Matrix Games Forums

I am thinking about retooling some of the LCU training limits.

Currently they stand at...

50 (IJN, IJA, USN, USMC, US Army, BRIT, AUS, NZ)
25 (IND, SBF, DUT, PHIL, CHIN)

Air groups can train all the way up to 99, however, after 70 the chance at training any more is difficult.

I was definitely planning on increasing the maximum from 25 to another, higher, number, as these units were not untrainable, just had poor morale (thinking of raising their maximum to around 35-40).

I was also contemplating raising the maximum training for the 50 units up to possibly 60.

Aircraft training, in my mind, should also have a cut-off point. Being able to train air groups to 99, and not LCU's does not seem fair in my mind. Maybe limiting training of air groups to 70, or 65 (or whatever is considered trained, but not veteran).

Maybe before I can do this we must decide what fits into the following categories...

For LCU's, for example...

(>=40) Green
(40-60) Regular (trained)
(60-80) Veteran
(80-99) Elite

And aircraft should have a slightly different set of numbers, but generally the same categories

(>=50) Green
(60-70) Regular
(70-85) Veteran
(85-99) Elite

These are rough estimates, by basing on the behaviour of the unit in combat (a 50 experienced LCU tends to do better then a 50 experiences LBA, which makes up for the fact that air groups have higher numbers to simulate a higher experience level)

Any thoughts on rating troops and air groups and/or the maximums that training should give them?

If I remember correctly, all LCU's below an experience of 50 have to make a "roll" during combat to avoid a collapse. Therefore, the difference between experience 49 and 51 for LCU's is much more significant than, say, between 59 and 61, and should probably be reflected in your categories.

Also, are you sure that SBF's top out at 25? Every SBF I know of starts with an experience rating of better than 30. Possibly you're thinking of pure Engineer units, which don't self-train at all.

Yes, experience of 50 is the critical number.

Maybe possibly maximum training for LCU's should be lowered, to perhaps 45. However, realistically most well trained units would easily pass these checks, so maybe it should be raised up to 60 to show what intensive training can offer a unit?

The 'weaker' allied formations (Dutch, Indian, etc..) will still remain much lower than this experience check through training. The old gap of 25 was a bit too much, especially for the Indian Army (which was not great, but not that bad by 1944).

I actually raised SBF experience to 60 (i.e., starting experience, if you change their experience level to 25 it will not raise above this), but if you look at the original version, these units started off in the 25-35 experience range, and only gained on this through combat experience. SBF units were not the best formations, but they were strong enough to cause major damage to allied formations.

I agree with Jeremys re adjusting of values, perhaps the saving throw should be removed to "even out" the process... No definite answer - just opinions for this one...

Can CV air groups be limited higher than land based air in their max training-reached experience value? They already enter the game much higer in experience due to the massive amount of skill they need just to operate off a carrier. Might as well reflect that in a higer non-combat training max.

Indeed the CV AGs have separate code, but currently both have same values...

I was wondering if it was possible to make the infamous "2 squad defense" to something not so devastating? (Well, since it's for me to find if it's possible, it's for you to say if it should be changed if it is.)

Mika

Yes! Find it! Change it!

My first insticnt was to increase Carrier training as well. Carrier pilots tended to have more training, primarily on how to land and take off from such a small field along with other specialist training.

However, does all of that make them better combat pilots?

Couldn't land based air groups receive exactly the same amount of combat training as Carrier based?

Carrier pilots tended to be better than their land based counterparts, but that does not mean that LBA cannot be trained to the same levels as carrier air. Carrier aircraft will appear with higher experience levels (i.e., at the maximum training of 75), unless they experienced combat in a previous theatre of war before entering the Pacific (then they would have more experience).

Basically, what this comes down to, were carrier pilots invariably better pilots than LBA pilots if both were actually trained to their maximum abilities? This is why I think they left the original training as equal, since even though Carrier Pilots tended to be trained more, it does not mean that LBA could not be trained to be as good combat pilots.

This is what training maximums mean for the game.


HOWEVER, since carrier pilots did experience more training as a standard, then maybe something could be done...

As it stands, the current modified training goes as follows...

65 + Random (10)

Which means that an air group will gain experience if its experience is less than 65 + Random number between 0 and 10. This gives a maximum experience of 75, but guartanteed experience per turn up to 65 (then it becomes a game of chance)

However, carrier groups recieve more training and should probably be easier to train and change training code to...

70 + Raondom (5)

Which means that an air group will gain experience if its experience is less than 70 + Random number between 0 and 5.
This gives a maximum experience of 75, but guaranteed experience per turn up to 70 (then it becomes a game of chance).


So, even though carriers can reach the same maximum (75), they will get to 70 experience faster then a LBA group (unless the LBA group trains very luckily).

Whoops, two different threads here. I was posting in favor of fixing the "two squad defense" issue.

I like the idea of changing the training values for carrier AGs, too.

IMO the "lesser" nationalities are quite a mixed bag. I doubt anything could have been done with the local Dutch units and the Burmese units no matter how much they trained. I would keep a low cap for them. With the Filipinos, I think supply was the biggest consideration in training. Certainly the performance of the Filipino Scouts suggest that morale per se was not the training. On the other hand, there seems little doubt that training for both the Indian divisions and the Filipinos should be slower given all the problems associated with Western officers (or less trained local officers) and local enlisted men.
How can you effectively train any Chinese Nationalist forces that are under Nationalist control. Your whole training budget will be siphoned off. Only Chinese units outside of China should be trainable to any high standard. This is a short summary of Stillwell's whole experience. Perhaps they should train as quick as American units up to 25, then at half speed to 50, then similar to what ever you decide on for Americans above 50.
I don't know about the Malayasians.
BTW Why do inactive units defend as well as active units.
In general, I agree that there shouldn't be a simple cutoff. There should be a taperering off of training effects similar to aircraft, although perhaps not as generous.

Indian units should definately be capped at above 50. It took time but by 1944 the British Indian colonial army was a well trained force that kicked Japan completely out of Burma. I agree completely about the other "nationalities" and agree that the Filipino troops should not be capped too low - except that there won't be any left to gain experience

I've found that the formulas in the manual about the experience rolls for LCU readiness in combat are wrong.

Instead of random(900) < (exp^2), it is random(30) < ((exp^2)/100).

Instead of random(2500) < (exp^2), it is random(50) < ((exp^2)/100).

And instead of random(10000) < (exp^2), it is random(100) <((exp^2)/100).

What this means is that to be safe from the first two checks that reduce readiness in combat, you need 55 exp for the first check, and 71 exp for the second check.

Furthermore, I've found that during March,April and May, there is monsoon in Burma area, reducing effective readiness to 1/4. (Whether this affects defender also, I'm not sure.)

Mika

2 years on the forum but have to post a stupid newbie question: Admittedly I have never paid much attention to the land combat resolution phase, but I'm under the impression that for land combat only the experience/readiness of the LCU 'on the top of the stack' is used to calculate the outcome of the battle. Is this true? If not, how does it really work? Are the values averaged from all units, or is each unit calculated separately?

Thanks for the info Mika. That explains a frustrating occurance in a PBEM game I had. Lost Andaman Islands to a '2-squad' defence with a division having 50 experience. Now I understand why.

Originally posted by Mika Väliviita
I've found that the formulas in the manual about the experience rolls for LCU readiness in combat are wrong.

Instead of random(900) < (exp^2), it is random(30) < ((exp^2)/100).

Instead of random(2500) < (exp^2), it is random(50) < ((exp^2)/100).

And instead of random(10000) < (exp^2), it is random(100) <((exp^2)/100).

What this means is that to be safe from the first two checks that reduce readiness in combat, you need 55 exp for the first check, and 71 exp for the second check.

Furthermore, I've found that during March,April and May, there is monsoon in Burma area, reducing effective readiness to 1/4. (Whether this affects defender also, I'm not sure.)

Mika

Mike how did you find this out??? This is a major revelation. not to mention a bummer

LST, I am under the same impression as you, it goes against the manual, but PWHINTS11 states what you said.

i like combat as is just fine (the fail check rule is exciting), but would favor making low-exp units have the ability to train to 50 max. Even engineers. I saw in one of the 2.x versions that as Dutch units started training past 25/35 experience. I liked that

50 experience isn't much