ORIGINAL: alimentary
I value your the information that you contribute to this forum, Alfred, and am impressed by its accuracy. Nor do I know of any factual error that you have made in this thread. However, I cannot see that the points you make above support the position that I thought you were arguing for: That a prospective leader's flying skills are never relevant when selecting a new leader for a squadron. Possibly I have misunderstood and the point you are trying to make is narrower -- that only an individual's leader skills are relevant for determining the effects of that individual on the squadron in his leadership role.
Their pilot skills are not relevant for their performance as the unit leader. I have been consistent in stating this. Furthermore see my next answer.
1. Given a choice of two leaders, both of whom are also pilots and whose leader stats are identical, it seems clear that, at least as a tie-breaker, one would wish to select the one with the better flying skills. Accordingly, flying skills would appear to be relevant to leader selection in such a situation.
How do you even know their pilot stats to use as a tie breaker. Go to the unit screen. Click on the leader. the leader database is brought up. There are no, repeat no pilot stats displayed on the screen. In the extremely rare situation where you find two or more potential leaders on the leader database with exactly the same leader ratings, you simply cannot use as a tie breaker their pilot stats as they are not disclosed. You can choose as your tie breaker alphabetical surname order, or name with most Christian name initials, or surname with fewest/most letters, or ethnic origin of surname or rank held, or whether they will be part of the minority in the leader database who also happen to be flying pilots, because that information is provided. But their pilot stats are not disclosed on that screen.
2. If the Pilot Management Addendum is to be believed, there is one situation in which the leader's pilot skills apply in what one might term their "leadership" role.
e.g. "2. if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills) and less than the leader's skill"
My reading of the above passage is that the relevant skill is the one in which the leader's group is currently training.
However, it is perhaps more plausible that this passage refers to the leader's Leadership skill since that skill would be guaranteed to exist and be directly associated with the leader as opposed to being associated with leader's pilot alter-ego.
[I have difficulty deciding whether a pilot's missions and kills are supposed to make him more trainable or less. My assumption has been that they make the pilot less trainable, but the most natural reading of the above passage indicates the opposite. If you have any insight, it would be welcome]
Three points.
Firstly, the pilot addendum was generated at a time when dedicated training groups were in existence. Whilst the addendum remains indispensable to understanding properly the issue, it has to read bearing in mind that dedicated training groups are no longer in existence.
Secondly, the part you referenced deals with units which are not training. It is a unit with a combat mission and the referenced skill is that relevant for carrying out that particular mission.
Thirdly, it is somewhat imprecise language. It is not really the leaders "skill" but his leader ratings which are used. Take a bomber unit which is tasked with airfield attack. There is no such precisely worded pilot skill. However when the mission is undertaken, the pilot skills which may be improved are "ground attack" (if the mission was flown above 6k) or "low ground attack" plus "strafing" if flown at 1k. Referencing it back to the leader, you will find that the leader's "land rating" [please see edit at bottom of this post] is what was meant. Remember that the commander has ratings in "fewer" areas than do pilots.
3. This thread is (I thought) about what attributes contribute to determine which leader is the best chosen to replace the current leader. As indicated in (1) above, the leader's flying skills can factor into that decision. Albeit rarely and not strongly.
As answered in point 1 above, which I repeat, they are not disclosed when the selection screen is opened. Which is why my first post in this thread, and consistently repeated subsequently, I stated that the OP concern was irrelevant. The OP was trying to determine the criteria to apply to selecting his air unit leaders.
4. If the leader is also a squadron member, his flying skills determine how his plane performs when he flies it. This averages into the group performance, of course.
And what if he isn't flying that particular day when the unit undertakes its mission. If his leader ratings are poor that will impact on the units performance irrespective of whether he did or did not fly that day.
5. Agreed. For non-flying leaders, their (non-existent) flying skills are irrelevant.
Which are the majority of the available leaders on the leader database.
6. Agreed.
7a. No argument
7b. Agreed.
8. This is a cherry-picked example. One cannot prove a universal statement with an example. One can only disprove a universal statement with an example.
Of course it is a cherry picked example; chosen to drive home the point. A single example can however provide the context of a universal statement of how game mechanics operate. Which is what the point was.
Again, I'm not trying to be an idiot or a jerk. Just trying to figure out what the argument is about.
Alfred
Edit. In drafting this reply I had initially written "air rating" in answer to point 2 above but changed it to "land rating". prior to posting In going through a foresenic exercise today in answering another leader thread in the War Room, it is clear that the better view is the original "air rating" is the more likely to be affected. This all goes to show how difficult it is to quantify the exact relationship between the seven leader ratings. It does not alter one iota the points I have made consistently in this thread. For those interested, todays relevant other thread is:
tm.asp?m=3765307
