Replacement pilots experience change

[Bliztk]

Well using PzB AAR as an example is not a good sample. Due to the wonderful play of PzB it`s on the far pro-japanese extreme sample.

Also AndyMac auto-restriction of not doing training runs against bypassed bases until a certain experience level is attained is hurting him more.

Elladan, have you read page 199 of the manual. The experience values are not fixed.

In RHS, in 1944 USN should get 200 pilots with 45+5= 50 exp and unlimited with 25 exp, and Japan 70-40 = 30 Exp pilots (15 unlimited)

USA gets 400 pilots with 40+15= 55 and unlimited with 27.5 but IJA gets 60-25= 35 (17 unlimited)

Take note that the higher durability of the Allied airframes will mean less op losses to the Allies

The experience gap (what actually matters here) would be 20 limited/10 unlimited for USN/USA vs IJN/IJAF pilots

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am commenting on entering data not based on actual values from actual institutions (modified as appropriate for things not in the mod - like trainers and various other planes - instructors - staff - etc).

So you say. seems to be more fluff along the lines of;

There is merit in this approach. But whatever can be said for it - historically accurate it isn't.

Like I said, before you start passing comments about other people's approaches, i'd suggest reading PzB's AAR. You might realize the ahistorical flaw you've got going in your own briar patch.

Why you imagine I might have time to read AARs is beyond my comprehension. And I can hardly "realize" an "ahistorical flaw" until you tell me what it is. What is it? And how do you know it?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Well using PzB AAR as an example is not a good sample. Due to the wonderful play of PzB it`s on the far pro-japanese extreme sample.

Also AndyMac auto-restriction of not doing training runs against bypassed bases until a certain experience level is attained is hurting him more.

Elladan, have you read page 199 of the manual. The experience values are not fixed.

In RHS, in 1944 USN should get 200 pilots with 45+5= 50 exp and unlimited with 25 exp, and Japan 70-40 = 30 Exp pilots (15 unlimited)

USA gets 400 pilots with 40+15= 55 and unlimited with 27.5 but IJA gets 60-25= 35 (17 unlimited)

Take note that the higher durability of the Allied airframes will mean less op losses to the Allies

The experience gap (what actually matters here) would be 20 limited/10 unlimited for USN/USA vs IJN/IJAF pilots

I wonder at this focus on USN and USA vs IJN and IJA?? May I modestly point out that there are MANY other air forces on the Allied side? And the number of pilots - and their experience levels - is much greater than stated.

Further - because experience in RHS is meant to reflect the situation at the end of 1941 - you will find nations with COMBAT experience THEN have higher ratings. The US did NOT have that experience THEN. Indeed - the reason things got better for the US is that it insisted on "operational training" - which a player can do in his units - and should do.

The REAL difference in numbers is the difference between the SUM of ALL the services available to each side. This is more complicated - because each set has its own experience. But it is not just a matter of USN and USAAF (not even USMC gets mention above).

[el cid again]

Here are the numbers (RHSCVO - the base scenario):

Japan gets 366 replacements per month with an average experience of 65.9

The US gets 700 replacements per month with an average experience of 42.1

Non US Allies get 298 replacements per month with an average experience of 39.1

Overall Allied total: 998 replacements at 41.2 experience average

EOS adds 10 more pilots at experience 45 to the mix for

Allied total 1008 with an average experience of 41.3

That is, the replacement rate for the Allies is about 275% of that of Japan. The Allies can - should - and did let units work up before committing them forward. There is no reason to commit units forward with low experience rates. The Allied replacement rate should be able to support a much larger aircraft unit set. And the attrition rates are hard coded against Japan. Add to that the rescue routines favor the Allies. The Japanese should be hard pressed to compete - and players with vast experience (over 10,000 turns) say that it is difficult to do more than one decisive blow occasionally (as Japan) - with a great deal of time required between blows. Since quantity matters in air combat - these numbers provide a very severe contest from a Japanese point of view.

Note that the actual size of Japanese air forces was larger than US air forces in 1941 - so the training rate being much smaller matters a good deal. Also note that the non US Allies povide nearly as many replacements as Japan gets total.

[Bliztk]

Yes, but what I`m trying to say (and nobody seems to listen me) it`s that while the Japanese get more or less pilots of 70 exp in 1941, in 1944 they get pilots of 30 exp, while the Allies get the inverse because the hardcoded table shown in page 199 of the manual (with adjusted values for RHS), then they are going to get pilots with an experience of 20 to 10 points better than the Japanese get

[el cid again]

OK - this explains the bad things that happen in late war testing. Testing seems to confirm the table. I once said to Joe (after my first test) "Japan might just as well not fly - it would be better off - it cannot compete."

[Elladan]

Bliztk, you are confused. What you refer to is reinforcement squadron's pilot's experience (excluding pilots from historical pilot pool that are in those squadrons). Replacement pilots experience does not change during game. It is exactly the same on 7/12/41 as on 2/9/45. That is tested, ask people around what exp they have in their games. So in RHS Allies will still get exp ~40 pilots in 1945 as they did in 1941.

[Elladan]

Japan gets 366 replacements per month with an average experience of 65.9

The US gets 700 replacements per month with an average experience of 42.1

Non US Allies get 298 replacements per month with an average experience of 39.1

Overall Allied total: 998 replacements at 41.2 experience average

EOS adds 10 more pilots at experience 45 to the mix for

Allied total 1008 with an average experience of 41.3

That is, the replacement rate for the Allies is about 275% of that of Japan.

You are missing the fact that Japan get's in addition to what you wrote an unlimited amount of pilots with average experience 33.0. So at 1008 pilots a month - matching allied numbers - their average experience is 44.9, still better then allied. That's simple math.

[Elladan]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Ok, it just sounds sometimes like you hadn't. As for replacement pilots, do you really think Allied exp 40 - Japan exp 70 is adequate to real situation late in the war? Let's not talk about number of those pilots, with current settings both sides will have enough to not bother. And please keep to the game, real war was run on slightly different "game engine"


Oh yes.

Ok. I have no more questions.

[Nikademus]

Why you imagine I might have time to read AARs is beyond my comprehension. And I can hardly "realize" an "ahistorical flaw" until you tell me what it is. What is it? And how do you know it?

<shrug> well your the one telling Elladan you've played lots of WitP PBEM. With so much experience you shouldn't need me to point it out to you. Guess in addition to not having time to read AAR's you must not have time to play much either.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Take note that the higher durability of the Allied airframes will mean less op losses to the Allies

Just an FYI...DUR by itself does not mean less op losses.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Japan gets 366 replacements per month with an average experience of 65.9

The US gets 700 replacements per month with an average experience of 42.1

Non US Allies get 298 replacements per month with an average experience of 39.1

Overall Allied total: 998 replacements at 41.2 experience average

EOS adds 10 more pilots at experience 45 to the mix for

Allied total 1008 with an average experience of 41.3

That is, the replacement rate for the Allies is about 275% of that of Japan.

You are missing the fact that Japan get's in addition to what you wrote an unlimited amount of pilots with average experience 33.0. So at 1008 pilots a month - matching allied numbers - their average experience is 44.9, still better then allied. That's simple math.

Yes - and they must go into action at that level. [Do YOU play? Do you know what happens to an air group going in with less than a 50 experience level?] The ALLIES have the ability to wait until a unit has trained up - the Japanese should not have that option in most cases - if the Allies are pressing them with any skill at all. Japan can not avoid defending its resource areas if it wants oil in particular - and it certainly cannot avoid defending Japan. These values are quite sufficient to guarantee a horrible loss rate IF the Allies are clever enough to commit experienced units forward.

It is a compromise - to rate replacements at the level they ought to be in 1942. But I see no way to avoid this IF you want to know what happened in 1942. If you do anything else - and rate them improperly - you will never find out what the situation is at the start of 1943 - never mind 1944 or 1945. Tell me a way out of that conundrum and I will listen.

It is a compromise in another sense. Japan ultimately went over to training 12,000 pilots a year for JNAF alone - not the 2592 I give them. We cannot increase the number. I consider that compensated for by the similar fixed nature of the Allied rate. Tell me a way out of that conundrum and I will also listen to that.

But at the heart of this disagreement lies a philosophy of doing business: you want to say that Japan COULD NOT EVER train up pilots properly. The historical evidence is firm: they could and did. Gross situational factors prevented it from happening on the scale they wanted and needed - but those factors are not - as you admitted above "set in concrete."
So do not put in numbers that assume they are. Let the Allies EARN their victory - if they can - and vice versa. What if Japan does well? Must it still NOT have avgas to train up its pilots? I say that is wrong. It is similar to the disagreement over "the Allies had the better planes" stated above. IF that were true, a single warrant officer would not have been able to engage (what was it - 26? 28?) F6Fs, kill 18, and live to tell the tale - sans wingman. He didn't run out of ammunition - the USN disengaged.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Why you imagine I might have time to read AARs is beyond my comprehension. And I can hardly "realize" an "ahistorical flaw" until you tell me what it is. What is it? And how do you know it?

<shrug> well your the one telling Elladan you've played lots of WitP PBEM. With so much experience you shouldn't need me to point it out to you. Guess in addition to not having time to read AAR's you must not have time to play much either.

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Take note that the higher durability of the Allied airframes will mean less op losses to the Allies

Just an FYI...DUR by itself does not mean less op losses.

Well - hard code surely does mean less op losses - whatever it is based on. Japan can score 2:1 air to air, kill 5 : 1 on the ground - but it ALWAYS has more op losses - even when it has a lower sortee count - provided you are not in the first days of the war. Eventually this means the Japanese loss rate total must exceed the Allied one - never mind there are fewer planes and pilots to lose them from. It is a big hill for Japan to climb - and it never does so cheaply. Air power is the primary instrumentality of WITP - but IF Japan engages with it - it must suffer terrible ops losses - whatever other success it enjoys. The only thing wrong with objecting to this is - WITP is probably correct (in the ball park anyway) to make it this way. I have no objection to the basic approach involved.

[Nikademus]

op losses for both sides are greatly reduced in comparison to RL. This has been explained many times.

[el cid again]

False. Utterly false.

It was ALLEGED many times.

We missed a trick statistically speaking - and finally I figured it out (I missed it too) -
and when I posted it we got feedback from Matrix saying the writer had wondered why we thought the fundamentals were so off? Because this was a case they had been guided by looking at the facts.

Turns out that the ops rates are pretty darn close - and definitely in the ball park. The thing that confuses people is that loss rates are not compared to the number of planes -

but to the number of sortees!!!

If you suffer a loss rate of 1% per MISSION - and you consistently replace losses so that you always fly 100 planes - you will lose 100 planes after 100 missions. It sounds like a lot - but it is still only 1%. People looking at a force of 100 planes and a total loss pile of 100 planes get very upset. I suggest they look at something like real USAAF statistics. They were not that good. It may be the way they measure rates was meant to make them sound more acceptable.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

False. Utterly false.

True...utterly True. I was there in the dev team when the decision was made to reduce them.

[el cid again]

Really? Tell us about that. Explain in particular why the decision was made to do it wrong? By how much, and why?

And THEN explain why it turns out to be so close to history???

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Really? Tell us about that. Explain in particular why the decision was made to do it wrong? By how much, and why?

Its been explained many times. It was killing too many pilots. And where do you get the "us"? All I see is YOU making your usual claims of authority.

And THEN explain why it turns out to be so close to history???

Simple. It doesn't

[el cid again]

We is readers of what you post.

But clearly facts are not persuasive for you - so I am no longer interested in the thread. Neither are you actually willing to explain why Matrix didn't listen to your wisdom? Could it be someone else didn't agree with it?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Actually - it is too low. AAA is grossly ineffective at causing ops losses in particular - and anti-air warfare is my area of authority.

Odd....i'm starting to hear an echo here....i belive i said op losses were too low from the start. [8|]

Us is all readers of the thread - and you know it.

I still do not hear you explaining why - with benefit of your absolute knowledge - Matrix would do it wrong if you were there to set them right?

If you'd care to quote where i claimed absolute knowledge in anything, i'd love to see it. I was simply correcting your error when you proclaimed....FALSE.....UTTERLY FALSE. What part of "it was killing too many pilots" do you not understand?

[edit] nice job editing your previous post #78:

But clearly facts are not persuasive for you - so I am no longer interested in the thread. Neither are you actually willing to explain why Matrix didn't listen to your wisdom? Could it be someone else didn't agree with it?

when you get some actual facts, vs. your heresay...let me know. As for explaining why Matrix didn't listen...they did as i explained above in regards to pilot losses being excessive. I and other testers pointed out the loss of pilots with the op losses being detrimental to player's keeping good pilots better. Thats why they were reduced as i've said repeatedly now. In terms of Realistic op losses being portrayed. I did later write a long diseration on it explaining the need to represent RL op losses without killing too many of the pilots in the process. It wasn't implemented because it would have required a code rewrite which at the time was not an economic option.

[Bliztk]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Just an FYI...DUR by itself does not mean less op losses.

Just for clarifiying, the armor, durability and endurance make the vast majority of Allied planes less kill-pilot prone.

The japanese have here an edge.