RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:10:56 AM

pionkki

Posts: 29
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Finland
Status: offline

I hated in WITP when my bombers made an attack against naval units in a hex with a strong CAP. Is it possible to define a hex in which the unit is not allowed to perform a naval attack? Or is the naval attack system the same, meaning an attack against any naval unit in any hex in certain range?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 151

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:13:49 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pionkki

I hated in WITP when my bombers made an attack against naval units in a hex with a strong CAP. Is it possible to define a hex in which the unit is not allowed to perform a naval attack? Or is the naval attack system the same, meaning an attack against any naval unit in any hex in certain range?

SAIEW.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to pionkki)

Post #: 152

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:20:05 AM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

How is air-recon being handled? Do the Allies still get the advantage of seeing what aircraft the Japanese have at a base whereas the Japanese only see what was there before the Allied order phase?

Not anymore. �Air balance� is limited to current player.

Hi Elf

Thanks for the answer, but it's not so much the air balance numbers that concern me, its these:

Because of the way detection levels work and because the Japanese see what is at the base before the Allies do their aircraft transfers, but the Allies see the numbers after the Japanese do their turn, it gives Player 2 an advantage.

For example - say the Japanese are reconning Changsha. The allies can still move in 100 bombers, (the Japanese player won't see them arrive) fly them on a mission immediately. The next turn the Japanese player sees them listed at Changsha, launches a misssion, but will bomb an empty base because the Allied player has transferred them away. If the situation is reversed, the Japanese player can not do the same thing. Instant CAP causes a similar problem - Allied player always knows how many fighters are at a base he is reconning, Japanese player can easily be caught out if the Allies suddenly transfer 100 fighters to a base. He just won't see them until the next turn.

In experienced hands, it is a very substantial advantage gained only because player 2 issues orders after player 1. With more Allied recon aircraft, it's a feature of the game that needs changing.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Yakface -- 12/8/2007 11:25:35 AM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 153

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:29:31 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

1. Pilot Pools Japan

The numbers never make any sense to me because, every naval aircraft type gets it pilots from the same pool. I doubt a carrier figther/bomber pilot got the same level of training as the pilot flying a float plane or tranport plane. Japan starts the war with a lot of understrength naval air units I always hated to waste a good naval carrier pilot on some float plane group!

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

quote:

- The pilot pools needs to be separate for General Naval Aviation and Trained Carrier Pilots.

included

quote:

2. Operational losses vs pilot replacements

- Losing more pilots to Op losses than you get in a month is just wrong, no airforce in world could operate like this! If Japan is losing 30 pilots a month to op losses then they need to generate more then 30 a month. It's all to easy to break the back of the Japanese air forces in 1942 due to this. This makes the Japanese air forces a dog that eats it's self.

Ops losses have been totally revamped. When lost during a mission pilot survival rates are per Stock. If an A/C makes it back to base and is Ops Lost, on landing pilot survival is slightly improved. Additionally to increase the effect on A/C Availability we wanted, A/C that have sustained high levels of damage but still returned check for "Write Off". A "Write Off" is a new type of Ops loss that is tracked on the Air unit screen and preserves the pilot.

BTW pilots who bring back damaged A/C and survive gain EXP.

CV Air Groups that experience the loss of their CV out of range of a suitable friendly divert field will mass ditch which is normal. However Mass Ditchings now benefit from Pilot survival checks at their CT TF. The larger the TF, the more ships, the higher the survival rate. Pilots are then transferred to the Reserve Pool to be detailed to operational units after a nominal "travel" Delay.

quote:

3. Editor

- Allow setting the experince level for the pilot pool for each year of the war.

I believe this is in there.

quote:

4 Airgroup Experince

Allied Airgroups seem to go from can't the broad side of a barn to killers that can't miss, Japan's Airgoups go through the same process in reverse. I beleive this is due to the Japan bonus in 1942.

- I say let (pilot experince + aircraft type + HQ air) define the airgroups performance not some hard coded trigger in 1942.

There is no Bonus, and you equation for Air group performance is a little narrow for my tastes....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 154

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:43:21 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: scottott999

quote:

1) Are cohesive attacks possible from land bases or CV TFs located at different ranges from the target?

Without going into too much detail, yes they are, however due to the shift in the basic conduct of Air Combat from Target-based to Raid-based, A/C of wildly differing performance and mission profile are much less likely to be successful. SBDs at 15k' will almost never coordinate with B-17s or B-24s at 25k', or even at the same altitude for that matter...

Altitude settings are important. They are now a player control, or influence I should say as it isn't a given. So two groups of Betty's set to the same Target Hex at the same altitude will strive to coordinate, though they still face the normal challenges of distance and Weather when coordinating.

quote:

2) Can squadron returning from a bombing run be diverted to non-originating carrier or base?

Not by the player. CV Air units will divert as per normal if they have the range to do so. If the only suitable divert is another CV in the TF then they will land until the CV reaches 115% it's max load at which time the remaining A/C will ditch and be picked up using the Mass ditching rule, or A/C will be pushed over the side to make room.

quote:

3) Is there some sort of fighter patrol feature that would allow for chance encounters to occur outside of a base or target hex. I thinking some thing along the lines of two fighter patrols engaging over the slot or a fighter patrol intercepting a returning bomber flight or transports returning to base

No, but there is now the possibility of Air Combat AFTER the target is hit. Aircraft that scrambled at "First Detection" of the raid but did not make it up to engage before the target was hit will attempt to attrite enemy A/C as they egress the target area. You could think of this combat as a "Chance encounter" after the battle is decided.

quote:

4) How are aircraft defined as carrier capable? Currenlty they are fixed to a slot. Will there be similar limitations?

The editor has a new field that allows an A/C to be designated as such. It is no longer slot-based.

quote:

5) I love the new pilot rating system. Is there something to define if a pilot is carrier trained or is a fighter pilot a fighter pilot?

At this time it is determined by the tyoe of unit the Pilot is drawn to. Once a Naval Aviator, always a naval Aviator.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to scottott999)

Post #: 155

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:46:57 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

This mostly an AI type question on air - will the "die roll" for air units to attack something that has a strong CAP being worked on/changed? In most of my games vs AI I set a very exp/morale unit to Nav Atk & it won't attack something like the KB Death Star TF the AI uses in the next hex w/ or w/o escort yet it will attack this single ship AP that is at the extreme range & in no danger to the base. IRL the air units would attack the KB as it's the most dangerous. This seems to plague land air more than naval air that if there is a strong cap presence or fighter presence, the unit fails the "die rolls" to attack a target very regularly while IRL they would attack the target.

That whole dynamic was one of the first things to go. Better be sure before you send units unescorted...

I just realized I misunderstood what you were asking. We did not touch the targeting routine. Sorry for the confusion.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 156

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:50:36 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Another air recon question (sorry if it has been posed already, there is too much to read at the moment...): currently, you always have a general idea of force levels at enemy bases since symbols indicate the presence of LCUs, airgroups or ships in port, even if no recon or search mission has been flown over those bases, and you have exact info on base size. Has this been eliminated? Only actual missions flown over a base should gather intel, and it should be indicated how old the most recent recon info is - like in Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich. For example, it wasn't known that the Japanese were constructing an airbase on Guadalcanal until a recon/search plane discovered the (unfinished) landing strip, and the Japanese did not know about the base at Funafuti until they followed American bombers that had struck the Gilberts back home to their home base. That would make for a more realistic FOW.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 157

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 11:58:56 AM

pionkki

Posts: 29
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Finland
Status: offline

Thanks for the answer.

Another question. What about leaking CAP? In WITP, I have a CAP with range 0, but some of the planes leaves their position and go after enemy, which is 2 hexes away. Is the system going to be the same in AE too?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 158

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 12:03:50 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Another air recon question (sorry if it has been posed already, there is too much to read at the moment...): currently, you always have a general idea of force levels at enemy bases since symbols indicate the presence of LCUs, airgroups or ships in port, even if no recon or search mission has been flown over those bases, and you have exact info on base size. Has this been eliminated? Only actual missions flown over a base should gather intel, and it should be indicated how old the most recent recon info is - like in Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich. For example, it wasn't known that the Japanese were constructing an airbase on Guadalcanal until a recon/search plane discovered the (unfinished) landing strip, and the Japanese did not know about the base at Funafuti until they followed American bombers that had struck the Gilberts back home to their home base. That would make for a more realistic FOW.

�Air balance� is limited to current player.

FOW has been increased to address this issue. Details to come.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 159

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 12:05:37 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pionkki

Thanks for the answer.

Another question. What about leaking CAP? In WITP, I have a CAP with range 0, but some of the planes leaves their position and go after enemy, which is 2 hexes away. Is the system going to be the same in AE too?

Leaky CAP is actually a previously added feature, not a bug, though it doesn't tend to have a positive connotation on this forum. We are working on this at the moment, so no comment.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to pionkki)

Post #: 160

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 12:12:13 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

Balistics! Are the effect numbers of guns going to be changed to reflect that 20mm cannons are not just larger .50cal machineguns. Will the effect numbers have an effect on armour ie 20mm is better than .50cal which is better than 7.7mm?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 161

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 1:31:18 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
You will be able to view the training pool. It will show several "classes" ordered lowest to highest AVG EXP and how many pilots are currently in it. When you draw from this pool you draw from the most senior class first.

OMG. I'm in heaven. Taking this a bit further, are new classes added periodically? This expansion is getting better and better.

Yes they are. The classes are on a 12 month curriculum. When one graduates a new one takes it's place in "ground school".

So basically, there is a limit to the number of "pilots" you can remove from the training school, right? Also, can you throw out a couple of numbers as to the class sizes? Will the new classes increase in size as the war continues and the Japanese realize their pilot shortage?

Later in the war, the shortage was due to lack of fuel for training and lack of experienced instructors. The first can be modelled as a supply draw; the second can be modelled by rotation home of experienced pilots. If they don't survive to be rotated, you don't have the instructors.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 162

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 1:33:04 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

Will you be modelling air units as sortie producers? That's how we think of them in real command and control systems.

_____________________________

(in reply to Brady)

Post #: 163

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 1:51:11 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

I would like to see a better Night air strikes model. Can there be also a night naval search?
The more moonlight and radar equipment should boost night spottings and also make night attacks more frequent (from 1943 the dawn/dusk or full moon night attacks were frequent).
The night search frequency should be lowered by higher fatigue denying to fly it full scale as day search.
Have you thinked about something like this?

_____________________________

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 164

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 3:27:00 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

Would it be possible to add a new secondary air mission of ground attack for air groups set to naval attack missions? I always found it annoying that I couldn�t have my bombers on a primary mission of naval attack and hit enemy units in a non-base hex marching towards their base on turns no naval targets were present.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 165

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 3:37:11 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would like to see a better Night air strikes model. Can there be also a night naval search?
The more moonlight and radar equipment should boost night spottings and also make night attacks more frequent (from 1943 the dawn/dusk or full moon night attacks were frequent).
The night search frequency should be lowered by higher fatigue denying to fly it full scale as day search.
Have you thinked about something like this?

We are working toward something like this.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 166

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 3:44:39 PM

Weidi72

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline

Some Navy squadrons are only carrier capable not trained because they arrive on land. Is this fixed?

< Message edited by Weidi72 -- 12/8/2007 3:45:18 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 167

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 4:09:43 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

Some Navy squadrons are only carrier capable not trained because they arrive on land. Is this fixed?

This is an OoB item. It's an easy thing to address in the editor. Not saying we won't have it fixed for the release.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Weidi72)

Post #: 168

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 5:01:51 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

Because of the way detection levels work and because the Japanese see what is at the base before the Allies do their aircraft transfers, but the Allies see the numbers after the Japanese do their turn, it gives Player 2 an advantage.

Elf, did you notice this inquiry from Yakface? I haven't played PBEM for about a year, so I'd forgotten about this, but it's a valid concern, isn't it?

Related question: Is there any restriction on transferring planes and using them on the same turn? That might partly address Yakface's concern.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 169

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 5:28:35 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

Because of the way detection levels work and because the Japanese see what is at the base before the Allies do their aircraft transfers, but the Allies see the numbers after the Japanese do their turn, it gives Player 2 an advantage.

Elf, did you notice this inquiry from Yakface? I haven't played PBEM for about a year, so I'd forgotten about this, but it's a valid concern, isn't it?

Should it be? The Allies get very little to reflect the huge advantage "magic" intercepts gave them in real life.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 170

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 6:42:18 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

Because of the way detection levels work and because the Japanese see what is at the base before the Allies do their aircraft transfers, but the Allies see the numbers after the Japanese do their turn, it gives Player 2 an advantage.

Elf, did you notice this inquiry from Yakface? I haven't played PBEM for about a year, so I'd forgotten about this, but it's a valid concern, isn't it?

Should it be? The Allies get very little to reflect the huge advantage "magic" intercepts gave them in real life.

I wouldn't object to an improvement to Allied intelligence, but this feature is not a satisfactory way of achieving it

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 171

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 7:44:55 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

With different pilot experience values, is it possible to train a specific value using the training mission? For instance, can I tell a fighter-bomber squadron to train only/mainly their ground bombing skill, and not their A2A skill?

_____________________________

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 172

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:06:14 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

With different pilot experience values, is it possible to train a specific value using the training mission? For instance, can I tell a fighter-bomber squadron to train only/mainly their ground bombing skill, and not their A2A skill?

Yes. When you select training as a mission, the other missions for which the unit is qualified may be selected. All Skills that are used for that mission may then be improved in the normal fashion.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 173

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:07:01 PM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

What about "fly-by" interception?
ATM, a bomber may fly over 20 bases with large numbers of fighters without getting attacked. Will this be changed?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 174

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:08:34 PM

MineSweeper

Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline

Elf, so to be clear...Pilots can be trained for different A/C missions?
So you can have a pilot with 75% exp. for Naval Attacks and say 85% for Airfield Attack ?

Does this graphic have a bearing on this.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 175

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:16:56 PM

Bahnsteig

Posts: 70
Joined: 8/18/2004
From: Croatia\Germany
Status: offline

quote:

All Skills that are used for that mission may then be improved in the normal fashion.

While flying strafing missions, will the A2A skill improve to a max value, like 60, which may be the maximum A2A experience without seeing air combat?
And will allied replacement pilots still be higly skilled with 70-75exp without seeing a battle before?

quote:

What about "fly-by" interception?
ATM, a bomber may fly over 20 bases with large numbers of fighters without getting attacked. Will this be changed?

That's what I'm asking for all the time, but no chance.

And maybe an "undo" button if a transfer goes to a wrong base :) Happens sometimes.
Or a possibility to select all squadrons which should transfer to the same base.

< Message edited by Bahnsteig -- 12/8/2007 8:26:42 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 176

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:37:23 PM

cantona2

Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

Just like to say i like the KIA,MIA,WIA additions to the unit screen. Nice to track its service record through the game. Little details like this will make this game immense

< Message edited by cantona2 -- 12/8/2007 8:38:05 PM >

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born

(in reply to Bahnsteig)

Post #: 177

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:44:53 PM

1EyedJacks

Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

Also can you change weapon loadouts a la BTR?

No.

quote:

Can you list the different areas of pilot experience?

� Air attack
� Air defensive
� Naval bombing
� Naval torpedo
� Naval search
� Recon
� ASW
� Transport
� Ground bombing
� Low level naval bombing
� Low level ground bombing
� Strafe

Hi Elf,

I was looking at the different types of experience for pilots and the different pools that a player can pull pilots from.

If I'm adding pilots from a pool to a fighter squadron does the program automatically pull pilots based on, say Air Attack/Air Defense experience or is there just as likely a possability that a pilot will be pulled from the pool to fill a fighter squadron with a high level of Transport experience...

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 178

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 8:44:56 PM

Lannes_

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/5/2006
Status: offline

How will be treated airbases? For example:
There will be air stack limit for different size of air bases?
Will be affected also the number of planes that can do CAP or attacks depending on the air base level, or a restricted maximun range for a big air group attacking coordinately?

(in reply to cantona2)

Post #: 179

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/8/2007 9:14:23 PM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

I have to say "Wow!" again - all the changes look great but the more I think about it, the air war changes seem most profound at first glance. I have a few follow-up questions:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

when in the TrainING pool, pilots are un-named, and un-designated. Generic if you will. Once they area drawn to an operational unit they are designated as TB, DB, FF, MB, REC etc. Once this happens they remain designated as a "Type" of pilot. And when they are moved from pool to pool they are in seperate pools based on their type.

The one exception is where they are in the Training Command pool as "instructors". Here is where they affect the output of "students" in the TrainING pool.

1. Do pilots get assigned as "instructors" in the Training command automatically, by player choice, or by both? Can they be reassigned to the front as desired?

2. How do instructors affect the output of students? More pilots trained? Better experience when they graduate? Both?

3. Is there an advantage to keeping highly trained fighter pilots as instructors, or could I get the same advantages by just sending lots of transport pilots back to the States or Japan?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 180