Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Hi CT, judging from your screen it doesn't look like you place much emphasis on defensive ratings or are other factors at work?

primary skill for my fighter pilots is air and none of the replacement pilots is sent to a frontline squadron if below 70. Am already aiming at 73 air skill at the moment but I don´t know if it really is worth it (I doubt it), not many training squadrons are trying to bring up 70 skilled pilots to 73 as it seems to take as long to bring a 25 skilled pilot to 70 as it takes to bring a 70 skilled pilot to 73. At least that´s my gut feeling, no dedicated test. But I can assure you it takes an eternity. Second skill I aim for the fighter pilots is def but I started far too late with that one, so I´m only in the process to replace the 70 air <70 def pilots with 70 air 70 def pilots that are coming out of the training squadrons in the dozens now. It´s my first PBEM and I just didn´t really care about the def, so now I´ve got hundreds of USAAF 70 air skill pilots but these now have to go through something like a month training to reach 70 def too (using strafe training to increase def to 70) as they perhaps could also need strafing skill at some point, doubtfully but they rather need strafe at some point than grdB. What really stroke me is the fact how many 70 air skill pilots I had in my frontline units that only had 25 def skill, these are mostly faced out now and sent back to flight school.

If you look at 2LT Browning in the screenie, this is the perfect example of how a fighter pilot looks like that is sent to a frontline squadron now. If I would have started to care about def too (it is a must IMO so definately a fault on my part in this PBEM) a year ago I would have all squadrons full of 70 air 70 def pilots with something like 300 reserve pilots with 70/70 in the pool. As it stands now, I probably got 500 70 air <70 def in the reserve pool for the USAAF alone. Speaking about fighter pilots I will rather run out of pilots than fighters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Hmm, after reading this thread all of the way through, I am tempted to reach the conclusion that high Fat seems to play a much smaller roll in determining pilot losses than I had always assumed. Or did I misunderstand this discussion ?

I was surprised at the lack of Ops losses too, but OTOH I may have been near a break-point when I stopped the test. I have the save at April 17, so I could fire it up in Continuous H-to-H while I'm watching football and run a couple more weeks.

It's also likely that, in a combat situation, doing this and running fatigue to 90 would get you losses due to failing the morale checks and having the planes shot down while retreating. I was trying to isolate the fatigue build from as many variables as I could, with combat being the biggest, so this test isn't illustrative of anything except what it's illustrative of. If that makes sense.

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

It would appear that pilot fatigue has no effect on ops losses at all and Im sure that isnt right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Hmm, after reading this thread all of the way through, I am tempted to reach the conclusion that high Fat seems to play a much smaller roll in determining pilot losses than I had always assumed. Or did I misunderstand this discussion ?

I was surprised at the lack of Ops losses too, but OTOH I may have been near a break-point when I stopped the test. I have the save at April 17, so I could fire it up in Continuous H-to-H while I'm watching football and run a couple more weeks.

It's also likely that, in a combat situation, doing this and running fatigue to 90 would get you losses due to failing the morale checks and having the planes shot down while retreating. I was trying to isolate the fatigue build from as many variables as I could, with combat being the biggest, so this test isn't illustrative of anything except what it's illustrative of. If that makes sense.