Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

fbs
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by fbs »


What trains the crew better? Doing a non-combat mission or training for the non-combat mission?

Having asked that, I have no clue how or why would someone train naval search without actually doing naval search. That's different than say training for Recon, Escort or Airfield Attack - in these the training crew can simulate a mission against a mock target, see the results and learn from that. It's pretty straightforward that training for Recon, Escort or Airfield Attack is a sensible thing to do.

But, how in this world would a naval search training mission be different than an actual search? It's not like one can send a small boat in the middle of the ocean, tell a bunch of trainees to find it, and learn from that -- finding a ship in the ocean is many times a matter of luck, so if a pilot flies in the wrong zone, there is little to learn from that.

Similarly, why would anyone train Transport instead of just transporting stuff around? Oh, man, where's my tea - it's giving me a headache to think so deeply about such critically important problems.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by wdolson »

Training raises skill more consistently than just flying the mission.  On search, units are unlikely to increase search skill unless they spot something.  Flying over empty ocean where they are unlikely to spot enemy ships, they won't train very fast.  On training, it's assumed the unit is also getting ground instruction on the mission, and will increase skill more efficiently.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by CapAndGown »

If you want an air unit (or more appropriately, a pilot) to be able to do something, then train them. The best training percentage for a squadron is 100%. There are few op losses, and the skills increase is relatively rapid. Actually executing the mission as opposed to training for it rarely raises the pilots' skill.

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by LoBaron »

You are missing something.
 
Since one of the most important attributes of a pilot is his exp value, setting the squads to 100% training has a disadvantage.
No exp gain on specialized training.
Usually a compromise between training and a mission setting (e.g escort, naval search, ASW, naval attack) is helpful,
you need a certain number of planes in the squadron to get something out of such a setting naturally.
 
Setting training to 100 makes sense though if the squadron has only a few planes or want to specialize a unit in an area but the pilots are experienced enough anyway.
But training to 100% for replacements produces pilots that know everything about their mission but have no idea how to handle a plane... [:D]
Image
User avatar
topeverest
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:47 am
Location: Houston, TX - USA

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by topeverest »

My experience clearly shows that training for the 'non combat' missions is far more effective than expecting an air unit to increase in skill or experience because they are doing the 'non-combat' mission. I really haven't really to decipher the reasonology for this, because it is fairly easy to provide effective training squadrons by pilot type to filter pilots into front line units.
Andy M
mcissell
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:10 pm

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by mcissell »

I flew P-3's during the 40 years war (beginning of NATO to the end of the
Warsaw Pact), I saw then that Naval Attact and ASW are 1% training and 99% operations for increasing experience level. This game is so close to real life (with out the blood) I think it would go that way.
User avatar
Panther Bait
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 pm

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by Panther Bait »

Not sure how it was done in the real war, but the easiest way I can think of to train at naval search would be to put the training squadron near a major port, send them on a search mission and have them report back what they found. The instructors could cross-reference that with known transit schedules, convoy records, other (real) search aircraft reports, etc.

The benefit is that when the trainee crew reports that they found a military TF coming in with two Yorktown-class carriers, the instructor can slap them over the head and say "You mean the two oil tankers that arrived from LA this afternoon? You fail. Next!" [;)]

Mike

P.S. Obviously, this type of training doesn't work anywhere but a major port with known traffic, and just as obviously, I realize the game probably doesn't differentiate between training at San Diego or training at Attu. Nothing's perfect.
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by wdolson »

During war time convoy movements would be secret, so the instructor wouldn't have anything to compare to.

Search training consists of a lot of silhouette recognition drills.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: mcissell

I flew P-3's during the 40 years war (beginning of NATO to the end of the
Warsaw Pact), I saw then that Naval Attact and ASW are 1% training and 99% operations for increasing experience level. This game is so close to real life (with out the blood) I think it would go that way.

The original WitP didn't have the training system AE had. You could train pilots to extremely high skill levels by bombing an empty enemy held base in the middle of nowhere. Good Japanese players would train super units of pilots by doing airbase attack missions on abandoned bases in China and it really threw off the balance of the game.

This system is much closer to the way it was in the real war.

When you were in the Navy, you weren't in combat and the unit was not in constant need of replacements due to war losses or accidents from pushing planes and crews past their limits. The peacetime military essentially trains on the job constantly even though you are operational because that's how to keep units in readiness in peacetime.

In a war like WW II, the training equation is completely different. Front line units have a constant need for more pilots and new units are being created all the time. A massive training system has to be put in place to feed those units or the quality of the front line units will decline sharply (as it did with Axis units).

The US started building a training system based on the RAF's experience starting in 1940. The number of training schools boomed and kids were given incentives to get pilot's licenses. Those new pilots were drawn into the military at the beginning of the war. The pilot pool in the game represents pilots who have been through basic and advanced training, but no training in type. They've soloed in an AT-6, but that's it.

You put them in an aircraft type and they need to learn how to do the missions for that plane type. This was the way it was done during the war. The US had units working up in preparation to go over seas all the time. These units would spend up to a year training stateside. If combat veterans were available, they would impart their experiences on the green kids learning the trade. Otherwise, it was blind leading the blind. In some cases units got lucky and ended up with a natural leader like Hub Zemke. In other cases, they ended up with a Queeg like Swede Larson who took over Torpedo 8 after Midway (Larson was such a jerk he was almost shot on the ground by squadron members on two occasions).

The US also had replacement training units that would train pilots that were fed into other units. There is a book called _Flights of Passage_ by a Marine SBD pilot who went through replacement training and was on his way to Okinawa when the war ended.

The training system in game is not an exact model of historical training systems (a bit too complex), but a player can set up a training system that is similar to the US/Commonwealth training systems that were used during the war.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by Nomad »

The only problem I see so far is that the game does not provide any Naval air units that can provide that advanced training. The only solution I have found is to take all the air units off on a CV and replace them with Marine units and use the Naval ones to train replacement pilots. Doesn't seem right that all of those USN training units on the West coast got ignored.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by Chickenboy »

Good posts. I would add to the OP question the following:

1. Naval search by low NavS pilots is frequently worthless or actually disinformative. They spot 'biologics', clumps of rocks and the infamous '8 ships' allied SCTFs heading West just outside of Tokyo Bay on December 8, 1941. I'd much rather train them to a point where their naval search efforts aren't actually a detriment to my combat operations in theatre with their plethora of false sightings.

2. Other than avoiding some OPS losses, I couldn't care less about the EXP level of my NavS exclusive air groups, so long as I have high NavS skills in the pilots. EXP is a tertiary issue in my mind for non-combatants. It's a secondary issue for combatants.
Image
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3946
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by anarchyintheuk »

I think this was an issue at the PH inquiries. Don't remember who was testifying (Kimmel, Bloch or Bellinger?) but he was constantly talking about the necessity for training the pilots stationed at PH, including the pby pilots. Iirc someone wondered if the best form of training for the pby squadrons wasn't flying an actual naval search mission.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: fbs




Having asked that, I have no clue how or why would someone train naval search without actually doing naval search. That's different than say training for Recon, Escort or Airfield Attack - in these the training crew can simulate a mission against a mock target, see the results and learn from that. It's pretty straightforward that training for Recon, Escort or Airfield Attack is a sensible thing to do.

But, how in this world would a naval search training mission be different than an actual search? It's not like one can send a small boat in the middle of the ocean, tell a bunch of trainees to find it, and learn from that -- finding a ship in the ocean is many times a matter of luck, so if a pilot flies in the wrong zone, there is little to learn from that.

Similarly, why would anyone train Transport instead of just transporting stuff around? Oh, man, where's my tea - it's giving me a headache to think so deeply about such critically important problems.


Navagation, spotting, low level flying, charting and chart plotting, air sea rescue, ship and plane identification protocols, survival, defensive flying. radio protocol, encryption, morse code, weather (wind, clouds, sea state) reporting. These are all things that a naval patrol crew needs to know before they can be effective. It the game it is an abstract but this is what they would be learning before going out on actual patrol. It is not just flying out and looking for things. I would think the patrol crews were the most specialized of any and needed the most training. Only thing I see is that they should gain ASW experience as well as search when training as most all long range search planes were ASW warfare aircraft as well.

Transport crews need to know many things as well though the were notoriously undertrained for paratroop and glider operations leading to many preventable disasters.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only problem I see so far is that the game does not provide any Naval air units that can provide that advanced training. The only solution I have found is to take all the air units off on a CV and replace them with Marine units and use the Naval ones to train replacement pilots. Doesn't seem right that all of those USN training units on the West coast got ignored.


This is a big problem as the Japanese player has plenty of land based naval fighter units to train up carrier fighter pilots and the Allied player has none until the first VR squadrons come in late 1942. Impossible to train up a pool of naval fighter pilots for your carriers. So the Allies have none in the pool and the Japanese have scads. What is wrong with this picture? This was not too well thought out IMHO.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Kwik E Mart
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:42 pm

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by Kwik E Mart »

doh, re-read post....deleted
Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

Image
mcissell
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:10 pm

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by mcissell »

Great info on this. I thought I knew how this worked but ... I print out things like this, then strip of the excess paper and then stick them into my game manual so I can review stuff like when it comes up again.
BYW I was flying over Gulf of Hammet watching a Soviet SSN anchored there when we called to turn north and to get near a DDG about 70 miles north of us and that Libya was launching SS-5 missiles. We headed off at super fast dropping chaff all the way. Your right, not combat but it scared the hell out of me. I think that was Operation El Dorado Canyon.
fbs
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:52 am

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by fbs »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Navagation, spotting, low level flying, charting and chart plotting, air sea rescue, ship and plane identification protocols, survival, defensive flying. radio protocol, encryption, morse code, weather (wind, clouds, sea state) reporting. These are all things that a naval patrol crew needs to know before they can be effective. It the game it is an abstract but this is what they would be learning before going out on actual patrol. It is not just flying out and looking for things. I would think the patrol crews were the most specialized of any and needed the most training. Only thing I see is that they should gain ASW experience as well as search when training as most all long range search planes were ASW warfare aircraft as well.

Transport crews need to know many things as well though the were notoriously undertrained for paratroop and glider operations leading to many preventable disasters.


These are good points (actually very good points), but I wonder how much of that is related to training on how to fly, rather than how to fly a naval search mission.

I mean, I'm all in favor of training pilots and crews on how to fly better. But the game puts training for notoriously difficult tasks like aerial combat and dive bombing in the same level as training for transport and naval search. I can't understand that.

Say that you have two pilot/crews ("careful, promising officer better suited for an air group"), and you spend 500 hours with them teaching them how to fly. Now they reasonably know how to fly, but they don't know how to do a torpedo bomb run. If you put these guys to do a run against the enemy they are dead meat. It is very likely, though, that both will be reasonable capable of running a naval search mission already, as they are.

Now you assign pilot/crew A to a torpedo unit. How many hours would you need before they are effective? Pilot/crew A will take 200-500 flight hours more before he can get near the enemy, and you can't do that in combat missions (or the guy will die). So you need to train, there's no alternative.

Meanwhile you assign pilot/crew B to a naval search unit. I can't imagine that pilot/crew B will require specific training of 200-500 flight hours before they can do a successful naval search, as they already can do it to a good extent as they are. If they spend 200-500 hours doing naval search flights they will do it better, no doubt, but I fail to see that as being required in the same level as combat missions. I'm also unsure how in-flight training time will be better than actual mission flying time for them to become more experienced.

I think the situation is something similar to the training of pilots for passenger aircrafts. Nowadays it is standard that all of them get a lot of time in the simulator, however good they are. But that's done in simulators, not in flight. I don't recall air companies doing a lot of training flights around to train their pilots, and aerial companies always took training very seriously.

So my doubt is that the current system puts training for non-combat missions in the same way as training for combat missions. Now, if one were to say that training in game for naval search and transport involves more in-class training and less actual flight (i.e., very little supplies used, very few crashes, no engagement with the enemy) then my doubts will evaporate.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You are missing something.

Since one of the most important attributes of a pilot is his exp value, setting the squads to 100% training has a disadvantage.
No exp gain on specialized training.
Usually a compromise between training and a mission setting (e.g escort, naval search, ASW, naval attack) is helpful,
you need a certain number of planes in the squadron to get something out of such a setting naturally.

I definitely see Exp gain in specialized training. There is also Def gain. I tried the route of some mission and some training, and the results were at least as good for all training (I use 90%).

Somewhere they even posted some info about how much training increases the specialized skill versus Exp and Def. I think the more the specialized skill > Exp, the more likely a gain will be in Exp instead of in the skill.
User avatar
AcePylut
Posts: 1487
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:01 am

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by AcePylut »

Think of it this way... if you're actually out there searching (Naval Search), you're not going to report anything unless you spot something.  You are in "combat ROE".  If you don't spot anything, you won't get any experience figuring "that" their exact location, plotting bearings and distances... you won't get any experience using proper radio calls. 
 
If you are "training", you are going to "fly a search pattern looking for "this" (if over water - a special boat perhaps... if over land, then maybe a significant building, whatever), and once you find "this", you are going to plot it's dist/bearing, radio it in, practice whatever maneauvers are necessary to id "this" correctly... etc. 
 
In short, you're guaranteed all that "sighting" practice every flight, whereas with an actual naval search, you aren't.

So it makes sense that you gain exp/skill faster via training - up to a point.  I think, though, that above that point, (60exp/skill?) it makes sense that you only gain via "combat" or actual spotting, because that would be "real world" experience and not "they aren't shooting at me or trying to avoid me" type of experience.  
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only problem I see so far is that the game does not provide any Naval air units that can provide that advanced training. The only solution I have found is to take all the air units off on a CV and replace them with Marine units and use the Naval ones to train replacement pilots. Doesn't seem right that all of those USN training units on the West coast got ignored.

You're talking about training replacements for the carrier fleet? Starting in late 42 you start getting CVEs with VR squadrons. These squadrons are ahistoric, but are a carry over from WitP and are necessary for the AI to work properly.

I unloaded all my VR squadrons in ports and set them to train 100% for the mission the plane flies. As pilots get up to good skill levels, I move them to the reserve pool and replace them with green pilots. By mid-1943 I had a constant stream of trained pilots in the USN pool. The empty CVEs are useful for plane ferries or you could put USMC squadrons on them. In 1943 you start getting some VC squadrons that aren't assigned to carriers and when the SBD-5 becomes available the inshore patrol squadrons (shore based Kingfisher squadrons) can upgrade to SBD-5s which can be put on carriers.

The now shore based VR squadrons will still fill out carriers that come within range needing replacement aircraft. I have the VR squadrons in most of the ports I use for CV operations.
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”