Hearts of Iron IV - Dev Diary 13 - Conscription & Training

[Centurion1973]

The losses due to breakdown for fighters are related to fighters' reliability. You cannot mix air combat losses with breakdown losses. For instance think about land combat: for consistency you should mix breakdowns with battle loss. Instead, in game, the losses are kept separate by cause/nature.

Why not? - Reliability affects attrition rate - which IRL (with aircraft) includes lossed due to crashes. If plane is hard to control for a new pilots, leading to higher crash chances, it could be represented as lower Reliability value.

 

[Cardus]

Why not? - Reliability affects attrition rate - which IRL (with aircraft) includes lossed due to crashes. If plane is hard to control for a new pilots, leading to higher crash chances, it could be represented as lower Reliability value.

Because we are talking about TRAINING (the name of this diary is "Conscription & Training"). Training affects operational losses not breakdowns.

 

[veut]

Now I know why there is only one DD a month- Podcat will need the rest of the month to answer all our questions :happy:

 

[Centurion1973]

Because we are talking about TRAINING (the name of this diary is "Conscription & Training"). Training affects operational losses not breakdowns.

And losses during the training caused by pilots crashing hard-to-control plane are what? I see no reason why that would be problem being represented as part of Reliability stat.

Losses of ground units on-map training are based on their Reliability stat.

 

[Cardus]

And losses during the training caused by pilots crashing hard-to-control plane are what? I see no reason why that would be problem being represented as part of Reliability stat.

Losses of ground units on-map training are based on their Reliability stat.

Because 1) the game mechanic is different and it should be preserved for consistency 2) logic. The land training is as follow: 1% losses is added to the chance that breakdowns occurs. "As a side bonus training on the map give you Army Experience". When units are trained they can fight better. This should apply (mutatis mutandis) to air and navy.

 

[Centurion1973]

Because 1) the game mechanic is different and it should be preserved for consistency 2) logic. The land training is as follow: 1% losses is added to the chance that breakdowns occurs. "As a side bonus training on the map give you Army Experience". When units are trained they can fight better. This should apply (mutatis mutandis) to air and navy.

There is currently no mechanic for pilot training and what I proposed is to copy mix of off-map and on-map (or just on-map part) ground training mechanic and use that as pilot training.

IMO, there is no need to complicate game with trainer planes. If you are using planes with lower Reliability stat (which represent multiple factors like actual reliability, difficulty to operate that plane etc.), you will suffer more losses due to attrition.

 

[Centurion1973]

Question for Podcat: will units consume more supplies/fuel while they are training?

 

[Cardus]

There is currently no mechanic for pilot training and what I proposed is to copy mix of off-map and on-map (or just on-map part) ground training mechanic and use that as pilot training.

IMO, there is no need to complicate game with trainer planes. If you are using planes with lower Reliability stat (which represent multiple factors like actual reliability, difficulty to operate that plane etc.), you will suffer more losses due to attrition.

No because, as I said, in game land training is modelled as follows: 1)increase of experience 2)increase of operational loss. You need to preserve consistency (for example there is no gain of experience, which is really important in game terms, with your proposal) and logic (lack of training may influence losses in combat or operational losses but not the other way around).

 

[Beagá]

I don´t understand what you mean.

It makes complete sense for low reliability do increase attrition AND low "pilot training"/experience to do the same.

 

[PlacidDragon]

You didn't get it. We were talking about air training and air trainers not about material in general. All material from tanks to aeroplanes, from machine-guns to trucks, etc. suffers breakdown but this is not the point.

I thought that was precisely what you and Centurion was talking about, my apologies if i misunderstood.

 

[Cardus]

I don´t understand what you mean.

It makes complete sense for low reliability do increase attrition AND low "pilot training"/experience to do the same.

In order you understand it, could you please resume as this diary deals with training?

I thought that was precisely what you and Centurion was talking about, my apologies if i misunderstood.

No problem. It seems that there is a problem with terminology and distinction between cause and effect

 

[Lollardheretics]

- Plane do not train, War experience generate As that increase efficiency of wings
- Plane production include training of pilots/training plane crash and fuel consomption of those

What is the purpose of this discussion ?

 

[Cardus]

- Plane do not train, War experience generate As that increase efficiency of wings
- Plane production include training of pilots/training plane crash and fuel consomption of those

What is the purpose of this discussion ?

see this

They have abstracted pilot training into the production cost of aircraft so you will not be able to build the massive amounts of aircrafts the nations did historicly.

And this could be a problem as it could pose a similar issue that plagued the whole HOI franchise i.e. the mixing between manpower and hardware. For example when mixing training and production the IC cost for aeroplanes is very high but see this

By mid-December Favagrossa had digested the statistics the services had belatedly provided, and had presented an estimate of the time necessary to make the armed forces combat-ready. The news was discouraging. The Air Force would be ready by mid-1941, since its equipment required less production time than that of the other services. Army and Navy, however, would not have a full complement of artillery until at least 1943—4. By 11 January 1940 the figures and Badoglio's advocacy of delay impelled Mussolini to discard temporarily his hope of fighting that year. He proposed to intervene in the second half of 1941

http://books.google.it/books/about/Mussolini_Unleashed_1939_1941.html?id=FNjxX7uZYQEC&redir_esc=y

Maybe it's late for any change but as well as for the army the navy and the airforce need to distinguish production from training otherwise the result is crap.

and this

That, in my humble opinion, is the same big mistake of the previous HOI games: training personnel is very different from production and the 2 things should not be mixed. For example Allies produced 107,317 trainers i.e. 65% of fighters and 68% of bombers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milit...rld_War_II#Aircraft_-_Allied_-_British_Empire. How can this be ignored?

In the HOI franchise I see that land warfare is more detailed and better simulated than air and naval so training is well done for land units and it is ignored for the other 2 branches (this reminds me, for example, when the OOB had a hierarchy for the army officers but nothing for admirals or air generals).

 

[Centurion1973]

No because, as I said, in game land training is modelled as follows: 1)increase of experience 2)increase of operational loss. You need to preserve consistency (for example there is no gain of experience, which is really important in game terms, with your proposal) and logic (lack of training may influence losses in combat or operational losses but not the other way around).

Your post honestly doesnt make any sense.

My proposal is:
1. Aircraft(pilots) should have experience and training.
2. Mechanic for pilot training I proposed is to copy mix of off-map and on-map (or just on-map part) ground unit training mechanic.
3. During the training, aircraft would be affected just like ground units - increased attrition and low ORG
4. Just like with ground units, pilot training would be limited to some value - to reach higher XP, you need to participate in combat.
5. Training should use normal planes - introducing trainer aircraft isnt needed

Completely separate is fact that in game value for Reliability represent multiple factors like actual reliability, difficulty to operate that plane etc. and aircrafts attrition is based on aircrafts Reliability value. So if you design aircraft with low reliability value, it will take higher attrition in both training and normal use.

 

[Beagá]

see this

and this

Oh I did make a thread about airplanes, I never said it wasn´t nice if more improvements were done to the air system as a whole.

Very simple: Make air wing training cost IC or something else to represent that you need, well, trainers to train people. And that´s it. Training ends, extra IC need ends (after all you train to use a tank using the tank, you train to use aircraft using something that will not be used elsewhere 90% time).

I´d love to see pilots as resources but as I already said I can understand if Pdox doesn´t put more variables, if the AI can´t handle them.

 

[Centurion1973]

- Plane do not train, War experience generate As that increase efficiency of wings
- Plane production include training of pilots/training plane crash and fuel consomption of those

What is the purpose of this discussion ?

Currently aircraft (pilots) dont have any training mechanics at all

Not all training was same IRL - there is huge difference in combat ability of someone who recieved 10 hours of flying lesson (representing Japan in 45) and someone who spend 200 hours of flying lesson + air combat lessons from experienced pilots (representing USA in 45). Training took time and material, which should be represented, just like it is in ground units training.

It should be up to the players to decide how much time and material he wants to use to train his pilots.

 

[Cardus]

Your post honestly doesnt make any sense.

My proposal is:
1. Aircraft(pilots) should have experience and training.
2. Mechanic for pilot training I proposed is to copy mix of off-map and on-map (or just on-map part) ground unit training mechanic.
3. During the training, aircraft would be affected just like ground units - increased attrition and low ORG
4. Just like with ground units, pilot training would be limited to some value - to reach higher XP, you need to participate in combat.
5. Training should use normal planes - introducing trainer aircraft isnt needed

Completely separate is fact that in game value for Reliability represent multiple factors like actual reliability, difficulty to operate that plane etc. and aircrafts attrition is based on aircrafts Reliability value. So if you design aircraft with low reliability value, it will take higher attrition in both training and normal use.

Honestly your suggestion diverges from game mechanic (i.e. training is separately modelled and increases for the time both losses AND experience), historical facts (there was a big difference in terms of training between Allies and Axis) and plain logic (you mix reliability of aeroplanes with inexperience of pilots, you mix losses of a trainers with losses of fighters/bombers, etc. these errors for land training in game are not done).

 

[Centurion1973]

1. Honestly your suggestion diverges from the game mechanic (i.e. training is separately modelled and increases for the time both losses AND experience),
2. historical fact (there was a big difference in terms of training between Allies and Axis)
3.and plain logic (you mix reliability of aeroplanes with inexperience of pilots, you mix losses of a trainers with losses of fighters/bombers, this errors for land training in game are not done).

1. Thats just incorrect - I propose using same system that exists for training of ground troops to be applied to aircafts(pilot) training.
2. and it should be each nations choice how much training they will provide (at the cost of time and resources used in that training) at that time.
3. Nope, I just said that Reliability stat represent more than just pure aircraft reliabilty, but also other factors, like difficulty to fly it (and land in 1 piece) and that if you in game design aircraft that will have low Reliability value, it will always take more attrition - no matter if its in training or combat.

 

[Lollardheretics]

In that case,

The production should be :

1 - Fighter Planes
2 - Pilots

Pilots use obsolete Fighter planes while training (with a bigger attrition rate)
When trained they get best plane available and can be deployed.

When shooted down, they either die and plane is destroyed, or the plane is destroyed but they can get another plane.
For simplicity sake, crew needed to maintain the planes on the airfield are abstracted to the "pilot" pool


Same with boats

1 Boat
2 Boat Crew

Sailor train on obsolete boat (1 Boat crew = 100 Manpower, big boat need up to 10 Boat crew, Submarine only 1)
No attrition for these boat while training
Can produce boat and train at the same time the Sailor on it
If sunk, Boat Sailor suffer loss with a minimum of 1 (submarine Sailor always die) and maximum of 9 (there is always hundred of survivors when a boat is sunk)

Either case, you can produce lot of Pilot / Sailor, or more Boat/Plane that you can use.


Is it really usefull for the gameplay ? That is the question i'm asking.

 

[Cardus]

1. Thats just incorrect - I propose using same system that exists for training of ground troops to be applied to aircafts(pilot) training.

Nope because in reality training requires trainers so to apply the same mechanic you need to build that unit and the amount of trainers will influence how many pilots you can train and for how long.

2. and it should be each nations choice how much training they will provide (at the cost of time and resources used in that training) at that time.

I cannot see how you can achieve that with your suggestion. Once more you need trainers and time. When training the related losses should be losses of trainers not bombers or zeppelins.

3. Nope, I just said that Reliability stat represent more than just pure aircraft reliabilty, but also other factors, like difficulty to fly it (and land in 1 piece) and that if you in game design aircraft that will have low Reliability value, it will always take more attrition - no matter if its in training or combat.

And this diverges from both game mechanic and logic

In that case,..Is it really usefull for the gameplay ? That is the question i'm asking.

Yes if you think that training plays a role in warfare