Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units

 
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 >> Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/7/2018 1:13:40 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3592
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: online
With the understanding that code changes are 99% unlikely going forward, I've been kicking something around:

It is my *opinion* that the penalty for carrier capable air groups that are not non-carrier trained is not handled as it could be.

As current, a carrier capable unit that is NOT carrier trained requires 90 days (non-continuous) service aboard a carrier to become carrier trained. Carrier capable units that are not yet carrier trained suffer a mildly increased chance for ops loss when stationed on a carrier. The penalty was much greater while in the alpha stage, and was much lamented (not by me, I liked it), which led to the penalty being nerfed (either in beta or just after release, I forget).

It is my opinion that it is too easy to stuff a carrier with non-trained capable units without significant penalty and that such penalties should be reinstated. My caveat is this: the length of training time should be cut 30 continuous days, and that any carrier trained unit off ship for more than 90 days loses its carrier trained status.

Discuss.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Post #: 1
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/7/2018 2:58:42 PM   
Korvar


Posts: 813
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline
If development limitations and commercial considerations are not considered, then in general I would support any moves which push WitP:AE closer to a simulator.

With limitations in mind, carrier qual status as it stands doesn't bother me. Part of that is micromanaging pilots is one of my least favorite things to do in the game. Lack of some interface elements, such as a fully functioning double-column sort, really give me pause about adding any additional micro to pilot management. There would need to be a HUGE benefit offset to justify it.

If one were aiming more for a simulator, the biggest problem is the paradigm used in the first place. Squadrons are 'carrier qualified' in name only, only because they are assumed to be a homogenous group of pilots in the short term. It's the PILOTS who are or are not qualified - nothing else. The game currently doesn't account for individual pilot qualification, other than an abstraction into skills. For example, in the game you could carrier qualify a squadron, swap out ALL the pilots, and the squadron would still be carrier qualified... doesn't quite translate to the real world.

Let's sidestep to modern IRL training for a minute - any newcomers to a squadron are also expected to train to the standards of the squadron. I'm not familiar with the particulars of modern Navy squadron onboarding. The Air Force requires that a syllabus for every new pilot (FNG - F'ing New Guy) to a squadron be developed by a squadron instructor pilot (usually the Weapons Officer who for a fighter squadron is ideally also a graduate of the Fighter Weapons School at Nellis.... basically 'Top Gun' on steroids). Even a high-ranking officer with 1,000s of hours in the particular aircraft and mission types of the squadron will still have a basic syllabus to complete, even if it's nothing other than LAO (Local Area Orientation). Before the pilot even arrives, he/she will have typically already completed their IQs (initial qualifications) and checkouts - the training syllabus is ON TOP of all that, but certainly any deficiencies will be taken care of in the process. Not until ALL the training is complete is a pilot considered MR (Mission Ready). Continuous training at intervals is required to maintain MR status.

Training during WWII was nothing like that. MR status often meant you were sent on your 1st mission and came back alive. A lot of training shortcuts which would never be tolerated in peacetime conditions were used to expedite the flow of fighting men to the front lines. Even college programs and military academy training was severely quickened in the name of commissioning more officers. Thus, "on the job training" was pretty much standard practice at the time.

That said, of course carrier qual training was something actively pursued. The only time squadrons realistically had to do this was sometime around/between the commissioning and shakedown cruise portions of a new carrier's service. Beyond the shakedown, carriers like all other vessels were expected to forward deploy and contribute to the war effort, ready or not.

I'm not 100% sure regarding the FAA, but I know the US Navy gave itself the small luxury of completing the initial qualification training prior and during the shakedown. This was typically done on the East Coast where the bulk of the carriers were built. So when a carrier arrives at the canal, all of this would have been done already since the East Coast is abstracted in the game. Not true for the Japanese, where all of their shipyards are represented in the game - so it would be one more thing that the Japanese would need to manage where the Allies do not.

In short, I'm willing to give up a little realism for the sake of less of a particularly tedious form of micromanagement, as well as a bit of game balancing.

_____________________________


(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 2
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/7/2018 4:50:19 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9132
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I've also noticed that if the unit is not Carrier-trained, merely Carrier-capable... it does not seem to be able to take replacements or upgrade. I think that might be a bug.

(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 3
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/7/2018 5:17:44 PM   
wegman58

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 12/28/2013
From: Edina, MN (FROM the Bronx)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korvar

If development limitations and commercial considerations are not considered, then in general I would support any moves which push WitP:AE closer to a simulator.

With limitations in mind, carrier qual status as it stands doesn't bother me. Part of that is micromanaging pilots is one of my least favorite things to do in the game. Lack of some interface elements, such as a fully functioning double-column sort, really give me pause about adding any additional micro to pilot management. There would need to be a HUGE benefit offset to justify it.

If one were aiming more for a simulator, the biggest problem is the paradigm used in the first place. Squadrons are 'carrier qualified' in name only, only because they are assumed to be a homogenous group of pilots in the short term. It's the PILOTS who are or are not qualified - nothing else. The game currently doesn't account for individual pilot qualification, other than an abstraction into skills. For example, in the game you could carrier qualify a squadron, swap out ALL the pilots, and the squadron would still be carrier qualified... doesn't quite translate to the real world.

Let's sidestep to modern IRL training for a minute - any newcomers to a squadron are also expected to train to the standards of the squadron. I'm not familiar with the particulars of modern Navy squadron onboarding. The Air Force requires that a syllabus for every new pilot (FNG - F'ing New Guy) to a squadron be developed by a squadron instructor pilot (usually the Weapons Officer who for a fighter squadron is ideally also a graduate of the Fighter Weapons School at Nellis.... basically 'Top Gun' on steroids). Even a high-ranking officer with 1,000s of hours in the particular aircraft and mission types of the squadron will still have a basic syllabus to complete, even if it's nothing other than LAO (Local Area Orientation). Before the pilot even arrives, he/she will have typically already completed their IQs (initial qualifications) and checkouts - the training syllabus is ON TOP of all that, but certainly any deficiencies will be taken care of in the process. Not until ALL the training is complete is a pilot considered MR (Mission Ready). Continuous training at intervals is required to maintain MR status.

Training during WWII was nothing like that. MR status often meant you were sent on your 1st mission and came back alive. A lot of training shortcuts which would never be tolerated in peacetime conditions were used to expedite the flow of fighting men to the front lines. Even college programs and military academy training was severely quickened in the name of commissioning more officers. Thus, "on the job training" was pretty much standard practice at the time.

That said, of course carrier qual training was something actively pursued. The only time squadrons realistically had to do this was sometime around/between the commissioning and shakedown cruise portions of a new carrier's service. Beyond the shakedown, carriers like all other vessels were expected to forward deploy and contribute to the war effort, ready or not.

I'm not 100% sure regarding the FAA, but I know the US Navy gave itself the small luxury of completing the initial qualification training prior and during the shakedown. This was typically done on the East Coast where the bulk of the carriers were built. So when a carrier arrives at the canal, all of this would have been done already since the East Coast is abstracted in the game. Not true for the Japanese, where all of their shipyards are represented in the game - so it would be one more thing that the Japanese would need to manage where the Allies do not.

In short, I'm willing to give up a little realism for the sake of less of a particularly tedious form of micromanagement, as well as a bit of game balancing.


The Navy tried for better things. There was at least one paddle wheel carrier in the Great Lakes for qualification training - might have been more.

I want to know what the USN does now. For the longest time (until 1991) the 2nd LEXINGTON was kept in commission just to train naval aviators in carrier landings and take offs. Not sure if they have a dedicated CVT now.

(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 4
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/7/2018 6:16:06 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1477
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline
I lament that carrier training is group based rather than single pilots oriented. Micromanegement additional burden could be bypassed by (finally!) a better interface.

Japan, I know for sure, used many of his CVEs for training, alongside the main fleet carriers for long periods...

(in reply to wegman58)
Post #: 5
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/7/2018 8:12:42 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4625
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Yes, the fact that there isn't a night training for pilots bothers me more than the carrier pilot issue.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 6
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/9/2018 4:02:14 PM   
Korvar


Posts: 813
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wegman58

The Navy tried for better things. There was at least one paddle wheel carrier in the Great Lakes for qualification training - might have been more.

I want to know what the USN does now. For the longest time (until 1991) the 2nd LEXINGTON was kept in commission just to train naval aviators in carrier landings and take offs. Not sure if they have a dedicated CVT now.



The USS Wolverine and USS Sable were the Great Lakes paddle-wheel carriers and along with the escort carrier USS Charger (in the Chesapeake) - those three were used for carrier qualifcation service during the war as far as I can tell.

I found a really informative PDF about the Paddlewheel Carriers.

I wasn't sure either on what the Navy does today, but from what I can find, they seem to work it into the regular deployment rotation of the fleet carriers. This makes sense because I believe the only decks in service besides those of the Nimitz and Ford classes are the amphibious assault ships (Wasp class et. al.), which aren't intended for fixed-wing use other than STOVL types. So for each class of new pilots, a fleet carrier is chosen from those in port stateside and used for the purpose. I'd imagine they'd run her with reduced (regular) crew and then fill her up with as many trainees as possible (of all applicable MOSes). The usual squadrons would be stationed at a NAS and the T-45s are flown on board for the mini tour.

_____________________________


(in reply to wegman58)
Post #: 7
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/13/2018 12:51:28 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 1021
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Yes, the fact that there isn't a night training for pilots bothers me more than the carrier pilot issue.


Hmm.. I was just mentioning in another thread...sort of.

I echo this sentiment as the first attempts at Night Fighting occurred in or about the time of Tarawa as I recall.

2 Hellcats and a Radar equipped TB as I recall around the raids on Roi / Kwaj. Flying off Yorktown (??) Enterprise (??)

This because the IJN was getting effective results from Betties bearing torps at dusk.

(memory here someone will provide better facts)

Of course even in a simulator a foresighted Allied Admiral would perhaps practice early.

The point : In late 43 (December ?) there is a number of Carrier Capable / Carrier Trained F4U1 Corsair Night squadrons that arrive in Eastern Continental USA. Squadron size 8 as I recall.

I ignored them previously (as a rookie) but now I value them and prioritize their movement to Pearl and onto Wasp (assuming its floating).

Perhaps this is the 'mitigating tactic'.



< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 4/13/2018 12:52:12 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 8
RE: Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units - 4/13/2018 1:04:56 PM   
tarkalak

 

Posts: 289
Joined: 6/26/2017
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline
Saburo Sakai mentioned in his book that he was Carrier trained pilot, but neither he nor his unit were ever stationed on one.

_____________________________

I do not know what is scarier: that I do understand nothing of this demonic script or that I am starting to see the demons that it evokes.

Me, studying for a PHD entry exam in Applied Mathematics.

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Carrier Quals for Non-Carrier Trained / Capable Units Page: [1]
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

0.150