Training squadrons with 0 or 1 plane

[bush]

InfiniteMonkey-

This was with dedicated UNITS as trainers, correct? The next step might be to track training within a unit that is also "on the line," with a percentage of pilots training and a percentage CAPping and/or resting.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

InfiniteMonkey-

This was with dedicated UNITS as trainers, correct? The next step might be to track training within a unit that is also "on the line," with a percentage of pilots training and a percentage CAPping and/or resting.

What is the hypothesis you want to test?
I can tell you from my observations that doing CAP only registers good experience gain but increase in Air skill are quite infrequent.

But if you use both CAP and Training your lowest Air skill pilots will make steady gains in Air Skill while your Most Experienced pilots will get most of the gains in experience.

You can manipulate this a bit by standing down some of the pilots to Group Reserve, but the ones active and training will have more fatigue as they cover more of the flying.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

InfiniteMonkey-

This was with dedicated UNITS as trainers, correct? The next step might be to track training within a unit that is also "on the line," with a percentage of pilots training and a percentage CAPping and/or resting.

What BBFanboy wrote meshes with my observations.

According to the pilot management Addendum, adjusting training percentage should be roughly the same as varying the number of planes for the percent of planes that are set to training. It is specifically noted there that the checks are made against the training percentage of the squadron. See 7. training section of that manual and note: "Groups will also gain skill and experience (after passing a training check against the training percent of the group) at the end of each day: ".

If you have a 36 max/48 plane/48 pilot squadron set to Escort with 50% training and 30% CAP and 20% rest, then you should get

- the training effects as if the squadron had 18 planes in it PLUS
- a 50% chance per pilot to get the leader bonus and group experience bonus
- the "real" experience as if it had roughly 10 planes at 100% CAP

I'm not a fan of hybrid approaches at the moment, though I have some other tests I want to run to confirm my reasons for that. The reason flying CAP is effective training as pilots become more experienced is twofold:

1. Flying CAP has the potential to increase Exp faster than training as Exp grows from 50? to 70+.
2. Mission count plus experience (plus kills, but trainees should not have those) must be less than the pilots experience to gain the Leader and group exp bonuses.

Let me state #2 more forcefully:
According to the Pilot Management Addendum, a 51 experience pilot with no missions or kills will never get the Leader bonus or Group Experience Bonus.

When you see some people talk about the "wall" that you reach when a pilot goes past 50 experience, I think what they are seeing is the fact that these training bonuses no longer apply. Add to that the effect of the "number of planes does not matter" myth and you have the perception of a wall at 50+ experience. You have some people saying it slows to a crawl and some saying "What wall?" If I asked the guys complaining about the wall, I'm guessing they would say they did not put full complements of aircraft in their training groups and never sent them on any kind of real missions. In those cases, the only pilots getting training advancement would be the ones flying the few aircraft in the squadron.

Now, my problem with the hybrid approach is that the more experienced pilots tend to fly missions. If you are flying 20% CAP and 80% training, your high exp pilots will tend to draw the CAP missions and the bottom 80% will draw training missions. (see BBFanboy's comment above). My preference is simply to assign pilots in the high 40's to milk run missions like Naval Search at 100% to get their mission count up to 70-75 range and then to return them to Training 100%. That way I can be assured they will continue to get the Leader and Group Experience Bonuses as they train above 50.

Is it worth it? Well, consider that this whole conversation started because of the perception that number of aircraft did not matter. I would contend that most of the training occurring in 0/1 plane training squadrons was occurring due to the Leader and Group Experience bonuses. It was significant enough that some argued the number of planes did not matter, so the amount of training from Leader and group experience observed up to 50 Exp was pretty significant.

[Lord_Calidor]

Hi InfiniteMonkey, appreciate your work. Your results and findings are amazing. Would you consider making your "mini manual" public? I presume many-a-grognard would be much grateful. [;)]

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Lord_Calidor

Hi InfiniteMonkey, appreciate your work. Your results and findings are amazing. Would you consider making your "mini manual" public? I presume many-a-grognard would be much grateful. [;)]

I intend to share it when I am done, but I'm not done. I still have questions I need to investigate the answers to. The last thing I want to do is publish bad advice and give someone an opportunity to snipe at me. I only waded into this one because I had tested the question and gotten compelling results that flew in the face of "common knowledge." This is not a forum friendly to "new" members or accepting of critique or disagreement with the powers that be. I therefore plan to keep a low profile most of the time. When I do share it, it will be by PM, not in a post.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Lord_Calidor

Hi InfiniteMonkey, appreciate your work. Your results and findings are amazing. Would you consider making your "mini manual" public? I presume many-a-grognard would be much grateful. [;)]

I intend to share it when I am done, but I'm not done. I still have questions I need to investigate the answers to. The last thing I want to do is publish bad advice and give someone an opportunity to snipe at me. I only waded into this one because I had tested the question and gotten compelling results that flew in the face of "common knowledge." This is not a forum friendly to "new" members or accepting of critique or disagreement with the powers that be. I therefore plan to keep a low profile most of the time. When I do share it, it will be by PM, not in a post.

I wouldn't trip over some of the personalities in this forum. When you are right, stick to your guns and call the spade a spade. You've done fine so far. Stick around, work to insure your thoughts/observations are in order and you can back up what you say. You've only received a few snipes or whacks. In this thread alone you've received a lotta atta-boyz. So thicken up that skin!

With enthusiasm I suggest you change your strategy of a low profile and shares by PM instead of posts. I say post to your heart's content and submit any nuggets you think you've got. Don't let a few naysayers stop you from sharing your thoughts and insights. Soon enough you'll be an old salt like so many of the others that play this game and chill in this forum. [;)]

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Lord_Calidor

Hi InfiniteMonkey, appreciate your work. Your results and findings are amazing. Would you consider making your "mini manual" public? I presume many-a-grognard would be much grateful. [;)]

I intend to share it when I am done, but I'm not done. I still have questions I need to investigate the answers to. The last thing I want to do is publish bad advice and give someone an opportunity to snipe at me. I only waded into this one because I had tested the question and gotten compelling results that flew in the face of "common knowledge." This is not a forum friendly to "new" members or accepting of critique or disagreement with the powers that be. I therefore plan to keep a low profile most of the time. When I do share it, it will be by PM, not in a post.

I wouldn't trip over some of the personalities in this forum. When you are right, stick to your guns and call the spade a spade. You've done fine so far. Stick around, work to insure your thoughts/observations are in order and you can back up what you say. You've only received a few snipes or whacks. In this thread alone you've received a lotta atta-boyz. So thicken up that skin!

With enthusiasm I suggest you change your strategy of a low profile and shares by PM instead of posts. I say post to your heart's content and submit any nuggets you think you've got. Don't let a few naysayers stop you from sharing your thoughts and insights. Soon enough you'll be an old salt like so many of the others that play this game and chill in this forum. [;)]

I am with 1EyedJacks here. There certainly a few of us old hands who appreciate someone who challenge the accepted "truths" and back up his challenge all the while maintaining a modicum of courtesy. I say, bring it on!

[bush]

It is amazing that after all these YEARS there is still so much that is left to learn in the game. This really is the finest game of it's type. I am amazed the Henderson Field/DaBababes boys were able to coordinate all this. Thanks (again) to everyone who helped - and continues to help.

[LeeChard]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

It is amazing that after all these YEARS there is still so much that is left to learn in the game.
This really is the finest game of it's type.
I am amazed the Henderson Field/DaBababes boys were able to coordinate all this. Thanks (again) to everyone who helped - and continues to help.

I couldn't agree more. I've been playing this game since it's release and I always have questions.
I think that's why I never get bored.

[Libertate]

"if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills)..."

What does this mean? I understand it to mean: if (exp + mis + kil) < 50, then...

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Libertate

"if the pilot’s experience is less 50 (plus pilot’s missions and kills)..."

What does this mean? I understand it to mean: if (exp + mis + kil) < 50, then...

My reading of the manual suggests:

if Exp < (50 + Mis + Kil)

Having said that, I've spent a lot of time the last several days testing pilot advancement post 60. My previous tests all focused upon advancement up to 50. I still have more tests to run / variations to try. My tests indicate the primary means of advancement post 60 (and possibly post 50) is number of planes and actually flying training/real missions. I'm not convinced that mission count(and kills?), leader exp, or group exp have anything to do with advancement through training post 60. Again, not done testing, but getting a little tired of testing so may be a while before I go back to revisit it. I want to run the test below with 51/52 Exp Pilots sometime:

In one test, I used 5 squadrons configured to get the Leader bonus (with leadership 65-69 leaders and 6 x 11 skill pilots) and 5 squadrons squadrons configured to get the Group Experience bonus ( 25 Leadership leaders with 6 x 79 Exp pilots). Both groups had the balance of pilots at 61 or 62 Exp. I tested two sets of groups: one had 20+ missions each and the other had 0. All groups had only one plane. In all cases, pilot advancement was anemic (<5 pts per group over 12 days). Mission count appeared to have no impact (despite the addendum saying it does).

[Libertate]

Hm. I now understand your comprehension of it. I wish it were less ambiguous. Both of our interpretations are legitimate (though not equally legitimate based on the placement of the parentheses) according to the way the sentence is written in the addendum. They are, however, opposites. In one, mis/kil would lengthen the period of time that that particular bonus is available; in the other, the bonus window would close sooner.

P.S. The parentheses admittedly tip the balance in your favor.

[Itdepends]

Unless Libertes interpretation is correct RE the formula which would make more sense. That way the bonus would apply to green pilots that have low experience, dont have kills or have flown missions. Given how easy it is to rack missions up I doubt that the formula proposed by Infinite Monkey is correct and it appears he has now discovered the wall at 50xp &#128512;

Easy enough to test if you want, take some green pilots and put them on missions, say sweep or recon against unprotected bases, at the same time have another set of groups exclusively training. After say 25 missions are acumulated, switch the sweeping squadrons to the same training settings as the rest. All squadrons will need a full complement of planes to ensure the pilots sweeping participate in missions.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

Unless Libertes interpretation is correct RE the formula which would make more sense. That way the bonus would apply to green pilots that have low experience, dont have kills or have flown missions. Given how easy it is to rack missions up I doubt that the formula proposed by Infinite Monkey is correct and it appears he has now discovered the wall at 50xp &#128512;

Easy enough to test if you want, take some green pilots and put them on missions, say sweep or recon against unprotected bases, at the same time have another set of groups exclusively training. After say 25 missions are acumulated, switch the sweeping squadrons to the same training settings as the rest. All squadrons will need a full complement of planes to ensure the pilots sweeping participate in missions.

Not much of a wall at 50 shown in this screenshot. Again, I think part of the reason why there is a perception of a wall at 50 is that the common wisdom is that number of planes do not matter. Part of the issue too is that weather matters for planes. On Thunderstorm days, that screenshot would show a lot less advancement. It is easy to do a test or look at a squadron on a bad weather day and conclude that number of planes do not matter. It is one of the reasons why I moved from looking at the results of a single day to looking at the increases over a 9/10/12 day span.

As for figuring out the conditions under which the Group and Leader experience bonuses kick in, I'll add the newbie pilots with high mission count to the endless list of tests I still want to perform. I'm skeptical that the formula works as Libertes describes given how the Addendum reads, but I'll test nonetheless.

[Libertate]

Whoa, whoa! Don't put this on me (That's what she said!). Hahaha! I simply pointed out the ambiguity of a sentence. I have no idea which is the true meaning; and I intend not to go to battle over it, but, rather, in this case, to be one of "...those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[rustysi]

Not much of a wall at 50 shown in this screenshot.

It is my understanding (and experience) that the 'wall at 50' is WRT experience not individual skill sets. These in my experience can train up to 70 quite easily. Experience much over 50 requires some sort of mission other than training.

[Itdepends]

Thanks for clarifying Rustysi, that is what I was referring to.

The example of good skill gains posted aboveI would expect to be due to the significant ant number of high skill pilots in the squadron for the skill being trrained. Take those away and the skill gain of the other pilots should slow.

[Alpha77]

Btw. in regards tomy above pics, the one with 0 planes (transp) and the one with only 6 (Sally)... the null plane unit trains verrryyy slow the 6 planes a bit better. However it is still quite slow and I have not enough 2E eng bombers left in the pool to fill it up. So I downgraded the unit to 1E bombers and have now 100% planes, should now go faster again. Which confirms that number of planes (like most said) is important...

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Not much of a wall at 50 shown in this screenshot.

It is my understanding (and experience) that the 'wall at 50' is WRT experience not individual skill sets. These in my experience can train up to 70 quite easily. Experience much over 50 requires some sort of mission other than training.

What kind of experience are we talking about? Overall experience or skill experience? I find that you can absolutely increase skill experience past 50 with training. In fact, I usually don't (I am not saying what I do is the most efficient) start running pilots in actual "combat" missions until I've achieved at least 60 in all of the relevant pilot skills for the type of aircraft they're flying.

Edit

While I am a data scientists by profession, if not training, what I really don't want to do for the games I play is test these things myself; therefore, what I need, and players like me need, is for someone to tell me the absolute best training regimen so I can implement it into my play without thinking too much about it. [:D]

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Revthought
what I need, and players like me need, is for someone to tell me the absolute best training regimen so I can implement it into my play without thinking too much about it. [:D]

Just installed Da Big Babes mod [again], allied AI... the theory is sound and solid, problem is where am I going to find the spare planes to fill the training squadrons? [:D]

And then there's the "philosophical" issue. I guess everyone agrees green fresh pilots need more on map training, they are not ready. OK, but the training tools are lacking though (unless I'm missing something). Or the developers expected these pilots should be thrown to combat?

If that's the case, aren't we artificially creating terminators?