|
Post by bluewasps on Apr 27, 2019 20:43:06 GMT -6
During the battle of midway we saw polar opposites of pilot experience. Will there be a training option to train pilots so that way the pilots have a better chance of hitting there target.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Apr 27, 2019 21:56:58 GMT -6
As seen in several devblogs, pilot experience is tracked and can be gained/lost.
|
|
|
Post by bluewasps on Apr 27, 2019 22:49:50 GMT -6
As seen in several devblogs, pilot experience is tracked and can be gained/lost. Yes but just like you can train your aircrews in the same way you can train you gunners. In the training menu will there be an option to train pilots?
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Apr 27, 2019 23:19:25 GMT -6
There should be a training regime selection, in my opinion.
First a choice with the nature of the training, chiefly contrasted between elitistic (as IJNAS) with few select and highly experienced pilots in peacetime and for duration of short wars and a broad training regime with large reserves of merely "good" pilots.
Second would be a training focus, with at least air to air combat, bombing and night attack as options.
Both could also have a budget "none of the above" choice, but at least with the first item it should take years to catch up when you enable it.
|
|
|
Post by ursamaior on Apr 28, 2019 1:45:38 GMT -6
Just please dont get to the level of Matrix's War in the Pacific!
I have found that down to earth level of logistics in a grand strategy game very tiring (the game tracked every single pilot from finishing basic pilot training through their career until their deaths).
While it was fun from time to time to look up the top aces (btw none has ever gotten even near Saburo Sakai, not to mention Erich Hartmann), looking for candidates to fill the gaps in a bomber squadran in a secondary theater in EVERY single squadron was disheartening at least.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 28, 2019 11:40:35 GMT -6
Personally, I would like to see the game kept simple. Training techniques should be based on new technology. This might relate to airborne radar, new navigation instrumentation, ordnance, bombing techniques, newer weapons such as 20mm cannons and larger etc. It would definitely be related to a new aircraft which would require some training, they always do. I think the game should rate a pilot at three levels of hours: 0-300 would be a novice; 300-600 would be proficient, 600 or higher is experienced. This is what I feel would be simple to develop and program, but not so complex to operate. Each nation could have its own syllabus for pilot training; that is easily researchable.
One more additional feature could be the deterioration of training for an extended war over two years. It happened to the Japanese, German's, British. The US never had the problem but still did reduce pilot training times and transfer more advanced air combat tactical training to the training squadrons at Ewa Field and such, in the Pacific.
Just some of my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 28, 2019 11:58:00 GMT -6
The goal in RTW2 is to make aircraft operations as efficient as possible so that the player is not overwhelmed with detail and has to perform 'click-fests', but yet keep enough detail to make choices matter and to give some flavor to that portion of the game. It is admittedly a difficult balance to achieve (as mentioned for some existing games), but hopefully our choices will satisfy most players tastes in this area.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 28, 2019 12:09:59 GMT -6
The goal in RTW2 is to make aircraft operations as efficient as possible so that the player is not overwhelmed with detail and has to perform 'click-fests', but yet keep enough detail to make choices matter and to give some flavor to that portion of the game. It is admittedly a difficult balance to achieve (as mentioned for some existing games), but hopefully our choices will satisfy most players tastes in this area. As we said in the aircraft world -KISS
|
|
|
Post by director on Apr 28, 2019 17:26:21 GMT -6
I'd support some linkage of training quality to time and money spent - in the aftermath of high losses the player would be sorely tempted to 'cut corners' and put pilots in seats, letting them learn on the job even if it increased the losses. I believe that's the route the Japanese took, and it really came back to bite them. Britain simply ran out of manpower; a lot of Montgomery's caution stemmed from the fact that high losses simply could not be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 28, 2019 18:15:21 GMT -6
I'd support some linkage of training quality to time and money spent - in the aftermath of high losses the player would be sorely tempted to 'cut corners' and put pilots in seats, letting them learn on the job even if it increased the losses. I believe that's the route the Japanese took, and it really came back to bite them. Britain simply ran out of manpower; a lot of Montgomery's caution stemmed from the fact that high losses simply could not be replaced. Pilot losses are not always a question of training, many times its the construction of the aircraft. Lack of armored glass on the cockpit, self-sealing tanks, glycol tanks in front of the cockpit, lack of armor plate behind the pilot will all contribute to excessive losses as will the failure to provide or use parachutes. It can also be a function of poor radios and tactics. The initial spitfire's had some of these issues and therefore pilots losses were high. The German's did not have such issues but there pilots simply did not have replacements so they flew until they died. This is how many of them gained victories over 100 or 200 enemy aircraft. They were not rotated. The US pilots were rotated home, to provide training. The Japanese had all these problems including a poorly designed aluminum fuel tank built too close to the wing spar and ribs so that a bullet passing through the tank would create hydrostatic pressure wave and it could snap the wing off of the plane. If you watch gun camera videos of the Zero's, this is exactly what happened.
|
|
|
Post by chainsawjoe911 on Apr 28, 2019 18:30:48 GMT -6
speaking of parachutes, is there any feature of pilots shot down and surviving and being rescued?
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on Apr 28, 2019 19:24:58 GMT -6
speaking of parachutes, is there any feature of pilots shot down and surviving and being rescued? Individual pilots aren't tracked so I imagine not. You could model parachutes as a technology that lowers pilot quality degradation from combat (if such a thing is itself modeled).
|
|
|
Post by chainsawjoe911 on Apr 28, 2019 20:58:43 GMT -6
speaking of parachutes, is there any feature of pilots shot down and surviving and being rescued? Individual pilots aren't tracked so I imagine not. You could model parachutes as a technology that lowers pilot quality degradation from combat (if such a thing is itself modeled). well basically it would work like this (if this is how the game currently works) "Squadron X has lost Y amount of pilots, but due to technology (researchable by the nation) you rescue Z pilots" so basic math needed but shouldnt be hard
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Apr 29, 2019 1:39:39 GMT -6
Some abstract modeling would be interesting - for example, when victorious, you get to search the battle area, so maybe you gain back one level of crew proficiency you lost in battle to model saved pilots? Patrolling flying boats could also have an effect, or maybe designing the plane for "survivability" could also mean in a way that the pilot is well-equipped to survive somewhat when ejecting above water (life raft etc.). This could also open the door for interesting "technologies", like the option to use plane guard destroyer. Probably all of this could be implemented without the need for precise pilot tracking.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Apr 29, 2019 11:44:20 GMT -6
While RTW2 will not be tracking individual pilots it does track individual squadrons. Each squadron has an experience rating that has a strong impact on the effectiveness of most activities undertaken by the squadron.
One small feature goes a long way toward replacing the tracking of pilots - you can rename your squadrons. This may seem like an unimportant feature, but allowing this means you can keep track of each squadron if you wish. By applying a similar prefix to the name of squadrons that have superior experience (e.g. "Bull's Raiders" or "Air Group Z") it is easy to create an air group of veteran squadrons that can be operated together as a unit. Moving this air group to troubled locations is a simple drag and drop operation. During playtesting, I have created special air divisions composed of squadrons with veteran experience that I moved as a unit into locations that were likely to see battle action. When the situation changes and threats emerge in a different region the group can be quickly transferred to face the new threat.
This mimics the operations of Fliegerkorps X, which was equipped for and trained in anti-naval techniques. This group first operated in the Norway campaign and was then moved to the Mediterranean theater where it operated effectively against British naval convoys and participated in the suppression of Malta. Or consider the Tainan Air Group that effectively destroyed the US air power in the Philippines, then moved south to participate in the conquest of SE Asia, and then moved to the South Pacific where it operated out of Buna and Rabaul during the Solomons and New Guinea campaigns. This air group was famous for its exploits and was covered extensively in Japanese newspapers.
Being able to replicate these types of famous air formations is great fun. It gives squadrons a personal history that can be tracked and celebrated. It allows the player to create virtual air formations that can, in turn, create their own history. That's a lot of bang for such a small buck.
|
|