Withdrawing or disbanding air units.

Withdrawing or disbanding air units. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room

Message

Micah Goodman -> Withdrawing or disbanding air units. (7/31/2003 4:59:15 AM)
Why would you disband an air unit? Why would you withdraw an air unit as opposed to letting it sit at a safe base on a training level of say thirty?

Mr.Frag -> (7/31/2003 5:44:44 AM)
Honestly, no idea at all, I don't abuse my Air boys to that kind of extremes so I have never found the need.

Micah Goodman -> (7/31/2003 6:22:41 PM)
So in cases where an air unit takes excessive losses it is just better to disband them, rather than letting them rest and train back up?

fcooke -> Disband to get the pilots.... (7/31/2003 6:56:03 PM)
I think this mostly comes up with the IJN but I've had to do it with B17s as well. When you get a fair number of sqds but not many replacements (Bettys & Nells in particular) and you use the planes at all, the groups will start to get smaller. After a naval attack they will tend to get much smaller. I often find if you have a couple of Betty groups with 15 pilots of reasonable skill, it's better to disband one into the other, as otherwise you'll end up with a mixture of good & really bad pilots in the same sqd and you won't be able to use the sqd w/o bad ops losses. When the disbanded group comes back you can set it to training (after the pilots get to exp 50 by sitting around) until it becomes a useful group.

Micah Goodman -> (7/31/2003 7:44:53 PM)
So the game actually keeps track of pilots even if they are not assigned to a Squadron? If so does it keep pilots in pools of pilots who fly fighters as opposed to bombers?

bilbow -> (7/31/2003 9:47:17 PM)
The game does not apppear to keep track of pilots by what they fly. Frequently IJN squadrons, especially the recon units will end up with 1 or 2 planes, but something like 30 or 40 pilots. In these cases I withdraw the squadron (not disband) and the pilots go back into the pool. So you end up with replacements for other units that are higher skill than the raw recruits the game will normally give you. A Mavis pilot with 80+ skill comes back as a replacement instead of a recruit with 15 skill who will likely kill homself during training.

Micah Goodman -> (7/31/2003 10:28:11 PM)
So you use it as a tool to shift great pilots out of less critical units to (hopefully) more critical ones? I think it would be nice if the player could cap the number of planes and pilots in individual units. Why do I need thirty pilots for six planes? I have seen that before and to me there is no rhyme or reason to it.

Ron Saueracker -> (8/1/2003 5:06:27 AM)
Withdrawl/disbandment of squadrons would be more useful if there were stacking limits for airbases. I mainly use it to get my dpleted B17 groups down to a more manageable number of squadrons. Being ex Canadian military, I absolutely DESPISE having more chiefs than indians in any given situation, so why should there be a whole whack of non combat fat arse support jobs from recruit on up to Colonel or whatever for three planes and their crews? Merge the majority and send the lazy buggers to the frontline infantry!!:D

Mr.Frag -> (8/1/2003 6:10:47 AM)
[QUOTE]So the game actually keeps track of pilots even if they are not assigned to a Squadron[/QUOTE] Not quite that simple. There are random pilots, and there are specifically assigned hardcoded pilots. As to what happens with these different types of pilots, I have never actually tested as you pretty much have to disband them after taking careful notes, then run the game for 60+ days, then check on them again and see if any of their stats have increased. Any pilot left sleeping in the bar in Brisbane will eventually train himself to 60% in the same length of time, so unless he gets better trained while back in the rear, I see no purpose. It would be interesting to test the effects, but I'm busy in Airborne Assault lands these days, so UV's on the back burner. If anyone cares to start a head to head game with themselves, disband one B-17 group, withdraw a second B-17 group (right from turn one) after noting all their stats, then run the game until the first group returns then the second group returns and post the results, it might make for some interesting information. I have not checked if the B-17 group use the hardcoded pilots. (quick way to test is to change the squadron average skill in the editor. Any pilot who is not at the new average is a hardcoded pilot that needs to be manually edited) BTW: If you don't have Airborne Assault, I strongly suggest it as a great UV relief tool as it is real time and the AI is quite good, so it fills in the time between UV turns ;)

bilbow -> (8/1/2003 7:25:46 AM)
Another use for disband/withdraw is if you have two like-type depleted squadrons, and one has a bum for a commander. Disband it and the remaining combined squadron is now commanded by the good leader. About the only way I know of to fire a commander.

Mr.Frag -> (8/1/2003 9:56:08 PM)
Good though Bilbow, but does the squad come back in the future with the same twit in command or is he gone for good?

fcooke -> Same twit (8/1/2003 10:31:11 PM)
The sqd comes back with the same twit.....at least you got him out of theater for a while. I would love to see the 'non-killable sqd leaders' thing changed.

Ron Saueracker -> Re: Same twit (8/1/2003 10:35:26 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fcooke [B]The sqd comes back with the same twit.....at least you got him out of theater for a while. I would love to see the 'non-killable sqd leaders' thing changed. [/B][/QUOTE] Insert a "Blue Max" rule, so a player can make the specific pilot test fly a prototype death trap while in the rear after disbandment.

Micah Goodman -> (8/1/2003 10:51:34 PM)
I would like to see a system where leader ratings are not known until after they go into combat. And even then I would like the number to not be 100 % accurate until that leader has been in combat several times. In conjunction I would like the player to then be able to replace or remove those leaders at will. It would add a whole new dimension to the game. For those Historical purists out there you could make it an option say like Historical Japanese Submarine doctrine.

Ron Saueracker -> (8/1/2003 11:30:54 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Micah Goodman [B]I would like to see a system where leader ratings are not known until after they go into combat. And even then I would like the number to not be 100 % accurate until that leader has been in combat several times. In conjunction I would like the player to then be able to replace or remove those leaders at will. It would add a whole new dimension to the game. For those Historical purists out there you could make it an option say like Historical Japanese Submarine doctrine. [/B][/QUOTE] Micah. I've brought this idea up in the development forums. I think it's a good one. How should we know that Fletcher was cautious or Tanaka was tenacious? Have them randomized and takes your chances! A Randomize Leader ability setting is all that is needed.:)

Mike_B20 -> (8/2/2003 3:18:42 PM)
I've brought this idea up before as well. I'd love to see leader skill ratings vary as they go about their duties. The initial ratings would be a kind of peer rating and as the game progresses their true (hidden) skills would become more evident. Perhaps even fluctuating as they succeed or fail in their missions. Would add a whole new, very fun, element to the game to scout for that perfect CV TF commander.

estaban -> (8/14/2003 1:53:00 AM)
Another good use for disband/withdrawl is for forward posted air units at bases that might be captured. I will send 2-3 squadrons of the same type of aircraft to these bases, and then if the base is bombed/bombarded out of commission and invaded and about to fall, I withdraw all but one of the squadrons. That way you save the pilots, who come back 60 days later. This works especially well for the Allies, who usually have more aircraft replacements than they know what to do with, except for their heavy bombers.

MikeBinOK -> (8/14/2003 11:20:23 AM)
In real-world militaries, commanders do get reputations as competent or not, aggressive or cautious, and having particular areas of expertise. I know of no "scientific" study of the subject, but history suggests that these reputations are useful clues to how they will perform in real combat, but far from perfect. A real world example of the system failing falls in the UV time period--Most US submarine commanders had to be replaced after the initial months of the war, because the habits and tactics they had developed during a career of peacetime maneuvers made them too cautious to be fully effective in a shooting war. Yet most of these guys were highly respected officers till Pearl Harbor, and even after. Despite examples like this one, based on history I think the reputations are usually fairly accurate when tested in real battle. So I think there should be some indicator of talent, probably a verbal one similar to what you see in the list of optional commanders. It would probably be justified to throw in a "ringer" now and then who didn't live up to his reputation. End of my non-game monolog, we now return you to discussion of UV!

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.25