Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Axis & Allies Pacific 1940» Forums » Rules

Subject: Kamikaze and Carriers rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm playing a game against my brother where I am the Axis and he is controlling the Allies.

There is a large USA fleet in Seazone 6 (around Japan) including 2 carriers with 2 fighters each. Since they are in Seazone 6 they are legal attacks for Kamikazes. Next turn I plan on attacking this fleet and using Kamikazes to weaken the fleet pior to normal combat.

Here is the question: it looks like Kamikaze attacks hit specific targeted surface ships and are resolved with casualties removed prior to normal combat. So what happens if I hit his carriers loaded with fighters?

Can the fighters still fight in combat normally, and then after combat would they count as stranded aircraft getting 1 movement to land safely or be destroyed?

Or, are the fighters "trapped" on the damaged carrier and unable to take off and thus unable to participate in the combat and sharing the fate of the carrier in the event it is sunk?

EDIT: Note that this is a Global game played with the Alpha+2 rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Powhatan
Virginia
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kamikaze are a defensive weapon. They may only be used on an Allied power's turn - never on Japan's turn.

If the US fleet were attacking, and therefore legal target, the planes would be in the air and could not be trapped on the carriers. They would move and fight normally.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks as always for the quick reply Kevin.

I really screwed this one up, I should have used them defensively then. I missed my chance.

It sounds like they are still useful to use against Carriers as if you sink/damage a carrier, and the aircraft have no-where to land, the aircraft that would have landed on that carrier would be destroyed after combat (assuming they survived combat).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Allen
United States
flag msg tools
I believe certain islands have to fall to the Allies before kamikaze attacks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Chapman
United States
Powhatan
Virginia
flag msg tools
Axis & Allies Developer and Playtester; War of the Ring Editor and Playtester
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the box rules, yes, but not in the Alpha+.2 rules.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Krieghund wrote:
In the box rules, yes, but not in the Alpha+.2 rules.


Yeah its quite a change. Now you have to think of the Kamikaze as basically standing guard in each of those seazones, ready to attack at a moment's notice. A lot of the flavor is gone, but it does make them more effective in game terms.

I suspect the entire Kamikaze concept could use a good solid redesign in any future version of the game, as it seems like they should come with some kind of short-term game with a long-term loss.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damo
Australia
Hobart
Tasmania
flag msg tools
Look Up! Stay Alive!
badge
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hansolo88 wrote:
I suspect the entire Kamikaze concept could use a good solid redesign in any future version of the game, as it seems like they should come with some kind of short-term game with a long-term loss.


Why should there be a long term loss?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My view is that due to their 100% casualty rate, Kamikaze operations expended pilots and aircraft at a far higher rate than the Japanese could possibly hope to replace them. Many experienced Japanese aircrew chose to die as Kamikazes for reasons of honor, thus further reducing Japan's pool of available pilots (though I am aware most Kamikaze pilots were very inexperienced and often flew obsolete aircraft).

Kamikazes inflicted a fair amount of damage considering how massive US defenses were by late 1944 and 1945, but choosing to employ Kamikazes should come at a severe cost in the long-term ability of Japan to continue the war.

However, in game terms this would be tough to model, so I'm not entirely opposed to the manner in which it is currently implemented. The current rules just don't really capture much of the history in my opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damo
Australia
Hobart
Tasmania
flag msg tools
Look Up! Stay Alive!
badge
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fair enough.

I always thought that by the time Japan used kamikaze tactics, the US pretty much had them in a stranglhold and so no real long term consequences as there was no real long term future.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hansolo88 wrote:
My view is that due to their 100% casualty rate, Kamikaze operations expended pilots and aircraft at a far higher rate than the Japanese could possibly hope to replace them. Many experienced Japanese aircrew chose to die as Kamikazes for reasons of honor, thus further reducing Japan's pool of available pilots (though I am aware most Kamikaze pilots were very inexperienced and often flew obsolete aircraft).

Kamikazes inflicted a fair amount of damage considering how massive US defenses were by late 1944 and 1945, but choosing to employ Kamikazes should come at a severe cost in the long-term ability of Japan to continue the war.

However, in game terms this would be tough to model, so I'm not entirely opposed to the manner in which it is currently implemented. The current rules just don't really capture much of the history in my opinion.

It would probably be too complicated in game play, but one could increase the cost of fighters by 1 IPC for every 5 (or whatever) Kamikaze attacks performed.

Edit: In order to simulate increasing difficulty in replacing especially pilots in the needed rate.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Hanson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the fundamental problem with implementing Kamikazes into Axis and Allies Pacific 1940 is the game's divergence from the historical war.

Kamikaze tactics were very much a product of the late-war Japanese mindset. I don't think the Japanese command had any delusions that Kamikaze tactics would somehow win the war, but they had every hope that Kamikaze attacks and the casualties they would cause would force the USA to accept peace terms that would allow Japan to retain as much of its political structure and territory as possible. They assumed the result of total USA victory would be annihilation of their Empire so the long-term consequences of Kamikaze on the Japanese force structure were of little concern.

However there is no way to recreate this motive in Axis and Allies Pacific 1940. In the Pacific game, once defeat becomes likely the Japanese player might as well just concede as the end result of the game is already determined. So in order to make Kamikaze more relevant, they instead function as a sort of free airborne militia that can be used to help defend certain territories but once expended are used up. In reality Japan would likely have continued Kamikaze attacks up to and during an Allied invasion of Japan, with increasingly disastrous consequences on Japanese airpower and aircraft reserves.

In the 1940 Global Game there is the possibility that Japan will be going down in defeat but the European Axis may still have a chance at victory. In that case Japan may try to hold out as long as possible in order to tie down Allied resources and deny the Allies IPC, and the Kamikaze would definitely fit within a more historical role.
1 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Ozimek
Denmark
Aalborg
flag msg tools
badge
Must resist M:tG. Boardgames are my methadone :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hansolo88 wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with implementing Kamikazes into Axis and Allies Pacific 1940 is the game's divergence from the historical war.

Kamikaze tactics were very much a product of the late-war Japanese mindset. I don't think the Japanese command had any delusions that Kamikaze tactics would somehow win the war, but they had every hope that Kamikaze attacks and the casualties they would cause would force the USA to accept peace terms that would allow Japan to retain as much of its political structure and territory as possible. They assumed the result of total USA victory would be annihilation of their Empire so the long-term consequences of Kamikaze on the Japanese force structure were of little concern.

However there is no way to recreate this motive in Axis and Allies Pacific 1940. In the Pacific game, once defeat becomes likely the Japanese player might as well just concede as the end result of the game is already determined. So in order to make Kamikaze more relevant, they instead function as a sort of free airborne militia that can be used to help defend certain territories but once expended are used up. In reality Japan would likely have continued Kamikaze attacks up to and during an Allied invasion of Japan, with increasingly disastrous consequences on Japanese airpower and aircraft reserves.

In the 1940 Global Game there is the possibility that Japan will be going down in defeat but the European Axis may still have a chance at victory. In that case Japan may try to hold out as long as possible in order to tie down Allied resources and deny the Allies IPC, and the Kamikaze would definitely fit within a more historical role.

Excellent point. In the global game the situation is completely different for a Japan facing defeat. Even if this is no where close to the real world historical situation it actually works very well in representing a desperate last-ditch-defense.

I still think it makes sense the way it is implemented in the game, as it is limited to defending the "core" Japanese territories. Even if Japan may not be facing certain defeat just because these islands are invaded, it is a fair representation of the will to defend the Empire at all costs.

In the reality of the Pacific(only) game it probably mainly plays a role in avoiding opportunistic snipes of islands and blocking moves against Japan.

Related side note:
Actually one could use a similar mechanic in the ETO for the Germans. Call it "Volkssturm" or something like that allowing the Germans to produce a horde of cheap 0/1/1 infantry that can't leave Germany in case a German territory is invaded. There are some complaints that the Allies and the US in particular are too often focusing on one side of the board to use the US power to "quickly" defeat the Axis power(s) there before the Axis powers on the other board can attain vitory even if they are nearly ignored. A fanatical defense mechanism for Germany and Japan could deter this strategy by the Allies if it would make it significantly harder to break either Axis power completely. OTOH this might just prolong an already very long game with an uninteresting siege...?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.