Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 2/17/2003 4:23:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bax
[B]Thank God! This one almost killed my enjoyment of the game.

WTG gents, this patch should leave only minuiate left to whine about....although you know we'll manage to find *something* that isn't perfect. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

one possible snag that might reduce the impact of this change. Right now its fairly easy to boost up bomber EXP levels past 70 by continually bombing small ill defended land unts as a sort of target practice, then using it against harder moving targets )i.e. ships)

any thoughts to toning down exp gains via milk runs?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 91
- 2/17/2003 4:43:47 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]one possible snag that might reduce the impact of this change. Right now its fairly easy to boost up bomber EXP levels past 70 by continually bombing small ill defended land unts as a sort of target practice, then using it against harder moving targets )i.e. ships)

any thoughts to toning down exp gains via milk runs? [/B][/QUOTE]

We think this will happen given the changes in the game. We won't know until more players play the game as to just how much harder it is to get the experience up, but we think it will be harder. Less hits by planes translates into less experience gain for pilots which translates into less hits, etc.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 92
- 2/17/2003 7:12:08 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Less hits by planes translates into less experience gain for pilots which translates into less hits, etc.[/QUOTE]

That could prove troublesome to new groups coming on line with experience levels in the 30's.

Need some kind of boost for them as even finding the airfield to land and landing the plane again is a major accomplishment at that skill level.

It's the old catch 22 in action, I can't live to bomb the target to gain experience so I can live to bomb the target ;)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 93
- 2/17/2003 7:48:27 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		It should not be possible to gain experience by bombing unoccupied bases. The "training" air mission option is built into the UV system as the means whereby new pilots are brought to competent experience levels for commitment to combat.

All things considered, I think this may be wrong, anyway. Pilots on both sides committed to theater airgroups were not so incompetent as always being fated to making embarrassing, smoking black blemishes in the ground around the airfield. New IJN pilots in '42-'43 (probably the main subject of this discussion) were better than that when they arrived at their duty stations. Even they were not "Barney Fife." "Training" may enhance their experience to some minor degree, but not to the extent of making them into "seasoned" or "expert" pilots.

I think the worst pilots coming on board should be no worse than about 45 experience, with the possibility of "training" to, say, 55. After that, it's the crucible of fire, as far as I'm concerned.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 94
- 2/17/2003 10:30:37 AM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]

I think the worst pilots coming on board should be no worse than about 45 experience, [/B][/QUOTE]

While I hate my pilots in the teens as much as anyone, I must disagree with the worst pilots starting in the 45s. The scale is from 1-99 and I think it should stay that way. If not then you just have inflated the numbers.

What is the maximun that a pilot can train up to without flying? I thought it was somewhere around 50. After that I thought flying training missions would boost them up another 10 or so points. I don't think it's possible to gain anything from training after exp 60 or so. After that you have to start bombing/straffing empty bases.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 95
- 2/17/2003 12:31:19 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]While I hate my pilots in the teens as much as anyone, I must disagree with the worst pilots starting in the 45s. The scale is from 1-99 and I think it should stay that way. If not then you just have inflated the numbers.

What is the maximun that a pilot can train up to without flying? I thought it was somewhere around 50. After that I thought flying training missions would boost them up another 10 or so points. I don't think it's possible to gain anything from training after exp 60 or so. After that you have to start bombing/straffing empty bases.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I hate those teenage pilots, too (sorry, bad joke). The scale may be 1-99, but the real problem, as I see it, is that pilots under 40 or so are absolute imbeciles (daaah, let's see, dis here lever makes 'er go up - WHOOPS! - daaah, dat wasn't such a good idea).

Maybe I'm saying that pilots with experience in the teens and twenties shouldn't perform as badly as they do. In any event, I still think that the artifice of blasting the crap out of stray rocks sticking up out of the ocean to "train" yourself beyond what is possible in "training missions" (which, I would argue, are at least as advanced as blowing up coral formations) is nonsensical.

One way or the other, a change needs to be made. The pilots who arrived in the theater could at least fly, if not fight.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 96
- 2/17/2003 12:55:51 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		Yes, I think pilots with skill under 50 should perform as if they had a skill of fifty for purposes of operational losses. i.e. the chance of dying in training. Most of my low skill pilots died in training until I learned to set them at 0% training and found out that they still gained experience. Still, my operational losses are always about 2.5 to 3 times that of the AI.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 97
Interesting.... - 2/17/2003 8:42:03 PM   
JohnK

 

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B] I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping your CV within 30 miles of the invasion.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Well, there's the little problem that NOBODY EVER DID SO In the Pacific War :-)

(Fleet Carriers, that is, not Escort CVs on the US part).

Interestingly your proposed tactics you feel depressed that you will have to adapt because of this change are pretty much reality.

One interesting phenomenon I think we are beginning to see is that people have played SO much UV by now that it's become more real than the actual Pacific War :-). I think it's happened with mines, with Argonaut, etc.

This is a sim and we constantly need to refer back to REALITY. If hardly any ships hit mines in the real Solomons campaign, we need to figure out why and implement it. If CVs stood off from invasions a great distance, we need to figure out why and implement it.

In some cases, it was a simple choice by the commanders at the time and players should be allowed to choose differently. But in MOST cases, there were physical limitations that forced the choice of the commanders of the time and really should force the choice of UV players.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 98
- 2/17/2003 9:27:19 PM   
Leahi

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: Far West
Status: offline 		The UV 2.30 patch looks like it's taken into account as many of our criticisms as could possibly be expected, and they've gone beyond these to further improve the game. So I suggest we quit quibbling and game-on. We should save further criticisms for WITP patches.
I have a lot of irritations with UV, but we must realize that the progammers and designers are being very gracious in not only listening to us and responding to our posts, but they seem genuinely to be trying to implement our suggestions.
This comes from a guy who not only was scornful of many features of UV, but who also managed to insult some very talented progammers/designers a few months back. I had only to start playing the old Gary Grigsby "War in the Pacific" to realize how much work is being put into modernizing these wonderful old strategic games.
I'm not criticizing criticisms of UV 1.03, but aren't we getting a bit carried away (pun not intended) when we object that the reduction in CV air extends 30 miles from shore, when the computer model uses 30-mile hexes. Carriers do not operate well close to shore, for many reasons.
Again, on to WITP. And UV is still a great game to play -- even though I could go on and on about my personal gripes.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 99
- 2/17/2003 9:58:58 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]one possible snag that might reduce the impact of this change. Right now its fairly easy to boost up bomber EXP levels past 70 by continually bombing small ill defended land unts as a sort of target practice, then using it against harder moving targets )i.e. ships)

any thoughts to toning down exp gains via milk runs? [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't agree with you on this point. I spent 10 years flying in P-3s and we had various training missions. Some of them were just taking off circling the airfield landing and taking off again (touch-n-go). Any time you spend in the air gains you some kind of experience. Take those milk runs for example. The crews gain coordination experience, navigation experience, bomb practice (against a real target), communications experience, flying in formation, etc. Also, during some of these flight things break and create emergency situations that the crew has to handle giving them emergency procedure experience. The list goes on.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 100
- 2/18/2003 12:03:28 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		The moral of this "training base" issue is to not over extend yourself and offer up a training base to the enemy for this purpose.

If you can't defend it (Gili Gili comes to mind as the most famous of these), don't take it in the first place. If you do not have AA units to pop on the spot to make training runs somewhat costly and some form of LR/CAP to feed on the training pilots, leave it be.

I have no problem with training like this as it is pretty much as close to real world as you get. As someone who went the private pilot path, I can tell you that every little circuit around the airport builds skills. Going off to bomb stationary rocks that happen to be nearby is perfectly valid.

The concern I have is that skill gains vs survival will NOT balance out which means pilots will DIE before getting enough skill to NOT DIE :(

Having had both F4F-4 & F4F-3 airgroups on Lexington & Yorktown both upgrade and shuffle in a pile of average 30 skill pilots while I was out at sea COST me almost 30 aircraft that very turn. I'm glad they have disabled this upgrade while at sea now, cause this happening in the middle of a patrol forces you to fly these suicidal newbies. It adds another level of micro management that the game can do without, having to baby sit each squadron just in case new pilots show up so you do not get mass graves that following turn. :eek:

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 101
- 2/18/2003 3:55:17 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]I don't agree with you on this point. I spent 10 years flying in P-3s and we had various training missions. Some of them were just taking off circling the airfield landing and taking off again (touch-n-go). Any time you spend in the air gains you some kind of experience. Take those milk runs for example. The crews gain coordination experience, navigation experience, bomb practice (against a real target), communications experience, flying in formation, etc. Also, during some of these flight things break and create emergency situations that the crew has to handle giving them emergency procedure experience. The list goes on.

Rick [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Rick

I agree that there would be 'some' boost in training via these runs but my concern is that the exp gain may be too easy to obtain over too short a period of time

Let me clarify what I mean by "milk run" as well.

I'm talking about taking say, a single base force ground unit, at Buin, Gili, even Lae, and using it to boost up not only your level bombers, but also your carrier planes as well until they are up past the 80's in exp, then using that to go bomb moving ships with alot of teeth.

Cap is doing this to me in our current PBEM and recently announced at how experienced his carrier units had gotten just bombing a ill defended (and yes, ill conceived on my part) landing force. Avg exp levels in the 80's with a few 90's. We've only been playing about a month's worth of game time.

Just seemed a little extreme to me. Hence my concern that the 70 exp rule will be mostly negated by this type of tactic

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 102
- 2/18/2003 4:03:07 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Hi Rick

I agree that there would be 'some' boost in training via these runs but my concern is that the exp gain may be too easy to obtain over too short a period of time

Let me clarify what I mean by "milk run" as well.

I'm talking about taking say, a single base force ground unit, at Buin, Gili, even Lae, and using it to boost up not only your level bombers, but also your carrier planes as well until they are up past the 80's in exp, then using that to go bomb moving ships with alot of teeth.

Cap is doing this to me in our current PBEM and recently announced at how experienced his carrier units had gotten just bombing a ill defended (and yes, ill conceived on my part) landing force. Avg exp levels in the 80's with a few 90's. We've only been playing about a month's worth of game time.

Just seemed a little extreme to me. Hence my concern that the 70 exp rule will be mostly negated by this type of tactic [/B][/QUOTE]

Ok I see what you mean. I agree that you should only be able to get to a certain level of proficiency. There is a difference between a well trained air crew and a battle hardened aircrew.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 103
- 2/18/2003 4:16:36 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Since it takes someone with experience in the 80's to hit a ship (dive bombers only, level bombers do just fine with pilots with 40 experience) changing the training aspect of the game very well could mean that carriers will become toothless, most especially the US carriers, but also the jap carriers after they lose their first line pilots.

Also, those "80" experienced pilots were already in the 70's when they started their "milk runs". Before you go calling for any changes, I suggest you do some area 51 tests to justify your calls for any change.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 104
- 2/18/2003 4:43:48 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		pilots in the 70's dive bomb ships farily well in games i've played. ??

I can do some tests though i think the results speak for themselves. Yes i am aware that many of your pilots started in the 70's but i think your missing the point a little.

As of right now UV has a "learning curve" already instituted into the game. Meaning that its easier to gain exp in the lower dregs (50 and below) but gets progressively harder as you climb further and further up the scale, between 50-60, 70-80 and 80+

Since it only took a month to train your units from the70's into the 80's bombing but a single ill defended land target, how easy will it be to put air units starting in the 50's and 60's into the 70's where the preposed level bomber Acc penalty will be placed?

Seems to me it wont take much effort at all on players part to crest this level 70 threshold utilizing the static land unit field run method.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 105
Rookie Pilots - 2/18/2003 5:13:53 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		"Aso was used as a target ship for Kamikaze training attacks and did not survive this abuse. (guess some of the students did not learn "pull up"

Hi, I cut this from the WITP forum, One of the late war IJN CV was lost because it was used to train green pilots.

I think any target hex that contains an actual enemy unit should count for experiance. (I do think exp is gained too rapidly and actually goes too high. (I think pilots should arrive with a ceiling to how high they can go. It would be random and unknown to the player. Plently of mediorce pilots flew 25+ missions. (and they never were that much better)
However to be fair I think the group leader should be where bomber accuracy comes from. (esp against non ship targets)
And the group leaders ratings should have a chance to improve over time.
If it was not too much work prehaps even ratings for land targets and another for ships. (or just a modifer. Army LBA group is minus so many points versus ships)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 106
- 2/18/2003 5:49:13 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Please save yourself the trouble and don't do any tests until you get the 2.30 patch. Much has changed in this area (I think Gary tweaked some experience forumlas but I'm not entirely sure). I know that Gary felt the changes in bombing accuracy (together with any tweaks he made or didn't on exp gain) would change the way pilots got their experience. Try out 2.30 and let us know how things work. It should be out in a week or two (at most).

Also, did I see someone mentioning that they had 30 experience carrier pilots for the US? There was a time when US pilots never came in worse than 50 (certainly not in the 30's). Is this not the case anymore?

Joel

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 107
- 2/18/2003 6:06:08 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joel Billings
[B]
Also, did I see someone mentioning that they had 30 experience carrier pilots for the US? There was a time when US pilots never came in worse than 50 (certainly not in the 30's). Is this not the case anymore?

Joel [/B][/QUOTE]

I got a whole slew of them. I'll trade you a case of beer for them. :D

I think this may have been an anomoly because the game was started using 2.1. Mike Wood indicated that the number of pilots in the pool for both Japan and US was doubled in 2.2.

Anomoly or not, though, I am still anxious to make the trade.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]
Since it only took a month to train your units from the70's into the 80's bombing but a single ill defended land target, how easy will it be to put air units starting in the 50's and 60's into the 70's where the preposed level bomber Acc penalty will be placed?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, it is not that easy. Why? Because the program chooses the "good" pilots to fly offensive missions. Only if the "good" pilots are fatigued do the "crappy" pilots get tasked with executing the mission. Thus, in the SBD squadrons that bombed you for the last month, there are still 2 to 4 pilots in each squadron that are still below 50 experience. I have been trying every way I know to get them some "real" combat experience (ASW doesn't work since the "bump" is very small). But there are still some clunkers in each of those squadrons.

As for my F4F-4 pilots, pfhu! :( Can't even get in the plane without killing themselves. I have taken to banning them from the base.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 108
- 2/18/2003 6:18:29 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by cap_and_gown
[B]I got a whole slew of them. I'll trade you a case of beer for them. :D



Actually, it is not that easy. Why? Because the program chooses the "good" pilots to fly offensive missions. Only if the "good" pilots are fatigued do the "crappy" pilots get tasked with executing the mission. Thus, in the SBD squadrons that bombed you for the last month, there are still 2 to 4 pilots in each squadron that are still below 50 experience. I have been trying every way I know to get them some "real" combat experience (ASW doesn't work since the "bump" is very small). But there are still some clunkers in each of those squadrons.

As for my F4F-4 pilots, pfhu! :( Can't even get in the plane without killing themselves. I have taken to banning them from the base. [/B][/QUOTE]


Ah, Thanks for the reminder Cap. I had wanted to mention this to Joel.

I've been utilizing the 30% training rule that Drongo came up with as a safe way to try to bring up my greenie pilots without losing veterans to stupid op losses and am still noticing that the majority of the time its the EXPERIENCED/VETERAN pilots that are getting most of the airtime (based on fatigue and # of missions) while a good portion of the greenies just sit on the ground spinning their wheels.

Kind of defeats the purpose of training, not to mention mixing them with veterans. Logically it should be the greenest pilots that get the most training, not the other way around. This way your just increasing your chances to lose a valuable experienced pilot!

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 109
- 2/18/2003 6:25:20 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		Wasn't Wake Island used a training target for the USN on the way to real combat in the Pacific?

Having served on the USNs finest CVN, the value of training should not be underestimated. Workups and training are integral in the military's doctrine now due to lessons learned in WW2. I personally have no problem with someone bombing for experience, but having the level capped at some limit is also realistic. You can only gain so much experience from training, and then you just have to take what you have learned and apply it.

Keep the experience gain, but cap it.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 110
- 2/18/2003 6:44:06 AM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Ah, Thanks for the reminder Cap. I had wanted to mention this to Joel.

I've been utilizing the 30% training rule that Drongo came up with as a safe way to try to bring up my greenie pilots without losing veterans to stupid op losses and am still noticing that the majority of the time its the EXPERIENCED/VETERAN pilots that are getting most of the airtime (based on fatigue and # of missions) while a good portion of the greenies just sit on the ground spinning their wheels.

Kind of defeats the purpose of training, not to mention mixing them with veterans. Logically it should be the greenest pilots that get the most training, not the other way around. This way your just increasing your chances to lose a valuable experienced pilot! [/B][/QUOTE]

I haven't seen this. Instead, I am seeing it work just the way it was advertised: least experienced pilots fly training missions. Occasionally, good ones will fly as well, but mostly its the newbies. Another way to give them air time is to put them on ASW or Naval Search. That won't work for fighters. But the training option does seem to work, though I tend to stand them down after every traing flight since I don't need them crashing into the ground on their next outing.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 111
- 2/18/2003 6:52:31 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Ah, Thanks for the reminder Cap. I had wanted to mention this to Joel.

I've been utilizing the 30% training rule that Drongo came up with as a safe way to try to bring up my greenie pilots without losing veterans to stupid op losses and am still noticing that the majority of the time its the EXPERIENCED/VETERAN pilots that are getting most of the airtime (based on fatigue and # of missions) while a good portion of the greenies just sit on the ground spinning their wheels.

Kind of defeats the purpose of training, not to mention mixing them with veterans. Logically it should be the greenest pilots that get the most training, not the other way around. This way your just increasing your chances to lose a valuable experienced pilot! [/B][/QUOTE]

I would have sworn that a change was made in one of the patchs so that the inexperienced pilots were much more likely to fly training. Are you sure using 2.20 that this isn't the case?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 112
- 2/20/2003 3:40:57 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Well don't know about training missions, but I have been sending most of my P-39's out on sweeps, and all the squadrons are in the 90+ range for Exp, I have 5 SBD and 2 TBF's that have been bombing Rebaul, along with the sweeps, and they are also in the 90's

(kind of strange, my high Kill Fighter squadrons, one has 112 kills and 68 Exp, the other has 104 kills and 74 Exp)

I have even gone to the extent of my new F4u squadrons have gone over to sweep missions while waiting for some bad guys to come back and fight

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 113
- 2/20/2003 4:38:52 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Hard Sarge
[QUOTE]Well don't know about training missions, but I have been sending most of my P-39's out on sweeps, and all the squadrons are in the 90+ range for Exp, I have 5 SBD and 2 TBF's that have been bombing Rebaul, along with the sweeps, and they are also in the 90's

(kind of strange, my high Kill Fighter squadrons, one has 112 kills and 68 Exp, the other has 104 kills and 74 Exp)

I have even gone to the extent of my new F4u squadrons have gone over to sweep missions while waiting for some bad guys to come back and fight
[/QUOTE]

Mate,

The P39s (as Fighter Bombers) always accrue high experience from sweeps (and port attacks, etc). In my experience though, "pure" fighters (like the F4Us, etc) on sweep missions hardly seem to get any real experience increase at all. Normally just get tired and suffer some casualties.

I've yet to find any fighter mission apart from escort and CAP that gets you any real experience (and even then it can't compare to what the F/Bs get on ground attack, etc). Go to your fighter squadron that has 112 kills and add up the total number of kills for the current pilots. Gives you an idea of how long the pilots who score (and gain experience) last over time in air to air. That's the real block on fighter squadrons gaining high experience.

I always end up with 90+ exp P39/P400s/Wirraways ( :p ) while my fighter squadrons languish in the 70s (at best).

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 114
- 2/20/2003 4:46:47 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Nik
[QUOTE]I've been utilizing the 30% training rule that Drongo came up with as a safe way to try to bring up my greenie pilots without losing veterans to stupid op losses and am still noticing that the majority of the time its the EXPERIENCED/VETERAN pilots that are getting most of the airtime (based on fatigue and # of missions) while a good portion of the greenies just sit on the ground spinning their wheels.[/QUOTE]

Under 2.20, the newbies often take a few turns to get going. Also, most of the experienced pilots will still train even when there is no benefit.

Because of this, you just need to be patient. It can take weeks to get all the new pilots into the mid 50s and beyond.

Haven't tried the experiment out yet in that other UV game (which shall remain nameless).:p

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 115
- 2/20/2003 5:04:40 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Roger that Dongo

(sweeps help if you can get a target that is out of supply, so the Flak don't work :))

hassle my game, no more bad guys in the air, so it is either put my guys on lonely Cap or send out some sweeps

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 116
- 2/20/2003 5:39:51 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Hard Sarge
[QUOTE]hassle my game, no more bad guys in the air, so it is either put my guys on lonely Cap or send out some sweeps[/QUOTE]

Oh, you poor baby.:)

[QUOTE]sweeps help if you can get a target that is out of supply, so the Flak don't work [/QUOTE]

Agreed but.....

When I mentioned that fighters don't seem to do anything but get tired and take some losses, that also included attacking the "soft targets" you described. While their operational losses will be almost nil in that situation, they will lose 1-2 planes a week non-operationally. Its not the (tiny) losses that are a prob. Its the fact that they just wont pick up anywhere near the same experience as fighter bombers, for the same effort. Maybe its somehow related to the fact that fighter bombers (I think) will still drop bombs even at 100 ft (and therefore do more damage).

I cant confirm all this but I did have a group of Aussie P40s (exp 63) and a group of Yank P39s (exp 59) perform 100ft sweeps from PM at Jap held Buna (which had no AA defence, just inf). After 2 weeks of sweeping (you'd expect their airfield would be the cleanest in the South Pacific), I checked them again and the P39s were in the mid 70s exp and the Aussies?.......still 63. Since I'd lost 3 P40s for no gain, I dropped the idea and just left them on CAP.

See how you go.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 117
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.297