A strange little idea with a big bang....

Firstly, it needs to have been used by all the Americans/British, Soviet Union, Germans and Japanese in WWII and since only the Japanese used Kamikaze pilots, they cannot implement it into the game. Secondly, Rockets do a perfect job of self destructing and taking out enemies.

NukeRaider33 wrote:

Firstly, it needs to have been used by all the Americans/British, Soviet Union, Germans and Japanese in WWII and since only the Japanese used Kamikaze pilots, they cannot implement it into the game. Secondly, Rockets do a perfect job of self destructing and taking out enemies.

Well, you are right in that the technique was limited mostly to the Japanese. However, there must've been times where a pilot who was going to crash anyway deliberately targeted an enemy position, just not with a specialized kamikaze bomb attached. That aside, just because Japan was the only nation that employed the technique doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed in the game and available to all players.

The same could be said for nukes since USA was the only nation that actually developed them in the war and to use them, also. But this game actually spans a time period more akin to the 1932 - 1955 era which did see the development of the first jet engines, rocket technology, nuclear bombers and even the first nuclear rockets. Though not everything in the game made an appearance in WWII, they were from the overall era.

As for rockets acting like Kamikazes, I did make the distinction that a kamikaze style attack would have the ability to be steered away from the target if you change your mind, so it's not a "set it and forget it" attack like the rocket. I did compare it to level 1 rockets since it can still get shot down, but, except upon the actual act of the attack itself, a kamikaze mission would essentially be like a regular attack mission en route to the target but have the rocket characteristics when the mission "strikes".

Then, when the actual attack is processed, the requested variability effect could make it more interesting since rockets themselves are only affected by the regular x-factor variability. Also, to make the wider variability (and subsequent favoring of a lower x-value) more interesting, the damage potential would needfully be fairly high (though it would still be relatively rare to achieve BECAUSE of the modified x-factor principle).

Now, that kamikaze value would have to be scaled up by level of the Interceptor, but maybe not proportionately since more advanced aircraft doesn't solely mean stronger bombs, but sleeker aircraft, better training programs, lighter but sturdier construction techniques, etc. And, if anything, upgrading your Interceptors into sleeker versions doesn't necessarily make their destructive power greater though the net effect is the same in regular combat.

On the other hand, higher level Interceptors COULD maybe be given a better x-factor outcome (i.e., favoring slightly higher x-value averages per level). But this would only make sense if the base kamikaze value were to never increase per Interceptor level.

BTW, though I assume that only Interceptors would have access to this new feature request, it might make sense to give it to Naval Bombers but only to be used at sea and to Tactical Bombers but only to be used against ground-based units.

Another possible variable might make sense to make the Kamikaze attack only work against a few target types, e.g., only against the larger capital ships (Cruisers, Battleships, and Carriers) and larger armored units (Medium Tanks, Heavy Tanks, and Mechanized Infantry). While this is getting excessive, maybe the Strategic Bomber could be used to kamikaze special installations (e.g., Nuclear Reactors and Fortresses only).

Having those targeted kamikaze strikes could make them more "sneaky" in that surrounding your prize units and buildings with "cannon fodder" might be circumvented, thus forcing some more strategy into how one employs their forces.

My mind is spinning at the possibilities, here. But if we can at least just implement my basic initial idea, the regular kamikaze strike with Interceptors only, then we could see how it goes.

Sorry, @Diabolical, but I didn't ask for it, don't like it, don't want it in the game.

As Nuke suggested above, you can achieve the same result conceptually with a one-shot disposable rocket. I fully acknowledge my own "western biases," as Roko likes to say, but I never want to see an American (or British, Australian, Canadian) unit as a designated suicide squadron. Besides, you can achieve about the same result by taking a stack of 10 fighter squadrons and launching a direct attack on a task force of eight cruiser and eight destroyer squadrons. Enjoy the carnage, as your air group returns with about half of the fighter squadrons with which the wing started its attack. That was the reality of the kamikaze.

MontanaBB wrote:

Sorry, @Diabolical, but I didn't ask for it, don't like it, don't want it in the game.

As Nuke suggested above, you can achieve the same result conceptually with a one-shot disposable rocket. I fully acknowledge my own "western biases," as Roko likes to say, but I never want to see an American (or British, Australian, Canadian) unit as a designated suicide squadron. Besides, you can achieve about the same result by taking a stack of 10 fighter squadrons and launching a direct attack on a task force of eight cruiser and eight destroyer squadrons. Enjoy the carnage, as your air group returns with about half of the fighter squadrons with which the wing started its attack. That was the reality of the kamikaze.

And, as a compromise, maybe the Kamikaze mission could be reserved only for higher level Interceptors (i.e., level 4 or higher). This would be similar to the Tac Bombers being unable to re-base on Carriers without first being increased to level 4.

Also, though you are right in that the effect of attacking a bunch of ships might see a lot of casualties, you forget that the kamikaze strike was fairly successful and the damage dealt in your scenario is disproportional compared with kamikaze damages. An Interceptor isn't going to carry the right type of armaments to deal that much damage to ships whereas a kamikaze striking Interceptor would be repurposing it's armaments to deal a stronger blow (essentially, the "missile" effect).

Of course, I've started this thread to request this idea be implemented. But I'm also curious to see where the players' opinions lay in this thought-stream. So I'm appreciative of your input, here, even if I disagree with you in this case.

BTW, in the scenario you described, I think that even fewer Interceptors would return from that engagement.

Diabolical wrote:

Also, though you are right in that the effect of attacking a bunch of ships might see a lot of casualties, you forget that the kamikaze strike was fairly successful and the damage dealt in your scenario is disproportional compared with kamikaze damages.

Diabolical wrote:

But, in that this is a game, and Germany is allowed to acquire nukes, so too should we be allowed to acquire Kamikazes.

Diabolical wrote:

Also, though you are right in that the effect of attacking a bunch of ships might see a lot of casualties, you forget that the kamikaze strike was fairly successful and the damage dealt in your scenario is disproportional compared with kamikaze damages. An Interceptor isn't going to carry the right type of armaments to deal that much damage to ships whereas a kamikaze striking Interceptor would be repurposing it's armaments to deal a stronger blow (essentially, the "missile" effect).

Put simply, the Japanese were trying to delay the rather inevitable defeat. They could have tried to concede to the US much earlier, but they didn't.

NovaTopaz wrote:

the fighters the US had were so good compared to the japanese, the only effective way to get the bombs in, was to suicide the aircraft into the ships. Otherwise, the planes would all get shot down before dropping the bombs on the target. And was still a waste of aircraft and men, overall.

OK OK OK, nobody seems to like this idea. But I did mention at the beginning that it was too little too late for the Japanese when they started employing the Kamikaze attack. But that's not to say it can't be effective. Just as the Japanese Zeros used in the attack on Pearl Harbor were effectively employed in that battle (efficient aircraft design, specialized torpedoes, shallow bombing runs, surprise attack), so too can the idea of a Kamikaze attack mission be effective.

Suppose the British decided to employ Kamikaze-style attacks against German factories much earlier in the war? Maybe the German Wiermacht would have been starved of replacement units much sooner and the war in Europe could have come to a conclusion much sooner. Or maybe American pilots kamikazed Japanese fortress installations in their island-hopping campaign instead of building so many Cruisers to perform shore bombardment. The point is that just because the Japanese might not have performed this strategy to it's most efficient use of man and war materiel doesn't mean that it can't work more effectively in the right hands.

Sure, it didn't always go so well for the Japanese, but by the time they did employ Kamikazes, they were already past the point of no return, being starved of resource imports, qualified and seasoned soldiers, allies, etc. By the time the Japanese resorted to the Kamikaze attacks, they were already destined to lose the war. Had they employed this tactic earlier in the war, i.e, at the Battle of Midway, the war might have gone much different and we Americans might all be speaking Japanese and living under the American Protectorate of the Japanese Empire.

Who knows what really might have happened. The simple fact is that the Kamikaze CAN be effective. It's an option that should be considered. Maybe it never would have worked....maybe it would. Though we'll never know THAT answer, we can employ the strategy in Call of War because it's a game where the timeline is a little skewed. Without that creativity in the design and rules, we'd not have the American Battlefront map or the Clash of Nations map.

It's OK to have things be a little less realistic if it makes for a fun game. I mean, has anyone here not tried [Dominion] Antarctica yet?