Slitherine

Are these air units supposed to only destroy 1 measly strength point?
Not very useful, it is far worse than using a regular torpedo unit.

Erik wrote:.. it is far worse than using a regular torpedo unit.

At least you've +1. My submarines regularly see 0! "Something must be done"

No disagreement there. After Morning Sun is out it is time start a few discussions on game mechanics (again).

Erik wrote:No disagreement there. After Morning Sun is out it is time start a few discussions on game mechanics (again).

Totally agree. This game has many interesting features but sometimes combat mechanics are a bit odd

Before the Russians arrive?

apec wrote:

Erik wrote:No disagreement there. After Morning Sun is out it is time start a few discussions on game mechanics (again).

Totally agree. This game has many interesting features but sometimes combat mechanics are a bit odd

Completely agree. Japs subs and kamikaze units , commandos and other stuff definitely need some adjustments.

The devs have listened to requests before, let's hope we can have a little get-together and fix the obvious stuff that really don't work first.
Then we'll polish it.

In addition to the concern regarding the predicted damage to the cruiser, the predicted damage to the kamikaze is a bit confusing to me. I admit that I haven't used kamikazes when playing as Japan, but when playing against the computer as the Allies, all kamikaze attacks resulted in the unit being completely destroyed. So, if that rule holds when playing as Japan, the predicted damage for the kamikaze in the example should be "10".

On the other hand, if a kamikaze unit is considered as a group of aircraft, then losing something less than the total unit strength in an attack does make some sense since it would could be attributed to a formation splitting up to go against different ships. But this would mean that the kamikaze unit in the example above would only be damaged (not destroyed) and would be available for more attacks on subsequent turns. That might be interesting but doesn't seem to be consistent with what I mentioned above.

Anyway, I agree with everyone's points that some damage predictions don't seem to make sense and so they wind up being a bit of a distraction to what is otherwise a fantastic and fun game. Maybe some additional explanations are required for us players to understand the reasoning or perhaps some tweaks to the game would be appropriate.

TDefender wrote: Japs subs

ALL subs.

Over the nearly 3 campaigns worth I've played of this game, I think I have a total of 4 strength points worth of damage done to my enemies!

One U-Boat in PzC can do this much in a single shot!

- BNC

I'm too new here to speak with authority on these topics (particularly subs), but I do have an opinion on the kamikaze attack. In Wikipedia's article on the subject, it quotes a U.S. Air Force web site:

Approximately 2,800 Kamikaze attackers sank 34 Navy ships, damaged 368 others, killed 4,900 sailors, and wounded over 4,800. Despite radar detection and cuing, airborne interception, attrition, and massive anti-aircraft barrages, 14 percent of Kamikazes survived to score a hit on a ship; nearly 8.5 percent of all ships hit by Kamikazes sank.

Given the high numbers of attackers and their low rates of success, I can go with an attack factor of one in the game for kamikazes. Of course, if and when I see a kamikaze "fly" away after impact because it has sustained only four damage out of ten, I will be a bit disappointed.

Going back on history...

-Kamikaze aircraft were originally aimed at being last ditch efforts, meaning that most of these planes weren't even armed.
-Kamikaze planes were made to REDUCE hull integrity, and preferably critical aspects of their targets(ex. targeting planes docked on a carrier)
-Kamikaze planes were some of the few things the Japanese used as desperation, meaning that they were never made to inflict severe damage.

Hope this helps.

Game wise; why would you switch to Kamikaze mode when you can only inflict 'regular' damage and the unit will always get destroyed in the attack?
I think the devs need to rethink and find a better way to simulate these attacks. It should work like an air-.version of the Banzai, high risk/potentially good result.

Shireshio wrote:Going back on history...

-Kamikaze planes were some of the few things the Japanese used as desperation, meaning that they were never made to inflict severe damage.

Hope this helps.

Of course they were intended to do severe damage. Ask the Captains of the ships that were sunk or the sailors who died. Like most desperation tactics, they failed to make an impact on the out come of the war. But they did cause US Commanders to change tactics and adapt new strategies for defending naval attack groups. So in the game the player should have to make choices. That is what gives the game depth.

Therefore the game should make them enough of a threat that the player can't just dismiss them as a trivial annoyance. Or if Kamakaze planes are as useless as submarines, then don't include them in the game.

Kamikaze is more like a role play in my opinion, since the first day I have already highlight that kamikaze is not useful in the campaign and no logic deploying it when japs are winning the war hehehe still it won't be a pacific war without it so I take it more like a role play rather than actual game play