Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month

Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (Full Version)

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

Message

Hano -> Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/9/2022 5:39:05 PM)
Can anyone give me an idea how long it will take to train US fighter pilots, if I for example had a squadron of Wildcats in San Diego, with say a 50 experience and put them on escort - 100% training with a range of zero. What degree of improvement would I see over a month, is it a linear progression of say 5% per month or does it tail off at a certain point? Is it the same for Dive bombers & torpedo bombers? I would really appreciate any guidance.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/9/2022 5:47:48 PM)
It is not linear. The lower the skill level, the faster the increase will be. 100% training will be hard on airframes and cause training losses. The 0 range will help keep fatigue down. I go with 50% training and train in specific skills. I think ground combat at 100' will train defense.

BBfanboy -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/9/2022 6:26:20 PM)
Unless things have changed recently, I have to disagree with the losses when using 100% training in back areas where no operational sorties are being flown. I don't recall losing a single aircraft in training then, although some get pulled off-line to be repaired from time to time. That means you don't have to monitor it - it happens automatically. What I do find affects the training is the leader skills in Leadership and Administration. Even with this, some pilots will be nearly hopeless in the training for a specific skill and should be sent to one they are better at. AFAIK, the only way to tell which skill is their best to train is to put them in a squadron training "General Training" and after a few weeks check which skills they have been raising fastest. General training needs to toggle occasionally between training at 2000' or more, and training a 1000' (low level). Some of the mission types use skills that can only happen at/above or below the 2000' mark. Exception is strafe skill- trained and used operationally at 100'. So if you are Allies and can afford to have a squadron sorting out the misfits, use that one to assess pilots who flunked out of their first training school!

jdsrae -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/9/2022 7:04:55 PM)
A few rules of thumb: - brand new rookie pilot set to 100% train in a skill will take about 10-12 weeks to get from ## to 70 in that skill. Some quicker than others. I don’t sort them like BB mentions above, they all get there +/- a few weeks. - second skill might take 12-14 weeks to get to 70. - third skill a bit longer again, but roughly 3 months of 100% training to get to 70 in a skill - for fighter pilots they are usually about 50 experience after two skills are at 70, so then set them to CAP100% range 0 and watch their experience increase. About 3 months of that and they will be at 70 experience. So about 9 months of on map training to get a good fighter pilot, less if you lower the standards.

RangerJoe -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/9/2022 7:09:32 PM)
Once a pilot gets to 50 experience, it seems to me that their rate of skills gained decreases. So get the rookies and train them for what you want and then send them somewhere to get their experience in flying aircraft - preferably in a non-hostile environment! There is a way to lower their overall experience but it is unnecessary work - at least it seems so to me.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/9/2022 10:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Unless things have changed recently, I have to disagree with the losses when using 100% training in back areas where no operational sorties are being flown. I don't recall losing a single aircraft in training then, although some get pulled off-line to be repaired from time to time. That means you don't have to monitor it - it happens automatically. What I do find affects the training is the leader skills in Leadership and Administration. Even with this, some pilots will be nearly hopeless in the training for a specific skill and should be sent to one they are better at. AFAIK, the only way to tell which skill is their best to train is to put them in a squadron training "General Training" and after a few weeks check which skills they have been raising fastest. General training needs to toggle occasionally between training at 2000' or more, and training a 1000' (low level). Some of the mission types use skills that can only happen at/above or below the 2000' mark. Exception is strafe skill- trained and used operationally at 100'. So if you are Allies and can afford to have a squadron sorting out the misfits, use that one to assess pilots who flunked out of their first training school! I stand corrected. I have no proof otherwise, but that {50% training} is what I have always done, so I either read something wrong, read something that was wrong or just thought it was right. This was years ago and I have a hard time remembering what I had from breakfast.

Ian R -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/10/2022 12:11:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 It is not linear. The lower the skill level, the faster the increase will be. 100% training will be hard on airframes and cause training losses. The 0 range will help keep fatigue down. I go with 50% training and train in specific skills. I think ground combat at 100' will train defense. LIke BBfB, I use 100% training, at zero range, and at 10,000 ft - no pilot fatigue, no ops losses. I agree you get the odd wood-duck, so swap them out. 3 months of training should get them to around 70 on the core skill.

Chris21wen -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/10/2022 7:28:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R LIke BBfB, I use 100% training, at zero range, and at 10,000 ft - no pilot fatigue, no ops losses. I agree you get the odd wood-duck, so swap them out. Pilots don't have a preferrence for particular skill do thay? It's always seemed to me the luck of the draw. Put them in another similar unit and they may well train up.

BBfanboy -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/10/2022 8:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Unless things have changed recently, I have to disagree with the losses when using 100% training in back areas where no operational sorties are being flown. I don't recall losing a single aircraft in training then, although some get pulled off-line to be repaired from time to time. That means you don't have to monitor it - it happens automatically. What I do find affects the training is the leader skills in Leadership and Administration. Even with this, some pilots will be nearly hopeless in the training for a specific skill and should be sent to one they are better at. AFAIK, the only way to tell which skill is their best to train is to put them in a squadron training "General Training" and after a few weeks check which skills they have been raising fastest. General training needs to toggle occasionally between training at 2000' or more, and training a 1000' (low level). Some of the mission types use skills that can only happen at/above or below the 2000' mark. Exception is strafe skill- trained and used operationally at 100'. So if you are Allies and can afford to have a squadron sorting out the misfits, use that one to assess pilots who flunked out of their first training school! I stand corrected. I have no proof otherwise, but that {50% training} is what I have always done, so I either read something wrong, read something that was wrong or just thought it was right. This was years ago and I have a hard time remembering what I had from breakfast. I think it could have been a discussion years ago about training should entail casualties - per real life. But the game could not encompass all the realism wanted so that was one of the things left out of the product. It could be done, now that disk sizes and processor abilities have removed two of the things that were a problem back then. For my part, I have enough detail to deal with now and am satisfied that the abstracted losses are built into the numbers of aircraft and pilots you get.

btd64 -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/10/2022 10:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chris21wen quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R LIke BBfB, I use 100% training, at zero range, and at 10,000 ft - no pilot fatigue, no ops losses. I agree you get the odd wood-duck, so swap them out. Pilots don't have a preferrence for particular skill do thay? It's always seemed to me the luck of the draw. Put them in another similar unit and they may well train up. You can filter the reserve pool and just pick the pilots trained for bombers, if you like....GP

Maallon -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/10/2022 12:17:08 PM)
Something I would like to add is, that you don't need to always have max trained pilots in order to use them in combat. This applies especially to the Allies in the early game. You simply won't have that many good pilots at the beginning of the game. For example I used the flying tigers over china from day 1 to great effect, even though they all are in the 50s and 60s in their skills. You can compensate lack of experience with local numerical superiority and it's not like they are completely inefficient when they have lower skills. So don't be afraid to use your assets even if the pilots are sub optimal, even a swordfish pilot with NavT in the 40s can put a torpedo in a battleship. Just weigh risk and reward and maybe avoid operations that pose too high of a risk until you have better pilots and more reserves.

Hano -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/11/2022 10:44:26 AM)
Thanks thats great, I'm coming to the end of a full campaign (Mar 45) that I started last year against the AI as a learning experience. One of the things I noticed was that because as soon as units arrived I shipped them pretty much straight into combat a lot of my pilots are at circa 55%, so even with good quality aircraft they arent enjoying the superiority that they enjoyed in real life over the Japanese - Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. I acknowledge that the Japanese retained some highly skilled pilots for home defence and training such as Saburō Sakai, but I'm not getting the expected loss ratio of Japanese/US. I'm starting a new campaign and want to learn from my mistakes...

Ian R -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/11/2022 12:26:42 PM)
Try accepting a less than maximum sortie rate. In practical terms (and easier if in 1945) - Each escort fighter squadron is on 20% CAP, 40% nothing (ie escort) 20% train on escort, 20% rest. Each sweep fighter squadron is on 10% CAP, 50% nothing (ie sweep) 20% train on sweep, 20% rest. Each 4E squadron is on 50% whatever the bombing mission is, 10% train, 40% rest. Each 2E squadron is on something similar to the 4E's except .... The attack bombers are about 40% low altitude mission, 30% rest, 30% train. This tends to maximise results - over time - and reduce micro- management. Be patient.

BBfanboy -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/11/2022 2:50:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hano Thanks thats great, I'm coming to the end of a full campaign (Mar 45) that I started last year against the AI as a learning experience. One of the things I noticed was that because as soon as units arrived I shipped them pretty much straight into combat a lot of my pilots are at circa 55%, so even with good quality aircraft they arent enjoying the superiority that they enjoyed in real life over the Japanese - Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. I acknowledge that the Japanese retained some highly skilled pilots for home defence and training such as Saburō Sakai, but I'm not getting the expected loss ratio of Japanese/US. I'm starting a new campaign and want to learn from my mistakes... Don't expect real-life results - the historic game was modified to make it more playable for the Japanese player, and the game design erased a lot of Japanese mistakes. For example: - IRL the Japanese were not prepared for a long war with tremendous losses in planes and pilots. They did not start a pilot training program until they were already short on pilots. - IRL the IJN and IJA were separate fiefdoms that did not co-operate well with each other, jealously guarding what they thought was their purview and not combining their strength for tough battles or sharing intel. - the Japanese lacked the kinds of resource materials needed to build high tech aircraft so their were inferior, especially in fireproofing. - the Japanese did not train ASW for the first couple of years of the war because it was "defensive" and not worthy of a warrior's spirit - the Japanese treated the people they "liberated" from European colonialists even worse than the Europeans did. In this there was a kind of racist arrogance that alienated them from potential allies. - the Japanese were prone to "victory disease" which led to them underestimating what the enemy could do to them - the Japanese neglected logistics as much as they neglected ASW. They were not prepared to sustain the conquests they made in the Pacific or the jungles of Burma and mountains of China and India. The AI also has certain advantages that stem from not being able to assess the Allied player's intentions and form an appropriate response. The AI can teleport forces at a base or port to another base or port close to where they are needed because a human player would have assessed the need and started them moving much earlier. So in the case of your 'turkey shoot', the AI gave itself pilots trained in a good training program, in numbers of good aircraft that they did not historically have, with better stats than the RL aircraft did. If that made you fight harder and make hard decisions, that is what the game is about! Enjoy the experience! [:)]

Platoonist -> RE: Training Pilots - percentage improvement per month (1/11/2022 10:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy Don't expect real-life results - the historic game was modified to make it more playable for the Japanese player, and the game design erased a lot of Japanese mistakes. For example: - IRL the Japanese were not prepared for a long war with tremendous losses in planes and pilots. They did not start a pilot training program until they were already short on pilots. - IRL the IJN and IJA were separate fiefdoms that did not co-operate well with each other, jealously guarding what they thought was their purview and not combining their strength for tough battles or sharing intel. - the Japanese lacked the kinds of resource materials needed to build high tech aircraft so their were inferior, especially in fireproofing. - the Japanese did not train ASW for the first couple of years of the war because it was "defensive" and not worthy of a warrior's spirit - the Japanese treated the people they "liberated" from European colonialists even worse than the Europeans did. In this there was a kind of racist arrogance that alienated them from potential allies. - the Japanese were prone to "victory disease" which led to them underestimating what the enemy could do to them - the Japanese neglected logistics as much as they neglected ASW. They were not prepared to sustain the conquests they made in the Pacific or the jungles of Burma and mountains of China and India. The AI also has certain advantages that stem from not being able to assess the Allied player's intentions and form an appropriate response. The AI can teleport forces at a base or port to another base or port close to where they are needed because a human player would have assessed the need and started them moving much earlier. So in the case of your 'turkey shoot', the AI gave itself pilots trained in a good training program, in numbers of good aircraft that they did not historically have, with better stats than the RL aircraft did. If that made you fight harder and make hard decisions, that is what the game is about! Enjoy the experience! [:)] The Japanese AI is also not as loath as its historical counterpart was about sending its submarines out to prey on your lowly merchantmen with their excellent torpedoes. A change I welcome BTW, since it keeps me on my toes and gives me something to do with that rich bounty of Allied sub chasers and destroyer escorts. [:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.265625