Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training? It shouldn't..., up to a point. After you have dropped your practice bombs all over the training area you develop proficiency in the "theory" of bombing. Lot's of crews left Texas thinking they could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". Maybe they could..., in Texas. But over Europe, in less perfect weather and visability, over unfamiliar landmarks, with the flak and the Luftwaffe trying to kill them, was a different "kettle of fish". And a new skill to be mastered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Castor Troy does have a point here that needs to be clarified.

May need some confirmation about relationship between EXP rating and SKILL (for example NavB).

As far as I know, EXP is gained by flight training, up to limit. This is from getting used to plane etc., but main increase in EXP is combat.

Then there is SKILL (for example NavB). This can be easily trained with Training mission.

Now, if I got meaning of The Elf post, it's folly to commit units in combat before they are *fully trained*. In those cases units in training will benefit more than those in combat, SKILL-wise. 

quote:

how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training?

The air combat skill is a different story. Real combat is a much better teacher here. I think the game models this quite well. The air combat skill raises very fast if the pilots get real air combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Any approach towards a B-17 means facing at least 4 MG's if every gun is operating and manned.  The Germans learned the head on approach was best since it minimized the time the gunners could fire at the fighter, but that applied to the fighter pilot too and took some big brass ones to execute, what with the closing speed of the two planes approaching 500mph...

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...

how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack? Guess not that long.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training?

The air combat skill is a different story. Real combat is a much better teacher here. I think the game models this quite well. The air combat skill raises very fast if the pilots get real air combat.

Sorry, there is no comparison. You can practice to the end of the world but it is not the same when someone is actually trying to kill you while you are doing it. The best pilot in training might prove to be useless in actual combat. I would think a pilot that survived ten actual combat missions would be much more comptent than any pilot no matter how well trained that had never seen the elephant. My take on it anyways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training? It shouldn't..., up to a point. After you have dropped your practice bombs all over the training area you develop proficiency in the "theory" of bombing. Lot's of crews left Texas thinking they could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". Maybe they could..., in Texas. But over Europe, in less perfect weather and visability, over unfamiliar landmarks, with the flak and the Luftwaffe trying to kill them, was a different "kettle of fish". And a new skill to be mastered.

quote:

The best pilot in training might prove to be useless in actual combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Marlene Dietrich of course :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

And I might contend that, based on the average accuracy of the strategic bombing campaign, the average bomber crew was no better at hitting a factory on Mission #50 than they were on Mission #1 in theater. The only thing they might have been better at was staying alive to make it home. Other than that they hit the bomb release when the flight leader said go. So how much should they're bombing skill go up? Compare that to the gains they made from the first day of bomber training to the day they were sent to Europe. Which represents the greater increase in basic skill level? Who knows.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.

I'll second this!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....

Well since you claim to know better, then let me clue YOU in on some things here:

1) the 5 "lowest skill" pilots on that list joined the squadron when the size increased from 8 to 12 (thats 10 pilots to 16, I had actually 11 pilots since 1 joined when a crew was wounded so was in fact over strength by 1). So the other 11 pilots that you so calmly are over-looking have been flying since the group came back in what? April? And their skill is...?

2) You ever had bullets flying at you? I have.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....

Well since you claim to know better, then let me clue YOU in on some things here:

1) the 5 "lowest skill" pilots on that list joined the squadron when the size increased from 8 to 12 (thats 10 pilots to 16, I had actually 11 pilots since 1 joined when a crew was wounded so was in fact over strength by 1). So the other 11 pilots that you so calmly are over-looking have been flying since the group came back in what? April? And their skill is...?

2) You ever had bullets flying at you? I have.

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Not sure how this is relevant, but I'm game...

Do you want to compare by the millimeter or solid rocket fuel weight?