Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

As for favouring any side , im not going to go there as its a flame magnet .

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Wanted to have a bit of discussion on this alogrithm. The current alogrithm has the rate of skill learning inversely tied experience. In the game what this causes is for players to train low exp pilots in all the skills they want first and then focus on gaining their exp.

Not entirely inaccurate, but a bit counter-intuitive. You would think that higher exp pilots would be able to gain skills at least as fast as low exp pilots. In fact, you could make a good arguement that higher exp pilots would gain such skills quicker.

The gameplay issues are numerous. For example: You can't take your experienced pilots in naval search (PBY's) and use them in an ASW role (essentially ever as they gain ASW skill so slow). You have to wait until your new pilots train ASW and then gain exp.

My proposal, subject to discussion here and general approval by this august body, would be to modify the pilot traiing alogrithm slightly.

1. skill increase to be dependent only upon current skill level, not pilot exp. (change)
2. skill increase to be faster at lower skill levels. (no change)
3. skill cap to be 70. (no change)

In gameplay, this will slightly favor the IJ in the early game as it starts with more exp pilots, and will then benefit the allies in the later war as their pool of exp pilots expands. In other words, fairly minor impact overall. But will remove a bothersome (at least to me) dichotomy.

Thoughts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

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... ).

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 don´t 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 )

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Anyways, IMHO the player should be confronted with the results of training, not the training itself.

If though Michael does not want to touch this pandoras box I can understand only too well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The problem here is to discern gain from actual combat and from flying combat missions without enemy contact
with a very similar algorithm.
I agree with you that there that the skill gains are highly variable depending on mission type, but I have no
idea how to solve it in a way that does not impact other gameplay spects or simply delays the effect or increases
another effect in a negative way.

The reason why ground bombing has this exaggerated effect, is because every single pilot has a combat
mission with enemy contact every single time he flies an attack.
The same skill gain is subdued on ASW because an actual engagement is a rare event. Same for NavS missions
or naval atttack.

If you say for example, the solution is to simply increase the exp/skill gain for flying combat missions without enemy contact,
you know what you would create? Elite fighter pilots who became such by flying circles on CAP over their airbase without
ever spotting an enemy plane.
Tough task...


Anyways, IMHO the player should be confronted with the results of training, not the training itself.

If though Michael does not want to touch this pandoras box I can understand only too well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The problem here is to discern gain from actual combat and from flying combat missions without enemy contact
with a very similar algorithm.
I agree with you that there that the skill gains are highly variable depending on mission type, but I have no
idea how to solve it in a way that does not impact other gameplay spects or simply delays the effect or increases
another effect in a negative way.

The reason why ground bombing has this exaggerated effect, is because every single pilot has a combat
mission with enemy contact every single time he flies an attack.
The same skill gain is subdued on ASW because an actual engagement is a rare event. Same for NavS missions
or naval atttack.

If you say for example, the solution is to simply increase the exp/skill gain for flying combat missions without enemy contact,
you know what you would create? Elite fighter pilots who became such by flying circles on CAP over their airbase without
ever spotting an enemy plane.
Tough task...


Anyways, IMHO the player should be confronted with the results of training, not the training itself.

If though Michael does not want to touch this pandoras box I can understand only too well.

OR studies showed WWII aircrew improved faster in training than in combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would simultaneously tone down the carnage wrought by highly skilled pilots to a more realistic level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would simultaneously tone down the carnage wrought by highly skilled pilots to a more realistic level.

What Carnage? So you are saying experienced pilots should not chew up rookies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think pilot training now - in the Beta - is fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would simultaneously tone down the carnage wrought by highly skilled pilots to a more realistic level.

What Carnage? So you are saying experienced pilots should not chew up rookies?

There's often a fine line between being brief and to the point, and being unclear. I tried to be the former, and somewhat achieved the latter!

Air to air they should chew up rookies, no doubt about it. I am fairly certain that would not change because the difference between the skill sets and experience levels would still be very great.

I am mostly talking about other types of effects. For one example, by the time they reach a certain skill/experience level, even Japanese pilots (who have much less effective technology and doctrine/tactics at their disposal) get ASW results that are akin to what you would expect of 1980's NATO versus WWII era subs.

I've also seen plenty of comments about the results achieved by MB and HB against land troops, airfields, and so on. The same for attacks on ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would simultaneously tone down the carnage wrought by highly skilled pilots to a more realistic level.

What Carnage? So you are saying experienced pilots should not chew up rookies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would simultaneously tone down the carnage wrought by highly skilled pilots to a more realistic level.

What Carnage? So you are saying experienced pilots should not chew up rookies?

Just read a book with some figures... from USAAF and Luftwaffe means European TOW. But I guess also valid for Pacific. Conclusion of Author (for Luftwaffe) is that somehow the "Experten" shot down a major number of enemy planes. Means suggest Exp and skill is really THAT important....in real life. He also comes to the conlcusion that "rookies" often got shot down before they even could reach any level to be able to shoot down Allied planes at all (for 44+45). He also provides numbers and percentages but I don´t have the book here. It was written by an US pilot, he met with some aces from US,GB + Ger. I might quote some of the numbers if of interest here later (weekend). The book is called "Fighter Aces". I found some minor errors in it however, like he says the B17 has 10 20mm cannons (?) that could not prevent their demise however, but only when longrange escort got to the front in high numbers the air war in Europe changed in favor for the Allies. The conclusion is true, but the B17 has MGs not guns. Laso he confused the Me109F and E model at one occasion: That might not distract from the validity of his data though. But it´s only for fighters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Yeah, but I don´t have enough sources to the other balls of wax to add worthwhile comments, so I posted about air to air  I could imagine in other missions it might be the same, but guess you meant this paragraph:

"I am mostly talking about other types of effects. For one example, by the time they reach a certain skill/experience level, even Japanese pilots (who have much less effective technology and doctrine/tactics at their disposal) get ASW results that are akin to what you would expect of 1980's NATO versus WWII era subs. "

Well one needed to research Japanese ASW to give a better answer. In my limited knowledge the Japs were always behind in ASW they got better later, but never as good as USA/Britain. I have not seen these deadly ASW effects of the Jap personally (well planes sometimes hit, but often the sub is not even damaged, rarely sunk). I noticed hoewever the boost the Jap get´s since 43 for surface asw. They are now much better in detecting allied subs and make succesful DC attacks. Except Jap merchant gunners, they were/are always good (in game) 

But to the time Japan got better in ASW, it was already too late, too much ships sunk, too much good pilots lost etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Suppose your replacements are 10s, a green nugget is 30, and an expert after three years in the fleet is 90. (These figures are reasonable, by the way, for both experience and practiced skills.) The rate of increase should be about 20/year. Assuming 20 missions a month, there should be a 1 in 12 chance of a +1 in experience and/or an applicable skill per mission. Cap training at 50 for skills and experience.