|
Nemo121 -> RE: Named pilots problem (6/5/2006 5:59:18 PM)
|
Ok, I know it is probably unwanted/unneeded but rather than see the entire thing go out the window I will post a possible solution which I think could meet most people's needs. Don't know the codebase so can't judge the feasability...
1. Allow players to "create" training squadrons in-game. These squadrons would have to use airplanes created in-game and would not have any combat missions available to them. It is probably not possible given the codebase since I'm sure no provision was made for "creating" squadrons in-game which didn't exist historically.
E.g.
Turn A: Player creates "Training Squadron 101" and assigns 27 Claudes to it as well as 27 total rookies.
Turn A+1: Player chooses between the two types of training available to all training squadrons ( ground training--slow improvement, no flying and thus no operational losses, aerial training-- quicker improvement, the only way to increase experience above 60 or 70, pilots fly and can suffer operational losses ).
Turn A+many: Player decides these pilots are now trained to a sufficient standard and disbands the training squadron. All pilots go into the pool. The squadron does NOT come back after 90 days. It just gets deleted and if the player wants to start a new band of trainees he can create another training squadron.
Since there would be no limit on the number of training squadrons created ( excepting the 30,000 pilot limit) it would allow a Japanese player with a lot of airframes and supply to set up a really major training system without having to resort to milk run missions. Since these squadrons wouldn't be available for combat there would be an in-built limit on their impact on unanticipated areas of the game. About the only area I could see them impacting would be over-crowding on airfields and the results if the enemy bombed those fields.
2. Similar to the above but somewhat more limited as it assumes that the ability to create "training squadrons" on the fly cannot be retrofitted into the game BUT that one can add a specialised training aircraft to the game.
Simply start the game with a factory producing a few of these training aircraft and have a lot of training squadrons in the reinforcement queue. These training squadrons will only have the two mission types outlined above ( so no use for combat... although I would suggest allowing them to switch to Kamikaze after 1st January 44 as was historically done) and, if possible, they could be coded so as not to be able to upgrade to any other aircraft type. If the aircraft carried no guns but could carry a 250Kg bomb or somesuch then they would conform closely to the historical trainers and their use as kamikazes from 1st January 44.
If the players in a PBEM choose to view these training squadrons as gamey then all the Japanese player has to do is switch the factories to something else and the groups in the queue will never appear on-map ( being left in the limbo of "organising").
If the players think that the on-map training is a good idea but want to limit its rate they can simply choose to leave the production of training aircraft at its initial, low, level which would only be sufficient to just fill out the training squadrons and keep up with a low level of training losses.
If the players agree to a lunacy game or otherwise put no limits on Japanese training then the Japanese player could massively expand the training aircraft production thus allowing himself a major increase in the rate of production of trained replacements.
3. If one cannot add a specialised training aircraft to the game then simply adding training squadrons but allowing them to use any type of aircraft would allow the player to use his older planes for training. All of the other limits ( kamikazes, mission types etc) could be maintained and you'd still end up with a system which would have fewer unanticipated knock-on effects than the current system AND which would be much easier to govern using house rules ( since there would be no combat mission for the training squadrons).
There are a few exploits still obviously but there's no point going into them unless someone official shows interest in one of the options and says it is feasible. If there was interest and it was feasible I'd be more than happy to outline the exploits and possibly unanticipated knock-ons in other areas.
I just thought I'd post it even though uninvited since I really think the solution is not to scrap what was a good idea but to seek a more complete fix. The implementation of training squadrons, if feasible, and with the appropriate thought put into preventing exploits and foreseeing knock-on effects would be a pretty good fix IMO.
|
|
|
|
