RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue

RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (Full Version)

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

Message

DivePac88 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/22/2010 9:58:11 PM)
Bullwinkle58, thank you for your logical and patient explanation of the facts. It would appear till the radar problem is fixed CAP of bases will be a problematical. castor troy, the reason I missed the radar problem is that I have been absent from the game and forum for around a year because of family reasons, and have only recently return.

pompack -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/22/2010 11:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 OK, you just don't know when to quit, do you? The color thing is from the manual. We all know that the pilot color scheme was changed very early, in the first patch I believe. That does not change the fact that pilot fatigue was not changed, it's in the code, it's a performance check, and rightly so. I don't care what you do or think in your games, but you shouldn't be telling new players that running pilots at 80% fatigue has no effect on game mechanics. That's simply untrue. better tell new people what is happening in the game instead of telling them something from the manual that is 100% untrue. How bad is my P-47 pilot´s performance when they manage to down enemy fighters 20:1 at times when they get a never ending dive? Wow, they really must be hit by fatigue decreasing their performance. Like I´ve said, RADAR ISN´T WORKING, so go ahead and keep your fighters sitting on the ground to get bombed or take the fat and have them at least airborne at perhaps 50%. Believe me, I´ve pointed out things that are totally bugged (and fixed in the next patch) so long ago that it´s better to "believe" me than believe what is stated in the manual and either never made it into the game or has been changed with some patch. When I started to cry about not working search archs and not working land based radar in my AAR people have still been thinking for MONTHS everything would be fine. Heck, fine with me, go ahead and believe the manual or think everything would be fine. When I just look at this thread and read the "what? land based radar isn´t working" then it´s probably time for me to start posting in BOLD only... Jeeze, rave much? I'm not talking about radar. That's a separate issue. I'm not talking about how great P-47s are. They are great, even when flown by half-asleep pilots. I AM talking about a code check for fatigue, which I believe is in the game. I invite a dev to respond if this is not the case. The problem you KEEP ignoring is that YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER GROUNDING TIRED PILOTS. If the guy passes the level where he fails the check, he gets grounded. If you have over-manned the unit another guy gets tapped to fly. If he has low fatigue, you're fine. If he has medium fatigue, he flies badly, and probably gets killed. You can't stop this from happening, except by taking action to adjust your Rest and Stand Down controls. If you're not getting a lot of fighters up, maybe it's radar. Maybe. Or maybe it's partly that your pilots are asleep. Again, I'm done here, but I'd appreciate The Elf or another dev with code access to let us knwo if the fatigue check described in the manual is still in the code. you´re done, well I´m done too then, because if you really think the fighters are grounded due to fatigue then I can´t help you anyway. I can give you a tip though, put them on 100% Cap and use working radar (= ship based) and then put them on 100% Cap and use non working radar (= land based) and you will find out that it´s NOT fatigue that keeps them on the ground but no prewarning time. For your info, with working radar and 80% Cap I more or less get 100% of the fighters into the air and now please don´t tell me that the fatigue for carrier based fighter pilots is anywhere different to land based fighter pilots as both show the same fatigue. The ones with radar scramble, the ones without radar don´t scramble. Got nothing to do with fatigue. And like I´ve said, if you preferre having them sit on the ground or on the carrier, just go ahead and keep them grounded, any opponent will be happy to bomb them on the ground or send them to the bottom together with the carrier they sit on. It´s so easy, it´s so easy you could even find out without believing the manual, nor reading the manual, nor doing any test... just PLAYING Hate to say it CT, but the Moose is 100% right, kinda and as far as it goes [:)]. And I will note that I have frequently been bitten by insufficient pilots flying due to fatigue when I fail to micromanage to the required detail with MANUAL pilot control specified. It's just what he (and the manual) calls "black" is what distinguishes pilots in squadron reserve instead of currently active. Note that you will ONLY see this if you have excess pilots since the code will NOT place a fatigued pilot in reserve unless there are enough pilots left (after the reserve action) to man all CURRENTLY READY a/c. Thus you will NOT have planes fail to fly due to fatigue UNLESS the number of ready a/c has increased since the reserve action AND you are using MANUAL pilot control.

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 7:56:04 AM)
So how do you explain that I can constantly get ALL my carrier based fighters in the air then? These are just as fatigued as the land based fighter pilots. How can you explain then that if I have ship based radar in range I also get ALL my fully fatigued land based figther pilots in the air? But I DON´T get the fatigued pilots in the air when there is no radar? Sorry people, but do you want to explain me that the fatigue kicks in when no radar is available (no WORKING radar) and if radar is available the pilots don´t care about fatigue? This is not supposed to be the start of a fight but what I see in the game is not what ppl are trying to tell me while quoting the manual. Just for you info, I did a test, just over a couple of turns. First I have put my fighters on high % of Cap to get their fat into the usual 30-40 (takes you exactly.... two days [sm=00000280.gif]). So assuming pilots with high fatigue don´t fly, I have set them to fly an airfield attack. Guess what happened? I had ALL available fighters (a full sized 25 aircraft squadron) fly three days in a row (2 fighters became damaged or had to be maintained). Like in many other cases, perhaps it´s my special edition of WITP AE as it seems to have been so often in the past, just to find out that months later, "my" issues have become "general" issues, mainly called bugs or exploits in the end. Why? Don´t ask me, perhaps I´m the loudest cryer and the issues aren´t even issues but I convinced people with my crying? Ok, then I will stop saying "radar is broken" or "search archs are broken" or whatever else I said and still stand to. Will this "heal" land based radar then? If I stop saying that my aircraft all fly with pilots being in the fat range of 30-40 will they STOP flying then? Ok, let´s go back to where this little "fight" started. I said, radar isn´t working. I also said, if radar isn´t working and you want to defend something with Cap, you are hopeless with 30% because this means probably 80% of the fighters will be sitting on the ground. I then said, if needed, I put the fighters on 80% because this at least brings around 50% into the air, while saying I don´t care about fatigue as I can´t see it having any impact (perhaps it has but not one that I notice as my squadrons with 5 fat perform as good/worse as squadrons with 40 fat). So you can either choose to have your monthly replacement rate being bombed in one turn on the ground or fight the enemy in the air with 50% of your fighters while also causing damage to him. I never manually set any pilots to active, what I do (and I expect nearly every PBEM player to do so) is fill out the pilot slots of a squadron, means you got 1/3 more pilots than aircraft. So if having enough pilots (while they all got nearly the same fat of 30-40) means this is the reason ALL fighters fly, well, then be it, but this doesn´t change the fact that ALL fighters fly, which is exactly what I say but what is also denied in this thread it seems. Ok, then the manual quote was thrown at me. I then said, I don´t give a damn about the manual because the manual is the manual, it´s kind of a guide and there were some patches already. Patch + manual + taking it as gospel = bad outcome. So if peopel believe me or not is their own thing, all I said in this trhead was thought as a tip, it was said how I do it. If people do it different, to each his own. What makes me jump up and down then, is when people tell me it´s not the way I see it the whole week for the average of some 20 hours or more. A fact is, MY pilots fly and 80% Cap isn´t accumulating as much fatigue (even if it always stays in the 30-40 range) that they stay grounded as I could clearly see when I order them on airfield attack with that fat - ALL available ac flew! So Cap not being in the air is NOT happening due to too high fat from 80% Cap but because of no prewarning time due do bugged land based radar in MY game. So if we get to the conclusion that ppl and me got different versions of the game, well, then that´s the way it is. If not, then ppl´s pilots fly just like my do too. Of course the solution for all this is having working radar. Working radar, more ac in the air, lower fat. BUT radar isn´t working AT THE MOMENT.

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 8:03:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 Bullwinkle58, thank you for your logical and patient explanation of the facts. It would appear till the radar problem is fixed CAP of bases will be a problematical. castor troy, the reason I missed the radar problem is that I have been absent from the game and forum for around a year because of family reasons, and have only recently return. no problem mate, this wasn´t exclusively pointed at you as there were other ppl being as surprised as you. Glad to see you back. I´ve been aware of the radar bug since an endlessly long time already it seems, Kereguelen once asked me in my AAR how many radar sets I had in Burma when they failed and failed and failed and failed day after day. I guess he took it with him into the dev forum, don´t know if or what happened then, as it stands now land based radar is officially bugged anyway.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 1:41:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Just for you info, I did a test, just over a couple of turns. First I have put my fighters on high % of Cap to get their fat into the usual 30-40 (takes you exactly.... two days [sm=00000280.gif]). So assuming pilots with high fatigue don´t fly, I have set them to fly an airfield attack. Guess what happened? I had ALL available fighters (a full sized 25 aircraft squadron) fly three days in a row (2 fighters became damaged or had to be maintained). Like in many other cases, perhaps it´s my special edition of WITP AE as it seems to have been so often in the past, just to find out that months later, "my" issues have become "general" issues, mainly called bugs or exploits in the end. Why? Don´t ask me, perhaps I´m the loudest cryer and the issues aren´t even issues but I convinced people with my crying? Ok, then I will stop saying "radar is broken" or "search archs are broken" or whatever else I said and still stand to. Will this "heal" land based radar then? If I stop saying that my aircraft all fly with pilots being in the fat range of 30-40 will they STOP flying then? Venturing one toe back into this thing, and not wanting to "get into it" today, I would just say: 1. I don't maintain there isn't a "radar problem." I believe there is evidence and communication from the devs that there is, with land radar, and it's being addressed. 2. I think fatigue and any "radar problems" are unrelated, but both could contribute to CAP results seen. Percentage of pilots flying CAP/reacting to incoming enemies is a function, probably, of at least two things--fatigue, and the "radar problem." To the extent the latter exists, nothing can be done about it without a patch. To the extent the former contributes, things can be done now by the player to reduce the effects of fatigue. 3. Re your test above, I don't consider 30-40 fatigue to be "high." I consider 70-80% to be high. Looking at some of my British units in NE India, I have fatigue levels in the same squadron that range from 0 to 92. My claim is that the code grounds the 92 fatigue pilot and replaces him with a reserve. If there are no reserves, that plane doesn't fly. My belief is that such a unit does not fly the 92 fatigue pilot if there is no other avaialbale. It sits on the ground. 4. Again, re your test, I believe, but have no data, that unit leadership is a core contributor to what level of fatigue is sufficient to ground a pilot. This makes real world sense as well. Inspirational leaders can get men to do extraordinary things. If your unit in your test flew 100% with 30-40 fatigue, I would urge you to re-test at 50-60 fatigue and the worst dishrag squadron leader you can find. See where the breakpoint is, and see if absolute fatigue level is key, or leadership, or both equally. And if you can get a 92 fatigue piilot to fly, please post the results, and I'll join you in a mutual head-scratching session.

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 2:00:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy Just for you info, I did a test, just over a couple of turns. First I have put my fighters on high % of Cap to get their fat into the usual 30-40 (takes you exactly.... two days [sm=00000280.gif]). So assuming pilots with high fatigue don´t fly, I have set them to fly an airfield attack. Guess what happened? I had ALL available fighters (a full sized 25 aircraft squadron) fly three days in a row (2 fighters became damaged or had to be maintained). Like in many other cases, perhaps it´s my special edition of WITP AE as it seems to have been so often in the past, just to find out that months later, "my" issues have become "general" issues, mainly called bugs or exploits in the end. Why? Don´t ask me, perhaps I´m the loudest cryer and the issues aren´t even issues but I convinced people with my crying? Ok, then I will stop saying "radar is broken" or "search archs are broken" or whatever else I said and still stand to. Will this "heal" land based radar then? If I stop saying that my aircraft all fly with pilots being in the fat range of 30-40 will they STOP flying then? Venturing one toe back into this thing, and not wanting to "get into it" today, I would just say: 1. I don't maintain there isn't a "radar problem." I believe there is evidence and communication from the devs that there is, with land radar, and it's being addressed. 2. I think fatigue and any "radar problems" are unrelated, but both could contribute to CAP results seen. Percentage of pilots flying CAP/reacting to incoming enemies is a function, probably, of at least two things--fatigue, and the "radar problem." To the extent the latter exists, nothing can be done about it without a patch. To the extent the former contributes, things can be done now by the player to reduce the effects of fatigue. 3. Re your test above, I don't consider 30-40 fatigue to be "high." I consider 70-80% to be high. Looking at some of my British units in NE India, I have fatigue levels in the same squadron that range from 0 to 92. My claim is that the code grounds the 92 fatigue pilot and replaces him with a reserve. If there are no reserves, that plane doesn't fly. My belief is that such a unit does not fly the 92 fatigue pilot if there is no other avaialbale. It sits on the ground. 4. Again, re your test, I believe, but have no data, that unit leadership is a core contributor to what level of fatigue is sufficient to ground a pilot. This makes real world sense as well. Inspirational leaders can get men to do extraordinary things. If your unit in your test flew 100% with 30-40 fatigue, I would urge you to re-test at 50-60 fatigue and the worst dishrag squadron leader you can find. See where the breakpoint is, and see if absolute fatigue level is key, or leadership, or both equally. And if you can get a 92 fatigue piilot to fly, please post the results, and I'll join you in a mutual head-scratching session. if you don´t consider 30-40 fatigue high then I wonder where all this discussion has lead to because with 80% Cap 20% rest your pilots exactly end up in the 30-40 fat range. So what am we discussing now? Thought this started exactly because you said you couldn´t use 80% Cap because the pilots would end up grounded due to fat? Looks like I´m missing something here... And no, I sure can´t show you a 92 fat pilot flying because I was never able to get a 92 fat pilot. [8\|] And while you were always talking about "high" fatigue, I was always talking about 30-40 fatigue. How could I even imagine that "high" would mean 92 for you? Doesn´t matter anyway as I won´t get my pilots to 92 and to end going round and round in circles, to me it seems your claim that 80% Cap would be too high because of getting TOO fatigued (92 then?) doesn´t make sense because I don´t get that high... mmmm, lol [&:] Don´t know what you are doing, my squadrons with 80% Cap and fully maxed out pilots never get that high. And to extend your example, with 1/3 more pilots than fighters, this would mean that MORE of 1/3 of the pilots would have to be at your "high" (aka 92) fatigue to see the first fighter being grounded. Do you want to say that in a squadron with 25 fighters and 33 pilots, you´ve got 9 (in words NINE) pilots with fat of 92? This would mean your first fighter would be grounded and only 24 in the air at best. Now I just wonder what you are doing if this is what you see. Besides that, why should I put bad leaders into my squadron? Don´t fly 80% Cap because you end up in 30-40 fat (or 92 fat in your version of the game) and if you THEN even got a bad leader your fighters won´t fly? How many things more have to happen to stay grounded due to fat? This becomes more and more looking like you have to deliberately break something to have them not fly due to Cap. Sorry, this doesn´t happen by accident in my PBEM. [&:]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 2:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy if you don´t consider 30-40 fatigue high then I wonder where all this discussion has lead to because with 80% Cap 20% rest your pilots exactly end up in the 30-40 fat range. So what am we discussing now? Thought this started exactly because you said you couldn´t use 80% Cap because the pilots would end up grounded due to fat? Looks like I´m missing something here... And no, I sure can´t show you a 92 fat pilot flying because I was never able to get a 92 fat pilot. [8\|] And while you were always talking about "high" fatigue, I was always talking about 30-40 fatigue. How could I even imagine that "high" would mean 92 for you? Doesn´t matter anyway as I won´t get my pilots to 92 and to end going round and round in circles, to me it seems your claim that 80% Cap would be too high because of getting TOO fatigued (92 then?) doesn´t make sense because I don´t get that high... mmmm, lol [&:] Don´t know what you are doing, my squadrons with 80% Cap and fully maxed out pilots never get that high. And to extend your example, with 1/3 more pilots than fighters, this would mean that MORE of 1/3 of the pilots would have to be at your "high" (aka 92) fatigue to see the first fighter being grounded. Do you want to say that in a squadron with 25 fighters and 33 pilots, you´ve got 9 (in words NINE) pilots with fat of 92? This would mean your first fighter would be grounded and only 24 in the air at best. Now I just wonder what you are doing if this is what you see. Besides that, why should I put bad leaders into my squadron? Don´t fly 80% Cap because you end up in 30-40 fat (or 92 fat in your version of the game) and if you THEN even got a bad leader your fighters won´t fly? How many things more have to happen to stay grounded due to fat? This becomes more and more looking like you have to deliberately break something to have them not fly due to Cap. Sorry, this doesn´t happen by accident in my PBEM. [&:] OK, here's what I'm talking about. I'll post the unit screen, and then the pilots below, and comment there. [image]local://upfiles/31387/04DB5BAE20A442149BE33D1C33CB27FB.jpg[/image]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 2:20:30 PM)
Here are the pilots: [image]local://upfiles/31387/03B2377747C147739F91821A40AAF41A.jpg[/image] Note that the CAP is not 80%, but the combined CAP/LRCAP is, and LRCAP is more tiring. Also, this unit has just come off a heavy combat day, and I have not replenished the pilots yet. Also note that this unit has an excellent CO. Look at Mr. Fowle. Even with over 300 missions, his fatigue is half that of FO Ross, who has only about 2/3 of the missions. So, we see that fatigue is not at all linear with mission load, but has a number of factors running under the hood. This unit is also in a malaria zone base, a big contributor to their status as worn out. Normally I don't do 20% Rest in malaria bases. However, this is a front-line unit in PM, which is under heavy obligation at the moment, and I don't have another unit handy to relieve it since I'm in a huge struggle to the east at Tassafaronga. They'll have to manage. Even with the excellent leader their morale is at 25, so leadership only takes you so far. So, based on MY experience, your statement that 80% CAP and 20% Rest never gets you out of the 30-40% fatigue range is . . . odd. The question I can't answer, but may take a look at when I play the nexct turn, is what happens to the readiness status of THIS unit after I load up the replacement pilots? How many planes does it put up? I can look at the pilot list and compare misison count and see who flew. I'm not going to play today, but I'll try to remember to do that when I do the next turn.

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 2:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 Here are the pilots: [image]local://upfiles/31387/03B2377747C147739F91821A40AAF41A.jpg[/image] Note that the CAP is not 80%, but the combined CAP/LRCAP is, and LRCAP is more tiring. Also, this unit has just come off a heavy combat day, and I have not replenished the pilots yet. Also note that this unit has an excellent CO. Look at Mr. Fowle. Even with over 300 missions, his fatigue is half that of FO Ross, who has only about 2/3 of the missions. So, we see that fatigue is not at all linear with mission load, but has a number of factors running under the hood. This unit is also in a malaria zone base, a big contributor to their status as worn out. Normally I don't do 20% Rest in malaria bases. However, this is a front-line unit in PM, which is under heavy obligation at the moment, and I don't have another unit handy to relieve it since I'm in a huge struggle to the east at Tassafaronga. They'll have to manage. Even with the excellent leader their morale is at 25, so leadership only takes you so far. So, based on MY experience, your statement that 80% CAP and 20% Rest never gets you out of the 30-40% fatigue range is . . . odd. The question I can't answer, but may take a look at when I play the nexct turn, is what happens to the readiness status of THIS unit after I load up the replacement pilots? How many planes does it put up? I can look at the pilot list and compare misison count and see who flew. I'm not going to play today, but I'll try to remember to do that when I do the next turn. you are not making clear comments mate. When you and me are saying Cap you then post a screen of CAP and LRCAP combined. I´ve never said 80% LRCAP or 60% Cap 20% LRCAP or 50% Cap 30% LRACP, I´ve always said 80% Cap 20% rest and that´s a whole different story than what you post here. I´m at work now but I can sure post a screen of my pilots with 80% 20% just for comparison. Long ago I´ve started a "complain thread" when I did LRCAP (don´t remember exactly but probably with something like 60%) over two or three hexes and after just two days the squadrons were totally unusable because fat was around 80 for everyone. This lead me to my statement of "LRACP is unusable, more or less" but not because of the fat grounding my aircraft, but because of fat trashing my 99 moral pilots in just a couple of days to unusable pilots due to low morale. So they did fly but bogeyed out when meeting the enemy due to low morale. Comparing the mission numbers of two pilots in terms of fatigue is something that doesn´t make sense at all to me in this case. You can have pilots with 5 missions and insane fat, for example by using LRCAP. And a pilot with 3009859 missions can have 0 fat if he was stood down the last five turns. Again, you compare apples and oranges when you take this example of mixed CAP and LRCAP to my example when I always said 80% Cap 20% rest. And this also explains it to me now. And by the way, your fat has done the same to moral as in my games, this squadron is unusable in my world because with 25 morale these fighters won´t do anything if the Japanese come calling... a single BOOOH and your fighters turn around. How fat is calculated in LRCAP or CAP I don´t know, otherwise it´s just 1 point for 1 hex flown and get´s halved every turn the pilot is on the ground. At least that´s what it was in WITP IIRC and haven´t noticed anything different. There is a huge difference in CAP and fat though, intended or not, that´s something I don´t know. As I´ve never read about a change it seems to me that the change was unintended as Cap and fat in WITP was always kept at reasonable ranges due to "playability". Same was done with fat and nav search for example. Take a fresh squadron, max out fighters and pilots and set them to 80% CAP 20% rest and nothing else and look at them. Then rethink about your comment about fighters being grounded due to too high fat from Cap. As it probably won´t be above 40 fat it isn´t high for you anyway and we have reached a result in our discussion a couple of posts ago anyway. And the result (for me) was that 40 fat isn´t high for you, 80% Cap 20% rest doesn´t create higher fat in my games and this then doesn´t match your comment that if you set a squadron to 80% Cap 20% rest you would end up with your fighters on the ground because of too high fat. Anything else? [&:]

CV2 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 3:51:36 PM)
Put 2 to 3 times the number of pilots to planes in the group and fatigue is no longer an issue (in the above example with a 16 plane group you should be sporting 30 to 40 pilots, not the 14 pictured). The only thing you have to worry about then is aircraft fatigue. While I have never actually tracked it, if you max out your reserve aircraft, this will go a long way toward solving that problem as well.

traskott -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 5:47:38 PM)
Side question: As Land Based Radar doesn't work, will naval based radar work as early warning for my Land Based Fighters ?

CV2 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 6:24:24 PM)
It seems to. From my limited experience (most Jap ships dont have radar).

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 6:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott Side question: As Land Based Radar doesn't work, will naval based radar work as early warning for my Land Based Fighters ? it does

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 6:32:18 PM)
here´s one of the units being set to 80% Cap 20 rest. Average fat is 24 so my comment about fat being 30-40 was even exagerated. For me it´s still high fat. This unit was flying with this setting for weeks already. Again, for me the fat is high but it´s definetely not as high to stop anyone from flying so the comments on page one about fat stopping pilots from flying 80% Cap isn´t valid for me. [image]local://upfiles/13774/6704C3F04C384CF5821B6BFE3B043A80.jpg[/image]

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 6:34:06 PM)
and the pilots in detail of this squadron, note that only one is above 40, many are even below 20. [image]local://upfiles/13774/8F76478B7D8C484BA7A0B52B6089B0AB.jpg[/image]

traskott -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 6:39:49 PM)
Thank both for the answers.... I think what we need to know is how much affect fatigue to a pilot, in raw numbers (ie: 20 fatiga, 20% less likely to hit something, or something like that).

USSAmerica -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 6:54:47 PM)
The examples sure illustrate how much more fatigue is caused by LRCAP than regular CAP. Castor, can you tell us what your ops losses have been like for units similar to your example, running 80% CAP/20% Rest? Assuming they are acceptable (very subjective, I know) I may start bumping my normal CAP levels up a bit.

crsutton -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 7:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 30% CAP, no rest. If a large raid comes in, and your base has sufficient warning (radar), extra fighters above the 30% will scrabble. 30% Cap and the non working land based radar at the moments you can expect some 15% of the fighters in the air... better to abandon the base completely of fighters then... What... radar does not work? [&:] lol, you must have missed lots of posts lately! [:D] Yeah, land based radar is out of order, going to be fixed with the next patch. IIRC, land based radar "works" and detects incoming raids but is then "overwritten" by the observers. Hence no radar detection from land based radar sets. Ship based radar works just fine (probably because there are no observers [:D]). Has been like this for months. Have you never realized that you only get a couple of minutes prewarning time during attacks on bases? Don't observers eventually get phased out in favor of radar or do they stay in the OOBs deep into the game?

Lifer -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 7:10:06 PM)
Can a TF with radar in a base hex help land-based air protect the base or does the Observer device overwrite the ship based radar detection (when protecting the base)? I would assume that radar detection of the TF would take precedence if the TF was targeted (in a base hex).

crsutton -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/23/2010 7:26:00 PM)
30% CAP and I raise it when I suspect something big is coming or I have an important TF arriving. No rest in the front lines. Units rest up fine without setting them to rest, and any unit on rest will not fight no matter what. I find that units with high morale will fly even with high fatigue. More of em might get shot down but they will fly. It really is morale that you need to heed. Just as important for OP losses is plane fatigue-especially with the heavies. A couple of long range missions can really work over a big bomber. Your pilots might be fully rested but your planes worn out. Funny, I was at least 400 turns into my campaign before I realized that planes actually accumulated fatigue separate from the pilots.

Kwik E Mart -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 1:09:13 AM)
i'm glad some of you guys aren't negotiators or ambassadors...the red button would have been pushed a LONG time ago due to gross mis-communication...[X(]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 4:03:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV2 Put 2 to 3 times the number of pilots to planes in the group and fatigue is no longer an issue (in the above example with a 16 plane group you should be sporting 30 to 40 pilots, not the 14 pictured). The only thing you have to worry about then is aircraft fatigue. While I have never actually tracked it, if you max out your reserve aircraft, this will go a long way toward solving that problem as well. The max pilots this group will take is 21 with 16 aircraft, no reserves. (No reserves are possible.) You never have the option to put as many pilots in a group as you like.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 4:12:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America The examples sure illustrate how much more fatigue is caused by LRCAP than regular CAP. Castor, can you tell us what your ops losses have been like for units similar to your example, running 80% CAP/20% Rest? Assuming they are acceptable (very subjective, I know) I may start bumping my normal CAP levels up a bit. I ran a controlled test this afternoon with four fighter units. I'll post either tomorrow or Thursday. I think CT's results are all mixed up due to combat, KIA losses, replacements, etc. Look at the mission numbers and cross them to the fatigue numbers in his P-47 unit. Crazy. (19 misisons, 44 fat.; 276 misisons 24 fat.) He also doesn't say if his unit is in malaria-land (it's whited out.) I ran my test at SF and PH, with no combat, with both over-manned and not-overmanned unts, same flight specs (alt, range, mostly with P-40Bs.) While I got fat. numbers in the 0-40 range more or less, I also got very different mission numbers, without replacements to explain it. So it appears the results he's reporting, and I saw without LRCAP, of 30ish fatigue over time, is because the game IS grounding pilots when they cross a fatigue trigger point that isn't shown, and might vary with CO specs or some other metric. You can also get a couple of data points for OPs losses. I'll post sceenies ASAP, but not tonight.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 4:14:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy and the pilots in detail of this squadron, note that only one is above 40, many are even below 20. [image]local://upfiles/13774/8F76478B7D8C484BA7A0B52B6089B0AB.jpg[/image] But look at the misison numbers, and compare them to the fat numbers. SOME pilots are being grounded, although it's impossible to say how many because you have combat losses and replacements gumming up the numbers. It's possible that 30-40 is the grounding number, unless LRCAP is included in the mix. I don't know. But your numbers are not linear in any way inside the same unit.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 4:15:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart i'm glad some of you guys aren't negotiators or ambassadors...the red button would have been pushed a LONG time ago due to gross mis-communication...[X(] You got a useful comment, or do you just like being a jerk?

Sheytan -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 4:19:13 AM)
I think some people fail to realise any discussion in a civil forum is one of give and take. Perhaps Kwik dosnt understand that? Edited to add, I frankly enjoy these discussions in which people stick to thier guns either way. Frankly I am of the opinion that as a RESULT of these types of discussions things get fixed, things that NEED fixing get identified. quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart i'm glad some of you guys aren't negotiators or ambassadors...the red button would have been pushed a LONG time ago due to gross mis-communication...[X(] You got a useful comment, or do you just like being a jerk?

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 7:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America The examples sure illustrate how much more fatigue is caused by LRCAP than regular CAP. Castor, can you tell us what your ops losses have been like for units similar to your example, running 80% CAP/20% Rest? Assuming they are acceptable (very subjective, I know) I may start bumping my normal CAP levels up a bit. op losses? Not existing when only flying Cap and there aren´t attacks. At least not that I would really notice. One in weeks? If there isn´t action, I usually lose 1 fighter every couple of days on the whole MAP. Can´t be compared to my op losses during nav search when my aircraft drop out of the sky at a rate of 2 or 3 per day.

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 7:37:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 30% CAP, no rest. If a large raid comes in, and your base has sufficient warning (radar), extra fighters above the 30% will scrabble. 30% Cap and the non working land based radar at the moments you can expect some 15% of the fighters in the air... better to abandon the base completely of fighters then... What... radar does not work? [&:] lol, you must have missed lots of posts lately! [:D] Yeah, land based radar is out of order, going to be fixed with the next patch. IIRC, land based radar "works" and detects incoming raids but is then "overwritten" by the observers. Hence no radar detection from land based radar sets. Ship based radar works just fine (probably because there are no observers [:D]). Has been like this for months. Have you never realized that you only get a couple of minutes prewarning time during attacks on bases? Don't observers eventually get phased out in favor of radar or do they stay in the OOBs deep into the game? don´t know, there must be something different acting as "spotters" too then because even if I´ve got no "observer" device at a base but only radar, the radar still does nothing. Guess the only thing that´s going to help will be the patch, hopefully to come before my PBEM enters 46. [:D]

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 7:44:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy and the pilots in detail of this squadron, note that only one is above 40, many are even below 20. [image]local://upfiles/13774/8F76478B7D8C484BA7A0B52B6089B0AB.jpg[/image] But look at the misison numbers, and compare them to the fat numbers. SOME pilots are being grounded, although it's impossible to say how many because you have combat losses and replacements gumming up the numbers. It's possible that 30-40 is the grounding number, unless LRCAP is included in the mix. I don't know. But your numbers are not linear in any way inside the same unit. don´t get me wrong please, but forget about the mission numbers in this example. Sure there are pilots STOOD DOWN every day. Why? Because there are 25 aircraft and 33 pilots, means 8 pilots are stood down every day I would say. The fact that there are pilots with hundreds of missions and some with below 50 is the reason that these have been transferred to this squadron "lately" while the ones with hundreds of missions were either longer in this squadron or longer in their "training" squadron where they also accumulated missions. And yes, I bet the game still has the habit to pick the same pilots again and again for a mission until some magic point (40 fat? I don´t know) but this still doesn´t mean that a single of my fighters stays on the ground due to fat because I´ve got 8 "reserve" pilots so 80% 20% rest works quite "well". To see how the game really treats pilots on Cap shouldn´t be hard so. Just clear a squadron of all pilots and pull all new replacement pilots without any missions and set the squadron to Cap and just leave it for two months. This then gives a clear sight on what is going on but looking at such a squadron like we both have posted it doesn´t make sense because you just can´t tell what is going on with such a mission count. Should be easy though if all pilots start at 0 missions and are doing nothing else than flying CAP. edit: Anderson was put in reserve this turn obviously and is the only one above 40. Don´t know if it just happened by accident or if it really has to do something with fat. Could be, I don´t know.

castor troy -> RE: Pilots: CAP and Fatigue (11/24/2010 7:48:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton 30% CAP and I raise it when I suspect something big is coming or I have an important TF arriving. No rest in the front lines. Units rest up fine without setting them to rest, and any unit on rest will not fight no matter what. I find that units with high morale will fly even with high fatigue. More of em might get shot down but they will fly. It really is morale that you need to heed. Just as important for OP losses is plane fatigue-especially with the heavies. A couple of long range missions can really work over a big bomber. Your pilots might be fully rested but your planes worn out. Funny, I was at least 400 turns into my campaign before I realized that planes actually accumulated fatigue separate from the pilots. Fighter squadrons with a % on rest are supposed to scramble their fighters if they´ve got the chance to do so, they probably just need enough pre warning time. Heck, but we don´t get pre warning without radar... [:D]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125