Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

[Alfred]

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.[;)]
 
The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.
 
To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:
 

• pilot quality
• airspeed
• manoeuvrability
• durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.
 
Alfred

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

For a problem in the database in my current PBEM (scen1), Tojo mounts Ha-35 instead of Ha-34 and that's a big deal since I will have to switch Tojo factories only, not caring much on Ha-34.

If I had to make a choice between spending hundreds of thousands of supplies on Tojo switch and trying to find an use for it, I would definitely go for the latter.

Broadly speaking, I would begin to increase other factories' production instead of switching. In the worst case scenario I would end up with a lot of unused production capacity with Ha-34 shut off for months. In the best case scenario, I have the possibility to use those stuff somehow even as a temporary/emergency solution.

Regarding Tojo kami: I still have to grasp the actual damage inflicted by the plane itself.

But, again, I am probably in a different industrial situation since I hold India, I have strongly expanded HIs in the DEI and MSY prod is shut off. I feel that this situation allows me to much more freedom in terms of industrial choices (f.ex. using also 2Es as kami)

Yep, in Scenario 1 (which I'm playing), the Tojo mounts the Ha-34, so it is what it is.

So far, I've averaged a gain of 50k supply a month. I've been gaining more than 100k a month this year, but it's about to drop with the engine and airframe changes coming. I trust Pax's supply goals for end game. He's played a lot more of that time frame than me (this is the farthest I've ever played). I need 6 million supply in about a year. I have 4.3 million right now. At 100k per month, I'll have 5.7 million saved. Close enough. But, I have a lot of engine & airframe expansion to do. I'm trying to come up with an supply cost estimate now. The HI should be fine, but the supply will be a concern.

Don't forget to factor fort/airbase expansion into the equation. That fairly eats up the supplies.

In no particular order, you need to consider for the Home Islands developing the following:

- Hexes with static aviation support. These need to the AF 8 or 9 to benefit from the x2 aviation support. The JNAF static unts get a nice TOE upgrade in '44, but even the IJA ones give you 180 aviation support without you having to move any units around.
- Major HI/LI centers need at least level 7 forts. Tokyo, Osaka/Kyoto and Nagasaki/Sasebo all could do with level 9 forts.
- Airbase expansion in undeveloped industrial bases. A few bases fall in this category as they've aircraft industry but either an undeveloped or no airbase to provide CAP. These bases are Maebashi, Gifu, Okayama, Hamamatsu and Tsu. Might be some others I've missed.
- Clear terrain bases that are likely invasion sites. These need to be 8+ to fend of the extreme naval and air bombings.
- Likely invasion sites that are x2 or x3 terrain. You can probably get away with level 5 or so forts here, but the higher the better.

For Manchuria:

- Level 6+ forts in the interior to absorb the Soviet '45 offensive: Yenki, Mutankiang, Harbin, Changchun, Mukden and Anshan. The bigger the better here, especially for Yenki and Mutankiang.

For Korea:
- Level 9 fort for Keijo as the last ditch defensive line for the Kwantung Army.
- Airbase at Chinhae for the static base force.
- Airbases at Taikyu and Taiden for the only inland airbases in South Korea (Read: no naval bombardments)
- Level 9 fort at Rashin to block soviet advance from Vladivostok.
- Level 6+ fort at Seishin to block Soviet advance from Vladivostok.

Keep in mind, this is just what I'd like to have, let alone what you can actually manage.

While it's expensive in terms of supply consumption, just remember that forts are a permanent bonus to defending AV. Forts, when combined with good terrain can go a long way to mitigate the "out of supply" penalty. In my view, 1 million supply invested in forts is better than 1 million supply sitting at a base: the base supply can be bombed, the forts are only going down to Allied units attacking them.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.[;)]

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

• pilot quality
• airspeed
• manoeuvrability
• durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Would you provide an example of what you consider an intelligent approach vector?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.[;)]

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

• pilot quality
• airspeed
• manoeuvrability
• durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Would you provide an example of what you consider an intelligent approach vector?

tm.asp?m=2793785&mpage=1&key=kamikaze&#2796413

Alfred

[Lokasenna]

Mike - you should be less concerned with how much HI and more concerned with building as many of your late-war planes as you can now. Planes in pools can't be bombed. Factories can. Better to have 1200 Franks in the pools than to have the HI to build 1200 Franks but no factories able to reliably do so. Obviously that's an extreme, but it's the best way to hedge the bet IMO.

[Mike Solli]

Hi Loka. That's an excellent point. Unfortunately, none of my late war fighters are operational yet. Here's what I plan on building:

Sam
Shinden
Ki-84r
Ki-201

The Frank will be operational 2/44. I'm planning on using a lot of them, so, based on your guidance, I'm going to start increasing my Frank factories. I currently have 3x60. By February, I can have that up to 3x150. Then I can start pumping them into the pool.

The other three, well, it's gonna be awhile. [:(]

Still pondering what to do with the Ha-34 factory...

[rustysi]

Frank b, if you ever build it, is unbelievable against bombers;

[:D]

Pretty sizable effort from day one here, and its just gonna get bigger. I really want all those cannon. Not sure how it will all work out.

I'm not saying you RnD all 6, I'm only saying those are the ones to choose from. I typically only RnD 2 or 3 of the 6.

Doing 5 of the 6. Might be too much. Some getting more effort than others.

if you are watching your MSY production. I don't build much, that saves a lot of HI.

There're just some things I can't do in the game. One of them is to turn off MSY production. I know its probably 'wrong', but I ask myself, would/could Japan have actually done such a thing IRL. And yes, I know this is not RL, its a game, but there're some lines I just can't get myself to cross. That may change someday. Not to say that in the late game when the 'walls are tumbling down' I won't do it to try and 'save the Empire'.[:D]

6M supply is earmarked ONLY for building the final fighter factories + engines to support them.

OK, got it, and that's an investment over time, which one is working one every turn. At least when he/she gets to the late war models, and their engines.

You may not be building 1000 Tojo/month, but seen a lot of players do it. Even 300 month means you spent 600K supply.

Not even. As I said IIa production never exceeded 3/day, and as of now IIc production is approaching 5/day. I'll probably keep that 'til near the end of '43 and reassess at that time.

After 9/44 you will be getting a lot of new units

9/44??? I've been keeping my eye on the new units that begin to come in late '43.

You will burn 2000 - 5000 ARM per day.

Crap.[X(]

And it is very nice to have 6 - 8 groups of Franks operating by Sept '43

Most likely not gonna have that, but I reassessed my R&D, and it looks to become operational by then at least. A bit late and will maybe make things tricky, but we'll see.

My engine production total right now (op and R&D) is 2430,

Mine's about 1700/month at the moment and rising. So I don't see me having any more than you by the time I get to where you are. I hope you're right or I may be in trouble too.[:D]

Ha-32/33/35 get fairly large and early '42 is a struggle with engines.

Yup.

All this and fighting a war too!!!

[:D]

For about a year, I had 500 of my ARM factories shut off.

Yeah, I turned mine down a bit when I had banked 100k, and a bit more with 150k. Based on Pax's comments it may have been a mistake. Right now I've 220 off and will probably turn it all back on at the end of Feb. '43.

So, what's a "lot" of Ki-115/Tokas? I currently have 540 Ha-35 factories and can continue to pump out engines until they become operational.

Consider this... Japan 'burned' some 1900 Kami's (IIRC) at Okinawa in early '45. Add to that those that went before(?), and that she had about 5000 more in reserve for the defense of the HI. So at least 7k of all types. My guess is that you'll need a bit more than that. Subtract what you have, or may have by then, and build your 115's.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.[;)]

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

• pilot quality
• airspeed
• manoeuvrability
• durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Now that's the best info I've gotten' on kami's since I started playing. As usual by Alfred.

Thank you once more.[&o][&o][&o]

[rustysi]

In no particular order, you need to consider for the Home Islands developing the following:

- Hexes with static aviation support. These need to the AF 8 or 9 to benefit from the x2 aviation support. The JNAF static unts get a nice TOE upgrade in '44, but even the IJA ones give you 180 aviation support without you having to move any units around.
- Major HI/LI centers need at least level 7 forts. Tokyo, Osaka/Kyoto and Nagasaki/Sasebo all could do with level 9 forts.
- Airbase expansion in undeveloped industrial bases. A few bases fall in this category as they've aircraft industry but either an undeveloped or no airbase to provide CAP. These bases are Maebashi, Gifu, Okayama, Hamamatsu and Tsu. Might be some others I've missed.
- Clear terrain bases that are likely invasion sites. These need to be 8+ to fend of the extreme naval and air bombings.
- Likely invasion sites that are x2 or x3 terrain. You can probably get away with level 5 or so forts here, but the higher the better.

For Manchuria:

- Level 6+ forts in the interior to absorb the Soviet '45 offensive: Yenki, Mutankiang, Harbin, Changchun, Mukden and Anshan. The bigger the better here, especially for Yenki and Mutankiang.

For Korea:
- Level 9 fort for Keijo as the last ditch defensive line for the Kwantung Army.
- Airbase at Chinhae for the static base force.
- Airbases at Taikyu and Taiden for the only inland airbases in South Korea (Read: no naval bombardments)
- Level 9 fort at Rashin to block soviet advance from Vladivostok.
- Level 6+ fort at Seishin to block Soviet advance from Vladivostok.

Food for thought. Great stuff to consider here. Nice to see I'm already doing most of it. I'll have to take a new look at some areas though.

[rustysi]

Well here I am again, staying way too long.

Just wish to add one thing. This discussion has been utterly fantastic, and informative. Thanks to all who have contributed.[&o] [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.[;)]

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

• pilot quality
• airspeed
• manoeuvrability
• durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Tie this with what Erik wrote in one of the other threads. We really don't know how the 'boom' is calculated for a kami. Bomb load may or may not even be part of it.

So, as Alfred states, getting through with a hit is the biggest priority. Speed, DUR, MAN and pilot skill would be the main determinants on your kami model.
Having numbers advantage in a kami attack, for me, is always the single biggest determinant in the outcome. Altitude, attack cohesiveness, etc also matter, but numbers still out weigh everything else. That's just me.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A good kamikaze plane is a plane which can evade Allied CAP and flak.[;)]

The theoretical amount of damage which a kamikaze plane can inflict is totally beyond the capacity of the player to determine.  What the player should focus on is getting a hit from his kamikaze plane.  What follows from a kamikaze hit is a narrow range of inputs into the algorithm.

To get the individual kamikaze plane through focus on:

• pilot quality
• airspeed
• manoeuvrability
• durability

To maximise the effectiveness of the attack, good "ablative armour" in the form of good and plentiful escorts plus intelligent approach vectors, are essential.

Alfred

Tie this with what Erik wrote in one of the other threads. We really don't know how the 'boom' is calculated for a kami. Bomb load may or may not even be part of it.

So, as Alfred states, getting through with a hit is the biggest priority. Speed, DUR, MAN and pilot skill would be the main determinants on your kami model.
Having numbers advantage in a kami attack, for me, is always the single biggest determinant in the outcome. Altitude, attack cohesiveness, etc also matter, but numbers still out weigh everything else. That's just me.

Hmm, depends on what you mean by "bomb load"[:D]

For a subject which exercises so much the minds of players, both the manual and the devs over the years have been very reticent to provide much guidance. I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Kamikaze air operations in AE are very similar to what transpired in classical WITP. The two main changes made for AE were::

(a) fix the bug which saw kamikaze aircraft attack land bases (this fix was one of the last classical WITP bug fixes), and

(b) improve the chances of a kamikaze strike penetrating Allied CAP. This mainly involved addressing the classical WITP problem of late war uber CAP neutering any kind of air strike.

IRL the damage from kamikaze aircraft came not just from their ordnance but also from their fuel and mass of airframe. If AE were a simulation this would require every single different eligible aircraft model having its mass + fuel + specific mission ordnance factored into the kamikaze combat algorithm. For each plane which hits. Instead, partly because that level of detail is not tracked, in AE this is all abstracted down to a relatively few inputs into the kamikaze combat algorithm.

What really matters for the abstraction is whether a kamikaze hit is achieved. That means first successfully getting through Allied CAP (the primary Allied defence) and flak. A kamikaze plane which hits gets only 1 single hit, not multiple hits to reflect ordnance + fuel + mass. The damage inflicted (don't forget there are always die rolls in Grigsby algorithms) is determined from the type of hit which is abstracted. There is no differentiation made between different aircraft models of the same aircraft type. Except for determining the type of abstracted hit to be applied, aircraft models without a bomb are not discriminated against compared to those aircraft models of the same aircraft type with a bomb.

Alfred

[modrow]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Alfred

What would be the chances of sucess for a pretty please, if we could muster an appropriate person to voice it? [;)]

I mean now that you have crossed the line of providing information to which we are not entitled anyway... [;)]?

Hartwig

[mind_messing]

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: modrow

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

Alfred

What would be the chances of sucess for a pretty please, if we could muster an appropriate person to voice it? [;)]

I mean now that you have crossed the line of providing information to which we are not entitled anyway... [;)]?

Hartwig

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.[:)]

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.

That is only one of the reasons. A much more important reason is protection of copyright. There are two different copyright holders involved and that further complicates the ownership question. With regard to 2By3's copyright, wdolson has hinted on various occasions that there are other reasons besides a narrow interpretation of copyright protection why they will never disclose the algorithms which belong to them.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.

I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

This is both a naïve and myopic statement. One which you have repeated ad nauseum over the years notwithstanding the rebutals which have been consistently provided.

1. You came to AE from the Paradox universe, in particular from HOI. It beggars belief that you can imply with a straight face that Paradox game manuals, in particular HOI game manuals, provide more details and greater assistance than the AE manual. I can only conclude that you have never bothered to read the Paradox manuals. I have so you can treat the rest of the posters on this forum as fools buut you can't fool me.

2. You obviously have never bothered to read the Paradox forums if again you are implying with a straight face that they provide more details and greater assistance than the AE forum. Paradox devs do not, I repeat, do not participate in their forums. Their developer diaries, which are a relatively recent development, are nothing more than advertisements for their forthcoming games. Paradox forums are totally dependent on the goodwill of fellow players providing the benefit of their experience. In that they are most definitely not better than the AE forum. Furthermore the AE forum, for 5 years after the game release, had regular contributions from many of the devs. Those contributions greatly expanded on the manual's explanation of both game mechanics and rationale for game design decisions. None of that is found in the Paradox forums and was provided for free so for you to consistently dismiss the efforts of the devs to support the game merely shows you to be an ingratiate at best.

3. No AE patch has ever been charged for. there have been 7 official AE patches (which included substantial game updates) plus there are the unofficial beta patches. Paradox incorporates their patches into cosmetic updates which allows them to justify charging their customer base a substantial sum of money to maintain their base game up to date. I have never seen you state that you would be quite happy to have paid money to receive any of those patches and updates. Where in this world, where the average mortal has to be engaged in paid employment in order to meet their living expense, (oh I forget you live in academia although whether that is as an academic or merely as a student has never been made clear), is it expected,, as a right, to receive support and information always in a pro bono capacity. Try to walk in the shoes of the AE devs and imagine how much more additional assistance they could have provided if their participation generated additional revenue post game release.

4. No one doubts that you personally lack the skills, but if you could tear yourself away once from thinking about yourself, I can assure you that there are individuals on this planet who would be greatly assisted in reverse engineering the game and creating their own PTO games to compete with AE if the detail you consistently demand, were to be provided. There are also PBEM game security considerations which come into play but you would have to know something about the world outside of your own personal universe in order to appreciate that.

5. The Combat Reports and the various other relevant game reports/intel provide much more accurate information than a real world commander gets. You want more unrealistic information, turn off Fog of War. Stop complaining if you have Fog of War turned on. Take a course on computer programming to try to gain some understanding as to what some of the practical limitations are.

6. You yourself in your AARs demonstrate a good grasp of game mechanics. Your play is not hampered by a lack of knowledge of game mechanics. You regularly post to other players AARs detailed posts explaining options based on game mechanics. How is all this possible if the detail of game mechanics has not been provided by the AE devs. Or are you expecting us all to believe that you are only the second person in the history of the world to have been visited by the Holy Spirit, the other being Mary the mother of Jesus whose gift from the Holy Spirit was the foetus of Jesus, whereas in your case the gift was all the detail knowledge of AE game mechanics which the devs allegedly did not provide. One does not have to be Richard Dawkins to not believe that to be the case. Instead your own statement about the lack of knowledge of what causes LCU artillery to fire at ships in bombardment/artillery TFs shows up this nonsense for what it really is for I have provided detailed posts on how it operates, and my posts have drawn upon earlier posts publicly provided by the devs. I have never claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit.


The fundamental difference between you and me is that whenever I have been uncertain about some game mechanic I have gone and researched the public resources and invariably found the answer. An answer which ultimately derives from the devs. Faced with the same situation, you don't make the same effort or if you do make the effort you can't be honest enough to admit the answer has ultimately been derived from the devs. For you it is so much easier to just blame the devs, and in doing so you consistently slander them. What is really astonishing is how someone in the academic world can survive with such poor research skills or failure to correctly cite and acknowledge the sources.

Alfred

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.

The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.

That is only one of the reasons. A much more important reason is protection of copyright. There are two different copyright holders involved and that further complicates the ownership question. With regard to 2By3's copyright, wdolson has hinted on various occasions that there are other reasons besides a narrow interpretation of copyright protection why they will never disclose the algorithms which belong to them.

Alfred

I recall - I think it was Joe but I don't firmly recall who - saying it was also Gary Grigsby's philosophy, which makes the original IP considerations apply in both ways.

[Mike Solli]

Hi guys. The dialogue of the past couple of days has been wonderful. Unfortunately, it's going in a direction I'd rather not visit.

We now know that Kamikaze effectiveness is based primarily on Pilot Quality, Air Speed, Maneuverability and Durability. The first has nothing to do with the airframe so I've looked at the remaining 3 to see what airframes might be the most suitable to be used as Kamikazes.

I did something pretty simple to start. There are 164 different Japanese airframes in scenario 1. I looked at the top 30 for each of the 3 categories to see if anything showed up in all of them.

Here are the upper and lower limits for the top 30 in the categories:

Speed: 559-373
Maneuverability: 49-28
Durability: 48-36

There were no airframes that showed up in the top 30 in all 3 categories and only 4 airframes that showed up in the top 30 in 2 of the categories:

Ki-84r: Speed #10, Man #30
Ki-93-Ib: Speed #16, Dur #21
Ki-93-Ia: Speed #17, Dur #22
Ki-102c: Speed #30, Dur #28

Fighters were most common in the speed (late fighters) and maneuverability (early fighters) categories while the 4E flying boats and 2E bombers/transports were primarily in the durability category. No surprises there.

To me, it seems that if you want to focus on a particular airframe for use as a Kamikaze, you need to focus on one of the three categories and train your pilots.

My initial thoughts are to either focus on maneuverability or durability for Kamikazes because I'm not all that excited in using my late war fighters as Kamikazes.

Note that the Ki-115b and Toka are tied for #18 in the speed category.

What to you all think?