RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane

RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (Full Version)

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

Message

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/13/2017 5:46:22 AM)
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.[:D] And while I am at it, let me re-emphasize what the /manuals/Pilot Management Addendum.pdf says: Leader skill increases skill gain IF "- if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills) and less than the leader’s skill" If that is an accurate description (and it is in the manual, so I am going with it until testing tells me different), then as long as the Leadership is higher than the experience/skill, you are wasting better leaders on those trainee pilots. It doesn't say if the number is 10 higher, or 20 higher. It just says higher. Haven't tested this, but do not assume that medium or high skill leaders do any better than low skill leaders at training your greenest trainees.

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/13/2017 6:52:34 AM)
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. I said you were mistaken. That is hardly throwing stones.. You, however wrote "not some vanity test which has not taken into account all the relevant variables". And I'm the one throwing insults? So you are pure hearted and always correct, but I'm posting as a "vanity test"? What did you expect in my response? 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. 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. I have attached a screenshot for anyone that wants to duplicate my results. 1. Go into the scenario editor and open Scen 1. 2. Make TEST-1 through TEST-10 as you see TEST-1 in the screenshot. 3. On TEST-2/4/6/8/10, make the 'Ready' number of planes 1 isntead of 15. 4. File->Save As Scenario to another scenario slot. 5. Once in game, start a new game as Japan Go to Oita and pull pilots from the reserve to each air group until you have 20 pilots in each air group. 6. Pull leaders for each air group from the bottom of the leader list ranked by Leadership skill. Try for a number in the 40ish range. 7. Run the turn. 8. Look at pilot list for each group. 9. Run as many turns as you like to get confidence that number of planes has an impact on skill advancement. 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. I'm not interested in invalidating you. In a recent post, I recommended a newbie read your back posts. That is hardly representative of invalidating you. I did note (correctly as my experience here confirms and posts confirm) that you are a crotchety guy, but that your information is usually good. My tests support my assertion, but your sample of data does not. You have not controlled other variables. By your own admission, the cases you cite are just a sampling of the pilot experience gains in a handful of squadrons that happen to have 1 or 2 aircraft in them. I've told you I created duplicate squadrons - the only difference in them was the number of planes and the leaders, though the leaders were as close as leader selection would allow me to make them. 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. I used the game engine to perform the test, therefore my test is a test of the game engine. Not sure how you think I got the results without using the game to test. I am measuring dx/dy where dx is the change in experience and dy is the change in number of planes. All other variables are held constant. 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. You might apply this to your own "test". Say, put a full complement of planes in an air group with the same starting experience, the same air craft, the same base, ample support, the same morale, attempt to match up leader stats, and pull fresh pilots form your reserve. Then compare the two groups where one has 1 or 2 aircraft, and the other has 20 something. You did not do that. I did. 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. Lol. MIT trained software engineer bud, I make my living doing this kind of stuff. I am very good at it and I am very well paid to do it. 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. Odd statement when you have no control groups and have not kept any of the variables that I cited constant in your sample. To disprove my position, you would have to present air groups with similar variables and larger numbers of aircraft training that did not advance at a greater rate. You haven't. You have effectively proven nothing. 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%. I've shown you results that contradict your statement here. Not sure I can say anything that will ever convince you. 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. Observed results. You develop a theory, you design a test for that theory, you measure the results. You draw conclusions from the results. Frankly, if a dev came on here and said you were right, my first action would be to send him the above scenario file and say, "Okay, then why do I get these results?" Devs are not infallible any more than you or I are. 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 I said you were wrong. I based it upon tests of the game engine using air groups that attempted to eliminate as many variables as might be involved in the test. The results were not just sorta clear, they were clear by an order of magnitude. Not once in your rant have you even considered that you, the devs, or anyone else might be wrong. If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If I vary ONE thing, and that thing is the number of planes, and I get 7-9 times as many skill advancements, then I feel pretty comfortable thinking that the number of planes has a significant impact on the rate of training advancement.

mind_messing -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/13/2017 2:14:13 PM)
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. From where do you draw this vast index of dev comments? I for one would think it a massive boon to the community if it was to be shared publically. Having an AE oracle is all well and good, but sometimes you want a quick question resolved without having to queue or sacrifice a goat. Or a gorn.

Alpha77 -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/13/2017 3:30:53 PM)
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. No, number of planes matters without doubt (or you play a different game or some mod?), as well good air support and bigger airfields matter. The huge airfields ofc will provide much better training infrastructur then a some muddy field in the middle of the jungle. So it makes perfect sense, as well perhaps good supply + HQ present(last 2 points not confirmed but would make sense too)... [;)] Comment on CR Corsair example: those are very low in exp this may be the reason they train decent even with only 2 planes :) As most know the lower skill/exp the faster they learn... there is a threshold some point when it slows down... When I get a turn back perhaps I can post examples too if this issue is still open for debate [:)]

geofflambert -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 5:41:59 AM)
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 Thank you, sir. May I have another? [:D]

Chris21wen -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 6:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Canoerebel My experience is that aircraft squadrons with no aircraft will not train pilots; They will but slowly [image]local://upfiles/5388/60FB0890C7744FA39CC69F735E816D0E.jpg[/image]

Chris21wen -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 6:54:00 AM)
They also appear to train while being transported. This however, might be a bug where the info is not being cleaned when the group is loaded. [image]local://upfiles/5388/55C486A709424857BAB353872AEC98C6.jpg[/image]

wdolson -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 9:23:54 AM)
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

GetAssista -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 10:23:53 AM)
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

Alpha77 -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 11:46:26 AM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/A0EA62857D3849F08540CB1ED0D4E210.jpg[/image]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 11:49:37 AM)
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 [:)]

Alpha77 -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 11:50:38 AM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/496E5B33D0AA4DD2A96386F7B919FEF9.jpg[/image]

Alpha77 -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 12:16:22 PM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/B7A27D54540B4FAAB4B8CFEC76625180.jpg[/image]

BBfanboy -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 1:47:40 PM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/496E5B33D0AA4DD2A96386F7B919FEF9.jpg[/image] The small amount of air support should result in accumulating fatigue on the aircraft. How many of the six aircraft are still in operation after a week? Is your training set at 100% or ??? What altitude are they training at???? (I would have expected more gains in defensive skill but I always train low level - 2000 feet for land/naval bombing and 1000 for patrol/low level missions).

GetAssista -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 4:38:13 PM)
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? There are more pressing matters for testing, like commander skills/training modes/range so I'll do those first when have time for the game For now, the logical assumption relevant to your question would be that lack of air support grounds planes and they are no longer useful for training. just the same as absent, so training will be slower quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 Ok, folks, YES no plane units train but slow. They do train, no doubt about it. Just very slow

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 5:05:23 PM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/A0EA62857D3849F08540CB1ED0D4E210.jpg[/image] I am not denying that units without planes can train. I am merely contending that number of aircraft matters and that the effect is linear. If you look at the pilot management addendum, it is clear that leader's skill and and average group experience can contribute to the training of pilots without having any planes at all. I am merely trying to debunk the myth that a 0/1/2 plane squadron trains just as fast as a fully equipped squadron. It is simply not true and anyone that bothers to set up a controlled test can see it with little effort. I will also note that you should be 100% training in this case, not 80 or some other fraction since the bonus's make a check against your training percentage per pilot before gaining skill. IMO the only time you should not be 100% training is when 1) your pilots are around 50 exp and you need to get their mission count up to keep the group exp and leader bonuses going, and 2) when you get to the point where "training" blurs into "real world".

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 5:08:34 PM)
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 [:)] I have not. Nothing I've read or observed suggests there is an effect directly related to AV quantity or quality. However, planes have to be ready to fly. No AV means your planes should break eventually and will no longer be "Ready".

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 5:17:25 PM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/B7A27D54540B4FAAB4B8CFEC76625180.jpg[/image] All your pilots are training strafing, he will not gain "Air" at all while you are doing that, he will train "Staf". I note that within the last month, the pilot (Assuming D Eto is the pilot in question with 28 Air skill) gained skill in air, so I am assuming you switched and he did gain Air at one point. I can also tell from his stats that he was a replacement pilot and his air started in the teens, so he gained at least 10 points in Air before he switched. 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.

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 5:28:55 PM)
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: [image]local://upfiles/36223/496E5B33D0AA4DD2A96386F7B919FEF9.jpg[/image] Your fatigue is 0 in all the pilots I can see. If your planes flew, some of your pilots should show fatigue. With only 6 planes, the ones that have fatigue might not be visible. You should know that I typically see low exp pilots fly training while higher experience/low fatigue pilots fly other missions. The 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. This is why I stratify my pilots.)

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 5:41:32 PM)
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 Thank you for repeating the test and publishing the result. However, please refrain from attacking Alfred (or anyone). I have found a GREAT many of his posts to be useful and accurate. I just wish he did it with a touch more humility and sensitivity.

Alpha77 -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 7:52:56 PM)
@ BB Fanboy: "The small amount of air support should result in accumulating fatigue on the aircraft. How many of the six aircraft are still in operation after a week? Is your training set at 100% or ??? What altitude are they training at???? (I would have expected more gains in defensive skill but I always train low level - 2000 feet for land/naval bombing and 1000 for patrol/low level missions). " I will check the fatigue next turn. I usually train air at 7-10k and str/def at 100ft usually at 100% training (in backwater areas, units nearer tothe front may train 70-80% to keep them fresh for an eventual enemy surprise or they need to be thrown in batte). My examples posted were all 100% training (otherwise one could not compare anyway) @ 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.

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/14/2017 9:29:08 PM)
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. Sorry, I got my threads confused a bit. I posted this in another thread: 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. [&o] 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. Experience is gained like leveling a character in an RPG, but with a sightly random component. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE CODE ACTUALLY WORKS, but this is my interpretation/illustration based upon the description in the Pilot Management Addendum.pdf (You can read the manual entry yourself, it is in the /manual directory of your WitP:AE install): 1. Each skill and experience level has a number of experience points (ep) needed to be accumulated to get the next experience level (Exp). That amount is a function of level with a random component added. For example, pretend that the experience needed to increase Exp is current_level/2 + random(current_level). Further pretend that I am looking an an Exp = 30 pilot and my "random(level)" returns a 20. That pilot needs to accumulate 35 ep from training to advance to Exp = 31. 2. According to the Addendum, you accumulate the points needed 4 ways (Flying training missions, Leader bonus, group exp bonus, and Veteran bonus). Pretend that the way it works is this: a. Pilots that fly a mission get d10 points. Keep in mind, you can fly one mission per phase. b. Pilots that have experience < 50 + mission count and have a leader with Leadership > Exp get an additional amount once per day. Say d3. c. Pilots that have experience < 50 + mission count and have a exp < the average experience in their group get an additional amount once per day. Also say d3. d. For each Veteran (80+) pilot in the group, add d2-1 once per day. So a pilot can get 2d10 + d3 + d3 + V(d2-1) points in a day. If a pilot gets 23 points one day and needs 35, the next day the pilot will increase a point of experience if he accumulates another 12 experience points. Let's say in day 2 he accumulates 10. Now he has 33, but needs 35. Day 3 comes along and he accumulates another 5, pushing him over the 35 and his Exp = 31 (He's now green). 2. b. above is what I what I was referring to when I said the "Leader Bonus". 2. c. is what I was calling the "Group Experience Bonus".

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/16/2017 1:30:31 AM)
Thanks for the work, InfiniteMonkey. Pilot training is a bit of a grey area. Although anecdotally I noticed training squadrons with more airplanes trained pilots faster in general, it's good to see empirical evidence of that. Cheers, CC

Chris21wen -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/16/2017 7:11:34 AM)
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 Makes sense

geofflambert -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/16/2017 7:40:05 PM)
1/3rd training in the air, 1/3rd training on the ground (or ship), 1/3rd at rest. 1/3rd complement of aircraft should be adequate. If the unit is doing regular missions as well you should have a full complement and cut the training to 20%. Opinion.

1EyedJacks -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/16/2017 8:42:17 PM)
Bump. Why? Because I can. [:D]

rustysi -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/16/2017 10:31:30 PM)
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 your 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.[:)]

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/17/2017 5:51:11 AM)
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.

rustysi -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/17/2017 9:39:46 PM)
Well the numbers seem to support what you say. Don't know what else to say. Thank you for the effort and I will keep this in mind while I play.

InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane (1/17/2017 11:54:23 PM)
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. After entering the values into the spreadsheet to get all the totals, I do not really have a ton to add to this. The only aberration from the curve was the 12 plane squadrons where I think weather (4 days of Thunderstorms in the base hex) threw the results off the line. The 15 plane squadron's results are actually a bit over the line. [image]local://upfiles/55090/C7C5A1D182B249B3B1212B2EFE392C60.jpg[/image]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.21875