RE: Oscar v B17E (Full Version)

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



Message

Smeulders -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 9:53:31 AM)

I'm guessing the problem here might be that they maybe only gain skill when being successful at their mission. So a pilot assigned to navel search in a remote corner of the Pacific might be flying over empty waters for years and not learn a thing about spotting ships, because he never encounters one. In this case I think it is reasonable that he would learn faster when training. Making this argument is a lot harder for other kinds of missions though, a pilot should learn more about bombing when he misses a target while being attacked by fighters and being shot at by flak, then when he's dropping bombs right on the marker in an American desert.

A question for you Elf, is it possible that pilots with a higher overall exp. have a harder time learning skills when training ?



Bogo Mil -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 10:31:27 AM)

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.



frank1970 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 10:52:10 AM)

We just need an extra counter for combat experience ;-).



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 11:31:31 AM)


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.





Sardaukar -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 11:52:40 AM)

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. 



xj900uk -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 12:20:14 PM)

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...



Bogo Mil -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 12:41:14 PM)

Training increases skill fast and experience very slowly. Combat increases exp fast (especially there is some real opposition, not only an undefended airfield) and skill slowly. To become a true elite unit, the pilots need both.

In the real war, the Axis believed in combat experience too much. They neglected training and hoped the undereducated rookies would learn all the necessary skills at the front. They didn't. Those guys from Texas flight school were not as effective as they imagined on their first sorties, agreed. But eventually they became much superior. The foundation was laid in Texas.

The game models the training stuff quite well, imho. Using undereducated pilots to combat missions should not be rewarded.



castor troy -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 12:43:05 PM)


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.



castor troy -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 12:45:22 PM)

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. 




After having been told very early after release that you need skill to perform your mission (like air and def for a fighter or navbomb and def for a bomber) I concentrated on getting my pilots up in the skill they needed. I didn´t much focus on exp and haven´t found a way to really improve it anyway. Until I figured out that (in my AE version) experience is the most important thing to get something like a "coordinated strike". So while many people on the forum mix up skill and exp all the time I´m really only talking about skill and skill is improved far faster doing training missions than doing actually "combat" missions.



xj900uk -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 1:54:16 PM)

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?

Not for some time - this tactic was carried on certainly until '44. Probably few few pilots got back to tell them that it didn't work very well...



John Lansford -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 3:41:34 PM)

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...



crsutton -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 4:12:19 PM)


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.



crsutton -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 4:14:38 PM)


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...


The Germans also used multiple aircraft attacking at the same time in coordinated maneuvers to disperse the firepower of bomber formations. I don't think the Japanese were very good at this.



Shark7 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 4:37:16 PM)


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.


The Germans figured out that the best way to attack the bomber formations was to hit them head on. You'd think they'd have at least shared that little tib-bit of info.



Who Cares -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 5:59:16 PM)

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.



witpqs -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 6:06:16 PM)


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.


Bogo mil has it right. The same applies to any complicated skill. Learning it well and quickly requires guidance so that you practice doing it right. If you practice doing wrong crap you will be good at doing wrong crap.

Good training will include force on force where the other guy is trying to kill you, only you live to learn from it.

Newbies will learn faster in training. If newbies go straight into combat they will learn some good stuff and lots of crap. They will also die more often. If newbies train to a certain point before they go into combat they will learn better from the combat because they have a foundation on which to build.

And of course even highly experienced pilots do train with each other and do benefit from it.



Panther Bait -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 7:29:11 PM)


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.





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.

And for fighter pilots, they do learn something if they engage the enemy. However, sitting at the ready five station all day or boring holes in the sky on CAP don't exactly make the best fighter pilots. Compare that to flying against veteran trainers.

So maybe skills don't increase fast enough while on the front lines, but I bet repeated training in school like situations (i.e. with feedback) is just as good or better for a newbie (since they have a better shot of actually living long enough to learn from the experience).



Rainer -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 8:45:51 PM)

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.



mdiehl -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 10:30:24 PM)

quote:

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


Errm. No.

If your claim were correct, the USN would not have the Top Gun program that it now has, and its forerunners, which were first established in 1942. Realistic combat training can and does prepare pilots for combat very very well, often to the extent where they are better pilots than combat veterans, when veterens have learned habits that can't be adapted to changing circumstances.

Nik raised the point about Ki-43s being used in Burma with modest success against small numbers of B-24s. True to a point. Early B-24s of the kind lend-leased to the UK were B-24As that lacked top turrets, making them vulnerable to forward approach attacks, and they had a "flex mount" rather than turret mount rear turret.

Along came the B-24Cs and pretty much put the Japanese fighters at a disadvantage from which no Japanese fighter fully recovered. The heavies were pretty much always a step ahead of Japanese interceptors from mid-1943 onward.



Misconduct -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 11:17:02 PM)

Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Granted my argument is this - Japan didn't have the Fw-190 or Me-262, but relied on aircraft that were underpowered, undergunned, and had no armor protection - even when they gained stats in one area, other areas were still under-stated. You can say the Ki-84 and N1Jk George were top of the line models coming out of Japan, but look how late in the war they came out, what pilots did the Japanese have left?

This debate can go on forever and ever, lets all just reach some mutual agreement Japan did not have a real "bomber interceptor" and that's just how the war went. Hell why can't we argue who had the best legs in ww2?



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 11:23:40 PM)

Marlene Dietrich of course :)



Bradley7735 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 11:52:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Marlene Dietrich of course :)


Pic's!! I demand pictures if you're going to vote.

[;)]



SuluSea -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/19/2010 11:58:16 PM)


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!



mike scholl 1 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 12:47:34 AM)


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.




You really should learn to read what somewhat says before you dash off a reply. I agreed with you that "training" is a more effective means of gaining skill than "combat'..., up to a point. For the sake of arguement I picked 0-50. But at a certain point, WW II style training "hit the wall" (no "top gun" schools available)..., and to improve further required actual combat experiance. Same is true for all aspects of combat, including bombing.

You are correct that the 8th Air Force did not have a great record for accurate bombing. But that comes from a different factor entirely. After training to bomb individually, the 8th was forced to adopt "defensive box formations" by the resistance of the Luftwaffe. Which meant "formation bombing" and the subsequent loss of individual accuracy. A better example for this discussion would be RAF Bomber Command.

While fully trained before being sent into action, Bomber Command found it difficult to hit the right province, let alone city, in 1942. But by 1944, during the "transportation offensive" before D-Day, Bomber Command proved far more accurate in destroying RR yards at night than the 8th or 9th Air Force during the day. They had learned the art of combat bombing (and developed the needed technology) by actually doing it.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 1:43:03 AM)


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!


me too



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 2:00:32 AM)

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.

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

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



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 2:07:33 AM)

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.

It looks to me like their skill AND their EXP in the 70s. Which seems reasonable to me given that you stated they've been in combat for a couple months. What do you think it should be? And on what criteria do you base this opinion?

I guess at this point it is fair to say that I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about....



TheElf -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 2:10:33 AM)

double post...



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 3:28:21 AM)


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?


I don't think you should be able to count the propellant weight unless I get to include the weight of the watery tart that lobbed the scimitar at me. Her muscle mass was the propellant you see...Oh well, did I ever say that I actually think the system works well?



witpqs -> RE: Oscar v B17E (4/20/2010 6:17:52 AM)

Unburned propellant should count. It's part of the projectile. [:'(]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.71875