PaxMondo -> RE: Pilot Training Alogrithm (7/19/2011 4:17:21 AM)
Agree with the issue, but not neccesarily with the proposed solution.
In my opinion pilot training is too fast (yes, I know the current training speed is because people said it was too slow... [8|] ).
The problem there is that, as Pax Mondo already stated, training gain slows with exp gain. This renders initial replacement pilot skill next to useless.
The difference between training up a 10exp pilot compared to a 30exp pilot is neglectable, and so works against the historically finetuned replacement pilot
exp increase of the Allies and decrease of the Japanese.
Houserules against pilot training will not work because for this the feature is too integrated into the game.
The result is retort pilots, with a very similar skill level, and lots of thought, time and micromanagement needed to get the pilot on top in those skills the player believes neccesary.
I believe the solution could look like this:
1) Significantly reduce pilot training speed:
And I mean significantly. Make the gain of 10 points in skill a task of 40-50 days.
If someone objects against this proposal, I understand, but please read my other points before jumping conclusions.
I donīt believe for a second that pilots fresh out of combat training were facelevel to veterans. The get there by fighting.
2) Reduce the impact of exp on training speed and lower the training cap to around 50:
Skill is gained by surviving in a combat enviroment. I always considered a 70air/60def skill fighter pilot is the equivalent of
an experte pilot with a high number of combat missions flown.
Currently you can reap those pilots in high numbers for both sides without needing to fly a single combat mission.
With the current training system you get 70/60 in 2-3 months, these are pilots that were called "green" in WWII!
3) Increase the exp/skill gain for successful combat missions flown, maybe put a high random factor in here.
4) Declutter pilot training:
I do not have any figures here but I believe that the training settings are too closely related to mission flown.
There should be some general training options (3-4) with the rest coming from actually flying such missions.
If a pilot trains for becoming a fighter pilot, why do I have to separately train him for defensive maneuvering?
For naval attack, why do I have to train him on naval search and lowN?
For ASW, why do I have to train him on naval search and lowN or Naval bombing?
For ground attack, why do I have to double train depending on the altitude the pilot flies? Why is there not even a slight increase in naval attack skills?
For recon, why do I have to train the pilot on nav search?
I know that - for the above trainings - separate pilot courses are needed, true. Its different whether you have to identify ship types of take pics of ground formations.
And its different to attack at 10k compared to wavetop height or to hunt a sub compared to attacking a BB.
But this should be an incremental part of such a training, not a minutious decision by Admiral Nimitz.
What would I love to have in the end?
Lower skill/exp pilots, with more broadly distributed skills, max exp of 50, the classic rookie pilot fresh out of combat training.
Then, depending on the main mission of the unit the pilots get assigned to, the exp and skills will increase further, but only as a result of participating on combat missions on the frontline.
This could help making pilot training a bit less important and micro than it currently is, and leave the 70-90 exp/skills to those pilots that historically
were only few and valued.
(said some months ago already, but something similar applies to some leadership values IMO. A leader with 86 aggression rating on a scale from 0-100 is a raging maniac, nothing else, but that leads us a bit off topic [;)] )
Not disagreeing with your suggestions here at all, but they are significant and would need testing to tune.
All I am suggesting is a minor tweak. Something that I feel would move us in the right direction. Baby steps. I think with enough support, we could introduce it to Michael for consideration and that might be within his mandate to implement.
The question is: Do you feel my suggestion is moving in the right direction? Is it worth testing in the beta build?