Recent change to Kamikaze altitude code?

[Nemo121]

current game, last turn.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Laoag at 81,71

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 129 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 32 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 40



Allied aircraft
P-51D Mustang x 2
FM-1 Wildcat x 16
FM-2 Wildcat x 88
F4U-1D Corsair x 18
F4U-4 Corsair x 9
F6F-5 Hellcat x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 25 destroyed


Previously I had Ki-43 IIIs fly in a kamikaze attack at 6,000 feet.


The problem here is that both of those groups were set to fly in at 37,000 feet. So, is there an unanticipated bug here or was there a code change to the altitude of the attack profile of kamis? I'm all for giving some intercept chances as they dive down from high altitude but right now this resetting of the altitude just means nothing at all gets through which is not accurate either.

[michaelm75au]

No change since 1108c.
Kamikaze approach target from about 9000' for flak fire and dive into target (treated as attacking at 100').

The 'estimated altitude' is just that - estimated based on sighting/radar/etc.

A large CAP is only real defence against Kamikaze. Even then, multiple attacks in conjuction with Kamikaze planes is best as it occupies CAP.

[Nemo121]

Well, this might be working as designed but the design is having, I believe, unanticipated consequences which I think could do with amelioration.

Currently it appears that the entire approach run to the target now defaults to 9,000 feet irrespective of the original altitude set. This means that if you set the planes to come in very low ( 100 feet ) to avoid radar, they pop up to 9,000 feet and if you set them at 35,000 feet they still come in at 9,000 feet. Obviously this means that there's now no point setting altitude for kami attacks as they all default to 9,000 feet - which is unrealistic.


In addition if the intention was to have FlAK resolution occur at 9,000 feet for that period of time where the kamis were over the target and at 100 feet for the dive into the target then that intention isn't what is happening.

What I am seeing in-game is that the CAP resolves vs the kamis at 9,000 feet for the whole attack run... which is highly unrealistic. The Japanese deliberately attempted to mix heights with a view to splitting CAP. Right now the Allies just need to set their CAP to 11,000 feet ( 2,000 feet above the kami altitude ) and watch as it shreds the entire kami attack.


What I would suggest is that rather than going with a two-stage approach you have different logic for low-level kamis and high level kamis.

So, if the kami altitude is set for less than 9,000 feet then those kamis remain at that altitude and use whatever altitude they are set at to determine the FlAK altitude over the battlegroup ( for resolution of entire TF vs kami FlAK ) and their spotting. OBviously the lower the kami the more likely it is to expend itself on a screening vessel as that's all it could see. E.g. Kamis at 100 feet are likely to approach undetected but also very likely to expend themselves vs a screening DD.

If the kamis are set at , for example, 30,000 feet then that's the altitude they use for their attack run through CAP, before dropping down to 9,000 feet to pick targets ( accompanied by exposure to TF FlAK) and, later, the terminal dive ( resolved with FlAK at 100 feet ).


Right now with all kamis flying at 9,000 feet any of the art which was possible with kamis ( splitting CAP to let a low altitude group get through ) or using high altitude, fast speed planes to blow past most of the CAP due to their speed and the length of time it takes Allied planes to climb to 30,000 feet+ has just been removed from the game.


As to kamis being massed to gain success. I launched 300 Oscar kamis at a CAP of 300 fighters. I sent them in at 37,000+ feet supposedly above the ceiling of all but 100 of the defending fighters. Most should have gotten through with, perhaps 100 to 150 being downed by the Corsairs which could reach that high. Instead they all went in at 9,000 feet and not a single one got through.

I don't have a problem with a small number of intercepts when they are over the fleet picking targets at 9,000 feet but to make their entire attack run at 9,000 feet is yielding results which simply do not reflect any of the analyses of kamikaze attacks I have posted to the forum previously.


As I said though, a two-pronged solution is possible:

1. Low altitude attacks don't pop up to 9,000 feet but are much more likely to hit screening vessels as a result. A good compromise IMO.

2. High altitude attacks have 3 phases instead of the current 2 phases.
Phase 1: At whatever approach altitude the player chooses.
Phase 2: Drop down to 9,000 feet to pick targets for a minute or two ( accompanied by losses to TF FlAK +/- a small number of intercepts by local CAP... fighters didn't like operating within TF FlAK though so there shouldn't be too many intercepts). It' d be a really nice wrinkle to let the player set the duration of this target-seeking linger at 9,000 feet. Set it to 0 and it would be as though your kamis were flying at 100 feet, they would sustain almost no losses to FlAK or fighters but would mostly hit escorts. Allow it to be set for up to 5 minutes --- At 5 minutes the fighters would get 5 minutes of firing passes and the FLAK would get quite a few firing opportunities but almost all attacks would focus on high-value ships ( CVs, BBs etc ).
Phase 3: Terminal dive. Resolved as if the kami was at 100 feet.

Overall though, at present, I don't see any point whatsoever to kamikaze missions under the current patch. In my current game I've stopped all kamikaze missions using the current patch. Flying the entire attack run from 130 miles out at 9,000 feet is simply incompatible with surviving to actually reach the TF against anything but the lightest CAP. Allied CVs are, essentially, invulnerable to kamis now.

[JWE]

That's it! Enough! I've had it!

Michael is bustin his bones to make the game run more smoothly, and be more informative. And all that certain people want to do is urinate on the results because they don't conform to their view of reality.

I'm tired of all the useless, brainless, thoughtless, complaints based on "historical reality". If any of those unwashed and unlaid little weasels ever took their "sniff, sniff, superiority" to a real forum, run and populated by real historians/hobyists, they would soon find out how niave and idiotic their pretensions truly are. Maybe it's instructive that they spout their crap here and don't dare intrude in a forum where knowledgeable people would slip them down the dumper.

Leave Michael alone! JWE!

[Rainer]

A bit strongly worded, but basically I share your view.

Folks, please please please try to understand that neither MichaelM nor any other of the kind people trying to improve the game are doing this for money. They are volunteers and basically players like you and me (except they have been granted access to the code). They may leave anytime if they feel so.
If we drive these people off - and some have been driven off already! - we'll be left with the game as it is.
Please consider the validity of your complaints (and the way you express yourself) when posting next.
Doesn't mean, of course, to refrain from pointing out where you think something is wrong, may need improvement or may be a bug indeed.
But at least think about how your message may be received on the side of those who have to do the hard work.
And throw in a thank you to MichaelM once in a while ...

[USSAmerica]

[Nemo121]

Well, JWE, Rainer,

In terms of my post. I don't see how it wasn't constructive and I certainly don't see how referencing another poster on the forum as an unwashed weasel is in keeping with the rules of conduct of the forum. People have been banned for less... and no, I'm not calling for your banning, I am however asking that you reconsider your post and, perhaps, consider it best retracted.

I've spoken with Michael previously about game issues - including issues with kamikaze modelling - and uncovered some bugs which he addressed and fixed. I always took the view that my raising of these issues in the technical support forums was appropriate and taken in the spirit of providing constructive input to help improve the game. Several bugs I've reported have later shown up as bug fixes in later iterations of the game. No-one has previously hinted that reporting such bugs was inappropriate within the Technical Support forum.

Michael is, I'm certain, motivated by a desire to improve the game. IN order to do so he requires feedback. Sometimes that feedback is, Great improvement, sometimes that feedback is, I don't think this is working as intended although it is working as designed and sometimes it is , this is a straight up bug. In any of those cases the feedback is still valuable though. The game won't get improved by nothing but "Wow, this is great" being posted. Neither will it be improved by the likes of Castor Troy who can be relied upon to find exaggerated fault with everything. ON the other hand neither will the game be involved by JWE and others working out their personal dislike on people who have the temerity to try to post constructive criticism.


Rainer,
In terms of making the game better there are the developers who have done good work, and I've defended them when some people on the forum have slighted them for issues which weren't germaine AND there are the players who provide feedback. Both are important in improving the game. What you are seeing here is JWE being unable to contain a personal dislike he has towards me and exploding in public and unprofessionally as a means of venting this personal animus whilst wrapping it up as some sort of reaction to an outre post. I would point out that if players who try to post honest, well-intentioned reports regarding possible bugs get attacked like this for posting those bugs/reports then the game will also fail to improve.

I'm against people attacking the developers or bitching without rhyme nor reason BUT I don't accept that supporting the developers means not posting bug reports and suggested solutions for consideration ( which is all I tried to do ).

JWE can certainly disagree with me, if he wishes, although I am certain that when others get to 1945 with kamis they'd also post these observations as bugs. Kamis are many times less survivable now than they were prior to 1108c. BUT there are three things he shouldn't do:

a) break the forum's posting rules - which I consider he has done - with his personal attacks.

b) let his personal dislike for me ( which he has shown on many occasions ) cloud his judgement such that he doesn't consider what I say but merely explodes at the thought that I say it.

c) stifle input which is intended to be constructive and helpful in order to satisfy his personal need to lash out.

Perhaps someone has annoyed him by posting senseless and brainless complaints. I don't, however, think that posting a report about a real change in game mechanics behaviour is either senseless or brainless and once we get to a point where only "the right people" are allowed to comment on the game then we'll be reaching a point of stagnation and decay.

As to how michaelm will receive my message. I'm sure he's professional enough to realise I've seen a change in game mechanics which I've flagged as working as designed but having unanticipated consequences and will engage with it professionally on that basis. I would be hugely surprised if he felt any personal attack or personal hurt from my report. I think he'll consider what I've said, fire back his thoughts and we could discuss it some more, providing additional viewpoints and helping him clarify his thought processes on this so he can reach whatever conclusion he thinks would be best - possibly with input from the Air Team ( The Elf et al ). Overall I think he'd recognise it as me engaging with him critically but constructively and with a view to improving the game model, we might discuss it and then he'd make a call based on the best data and input possible. I don't think he'd allow any personal animus to colour his judgment - and that's one reason I respect him. I don't know if he likes me or hates me but I am certain he'll listen to my input and judge it on its merits. I can respect and work with a man like that. I don't care if he likes me or not, it simply isn't important to me, but I do care whether or not he objectively evaluates input.


And just to be clear re: michaelm... I think he's done great work. It is a measure of the fact that I respect him and The Elf and AndyMac and jwilkerson in terms of being willing to receive critical, constructive criticism and act on it that I do engage with those people in providing said criticism. I single those out as people I've had contact with whom I respect. I'm sure there are other developers whom I've not had contact with who have done amazing work also, I just may not know their names to credit them.

[Nemo121]

I'd also point out that clearly JWE was just choosing me as a target for anger he has towards others since the last time I actually posted any bug report to the Tech Support forum was back in 2010.

I'm tired of all the useless, brainless, thoughtless, complaints based on "historical reality".

I find it beyond rationality to compare that with it being about 6 months since I last posted a bug report. Clearly he's just annoyed with others and choosing me as a target because of his personal dislike.... unless of course we're to believe that posting a bug report once every 6 months is, somehow, "too often".

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

A bit strongly worded, but basically I share your view.

Folks, please please please try to understand that neither MichaelM nor any other of the kind people trying to improve the game are doing this for money. They are volunteers and basically players like you and me (except they have been granted access to the code). They may leave anytime if they feel so.
If we drive these people off - and some have been driven off already! - we'll be left with the game as it is.
Please consider the validity of your complaints (and the way you express yourself) when posting next.
Doesn't mean, of course, to refrain from pointing out where you think something is wrong, may need improvement or may be a bug indeed.
But at least think about how your message may be received on the side of those who have to do the hard work.
And throw in a thank you to MichaelM once in a while ...

Well stated.

[michaelm75au]

Thanks fellows.
But I am happy to hear 'constructive' discussion about things as long as it is not just a one-way pile of abuse/complaints. [Not referring to Nemo's post in the later.]

Now bear in mind that I am really only acting in the role of caretaker.
So I can't make huge changes to the basic game design, just clip around the edges and make the shrubs look nice. Althogh sometimes the weeds have long roots which requires me to dig fairly deep which can dislodge the shrub a bit.[;)]

I have to thank Matrix for not pulling the plug on this, as these beta-forum drops that Joe and I instigated where really only suppose to be over the Xmas holiday break.

[Nemo121]

JWE, before you lose your cool, temper and professionalism again. I am posting the following files at michaelm's request for save files.


Michaelm,
I've run a scenario with multiple US CV TFs off the cost of Japan. I'm sending you the US turn. Just hit play and you should see:

1. Some land-launched Ohkas ( set to 100 feet ) launch themselves vs bleed-over CAP from the US CVs. In my tests an average of about 50 Ohkas launch. The bleed-over CAP amounts to roughly 200 fighters most of the time. All of the OHkas default to 9,000 feet instead of 100 feet and in none of my tests has a single Ohka made it through the CAP.


2. ROughly 150 fighters tend to fly per day. Some days they are joined by Ki-43 IIIs which can boost their numbers to about 500. When the Oscars join in you sometimes see a few leakers. Whenever only the N1K1s and A6M8s/M7s and M5s launch ( comprising about 150 planes in total ) I've never had a single plane survive through CAP. I picked those fighters because each of them can fly above the Hellcat's ceiling and so I set them to fly at 38,500 to 41,000 feet. They ALL defeaulted to 9,000 feet through the entirety of their attack run, including the 100 mile + approach flight.

The end result was that all of these kamis were all intercepted. Historically the Japanese stopped mid-level kamikaze attacks precisely because this was the historical outcome. They pretty quickly found that the high altitude or very low altitude approach was the best to use as it gave the best chance to get through enemy CAP. Mid-level approaches tended to get shot down en masse by defending fighters. That's what we're seeing in-game. Unfortunately because the 9,000 foot altitude is hard-coded in there's no possibility of changing the doctrine, as occured historically, and this results in greatly reduced kamikaze effectiveness vs the historical record.

JWE if you disagree with any of this I invite you to not hurl personal abuse but list your factual, historical figures re: kamikaze hit rates, flight paths etc. We can then have a rational discussion based on facts with a view to arriving at a conclusion which might result in game improvements.


I am posting the outcome of my last run as it is fairly typical. Of note it resulted in about 175 attacking kamis every single one of which was splashed by the defending CAP. Not a single one survived into attack position.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 10, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Hachijo-jima at 114,64

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 128 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 38 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 36
A6M8 Zero x 36
N1K1-J George x 36



Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 10
FM-1 Wildcat x 23
FM-2 Wildcat x 43
F4U-1D Corsair x 61
F4U-4 Corsair x 9
F6F-5 Hellcat x 109
F8F-1 Bearcat x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5b Zero: 8 destroyed
A6M8 Zero: 23 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 23 destroyed

Actually all the attacking fighters were shot down.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Hachijo-jima at 114,64

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 130 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 38 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 29
N1K1-J George x 29



Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 7
FM-1 Wildcat x 18
FM-2 Wildcat x 27
F4U-1D Corsair x 46
F4U-4 Corsair x 6
F6F-5 Hellcat x 78
F8F-1 Bearcat x 5


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5c Zero: 8 destroyed
N1K1-J George: 20 destroyed

Again, they were all shot down by the CAP after diving down to 9,000 feet from 38,000+ feet.


Morning Air attack on TF, near Hachijo-jima at 114,64

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 95 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ohka Model 11 x 45



Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 3
FM-1 Wildcat x 14
FM-2 Wildcat x 18
F4U-1D Corsair x 35
F4U-4 Corsair x 4
F6F-5 Hellcat x 56
F8F-1 Bearcat x 3


Japanese aircraft losses
Ohka Model 11: 8 destroyed

Again they were actually all shot down, not bad for only having 11 minutes to engage them. These Ohkas were set to 100 feet but climbed to 9,000 feet for the entirety of the approach run, thus making them easy targets.


Just unzip the file, it should open as the 10th September Allied turn. Press the next turn button and it should generate the movie file etc...

I will post results of running this precise turn file under a Beta prior to the kamikaze forced altitude change in the next post.

[Nemo121]

Running the same turn under a pre-change ( pre-c) executable resulted in about 1/4 of the high-altitude Oscars etc being intercepted by CAP while the other 3/4 broke through.

In total 400 kamikaze sorties secure 64 hits which equals a hit rate of 16% per kamikaze sortied.

According to the US Strategic Bombing Reports 1946 during the Okinawa campaign some 2,550 kamikaze missions were flown of which 475 secured hits or damaging near misses. This is an 18.6% hit rate.


Obviously the turn I played using the two executables isn't a mirror of the entire Okinawan campaign but I do think that it is clear that the change in the model from allowing attacks at multiple altitudes ( 100 feet to max ceiling ) and the effect that has in splitting CAP and allowing both high and low level kamis to break through to a model where all kamis conduct their approach run in its entirety at 9,000 feet has resulted in the in-game combat model moving farther away from the results documented in the historical record.


It is because of that move away from the documented historical record that I think that forcing the Japanese to approach at mid-level ( 9,000 feet ) should be looked at. Historically they abandoned approaches at similar altitudes because they found that they allowed CAP to claim far too many kamis ( just as is happening in-game ).

So, to some extent the combat model is working well - it is modelling a massacre when the Japanese come in at this altitude - the problem is it doesn't allow the player to draw the historical conclusion that this altitude is a bad idea and then enact the historical counter ( very high and very low altitude attacks to split the CAP and minimise reaction times/ engagement times ).


I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone who is willing to base the discussion on facts and not personal hatred. My goal here is to correct what appears to be a move of the in-game combat model away from historically documented outcomes. I would have thought that that's what we all wanted.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The end result was that all of these kamis were all intercepted. Historically the Japanese stopped mid-level kamikaze attacks precisely because this was the historical outcome. They pretty quickly found that the high altitude or very low altitude approach was the best to use as it gave the best chance to get through enemy CAP. Mid-level approaches tended to get shot down en masse by defending fighters. That's what we're seeing in-game. Unfortunately because the 9,000 foot altitude is hard-coded in there's no possibility of changing the doctrine, as occured historically, and this results in greatly reduced kamikaze effectiveness vs the historical record.

Nemo, just a couple of thoughts re the above:

As the IJAAF/IJNAF adapted by flying kamikazes at high/low altitudes iirc the USN adapted by varying their cap altitudes and employing picket ships. The former can be handled by the system. I don't know if the latter's effectiveness as early warning and as unintended/intended kami attrition can be replicated. I guess I'll try the scenario, peel off a dozen or so dds or des, create single ship sctfs and see what happens.

Sorry, but I haven't played against kamis yet. If one has an altitude advantage, does cap ever intercept? If not, that seems a rather large loophole given that the 5/38s were also reduced in aa effectiveness.

[michaelm75au]

1. Some land-launched Ohkas ( set to 100 feet ) launch themselves vs bleed-over CAP from the US CVs. In my tests an average of about 50 Ohkas launch. The bleed-over CAP amounts to roughly 200 fighters most of the time. All of the OHkas default to 9,000 feet instead of 100 feet and in none of my tests has a single Ohka made it through the CAP.

What are these? Ohka are assumed launched from planes and don't suffer flak attacks. How are you emulating these devices??

I noticed a number of these got through the CAP, but were then shot down by flak.

[Nemo121]

anarchyintheuk,

Aye, the US adapted, this is why according to the USSBS the hit rate in the initial stages of use over the Phillipines was as high as 28% which fell to as low as 13% by the closing stages of Okinawa. Overall over the course of the Okinawa campaign USBS figured the hit rate was about 18%.

So, yes, as kamikazes attacked at split altitudes the US adapted... just as the player's can if the Japanese split their kamikaze altitude.


As to the altitude advantage:
Only the Ki-94II can fly over the max ceiling of all USN fighters. I deal with this with a simple HR banning Ki-94 IIs from being used as kamis.

All other IJAAF and IJNAF planes are interceptable... Obviously if you ONLY have Hellcats in your fleet and are facing A6M7s flying at 38.500 feet then you lose out as the Hellcats can't reach them. Corsairs can reach them, and massacre them, with ease though so if the player hasn't planned things out then, IMO, they deserve the losses they are about to take.

Personally, when playing as USN I commit the Corsairs at maximum altitude to guard against high level kamis and put my FM2 Wildcats down under 10,000 feet with the Hellcats spread from 15,000 to 30,000 feet. Arranging things in that manner lets me deal very effectively with split altitude raids.


But, yes, overall, if the Japanese attacked at high altitude and the USN didn't bring Corsairs or Fireballs or F7Fs then, yes, they'd be uninterceptable. Of course an Allied player would have to be pretty silly not to bring those types of planes along if he was facing kamis.

[Nemo121]

I made the Ohka an engineless plane ( the same way I previously modelled Ki-115s in my WiTP mods ). It is a light, amphibious-capable bomber which means it can operated without airfields ( this is to model launching from caves as it was planned to do in real life ). I HR it by limiting it to ONLY kamikaze units. It gets produced just like mines etc at a set rate per month.

When there is no CAP around it is devastating. When there's CAP around it is quite easily intercepted, which seems a bit unreasonable to me given its speed and the difficulties in intercepting such a fast-flying low level plane but, such is life.... I just use it where there's little to no CAP or where my escorting fighter pilot's can bail out over friendly territory.


It is, essentially, a weapon to fire at amphibious TFs which will have moderate CAP - 150 or less fighters. Two hits will sink any AP or AK. Their high speed means that even though intercepted too easily there's a reasonable chance some will still break through CAP. They are hellaciously vulnerable to FlAK though but I can't bring myself to give them armour.


Interestingly I had previously limited them to 6,000 feet as their max ceiling as I wanted to model them as low-altitude only attackers. Unfortunately this intereacted with the hard-coded approach altitude for kamis ( 9,000 feet ) to mean none of them ever flew. I changed the scenario to set their max altitude to 10,000 feet and now they fly just fine.

[michaelm75au]

I think this attack did quite well using the last beta.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Hachijo-jima at 114,64
 
Weather in hex: Overcast
 
Raid detected at 131 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 32 minutes
 
Japanese aircraft
      Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 391
 
Allied aircraft
      F4F-4 Wildcat x 7
      FM-1 Wildcat x 19
      FM-2 Wildcat x 35
      F4U-1D Corsair x 59
      F4U-4 Corsair x 7
      F6F-5 Hellcat x 85
      F8F-1 Bearcat x 4
 
 
Japanese aircraft losses
      Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 82 destroyed
      Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 15 destroyed by flak
 
No Allied losses
 
Allied Ships
      DD Smith
      xAK Bucknell Victory
      DD Doyle
      DD Hughes
      DD Gridley
      xAK Ames Victory
      APD Stringham
      DD Ralph Talbot
      DD Drayton
      AP Gen. W.M.Mitchell
      DD Frankford
      AK Manderson Victory, Kamikaze hits 1
      APA Henry T. Allen
      DD Flusser
      DD McCook
      DD Shubrick
      AP Gen. W.P.Richardson
      APD Reeves
      DD Niblack
      APA Pickens
      DD Fanning
      xAK Berea Victory
      DD Herndon
      DD Gleaves
      DD Mugford
      AKA Cepheus
      AKA Trousdale
      DD Helm
      DD Craven
      DD Ellet
      DD Conyngham
      DD Endicott
      AP Gen. A.E.Anderson
      DD Lamson
      AP Gen. J.Breckinridge, Kamikaze hits 1
      APA Zeilin
      DD Maury
      APA Leonard Wood, Kamikaze hits 1
      DD Bagley
      DD Cassin
      APA Sibley
      AKA New Hanover
      APD Waters
      DD Sterett
      APA W.A. Holbrook, Kamikaze hits 1
      DD Anderson
      xAK Cedar Rapids Victory
      DD Patterson
      DD Case
      xAK Appleton Victory
      AKA Alamance
      AKA Andromeda
      AP Gen. H.W.Butner
      AKA Tyrell
      AP Gen. W.H.Gordon
      APA New Kent
      AP Adm. W.S.Benson
      DD Dunlap
      DD Carmick
      DD Mustin
      APA Harris, Kamikaze hits 1,  on fire
      APA Rawlins
      xAP Monticello
      DD Cummings
      DD McCall
      DD Morris
      APA Joseph T. Dickman
      DD Russell
      DD Lang
      xAK Britain Victory
      xAK Bozeman Victory
      xAP Klipfontein
      DD Benson
      DD Stack
 
 
 
Aircraft Attacking:
      24 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
      22 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
      16 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
       2 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
      32 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
      21 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
      26 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
      25 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
               Kamikaze:  1 x 500 kg GP Bomb
 About 170 planes got through. About 50%???

[Nemo121]

I've never gotten a result even close to that but, then again, I didn't get 400 Oscars flying en masse either...


The principal thing I notice is that you had massive numbers on your side. What you are doing in that attack is just outlasting the number of firing passes the ALlies have.

The problem is that in reality lots of small kamikaze raids were utilised in the war. The doctrine was multiple waves of 5 planes - 3 kamis and 2 escorting fighters. I've never hit the CAP with more than 150 fighters. When I hit with 150 all of them got shot down. Of course once you use up the Allied firing passes you get a logarithmic increase in survivors.

E.g If the Allies have the potential to shoot down 200 planes using CAP and you commit 210 then you get 5% leakers. If you commit 400 you get 50% leakers.

The problem is that if you ever send less than 200 planes in the one attack you get no leakers. Statistically multiple small waves is a lot more likely in AE than this one large wave ---- I tested about 10 days worth of attacks and never got a co-ordinated raid of more than 150 planes.


Also I'd point out that you scored 5 hits, in total, which is a hit rate of 1.25%, less than a tenth of the historical minimum number of hits ( 13% or so being scored in the closing stages of the Okinawa campaign ).

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I've never gotten a result even close to that but, then again, I didn't get 400 Oscars flying en masse either...


The principal thing I notice is that you had massive numbers on your side. What you are doing in that attack is just outlasting the number of firing passes the ALlies have.

The problem is that in reality lots of small kamikaze raids were utilised in the war. The doctrine was multiple waves of 5 planes - 3 kamis and 2 escorting fighters. I've never hit the CAP with more than 150 fighters. When I hit with 150 all of them got shot down. Of course once you use up the Allied firing passes you get a logarithmic increase in survivors.

E.g If the Allies have the potential to shoot down 200 planes using CAP and you commit 210 then you get 5% leakers. If you commit 400 you get 50% leakers.

The problem is that if you ever send less than 200 planes in the one attack you get no leakers. Statistically multiple small waves is a lot more likely in AE than this one large wave ---- I tested about 10 days worth of attacks and never got a co-ordinated raid of more than 150 planes.


Also I'd point out that you scored 5 hits, in total, which is a hit rate of 1.25%, less than a tenth of the historical minimum number of hits ( 13% or so being scored in the closing stages of the Okinawa campaign ).

Funny. I am running your save on the latest beta. Now I'm confused. Most of the other results were like the selected ones you posted.

[SuluSea]

Only a few dozen Ohka's were ever able to make it the 15 mile launch point and attack the fleet according to McWhorter in The First Hellcat Ace, and none were given sole credit for sinking a combat vessel. I see you are quoting many numbers from the war but without including other facts such as the the largest warship sunk by a kamikazee was a destroyer it looks like you are trying to convince Micheal to make the kamikazee a war altering weapon, which history has shown it wasn't.