Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Not so sure about that TLG.

I think 'naval' skills are pretty important for captaining aircraft carriers. Help 'em avoid torpedo tracks, squalls, pesky SCTFs and the lot. I don't believe that the captain rankings for these ships affects the skill of pilots, as that responsibility falls to the squadron / sentai leader. The captain is all about moving the ship around in the water.

For an ideal KB captain, I'd like a (primary) high naval rating, (secondary) leadership and inspiration and (tertiary) modest, non-rabid aggressiveness.

quote:

Leader's Ratings:
(Skill = Leadership, Morale = Inspiration)
- SKILL - Roll by Unit Leader effects Unit's experience gain.

- MORALE - Effects number of strike & patrol aircraft that fly,
- Effects LCU Fatigue reduction,
- Effects LCU Morale reduction due to Fatigue,
- Effects LCU element disabled due to Fatigue,
- Effects disabled LCU element destroyed due to Fatigue,
- Effects Air Unit Morale recovery,
- Roll by HQ Leader effects attacking & defending LCU assault value,
- Roll by LCU Leader effects attacking & defending LCU assault value,

- SURFACE - Roll by ASW ship Commander effects sub search (ASW TFs only),
- Roll by Sub Captain effects Sub contact chance & Sub's chance to survive ASW attack,
- Roll by TF Commander effects chance of "crossing the T" & attaining surprise in surface combat,
- Roll by ship Captain effects ship's chance of locating a target during surface combat.

- AIR - Roll by Group Leader effects number of strike aircraft that fly,
- Roll by Air HQ Leader effects number of strike & patrol aircraft that fly,

- LAND - Roll by HQ Leader effects attacking & defending LCU assault value,
- Roll by LCU Leader effects attacking & defending LCU assault value, firing accuracy and expirience gain,
- Rating of Amphibious HQ Leader effects chance of amphibious unload success.

- ADMINISTRATION - Roll by HQ Leader effects ability to use support to reduce Disruption and Fatigue,
- Roll by Unit Leader effects ability to use Supply to reduce Disruption and Fatigue.

- AGGRESSION - Roll by TF Commander effects chance of Bombard TF to change mission to Surface Combat,
- Roll by TF Commander effects chance TFs will converge more rapidly in Surface Combat,
- Aggression rating of Sub Captain effects chance of contacting enemy TFs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

I'm under the impression that this also means the "Air" skill for individual captains is not important since they are not part of the HQ, and so they end up having no bearing on the aircraft on their ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Either way, nice find on those cap'ns.

Were you bored or something... going through ships like xAP's!!!!! to look at their cap'ns?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I think Chickenboy is right.

Air skill of a ship captain does nothing for the performance of CV airgroups.
This is only influenced by the TF´s commander (?) and the squadron leaders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

Ok having done some more research (it always pays off to try and at least act like you know what you're talking about ), I have went back over this thread on how to choose leaders and it pretty much states that the "Air" skill is needed for the TF Commander since he is acting as the HQ for your air units.

I'm under the impression that this also means the "Air" skill for individual captains is not important since they are not part of the HQ, and so they end up having no bearing on the aircraft on their ships.

However, it seems information regarding the inner workings of these skills leaves much mystery behind and that there has never really been a good explanation as to what each skill does exactly.

This thread, initially attempting to provide tips and hints has now left me thoroughly confused!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
7. Japan's subs start out sweet. I bump my leaders for aggression


Does anyone know WHY this is? The IJN had never fought a submarine campaign in it's entire history (the Chinese certainly didn't have much of anything to practice on.). Even their pre-war training (as scouts for the "Decisive Battle") had little to do with the kind of commerce war other nations practiced. Yet they start the war rated like veteran U-Boats. Never have understood the rational behind this.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)

quote:

But there are exceptions - give your P39 squadrons high aggression leaders and they'll stick in there while the escorts blast them and still have enough aggression left over to stick around and blast the bombers. Since air skill doesn't matter all that much when lining up on a slow and level bomber I don't bother to put high air skill leaders in with the P39s... Save the high air skill and aggression guys for the anti-fighter squadrons, the anti-bomber squadrons will make do with high aggression only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

quote:

But there are exceptions - give your P39 squadrons high aggression leaders and they'll stick in there while the escorts blast them and still have enough aggression left over to stick around and blast the bombers. Since air skill doesn't matter all that much when lining up on a slow and level bomber I don't bother to put high air skill leaders in with the P39s... Save the high air skill and aggression guys for the anti-fighter squadrons, the anti-bomber squadrons will make do with high aggression only.

Unless your lucky enough to encounter unescorted bombers, P39's suck in 41/42 in air2air combat especially when up against the far superior Zero, save perhaps at low altitude when the planes lack of turbosupercharger isn't so much of a hinderence.
Save your P39's for either low-level base defence or else straffing his advancing troops and planes - believe me it's just abou all that bloody great big cannon is good for.
By the end of '42 your P39's will think about starting to upgrade either to 2nd generation air superiority fighters (eg P38) or else ground support fighter bombers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

Disagree. The real answer to this is an understanding amongst PBEM partners about how to use aircraft to avoid the 'stratosphere sweep' phenomenon. I have HRs in my PBEMs that I won't fly Oscars or Zeroes above 25,000 feet or Nates above 15,000 feet. In return, my opponent flies his P-39s at 15,000 feet or less.

If you're about 'keepin' it real', you needn't ramrod through your proposed programming change. It can be a matter as simple as a quick discussion / email with your PBEM partners to resolve this issue.

Failing that, I imagine there's always the editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Pink

setting a/c at max height doesnt magically equal a win. There are things called MVR ratings. its pretty dumb to send a plane in a max height knowing its practically a brick, instead down around 10-15k where at least it can at least own. The bounce is overrated.

The real answer to this is a programming change. It should work so that if your strike is flying too high above the enemy, the chances of them failing to intercept at all increase dramatically. Lots of attacks slipped in UNDER the CAP during the war and were gone before it could react.

Disagree. The real answer to this is an understanding amongst PBEM partners about how to use aircraft to avoid the 'stratosphere sweep' phenomenon. I have HRs in my PBEMs that I won't fly Oscars or Zeroes above 25,000 feet or Nates above 15,000 feet. In return, my opponent flies his P-39s at 15,000 feet or less.

If you're about 'keepin' it real', you needn't ramrod through your proposed programming change. It can be a matter as simple as a quick discussion / email with your PBEM partners to resolve this issue.

Failing that, I imagine there's always the editor.

The problem, as admitted to by J Wilkerson, is that regardless of altitude, there appears to be a built in "sweep bonus". That is what needs to be fixed more than anything else.