Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

The one thing I will say from what I can see is that it is no wonder your #4 test group only got one pilot advanced one point in air skill. The unit commander is 'poor' to say the least. I wouldn't let him train my dog.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
What rubbish you write about what I posted and then as a free kick insults are thrown in. Typical of someone with the ego of a small planet who simply cannot accept his tests are fundamentally flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
1. You cannot properly control because you do not know nor properly understand the variables.

2. You have done no such thing as a valid "scientific test". To do so requires only a single variable input to be tested. Over many iterations. And the entire set of test conditions are fully published so that any one else can replicate exactly the same test. You have not done any of this so don't insult me or any other reader with your self perceived "superior" scientific test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
3. Because your ego is so huge and the need to invalidate me is consuming you misrepresent my post. I presented the results of the game engine. Those results completely and utterly contradict your claims. Which I remind you is the claim that air units with fewer aircraft will train fewer pilots than fully TOE equipped air units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
4. Anyone with a scintilla of understanding knows that in a contest between game engine results and a mickey mouse test bed, the game engine results always trump what the mickey mouse test bed throws up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
5. A good tester, when confronted with what the diametrically opposed outcomes, would go back to his mickey mouse test bed and try to see where they failed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The simple fact of life is that you are one of the numerous reverse engineers who frequent the forum who is incapable of accepting the truth when it is uttered by a dev or by someone with a better mind than yourself. This then makes you envious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Practical players play the game as it is. They are not in a position to play the game in a vacuum divorced from all the externalities that exist in every single situation. I showed what the game engine does. If there was any validity to your mickey mouse test bed which you employed to purportedly show what the game engine does, there would not be such a discrepancy in outcomes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
There is no fact for me to further disprove because you have not produced a single fact about how this game engine operates. I show game reality, you show your make believe world.

I will repeat it again. Players do not need aircraft inside air units in order to generate pilot training. Air units with 1 or 2 aircraft in them can advance more pilots than air units with 100% TOE. Just as some air units with 100% TOE can also advance more pilots than other air units with a very low TOE%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Show me a single dev comment that shows I am wrong and you are correct. You will not find one; not in the manual, not in the pilot addendum, not in the patch notes, not in any post in any thread in the forum. So on what basis can you sustain your superiority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Constantly my comments get challenged by "reverse engineers" but they always fail, although they never apologise. In one particular 2014 (IIRC) thread after several pages of vehement antagonism against me Symon, in one of his last posts pointed out that I was completely correct. The very next post in that thread came from Symon who wryly noted how quickly silence descended when a dev spoke.

Just like the Greek Gods have left Mt Olympus, so have the devs left AE. I am as close as AE players can get to the knowledge of the devs precisely because I closely research what they have posted, and have often provided their source comments for independent verification. You provide ... give me a moment I'll think of something ... really there must be something you do ...

Alfred

quote:

I am as close as AE players can get to the knowledge of the devs precisely because I closely research what they have posted, and have often provided their source comments for independent verification.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

Only an observation but I am pretty sure this was covered (no surprise) by Alfred and there is supposedly NO difference in training based upon amount of planes - including 0 - or pilot/plane ratio. I remember when I read this I stopped worrying about it and have trained this way ever since, so I have never taken the time to compare how quickly the training occurs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This is hard data from an actual game, not some vanity test which has not taken into account all the relevant variables.

And thus is more suspect, not less. Your test is invalid BECAUSE you do not control variables. The question is "What is the effect of the number of aircraft on training?"

To test that, you control the OTHER variables and then vary the number of aircraft:

1) Type of Aircraft
2) Number of pilots
3) location of training (weather affects whether training flights occur)
4) leadership rating of commanders
5) experience levels of pilots
6) morale of pilots
7) etc. etc.

ALL of the above are controlled for in my test. I am testing the game engine, not some random sampling of groups. And by the way, your percentage of pilots of pilots receiving skill increases vs mine:

For bombers 23/200 = 0.115 = 0.115 11.5%
For medium bombers: 10/84 = 0.119 = 11.9%
My 15 plane squadrons: 28/100 = 0.28 = 0.28 28%

Vanity exercise? Grow up and show some scientific method. Do not try to hurl insults at someone that has the audacity to challenge the views of the almighty Alfred. Refute my facts and avoid the personal attacks, k?

What rubbish you write about what I posted and then as a free kick insults are thrown in. Typical of someone with the ego of a small planet who simply cannot accept his tests are fundamentally flawed.

1. You cannot properly control because you do not know nor properly understand the variables.

2. You have done no such thing as a valid "scientific test". To do so requires only a single variable input to be tested. Over many iterations. And the entire set of test conditions are fully published so that any one else can replicate exactly the same test. You have not done any of this so don't insult me or any other reader with your self perceived "superior" scientific test.

3. Because your ego is so huge and the need to invalidate me is consuming you misrepresent my post. I presented the results of the game engine. Those results completely and utterly contradict your claims. Which I remind you is the claim that air units with fewer aircraft will train fewer pilots than fully TOE equipped air units.

4. Anyone with a scintilla of understanding knows that in a contest between game engine results and a mickey mouse test bed, the game engine results always trump what the mickey mouse test bed throws up.

5. A good tester, when confronted with what the diametrically opposed outcomes, would go back to his mickey mouse test bed and try to see where they failed.

The simple fact of life is that you are one of the numerous reverse engineers who frequent the forum who is incapable of accepting the truth when it is uttered by a dev or by someone with a better mind than yourself. This then makes you envious.

Practical players play the game as it is. They are not in a position to play the game in a vacuum divorced from all the externalities that exist in every single situation. I showed what the game engine does. If there was any validity to your mickey mouse test bed which you employed to purportedly show what the game engine does, there would not be such a discrepancy in outcomes.

There is no fact for me to further disprove because you have not produced a single fact about how this game engine operates. I show game reality, you show your make believe world.

I will repeat it again. Players do not need aircraft inside air units in order to generate pilot training. Air units with 1 or 2 aircraft in them can advance more pilots than air units with 100% TOE. Just as some air units with 100% TOE can also advance more pilots than other air units with a very low TOE%.

Show me a single dev comment that shows I am wrong and you are correct. You will not find one; not in the manual, not in the pilot addendum, not in the patch notes, not in any post in any thread in the forum. So on what basis can you sustain your superiority.

Constantly my comments get challenged by "reverse engineers" but they always fail, although they never apologise. In one particular 2014 (IIRC) thread after several pages of vehement antagonism against me Symon, in one of his last posts pointed out that I was completely correct. The very next post in that thread came from Symon who wryly noted how quickly silence descended when a dev spoke.

Just like the Greek Gods have left Mt Olympus, so have the devs left AE. I am as close as AE players can get to the knowledge of the devs precisely because I closely research what they have posted, and have often provided their source comments for independent verification. You provide ... give me a moment I'll think of something ... really there must be something you do ...

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

My experience is that aircraft squadrons with no aircraft will not train pilots;

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
I invite anyone who doubts me to replicate the test. Create identical air groups in as close to identical conditions as the game allows using the scenarios editor, then vary ONLY the number of aircraft in the group and see what happens to pilots that train in those respective groups

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This unit also arrived ca. a week ago (per normal queue), it has 27 planes per TOO, but was given only 6. It is a smaller airfield with only 10 AV. They train too with the 6, but quite slow somewhat faster than the no planes (everything logical so far) Below not seen on pic more pilots are in gree for asw:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Maybe I'm asking too much, but have you tested -Infinite Monkey and GetAssista - the sufficient / insufficient air support impact on training?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
Ok, folks, YES no plane units train but slow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Ok, folks, YES no plane units train but slow. See this Mavis unit (transport - I do not have any IJN transport for a while so could not give them planes, they arrived a week ago, bought back, unit was overrun in the south). Note it is a 10 airfield with plenty of AV at Tokyo:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Maybe I'm asking too much, but have you tested -Infinite Monkey and GetAssista - the sufficient / insufficient air support impact on training?

Many thanks for your well reasoned effort / tests

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I know it is not a real comparison but here a unit at Nagoya at 100% air HQ and 3 AF. Some of the guys below were drawn quite recently but I do not know when exactly. Also I put a recon guy in (67) as you can see he does not train air very well:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

This unit also arrived ca. a week ago (per normal queue), it has 27 planes per TOO, but was given only 6. It is a smaller airfield with only 10 AV. They train too with the 6, but quite slow somewhat faster than the no planes (everything logical so far) Below not seen on pic more pilots are in gree for asw:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
I invite anyone who doubts me to replicate the test. Create identical air groups in as close to identical conditions as the game allows using the scenarios editor, then vary ONLY the number of aircraft in the group and see what happens to pilots that train in those respective groups

Did not doubt you since training effectiveness depending on planes coincides with my observations. Yet did my own test in an editor just to confirm:

Set of identical conditions: 30 airgroups of 36-size IJA army Ki-27b fighter sentais with 38 pilots each, Train/Escort at 100% at 0 range at 5k, all groups tied to the same HQ which is present in the hex, 10 level airfield with excessive supply/support, 99 morale, 30 base xp (ranging from 21 to 37 for individual pilots), all commanders set at all skills 30, 1 turn run, scenario restarted 2 times (turns out no need for more for this particular test)

Difference: 10 sentais with 36 ready planes, 10 - with 2 ready planes, 10 - with zero planes

Results for average Air skill increases per sentai in 1 turn: 36 planes - 12.3, 2 planes - 0.15, 0 planes - zero.

Hypothesis of training not depending on # of planes can be refuted with 99+%. Alfred has a lot of theoretical knowledge but too big a mouth for his relevant empirical knowledge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77
@ InfiniteMonkey:
"he two in the screenshot that improved did not improve from flying, they improved due to the leader bonus. (They do not get the group bonus because they are 39 exp and average group exp is 39. "

"I also want to note that you need to kick the 49 and 40 exp pilots out of that training group and into a lower level 1. They bring down the group average and make it harder to get the group exp bonus to kick in for that squadron of pilots. "


Sorry I do not know about those bonuses, you say if they over 50 exp they get a some kind of bonus ? And yes you were right the Nate group was changed to 100ft for def skill but did A2A trining before that. I think def is more important to train and have now more training this skill than air (even if ato2 training also often improves def, but 100ft does faster). They can get a2a also while flying CAP but not def.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought
4. Is it better to concentrate solely on training mission skills for fighter pilots, or should I mix in some cap to my training missions? Currently I train as follows:

Dedicated: Air skill trainer, strafe trainer, cap trainer.

I train the pilots in either air or strafe squadrons once they hit 70 in the skill I flip squadrons until I have pilots around 70 air, 70 strafe, 70 defense. I then plop them into the cap squadrons and run cap missions until their overall experience is somewhere between 65 and 70 (depends on how badly I need pilot replacements).

That said, it occurs to me that there is duplication of effort because just flying cap also raises overall air skill.

In any case, I thought I would borrow on your collective wisdom since I'm fairly certain 85% of you are fonts of WITPAE knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pilot Management Addendum.pdf

"Groups can fly normal Training missions (with a training percent) which occur in the AM and PM air phases. These gain both skill and experience points.

Groups will also gain skill and experience (after passing a training check against the training percent of the group) at the end of each day:

1. if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills) and less than the overall group experience level

2. if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills) and less than the leader’s skill

3. if pilot is in a dedicated Training group with some Instructors (adds higher increments to accumulators)

4. if pilot is in a dedicated Training group without Instructors (higher success and slightly higher increments than a normal group)

5. if pilot is in a group with some training percent (number of veteran pilots (experience of 80+) increases chance of successful training)

So, flying gets you some exp and skill. You get some additional skill and exp for each of the additional cases specified. 3 & 4 do not apply since training groups were removed from scenario 1.

The wording on that section is not really clear, but I think this is what it means:

In case 1 & 2, each pilot gets the bonus if their experience/skill is less than 50 plus the pilot's mission and kill counts AND the pilot's experience is less than the average group experience/leader's appropriate skill (which is supposed to be Leadership). You may have seen posts in which some players talk about hitting a wall in experience gain around 50 experience. I think this is why: training missions do not accrue mission counts, so before they reach 50 exp you want to assign them orders that gets their mission count up. Some players swear by assigning their air groups to CAP: 20 as a way to increase experience gain. I am inclined to believe this is why they see more exp gain. I don't think the particulars are important - just get your mission count up before an individual pilot gets to 50 exp.

Specifically for case 1, I do something I call "Stratifying" my pilots. I throw every pilot in my replacement pool into the reserve pools, then draw them by experience for training groups. By doing that, all my pilots are within 1-2 points of experience of each other and I can assign a few high skill pilots to the training group to up the average to kick in bonus #1. If I did not stratify, I'd get pilots ranging from about 25 to 44 (at the extremes) in every squadron and half my trainee pilots would not get bonus #1 (the half that ruin the curve).

Finally, you have the option of putting 81 and up exp pilots in training squadrons to get bonus $5. You could also put them in TRACOM or keeping them in your active squadrons. I send them to TRACOM, but I have not tested the effect of 81 skill pilots on training so I'm not sure if it is a big deal or not.

Probably more than you wanted, but the above is my reasoning for the answer to your question: I would raise the mission count of all pilots to 20-25 as they approach 50 experience to maximize rate of exp/skill gain as defined in the addendum. I do it with NAV search range 0 (Adds 2 missions per day per plane). Have not tried CAP, so do not know how effective that is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Training while in transport is the same mode as training without aircraft and is intentional. A number of fighter units trained their pilots in aerial gunnery while on board ships by shooting skeet off the stern of the ship. Some resourceful units that didn't have enough aircraft did formation flight training with bicycles (though not on ships). Other ground training classes could be done while the unit is in transit.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I typically have at least 1/3 the full number of A/C assigned to my training units and can see no apparent difference in training rates. As compared to a full TO&E.

I see in your tests you use either 1 A/C or 15 A/C. I was wondering if its not too much trouble to run the tests with differing numbers. In the lower group say 2, 4, 6, & 8. I believe it would give you're hypothesis more credence if we can see the rates rise as the number of A/C increases. Also it could show the point at which more A/C in a unit may have no bearing on training rates, assuming that such a point existed.

If its too much trouble don't bother, but I was hoping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I typically have at least 1/3 the full number of A/C assigned to my training units and can see no apparent difference in training rates. As compared to a full TO&E.

I see in your tests you use either 1 A/C or 15 A/C. I was wondering if its not too much trouble to run the tests with differing numbers. In the lower group say 2, 4, 6, & 8. I believe it would give you're hypothesis more credence if we can see the rates rise as the number of A/C increases. Also it could show the point at which more A/C in a unit may have no bearing on training rates, assuming that such a point existed.

If its too much trouble don't bother, but I was hoping.

It is linear. The more planes you have, the more skill advancements you get. I just completed another test tonight where I ran 200 (10 x (15 + 5)) pilots for 9 days at Training 100/Sweep, and while I am still tabulating numbers, I can tell you this:

# planes:+Air/day/200 pilots
1:30
3:38
6:52
9:63
12:70
15:95

If you graph that out, it is pretty much a line. The test with 12 aircraft per squadron had a lot of bad weather days where planes did not fly (fatigue goes low when a plane/pilot does not fly). It is possible that other effects cause the process to reach some kind of "cap" on exp gain. I have not tested for that.