Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search...

 
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 >> Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 3:43:48 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

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.
Post #: 1
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 4:17:04 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8380
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 2
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 4:29:01 AM   
cap_and_gown


Posts: 2691
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 12:59:47 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4616
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
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...

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to cap_and_gown)
Post #: 4
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 1:20:46 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2431
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
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

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 5
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 1:44:36 PM   
mcissell

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 2/11/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 6
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 2:08:54 PM   
Panther Bait


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

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 7
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 2:19:33 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8380
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 8
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 2:38:56 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8380
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to mcissell)
Post #: 9
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 2:46:20 PM   
Nomad

 

Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 10
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 3:56:48 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18493
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 4:45:59 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3615
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 12
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 4:52:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7426
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 13
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 4:58:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7426
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 14
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 6:09:41 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2448
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
doh, re-read post....deleted

< Message edited by Kwik E Mart -- 5/20/2010 6:11:03 PM >


_____________________________

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.


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 15
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 8:05:34 PM   
mcissell

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 2/11/2010
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 16
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 9:29:28 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

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.


< Message edited by fbs -- 5/20/2010 11:36:38 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 9:41:10 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15190
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

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.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 18
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 10:04:00 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 812
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
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.  

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/20/2010 11:56:36 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8380
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 20
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 12:27:02 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8380
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The search mission took a lot of special training.  Early in the war the US put up every plane that could stay up for more than a couple of hours on coastal search.  Along the East Coast and into the Caribbean German U-boats were operating with impunity.  One U-boat sank a bunch of ships within sight of Miami others operated off the ports in the north.

US search efforts were terrible.  Search aircraft frequently missed u-boats on the surface or crash diving when they came near and the few attacks they made were mostly fruitless.  They made lots of reports of enemy warships that turned out to be friendly, or in some cases freighters.

Even later in the war sighting reports were maddeningly vague and inaccurate.  Even experienced search crews would miss the obvious or report ships as different types than they were.  It was not uncommon for DDs to be reported as BBs.

Ship ID is an important skill for which there is often never enough training.  Air sea rescue, which was another job of patrol squadrons is a tricky operation that requires a lot of training.  Landing on the open ocean is very tricky.  One of the PBYs that picked up one of the downed VF-8 pilots got caught in rough seas and barely made it back into the air.  When it landed at Midway, the hull started leaking badly and the plane just barely made it to the beach before sinking. 

Search crews also need extra navigation training.  Flying over the ocean is more difficult than flying over land and knowing exactly where you are in the middle of nowhere is critical to getting off an accurate spotting report.  Flying combat from a carrier, you just need to reverse your heading to head back and when you've flown x number of miles, you start searching around for the carrier, you'll usually find it.  Flying over land, you look for landmarks to reorient yourself.  Flying a search mission, the navigator needs to know where you are in the search leg so when something is spotted, an accurate location can be sent.  A bad location will send the strike off in the wrong direction.  Search planes also return from a search on a different vector than a carrier strike would do, so again, they need better navigation.

Good naval search is one of the most difficult missions to train for.  The mission itself is mostly boring, which makes it all the more imperative to train crews to stay alert and search constantly.  Having poorly trained search crews can make the difference between victory and defeat in a naval battle.

Transport crews probably don't need tremendous training, though they do need extra nav training if they are flying over water.  The Pacific is full of small islands and if you miss one, you could end up vanishing forever.  Amelia Ehrhart is one example.

I also haven't noticed any big difference with transport crews that had a lot of training vs those who didn't.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 21
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 12:37:48 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

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.


Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.



_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 22
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 1:00:47 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
By the end of 1942, I had in the vicinity of 400 dedicated USN training slots. Not counting the training CV pilots can sneak in when not in a combat zone.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 23
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 1:16:12 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15190
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Use a Catalina squadron to train USN torpedo pilots.

From reading - I think it was called - The Big E, the carriers used radio beacons to guide in aircraft. Perhaps not all the time, but it was mentioned plenty in the stories of pilots returning to the carrier.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 24
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 8:53:30 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4616
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
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.


I disagree on this Chickenboy. Exp is THE attribute. Op losses, coordination. Both suck if you fly with theoreticians...
On the long run you lose too many airframes if you don´t look at the exp value of pilots imo.

So if I want to train a pilot on naval search I set part on nav search and part on training, reduce the range to a couple of hexes to avoid fatigue and leave the squad alone for
some time.


< Message edited by LoBaron -- 5/21/2010 8:54:57 AM >


_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 25
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 2:56:55 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I disagree on this Chickenboy. Exp is THE attribute. Op losses, coordination. Both suck if you fly with theoreticians...
On the long run you lose too many airframes if you don´t look at the exp value of pilots imo.


Yes, this general EXP is indeed important. But the fact is that you really cannot raise that "experience" via training. Well, you can... but it takes a very loooong time. As I see it (on my game that is), you are forced to throw the pilots to combat (as long as their specific skill is good enough): the specific skill will be around 60, the general exp will be around 40 or 45. After a few COMBAT missions those who survive will easily reach 55 or 60 exp.

Witpqs, I hadn't thought about the Catalinas. Right! They can train pilots for the Torpedo Bombers. I would like to have TRAINING squadrons though. The Kingfishers I mentioned above would be good as ASW units. And the Catalinas, well, you just have few units.

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 5/21/2010 3:03:49 PM >


_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 26
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 9:53:27 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7426
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

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.


Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.




How do you train fighter pilots with these units? I don't see where you can put them on "escort". Am I missing something? They are fine for training divebomber crews but you still have the problem with fighter pilots and torpedo bomber crews until you get the CVEs. This is a serious handicap if you plan on fighting your carriers in early to mid 1942-especially with the Japanese overly effective AA fire.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 27
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 9:56:16 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7426
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Use a Catalina squadron to train USN torpedo pilots.

From reading - I think it was called - The Big E, the carriers used radio beacons to guide in aircraft. Perhaps not all the time, but it was mentioned plenty in the stories of pilots returning to the carrier.



That is a great tip. Never did think of that. Of course, I don't have enough cat squadrons as it is.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 28
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 10:41:38 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 4452
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


quote:

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.


Nomad, yes, you have these units. The Kingfishers in the West Coast (by may you have like 7 or 8 such units). You can train pilots for your Dive Bombers and Fighters (it's what I do). You can't train pilots for your Torpedo Bombers though. When you send to the General Reserve the trained pilots of these Kingfisher units they will be part of the "Patrol Reserve" (of the US Navy => perfect for your carriers). SO you must use the "Request Veteran" thing. The game allows you to choose (for your carriers) pilots even if they are part of the "patrol reserve". The service is what matters (USN so no problem). You have to choose the pilots you want one by one, true.




How do you train fighter pilots with these units? I don't see where you can put them on "escort". Am I missing something? They are fine for training divebomber crews but you still have the problem with fighter pilots and torpedo bomber crews until you get the CVEs. This is a serious handicap if you plan on fighting your carriers in early to mid 1942-especially with the Japanese overly effective AA fire.




crsutton, not on escort, but on SWEEP. It will do the trick

_____________________________

Russian Kung Fu Masters. Hurraaaa!!!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 29
RE: Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... - 5/21/2010 11:25:34 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8380
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.  


Training maxes out at 70 and pilots gain experience slower as they approach 70. Getting into the 50s is easy, then it will be a slower learning curve to 70.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Doing Naval Search vs. Training Naval Search... Page: [1] 2   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

0.113