were in fact swimming in well trained replacements. So much so that by 1943 they realized they had a surplus and began trimming back the fat. If you [ALLIED PLAYER] are not using the feature then that is to be expected. Hardcoded replacement rates SHOULD suffice.

Hope that helps (as long as it didn't change somewhere down the track).

Back when The Elf wrote that, players were IJ playing the game with little knowledge of how to maximize the industry. Now, with Player-Defined Upgrades ON, the IJ player can produce sophisticated aircraft far earlier than historic, and run a very good training program for the pilots. This increases Allied losses and pilots in some service branches and national pools can become very scarce.

you have to do something seriously wrong though when playing the Allied and being drained by the IJ player when he only gets 300 pilots a month (exact number depending on the different mods) which he has to train up. That's the maximum, no more pilots, no matter how many one "could" train, there aren't more coming as replacements. Have fun producing a thousand aircraft per month when there's the limit of 300 pilots. In total it doesn't even benefit a player to produce the HISTORICAL number of aircraft that Japan built because you don't get enough pilots to bring them into the air. Of course the types of aircraft are different but the numbers are actually lower than real life. So complaining about the training is mood IMO.

Just because you lose the plane does not mean that you lose the pilot.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just because you lose the plane does not mean that you lose the pilot.

of course it doesn't mean you always lose the pilot but guess what's the ratio? Send 500 aircraft against a Deathstar, 20 return, how many pilots did you lose this single day?

How many pilots do you lose when you defend and the plane is lost?

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

How many pilots do you lose when you defend and the plane is lost?

IME the trade is somewhere around 20/80. Lose them over the enemy's turf, you lose 80% (Allied side with patrol aircraft and subs able to pick up survivors).
Lose them over your own turf and you lose 20%. Very rough, rule of thumb stuff, but it seems to apply in sandbox play. I marvel at the number of messages the Japanese side gets in the Ops report about "Pilot Magoo has been found" or "Pilot Bluto escapes capture".

So at that ratio, for every month the Japanese could afford to lose about 1500 fighters over their own bases and not decrease their pilot numbers.