Training

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

LeeChard
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:24 pm
Location: Michigan

Training

Post by LeeChard »

What is the consensus:
Is it worth it putting some of your expert(Japanese)pilots in training
command or do you leave them in active squadrons?
User avatar
btd64
Posts: 12736
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:48 am
Location: Lancaster, OHIO

RE: Training

Post by btd64 »

I do it with the Allies. I would think Yes, do it....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Training

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

What is the consensus:
Is it worth it putting some of your expert(Japanese)pilots in training
command or do you leave them in active squadrons?

This can improve the starting experience of pilots coming out of school. I prefer the opposite though. Plus I'd rather keep my best pilots available for times I need them.

Pilots train faster the more raw they are. So you get a 25exp pilot and you can train quickly to 70 air skill and then train 100ft sweep for defense and get them to around 45-50exp. A month on CAP in rear positions and they're 55-60exp. Or just go with the 45-50exp guys and let their skills get them through to a few kills that raise their exp.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
dcpollay
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:58 am
Location: Upstate New York USA

RE: Training

Post by dcpollay »

Is that correct? My understanding of putting experienced pilots in Training Command was that it increased the speed at which recruits graduated from training, not their experience level.
"It's all according to how your boogaloo situation stands, you understand."

Formerly known as Colonel Mustard, before I got Slitherine Syndrome.
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: Training

Post by jmalter »

Hi Colonel, my reading here is that you're right - pilots in TRACOM 'accelerate' recruit pilot training. But there's also a 'chance' that 'some' recruits 'might' gain some experience. I assume that such a gain would be negligible, as compared to the Exp gain the recruits normally receive from their training.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Training

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Colonel Mustard

Is that correct? My understanding of putting experienced pilots in Training Command was that it increased the speed at which recruits graduated from training, not their experience level.

Correct.

TRACOM does not improve the graduating experience level of pilots beyond their national average. But ...

Pilots can graduate below the average national experience level. Having experten in TRACOM, in addition to possibly accelerating pilots through the 12 month training course, can limit the degree of graduating below the national average.

Alfred
User avatar
Yakface
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:43 am

RE: Training

Post by Yakface »

Obvert is right - IMO The marginal benefit of maintaining national experience/accelerating trainees is nothing compared to having those experienced pilots in frontline groups.

Using your best pilots (especially fighter) in combat roles will reduce losses, increase enemy losses of planes and pilots and improve mission success, compared to having a much lower experienced pilot.

Just say no to Tracom - it's a trap

GetAssista
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: Training

Post by GetAssista »

ORIGINAL: Yakface
Using your best pilots (especially fighter) in combat roles will reduce losses, increase enemy losses of planes and pilots and improve mission success, compared to having a much lower experienced pilot.

Just say no to Tracom - it's a trap
I respectfully disagree as a JFB. Early Japanese fighters are fragile flying zippos. But they see a lot of action against even more crappy allied planes early in the war and make a lot of aces in the process. Would be unwise to keep those aces in early Zeroes or Oscars, they are far more lethal when preserved (in TRACOM) until better planes. Full 81+ George or Frank daitai is epic on CAP trap.
LeeChard
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:24 pm
Location: Michigan

RE: Training

Post by LeeChard »

Plenty of food for thought. Thanks folks.
Uncivil Engineer
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Location: Florida, USA

RE: Training

Post by Uncivil Engineer »

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Obvert is right - IMO The marginal benefit of maintaining national experience/accelerating trainees is nothing compared to having those experienced pilots in frontline groups.

Using your best pilots (especially fighter) in combat roles will reduce losses, increase enemy losses of planes and pilots and improve mission success, compared to having a much lower experienced pilot.

Just say no to Tracom - it's a trap


I also respectfully disagree. Playing Japan I don't go whole hog putting experienced pilots in TRACOM, but I carefully watch their fatigue levels, and when fatigue gets too high flying front line, they go to TRACOM for a week's rest (+/-). I don't care whether they made ace or not; if they otherwise qualify for TRACOM and are tired, they go. Replacing 1 or 2 pilots in a large squadron doesn't make that much difference.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Training

Post by Macclan5 »

Obviously there is a difference of opinion... and I have wondered about TRACOM myself.

Nice thread - thanks as I am sure other players (especially newer ones) wonder about this from experienced players.


---


Everything I have learned about TRACOM from the (a) the manual (b) newbie FAQ (3) forum searches

:)

1A) Pilots become TRACOM eligible at experience 80.

1) TRACOM does not increase the experience of novice pilots verses the National Average

2) TRACOM hurries the raw recruits through the training cycle

3) TRACOM assists keeping "National Averages from degrading" if the player has a significant loss of experienced pilots (further supported by Alfred's post above)

But the big question unanswered is:

4) There is no 'known mathematical equation' to the correct number of pilots in TRACOM to "optimize performance" but every 10 or blocks of 10 seem to have the best effect??

I hate to come across as a game "power player - optimizer - algorithm geek" but beyond whether you use TRACOM or not .... does anyone have a "formula" for success that balances front line needs with the benefits of TRACOM (assuming you agree with them)

Its rather vague how many to place into TRACOM i.e. evidence is anecdotal.

I have ended up placing and rotating : 10 USArmy 10 US Navy 10 British 10 Aussie and 10 China... I lack enough front line NZKiwis or Canucks to be that concerned.

Is that what other allied players use ?

Or is it simply 10 Total ??

Or should you ramp up TRACOM size relative to the total number of recruits?

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Training

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

60s/ 70s experience level pilots is all you need early on because of quantitative and qualitative advantage. Moreover, sweeping against Buffalos can dramatically increase the experience of those 60s/ 70s pilots to TRACOM level rather quickly

So for me, TRACOM's main advantage is keeping ace pilots alive until they are needed, that's the benefit as it is not a secret that Japanese planes are low durability death traps.

Accelerating pilot graduation and/ or keeping them on the national average is just a nice bonus
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Training

Post by geofflambert »

My general feelings are, regardless of which side you are on, that it is a luxury you cannot afford. It's one thing to have Lindbergh coach some folks since you can't actually deploy him, it's another to have a way to put them in temporary reserve, but you can do that with on the map training units and I do believe their very presence (not as squadron commander) improves training to experience, especially in units that are only lightly engaged with the enemy. There may be times when you want to get those fellows out of harms way, but there will be others when you need to bring out the big guns. As far as reality goes (as opposed to the game) the recruits in basic training about how to fly an airplane are not ready to absorb the wisdom of an ace. Don't waste them there. Instead improve your on the map training program.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Training

Post by geofflambert »

Let me say something about your "on the map training program". Whichever side you are on, if 50% (give or take a tiny bit) of your air squadrons are not consumed with training or at least largely consumed with training, you will not be able to provide quality replacements to your active air force squadrons. You can say that this is a special concern for the Japanese and you would be right (mostly). If you are the Allied player, however, if you aren't particularly careful with British and Commonwealth squadrons you will find yourself with no planes and no qualified air crews to fly them even if you had them. The main thing I would impress upon you is the need to have US engineers of all types less combat engineers, US fighter squadrons (bombers would mostly have only poor targets to attack, but air superiority must be achieved if you are to have successful offensive operations) plus some US ground troops to give some oomph to a ground offensive. If handled correctly, the US is able to replace all battle losses in both air crews and aircraft, but I stress "if handled correctly". The Brits cannot carry their own weight, end of story.

edit: I read my post and saw it was not clear. What I meant is that the Allied player needs to insert the following into the India/Burma theatre:

A) Engineers; some port but mostly air and construction types. The Brits will never, ever, ever provide adequate supplies of those.

B) All the transports you are allowed to send there (C-47s mostly).

C) Fighter squadrons; start right away sending at least a couple (on Dec. 8) and build on that. P-39s and P-40s will be fine for the time being.

D) HQs, Army and Navy, just a few, the Brits don't have a surplus of anything, to say the least.

E) In my view this is merely, and I mean merely, a minimum. A US Army Corps. Artillery and a little armor (not too much). If you're planning on taking major fortified cities, say Rangoon, add one or two combat engineer units.

User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Training

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Let me say something about your "on the map training program". Whichever side you are on, if 50% (give or take a tiny bit) of your air squadrons are not consumed with training or at least largely consumed with training, you will not be able to provide quality replacements to your active air force squadrons. You can say that this is a special concern for the Japanese and you would be right (mostly). If you are the Allied player, however, if you aren't particularly careful with British and Commonwealth squadrons you will find yourself with no planes and no qualified air crews to fly them even if you had them. The main thing I would impress upon you is the need to have US engineers of all types less combat engineers, US fighter squadrons (bombers would mostly have only poor targets to attack, but air superiority must be achieved if you are to have successful offensive operations) plus some US ground troops to give some oomph to a ground offensive. If handled correctly, the US is able to replace all battle losses in both air crews and aircraft, but I stress "if handled correctly". The Brits cannot carry their own weight, end of story.

edit: I read my post and saw it was not clear. What I meant is that the Allied player needs to insert the following into the India/Burma theatre:

A) Engineers; some port but mostly air and construction types. The Brits will never, ever, ever provide adequate supplies of those.

B) All the transports you are allowed to send there (C-47s mostly).

C) Fighter squadrons; start right away sending at least a couple (on Dec. 8) and build on that. P-39s and P-40s will be fine for the time being.

D) HQs, Army and Navy, just a few, the Brits don't have a surplus of anything, to say the least.

E) In my view this is merely, and I mean merely, a minimum. A US Army Corps. Artillery and a little armor (not too much). If you're planning on taking major fortified cities, say Rangoon, add one or two combat engineer units.
So, how many engineer squads is an elephant worth? An how much supply does it use for each day of operations? [:D]
And do you need to hire the Mahout too?
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Training

Post by rustysi »

OK, to stay on topic here this is my slant on training and having pilots in reserve/TRACOM.
Training Command was that it increased the speed at which recruits graduated from training

First let me say this (and I have before) it doesn't work. It had in the past, but somewhere along the line something happened. In over twelve months of my last two games not a single pilot advanced. I just started working on something in an attempt to shed more light on this and will post when I have results. It looks like it may take a while as my first attempts at coming up with data have been lacking to say the least. Not that I'm not getting what I expect its just I'm unable to get the game to adhere to my parameters. IOW the AI keeps taking my TRACOM guy back outta the pools.[:D]

That being said I still view putting pilots into reserve/TRACOM as very important. OK, as you should be, you train pilots. Once they get their respective skills up to the desired levels (usually ~70) they'll still only have an experience level of ~50. Now that's not bad, but it should be better. So, what to do? Well I generally have my ground air units comprised of ~25-33% 81+ experience, ~50% in the 70's experience, and the remaining 10-20% of the 50+ experience level. IOW I'll rotate some of my high experience pilots to my reserve in order to get some of those lees experience guys into the fray so they can get there experience up. That is as long as they survive, and in my experience most of them do, as my losses haven't been unacceptable. BTW when it comes to carrier air units its another story... Nothing but the best.

In addition to building up a reserve this allows me to flesh out fresh (reinforcement) units with an experienced cadre. Now, it is time consuming, but then I'll never be one to bang out multiple turns a day.[:D]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
Yakface
Posts: 846
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:43 am

RE: Training

Post by Yakface »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

60s/ 70s experience level pilots is all you need early on because of quantitative and qualitative advantage. Moreover, sweeping against Buffalos can dramatically increase the experience of those 60s/ 70s pilots to TRACOM level rather quickly

So for me, TRACOM's main advantage is keeping ace pilots alive until they are needed, that's the benefit as it is not a secret that Japanese planes are low durability death traps.

Accelerating pilot graduation and/ or keeping them on the national average is just a nice bonus

Using 60 or 70 xp/skill pilots will give the allied pilots a better chance in air combat than using your 80 skill/xp pilots. A better chance means the allied pilots are more likely to survive and gain experience/skill and be tougher next fight. Air combat has a (gentle) positive feedback effect on pilot quality. As such, you want to stack the deck as much as possible.

"Early Japanese planes are low durability death traps"? Seriously? For the first 6 months Japan has the advantage in plane quality. You are never going to have it again after that. 80xp pilots in Zero's just won't be shot down in the first few months (if managed right). Keeping high xp pilots alive by keeping them out of combat is, IMO, a false economy.

Even if it were a good idea for the first few months, by 3-6 months in, the allies are going to have 70 xp/skill pilots as standard (assuming a competent training program) - at that point you are surely going to want your best on the front line so you can maintain at least some advantage.

If the above doesn't persuade, then surely we can agree that the best of the best (IJNAF) would be better off in the KB than in Tracom? Don't think I have ever had enough 80xp pilots to fill out my entire carrier force.

Somebody mentioned fatigue. Fatigue doesn't start having an effect until it reaches 20 (IIRC) and halves every day a pilot rests. It is very easy to keep fatigue down without having to transfer the pilots to TRACOM

Do Japan a favour and don't give the (allied) sucker an even break: use your best pilots at a time when you have the best planes.

User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Training

Post by Macclan5 »

So the definitive answer is [8D]

If a Japan player:

1) USE TRACOM as a rotation tool to keep special aces alive for End of War and better planes
2) Never USE TRACOM because its a false economy... use rotate aces through critical units especially the KB ; keep the pressure up especially in early way

If an Allied player:

1) Use TRACOM for full benefits
2) ONLY use TRACOM for British forces in the India / Burma / China theater because the Brits are fragile in terms of a/c frames, replacements, and need USArmy A/c anyway
3) NEVER use TRACOM - devote the time to training you pilots on map

Thanks gentlemen and ladies - clear as mud [:D]

In seriousness this is very very informative and the opinions are eloquently explained.


Ultimately it does appear that TRACOM is simply one more tool in the tool box to be used as the builder see fit...

Again the lesson for a newbie (re-enforced) is don't sweat it on being perfect / optimal. Good enough is perfect in this game and you have to react to circumstances.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Training

Post by PaxMondo »

Mmmm, this is pretty straight up simple concept. Not sure why so much discussion.

TC simply moves them along faster through school. So, if you are in a scenario where you want/need more pilots then use it. However, at least for the IJ, most scenarios (Scen 2 in particular) have more pilots than you want/need then it would seem a waste to put any pilots in TC. If you want to hoard good pilots, just put them into general reserve. No reason to send them to TC. Bottom line, for what it is worth, I haven't used it in years.

Allies? haven't played enough to know for sure, but their pilot replacement rates are even higher than the IJ so I suspect the same concepts would apply.
Pax
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Training

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

Yakface, I guess we may agree to disagree. (I am Playing DBB-C scenario 1, PDU OFF)

Against Zeroes with 60s/ 70s exp and skill, Allied fighters (early war) will still be shot down like flies. But they will survive regardless because their planes have armor, better durability and they will mostly fight over their bases. You can confirm this by playing Allies or against the AI and switch sides... you will see many squadrons with +20 aircraft losses and no more than 5 pilots KIA. In the meantime, those 60s pilot will become 70s and 70s will become 80s because of the experience gained on shooting down their opponents.

Regarding "ace" losses; you are right a 80s EXP fighter pilot has a good chance to survive a dogfight, but what about OPS losses? you can expect 2 to 3 planes down every turn, just on landing accidents, damaged planes that didn't return, etc. in many of those occasions, the pilot will die too.
Not to mention a 80 EXP bomber pilot; these are the most difficult to replace and CAP traps, flak, unescorted bombing runs will easily deplete a squadron.
You can easily lose 5 to 10 pilots OPS every time you send the KB on extended operations. That doesn't mean I will put 60s on the KB, instead a few TRACOM material, and lots and lots of 70s pilots.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”