Petition - pilots and exp

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

5. Pilots gains individuall skils in combat faster then in training. Especially to those skills they are using. So, fighter pilot avoids other fighters 3 times in one combat he should get some defensive skills.

not sure i agree here. IMO, training should increase skills and combat should increase experience - period. training to me is performing something new in a controlled environment - i would imagine "trying something new" in a combat situation would probably end up badly most of the time. i'm not sure exactly how the current model works, but i can envision experience coming into play more on the "group" dynamics of an air engagement, i.e. getting the bounce, successfully intercepting with a coordinated defense, finding the target, staying with the bombers if escorting, etc. the individual skills i would think would come into the equation for every little machine gun firing graphic or every bomb/torp dropped, etc.

good to see it's being discussed...

So, in your opinnion (and some other guys) Chuck Yeager, Saburo Sakai and Hans J. Marseilles learned nothing in combat? They were allways flying arround like they told them in school- didn't bother to improve anything or adapt tactics to new situatin on field?! [X(] they neither improved gunnery, or flying or tacticc or anything at all?! What they knewed from school was the ultimate knowledge? [&:] [8|] And no, Loricas, you can not compare soccer players and fighter pilots in life and death situations. I do not opt that after 10 kills pilot air and def skills have to be somewhere near 99. but those skills should improve somewhat faster until they reach 80. and after that there HAVE TO BE CHANCE (maybe minor, but it must exist) od improving after every combat or kill or evasive action.
And I'm not talking about fighters only- every bomber pilot that scores a hit MUST HAVE a chance (a chance, does not automatically improve skill) to improve bombing skills.

when i watched this clip, i asked myself how this would translate to AE numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1NTUzj7 ... re=related

what should "Swede's" experience rating have been? what should his air combat and defensive skill numbers have been? how much should they have increased upon the conclusion of the dogfight? did he just get lucky? IMO, you either go into the dogfight with x,y,z skills or you don't. if he didn't have the skills necessary to down three Zero's, then he certainly would not have lasted in this dogfight. BUT his experience should increase substantially, and when he relates how he overcame long odds to other pilots in his squadron and later when he transfers to a fighter squadron, their skill ratings should increase (if they are put into training mode), but not their experience levels...skills should increase based on learning from others that have better skills and experience than yourself. but training someone how to out-turn a Zero shouldn't increase experience.

so again, i think skills increase with training, experience increases with combat (or increases without combat, but more slowly with training)...with this model (and again, maybe it is already set up like this) a pilot in a PBY spotting ships or a jap LB bombing rice patties in china should definitely gain experience, but not necessarily increase skills. otherwise, i think we would be back to the WiTP model of exp and skills...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I also never understood the training/experience coding routines, but it felt just fine in WITP and I don`t recall any B & M about it back then.

Why can`t we just go back to that setup ???

are you kidding? you must have been the player that sent his pilots out to bomb the crap out of dot bases so that they could return to the front as uber air-to-air studs[8|]...seems to me there was LOTS of B & M...

[Richard III]

Thanks for the personal attack, very classy of you [8|]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I also never understood the training/experience coding routines, but it felt just fine in WITP and I don`t recall any B & M about it back then.

Why can`t we just go back to that setup ???

are you kidding? you must have been the player that sent his pilots out to bomb the crap out of dot bases so that they could return to the front as uber air-to-air studs[8|]...seems to me there was LOTS of B & M...

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart



when i watched this clip, i asked myself how this would translate to AE numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1NTUzj7 ... re=related

what should "Swede's" experience rating have been? what should his air combat and defensive skill numbers have been? how much should they have increased upon the conclusion of the dogfight? did he just get lucky? IMO, you either go into the dogfight with x,y,z skills or you don't. if he didn't have the skills necessary to down three Zero's, then he certainly would not have lasted in this dogfight. BUT his experience should increase substantially, and when he relates how he overcame long odds to other pilots in his squadron and later when he transfers to a fighter squadron, their skill ratings should increase (if they are put into training mode), but not their experience levels...skills should increase based on learning from others that have better skills and experience than yourself. but training someone how to out-turn a Zero shouldn't increase experience.

so again, i think skills increase with training, experience increases with combat (or increases without combat, but more slowly with training)...with this model (and again, maybe it is already set up like this) a pilot in a PBY spotting ships or a jap LB bombing rice patties in china should definitely gain experience, but not necessarily increase skills. otherwise, i think we would be back to the WiTP model of exp and skills...

Maybe we have misunderstanding. In AE we have general experience and experience in individual skills. Individual skills do not improve. General experience does. Let's look at the air skill. That would be skill in gunnery, maneuvering and combat tactics. Isn't it unlogicall that air skill does not improve after few combats, kills ? And improves only in non combat training?

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

Thanks for the personal attack, very classy of you [8|]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I also never understood the training/experience coding routines, but it felt just fine in WITP and I don`t recall any B & M about it back then.

Why can`t we just go back to that setup ???

are you kidding? you must have been the player that sent his pilots out to bomb the crap out of dot bases so that they could return to the front as uber air-to-air studs[8|]...seems to me there was LOTS of B & M...

sorry, Richard III...should have engaged brain before shooting that one off...it was uncalled for, i agree

but there was lot's of bitching and moaning...that's why there was so much effort in AE to correct it...it's too bad that it is turning into an iterative process, but i guess that's the nature of the beast...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart



when i watched this clip, i asked myself how this would translate to AE numbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1NTUzj7 ... re=related

what should "Swede's" experience rating have been? what should his air combat and defensive skill numbers have been? how much should they have increased upon the conclusion of the dogfight? did he just get lucky? IMO, you either go into the dogfight with x,y,z skills or you don't. if he didn't have the skills necessary to down three Zero's, then he certainly would not have lasted in this dogfight. BUT his experience should increase substantially, and when he relates how he overcame long odds to other pilots in his squadron and later when he transfers to a fighter squadron, their skill ratings should increase (if they are put into training mode), but not their experience levels...skills should increase based on learning from others that have better skills and experience than yourself. but training someone how to out-turn a Zero shouldn't increase experience.

so again, i think skills increase with training, experience increases with combat (or increases without combat, but more slowly with training)...with this model (and again, maybe it is already set up like this) a pilot in a PBY spotting ships or a jap LB bombing rice patties in china should definitely gain experience, but not necessarily increase skills. otherwise, i think we would be back to the WiTP model of exp and skills...

Maybe we have misunderstanding. In AE we have general experience and experience in individual skills. Individual skills do not improve. General experience does. Let's look at the air skill. That would be skill in gunnery, maneuvering and combat tactics. Isn't it unlogicall that air skill does not improve after few combats, kills ? And improves only in non combat training?

let's say that you are a basketball player and you have a free throw percentage of 75%. what would be the best way to increase that percentage (unless you are Shaquille O'Neal, then all bets are off)? changing something you are doing during the games, or spending 50% of your practice time shooting free throws? or even better, seeking the advice of a skilled free throw shooter and practicing? i would submit that the practice (training) is much more effective that trying to do something different in game situations...in other words, the training should increase your skill BEFORE you get into the game...

[loricas]

my point is that i desagree from you in 5 assumption:

1) every time have a success improve the skill (after 1-5-10 or wathever you want is the same) so if the hidea is a CHANCE i agree with you. if it's automatic i desagree

2) as i understand new sistem EXPERIENCE is learning new combat tactic and similar things and here may be fixed number to improve (and to lower: even the most skilled pilot need same time to use a new aircraft) and no upper limit after exit from off map training.
AIR skill is what make difference from average pilot to top ACE and in the air skill there are gunnery, self-control capacity, visual capacity and so on. and in this camp after 1 year training at school and 1 year of operative training in map there is space to learn..but a very very slow rate so:
chuck yeager and no name pilot start scholl trainig in the same scholl and both make same number of lessons, same number of hour in flight do you think the they exit from school with same or around same air skill gain? around same experience maybe but skill?
they go to the same squadron for operative training (as i understend is on map dedicated training mission)given they made the same gain? again experience maybe but skill?
they go to first line squadron. in the same mission both shot down a jap: both gain skills? do yo think that Hartmann is necessary a better pilot as made more kill and than learn more than Red Baron?

3) time of training (or learn things in combat situation): in WW2 EVERY time pilot was employed before 1 year of scholl and 1 year of operative training, loss was more high and result worst than normal. When luftwaffe lost the "game" with allied? when for necessity start to short before scholl training and after operative training. keep RAF in BoB: close to the end english, having no choice, put in combat pilot with six week of training that never shot with machinegan in flight: only few survive the first mission

4) maybe what we want is different: i want a sistem where player have a choice: training on map (out of combat) pilot for 1 year and start employing in map with average result that (with same exception) SLOW start to became better (and not all can became RED BARON apart for number of kill), or expect bad results and high losses and the same slow learning rate. so that loss of elite pilot is significative and of difficult replacement and you?

5) in my game against AI i have a pilot (63 air skill) that shot down 8 plane in a single mission you think that must be a 72 air skill now? and when arrive at 100 they have nothing more to learn about air combat?

[pmelheck1]

I like the idea of training improving skills and combat improving experience.  However all training should improve experience to a certain point with low experience units.  Also I think all training should be capped to experience level.  If you have a unit with 50% experience all skills should be capped to 50%.  Gives experience an importance in regards to training and even very experienced units still need advanced training.  Training points should accumulate rather quickly as opposed to experience which should accumulate more slowly.  I think of skill as how to fly and experience as nerve and ability to handle change and make right decisions.  Skills put tools in the tool bag.  Experience lets the pilot know the best time to use those tools.

[Czert]

I thing skill incresed in combat are MUST TO HAVE.
Kwik E markt - you have right that training improves your skill, but training doesnt prepare you for real life. You cain yourself to have 99% in 3 point shoting in training, but for whitch it is for you, if in real match you shoot one time (and score) from 30 posibilites (all othrs shots blocked by enemy due you inability to compute "enemy movement"), but OTOH, you team mate, have at training 50% sucess at 3 point, but in match due to his better computing, he score in 9 from 30. Doesnt that means he is better 3 pointer ? It does, and which is best - in your case you will learn nothing from training, you can improve with real matches, (to improve computing), but you matte can improve from training.
how can you transfer this to game - skill wise ?
And for your video (many thans for it) - that only proof one thing, peoples have different skill, even if they attending same scool,get same training, theory...etc. How can you transfer this to game ? it is practicaly imposible (of course, adding historical pilots is one way, but its eliminate excelent pilots which was killed to early (bad luck)) . Sweede is simply extraordinary figter pilot (despite initialy at bomber plane).

[CV Zuikaku]

1) every time have a success improve the skill (after 1-5-10 or wathever you want is the same) so if the hidea is a CHANCE i agree with you. if it's automatic i desagree

Chance, not automatic...

5) in my game against AI i have a pilot (63 air skill) that shot down 8 plane in a single mission you think that must be a 72 air skill now? and when arrive at 100 they have nothing more to learn about air combat?

No, I don't think that. But I think there have to be a CHANCE that after 8 planes shot down in the single mission his air skill advances at least for one points, and in some rare dice rolls for 5 or 6 points. Do you think that he learned nothing at all in air skill after mission like that?! I think there is the CHANCE that he did... [:D]

4) maybe what we want is different: i want a sistem where player have a choice: training on map (out of combat) pilot for 1 year and start employing in map with average result that (with same exception) SLOW start to became better (and not all can became RED BARON apart for number of kill), or expect bad results and high losses and the same slow learning rate. so that loss of elite pilot is significative and of difficult replacement and you?

I want that I can decide which pilot to pull from reserve pool and to send to reserve pool. I want a system where I can train pilots (at the heavy cost of supplies if needed) up to a certain level in certain skills. When I send them to front line units, I want them to improve their skills in combat - sometimes. not every pilots after every combat- but some. I want that some of the pilots become very skillfull while most do not. If one pilot have 50 kills I want him to be more skilled in air and defense then pilots who just have finished training in on map training squadron. I do not want to see 8000 Hartmanns, Nishizawas or Yeagers flying arround. But every pilot must Have a chance to improve skills both in combat and in training. And the best way to learn tactics and gunnery is combat. If you survive, ofcourse [;)]

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: mullk

I like the idea of training improving skills and combat improving experience.  However all training should improve experience to a certain point with low experience units.  Also I think all training should be capped to experience level.  If you have a unit with 50% experience all skills should be capped to 50%.  Gives experience an importance in regards to training and even very experienced units still need advanced training.  Training points should accumulate rather quickly as opposed to experience which should accumulate more slowly.  I think of skill as how to fly and experience as nerve and ability to handle change and make right decisions.  Skills put tools in the tool bag.  Experience lets the pilot know the best time to use those tools.

mullk, your single post says everything i've been trying to say in a half dozen posts! [&o] when i was learning to fly, we spent countless hours doing touch-and-go landings...it was a controlled environment - there was an instructor, the weather was usually optimal, the planes were well maintained. i would consider that my take off and landing skills improved AND i gained general experience flying the airframe...on my first operational landing on an icy runway overseas (we came close to sliding off the runway...fun), i don't feel that that single landing significantly increased my landing skill, but it did substantially increase my experience in bad weather conditions. additionally, it gave me a valualbe training point that i could share with others when i became an instructor, and i subsequently increased the landing skill of the nuggets that trained under me - the importance of center line, using asymetric power to control center line, not touching the brakes, etc...

[Shark7]

On training versus combat:

I can't remember exactly where I heard this, so I can't credit appropriately, but I do remember something about pilots during Vietnam. That is any pilot that survived his first 10 combat missions was likely going to survive the war until he rotated out. The reason being that in those first 10 missions, he will learn from combat experience and other veteran pilots the things you simply do not learn in flight school.

This is eventually led to the advance Air Force and Navy training programmes such as Red Flag....these programmes allow combat experienced pilots the chance to pass on their knowledge via mock combat that is as close to the real thing as possible. The root of these types of programmes can be found in WWII with the rotation home of US combat pilots to teach the new cadres.

With all that said we get back to my theory on this:

Training should give gradual experience and skill gain up to a soft cap point (not all pilots will be the same), but there is only so much you can learn from the pilot instructor. When the pilot enters combat he should gain skills very quickly for the first few missions, slowing after the first few and gain experience and skills very slowly after the first 10 or so missions. This simulates the 'On the Fly' learning pilots get by operating with more experienced pilots.

In programming terms, experience and skill gain should be on a Bell Curve with a steep gain at first that eventually flattens to a point where gains a minimal. Ideally, a pilot with 25 missions would fall somewhere in the 65-75 experience/skill levels, with exceptions of course. Getting to 80 would need to take 50-100 missions, and getting much higher than that should be the very, very rare pilot, ala Sakai, Saburo.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Czert

I thing skill incresed in combat are MUST TO HAVE.
Kwik E markt - you have right that training improves your skill, but training doesnt prepare you for real life. You cain yourself to have 99% in 3 point shoting in training, but for whitch it is for you, if in real match you shoot one time (and score) from 30 posibilites (all othrs shots blocked by enemy due you inability to compute "enemy movement"), but OTOH, you team mate, have at training 50% sucess at 3 point, but in match due to his better computing, he score in 9 from 30. Doesnt that means he is better 3 pointer ? It does, and which is best - in your case you will learn nothing from training, you can improve with real matches, (to improve computing), but you matte can improve from training.
how can you transfer this to game - skill wise ?
And for your video (many thans for it) - that only proof one thing, peoples have different skill, even if they attending same scool,get same training, theory...etc. How can you transfer this to game ? it is practicaly imposible (of course, adding historical pilots is one way, but its eliminate excelent pilots which was killed to early (bad luck)) . Sweede is simply extraordinary figter pilot (despite initialy at bomber plane).

Czert, you make good points (three pointers and free throws [:D])

i think that is the beauty of using the combined variables of "experience" and "skill"...as you stated, i could practice for hundreds of hours in a gym to become a 99% three point shooter (skill), but if i haven't been in enough games to figure out how to get open from "enemy movement" (experience), then my skill is wasted. perhaps after enough "experience" in real game situations, i can better employ my shooting skill...and you are correct as well that i could practice forever on three pointers and NEVER obtain the ability to become 99% effective...just like not many pilots could have pulled multiple 9 G maneuvers in a dogfight like Swede did...

...to continue the basketball metaphor, if you look at the career of a guy named Michael Jordan, i think you would have to say that early in his career he was an extremely skilled player with not much experience...he made bad game management decisions just like any other rookie...later in his career, his vast experience further amplified his skill, making him one of the greatest players of all time...

[Kwik E Mart]

maybe the way people are inclined to answer this question would shed some light on the skill versus experience issue.

i'm no historian, but isn't it true that in the beginning of the war, allied fighter pilots would try and get their opponents into a "traditional" dog fight, ie they would try to get on the tail of their opponent thru manuever and correct use of energy (speed and altitude)? then when it became apparent that the Zero had a manuever adavantage and the allied planes had a durability advantage, a more "slash" and "shoot" approach was taken? this resulted in a more favorable kill ratio for the allies eventually...

if so, what would be increased to show this new employment of tactics? air-to-air skill or experience?

i guess in my mind i'm thinking the air-to-air skill has increased, due to training in the new tactics. but experience should definitely play a role in the use of that skill...

[IndyShark]

I agree. Pilots acquire experience way too slowly in the latest patch

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

On training versus combat:

I can't remember exactly where I heard this, so I can't credit appropriately, but I do remember something about pilots during Vietnam. That is any pilot that survived his first 10 combat missions was likely going to survive the war until he rotated out. The reason being that in those first 10 missions, he will learn from combat experience and other veteran pilots the things you simply do not learn in flight school.

This is eventually led to the advance Air Force and Navy training programmes such as Red Flag....these programmes allow combat experienced pilots the chance to pass on their knowledge via mock combat that is as close to the real thing as possible. The root of these types of programmes can be found in WWII with the rotation home of US combat pilots to teach the new cadres.

With all that said we get back to my theory on this:

Training should give gradual experience and skill gain up to a soft cap point (not all pilots will be the same), but there is only so much you can learn from the pilot instructor. When the pilot enters combat he should gain skills very quickly for the first few missions, slowing after the first few and gain experience and skills very slowly after the first 10 or so missions. This simulates the 'On the Fly' learning pilots get by operating with more experienced pilots.

In programming terms, experience and skill gain should be on a Bell Curve with a steep gain at first that eventually flattens to a point where gains a minimal. Ideally, a pilot with 25 missions would fall somewhere in the 65-75 experience/skill levels, with exceptions of course. Getting to 80 would need to take 50-100 missions, and getting much higher than that should be the very, very rare pilot, ala Sakai, Saburo.

This is already coded.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Thats a rather arbitrary response. How about you limit yourself to known issues you are in fact looking to fix? Simple enough?

By the way you do realise I am a customer correct?

Edited to add the following, In case you didnt notice, no one here is bashing the "failings" of the AE model. See where im going? But rather, a bit more transparency regarding what is going to be addressed in future, see where im going here? I suspect most people here very much enjoy the game as is, want to see it improved, and have nothing but praise for the folks that made this gem. See where im going again?

Dont take my comments personally, all you can do is improve a already outstanding game. Just introduce a bit more clarity on what you do or do not plan to fix in future as opposed to having thread discussions "discover" them, then admit you are looking into it.

Sorry if I offended you, or presumed upon your time to reply to this discussion about lack of EXP gain via combat. [;)]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Let me rephrase, IF you are aware of problems such as the lack of exp gain for example via combat, then why not post...WE ARE AWARE? In a thread topic, so matters such as this do not become a discussion about the problems related to specific issues such as the above mentioned example.

You stated expo facto in this thread you are aware, why not do so in a thread of known issues instead of having the customers debate IF there is in fact a problem? See where im going here?

Should I post all the things I am aware of in order to head off this sort of discussion, cuz that would be a lot of posts. Or, should I just work toward fixing things and reply to posts like this one in my spare time?

Nothing you posted here has been outright offensive. I think my somewhat tongue-in-cheek demeanor was more a result of a perceived demand in your tone. Lots of "shoulds" and "you needs", even after I thought I answered the call of the thread. It seems it wasn't enough, or at least good enough,...or specific enough? I am still not sure. [&:]

I recognize you as a supporter of AE and I am thankful for that. But as far as a customer/proprietor relationship I presume you are alluding to the theory that in such a relationship you would always be right, and I would have to be...um.. naw couldn't be![;)]

But to put your mind at ease, that theory has little application vis a vis our (yours & mine) relationship, as I have received no money for my trouble. [:D]

If you have more questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but it is difficult to keep up as this doesn't even qualify as a job for me. In fact as an active duty member of the US Armed Forces, I am legally unable to hold a second job...but I digress. Keeping up with just this one thread id hard enough when they take off like this. Not to mention, all the other threads in this forum and the 3 others I have access to...oh and email...

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Thats a rather arbitrary response. How about you limit yourself to known issues you are in fact looking to fix? Simple enough?

By the way you do realise I am a customer correct?

Edited to add the following, In case you didnt notice, no one here is bashing the "failings" of the AE model. See where im going? But rather, a bit more transparency regarding what is going to be addressed in future, see where im going here? I suspect most people here very much enjoy the game as is, want to see it improved, and have nothing but praise for the folks that made this gem. See where im going again?

Dont take my comments personally, all you can do is improve a already outstanding game. Just introduce a bit more clarity on what you do or do not plan to fix in future as opposed to having thread discussions "discover" them, then admit you are looking into it.

Sorry if I offended you, or presumed upon your time to reply to this discussion about lack of EXP gain via combat. [;)]

ORIGINAL: TheElf



Should I post all the things I am aware of in order to head off this sort of discussion, cuz that would be a lot of posts. Or, should I just work toward fixing things and reply to posts like this one in my spare time?

Nothing you posted here has been outright offensive. I think my somewhat tongue-in-cheek demeanor was more a result of a perceived demand in your tone. Lots of "shoulds" and "you needs", even after I thought I answered the call of the thread. It seems it wasn't enough, or at least good enough,...or specific enough? I am still not sure. [&:]

I recognize you as a supporter of AE and I am thankful for that. But as far as a customer/proprietor relationship I presume you are alluding to the theory that in such a relationship you would always be right, and I would have to be...um.. naw couldn't be![;)]

But to put your mind at ease, that theory has little application vis a vis our (yours & mine) relationship, as I have received no money for my trouble. [:D]

If you have more questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but it is difficult to keep up as this doesn't even qualify as a job for me. In fact as an active duty member of the US Armed Forces, I am legally unable to hold a second job...but I digress. Keeping up with just this one thread id hard enough when they take off like this. Not to mention, all the other threads in this forum and the 3 others I have access to...oh and email...

how do we increase your admin leader skill? [;)]

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart



how do we increase your admin leader skill? [;)]

I hate admin...

[Richard III]

No problem Kwik, my fault for being too thin skinned these days[;)]
I`m sure the pilot training routine will get fixed up better then before .