Yes, Kamikaze missions are planned. No details, yet, as to how they might work.
I'll have a guess. The plane takes off and then tries to hit a ship?
If the existing UV damage model is used in WitP, I'd be very interested to know (when its sorted out) how it will handle a strike by a Kamikaze a/c on a ship (damaged inflicted by plane + fuel and damage inflicted by payload).
The same applies to the UV experience model and the ease of which the pilots with very low skill (say 20) can reach 50 with little effort. You would end up facing a better quality of Kamikaze pilot than historical.
Tips for beginners - No 17 : The importance of screaming.
Remember when diving into the enemy to shout at the top of your lungs: "Hissatsu!" ("Sink without fail!") At that moment, all the cherry blossoms at Yasukuni shrine in Tokyo will smile brightly at you.
It is/could and isn't/could not be quite as simple as Plane takes off and hits ship. There was a lot of research done after the war as to the effectiveness of the Kamikaze. There was a lot of expendature for little gain, but comparing the gain of Kamikaze's vs. 1945 traditional anti-shipping attacks the Kamikaze did have better results.
One of the things noted about Kamikazes is that most of them used aircraft that did not have enough velocity and mass to cause substantial damage. Newer aircraft were better at Kamikaze missions, as they had the speed and capability of being armed with a heavy warhead that could seriously damage enemy warships.
One possible version of Kamikazes would have their damage rated on fixed information (certain aircraft would be more potent as Kamikazes then others). So, there are many possibilities as to how to create Kamikazes, and it depends on wether or not detail will be added, or wether it is really worth adding (as maybe the difference is truely un-noticable).
Dont worry to much about my first comment as it was not serious.
The rest of the post was just to point out that using unchanged UV damage and experience models (if they do) for WitP could lead to some problems in modeling Kamikazes effectiveness.
I was just trying to prompt a response from Mike Wood or another of the Matrix Gods.
Thanks for the bump. I read the thread with great interest. Anything new to report on kamikazes, Matrix? How about a screenshot of a kamikaze "air mission" or an AAR or something juicy?
I've been trying for some time to get 2by3 to look into a
code modification which would give aircraft differing flight and
combat charicteristics when flying different missions. Most A/C
would have 2-3 different sets of Range/Attack Value's, with the
"mission" chosen for the squadron determining which set was
used. Solves things like the "is it a Fighter, or a Fighter-Bomber"
problem easily. When it flies CAP, Escort, or Sweep, it's a Fighter
and uses it's fighter range and performance. If it's doing Naval
or Ground Attack, or ASW, then it's loaded with external ordinance
and has a reduced range and poorer performance---but it can drop bombs on things.
System would allow for the input of all kinds of historical data,
and would keep aircraft usage to more reasonable tasks for each
type. And it would make "Kamikazi" a mission type---probably
one with certain restrictions. Maybe it would be "greyed out"
until the Japanese lost the Marianas, or Formosa, or Luzon, or
the like. Some "level-of-desperation" threshhold that would
make the mission available. And using it could be restricted as
well, either by percentage of A/C available, or some other restriction. But the "kamikaze mission" would give aircraft yet
a different set of performance specs. Maybe a "normal" range
which would allow A/C not finding the target to return to base
(yes, this happened), and a much longer "extended" one-way
range (no survivors, no matter what). The naval attack values
of the A/C would be higher (the whole plane is a flying bomb);
but it's air-to-air value and resistance to flak much lower (THE
WHOLE PLANE IS A FLYING BOMB).
I periodically press Joel to look into such a system change.
But it would be nice if anyone else out here would chime in and
say "Hey..., that would make a more historical and interesting and flexible game." Anybody?
The naval attack values of the A/C would be higher (the whole plane is a flying bomb);
Only if naval attack values are irrelevent with respect to armor penetration, and only if the range to target is short. The plane's not muhc of a bomb if the tanks are largely empty.
but it's air-to-air value and resistance to flak much lower (THE WHOLE PLANE IS A FLYING BOMB).
Doubly so. Not only is the plane potentially more vulnerable, but as its mission is to hit the ship with the plane, its flight path is predictable and the plane can take no meaningful evasive maneuvers.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Actually, I was looking for some support for the "system
change" idea rather than trying to be specific. But your first
part is right as I stated it... What I would have said if i was
actually proposing a specific "range/effect" values set for A/C
flying Kamikaze Missions would have benn more on the order
of:
Divide the aircraft's Transfer Range into 3rds. The first 3rd
would be it's "normal" Kamikaze Range. (Gives plenty of fuel
to hunt for the target, and leaves enough to go back if you
don't find it) Out to 2/3rds would be the "extended" Kamikaze
Range. (Still enough fuel reserve to do some searching, but
you aren't going home. Perhaps a somewhat smaller "Attack
Value"). We could banter details, but that's what I was thinking
of when I wrote the message.
Mostly, I wanted some of the other folks in the forum to see
the idea I'm proposing and think about it a bit. I used the Kami-
kaze example because that was the thread subject. What I'm
suggesting to Joel is that a change in the way the code works
before WitP is released will make it much easier to do the "fine
tuning" of the entire air portion of the game, as well as deal with
the enevitable "patches". Once the change is made, they don't have to change code anymore---just adjust the "specs" for the
offending aircraft in the offending role.
Hopefully I haven't garbled my entire message in trying to get
it across...
