Kamikaze and Ohka testing.

Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

String -> Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 6:31:31 PM)
I must dissapoint you, I haven't conducted any tests. However there are surely benevolent creatures out there with free time to spare who would gladly conduct some tests in the '45 campaign scenario? Test the effects of different kamikaze plane hits vs battleships, different carrier types, lighter combat ships and troop laden transports. For Ohkas there isn't that much of a need of damage testing, just to see how much they hit.. the damage should probably be consistent. Ofcourse all of these tests should take place without allied cap present, we all know that little can get through, so it would be interesting to know if the kamikaze planes cause more damage than conventional bombing, and more importantly, if they hit more often through the heavy flak than conventional planes.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 6:36:46 PM)
quote: For Ohkas there isn't that much of a need of damage testing, just to see how much they hit.. the damage should probably be consistent. Hit? These "wonder" weapons fall into the "I wonder what they were thinking of" catagory. quote: Test the effects of different kamikaze plane hits vs battleships, different carrier types, lighter combat ships and troop laden transports. 2 hits will generally sink a CVE or lesser ship, takes more to sink a real ship. quote: Ofcourse all of these tests should take place without allied cap present, we all know that little can get through, so it would be interesting to know if the kamikaze planes cause more damage than conventional bombing, and more importantly, if they hit more often through the heavy flak than conventional planes. They get through, but they also die at amazing rates as do all aircraft in the late war.

Iridium -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 6:57:16 PM)
These weapons are merely glorified bombs, big bombs, but nothing more. Now if we could get some suicide torpedo action...then I might consider using them...

Nikademus -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 7:08:00 PM)
easy. just modify/create a new sub class that fires a device called "Kaiten" instead of a normal torpedo. Give it a low acc rating but a really big warhead. [:D]

Terminus -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 7:13:24 PM)
Already doing it...

rkr -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 7:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus easy. just modify/create a new sub class that fires a device called "Kaiten" instead of a normal torpedo. Give it a low acc rating but a really big warhead. [:D] I thought earlier discussions in this forum pointed out that the accuracy was roughly 1 hit for three kaitens fired?

panda124c -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 8:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium These weapons are merely glorified bombs, big bombs, but nothing more. Now if we could get some suicide torpedo action...then I might consider using them... Ah give a little more credit here, we are talking the first Cruise Missle's. [:-]

Nikademus -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 8:16:04 PM)
I dont recall the specific thread regarding accuracy. The main problem for the moder in terms of WitP is that you are essentially using the standard Sub attack routines to represent a specialized weapons system which will naturally create a very grey area in terms of representattion. Were "I" to mod such a weapon, i would go with the assumption that a normal torpedo (using the standard attack routine) would be far more accurate vs. a Kaiten device though the Kaiten, should it impact, would have a much more devastating effect. I would do it this way in order to prevent the creation of an "uber-weapon" (kind of like Okha's) Just my personal take.

rkr -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 8:29:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus I dont recall the specific thread regarding accuracy. The main problem for the moder in terms of WitP is that you are essentially using the standard Sub attack routines to represent a specialized weapons system which will naturally create a very grey area in terms of representattion. Were "I" to mod such a weapon, i would go with the assumption that a normal torpedo (using the standard attack routine) would be far more accurate vs. a Kaiten device though the Kaiten, should it impact, would have a much more devastating effect. I would do it this way in order to prevent the creation of an "uber-weapon" (kind of like Okha's) Just my personal take. There was a link to an afterwar interrogation of Japanese submarine commander who had used kaitens. According to him the hitrate was 1 in 3 which was way more accurate than regular torpedoes. I know Kaiten is not comparable to modern torpedoes, but it should be more 2-3 times more accurate than regular torpedoes (the actual number for regular torpedoes was quoted on that thread as well). The speed and range should be lower though.

Nikademus -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 9:04:41 PM)
I'd have to really doubt that. Japanese midget's as a rule tended to be fairly inaccurate weapons platforms and that was with specially trained crews. Since Kaiten's were meant as one way weapons devices, i'd have to think the "pilots" would be little better in exp than those of the airborne variety. Were Kaiten's so effective (1 in 3??) i'd think the war might have gone a tad bit differently. I think i've written enough now to start a massive argument over Kaiten effectiveness. [;)] Just saying how I'd mod em had I the gumption.

Subchaser -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 9:48:07 PM)
Even with the latest patch kamikaze routine is still far from the acceptable, just a few points 1) Damage calculations � looks like the main factor here is the weapon that certain a/c type carry in normal configuration (non-kamikaze), so if you convert Zero fighter daitai to kamikaze unit do not expect to see any allied capital ship sunk, modifier takes into account only damage inflicted by 60kg bombs (yes that�s what they use as kamikaze unit) and adds a couple of fire points, so, as it was in my game vs AI (I�ve replayed several old turns with 1.5) Lexington had only 4 fire damage points after 2 Zeros rammed her. Another case are a/c types that use heavier loads, especially torpedo bombers, as you can guess one or two Jill ramming attacks can send Essex class CV to the bottom (torpedoes damage + more fire damage points), make your choices� 2) Kamikaze attacks against enemy bases � still there, if kamikaze unit ordered to execute special attacks and cannot find any enemy TFs within a range it usually attacks enemy bases and always without any sign of success. Torpedo bombers in kamikaze units do not suffer from this bug, game simply doesn�t allow to use torps against the bases. Looks like that (test in modified tutorial) Day Air attack on Satawal , at 60,74 Japanese aircraft A6M5 Zeke x 46 Japanese aircraft losses A6M5 Zeke: 46 destroyed Nothing on Satawal was even scratched� nothing happened to 100 B-29 and dozen of MSWs at that base, supplies and fuel storage are intact as well�. two highly experienced kamikaze units gone. 3) Control over kamikaze units is absolutely insufficient - Torpedo and dive bomber units converted to kamikaze can only attack in mass with all available a/c or do not attack at all, only two options here Kamikaze or training; Fighter and fighter bomber are more flexible, they can fly CAP, but this gives Allied player a chance to shoot them down over their bases before they cause any damage... unfair. 4) G4M2e + Okha attacks, these tend to attack only in a group of 2 a/c, so 1 unit can launch only 4 a/c during the turn, 2 in am phase and 2 more in pm phase� and yes they always miss, no matter how experienced they are. I will be happy if someone will tell me that I�m all wrong here�

Mr.Frag -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 9:52:59 PM)
quote: 4) G4M2e + Okha attacks, these tend to attack only in a group of 2 a/c, so 1 unit can launch only 4 a/c during the turn, 2 in am phase and 2 more in pm phase� and yes they always miss, no matter how experienced they are. Thats normal, they are being produced in very low volumes. If you want bigger attacks, you need to give them a rest for a week or so to build up stockpiles of the weapon.

CapAndGown -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 10:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Subchaser two highly experienced kamikaze units gone. Just how is it you gain experience as a kamikaze? Hit or miss your still dead. [:D]

Subchaser -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/23/2005 11:59:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: 4) G4M2e + Okha attacks, these tend to attack only in a group of 2 a/c, so 1 unit can launch only 4 a/c during the turn, 2 in am phase and 2 more in pm phase� and yes they always miss, no matter how experienced they are. Thats normal, they are being produced in very low volumes. If you want bigger attacks, you need to give them a rest for a week or so to build up stockpiles of the weapon. I see, but there must be something else besides that cause stockpiles were large enough to see more than 2 a/c in a raid.

Subchaser -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 12:02:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown quote: ORIGINAL: Subchaser two highly experienced kamikaze units gone. Just how is it you gain experience as a kamikaze? Hit or miss your still dead. [:D] Yeah that sounds funny I agree.[:'(] Kamikaze convert experience they gained in normal operations into hits, more exp. � more hits.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 1:40:44 AM)
Sounds like Okha's are working like Recon. Recon only has two planes do the actual mission, while the rest can do naval search. Subchaser, can you confirm that there are lots of Okha's in the pool or squadron or wherever they are supposed to be? If there are plenty to go around, you should be able to launch a lot at a time. Mass attacks is probably the preferred method for these.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 2:08:33 AM)
quote: Subchaser, can you confirm that there are lots of Okha's in the pool or squadron or wherever they are supposed to be? If there are plenty to go around, you should be able to launch a lot at a time. Mass attacks is probably the preferred method for these. I'd like to also know how you know there are lots in the pool. Only 9 are produced a month. How many months did you run without using any to build up the stock?

Bradley7735 -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 2:21:32 AM)
He could have expanded them. It only takes a month to get to 39 per month. Now that I think of it, how are these things modeled? An Okha is essentially a bomb that is dropped from a special betty. (right?) If the Betty dropped the Okha and returned to base, then all that is expended is the ordinance (the Okha). So how does the pool work? I don't think any other ordinance is modeled, except the atom bomb. You're just assumed to have an infinite amount of bombs and torpedoes. So, you need to produce two things in this case? (one betty and one Okha). The Betty is reusable? But the Okha is not. Using the exp of the betty pilot isn't too accurate as the Okha is driven by an individual. Ok, now I'm just rambling. It's time to leave work (not like I'm working anyway). bc

Mr.Frag -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 3:04:52 AM)
The Okha is a produced aircraft all by itself. The Betty simply takes it part of the way to it's target. You'll not loose the Betty. The only way to change the production of Okha is via a scenario edit job. It can not be changed in game.

Subchaser -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 2:05:40 PM)
It was mid-june �45 turn, Okhas available for production from january �45, so there was enough time (5 months) to produce sufficient quantities of this weapon. I do not remember exact numbers produced (you can check how much is currently in the pool and how much was used via industry/troops/resources pool menu). I had a couple of dozens of them I believe, enough to see at least one massive Jinrai attack, but no such luck.

rhohltjr -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 10:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag The Okha is a produced aircraft all by itself. The Betty simply takes it part of the way to it's target. You'll not loose the Betty. The only way to change the production of Okha is via a scenario edit job. It can not be changed in game. Wouldn't an Okha also require a pilot? [8\|] Which you would have to subtract from the pilot pool? [8\|]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 10:43:18 PM)
quote: Wouldn't an Okha also require a pilot? Which you would have to subtract from the pilot pool? Don't think they use pilots up.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 10:57:32 PM)
Would the pilot use a helmet? Also, did Okha's have landing gear? Seems like you wouldn't need either of them.

Nikademus -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/24/2005 11:02:41 PM)
Helmut production will have to wait for 1.6

tsimmonds -> RE: Kamikaze and Ohka testing. (5/25/2005 4:25:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Would the pilot use a helmet? Also, did Okha's have landing gear? Seems like you wouldn't need either of them. Nah, forget that girly stuff, a bottle of sake and you'd be good to go.[;)]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125