Selecting Zero pilots from TRACOM

[specie1]

How can i tell which zero pilots in TRACOM are from my carriers and which ones are from land based units?

if i select a pilot from TRACOM that was originally from a land based unit can he fly from a carrier? Will he crash his plane on landing more often?

[geofflambert]

Carrier training is a function of squadrons, not pilots. They are not identified and you needn't worry about it.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: specie1

How can i tell which zero pilots in TRACOM are from my carriers and which ones are from land based units?

if i select a pilot from TRACOM that was originally from a land based unit can he fly from a carrier? Will he crash his plane on landing more often?

As far as I know, only the units themselves are 'carrier capable' or 'carrier trained'. I don't believe that information is stored on a pilot by pilot basis. Thus, an IJNAF A6M2 LBA pilot can become an IJNAF A6M2 CV pilot with no penalty.

[geofflambert]

Similarly, the number of "kills" attributed to a squadron has nothing to do with how many kills the pilots in the squadron at any given time have. It is the number of kills recorded by pilots who were in the squadron at the time the kill was recorded. There is no record for any pilot as to whether they have carrier experience or not.

[specie1]

what a fantastic forum and a bunch of great people.

thanks for the prompt and helpful answer.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Carrier training is a function of squadrons, not pilots. They are not identified and you needn't worry about it.

Ufortunatly;

still don't understand why Henderson field guys did not fix it;

Even Gary himself;

[Dili]

Yep, there are a couple more, you can't restricted troops move by ship even between cities on same command, you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

[Capt Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: Dili

...you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

You mean, besides the fact that there will be a much higher chance of operational losses for such a pilot?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yep, there are a couple more, you can't restricted troops move by ship even between cities on same command, you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

You can only fly light equipment to other bases. This prevents moving fully equipped divisions by air. To prevent them moving too soon by ship, the Political Point system is necessary. The developers wanted to slow the pace of Allied and Japanese deployments to approximate what they achieved historically.

If the restricted units could load on ships that were slated to go to another base in the same command, what's to stop the player from changing the ship's destination enroute?

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yep, there are a couple more, you can't restricted troops move by ship even between cities on same command, you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

If the restricted units could load on ships that were slated to go to another base in the same command, what's to stop the player from changing the ship's destination enroute?

We already had this discussion;
the ship could be forbidden to unload at the unlawful location;

devs preferred not to do so; I honestly don't like it at all;

Japan cannot unload anything in Hokkaido; nor from China to China; restricted allied cannot move from one Indonesian island to another;
prefer to unrestrict all interested units through editor, and then self impose rule not to deploy them out of their Hq's theter of competence;

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yep, there are a couple more, you can't restricted troops move by ship even between cities on same command, you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

If the restricted units could load on ships that were slated to go to another base in the same command, what's to stop the player from changing the ship's destination enroute?

We already had this discussion;
the ship could be forbidden to unload at the unlawful location;

devs preferred not to do so; I honestly don't like it at all;

Japan cannot unload anything in Hokkaido; nor from China to China; restricted allied cannot move from one Indonesian island to another;
prefer to unrestrict all interested units through editor, and then self impose rule not to deploy them out of their Hq's theter of competence;

Agreed, it would be better if such movement was available, but it would require another layer of programming to check all the units in the TF vs the base ownership and comparing HQs. As I understand it, the few coders they had were hard pressed to get things done and this is one of those things that didn't get done in time. C'est la jeux de guerre!

[Dili]

ORIGINAL: Capt Hornblower

ORIGINAL: Dili

...you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

You mean, besides the fact that there will be a much higher chance of operational losses for such a pilot?

Yes,
It could be made even worse there are many tales of squadron getting lost and with heavy causalities in Pacific.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yep, there are a couple more, you can't restricted troops move by ship even between cities on same command, you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

You can only fly light equipment to other bases. This prevents moving fully equipped divisions by air. To prevent them moving too soon by ship, the Political Point system is necessary. The developers wanted to slow the pace of Allied and Japanese deployments to approximate what they achieved historically.

If the restricted units could load on ships that were slated to go to another base in the same command, what's to stop the player from changing the ship's destination enroute?

Like adarbrauner said is that we can't move a Chinese division from Peiping to Canton except by land. Neither reinforce by air.

[geofflambert]

If it was allowed you might as well not have restrictions, the amount of coding necessary to prevent this but not that would be prohibitive. For example, once a ship is at sea, how would the game prevent the cargo from being unloaded in the wrong place? One thing I don't like is captured bases being assigned to HQs based on the capturing units, I guess. Making it necessary to use PPs to assign them to the correct HQs. Perhaps it would not be too complicated for the game to ask the owning player to assign an HQ before the AI arbitrarily assigns the base to the wrong HQ. Mix a few US troops into the Indian Ocean theatre and you'll see bases getting an American flag for very little reason at all.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Carrier training is a function of squadrons, not pilots. They are not identified and you needn't worry about it.

Ufortunatly;

still don't understand why Henderson field guys did not fix it;

Even Gary himself;

Fix what? What exactly is broken which can only be remedied with a fix?

This post is just another one of your interminable posts where you invent a problem allegedly created by the devs who on purpose failed to resolve it. In all cases your comments clearly imply incompetence on the part of the devs. Particularly so when you state that "Even Gary himself" ... and leave unsaid what Gary (BTW Gary who) did say (maybe that night follows day) or when (considering he was not involved in developing AE at all).

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yep, there are a couple more, you can't restricted troops move by ship even between cities on same command, you can fly at night with a 40 experience pilot without much or even if any penalty.

If the restricted units could load on ships that were slated to go to another base in the same command, what's to stop the player from changing the ship's destination enroute?

We already had this discussion;
the ship could be forbidden to unload at the unlawful location;

devs preferred not to do so; I honestly don't like it at all;

Japan cannot unload anything in Hokkaido; nor from China to China; restricted allied cannot move from one Indonesian island to another;
prefer to unrestrict all interested units through editor, and then self impose rule not to deploy them out of their Hq's theter of competence;

Now you say "We already had this discussion". Who was involved in the discussion; other ignorant people about game coding and design like yourself? For if you had really read what the devs had said on the subject you would not be making such slanderous comments.

The AE game engine can not support allowing restricted units boarding ships.

The devs tried many different coding solutions within the game engine but could not make any of them work without leaving holes which allowed players to abuse and cheat the system.

Here is a very simple abuse which is very obvious to anyone with half a brain. Load a restricted unit and you can unload it on a costal non base hex. Try to fix that then creates problems for legitimate Amphibious TF unloading. It also has ramifications with the existing swamp terrain hex restrictions. It can also lead to difficulties in unloading a TF carrying a mixture of unrestricted/restricted troops (in both cargo and troop space) and supplies in cargo space.

Alfred

[adarbrauner]

The discussion was with you as well, some less than two years ago, on the same lines;
I don't buy the explanations. I buy that it may be complicated but not unfeasable;

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Carrier training is a function of squadrons, not pilots. They are not identified and you needn't worry about it.

Ufortunatly;

still don't understand why Henderson field guys did not fix it;

Even Gary himself;

Fix what? What exactly is broken which can only be remedied with a fix?

This post is just another one of your interminable posts where you invent a problem allegedly created by the devs who on purpose failed to resolve it. In all cases your comments clearly imply incompetence on the part of the devs. Particularly so when you state that "Even Gary himself" ... and leave unsaid what Gary (BTW Gary who) did say (maybe that night follows day) or when (considering he was not involved in developing AE at all).

Alfred

Come on!

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Alfred


Here is a very simple abuse which is very obvious to anyone with half a brain. Load a restricted unit and you can unload it on a costal non base hex. Try to fix that then creates problems for legitimate Amphibious TF unloading. It also has ramifications with the existing swamp terrain hex restrictions. It can also lead to difficulties in unloading a TF carrying a mixture of unrestricted/restricted troops (in both cargo and troop space) and supplies in cargo space.

Alfred

No no no way. Every hex has a code, related to the "area" or nation, even non base;


Please....

[Chickenboy]

adarbrauner,

As far as I know you can change all of the things you're proposing through the use of the editor. You can certainly give yourself infinite PPs to move all manner of units or re-position them accordingly from the get go. I'm a novice with the editor, but it would surprise me if you couldn't change all LCUs to unrestricted ones at game start in your own personal mod. The editor affords significant flexibility to do as you see fit without the calls on the developers / programmers to make your game for you.

[adarbrauner]

Not evertything can be done through editor,

this is not of course a personal attack or denigration of developers of AE, is spite of the high usual nerves of Mr Alfred,

and the issue is pretty simple IMO,

and yes ceirtanly positivive critics and feedbacks are needed and praiseworthy to get a thing, in this case this wargame, be bettered and developed

instead of stillness, immobilism and intimidation


P.S.: why to use editor and make changes? the wargame is perfect as it is.....