Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

How high would Erich Hartmann be rated in WITP? 300? 400? HJ Marseille? Moelders? Utilizing a rating field of 1-99 and then having most pilots in the 80s and 90s basically disables the rating scheme. Ben Affleck (Welch) is in the high 90s at the start of the game! Maybe he rates this after WW2 and after he breaks the sound barrier in an F86 before the Yaeger as a test pilot but as an untried combat pilot on December 7th? I've said for I can't remember how long that pilots should all be dropped by at least 25% and have any experience gain higher than 75(loer?) come through A2A kills only. (Bombers do not get this A2A as the gunners are neither flying the plane or dropping the ordnance.)

Hartmann should be a 99, Marseille maybe an 80 with a good press agent (himself). In truth, only perhaps 10% of all pilots trained should be actually capable of exceeding 90. And maybe only 25% more capable of exceeding 80. The rest should never be able to exceed the mid-70's. Not everyone had the eyesight, situational awareness, aggressiveness, etc. to be really good in this field of endevour. And nothing but actual air-to-air combat should provide experiance for fighters who have reached the 60 level. Air-to-air is what a Fighter is all about, and it's pilots shouldn't get better at that by flying reccon or ground attack and such. And bombers should only get better than 60 by bombing something. Maybe Fighter-Bombers can get up to 70 either way, but after that only by air-to-air.

We need some kind of "limiting factor" to keep the "Average Experiance" of units from climbing to astronomical levels. This would actually help the Japanese a bit, because as US pilots fight long enough to get to high levels they fall prey to rotation home as instructors. So the Japanese would get some kind of "balance factor" for the rather poorly trained pilots they are turning out in the game. The Japs arrive with pretty low ratings, but if they last long enough they can get very high. The US and Allied pilots arrive better trained and prepared, but the "rotation policy" takes them home again before they can reach really high levels. So you would wind up with 2-3 excellent Japanese pilots leading a bunch of less-than-ready comrades into battle, while the opposition would be more homogenious.

And "experiance levels" should be reduced by maybe 20% when a pilot is involved in a combat outside his own field of expertise. Being able to "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet" doesn't necessarily make the bomber's air-to-air gunners able to shoot down enemy fighters like "aces". Just some thoughts.

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

roll rate at low speed and small turn radii (in the horizontal plane) are the least important attributes a WWII fighter plane had. Speed, climb rate, dive rate, armor protection, firepower, more speed, and yet more speed were the important things.

Being able to outturn an opponent is meaningless if the opponent does not elect to get into a turning fight, whereas the ability to outrun, outdive and outclimb an opponent gives you complete domination of the battle.

Which is not to say that the Zeros didn't continue to score against American fighters right up to the end...they did, but at a hugely unfavorable ratio.

Another disgusting "History Fan-Boy" introducing those nasty facts into a thread.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

How high would Erich Hartmann be rated in WITP? 300? 400? HJ Marseille? Moelders? Utilizing a rating field of 1-99 and then having most pilots in the 80s and 90s basically disables the rating scheme. Ben Affleck (Welch) is in the high 90s at the start of the game! Maybe he rates this after WW2 and after he breaks the sound barrier in an F86 before the Yaeger as a test pilot but as an untried combat pilot on December 7th? I've said for I can't remember how long that pilots should all be dropped by at least 25% and have any experience gain higher than 75(loer?) come through A2A kills only. (Bombers do not get this A2A as the gunners are neither flying the plane or dropping the ordnance.)

Hartmann should be a 99, Marseille maybe an 80 with a good press agent (himself). In truth, only perhaps 10% of all pilots trained should be actually capable of exceeding 90. And maybe only 25% more capable of exceeding 80. The rest should never be able to exceed the mid-70's. Not everyone had the eyesight, situational awareness, aggressiveness, etc. to be really good in this field of endevour. And nothing but actual air-to-air combat should provide experiance for fighters who have reached the 60 level. Air-to-air is what a Fighter is all about, and it's pilots shouldn't get better at that by flying reccon or ground attack and such. And bombers should only get better than 60 by bombing something. Maybe Fighter-Bombers can get up to 70 either way, but after that only by air-to-air.

We need some kind of "limiting factor" to keep the "Average Experiance" of units from climbing to astronomical levels. This would actually help the Japanese a bit, because as US pilots fight long enough to get to high levels they fall prey to rotation home as instructors. So the Japanese would get some kind of "balance factor" for the rather poorly trained pilots they are turning out in the game. The Japs arrive with pretty low ratings, but if they last long enough they can get very high. The US and Allied pilots arrive better trained and prepared, but the "rotation policy" takes them home again before they can reach really high levels. So you would wind up with 2-3 excellent Japanese pilots leading a bunch of less-than-ready comrades into battle, while the opposition would be more homogenious.

And "experiance levels" should be reduced by maybe 20% when a pilot is involved in a combat outside his own field of expertise. Being able to "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet" doesn't necessarily make the bomber's air-to-air gunners able to shoot down enemy fighters like "aces". Just some thoughts.

You hit upon something I was going to post earlier, but didn't.

Basically that the notion that pilots keep getting better is absolutely absurd.
It would be no different than being in the infantry for that matter. You get training, and with luck and decent leadership - you survive your first few weeks in combat (or first few missions if you're a pilot) and learn the tricks of the trade to survive and become a more effective soldier/airman.

With even more luck you survive your tour and go home....

Nowhere in that process do the survivors all become Audie Murphy in the infantry, nor Baron Von Richtofen in the Air Corps.

That's what is out of whack - the group is as good as it's going to be after a (relatively) few days in combat. Which is not saying they stay poor, on the contrary the will become veterans quite quickly.
But keeping men in combat does not make them uniformly become aces or heroes.
As a matter of fact, it was found in WWII that after too many days in combat (something over six months) the men actually started loosing effectiveness as weariness set in (mentally and physically), so keeping men in the line or pilots in the air becomes counterproductive after a point.

The Subaro Saki's, Dick Bong's, and Douglas Campbell's are part of a select few because of inherent factors in their own make up that will allow them to rise above their fellows...not because they got "trained up" as WitP would have it.

My two cents..
B

EDIT: This is not to be taken as undue bitching about WitP, it's a fun game, It's just my venting - maybe they will do something different in WITP2

Hi, I agree. And at one time we had proposed that a fully trained pilot was 55. pilots could exceed that but the chance was low. And it was on a pilot by pilot basis. (some pilots could become great 90+)(some pilots when they finsihed training were elevated to 90+ most stayed around 55 with 65 being the highest they could attain but pilots pretty much had their max rating after training or just a few combat missions. The impact of leaders in bombing groups was much more important for results on missions.

What you all say makes great sense, but one must not forget that in this game experience actually plays a small role in combat...

The idea of experience staying at more normal ranges is logical, but then it would hardly affect combat : If you have a very experienced Daitai by thes new standards ( average of high 70's or low 80's, with a few heroes in the 90's ), and face a more normal fighter group in its low 60's, this is merely 15 experience points difference, and we all now that this would have a tiny effect on the actual fight...

Experience is vastly underrated in this game, so in orther to maximize its effect, a player has to attain very high experience... Obviously this is more a concern for the jap player, because having outdated airframes, he has to maximize all other factors to stand a chance.

The point is that making experience look more like it should would actually command a change in how it is accounted for in game...

If we manage to get experience to reasonnable levels, we need to have a code that sees and makes the difference when a 70s avg group fights again a 50's group, while today difference isn't that obvious...

just my two cents...

I don't suppose something like that can ever be added to WitP in the form of a patch?

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I agree. And at one time we had proposed that a fully trained pilot was 55. pilots could exceed that but the chance was low. And it was on a pilot by pilot basis. (some pilots could become great 90+)(some pilots when they finsihed training were elevated to 90+ most stayed around 55 with 65 being the highest they could attain but pilots pretty much had their max rating after training or just a few combat missions. The impact of leaders in bombing groups was much more important for results on missions.

Hi veji1,

I must respectfully disagree with you that exp plays a small role in the game.

And, if you wish to test this out - I will email any scenario you wish to test, with the exp levels set however you wish - to see what difference it makes.

Do you think the KB would be as dangerous as they currently are if their exp level was 55 instead of 80 to 90+, for example? Or if all Japanese air units started the game at 50-55 and allies 70 -90? Perhaps the Chinese starting in the high 70s instead of 45?

I think exp is extremely important with this game engine.

Not picking on you, just food for thought...


B

ORIGINAL: veji1

What you all say makes great sense, but one must not forget that in this game experience actually plays a small role in combat...

The idea of experience staying at more normal ranges is logical, but then it would hardly affect combat : If you have a very experienced Daitai by thes new standards ( average of high 70's or low 80's, with a few heroes in the 90's ), and face a more normal fighter group in its low 60's, this is merely 15 experience points difference, and we all now that this would have a tiny effect on the actual fight...

Experience is vastly underrated in this game, so in orther to maximize its effect, a player has to attain very high experience... Obviously this is more a concern for the jap player, because having outdated airframes, he has to maximize all other factors to stand a chance.

The point is that making experience look more like it should would actually command a change in how it is accounted for in game...

If we manage to get experience to reasonnable levels, we need to have a code that sees and makes the difference when a 70s avg group fights again a 50's group, while today difference isn't that obvious...

just my two cents...

ORIGINAL: Big B

I don't suppose something like that can ever be added to WitP in the form of a patch?

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I agree. And at one time we had proposed that a fully trained pilot was 55. pilots could exceed that but the chance was low. And it was on a pilot by pilot basis. (some pilots could become great 90+)(some pilots when they finsihed training were elevated to 90+ most stayed around 55 with 65 being the highest they could attain but pilots pretty much had their max rating after training or just a few combat missions. The impact of leaders in bombing groups was much more important for results on missions.

greetings,

i'm strongly against this until we don't have enough data from full campaign (i suspect that Frank is underrated in the game but i don't want to start rant before i check this theory in PBEM games - of course i could be wrong but thats why i stated we need date from the finished grand campaigns).

Please keep in mind that all started from ONE single example from the Nik mod (Corsairs aren't x-wings in his mod!) and i had a hunch that this thread would become what it becomes:

ORIGINAL: pauk
this must has be fixed in 1.9[:D]

While we agree that ground attack training is not realistic I still think that tweaking pilot experience shouldnt be done before:

a) extensive testing of A2A in late war period
b) changes in other "parts" of air warfare (slower repair rates of heavies, higher value for heavies... etc)

I'm just against this one sided adjustments in the game based on early war period (mess with pilot exp and you will get another unbalance, i assure you). There was enough such solutions just because majority of players want to play Allies.

Even with ground training attacks Japan still can't last till 1945. So, is this a really biggest issue in the game?


PS (to all) i'm not using empty bases for training either.

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Big B

I don't suppose something like that can ever be added to WitP in the form of a patch?

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I agree. And at one time we had proposed that a fully trained pilot was 55. pilots could exceed that but the chance was low. And it was on a pilot by pilot basis. (some pilots could become great 90+)(some pilots when they finsihed training were elevated to 90+ most stayed around 55 with 65 being the highest they could attain but pilots pretty much had their max rating after training or just a few combat missions. The impact of leaders in bombing groups was much more important for results on missions.

greetings,

i'm strongly against this until we don't have enough data from full campaign (i suspect that Frank is underrated in the game but i don't want to start rant before i check this theory in PBEM games - of course i could be wrong but thats why i stated we need date from the finished grand campaigns).

Please keep in mind that all started from ONE single example from the Nik mod (Corsairs aren't x-wings in his mod!) and i had a hunch that this thread would become what it becomes:

ORIGINAL: pauk
this must has be fixed in 1.9[:D]

While we agree that ground attack training is not realistic I still think that tweaking pilot experience shouldnt be done before:

a) extensive testing of A2A in late war period
b) changes in other "parts" of air warfare (slower repair rates of heavies, higher value for heavies... etc)

I'm just against this one sided adjustments in the game based on early war period (mess with pilot exp and you will get another unbalance, i assure you). There was enough such solutions just because majority of players want to play Allies.

Even with ground training attacks Japan still can't last till 1945. So, is this a really biggest issue in the game?


PS (to all) i'm not using empty bases for training either.

Wait another year or so to see how it turns out? Why not run a Beta patch with reduced pilot experience now and see what happens? No doubt it will alleviate alot of the bloodiness. Same with some of El Cids adjustments to weapon range I'd guess.

not a bad idea, Ron. However, there is one glitch there[;)]

99.9 % player will start new game with beta and after playing a year (in game terms) everybody would be delight with new system. But what about late war period?


However, i'm against tweaks in A2A until the B) from my above post is achived. No partial solutions anymore.

Hi Pauk,

No, it didn't all start with one single post.

It's the principal that everybody gets to be 'The Red Baron' that is the issue, and as Mogami pointed out - that was discussed long ago in development but unfortunately never introduced.

Yes, you are darn right it will have an effect on the game if sduadron experience (not select individuals) is llimited. But the effect will be a better game in terms of realism. You have to admit it is absolutely cheesey and gamey for players to train up entire groups to 90 and above level.

Testing should be done - but that shouldn't be an issue. There are years of AARs and game playing experience to show what we have now, testing new limitations shouldn't take very long.

Obviously you don't share the opinion of veji1 that experience dosen't matter much.

B

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: Big B

I don't suppose something like that can ever be added to WitP in the form of a patch?

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I agree. And at one time we had proposed that a fully trained pilot was 55. pilots could exceed that but the chance was low. And it was on a pilot by pilot basis. (some pilots could become great 90+)(some pilots when they finsihed training were elevated to 90+ most stayed around 55 with 65 being the highest they could attain but pilots pretty much had their max rating after training or just a few combat missions. The impact of leaders in bombing groups was much more important for results on missions.

greetings,

i'm strongly against this until we don't have enough data from full campaign (i suspect that Frank is underrated in the game but i don't want to start rant before i check this theory in PBEM games - of course i could be wrong but thats why i stated we need date from the finished grand campaigns).

Please keep in mind that all started from ONE single example from the Nik mod (Corsairs aren't x-wings in his mod!) and i had a hunch that this thread would become what it becomes:

ORIGINAL: pauk
this must has be fixed in 1.9[:D]

While we agree that ground attack training is not realistic I still think that tweaking pilot experience shouldnt be done before:

a) extensive testing of A2A in late war period
b) changes in other "parts" of air warfare (slower repair rates of heavies, higher value for heavies... etc)

I'm just against this one sided adjustments in the game based on early war period (mess with pilot exp and you will get another unbalance, i assure you). There was enough such solutions just because majority of players want to play Allies.

Even with ground training attacks Japan still can't last till 1945. So, is this a really biggest issue in the game?


PS (to all) i'm not using empty bases for training either.

ORIGINAL: Big B

Hi Pauk,

No, it didn't all start with one single post.

It's the principal that everybody gets to be 'The Red Baron' that is the issue, and as Mogami pointed out - that was discussed long ago in development but unfortunately never introduced.

greetings, it might be that everybody gets to be TRB in the game but they wont live forever... this shot was taken from my PBEM against Andy Mac - and it is october 1942 - no P-38, Corsairs yet....

ORIGINAL: Big B

Hi Pauk,
Yes, you are darn right it will have an effect on the game if sduadron experience (not select individuals) is llimited. But the effect will be a better game in terms of realism.

You might be right - and i'm not against testing (beta) but i do want BIG changes in whole air combat system.

ORIGINAL: Big B
You have to admit it is absolutely cheesey and gamey for players to train up entire groups to 90 and above level.

I would say it again. Allied players are responsible for that too. If you choose Sir Robin you are allowing Japanese massive training for half year or so. Only in that case Japan could train 10 or more groups to the 80ies. Atoledo daitai is, i believe isolated case (doubt that he trained several 90+ Daitais). If he done that, we should ask his opponent what he was doing for 7 months (pilots from his daitai have 220 missions!)

I'm not guilty because "regular" training lasts forever (how long it takes to get pilot from 30 to 59? six months?, how many supply are eaten?)

ORIGINAL: Big B
Testing should be done - but that shouldn't be an issue. There are years of AARs and game playing experience to show what we have now, testing new limitations shouldn't take very long.

How many AARs are in late 1943 and 1944? I'm really sorry that Feinder don't doing his AAR of '45 campaign.

From what i saw even the crack Japanese pilots get slaughter from their Allied counterparts (see PzB AAR and carrier battle at NG/early 1944) at "Mariana Turkey shoot" rate - which is wrong.

So i do believe that i answered to your last sentence - i do agree with veji completely.

I think i've posted somewhere in forum my observations about influence of the experience in A2A combat but can not recall where and when.

Faber and I are at July 43. Not sure what experience levels his boys were at mind you in our Wake Battle.....

Pauk, all I am saying is that players (both sides) should not be able to train entire units to be 99s.
There should be realistic limits within the game - for realisms sake.

Now, if you want to talk about players tactics - the sky is the limit.

If you think experience dosen't matter - or dosen't matter enough([&:]), then you must love the game as is - good for you.
In fact, if experience dosen't matter - I propose putting three unoccupied Japanese bases cut off deep in Allied teritory - One in India, One in the USA, and one in Australia. The Allied player can cheaply train up his units free of cost too - hows that?

If experience should be a 'Japanese Only' advantage because 'the allies get B-17s and Corsairs and it just ain't fair' I'm not sure I understand you.

I see a contradiction in the way the game considers training.
On one hand you have the training function. You can train up to 60, so the game considers you can't get more than 60 exp without combat. Fine.
BUT!
On an other hand you have trained pilots introduced into the pool in the 70s and over (ealy IJN, lateUSMC...). From where are they supposed to come ? A training program! So the game considers you can reach 75 or more without seing combat,just with training. Confusing.[&:]
Personnally I train my planes, on ground targets, up to 70-75. It's a very artificial way to solve the problem, but it's the only one.
In my opinion the training function should logically either allow to train up to 75, or the pool shouldn't introduce pilots over 60exp, then we could speak about abandonning bombing isolated bases.
I don't consider training function too slow, it may be realistic, but obviously it doesn't suit well with the pace of other aspects of the game, and the overly bloody aircombat. This is an other justification for training on isolated bases.

First of all, those who say that the allies can train up the same way are missing something very obvious. Look at the number of missions flown by atoledo's pilots. Most are in the neighborhood of 200 missions. You might recall that allied pilots get rotated after 100 missions. Thus this method of training pilots is biased...

I agree with Nik and Mog; the experience levels are all out of whack. A fully trained, experienced pilot should have a rating around 55. Only the truly gifted pilots should ever be over 80.

If you think that this will not have any effect on the game, I don't believe that you're thinking it all the way through. I believe that lowering pilot experience levels will also reduce the numbers of hits on shipping by those aircraft (certainly a bone of contention among players). Therefore I think that it would be a very good move.

Decreasing pilot experience should also increase operational losses, which are much lower in WITP than they were IRL.

The exp. is just not realistic in my eyes.

We have pilots who reach 99 by trainig methods (i do not care how you call it)
The same with the training effect for new pilots.

Long ago mogami (i think so) said, he wished that all training groups are on map.

I love this idea.
You get an training group, with trainers (advantage allied side, cause of the better training planes - so "exp" is easier to gain)
Now you see the A-exp., that means how well a pilot can handle an airplane, had understood the pyhsics etc... this level can reach 99, the pilot needs 50 for getting in the next level. But you can switch the level. Say, you need a lot pilots, have 4 Dakais with 60s Training pilots... they need another month to reach 90, so you decide to put em in the next level now. (decreasing quality)
The allies have so many training crews (esp. the americans) that they can train untill 99 without lack of pilots.
Level 2 means, you decide what kind of pilot this guys will be. Bombers or Fighters or "other". Again, the pilot will be trained, for the type of plane.
Again you can reach 99. You decide.
And last, your pilot come in as reserve... with a (tested and dice-roll) experience.
This exp. has only to do with the first ones by negative effects.
Example... you have Pilot A, Level A achieved with 86, Level B achieved with 94... so his Modify is .86*.94 =.80.... the Pilots Experience was 59... so his modified experience is 59*,8= 47.

And with this, you can controll the flow of new pilots...
oh, and the exp. should be max. 200... so an rookie with 59 can gain combat experience... but an ace with exp.199 has a huge advantage an the chance for killing is say 25:1... (i do not know a good multiplication system for that, but experts should get huge bonus (if not surprised)

Oh, the modification for the plane will drop to 50% with a new plane (same type) and drop to 25% by a different kind (bomber to fighter)... but with time (like Level-2-Training) this experience will increase again.

I bet, with this we could avoid the unrealistic plane-upgrades. Also, a japanese player who look ahead and is not pressed too much can have still a great amount of good pilots.
Or - with level-2-training at the calm front he take risks... but still could build on a good level-a-trainig.
You need the supply, fuel, also the training planes and teachers (i forgot...) good pilots could be teachers, but this means - no combat fights)
The americans get with the retire-system huge benefits for training and with time they speed up. But still, max. experience is 60... or take another level.
japanese rookies with trainig are as good as americans, but if you are forced to fill up your crews, your quality sink.

just my 2 cents...

I would say it again. Allied players are responsible for that too. If you choose Sir Robin you are allowing Japanese massive training for half year or so. Only in that case Japan could train 10 or more groups to the 80ies. Atoledo daitai is, i believe isolated case (doubt that he trained several 90+ Daitais). If he done that, we should ask his opponent what he was doing for 7 months (pilots from his daitai have 220 missions!)

I just had a fair chuckle from this statement.

So, you have a Japanese squadron bombing an empty, bypassed Allied base (say, in the Phillippines), for 6-10 months, and they get their exp rating up into the 90's, and you say that's the Allied player's fault? (For not fighting when he, presumably, doesn't perceive a payoff in doing so?)

[:'(]

Allied: "What?!? you can't do that! That's soo gamey!"

IJA: "Wha, well.. It's your fault! You ran away for the first ten months of the game!"

Allied: (mumbles) "You left me little choice."