Page 3 of 3 First First 123

Thread: "No Kamikazee"="No Frag Grenades"

"No Kamikazee"="No Frag Grenades"

  1. #51
    Could you atleast try to type like a big boy?

  2. #52
    Bazil,

    If you were referring to me, then I understand. I was a little frustrated and will work on that in the future.

    Cheers!


  3. #53
    Hehe, just thought the use of exclamationmarks were.... excessive
    Sorry if I sounded like an ass, I do that sometimes, you're apparently more mature than I gave you credit for.

  4. #54
    it's funny cause i'll have a kongo approaching thier base, about to attack it. meanwhile back at my base, i have another kongo and i'm about to kill a renown class, hammering it with artillery. but i dont want to sink it right away, so i stop shelling it and let it cruise around the airfields all banged up. why? cause as soon as that thing sinks, there will be a fresh new one come out of the shipyard to face my other kongo who is all alone shelling the shipyard.

  5. #55
    Originally Posted by Ryback14
    when i get the full game and i host, i will occasionally tell people that kamikazee not allowed. kind of like when you play R6vegas and you say, "no frags allowed for this round, if you use them you will get kicked".

    of course i wont do this all the time, but it will be interesting to see how battles unfold when everyone has to either send thier bombers back or continue fighting with those units till they die.
    deal with it, besides they hardly do any damage based on the demo.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,274
    Originally Posted by takevin
    sorry, thats stupid, kamikazee were used as integral part by the japanese, no different then shelling a ship.

    How many more people will say this this the japs didn't use kamikaze this early!!!!!!!!!!!!! This game ends in 1942!!!!!!!!!!

  7. #57
    Originally Posted by takevin
    deal with it, besides they hardly do any damage based on the demo.
    i posted this a while ago. now that i've seen it, i do see that they do minimal damage, and you can say "let 'em go ahead and run out of planes".

    but by telling people you cant do it, this extends the time that they get more re-armed planes in the air. that would be the only benefit of establishing "server rule" in the lobby. and battles would last way longer too because of planes landing... (which is a good thing)

  8. #58
    EDIT: After reading your post again, Crossroads, I noticed you were talking about ethics of war where I was talking about exploiting game mechanics. My choise of words in my original post might have not been the best suitable one as I did not mean "negative rating" in relation with ingame scoring, rather "negative player review", "avoid this player".[/QUOTE]

    Bernhrdt:

    Maybe I misunderstood your post. I just felt it was unfair to give someone a negative rating when they are playing within the rules. You certainly have the right to post your opinons regarding game play.

    I started Kamakazing because it made the most sense. If you are fighting a good flak captain though, it actually can be challenging, and just adds another element to the game. Dodging flak to get to the ship is just as much fun as dodging it during your torpedo run.

    Yesterday in a long drawn out PC game the guy I was playing actually ran out of planes, so it does have it's penalties.

  9. #59

    stupid

    this is stupid, the kamikazee attack hardly does any damage at all in the game, the only reasons for crashing your planes is to crash into other planes to kill them because that accually works nicely or after you bomb a ground base you crash into the fixed AA positions on the island, and even if you want to crash them you have to do each plane in the unit individually which takes time and usually during this time something else has gone horribly wrong because they weren't paying attention. this almost helps you because for every second they're having fun crashing their little planes the stipid AI has control of all their other unis making it easer to kill sometimes. so let the little noob crash his plane, it's probobly not doing that much.

    and in your case of crashing so you can send units out faster, again it takes time, so don't shoot the kamikasees shoot the planes that are doing stuff that could acually hurt you, and they will run out of planes eventually, then their screwed

  10. #60
    I think it would be a cool idea to have bombers that reload be able to do more damage on their second run. Call it what you want. A veteran bonus where they can target better or whatever. However, I always try to land my bombers and redeploy but it is much easier (at least in this map) to crash them and launch new ones. However, if I can send them back and they have the potential to do some devastating damage after their reload, it would not only add incentive for me to land them but also give the opponent incentive to shoot them down. Of course, in order to get the bonus your first bomb would need to hit an enemy target. Could get pretty complicated...

  11. #61
    Originally Posted by andy3536

    How many more people will say this this the japs didn't use kamikaze this early!!!!!!!!!!!!! This game ends in 1942!!!!!!!!!!
    Well, if you can find NO OTHER historical inaccuracies in the game, then this argument would be valid,.........however, since we both know there are other historical inaccuracies, saying people shouldnt kami because it didnt happen in the real war doesnt work.

    Maybe people should have a can of gasoline besides them, and when their ship gets hit, light themselves on fire........... it would be more historically accurate,........... drown yourslef when your ship sinks...................................



    Remember,....

    ITS A GAME!!!

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,450
    Originally Posted by Ryback14
    no i'm talking about the typical strategy of dropping your payload and then just crashing your squadron into the target for a little extra damage, since it takes so long to send them back. then you just relaunch and repeat. certain games i will not allow this.



    not when you careen it into the bridge of a ship. a huge explosion usually occurs and then the bridge looks blackened and more mangled. i'd say that's damage.




    you are correct about that.



    because, some matches i will want to make more relaistic the way they play out. it's not realistic and ruins the authenticity of the experience. i want to feel like i'm in a ww2 pacific battle, and slamming dauntlesses into ships bridges isnt very authentic.
    Kamakazias were used in the war, and don't tell me that there were NO instances where they used Kamakazias. Wheather the pilot was going down and stered his plane into the enemy instead of bailing, or they sent a mass attack.
    "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on." ---Robert Frost.
    -=)CSF(=-XGamerms999
    http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/...ilies/Thud.gif

  13. #63
    Originally Posted by xgamerms999
    Kamakazias were used in the war, and don't tell me that there were NO instances where they used Kamakazias. Wheather the pilot was going down and stered his plane into the enemy instead of bailing, or they sent a mass attack.

    hand me a link. please. hand me one. cause i'm havin a hard time believing that any one squadron of american dauntlesses pounded thier way into the bridge of a japanese battleship.

  14. #64
    it happend but wassent named kamikaze... such things happend when planes were highly damaged and no hope to survive...
    Especially with the Japanese who just wont surrender, they rather die fighting.
    Hell even villages jumped of cliffs instead of surrendering to American forces

  15. #65
    Originally Posted by SleepTrgt
    it happend but wassent named kamikaze... such things happend when planes were highly damaged and no hope to survive...
    Especially with the Japanese who just wont surrender, they rather die fighting.
    Hell even villages jumped of cliffs instead of surrendering to American forces

    lol, i was talkin about american kamikazees= didnt exist.

  16. #66
    well i bet, that some American planes just flew into a target with a damaged plane instead of bailing out.
    But not like Kamikaze's planning to do so

  17. #67
    The simple solution is to just reduce the number of planes and ships available at airbases, shipyards, and carriers (say by about half). Most people never come close to running out at the current levels, and such a reduction would make ones units that much more precious, and cause most to reconsider the kamikaze respawn. And if they didn't, well they would soon be out of planes anyway . . .

  18. #68
    Originally Posted by airguard79
    Please people stop talking when you have no idea what you are talking about. I have been watching these forums for months but never registered till now. AT PEARL HARBOR MANY JAP PLANES WERE USED AS KAMAKAZIS. If you dont believe me look it up. The show PEARL HARBOR in color shows a kammi pilot slamming into the oklahoma be fore it sank. just because you lost in a online match and you think the the player crashing his planes into you was the reason STOP spuing you BS here.....
    Umm, no.

    Point A: "Kamikaze" (Japanese meaning "Divine Wind" a reference to a Tsunami which save Japan from a Mongol invasion) refers specifically to the Japanese "Special Attack" Units, the first of which were not formed until 1944. The first organized intentional Kamikaze took place during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 21-26 1944, hitting heavy cruiser HMAS Australia and the escort carriers USS Sangamon, USS Santee, USS Suwanee, USS White Plains, USS Kalinin Bay, and USS Kitkun Bay, and sinking the escort USS St. Lo (which had ironically just survived the attack by the IJN super battleship Yamato during the Battle of Samar Island earlier that morning). The Kamikaze units were formed in a direct response to the destruction of Japanese carrier-based naval aviation during the Battle of Philippine Sea in June, 1944. That battle demonstrated that IJN carrier aviation was too inferior numerically and qualitatively to compete with the Allies. While Japanese industry could continue to produce new aircraft, the time and fuel necessary to train quality pilots able to take on the Americans was no longer available, so Kamikazes provided a way for even poorly trained pilots to make an impact. It should also be noted that the Nazis also formed "suicide" air units in the last days of World War II, though in that case the response among air crew was generally less then enthusiastic (there was nominal provision for the pilot's last-minute escape).

    Point B: Kamikazes should not be confused unintentional or last ditch suicide attacks. From the very start of the war, there were occasions of pilots pressing attacks too far, or aircraft damaged (or pilots killed) with the aircraft already on a trajectory to hit a ship, or pilots of doomed aircraft trying to take their target with them. Dive bomber pilots were especially susceptable to this, as they intentionally dived their aircraft at ships only to pull out at the last second; if something went wrong, the dive could become terminal. For example, and American SB2U crashed into a Japanse cruiser at Midway after the plane was hit by enemy fire, and a Japanse D3A at Santa Cruz followed its bomb into the flight deck of the Hornet. However, these sorties were not at the outset planned as kamikaze attacks.

    Point C: There were certainly no Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor operation was intended to be a surprise strike, in and out quickly, and those involved were specifically discouraged from all or nothing gambles or unnecessarily wasting aircraft or lives. The carriers and aircraft were already committed to support other Japanese offensives, and any unnecessary loss could jeprodize the entire Japanese strategy. The closest thing a to an intentional suicide attack during the Pearl Harbor operation were the 5 mini-subs sent to assist the carrier aircarft. But, though it was expected that all would be lost (as in fact they were), plans were still made for their possible recovery, and the mother-subs did wait off Oahu in case some survived. It has a high-risk mission, but not an intentional one-way trip.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Replacing pilots in real life is not as easy as replacing aircraft. The skill and training invested into an aviator is not cheap and produced in short order. For that reason pilots would do anything to return to base or near known friendly forces. I'm sure there were instances of aircraft crashing into vessels before Kamikazi attacks were predominant but those are isolated incidents based mainly on fatal damage to an aircraft and not of desperation. To suggest these isolated incidents provide proof of kamikazi attacks from Pearl Harbor to the Battle of Midway is wrong.

    While in game dwindling down your aircraft supply may not mean much, it does in real life. One battle is just that...To get home or achieve a strategic victory, you better have enough aircraft to fight effectively in many battles.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,274
    Originally Posted by ScottWAR
    Well, if you can find NO OTHER historical inaccuracies in the game, then this argument would be valid,.........however, since we both know there are other historical inaccuracies, saying people shouldnt kami because it didnt happen in the real war doesnt work.

    Maybe people should have a can of gasoline besides them, and when their ship gets hit, light themselves on fire........... it would be more historically accurate,........... drown yourslef when your ship sinks...................................



    Remember,....

    ITS A GAME!!!
    If you are going to reply to a quote of mine i would prefer you understood it!
    I wasn't suggesting that people shoudn't use it in the game and if they were on the opposing team i rather they did. I was just saying that the japs never did this so early in the war as people are using that as an excuse as to why they are doing it. The simple fact is if you want to kamakaze then just do it with out trying to make excuses as to why.

    And on another piont let me ask you if anyone had just launched a wave of attacks on an enemy carrier and it had just the tiniest amount of life left. Wouldn't you?
    Even if you didn't normally.

  21. #71
    Originally Posted by NimitsTexan
    Umm, no.

    Point A: "Kamikaze" .....
    Great post NimitsTexan, you are absolutely right on the historical Kamikaze issue.

    However, I can't help feeling that the point about crashing aircraft being a game strategy is valid - if the game allows you to crash your aircraft after they have dropped their payloads thereby giving you a fresh air attack group almost immediately, then it is a valid game strategy. Silly not to. Personally I would prefer that you have to bring them home for reload than to crash them. Why couldn't the second wave be made available immediately after the first group have dropped their bombs and/or torpedoes, but with the availability of a third wave being dependent on your getting the first wave home safely? Then there would be incentive to look after your planes rather than to crash them.

  22. #72
    The problem with the longevity argument is irrelevant in a few missions. In the mission to destroy the Yamato and there are two allied carriers its irrelevant because you probably will not run out of planes between the two carriers. In the Surgiago straight battle its possible but crashing a solo plane isn't going to make or break you. Both of these missions are really a mission of time for the allies and not one of longevity. Its only a matter of time before the battleship makes a run for the straight or until the yamato gets into range of the carriers. Also against a BB you probably won't make it back with a large number of planes.

  23. #73
    Nonetheless the plane ditching / no reward for returning planes is a serious game design flaw.

    Period.


    DEVS: PLEASE FIX!

    Thx

  24. #74
    While I agree that ditching a plane to get a respawn back in the air faster is silly, it doesn't bother me so much. The reason is because each carrier/air-base is limited to 9 planes in the air at one time.

    If a particular battle were "real", and I were the commander of a carrier and saw a nasty enemy battleship coming for me, I would send most everything against the battleship in order to sink it so that I wouldn't die. Considering it were a normal carrier I would not be limited to only 9 planes. I could send 30 planes against it if I wanted. So, to me, there should "realistically" be much more than 9 planes going after a target. Someone ditching their used/injured planes to make room for more is just putting more planes into battle more quickly - which is, IMO, a more accurate reflection of what it really should be like anyway.

    So, to me, the "problem" is the 9-plane limit. Granted, I realize this is probably for performance issues - more than that per carrier/air-base would probably result in some awful slow-down?

    Having said all that, if I enter a game and the host asks people not to do it.. I won't do it out of respect for them.

Page 3 of 3 First First 123

Similar Threads

  1. Official Brands
    By DipBird in forum 25 to Life - General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th Sep 2005, 15:18
  2. Should defiance get its own board here?
    By hippiechk in forum Legacy of Kain: Defiance
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 9th May 2003, 17:49