Thank you mr. Andersson. However, I don’t think my antagonists would like the idea of changing that rule.
Well, I won the game anyway, but thanks to Axis mistakes. Jap decided to attack my W US ‘fleet’ instead of pearl harbor, so I easily wiped out his fleet with ftrs, bmbr and pearl harbor fleet. No answer was found against my IC in Anglo-Egypt.
I put pressure on Jap with the US and the Russians and Britain forces dealt with Germany.
It was, in hindsight, a very fun game and very different from other games.
Hi guys.
There is an analysis of National Advantages that you might like in one of the webzines I help edit. The analysis talks about the rules in general and then it analyzes the individual NAs.
Here’s a link to the group:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Caspian_Sub/files/
The article is Policy Paper #06 in the files section.
Peace
it’s memebers only apparently
Well, we have a commitment to keep to our associates in Moscow. If we don’t deliver a batch of new credit card numbers every week they get upset.
Seriously, however, we insist on membership to keep the ‘noise’ low. You won’t get any spam from the goup. Heck, you won’t get much email period. It’s mostly about the articles.
The articles include strategy guides for beginners, problems to solve, and various analyses of rules and strats. There’s a database with odd terms and acronyms. There are dice sims. We even posted source code so you can write your own battle sim.
If you don’t like it, you can always drop out. But you won’t. You’ll love it. You’ll love it so much you’ll tell you’re mom, and she’ll read the articles, and she’ll start playing Axis.
ALL your friends will start playing Axis. And if they don’t, are they really your friends?
:wink:
@Feldmarshall:
I think kamikazes should attack at 5. I don’t like heavy artillery.
You are probably stoned or have not read the artcle about my kamikazes! Attack on a 5 or less and six such attacks for free at no cost!!! And about the heavy artillery. You say you dont like it, who cares!!! Unless you dont tell why!?? Respect is something one earn!
/ Mr. Andersson
2. Kamikaze Attacks (revised)
A terrifying development was the Japanese suicide tactics as a desperate means of slowing the Allied advance. The Japanese used pilots who only knew how to take off and dive into their target with an aircraft full of explosives.
You may make six Kamikaze attacks during the game. These attacks may be launched if an Allied player move ships within 2 sea zones from Japan, after all combat movement has been completed. Kamikaze may target specific enemy ships, except for submarines. They attack on a roll of 2 or less during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat. A Kamikaze may not be taken as a casualty. Before you rolls dice to launch a Kamikaze attack, you must announce the target(s) and how many Kamikazes that are participating. Use a die to keep track on how many Kamikaze remain to be used. If a Kamikaze is used during an allied combat phase this counts as a naval battle and will prevent all ships in that sea zone from conducting shore bombardment.
Under these rules I can’t see why Japan would choose a battleship as a casualty. The only advantage to Kamikazes is that you get to choose your hits, but since your opponent will always choose a battleship as their 1st casualty anyway, you haven’t gained anything. You should only hit a battleship if the kamikaze hit is the 2nd hit on that battleship. Actual kamikazes commonly hit either carriers or battleships but under these rules I’m afraid that kamikazes would almost exclusively only go after carriers.
4. British Commonwealth Troops (replace Mideast Oil)
The British Commonwealth Troops served in all theatres in World War II - from Europe to North Africa to South-East Asia.
During your mobilize new units phase, you may place one of your infantry for free in one of the following territories if you control it: India, Western Canada, Eastern Canada, Australia, South Africa, Anglo-Egypt, or New Zealand. If the teritory contains an industrial complex, you can mobilize nomore units than the income value of that territory.
This is very similar to my ‘Colonial Garrision’ rule where UK may place no more than 1 of their purchased infantry in any non-industiralized tan territory worth more than 1 IPC. I’m just curious why you defined where you may place this infantry as you did. Why New Zealand and not in the middleast?
3. Enigma Decoded
Working in a secret facility in Bletchley Park, Alan Turing’s cryptographers broke the codes of the Nazi Enigma machines. They could then send false messages back.
Once per game, when Germany finishes its combat move phase, but before its conduct combat phase, you may make one special move. You may move any number of your units from any one adjacent space into one friendly space being attacked by Germany (Germany moving sea units to an empty sea zone does not count). Alternatively, you may move any number of your units from a space being attacked by Germany into an adjacent friendly space, but you must leave at least one of your units behind. This special move otherwise follows the rules for a noncombat move. If your units survive, they remain in the space to which they were moved.
I think this rule can easily be exploited such that it’s too powerful. For example, if UK gets to the point where they may unload 6 infantry every turn into Norway or Karelia, then they would probably have such a build-up of infantry that they would effectively be able to strongly defend every territory neighboring the teritory they are in. If UK could instantly move 10-15 infantry like that, then they could slaughter the Germans if they ever attacked a territory adjacent to these units. I think there is a good chance this rule can be exploited too much towards latter in the game.
2. Joint Strike
The most powerful strike in the war was the joint Allied assault on Normandy. The planning required to launch this simultaneous invasion has never been equaled.
Once during the game at the start of a round (before the Russian turn), you may declare a joint strike. That round, you complete your turn as normal, except you must skip combat move, conduct combat, and noncombat move phases. On those phases of the U.S. turn, the U.S. player uses your units in his or her combat move, conduct combat, and noncombat move phases together with his own units. You and the U.S. player must agree on attacking casualties, or the opposing player gets to choose them. Antiaircraft fire is rolled separately against each nationality of air units; all anti-U.K. dice are rolled before any anti-U.S. die is rolled. Weapons developments or national advantages still only apply to the units of the power that gained the development or has the advantage. A joint strike may not be called off once it is declared.
It was hard enough organizing D-day. Under these Joint-Strike rules the UK and US player can combine their attacks on every battle, even those in the Pacific and mainland Asia. This isn’t very realistic IMO as well as too strong. I would be scared if I was playing Japan knowing that on any given turn my fleet may be attacked by all of the US fleet and all of UK remaining fleet and Royal navy. I’m pretty sure many Japanese players don’t ‘over-build’ their navy well enough to defend against this.
4. Tiger Tank Battalions (replace Wolf Packs)
The massively powerful Tiger tanks were assigned to heavy tank battalions to support other units for special operations, to be deployed en masse for decisive shock action.
You may build three tank units as Tiger tanks, but only one per turn. A Tiger tank attack and defends on a 4 or less. Each Tiger tank costs 6 IPC’s and may be rebuilt if destroyed. Tigers have a movement capability of 2, but cannot blitz as regular tanks.
Introducing new units opens up a whole new can of worms. How do you distinguish between the two types of German tanks? Also, I find that the European territories are crowded enough as it is. Now you need to have 2 separate stacks of tanks for many territories. Is it worth it?
3. Panzergrenadiers (replace Panzerblitz)
During World War II, the Germans had troops that were designed for fighting alongside tanks. These were fully motorized units, so that they could at all times keep up with the tanks.
Each of your tanks give one matching infantry one additional movement allowance. The tank and the infantry unit must leave from the same territory.
Once again, I have almost the same rule in my house rules. Amazing. In my rule I have mechanized infanrty as a tech though, so any nation can possibly utilize mech infantry. Also, in my rule I have it so the infantry can move 2 as long as it ends up in the same territory as the tank. This is so the mech inf can move to the battlefront without the armor that’s already on the front needing to come back for the infantry.
1. Russian Winter
Russia’s greatest ally was its winter cold. Germany’s invasion stopped dead as the snows came down.
Once during the game in your collect income phase, you can declare a severe winter. Until the start of your next turn, your infantry defend on a 3.
Should you restrict this to red territories? Russians in India or the middleast defending at 3 because of cold weather doesn’t make much sense does it? Another point in terms of realism is that the Russians couldn’t choose when to have Russian winter. In my house rules I have the winter randomized to possibly occur every 3 turns (I have 1 year = 3 turns).
Under these rules I can’t see why Japan would choose a battleship as a casualty. The only advantage to Kamikazes is that you get to choose your hits, but since your opponent will always choose a battleship as their 1st casualty anyway, you haven’t gained anything. You should only hit a battleship if the kamikaze hit is the 2nd hit on that battleship. Actual kamikazes commonly hit either carriers or battleships but under these rules I’m afraid that kamikazes would almost exclusively only go after carriers.
Kamikazes do only attack during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat. And if one would like to destroy a BB one should use 4-6 kamikazes to target a BB and that most likely will kill that BB! The kamikazes always pick their targets! And kamikaze may also be used during an allied combat phase, that will prevent all ships in that sea zone from conducting shore bombardment in an amphibious assault. A destoyed BB (2 hits) may not return fire and is worth some 24 IPCs. That is a very strong NA, but you are right about that an AC would be an even more interesting target! However this rule is play tested more than 1000 times by Avalon Hill and me my self for A&AP and everyone seems to be happy about it! I think it is splending compared to all other fighter based variants I have heard of.
This is very similar to my ‘Colonial Garrision’ rule where UK may place no more than 1 of their purchased infantry in any non-industiralized tan territory worth more than 1 IPC. I’m just curious why you defined where you may place this infantry as you did. Why New Zealand and not in the middleast?
Cause these territories are were they came from. Concerning the Middle East: There were over two and a half million Indian citizens in uniform during the war. The Fifth Indian Division, for example, fought in the Sudan against the Italians, and then in Libya against the Germans. From North Africa the Division was moved to Iraq to protect the oilfields.
I think this rule can easily be exploited such that it’s too powerful. For example, if UK gets to the point where they may unload 6 infantry every turn into Norway or Karelia, then they would probably have such a build-up of infantry that they would effectively be able to strongly defend every territory neighboring the teritory they are in. If UK could instantly move 10-15 infantry like that, then they could slaughter the Germans if they ever attacked a territory adjacent to these units. I think there is a good chance this rule can be exploited too much towards latter in the game.
I dont know what you are talking about, please be more precise. I think you have not red the rule. This rule is not revised by me, it is the original one.
It was hard enough organizing D-day. Under these Joint-Strike rules the UK and US player can combine their attacks on every battle, even those in the Pacific and mainland Asia. This isn’t very realistic IMO as well as too strong. I would be scared if I was playing Japan knowing that on any given turn my fleet may be attacked by all of the US fleet and all of UK remaining fleet and Royal navy. I’m pretty sure many Japanese players don’t ‘over-build’ their navy well enough to defend against this.
It is a onetimer and yes it is powerful, but not too powerful in my opinion. Your idea about using it in the Pasific against the Japanese navy is a good tactic for a KJF strategy.
Introducing new units opens up a whole new can of worms. How do you distinguish between the two types of German tanks? Also, I find that the European territories are crowded enough as it is. Now you need to have 2 separate stacks of tanks for many territories. Is it worth it?
Tigers were legendary and this would be the exception to no new units/pieces. It is strictly nostalgic and game balanced of cause!
Once again, I have almost the same rule in my house rules. Amazing. In my rule I have mechanized infanrty as a tech though, so any nation can possibly utilize mech infantry. Also, in my rule I have it so the infantry can move 2 as long as it ends up in the same territory as the tank. This is so the mech inf can move to the battlefront without the armor that’s already on the front needing to come back for the infantry.
If you use it as a tech then I suggest that each matching infantry attack on a 2 as well, just like artillery. However I dont like the idea of enhancing infantry too much since it cause the IPM effect! I like my heavy artillery a lot more. But the Mech Infantry tech is my second choise!
Should you restrict this to red territories? Russians in India or the middleast defending at 3 because of cold weather doesn’t make much sense does it? Another point in terms of realism is that the Russians couldn’t choose when to have Russian winter. In my house rules I have the winter randomized to possibly occur every 3 turns (I have 1 year = 3 turns).
That idea is not bad at all, I will restrict it for red territories only! The every 3rd turn variant would be too complex/advanced in my opinion.
just because a rule is from the box doesn’t mean i like it. i dislike many of the box rules, which is the main motivation driving my house rules. i know that some of the rules you used here are from the box, but i still have contention with them.
Kamikazes do only attack during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat. And if one would like to destroy a BB one should use 4-6 kamikazes to target a BB and that most likely will kill that BB! The kamikazes always pick their targets! And kamikaze may also be used during an allied combat phase, that will prevent all ships in that sea zone from conducting shore bombardment in an amphibious assault. A destoyed BB (2 hits) may not return fire and is worth some 24 IPCs. That is a very strong NA, but you are right about that an AC would be an even more interesting target! However this rule is play tested more than 1000 times by Avalon Hill and me my self for A&AP and everyone seems to be happy about it! I think it is splending compared to all other fighter based variants I have heard of.
Play testing is mostly to weed out rules that can be exploited to be too powerful. Rules that are not as effective as they should be will probably pass play testing. This Kamikaze rule is not as effective as it should be so it doesn’t surprise me that it passed play testing, but I still have a problem with it because it’s not that effective (at least towards battleships).
Cause these territories are were they came from. Concerning the Middle East: There were over two and a half million Indian citizens in uniform during the war. The Fifth Indian Division, for example, fought in the Sudan against the Italians, and then in Libya against the Germans. From North Africa the Division was moved to Iraq to protect the oilfields.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I don’t think New Zealand is any more likely or able to support an infantry division than a territory in the middle east. If New Zealand has enough production ability to support an infantry division then Trans-Jordan should as well. I don’t think either territory should be able to place an infantry there. I think it will be simplier if you just define which territories can support that infantry by saying any territory worth over 1 IPC can place an infantry there. This would exclude New Zealand and W. Canada but worth the added simplicity in the rule definition.
If you use it as a tech then I suggest that each matching infantry attack on a 2 as well, just like artillery. However I dont like the idea of enhancing infantry too much since it cause the IPM effect! I like my heavy artillery a lot more. But the Mech Infantry tech is my second choise!
I have mech inf and heavy rtl as the same tech. I’ve haven’t come up with a name for it yet that I love, but right now I call it Ground Warfare.
I think rtl attacking at 3 is too powerful. This is because with the box rules no unit has a better attack value (factoring cost) than infantry has defense. Here are some numbers:
Box rules:
inf cost 3 and defend at 2.
arm (the best offensive for the cost) cost 5 and attack at 3.
assume russia is on defense and germany is on offense and both have the same amount of IPCs, let’s say 30 IPCs.
russia decides to buy 10 inf and have a defense of 102=20.
germany decides to buy 6 armor and have a offense of 63=18.
the best offense has less attack value than inf have defense value.
Your heavy rtl rules:
inf cost 3 and defend at 2.
h. rtl cost 4 and attack at 3.
russia buys 10 inf and defense value is 102=20 (same as before)
germany buys 7 rtl and saves 2 IPCs. 73=21.
germany still has a better attack value than russia has a defense value even though they spend 2 less.
alternatively you could make the ‘theoretical’ calculation germany buys 7.5 rtl and has an attack value of 7.53=22.5
My argument is this: with the box rules there was no unit on offense that could beat inf on defense. the only way to beat all inf defense is by spending more on offense than is spent on all inf defense. Now with your rules heavy rtl has a stronger attack value than inf has defense value. true, inf will probably still win because there are more of them, but the greater attack value than defense value might be too much for the Russians to handle.
I think rtl attacking at 3 is too powerful. This is because with the box rules no unit has a better attack value (factoring cost) than infantry has defense. …
My argument is this: with the box rules there was no unit on offense that could beat inf on defense. the only way to beat all inf defense is by spending more on offense than is spent on all inf defense. Now with your rules heavy rtl has a stronger attack value than inf has defense value. true, inf will probably still win because there are more of them, but the greater attack value than defense value might be too much for the Russians to handle.
You forgett one thing that is important. To get heavy rtl (attack on 3), one has to spend some 30 IPCs. If you consider that aspect then your box rules will say somthing else! :wink:
It is not too powerful to have rtl to attack on 3. I suggest you playtest it for a couple of times and you will find out the same. :)
Considering my reply to you why my kamikaze rule is powerful and balanced, you cannot be serious. That NA will almost for sure sink enemy pieces worth at least 24 IPCs and possibly save Japan from an invasion. I thought you were a resonable man. :-?
However I like your suggestion to the CWT NA, about only territory worth over 1 IPC. :D
let me get this straight, kamikazes are automatically always removed after the first round of combat? they only attack at a 2? i just want to be clear before i do any calculations.
I thought you were a resonable man.
i am only as reasonable as the numbers allow me to be. after that, all bets are off :wink:
let me get this straight, kamikazes are automatically always removed after the first round of combat? they only attack at a 2? i just want to be clear before i do any calculations.
Remeber that the carriers were always the primary target for kamikazes! Considering a kamikaze attack on a singel targetted unloaded AC. Using all six kamikazes. There is a 91,2 percent chance ( 1 - 4/6^6) of sinking that AC worth 15 IPCs which is compareable to the Colonial Garrison advantage. One must not forget that an AC is almost always loaded and that the kamikazes actually doesn’t cost anything to Japan! Now I made the math for you too! :wink: More over this kamikaze rule are of a psycological/strategical value!
One must not forget that an AC is almost always loaded and that the kamikazes actually doesn’t cost anything to Japan!
you lost me. if a kamikaze hits a cv then all the ftrs on that cv are destroyed too? kamikazes don’t cost anything to japan? don’t kamikazes cost 10 (same as other ftrs?) once again i ask, are kamikazes always destroyed at the end of the 1st round? you said they can’t be taken as casualties so what happens to them?
One must not forget that an AC is almost always loaded and that the kamikazes actually doesn’t cost anything to Japan!
you lost me. if a kamikaze hits a cv then all the ftrs on that cv are destroyed too? kamikazes don’t cost anything to japan? don’t kamikazes cost 10 (same as other ftrs?) once again i ask, are kamikazes always destroyed at the end of the 1st round? you said they can’t be taken as casualties so what happens to them?
They dont cost anything at all! Its just like the rules from A&AP! Read what the NA says! I have tried to explain it good as possible and if there is something that would help, please let me know!
Questions included within:
2. Kamikaze Attacks (revised)
A terrifying development was the Japanese suicide tactics as a desperate means of slowing the Allied advance. The Japanese used pilots who only knew how to take off and dive into their target with an aircraft full of explosives.
You may make six Kamikaze attacks during the game. These attacks may be launched if an Allied player move ships within 2 sea zones from Japan, after all combat movement has been completed (why do you need this 2 sea zone restriction? why is it too powerful without out?) Kamikaze may target specific enemy ships, except for submarines. They attack on a roll of 2 or less during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat (does this mean that they ONLY attack then?). A Kamikaze may not be taken as a casualty (does this mean they are automatically removed after 1st round? this is a total guess. you need more explaining here.). Before you rolls dice to launch a Kamikaze attack, you must announce the target(s) and how many Kamikazes that are participating. Use a die to keep track on how many Kamikaze remain to be used. If a Kamikaze is used during an allied combat phase this counts as a naval battle and will prevent all ships in that sea zone from conducting shore bombardment.
Questions included within: ….
(why do you need this 2 sea zone restriction? why is it too powerful without out?).
I was not clear enough, sorry! However I thought most people were familiar with the rule from A&AP. I have rephrased the NA, so it hopefully answers your Qs! Except for the restriction part, which I have found out to be important to balance the rule! The reasons were mainly that the NA otherwise would become too powerful, if Japan could target a fully loaded AC at anytime and everywhere! With this restriction the Kamikaze becomes a strong defensive NA, rather then an offensive NA! Which is ok whith your box rules, compare Fortress Europe with my heavy rtl (attack on 3)! Now you get the picture. Right? :wink:
I was not clear enough, sorry! However I thought most people were familiar with the rule from A&AP. I have rephrased the NA, so it hopefully answers your Qs! Except for the restriction part, which I have found out to be important to balance the rule! The reasons were mainly that the NA otherwise would become too powerful, if Japan could target a fully loaded AC at anytime and everywhere! With this restriction the Kamikaze becomes a strong defensive NA, rather then an offensive NA! Which is ok whith your box rules, compare Fortress Europe with my heavy rtl (attack on 3)! Now you get the picture. Right?
i too think most people on this site probably are familiar with aap but i’m not most people. some day i’ll get around to reading the rulebook just to get ideas for possible improvments on my version. until then, thanks for the clarification.
weren’t real kamikazes used for offense too (pearl harbor was definitely not defensive but had kamikazes)? also, why is there an artifical limit to the number to kamikazes? if japan can build ‘x’ fighters they should be able to make ‘x’ kamikazes. this rule is fundamentally too unrealistic for my taste. some day i’ll have to post my kamikaze rules and get people’s opinions on them.
weren’t real kamikazes used for offense too (pearl harbor was definitely not defensive but had kamikazes)? also, why is there an artifical limit to the number to kamikazes? if japan can build ‘x’ fighters they should be able to make ‘x’ kamikazes. this rule is fundamentally too unrealistic for my taste. some day i’ll have to post my kamikaze rules and get people’s opinions on them.
No kamikazes in pearl harbor! Do your homework! They were striclty a defensive weapon used first when the US threatened Japanese home waters. I dont have time right now to explain in detail. The restriction of 2 sea zones is realistic in that sence. If one were able to use any number of kamikazes one can easy understand that this rule would stop even one million BBs whithin 2 sea zones from Japan. And finaly the restriction of six such attacks is play tested and as you said your self it is all about simplicity and playability. This rule examplifies your talk about thinking in more creative terms, instead of using a D12. A smart guy like you should know that. By the way kamikazes were not built, but simply airplanes converted into flying bombs. Therefore there was actually a restriction in how many kamikazes that could be used! Lets say a maximum number that is restricted by the number of Japanese airplanes on the game board. However such an approach would not be easy to use, due to many reasons.
One more thing I dont know if you have catched so far, is that a Kamikaze can be used during an allied combat phase!!! That is quite special for these attacks. This implies that kamikazes can prevent or at least slow down any allied assault on Japanese homeland. It is of great strategic value in the game, you should try it!
you’re right about none in pearl harbor, but here are two passages from wikipedia’s article on kamikazes and my conclusions from said articles:
The peak came on April 6, 1945 during the Battle of Okinawa, when waves of planes made hundreds of attacks, in Operation Kikusai (“floating chrysanthemums”). At Okinawa, kamikaze attacks focused at first on Allied destroyers on “picket duty”, and then on the carriers in the middle of the fleet. These attacks, which expended 1,465 planes, created havoc: accounts of losses vary, but by the end of the battle, at least 21 US ships had been sunk by kamikazes, along with some from other Allied navies, and dozens more had been damaged.
Striking ships on picket duty? That sounds awfully offensive to me, even if it is close to the Japanese homeland.
Purpose-built kamikaze planes, as opposed to converted fighters and dive-bombers, had no landing gear at all. A specially-designed propellor plane, the Nakajima Ki-115 Tsurugi, was a simple, easy-to-build plane, intended to use up existing stocks of engines, in a wooden airframe. The undercarriage was non-retractable, was jettisoned shortly after take-off for a suicide mission, and then re-used on other planes.
These people say some kamikazes were built. built for the special purpose of being kamikazes and not ‘converted’ from planes. I’ll agree with you that some kamikazes were converted from planes, but you said no kamikazes were built which I think is wrong.
You seem to have the habit of misunderstanding half the things I say. I’ve seen it in many posts other than in this topic. Maybe that’s my fault for not being clearer, but let me comment on some stuff you said in your last post…
If one were able to use any number of kamikazes one can easy understand that this rule would stop even one million BBs whithin 2 sea zones from Japan.
I never argued that you should keep the kamikaze rule as it is but just take away the 6 limit. That would be way too powerful as you said. If you alter the 6 limit, you would have to alter other apsects of kamikazes as well. I was saying I don’t like the artificial 6 limit because Japan should be able to build as many kamikazes as they wish. Japan was only limited by bare plane parts, enough fuel just to reach their target and the number of suicidal pilots that were available. Since none of these were that limiting, I don’t like the 6 limit in terms of realism. There is probably a better way to more accurately represent them. For example, maybe have it so every time a kamikaze is used that Japanese player gets 2-3 IPCs back (cause kamikakes cheaper to make). Obviously you would have to make kamikazes less powerful than regular fighters since they cost less then them. This is just one idea I just came up with on the spot so it might suck but even if it does there are plenty other better ideas than this and certainly better than the one using the 6 limit.
This rule examplifies your talk about thinking in more creative terms, instead of using a D12. A smart guy like you should know that.
It is more creative but that doesn’t mean we have to accept it. If we accepted every creative idea then we’d have 1000’s of rules for kamikazes and that would be silly and complicated. Very few creative rules allow for simplicity, realism, and cost effectiveness (not too weak or powerful for the cost put in). Your aap kamikaze rule is simple and cost effective but not as realistic as it could be without sacrificing the other attributes IMHO.
aw shucks…. smart guy, really? you made me blush :oops:
A few kamikazes were designed flying bombs called ohka, these were not converted. However the most of all kamikazes were conversions of airplanes. Get it since I really dont have time to do your homework every time. I like the rule of mine (A&AP) and think it is easy and realistic. You care about realism and historical relevance here and that is not what I have herd from you in other forums.
However your idea about a cost of 2 IPCs (not 3 IPCs) would do, but then you will have a new unit to represent it and nope its not ok. A solution would be that when a fighter made a kamikaze, thar fighter is considered converted. A kamikaze would give the Japanese player 6 IPCs back for each kamikaze converted fighter, tat should be declared in the combat movement. A kamikaze fighter then attack on a 4 and may chose target, but may not be used as a casualty. What about that, will it taste better???
By the way kamikazes were not built, but simply airplanes converted into flying bombs.
so you’re saying kamikazes were not built….
A few kamikazes were designed flying bombs called ohka, these were not converted. However the most of all kamikazes were conversions of airplanes. Get it since I really dont have time to do your homework every time.
so now a few kamikazes were built? few is different from none. you are contradicting yourself and my last post corrected your mistake. In fact, nothing you said in your last post disagrees with anything I said in my last post. Read what I said carefully for a change. I said some kamikazes were built and you said it was a few. few and some are not mutually exclusive.
If you never ended up correcting anything I said in my last post, what is this doing homework for me thing?
By the way, the math regarding many of your house rules is severely lacking. I’ve already brought several instances to your attention but unfortunately ‘I don’t have the time’ to do your stats homework for you anymore. I guess I won’t be able to work with you on fixing those deficient house rules. I suggest you go read a statistics book. Works both ways.
‘People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.’ - George Herbert (1593-1632)
