PDA

View Full Version : about Kamikaze



Fritzofn
10-01-2004, 12:41 PM
Is there only a selected section of the jap planes or can all jap planes be fitted as Kamikaze?? (like a unique weapons setting) ????

Yellonet
10-01-2004, 12:57 PM
Haven't heard anything about that...

Chuck_Older
10-01-2004, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fritzofn:
Is there only a selected section of the japANESE planes or can all japANESE planes be fitted as Kamikaze?? (like a unique weapons setting) ???? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bear likes the "ANESE" part, so I'm lending you a couple http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritzofn
10-01-2004, 09:26 PM
how can jap be racial, when they use it themself online???? i usualy use Nipon's, but....so few peeps know what Nipon is

LStarosta
10-02-2004, 05:12 PM
Remember, kids. If you put a period after it, it's grammatically classified as an abbreviation, therefore, absolving you from any sort of retribution from politically correct hypocrites.

MEGILE
10-02-2004, 05:16 PM
I like your logic Lstarosta.

As for the answer to the original question, I dont know for sure but... I think in the war the japs'... (ahh hit a snag, plural japs with an apostrophe would show japanese possesion...darn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) used all kinds of planes for kamikazee. Also in that video from france-simulation we see a betty kamikazee into a carrier, which leads me to believe that all Japanese planes can do it.

Snootles
10-02-2004, 06:34 PM
Lemme get this straight: You're asking whether there will be a way to set Japanese AI planes' behavior to kamikaze? Good question.

DrJonez
10-02-2004, 07:21 PM
I just hope the kamikaze's do more damage than you see being done in the latest trailer.

A zero slams into the side of a US carrier, and all you see is a brief flash of fire and some debris flying into the water, and then the ship goes right back to being in mint condition.

double eww tea eff mate?

Tater-SW-
10-02-2004, 10:19 PM
Yeah, then the next one hits and the largest carrier ever built (at that time) sinks in 60 seconds.

Thw Wasp went pretty fast, and she was still afloat something like 4 hours later (was scuttled wasn't she?). I'd be interested to know the fasted CV sinking times, and I'd guarantee than none are even as fast as 10 times slower than current game animation. I'd rather see them damagable but unsinkable.

For CVs in particular the most critical damage to model is damage to the flight deck that disallow continued flight ops. 1 bomb or kamikaze in the flight deck won't sink it, but could render it useless as a CV for quite a while.

tater

tater

Snootles
10-02-2004, 10:50 PM
I think the fastest carrier sinking would be the HMS Courageous in 15 minutes.

Giganoni
10-02-2004, 11:06 PM
Well, the trailer only shows one Kamikaze hit, the France Simulation one there are 3 hits to a carrier. However, you all must realize that they are movies, with tons of editing and retakes. They didn't run a mission once and get it all. It is pretty easy to see in the France Simulation one. One instance is after the Hien hits we soon cut to a Kate doing a run on the CV with a mysterious, large, water explosion right next to the CV (perhaps another plane earlier in the take). Of course then the Kate practically rams the CV, but in the next shot is being blown up from afar.

After the magically flaming Kate torpedo destroys the CA we later see the CA live and well firing its aa while the betty is diving. Its not shot linear. So you people should stop trying to glean info on how much punishment a ship takes or even how fast it sinks from movies that are trying to entertain and are derived from numerous tries to get each shot.

Tvrdi
10-03-2004, 04:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Yeah, then the next one hits and the largest carrier ever built (at that time) sinks in 60 seconds.

Thw Wasp went pretty fast, and she was still afloat something like 4 hours later (was scuttled wasn't she?). I'd be interested to know the fasted CV sinking times, and I'd guarantee than none are even as fast as 10 times slower than current game animation. I'd rather see them damagable but unsinkable.

For CVs in particular the most critical damage to model is damage to the flight deck that disallow continued flight ops. 1 bomb or kamikaze in the flight deck won't sink it, but could render it useless as a CV for quite a while.

tater

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do u realize that 1 sec in the game isnt one sec in real life?? on example, when flying from south to north in largest map u need 20 mins maybe? is that like in real life..no, it takes hours..common..so, 60 sec in game isnt 60 sec in real life..

Yellonet
10-03-2004, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
do u realize that 1 sec in the game isnt one sec in real life?? on example, when flying from south to north in largest map u need 20 mins maybe? is that like in real life..no, it takes hours..common..so, 60 sec in game isnt 60 sec in real life.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not the time that is scaled, it's the maps.

Chuck_Older
10-03-2004, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fritzofn:
how can jap be racial, when they use it themself online???? i usualy use Nipon's, but....so few peeps know what Nipon is <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say it was racial or that you were a racist for saying it?

No. All I said was what I posted. Bear doesn't like the word. To save you, him, and the rest of us aggravation, I called attention to it in a lighthearted, unconfrontational, silly way.

Since I guess hitting you with a feather was useless, I will now drag out a brick:

You have used a racial slur. I don't care if "Japanese folks online" use it. I can see you do not appreciate the fact that just because Japanese people of your aquaintance use it, that doesn't make it OK. Regardless of that, it is not considered correct behavior here and you may get in trouble for it. No discussion over right and wrong applies at all. Obey the rules or risk the consequences.

So now instead of giving you a helping hand, I am the Bad Guy. Thank God I don't give one dead rat's a$$ if I'm the Bad Guy or not. I'll help whether or not it means I whack you with a frying pan: racial slurs are a No-No

Now then. I want my two "ANESE"s back.

Aeronautico
10-03-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
do u realize that 1 sec in the game isnt one sec in real life?? on example, when flying from south to north in largest map u need 20 mins maybe? is that like in real life..no, it takes hours..common..so, 60 sec in game isnt 60 sec in real life.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is wrong!

Aeronautico
10-03-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
It's not the time that is scaled, it's the maps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You too. Be sure.

Tvrdi
10-04-2004, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aeronautico:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tvrdi:
do u realize that 1 sec in the game isnt one sec in real life?? on example, when flying from south to north in largest map u need 20 mins maybe? is that like in real life..no, it takes hours..common..so, 60 sec in game isnt 60 sec in real life.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



You is wrong! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

default answer from default member....give us some explanation "dude"

Yellonet
10-04-2004, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aeronautico:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
It's not the time that is scaled, it's the maps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You too. Be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, there may be some 1:1 maps in PF. Or were you just trolling?

Wseivelod
10-04-2004, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
I like your logic Lstarosta.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You think that is logic?

Texas LongHorn
10-05-2004, 05:23 AM
Tater, I love your posts but I think you need to rethink your logic about ship damage. Capitol ships were sunk sometimes quite quickly, the most famous example probably being the mind-blowing accurate fire of the Bismarck's main guns when she straddled and then destroyed the HMS Hood within less than a minute. At EXTREME range. The pride of the British Navy left only THREE crew alive.
The Bismarck only fired eight shells. We are talking about a large British battlewagon that literally broke its back, rose vertical in both ends so fast the bottom of the bow and the screws could be seen at the same time and then plunged to the bottom in two pieces. The whole thing happened so fast that no known photos exist of the sinking, just paintings done by the artist folks there. If you're interested, Robart Ballard's book the "Discovery of the Bismarck" is an incredible read; the eyewitness accounts of the Hood sinking only are worth the price of admission, also many of the photos have never before been published.
Of course the point I'm making is that it is quite possible for an Aircraft Carrier to sink quickly, just highly unusual.
All the best, LongHorn

Tvrdi
10-05-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Texas LongHorn:
Tater, I love your posts but I think you need to rethink your logic about ship damage. Capitol ships were sunk sometimes quite quickly, the most famous example probably being the mind-blowing accurate fire of the Bismarck's main guns when she straddled and then destroyed the HMS Hood within less than a minute. At EXTREME range. The pride of the British Navy left only THREE crew alive.
The Bismarck only fired eight shells. We are talking about a large British battlewagon that literally broke its back, rose vertical in both ends so fast the bottom of the bow and the screws could be seen at the same time and then plunged to the bottom in two pieces. The whole thing happened so fast that no known photos exist of the sinking, just paintings done by the artist folks there. If you're interested, Robart Ballard's book the "Discovery of the Bismarck" is an incredible read; the eyewitness accounts of the Hood sinking only are worth the price of admission, also many of the photos have never before been published.
Of course the point I'm making is that it is quite possible for an Aircraft Carrier to sink quickly, just highly unusual.
All the best, LongHorn <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, every ship has weak points (like any other war unit)....thats why (in rare occasions) u can sunk a ship in short time. Im not sure those weak points are modelled in PF...maybe Im wrong, dont know....

munnst
10-06-2004, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Texas LongHorn:
Tater, I love your posts but I think you need to rethink your logic about ship damage. Capitol ships were sunk sometimes quite quickly, the most famous example probably being the mind-blowing accurate fire of the Bismarck's main guns when she straddled and then destroyed the HMS Hood within less than a minute. At EXTREME range. The pride of the British Navy left only THREE crew alive.
The Bismarck only fired eight shells. We are talking about a large British battlewagon that literally broke its back, rose vertical in both ends so fast the bottom of the bow and the screws could be seen at the same time and then plunged to the bottom in two pieces. The whole thing happened so fast that no known photos exist of the sinking, just paintings done by the artist folks there. If you're interested, Robart Ballard's book the "Discovery of the Bismarck" is an incredible read; the eyewitness accounts of the Hood sinking only are worth the price of admission, also many of the photos have never before been published.
Of course the point I'm making is that it is quite possible for an Aircraft Carrier to sink quickly, just highly unusual.
All the best, LongHorn <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW. The Hood was an old WW1 design and had no armoured upper deck above the magazine. Plunging fire from Bismark scored a direct hit on the magazine and boom, up (or rather down) she went.

Tater-SW-
10-06-2004, 12:18 PM
The hood went down from a magazine explosion. I doubt the PF ship models have that kind of DM detail. The chances of that are slim. The fact the Hood was hit at extreme range is important, because it was the plunging fire that allowed the magazine to get whacked.

It is certainly possible for a ship to sink quickly depending on the dfamage. Rapid sinking is the exception, not the rule. The ship DM will no doubt be X hits, then the ship stops in the water and sinks (what we have seen in PF vids). This means that once the sinking animation starts, they all sink at the programmed speed. That speed is plain and simple, too fast for the large majority of ship sinkings. Examples of Cvs going down fast are about nil, and those that did, were hit by naval gunfire if I recal correctly, not air dropped ord.

Most warships were lost to FIRE, not outright sinking. The get bombed, the fires become uncontrollable, they get abandoned, then scuttled.

Frankly, for CVs and BBs, I'd just assume they dump the sinking animation altogether, and replace it with crew diving over the side abandoning the ship, then just leave it burning.

tater
tater

Aeronautico
10-06-2004, 01:34 PM
Me, a troll?!

Lhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifL

No, I meant each and every map in IL-2/FB/AEP/PF/BoB/ and what else to come, is 1:1.
Period. This is a simulation.

Want to find out? Just fly for a given distance (check the FMB) at given speed and compare.
Gulf of Finland map is something like 500x200 Kms, so flying at 500 Kms/h you cross it in 1 hr East to West, 24' North to South.

owlwatcher
10-06-2004, 03:29 PM
It would take way alot to replacate a major warship sinking.
For quick sinking major war ships . Check loses british BBs. Some thing about unstable ammo.

Now the CVs is another story.
Damage asseesment should have some effect on landing and takeoff ability.
Armed bombers on deck I hope is factored in when a CV is hit.
Heavy fire and smoke like the war pictures show.
Alot of CVs took huge hits and recovered to operate planes in hours.
Of course what we get and what could be another thing.
Most likly the ships will sink on some many hits as it now plays out.
Rather not see the men abandening the ship.
Can't remenber which IJN CV went down with huge lose to life cause where everyone was waiting on bow? to get off the CV rose up slid under with ammo blowing up. Have to look for the ship. Great read.

olaleier
10-07-2004, 10:03 AM
My bet is ship-damage will be a big flamewar. Why?

Cause on the carrier-vs-carrier DF servers, the Japanese side will start kamikaz'ing the other carrier, sinking it and winning the map.

Hurt egos will then rush to the forums as usual, explaining in detail how this is stupid, unrealistic and impossible. The charts and bulkhead layouts will start flying.

I will post "lol rolleyes" and go back to coop campaign.

MEGILE
10-07-2004, 10:11 AM
No doubt if it comes to it, I will be slamming my Seafire into the deck of the Akagi http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

actionhank1786
10-07-2004, 10:20 AM
Haha i'm going to take me P11, and crash it into the side!
That'll show them...make them have to rebuff the sides to take away that "just got tapped a slight bit by what we think was a plane" look

HunterKiller14
10-07-2004, 10:21 AM
i duobt you should put in player controled Kamikaze planes. it won't be right. but i figure it would be more fun if you would have AI controlled.

Chuck_Older
10-07-2004, 10:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HunterKiller14:
i duobt you should put in player controled Kamikaze planes. it won't be right. but i figure it would be more fun if you would have AI controlled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some people want to do it. I can't figure out what's stopping them from just flying ANY plane into a ship...but with the AI, they would previously have no command for "Suicide attack" or "Gattack with fuselage" or "Gattack:ram" or whatever, so for AI, it would involve some special routine, because in versions previous to PF, no AI plane would purposely crash into anything. If they had ordnance, they'd deliver it, but they wouldn't ram on purpose.

I think many folks will be bitterly disappointed in the effectiveness of the classic Kamikaze attack unless the plane has a big bomb. Even then, most IJN and IJA plances are lightly built and wouldn't allow for the penetration power of a bomb all on it's own even if say, a Zero with the biggest bomb possible succesfully executed a Kamikaze attack, the damage shouldn't be as great as if the bomb alone hit, should it?

My reasoning:
the bomb on it's own has more penetrating power than when it's strapped to an airplane. It's like putting a parachute on a bullet

Ankanor
10-07-2004, 10:53 AM
If the guys with the red meatballs on their wings start ramming the carrier, they will be in quite a trouble. because they will have to go straight. they will have to penetrate a wall of Flak and a handful of CAP. Also, they will be like turkeys with that 250 kg bomb (I hope the problem to jettison a bomb from the Zero is modelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif ) And they will need it to hurt the carrier at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And I bet they will think of something to counter the suicidal tendency.


The new generation of whiners :
Bomb jettison whiners http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif