Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Oscar v B17E

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Oscar v B17E Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 9:53:31 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1878
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
I'm guessing the problem here might be that they maybe only gain skill when being successful at their mission. So a pilot assigned to navel search in a remote corner of the Pacific might be flying over empty waters for years and not learn a thing about spotting ships, because he never encounters one. In this case I think it is reasonable that he would learn faster when training. Making this argument is a lot harder for other kinds of missions though, a pilot should learn more about bombing when he misses a target while being attacked by fighters and being shot at by flak, then when he's dropping bombs right on the marker in an American desert.

A question for you Elf, is it possible that pilots with a higher overall exp. have a harder time learning skills when training ?

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 31
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 10:31:27 AM   
Bogo Mil

 

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline
What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training?

The air combat skill is a different story. Real combat is a much better teacher here. I think the game models this quite well. The air combat skill raises very fast if the pilots get real air combat.


_____________________________

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 32
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 10:52:10 AM   
Frank


Posts: 1675
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
We just need an extra counter for combat experience ;-).

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Bogo Mil)
Post #: 33
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 11:31:31 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training? It shouldn't..., up to a point. After you have dropped your practice bombs all over the training area you develop proficiency in the "theory" of bombing. Lot's of crews left Texas thinking they could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". Maybe they could..., in Texas. But over Europe, in less perfect weather and visability, over unfamiliar landmarks, with the flak and the Luftwaffe trying to kill them, was a different "kettle of fish". And a new skill to be mastered.



(in reply to Bogo Mil)
Post #: 34
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 11:52:40 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Castor Troy does have a point here that needs to be clarified.

May need some confirmation about relationship between EXP rating and SKILL (for example NavB).

As far as I know, EXP is gained by flight training, up to limit. This is from getting used to plane etc., but main increase in EXP is combat.

Then there is SKILL (for example NavB). This can be easily trained with Training mission.

Now, if I got meaning of The Elf post, it's folly to commit units in combat before they are *fully trained*. In those cases units in training will benefit more than those in combat, SKILL-wise. 


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 35
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 12:20:14 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1218
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline
Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 36
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 12:41:14 PM   
Bogo Mil

 

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline
Training increases skill fast and experience very slowly. Combat increases exp fast (especially there is some real opposition, not only an undefended airfield) and skill slowly. To become a true elite unit, the pilots need both.

In the real war, the Axis believed in combat experience too much. They neglected training and hoped the undereducated rookies would learn all the necessary skills at the front. They didn't. Those guys from Texas flight school were not as effective as they imagined on their first sorties, agreed. But eventually they became much superior. The foundation was laid in Texas.

The game models the training stuff quite well, imho. Using undereducated pilots to combat missions should not be rewarded.


_____________________________

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 37
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 12:43:05 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12272
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...



how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack? Guess not that long.

_____________________________


(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 38
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 12:45:22 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12272
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Castor Troy does have a point here that needs to be clarified.

May need some confirmation about relationship between EXP rating and SKILL (for example NavB).

As far as I know, EXP is gained by flight training, up to limit. This is from getting used to plane etc., but main increase in EXP is combat.

Then there is SKILL (for example NavB). This can be easily trained with Training mission.

Now, if I got meaning of The Elf post, it's folly to commit units in combat before they are *fully trained*. In those cases units in training will benefit more than those in combat, SKILL-wise. 




After having been told very early after release that you need skill to perform your mission (like air and def for a fighter or navbomb and def for a bomber) I concentrated on getting my pilots up in the skill they needed. I didn´t much focus on exp and haven´t found a way to really improve it anyway. Until I figured out that (in my AE version) experience is the most important thing to get something like a "coordinated strike". So while many people on the forum mix up skill and exp all the time I´m really only talking about skill and skill is improved far faster doing training missions than doing actually "combat" missions.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/19/2010 12:46:00 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 39
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 1:54:16 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1218
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline
quote:

how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack?

Not for some time - this tactic was carried on certainly until '44. Probably few few pilots got back to tell them that it didn't work very well...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 40
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 3:41:34 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
Any approach towards a B-17 means facing at least 4 MG's if every gun is operating and manned.  The Germans learned the head on approach was best since it minimized the time the gunners could fire at the fighter, but that applied to the fighter pilot too and took some big brass ones to execute, what with the closing speed of the two planes approaching 500mph...

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 41
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 4:12:19 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7233
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training?

The air combat skill is a different story. Real combat is a much better teacher here. I think the game models this quite well. The air combat skill raises very fast if the pilots get real air combat.




Sorry, there is no comparison. You can practice to the end of the world but it is not the same when someone is actually trying to kill you while you are doing it. The best pilot in training might prove to be useless in actual combat. I would think a pilot that survived ten actual combat missions would be much more comptent than any pilot no matter how well trained that had never seen the elephant. My take on it anyways.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bogo Mil)
Post #: 42
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 4:14:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7233
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Any approach towards a B-17 means facing at least 4 MG's if every gun is operating and manned.  The Germans learned the head on approach was best since it minimized the time the gunners could fire at the fighter, but that applied to the fighter pilot too and took some big brass ones to execute, what with the closing speed of the two planes approaching 500mph...


The Germans also used multiple aircraft attacking at the same time in coordinated maneuvers to disperse the firepower of bomber formations. I don't think the Japanese were very good at this.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 43
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 4:37:16 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7164
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Hi there, just looked up the question about why the IJAAF considered the Oscar to be the best high-level B17/B24 interceptor and actually reserved/trained its pilots as such (especially in the Burmese theatre). It was because of its high-altitude performance and fast climb rate (to get up to the bombers altitude) that made it a essentail must in the Japanese general's eyes for this kind of work (rather than trying for air-to-air superiority against allied fighters).
Interestingly, a lot of Oscar squadrons were pulled out for specialist heavy bomber interceptor-type training. The standard IJAAF tactic was to fly up underneath the enemy bomber formation and level out behind them, seeing as the bomber was flying straight and level, then make attacks from 6 o'clock low position (in other words, the standard tactic for attacking a two-seater in WWI)...
In RL an awful lot of Oscar's were lost this way for virtually no reward...



how long did it take them to find out that attacking a heavy bomber formation from behind would be a bad idea, probably the worst postion to attack? Guess not that long.


The Germans figured out that the best way to attack the bomber formations was to hit them head on. You'd think they'd have at least shared that little tib-bit of info.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 44
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 5:59:16 PM   
Who Cares

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 2/2/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....


Well since you claim to know better, then let me clue YOU in on some things here:

1) the 5 "lowest skill" pilots on that list joined the squadron when the size increased from 8 to 12 (thats 10 pilots to 16, I had actually 11 pilots since 1 joined when a crew was wounded so was in fact over strength by 1). So the other 11 pilots that you so calmly are over-looking have been flying since the group came back in what? April? And their skill is...?

2) You ever had bullets flying at you? I have.

< Message edited by Who Cares -- 4/19/2010 6:01:52 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 45
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 6:06:16 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14903
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training?

The air combat skill is a different story. Real combat is a much better teacher here. I think the game models this quite well. The air combat skill raises very fast if the pilots get real air combat.




Sorry, there is no comparison. You can practice to the end of the world but it is not the same when someone is actually trying to kill you while you are doing it. The best pilot in training might prove to be useless in actual combat. I would think a pilot that survived ten actual combat missions would be much more comptent than any pilot no matter how well trained that had never seen the elephant. My take on it anyways.


Bogo mil has it right. The same applies to any complicated skill. Learning it well and quickly requires guidance so that you practice doing it right. If you practice doing wrong crap you will be good at doing wrong crap.

Good training will include force on force where the other guy is trying to kill you, only you live to learn from it.

Newbies will learn faster in training. If newbies go straight into combat they will learn some good stuff and lots of crap. They will also die more often. If newbies train to a certain point before they go into combat they will learn better from the combat because they have a foundation on which to build.

And of course even highly experienced pilots do train with each other and do benefit from it.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 46
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 7:29:11 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 508
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

What do you do in a training day? You fly to a practice area nearby, drop a bomb, turn around, drop another, repeat until the bomb bay is empty. Then you land and you might even have time for a second flight this day. Thus you practised a dozen bombing runs or more. And there will be an evaluation for every bomb dropped.

What do you do in a combat day? You are flying for hours to the target (or maybe to the wrong place), drop all your bombs at once on the place, then you fly home for some more hours. You'll never know whether you hit anything, how much your bombs were off, nothing. There are probably some photos to evaluate the effect of the entire strike, but you'll never be informed about YOUR performance.

So why do you think real combat should train the bombing skill faster than training? It shouldn't..., up to a point. After you have dropped your practice bombs all over the training area you develop proficiency in the "theory" of bombing. Lot's of crews left Texas thinking they could "drop a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". Maybe they could..., in Texas. But over Europe, in less perfect weather and visability, over unfamiliar landmarks, with the flak and the Luftwaffe trying to kill them, was a different "kettle of fish". And a new skill to be mastered.





And I might contend that, based on the average accuracy of the strategic bombing campaign, the average bomber crew was no better at hitting a factory on Mission #50 than they were on Mission #1 in theater. The only thing they might have been better at was staying alive to make it home. Other than that they hit the bomb release when the flight leader said go. So how much should they're bombing skill go up? Compare that to the gains they made from the first day of bomber training to the day they were sent to Europe. Which represents the greater increase in basic skill level? Who knows.

And for fighter pilots, they do learn something if they engage the enemy. However, sitting at the ready five station all day or boring holes in the sky on CAP don't exactly make the best fighter pilots. Compare that to flying against veteran trainers.

So maybe skills don't increase fast enough while on the front lines, but I bet repeated training in school like situations (i.e. with feedback) is just as good or better for a newbie (since they have a better shot of actually living long enough to learn from the experience).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 47
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 8:45:51 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1190
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.

_____________________________

WitP/AE Devs Fan Boy
1.7.11.23x10 beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

(in reply to Who Cares)
Post #: 48
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 10:30:24 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The best pilot in training might prove to be useless in actual combat.


Errm. No.

If your claim were correct, the USN would not have the Top Gun program that it now has, and its forerunners, which were first established in 1942. Realistic combat training can and does prepare pilots for combat very very well, often to the extent where they are better pilots than combat veterans, when veterens have learned habits that can't be adapted to changing circumstances.

Nik raised the point about Ki-43s being used in Burma with modest success against small numbers of B-24s. True to a point. Early B-24s of the kind lend-leased to the UK were B-24As that lacked top turrets, making them vulnerable to forward approach attacks, and they had a "flex mount" rather than turret mount rear turret.

Along came the B-24Cs and pretty much put the Japanese fighters at a disadvantage from which no Japanese fighter fully recovered. The heavies were pretty much always a step ahead of Japanese interceptors from mid-1943 onward.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 49
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 11:17:02 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1841
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
Does anyone have actual accounts of Japanese Pilots taking down huge numbers of B-17's and B-24s? I mean I never remember hearing any after action reports on american sides suggesting the japanese had any success at any part of the war in taking down 4 engine bombers. Some creditable claims I have read that further disprove every Japanese Fan boy here, are aces like Saburo Sakai who sat behind an F4F and put almost 1,000 rounds of 7.7mm into it and the plane wouldn't drop, were talking F4F here not a B-17.

The ki-43's in Burma, what level of success were they having? How many were being brought down 1-2? or typical japanese over-excelled combat reports with hundreds of "B24's shot down".

My biggest problem with the whole "American 4 Engines are overpowering" argument is fact I don't see proof Japan had any success.

Granted my argument is this - Japan didn't have the Fw-190 or Me-262, but relied on aircraft that were underpowered, undergunned, and had no armor protection - even when they gained stats in one area, other areas were still under-stated. You can say the Ki-84 and N1Jk George were top of the line models coming out of Japan, but look how late in the war they came out, what pilots did the Japanese have left?

This debate can go on forever and ever, lets all just reach some mutual agreement Japan did not have a real "bomber interceptor" and that's just how the war went. Hell why can't we argue who had the best legs in ww2?


_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 50
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 11:23:40 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Marlene Dietrich of course :)

_____________________________



(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 51
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 11:52:34 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Marlene Dietrich of course :)


Pic's!! I demand pictures if you're going to vote.



_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 52
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/19/2010 11:58:16 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2102
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.



I'll second this!

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 53
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 12:47:34 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

And I might contend that, based on the average accuracy of the strategic bombing campaign, the average bomber crew was no better at hitting a factory on Mission #50 than they were on Mission #1 in theater. The only thing they might have been better at was staying alive to make it home. Other than that they hit the bomb release when the flight leader said go. So how much should they're bombing skill go up? Compare that to the gains they made from the first day of bomber training to the day they were sent to Europe. Which represents the greater increase in basic skill level? Who knows.




You really should learn to read what somewhat says before you dash off a reply. I agreed with you that "training" is a more effective means of gaining skill than "combat'..., up to a point. For the sake of arguement I picked 0-50. But at a certain point, WW II style training "hit the wall" (no "top gun" schools available)..., and to improve further required actual combat experiance. Same is true for all aspects of combat, including bombing.

You are correct that the 8th Air Force did not have a great record for accurate bombing. But that comes from a different factor entirely. After training to bomb individually, the 8th was forced to adopt "defensive box formations" by the resistance of the Luftwaffe. Which meant "formation bombing" and the subsequent loss of individual accuracy. A better example for this discussion would be RAF Bomber Command.

While fully trained before being sent into action, Bomber Command found it difficult to hit the right province, let alone city, in 1942. But by 1944, during the "transportation offensive" before D-Day, Bomber Command proved far more accurate in destroying RR yards at night than the 8th or 9th Air Force during the day. They had learned the art of combat bombing (and developed the needed technology) by actually doing it.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 54
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 1:43:03 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

You don't know who The Elf is, do you?

Whatever you wish to express, please do not contribute to the number of misinformed players trying to frustrate the developers of WitP/AE.
If and when the developers stop their valued work we all will be lost.



I'll second this!


me too

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 55
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 2:00:32 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....


Well since you claim to know better, then let me clue YOU in on some things here:

1) the 5 "lowest skill" pilots on that list joined the squadron when the size increased from 8 to 12 (thats 10 pilots to 16, I had actually 11 pilots since 1 joined when a crew was wounded so was in fact over strength by 1). So the other 11 pilots that you so calmly are over-looking have been flying since the group came back in what? April? And their skill is...?

2) You ever had bullets flying at you? I have.

Not sure how this is relevant, but I'm game...

Do you want to compare by the millimeter or solid rocket fuel weight?

< Message edited by TheElf -- 4/20/2010 2:13:14 AM >


_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Who Cares)
Post #: 56
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 2:07:33 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Who Cares

Well, those are MY bombers. But you miss the point.

15 hex maximum (normal) range for the B-17E. If you look, they are based at Dacca and flying night bombing missions to Rangoon 100% strength (none on rest). Every night, 15 hexes out and 15 hexes back. For several months straight. 2 operational losses and 1 write off in all that time. 1275psi, if you think this is historically accurate, you need better sources sir.

Second issue. Look at the ground bombing levels for those pilots. If I had them on training for that same period they would all be in the 70s. Actually truth be told, all their levels in 2 categories would be in the 70s (as it only takes 2 months to go from 40s to 70s "in training"). Am I really the only one that finds it hard to swallow that a person learns faster "in training" than by flying actual missions? Again, historically accurate? If so, then why would the 56th fighter group not allow anyone with less than 10 combat missions under his belt to engage "the Abbyville boys"? Combat experience is so head and shoulders above "training" it isn't even in the same league, but the devs of this "simulation" know better I guess.

Normally I would enter this sort of arena with some measure of patience, but... <Patient Dev persona off..>

Actually we do know better. Let me direct you to your five lowest EXP crews. First note that they are all between 33-46 EXP. Next take a look at their defensive (DEFN) skills. Now note the color of those numbers. What do you notice? They are mostly red or green. This means those values have recently increased. Now as comparison look at the rest of your pilots, what do you notice there? How bout that they don't seem to be learning at the same rate...this is by design. Once you get to a certain level of EXP it is a known fact that it takes much more work, much more learning to increase an already high level of knowledge/EXP. This is by desing as well. EXP gain in AE slows proportionally as it increases in value.

Now to your facetious quip about flying combat missions being the mother of all EXP movers, and how historically inaccurate this is, and the Devs are <insert mildly insulting verbage>....Crowley, Jackson, French, Jenkins, and Leach have only flown average of what looks to be 13 missions, but hey what do I know? Should they REALLY be in the 70's "Who cares"? REALLY? What do you know that I don't?

For someone who is so intent on managing his pilots EXP, an outsider has to ask, why are you flying these guys at all and not training them up somewhere outside the combat zone? IF you really ARE worried about their EXP....to me you look like an impatient allied player who is not using all the tools I've provided you to manage your pilots and air groups, who then wanks about it when he doesn't see what he wants to see. Whether that be a correct thing or not. Am I right?

Finally, seeing as how each of these bottom 5 pilots have seen their skills go up, in what? 13 days... (it is 13 SEP) and two of them have seen increases in the last week, what would be YOUR preferred rate of skill increase? I have my golden notepad at the ready.

<<patient Dev Persona BACK on>>

Sorry folks, I don't know what happened there....


Well since you claim to know better, then let me clue YOU in on some things here:

1) the 5 "lowest skill" pilots on that list joined the squadron when the size increased from 8 to 12 (thats 10 pilots to 16, I had actually 11 pilots since 1 joined when a crew was wounded so was in fact over strength by 1). So the other 11 pilots that you so calmly are over-looking have been flying since the group came back in what? April? And their skill is...?

2) You ever had bullets flying at you? I have.

It looks to me like their skill AND their EXP in the 70s. Which seems reasonable to me given that you stated they've been in combat for a couple months. What do you think it should be? And on what criteria do you base this opinion?

I guess at this point it is fair to say that I am not sure what exactly you are complaining about....

< Message edited by TheElf -- 4/20/2010 2:12:16 AM >


_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Who Cares)
Post #: 57
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 2:10:33 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline
double post...

< Message edited by TheElf -- 4/20/2010 2:12:39 AM >


_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 58
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 3:28:21 AM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Briz Vegas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Not sure how this is relevant, but I'm game...

Do you want to compare by the millimeter or solid rocket fuel weight?


I don't think you should be able to count the propellant weight unless I get to include the weight of the watery tart that lobbed the scimitar at me. Her muscle mass was the propellant you see...Oh well, did I ever say that I actually think the system works well?

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 59
RE: Oscar v B17E - 4/20/2010 6:17:52 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14903
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Unburned propellant should count. It's part of the projectile.

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Oscar v B17E Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.727