RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it?

RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (Full Version)

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

Message

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 4:28:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull Speaking of Nuggets, we have this from the coder himself. The quote is dated 12/13/2009, which is AFTER the patch which removed Dedicated Training Units. So it's probably a good description of the "as-is" code on the workings of TRACOM (doesn't address all aspects of pilot training, however): quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm75au There is some behind the scenes action with training of raw pilots and TRACOM. The number of TRACOM guys can increase the month's EXP rating of the raw pilots. If the new EXP exceeds the national EXP, then a random number of pilots will 'graduate' early. When this happens, you get a message "instructors accelerate training of" in the operation report. In general, this jump is only going to occur in the last month of training, unless you add a huge number of pilots to TRACOM. A rough guide is: for every 10 in TRACOM (of the correct nationality), the monthly EXP might be increased by one. Adjustments to the pilot training happens on the first day of the month. The monthly EXP increase of the raw pilots (ignoring TRACOM effect) is a random amount (-2 to +2). The new monthly EXP starts out as an average of the pilots in the month and those moving from the previous month. I guess that if the pilot gets experience below zero, it ruins his whole day? [image]local://upfiles/52896/BA1D0E69E2BB41CB86FEE9D62F50B533.jpg[/image]

Ian R -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 4:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull Secondly, the "dedicated training group" code was all stripped out in a follow-on patch, ... The code is still there, and dedicated training groups can be included as a scenario modification. There was, briefly, an option in-game to switch operational air-groups to a training role. That was deleted. The training groups which Bill Brown inserted in my mod hold some multiple of the usual number of pilots (triple, IIRC). Whether they provide faster training than operational groups set to 100% training mission, I am not sure. I usually drop replacements into the training groups, and they stay there until they hit 70 on their core skill. I use the restricted operational groups for the same purpose, but have not monitored their progress closely enough to see if there is a tangible difference. I did put one of Bill's USN training groups on a carrier repairing at SFO, and upsized it to 90 aircraft. It trained 270 nuggets at a time.

rustysi -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 4:50:56 PM)
quote: This is particularly important for Japan since HI is precious and it costs "X" amount of HI per pilot per day Five HI is the correct amount, but its assessed once at the end of the month, not per day.

rustysi -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 4:58:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull Speaking of Nuggets, we have this from the coder himself. The quote is dated 12/13/2009, which is AFTER the patch which removed Dedicated Training Units. So it's probably a good description of the "as-is" code on the workings of TRACOM (doesn't address all aspects of pilot training, however): quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm75au There is some behind the scenes action with training of raw pilots and TRACOM. The number of TRACOM guys can increase the month's EXP rating of the raw pilots. If the new EXP exceeds the national EXP, then a random number of pilots will 'graduate' early. When this happens, you get a message "instructors accelerate training of" in the operation report. In general, this jump is only going to occur in the last month of training, unless you add a huge number of pilots to TRACOM. A rough guide is: for every 10 in TRACOM (of the correct nationality), the monthly EXP might be increased by one. Adjustments to the pilot training happens on the first day of the month. The monthly EXP increase of the raw pilots (ignoring TRACOM effect) is a random amount (-2 to +2). The new monthly EXP starts out as an average of the pilots in the month and those moving from the previous month. Now this clears up some of the 'mud', at least for myself. Haven't seen it before, thanks Kull.

Kull -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 5:27:14 PM)
Having spent wayyyyyy too much time reading through threads on this topic, I have a hypothesis that much of the testing and fingerpointing around the issue of pilot training comes down to a simple misunderstanding of terminology. Specifically: All mention of the word "Experience" refers ONLY to that ONE particular aspect of a pilot's skill set. So when people run tests and start making counts of how many pilots had a SKILL number (of which there are 12) change from white to green...well that's a whole different thing. Trying to correlate that back to factors which are SPECIFICALLY talking about Experience....well, I suspect that is apples to oranges.

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 5:29:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: This is particularly important for Japan since HI is precious and it costs "X" amount of HI per pilot per day Five HI is the correct amount, but its assessed once at the end of the month, not per day. That is what I posted. So it actually behooves the Japanese to drain the trainee pool. Getting the trainees out before they have full experience saves HI so more aircraft can be built, plus lower experience allows them to train up in skill sets better. Also by switching from fighters, to bombers to transports, and back the experience takes a hit so the skills can be trained better. I have seen pilots with over 50 experience with no special skills!

rustysi -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 6:02:48 PM)
quote: So it actually behooves the Japanese to drain the trainee pool. Getting the trainees out before they have full experience saves HI so more aircraft can be built, plus lower experience allows them to train up in skill sets better. Double edged sword. By doing what you advocate you now have to spend supply to train pilots. I find I have much more HI than supply, relatively speaking. JMHO. YMMV.[:)]

Kull -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 6:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: So it actually behooves the Japanese to drain the trainee pool. Getting the trainees out before they have full experience saves HI so more aircraft can be built, plus lower experience allows them to train up in skill sets better. Double edged sword. By doing what you advocate you now have to spend supply to train pilots. I find I have much more HI than supply, relatively speaking. JMHO. YMMV.[:)] Not necessarily. Until you draw the pilots into units, they are available, but "not named". Pilots without names do not require any supply, nor do they count against the 70K "pilot cap": quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Unless I am very much mistaken, the pilot array now allows for up to 70k named pilots in total from both sides. Pilots which graduate from the 12 month training pipeline and go to the replacement pool are not named. They are named when they are sent to a squadron and then retain their name when sent back to one of the veteran pools. The previous global limit of 50k should have sufficed and yet already some players had come up against the limit. My reading of both michaelm and jwilkerson is that there will be no further increase in the global pilot array beyond 70k. That effectively means each side should aim for no higher than 35k named pilots. Keeping pilots in squadrons to only 133% of the TOE should easily fall within the new limit. If a player starts to have 200% or more of pilots, plus retain substantial pools, the new limit (of 35k each) will soon be reached. As always, there are costs associated with any approach. Not a problem if players are aware of them and take the appropriate steps to mitigate those costs. Too often players only think of the benefits derived from adopting a particular course of action and then complain when the "chickens come home to roost". Alfred Above quote can be found here.

awaw -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 9:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: So it actually behooves the Japanese to drain the trainee pool. Getting the trainees out before they have full experience saves HI so more aircraft can be built, plus lower experience allows them to train up in skill sets better. Double edged sword. By doing what you advocate you now have to spend supply to train pilots. I find I have much more HI than supply, relatively speaking. JMHO. YMMV.[:)] Not necessarily. Until you draw the pilots into units, they are available, but "not named". Pilots without names do not require any supply, nor do they count against the 70K "pilot cap": Above quote can be found here. I believe what rustysi is saying is that: 1. Normally a pilot has an average 30 air skill. 2. By forcibly �graduating� him before that, he will have ,say, 20 air skill. 3. Somehow, somewhere, you will have to train him on-board, and taking him the extra distance from 20 to 30 skills costs supplies. 4. 20-30 skill is fast, but still a supply cost somehow

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 9:53:29 PM)
But the Japanese national pilot experience average goes down later in the game, does it not? So by getting them early, you are getting them at the higher national average. Train them to be good Kamikaze pilots instead of poorly trained ones.

Ian R -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/12/2020 11:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe But the Japanese national pilot experience average goes down later in the game, does it not? So by getting them early, you are getting them at the higher national average. Train them to be good Kamikaze pilots instead of poorly trained ones. I have a recollection that someone, possibly Alfred or the Elf, stated that just because you graduate some pilots from 'training command' early, does not mean you get more raw no-name recruits into the system to replace them. So at best you get them onto the map earlier so as to put them in an "OTU" and polish them up some more. Or throw them in the deep end.

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 12:18:01 AM)
I understand that you don't get more, but if you pull them out before the national average at graduation drops then they should have a higher experience.

jdsrae -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 1:13:34 AM)
There is a supply vs HI point trade off consideration, but... HI is paid based on 5 x number of pilots, I believe once per month. Supply is burnt by the number of planes in the air units used for training. For the IJN, USN, RN, supersized air units can have 100 pilots sharing 2 planes. Using air units with 2 planes uses a lot less supply than units with full plane quotas. (At the risk of sparking the number of planes debate again!) I don�t have any pilots in training command yet, but there may come a time when I move some IJN fighter pilots there. It looks like it will be a long time before I am able to drain the IJA general reserve pool, so I can�t see the point in rushing IJA pilots through their 12 month basic course just to leave them in the inactive reserve pool.

Alfred -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 2:46:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe But the Japanese national pilot experience average goes down later in the game, does it not? So by getting them early, you are getting them at the higher national average. Train them to be good Kamikaze pilots instead of poorly trained ones. I have a recollection that someone, possibly Alfred or the Elf, stated that just because you graduate some pilots from 'training command' early, does not mean you get more raw no-name recruits into the system to replace them. So at best you get them onto the map earlier so as to put them in an "OTU" and polish them up some more. Or throw them in the deep end. Correct. The monthly intake to flight training school is fixed for all nationalities. It does not increase to cover a school deficit resulting from excess withdrawals. Alfred

BillBrown -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 2:58:24 AM)
From the Pilot Management Addendum: 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) If a scenario designer makes some dedicated training groups, they will train pilots faster than normal air units that are given training orders.

Alfred -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 3:17:22 AM)
The private dev forum discussion on dedicated Training groups makes for very interesting reading. There was a very sound reason why post release the official decision was to not have any in the official scenarios. Private scenario designers of course can do how they please but I would not recommend incorporating them. Alfred

Kull -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 4:45:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe But the Japanese national pilot experience average goes down later in the game, does it not? So by getting them early, you are getting them at the higher national average. Train them to be good Kamikaze pilots instead of poorly trained ones. No it does not. Stays constant from 1941 thru 1946, for both IJA and IJN. The table is in Post #10 of this thread.

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/13/2020 5:18:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe But the Japanese national pilot experience average goes down later in the game, does it not? So by getting them early, you are getting them at the higher national average. Train them to be good Kamikaze pilots instead of poorly trained ones. No it does not. Stays constant from 1941 thru 1946, for both IJA and IJN. The table is in Post #10 of this thread. My mistake, I thought that it went down. It did historically if I remember correctly.

Kull -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 6:01:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awaw I believe what rustysi is saying is that: 1. Normally a pilot has an average 30 air skill. 2. By forcibly �graduating� him before that, he will have ,say, 20 air skill. 3. Somehow, somewhere, you will have to train him on-board, and taking him the extra distance from 20 to 30 skills costs supplies. 4. 20-30 skill is fast, but still a supply cost somehow Before responding, it's important that we look at the in-game training status visuals and (in combination with a few quotes from the coder & Alfred) try to determine what they mean. The attachment is the the Scenario 1 Japanese pilot training graphic as of 12/9/41. It shows pilot classes grouped by quarter, in which the "Average Experience level" is that of all pilots in three different classes. Each month, a new class is inducted and one of the classes in each quartile will carry it's unknown average into the next quartile, while the 12th month class (and it's unknown average) will graduate. Accordingly, when the attachment tells us that the last IJA class has an average of 29, you can bank on the fact that "class 12" is higher, but that's all you can know. The Devs probably used this mechanism to obscure the specifics of the data for each class, so we can never know the average number of any one specific class (much less the distribution of per-pilot experience levels within each class). The details are missing, but there are some things we can infer. Let's start by looking at the average experience for IJA pilots in each quartile: 1st Quartile group: 1 (+1) 2nd Quartile group: 12 (+11) 3rd Quartile group: 22 (+10) 4th Quartile group: 29 (+7) Don't focus too much on the specific averages or even the rates of increase - it varies a LOT from one game and one time period to another. But what they all have in common (absent a ransacking of pre-graduate pilots by a desperate player), is that the total increase will be at least high 20's by the 4th Quartile. And remember that for many of the Allied nationalities (especially in the late war), the numbers will increase from single digits into the 40's. Thanks for bearing with me, because here's where that leads: Quote #1: quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm75au Adjustments to the pilot training happens on the first day of the month. The monthly EXP increase of the raw pilots (ignoring TRACOM effect) is a random amount (-2 to +2). If you just do the math - +2 as the max EXP increase per pilot per month over 12 months - there's no way you can get from 1 to 29 in a year. The luckiest pilot, who randomly gains +2 every single month, would wind up at 24. And what about all the guys getting a -2? This HAS to be a mechanism that derives a spread between the experience levels of individual pilots in each class, not the basis by which the entire class goes from 0 to "something less than 35" in 12 months. That mechanism is probably this: Quote #2: quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm75au The new monthly EXP starts out as an average of the pilots in the month and those moving from the previous month. Although I can't wrap my head around the math which would make it work, one way or another the algorithm drives overall pilot experience higher than the +2/-2 mechanism (especially in classes 4-12). So how does TRACOM fit in? Two ways - the first of which relates directly to Quote #2 above: Quote #3: quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm75au The number of TRACOM guys can increase the month's EXP rating of the raw pilots. If the new EXP exceeds the national EXP, then a random number of pilots will 'graduate' early. A rough guide is: for every 10 in TRACOM (of the correct nationality), the monthly EXP might be increased by one. Read that carefully and then read it again. He's not talking about quartiles or the graduating class per se, but rather "the month's EXP rating of the raw pilots". Whether that's "per pilot" or "per class" is not clear, but either way it happens to each class-or-pilot EVERY MONTH. The operative word is "can", so it's not guaranteed, but 12 times is a LOT of opportunities for increase. In particular it's huge if this drives the overall class number higher in a month, because (according to Quote #2) it affects not just this class but all those "moving from the previous month". For the second TRACOM benefit, we have this : Quote #4: quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Graduating pilots come out with experience which is within a range +/- of the national average. Having pilots in Tracom will aid reducing the negative spread but will not boost them to above the national average. Alfred This statement clearly applies to the +2/-2 effect (see Quote #1) which is intended to expand the experience delta between the pilots in EACH class, not just the graduating class. In particular it "reduces the negative spread", which - at the most simplistic level - would have to mean that it's driving the overall average experience higher. Is that per month, per pilot, per class? Don't know, but it's not a bad thing, and almost certainly contributes to the Quote #2 mechanism. Which finally brings us back to this: 1. Normally a pilot has an average 30 air skill. - We don't actually know what that number is (as explained above), but for sake of argument, OK. 2. By forcibly �graduating� him before that, he will have ,say, 20 air skill. - Absolutely not. As shown above, the TRACOM mechanism doesn't work by slashing months off the graduation time of some random individual or even an entire class (which seems to be your assumption), but rather looks to see "if the new EXP exceeds the national EXP, then a random number of pilots will 'graduate' early". The guys graduating early CANNOT be "20" because they are part of a class which has an overall average that "exceeds the national EXP" (not something that's going to happen if the class is populated by pilots with a "20" EXP level) 3. Somehow, somewhere, you will have to train him on-board, and taking him the extra distance from 20 to 30 skills costs supplies. 4. 20-30 skill is fast, but still a supply cost somehow - Both statements are false, since they follow-on from the assumption in #2 that the average experience of "early graduates" is less than that of those who spend 12 months in training. In fact, as per Quote #4, the reverse is true since the 2nd TRACOM mechanism improves the experience numbers for the guys at the bottom of the graduating class. Which means that graduates assisted by TRACOM should require LESS, not more, supply to train further. [image]local://upfiles/25668/42660A804DA24CBB8CE073AF0D78F757.jpg[/image]

awaw -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 11:14:50 AM)
@Kull Thank you for the elaborate response, but I think we are on 2 different channels here. when I say "forcibly graduate early", I was referring to this sequence: a. A pilot normally stay in the training program for 12 mths. b. If a player forcibly "use up" pilots that graduated from the training schools, and start draining pilots from (say) 10-12 mth cohort, they are denying these pilots "free" training that could have accumulated during the remaining period. While not all pilots will benefit from staying in flight school for the full period, statistically, some will gain in xp. Drawing from the 10-12 mth cohort is what I mean by "forcibly graduate early" c. Training pilots on map cost supplies, and putting a 10-12 mth pilot cadre instead of a normally graduated pilots for on-map training will imply a supply cost. d. a~c does not care about how the game moves pilots between the (1~3),(4-6),(7~9) and (10~12) groups. Only point of consideration is that statistically, a pilot cadre in the (1~3) group will have less skill points than the (4~6) group, and the time spent on-board to improve the pilot from (1~3) to (4~6) costs supplies. e. So there is still a HI to supply tradeoff.

HansBolter -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 11:59:54 AM)
All this conjecture makes my head hurt. Having to worry over HI/supply trade offs is the best argument for NOT playing the Japanese side.

Ian R -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 12:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter All this conjecture makes my head hurt. Having to worry over HI/supply trade offs is the best argument for NOT playing the Japanese side. It certainly is a simpler proposition for the allies - get as many replacement pilots into as many restricted groups as possible, and train, train, train.

Kull -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 3:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awaw @Kull Thank you for the elaborate response, but I think we are on 2 different channels here. when I say "forcibly graduate early", I was referring to this sequence: a. A pilot normally stay in the training program for 12 mths. b. If a player forcibly "use up" pilots that graduated from the training schools, and start draining pilots from (say) 10-12 mth cohort, they are denying these pilots "free" training that could have accumulated during the remaining period. While not all pilots will benefit from staying in flight school for the full period, statistically, some will gain in xp. Drawing from the 10-12 mth cohort is what I mean by "forcibly graduate early" c. Training pilots on map cost supplies, and putting a 10-12 mth pilot cadre instead of a normally graduated pilots for on-map training will imply a supply cost. d. a~c does not care about how the game moves pilots between the (1~3),(4-6),(7~9) and (10~12) groups. Only point of consideration is that statistically, a pilot cadre in the (1~3) group will have less skill points than the (4~6) group, and the time spent on-board to improve the pilot from (1~3) to (4~6) costs supplies. e. So there is still a HI to supply tradeoff. Let's review: - Fewer pilots in the 12 training classes means less expenditure of HI. That we seem to agree on. - The pilots who graduate early, have an experience level which is close to or at the national experience level. Keeping them in the training class does not get them any additional experience. It simply burns HI. - Graduates, early or otherwise, go into the "pool of pilots without a name". They do not appear in units and cannot be trained further in ANY WAY until the player draws them into a unit. Thus adding more pilots to the "un-named pilot pool" has NO EFFECT on supply. - Lastly, airframes burn supply, not pilots (see manual, pg.252). So even if you did drag all the new pilots straight into a unit, it won't have any effect on supply. In sum, TRACOM is NOT a trade-off between HI and supply. Rather it reduces the expenditure of both.

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 3:32:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull quote: ORIGINAL: awaw @Kull Thank you for the elaborate response, but I think we are on 2 different channels here. when I say "forcibly graduate early", I was referring to this sequence: a. A pilot normally stay in the training program for 12 mths. b. If a player forcibly "use up" pilots that graduated from the training schools, and start draining pilots from (say) 10-12 mth cohort, they are denying these pilots "free" training that could have accumulated during the remaining period. While not all pilots will benefit from staying in flight school for the full period, statistically, some will gain in xp. Drawing from the 10-12 mth cohort is what I mean by "forcibly graduate early" c. Training pilots on map cost supplies, and putting a 10-12 mth pilot cadre instead of a normally graduated pilots for on-map training will imply a supply cost. d. a~c does not care about how the game moves pilots between the (1~3),(4-6),(7~9) and (10~12) groups. Only point of consideration is that statistically, a pilot cadre in the (1~3) group will have less skill points than the (4~6) group, and the time spent on-board to improve the pilot from (1~3) to (4~6) costs supplies. e. So there is still a HI to supply tradeoff. Let's review: - Fewer pilots in the 12 training classes means less expenditure of HI. That we seem to agree on. - The pilots who graduate early, have an experience level which is close to or at the national experience level. Keeping them in the training class does not get them any additional experience. It simply burns HI. - Graduates, early or otherwise, go into the "pool of pilots without a name". They do not appear in units and cannot be trained further in ANY WAY until the player draws them into a unit. Thus adding more pilots to the "un-named pilot pool" has NO EFFECT on supply. - Lastly, airframes burn supply, not pilots (see manual, pg.252). So even if you did drag all the new pilots straight into a unit, it won't have any effect on supply. In sum, TRACOM is NOT a trade-off between HI and supply. Rather it reduces the expenditure of both. Excellent summary.

geofflambert -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 4:26:57 PM)
All this math makes my head hurt, so I don't bother worrying about it. What engages me most is how to get the proper balance of skills in the right number of pilots for the right number of aircraft of each type. For instance, excluding fighter pilots (and FPFs are another complication, as they can both search and do ASW) for the IJN I consider naval search to be a nominal skill, one of the first things everyone is trained in. Then comes naval bombing, but occasions have arisen where I experienced a shortage of training in naval torpedo attacks and had to pad front line units with crews that are well trained in that but may not be in delivering bombs on ships or in naval search. I was able to at least do that because I began training some bomber recruits in torpedo attack before anything else. As a result I would tend to restrict ranges to standard range, assure that sufficient torp inventory was available and that sufficient search aircraft were working in conjunction with torpedo bombers. That raises a question I've wondered about, if 20% of your crews are adept at search and you order 10% to search, will only experienced crews get that assignment or is a "random" generator used? The same question would apply to other combinations of skills. I depend more on TB crews to do search and tend to depend on DB crews more for ASW, but eventually both DBs and TBs do search as well as ASW. For the IJN I generally get ASW training done aboard carriers in port or otherwise idle, and crews which are constantly searching inevitably gain ASW skill, albeit slowly (That goes for naval bombing as well, as I tend to have most Emily and Mavis squadrons constantly searching and without benefit of torp inventories, and in some cases Nell squadrons as well. Since the IJA problems are much simpler and the supply of crews more numerous I try and have them take as much of the burden as possible in search (Dinahs mainly) and ASW (Lillys mostly) and hold back IJN squadrons, both F and B, out of bloodbaths if I can, and maximize the opportunities to be aggressive with IJA squadrons. Etc. etc. etc.

mind_messing -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 4:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred The private dev forum discussion on dedicated Training groups makes for very interesting reading.� There was a very sound reason why post release the official decision was to not have any in the official scenarios. Private scenario designers of course can do how they please but I would not recommend incorporating them. Alfred Reading between the lines: too easy to stack groups full of high EXP pilots leading to very short training cycles? Follow-on question: you mentioned that they are in no official scenarios. Is it the case that the late war groups that arrive with the tag of "Training group" and are restricted to training missions do not follow the rules above?

Zorch -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 4:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert All this math makes my head hurt, so I don't bother worrying about it... Excellent philosophy of life!

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/14/2020 5:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorch quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert All this math makes my head hurt, so I don't bother worrying about it... Excellent philosophy of life! An accountant was being interviewed by an executive at a company for a job there. The executive asked "What is two plus two?" The accountant did not respond immediately but got up, closed the windows, and shut the blinds. Then he went to the door, shut it, and locked the door. Then he sat back down in his chair and whispered "What do you want it to be?" [:D] But I can prove on paper that half of one is one, half of two is two, half of three is three, half of nine is four, half of ten is five, half of eleven is six, half of twelve is seven, and half of thirteen is eight.

Ian R -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/15/2020 2:17:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe and half of thirteen is eight. In base 8, base10 13 = 15 half of base8 15 = 7.4, but that rounds up to one bigger bead on a base8 abacus. So in base 8, that is a 10, which in base 10... is 8. [;)] QED Edit - 7.4 is visually confusing - think of it as 7 and 4/8ths.

RangerJoe -> RE: TRACOM: Is it worth it? (2/15/2020 2:41:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe and half of thirteen is eight. In base 8, base10 13 = 15 half of base8 15 = 7.4, but that rounds up to one bigger bead on a base8 abacus. So in base 8, that is a 10, which in base 10... is 8. [;)] QED Edit - 7.4 is visually confusing - think of it as 7 and 4/8ths. Nope, nothing that complex. You are thinking too hard. [;)]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.265625