What does a 30 point advantage mean or not mean? Does a 31 vs. 1 mean you are just 30 points higher or does it mean you are 31 times better? Does a 60 v 30 mean you are just 30 points higher or two (2) times better?
What does a rating of 70 represent vs a 0? Could a zero be someone right off the street?
Not much IIRC... one of the early WitP BETA testers tested F4U's with 10 EXP pilots vs. Zero's with 90 EXP pilots... results were same as always - Zero slaughterhouse (again IIRC)...
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
IIRC = If I recall correctly [8D]
My questions were meant to be rhetorical. We have people here making all sorts of suggestions about what to do with the pilot experience numbers, but does anyone other than GG or one or three of the coders, know what the actual relationship is between two different pilots' experience?
Erich Hartmann once evaded 10 Mustnags over Rumania. Has not shot down any of them, but got home unscathed.
And a lone Japanese warrant officer (meaning no wingman) managed to not only evade 18 F6Fs, he shot down something like 8 of them. [Francillon]
The problem is, no isolated datum is statistically significant. And we cannot build an accurate simulation around such things as the NORM - which is what the proposal is. To rate experience as more important than surprise or technical factors or mission factors is wholly to get it wrong - if you want results like history (or reality in any era, even now). I think in terms of statistical norms - because that is what matters in simulation. IF we want to get it right we won't make it purely experience. If we DO - we will all worship at the Shinto shrine - for in 1941 JNAF had the most experienced fighter pilots in the world. The results won't be historical, but JFBs will love em.
The pilot quality (assuming above the level of "we can actually maintain formation and land the machine) matters a great deal - but not as much as the plane qualities. Nothing is going to save Eddie Rickenbacker (a medal of honor winner in both world wars) if he goes against a real fighter in a Glen.
We were talking about fighter combat. No Betty can get away from a Hellcat no matter who flies it.
I suggest you study the actual history of air combat. Try The Ace Factor.
You really are not listening:
it is a historical and operational fact that MORE than 9 times in 10 the side with surprise wins - offensively OR defensively
a Betty CAN escape a Hellcat - and probably did countless times - IF it detects first: Since the JNAF trained using a superior visual spotting technique - works up to 100 nautical miles in clear conditions - and STILL works today (I use it and teach it) - odds are long it worked many, many times.
The case of both sides know they are in combat is the tiny minority exceptional case: LESS than 1 in 10.
EITHER the guy who dies never knew he was in the fight, or the hunter never knew his prey was there to engage.
But what about bombing efficiency? Might an across the board EXP adjustment have a potentially negative effect on bomber pilots ability to perform?
Sure it will. But this is a JFB proposal: they won't mind too much if the Allied bombers (now dramatically increased in range) are less effective!
Of course, they will bitterly object when they never sink anything at Pearl Harbor.
Nevertheless - Ron's proposal to reduce pilot experience has this merit:
there is NO meaning to "high experience" if everyone has it! JNAF SHOULD be higher than everyone else in the game in 1941- but it isn't.
Actually a well-piloted Betty could get away from a mediocre Hellcat pilot. That's why the fighters were trained to engage bombers in pairs or finger fours--that way the bomber couldn't get away. Also biplanes were damned hard to shoot down--you had to use energy tactics and deflection shooting, and even then they could turn inside you.
We had this problem with MiG-17s in Viet Nam - which were preferred over the faster MiG-19s by the enemy (who managed to produce a lot more aces than we did!). We solved it momentarily by sending up A-1 Skyraiders - BOMBERS - which could turn inside them - manned by pilots who remembered about guns (there were no guns on F-4s at that time).
It is often believed that all that matters is speed - but it isn't always so.
I strongly think that experience should have some random ceiling. Maybe 10 % could achieve 60exp, 50 % could go to 70exp, 30 % to 80exp and 10 % to 80-100 exp. Some sort of bell curve maybe ? Most pilots like in other areas too are...well..average.
(in reply
THIS is a good idea. The vast MAJORITY of fighter pilots NEVER score. A vaster majority never become aces. Only (memory is dim = see The Ace Factor for the statistic) one in 20 does well. I bet that 5% is the right level - something like that.
EITHER the guy who dies never knew he was in the fight, or the hunter never knew his prey was there to engage.
Which poses the question then, in the case where the HUNTER never knew his prey was there, is it considered an air battle if the prey escapes without being detected?
If this case is not recognized as air combat, then a number from your calculation of 9 in 10 should not be included ... so because in 3 out of the original 10 the prey escaped without detection does surprise now matter most in 6 in 7 cases? I chose the numebr 3 out of the air perhaps 7 in 10 times the prey escpaes without being seen or perhaps 2 in 10...
INTERESTING..., but it moves the problem to the other end of the scale. If 30 is "fully trained", then there is very little advantage over "totally untrained". Bit unreal to make someone who has completed basic and advanced flight training only 30 points better than a civilian fresh off the street.
I think the real solution is in limiting "upward mobility" for trained pilots. 70 or so should be a "ceiling" for most pilots, with maybe one in five able to get any better. That would at least eliminate whole squadrons of 90+ "super aces".
THis is correct: Military pilots go to flight school (classroom), followed by basic, intermediate and advance flight training, followed by operational (or type) training. Then they spend time in a unit not in combat - JNAF considered them "second line" for two years AFTER being posted to a unit.
In my mechanical games (players have total control, but must be accountants) you can pick when you send pilots to line units: you pay the price in how good they are - but you can boost numbers if you want to.
By 1945 Japan was fielding pilots essentially out of basic flight school - they could not hold formation well for example. The problem with the game is - must Japan make that choice? IF it must, then 1945 pilots should be rated at 10, 1944 at 30, etc (10 % per level) - so a pilot who completed type training should always be about a 40. A pilot with NO combat experience should never be rated better than a 50, period.
What does a rating of 70 represent vs a 0? Could a zero be someone right off the street?
Not much IIRC... one of the early WitP BETA testers tested F4U's with 10 EXP pilots vs. Zero's with 90 EXP pilots... results were same as always - Zero slaughterhouse (again IIRC)...
It depends on WHEN you test. After a certain date, the code says (essentially) "japanese planes must lose." Set your F-4Us for 1942 and test.
In my mechanical games (players have total control, but must be accountants) you can pick when you send pilots to line units: you pay the price in how good they are - but you can boost numbers if you want to.
That is how the board version of Pacific War by Victory games worked. The Japanese had a pilot track. pilots had three levels of quality. The length of time spent on the track determined at what quality level the pilot entered play...
The pilot quality (assuming above the level of "we can actually maintain formation and land the machine) matters a great deal - but not as much as the plane qualities. Nothing is going to save Eddie Rickenbacker (a medal of honor winner in both world wars) if he goes against a real fighter in a Glen.
We were talking about fighter combat. No Betty can get away from a Hellcat no matter who flies it.
I suggest you study the actual history of air combat. Try The Ace Factor.
You really are not listening:
it is a historical and operational fact that MORE than 9 times in 10 the side with surprise wins - offensively OR defensively
a Betty CAN escape a Hellcat - and probably did countless times - IF it detects first: Since the JNAF trained using a superior visual spotting technique - works up to 100 nautical miles in clear conditions - and STILL works today (I use it and teach it) - odds are long it worked many, many times.
The case of both sides know they are in combat is the tiny minority exceptional case: LESS than 1 in 10.
EITHER the guy who dies never knew he was in the fight, or the hunter never knew his prey was there to engage.
You are very picky el cid. Of course I meant in air combat, not by evading or avoiding detection. You know that! I dont know whether you forgot your pills or what, but CALM DOWN! I accept your experience so please tell me which pilot had a better chance of achievening SURPRISE? Of course the more experienced one!
BTW Len Deighton has a good book about the Battle of Britain, where he decsribes the way to become an ace.
Since the JNAF trained using a superior visual spotting technique - works up to 100 nautical miles in clear conditions - and STILL works today (I use it and teach it) - odds are long it worked many, many times.
this little tidbit caught my attention, is there anything available on the web regarding the subject ?
Since the JNAF trained using a superior visual spotting technique - works up to 100 nautical miles in clear conditions - and STILL works today (I use it and teach it) - odds are long it worked many, many times.
this little tidbit caught my attention, is there anything available on the web regarding the subject ?
thanx in advance.
Spotting aircraft at 100 miles range from another aircraft is impossible with the naked eyeball. I say that again, it is impossible with the naked eyeball. And anyone who has ever tried to use binoculars in an aircraft knows that the vibration makes it virtually impossible to hold them steady enough for any useful. You may just spot a contrail or even a sun glint if its bright enough but you sure as hell aren't going to see another aircraft. Just trying to spot a small island at 100 miles is hard enough, let alone another aircraft.
Now there are some useful techniques for spotting targets such as using your peripheral vision to spot movement and such But spotting aircraft at anything approaching those ranges, especially in the humid conditions of the tropics. Its not going to happen, not even in the artic where conditions are best for long range spotting.
Try this next time you're outside on a clear day. Find an airliner flying overhead. Begin counting the seconds from the time it passes overhead until the time you no longer see it. Take that time and multiply it by .1667. That will give you a rough estimate of the maximum distance in miles it traveled (assuming 600mph) in the time you had it in sight. The true distance will actually be shorter if the aircraft is flying at less than 600 mph.
I have nearly 9000 hours in P-3 Orion patrol aircraft. Quite a few of those hours were spent conducting visual searches in all types of weather so I think I have a pretty good idea of what is and isn't possible in spotting.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Nevertheless - Ron's proposal to reduce pilot experience has this merit:
there is NO meaning to "high experience" if everyone has it! JNAF SHOULD be higher than everyone else in the game in 1941- but it isn't.
Why should JNAF have higher experience than anyone else? Approximately 10% of them had been in combat and I will agree that those would have more experience. But why the rest. From the games editor manual, a thoroughly trained pilot with many months of flight time, but no combat experience would rate between 50-60. What makes the JNAF better (those w/o combat experience)? Are you saying they should be rated 60 and the other allies rated 50 (in game terms)? But why are they rated above this even into the 90s?
" for in 1941 JNAF had the most experienced fighter pilots in the world"
I think that this statement cannot be true (even as a debateable opinion). In 1941 both the British and Germans had pilots who had survived the Battle of Britain (as well as the Battle of France and the post BoB air combat), in which they received a lot more experience fighting pilots and aircraft of a roughly similar capability, and in combats involving larger numbers of aircraft. The Germans and Russians had already experienced a year of their war, with a great deal more air combat than the Japanese had experienced in China. Even the Italians had a good deal of combat experience by this time.
The IJNAF pilots got their combat experience where? In China fighting pilots in I-153s (with a few 1-16s tossed in)? I'm sorry, Sid, but I don't buy this argument. The IJNAF may have had the most experienced combat pilots in the theatre at the start of the war, but not the most experienced combat pilots in the world.
" for in 1941 JNAF had the most experienced fighter pilots in the world"
I think that this statement cannot be true (even as a debateable opinion). In 1941 both the British and Germans had pilots who had survived the Battle of Britain (as well as the Battle of France and the post BoB air combat), in which they received a lot more experience fighting pilots and aircraft of a roughly similar capability, and in combats involving larger numbers of aircraft. The Germans and Russians had already experienced a year of their war, with a great deal more air combat than the Japanese had experienced in China.
I certainly agree with your assessment. I believe the Germans had the most experienced pilots at the time. They had combat experience from the civil war in Spain as well as the other places you mentioned. The Brits were a close second.
I do think that IJNAF pilots were some of the most highly trained of the period and possessed limited combat experience from China. I also think that what combat experience they gained from China was not as beneficial as others might think. They were fighting a much inferior force, both in equipment and training. Much of the Chinese air force consisted of biplane fighters and early Japanese fighters were largely designed to counter the excellent maneuverability of these biplanes. This reinforced the Japanese pre-WWII mindset that fighters needed to rely on maneuverability rather than speed. While maneuverability was important, speed was more so.
To be fair, most countries during this period also believed in the dogfighting doctrine over the as yet unheard of "boom and zoom" style. German and British fighter doctrine during the Battles of France and Britain emphasized the need to dogfight the enemy. The effectiveness of the AVG "boom and zoom" tactics is what began to change the face of air combat, especially in the Pacific.
Unfortunately for the Japanese, they held onto their dogfighting doctrine far too long.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Hmmm... don't think so... there is no special date in code (except for Allied proximity fuzing in AA)...
And yes we all did test much in UV and WitP (when it come out)!
I tried tests in 1945 - putting a US fleet at Osaka - and the whole Japanese air force died in one day - in spite of NO airplanes for the Americans! They scored a single hit on USS New Jersey. Joe said - yeah - after a fixed date - Japanese planes can't function. Another person on the forum confirmed Joe's findings. Thereafter I test late war planes in 1941 - for even tests. Joe said he had 12,000 turns experience - and he felt "one day Japan can fight - the next it cannot - in the air" - that day in mid 1943.
Not sure what you are doing - but my test indicated Japan needs NO air force in 1945 - if it flies it dies.
You are very picky el cid. Of course I meant in air combat, not by evading or avoiding detection. You know that! I dont know whether you forgot your pills or what, but CALM DOWN! I accept your experience so please tell me which pilot had a better chance of achievening SURPRISE? Of course the more experienced one!
1) I never get feathers ruffeled. USMC training (their MP schools - I was USN) - no matter what I never am upset - no pills required. But I am a Kelt - and that is a passionate culture. I married into a passionate Asian culture too.
2) No - not the more experienced one. Since the US did NOT train how to spot properly - still does not - it is not experience which counts. IF you do not know how to focus your eyes well enough to see stars in daylight (I can and do) - you will not see a plane first. A plane when it is first visible is no brighter than a first magnitude star in daylight - and that is a quote - from Japanese doctrine. I often give LESS experienced pilots a DECISIVE edge - if we get to fly for real - because I teach this technique. [I am having trouble getting USAF to let me fly against the F-22. They don't want it out you can see the thing!]
is this true with all allied planes or "just" with american navy...
what numbers did you use ?
cause if this is true the game is broken.
The japanese players tend to give up in mid-43... if the few players who fight to the end have hardcoded no chance to inflict damage cause the game says "japanese plane can´t fight" this need fixing now !
As the japanese i do not need any longer to play - but the same as the allied side.
Please, check it again, maybe make japanese elite groups (99 Exp) and pimp the planes (say the Zeke has durability 80, speed 500 and 12 50ers... - such planes should have succsess against allied planes..)
Also, is it only the fighting or even the bombing ? I think, if elite crews survive the flak, they should hit the ships like they did in 42 or 43.. if not, we all know what this means.
Beside any fanboyism, this would kill the mid/end-game...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
