Kamikaze!

[fittstim]

What are you talking about? Why would I be mad (I assume you mean that in terms of being angry and not implying that I am mentally derranged)? Are you a sour-puss who can't "get" sarcasm or subtle humor?

5,000 is VERY insignificant compared to, say...10,000,000 Russians soldiers (I think the number the Russians used was actually larger but I can't find any reference right now). That ratio is 1:2000.

Ask yourself how often you play CIVIII with an army of 2000 infantry units which would justify a single kamikaze unit?

But I stand by my original statement. Kamikazes should not be a unit. At best they could be a singular happening, á la Leaders, but they should cause massive unrest if used by a Republican, Democratic or Communist government.

The Japanese government during WWII was MONARCHY and the nazi givernment was essentially FUNDAMENTALISM (removed in CivIII so we'll say MONARCHY again). The same "governments" in which we have suicide bombers today are...MONARCHIES (or ANARCHY in the case of Palestine).

Remember that no two democracies have ever, in the history of the Earth, gone to war with each other...

[FürstMetternich]

Yeahh keep those planes in the sky. At first they are too expensive to waste them and secondly you would not find very good pilots around the corner. The procedure of training and gain experience lasts a long long time. So using lets say 20 of them to sink just one warship will not be rewarding in real warfare. I think Kamikaze is a very bad strategy for a war as you will be without resources (money and capable pilots) very soon. Therefore my advice to all civers around the world is: keep them flying and cherish your planes. It's better to retreat a damaged plane and attack some turns later with a fresh one than using this plane to perhaps take a tank out but in the end you have to build a new one and this will last much longer than the time it would need to repair.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by fittstim
Were you drunk when you wrote that or are you really that confused about world history?

Well, thank you... definitely the way to conduct a civilized discussion. I suppose I am really extremely confused about the world history, as I have supervised (and actually personally took large part in) several localizations of multimedia titles focusing on WW2, one of them specifically about War in the Pacific. So I guess, yes, you must be right, things must have gotten messy in my head...

But maybe it is just me... and nye, that is... we may have difficulties "getting" your "sarcasm and subtle humor"...

Originally posted by fittstim
The Japanese did not use kamikaze plane "en masse". This is a military fact. Their claim to fame is the "TERROR" that they caused in the soldiers opposing them. Much like suicide bombers in Israel. They were, however, not as popular or common as their claim to fame would have one believe.

Saying that there were "hundreds" of them is a joke compared to the TENS OF MILLIONS of soldiers fighting in the war.

Saying that there were "hundreds" of them is 100% correct, not a joke. Compared to the number of their aircraft and pilots, the Japanese were using kamikaze pilots en masse. I insist. Would you like to remove battleships, cruisers, AEGIS crusiers, modern armor and various other units from Civ3, because their numbers were never as high as tens of millions of foot soldiers?

Originally posted by fittstim
Becoming a kamikaze pilot was definitely NOT an esteemed act within the society. When the generals realized that many of the supposed "kamikaze" pilots weren't actually killing themselves but bailing out (usually too early so that the plane crashed into the ocean), they enacted a policy of welding the pilot within the canopy so that escape was not possible. The samurai/bushi mentality encouraged bravery and honor in battle. Not exactly what people think of when they hear about kamikaze (or suicide bombers).

Obviously, I did not mean that the kamikaze assignment would have been highly sought after... I meant that throughout the Japanese society, kamikaze pilots were kept in esteem, because of fulfilling the bushido code to the fullest extent. I was responding to that part of your original post that suggested the use of kamikaze pilots should imply high war weariness. Use of kamikaze pilots caused NO war weariness in Japan in WW2, beacuse of reasons I pointed out.

Originally posted by fittstim
The sad fact was that the Japanese pilots were getting shot down/killed at an unsustainable rate. The kamikaze idea was sheer desperation because they were out of skilled pilots.

This one we agree on. I have also noted that I am against including the unit in the game... Although kamikaze were used in RELATIVELY (see above) huge numbers, their effectiveness was pretty low - because with the exception of the short initial "surprise" period, they were actually unable to get close enough to the allied shipping to cause significant damage. Most of them ended their desperate one-way missions being shot down, that's correct. Even though they did take a toll out of the allied shipping anyway, the toll was not that high, considering their numbers...

OTOH... the Japanese were just making "effective use" of what they had at their disposal. They had obsolete aircraft enough. They had very limited supplies of fuel, so they were unable to keep their obsolete planes flying. Exchanging one obsolete plane, its pilot, and a load of explosives for one allied ship would have been a very good deal. However monstrous and cynical this approach was...

Originally posted by fittstim
5,000 is VERY insignificant compared to, say...10,000,000 Russians soldiers (I think the number the Russians used was actually larger but I can't find any reference right now). That ratio is 1:2000.

Ask yourself how often you play CIVIII with an army of 2000 infantry units which would justify a single kamikaze unit?

Again, I am sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. How many catapults or war elephants were there in ancient armies compared to the number of foot soldiers? How many aircraft is there compared to the number of foot soldiers in our times? My country has an army of tens of thousands of men, but we have only first tens of fighters... and we very well end up having none at all. How many ironclads were there in the whole history? The fact that there were relatively few units of a given type is - in the Civ3 game terms - not a good reason to exclude a unit.

Originally posted by fittstim
But I stand by my original statement. Kamikazes should not be a unit. At best they could be a singular happening, á la Leaders, but they should cause massive unrest if used by a Republican, Democratic or Communist government.

Makes no sense. Kamikaze were not "happening". Their suicidal missions were ordered. You can't control where and when leaders appear, which is "historically accurate", 'cause you can't simply order one of your cities to "build a leader". But - should the kamikaze unit be included in the game - you should have been able to order your city to "build a kamikaze" in the same way you order it to "build a rifleman". That's something that is controlled by the ruler/goverment. And they should cause no unrest, 'cause they never did in the real world. OTOH, I do agree that they should be exclusively available in a government that ignores humanity and the value of the human life. As there is no "suitable" government modelled in Civ3, we shall better drop the idea...

Originally posted by fittstim
The Japanese government during WWII was MONARCHY.

Just as much as the Great Britain is a monarchy today... Hirohito was a puppet in the hands of the Japanese military government. His power was severely limited, if any. He was in the danger of his life when he - on his own! - announced the surrender of Japan in WW2.

Originally posted by fittstim
Remember that no two democracies have ever, in the history of the Earth, gone to war with each other...

Even though I tend to agree with this statement, it largely depends on what you call a democracy and what not... and if you are speaking about the "real" democracy of our times, or the "Civ3" democracy.

[Demerzel]

We're a constitutional monarchy in fact.

One kamikaze pilot would be a small thing, several hundred or thousand is one hell of a big deal. It certainly would be for the poor sods on the American ships, esp. carriers, who had to deal with them crashing down on their decks.

"Comically" enough, British carriers in the area who were attacked by Kamikaze pilots had an easier time due to the fact that we believed in less aircraft and thicker carrier deck, whereas the Americans believed in more aircraft and thinner armour protection for the deck. Which meant we could just sweep off a kamikaze attack which hit the deck into the sea with little problem whereas if one hit an American carrier, they had a slight problem as it normally did a fair bit of damage on impact.

Fact for the day

[Stuie]

Kamikazes were an aberration, not something on which to base a general unit (or even UU) in a game the scale of Civ3 in my opinion. Why don't you kamikaze fans just build Cruise Missiles instead... or, change the Cruise Missile graphic to a plane.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by MarkG
morrow?

Also, it mean Morning. As in: Good morrow.


Damn you english classes!

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Stuie
Kamikazes were an aberration, not something on which to base a general unit (or even UU) in a game the scale of Civ3 in my opinion. Why don't you kamikaze fans just build Cruise Missiles instead... or, change the Cruise Missile graphic to a plane.

Or just add lethal bombardment to the airplanes.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Demerzel
We're a constitutional monarchy in fact.

Yep, that's what I was referring to. Japan was a constitutional monarchy, too. But from the Civ3 point of view, the Great Britain is a democracy today. And so was Japan during WW2. However weird that sounds, Civ3 democracy is still the closest government match for WW2 Japan (even if not very close closest match).

EDIT: Thinking it over, Civ3 Communism may be as close a match for WW2 Japan... no war weariness 'cause of the state police and censorship... sounds just about equally weird as Civ3 Democracy...

Originally posted by Demerzel
"Comically" enough, British carriers in the area who were attacked by Kamikaze pilots had an easier time due to the fact that we believed in less aircraft and thicker carrier deck, whereas the Americans believed in more aircraft and thinner armour protection for the deck. Which meant we could just sweep off a kamikaze attack which hit the deck into the sea with little problem whereas if one hit an American carrier, they had a slight problem as it normally did a fair bit of damage on impact.

Interesting, did not know that! Yes, the Americans suffered some damage/losses due to kamikaze raids as far as their carriers were concerned. The sunk escort carrier Saint Lo comes to my mind, can't recall now if there were more...

[fittstim]

Originally posted by vondrack

Saying that there were "hundreds" of them is 100% correct, not a joke. Compared to the number of their aircraft and pilots, the Japanese were using kamikaze pilots en masse. I insist. Would you like to remove battleships, cruisers, AEGIS crusiers, modern armor and various other units from Civ3, because their numbers were never as high as tens of millions of foot soldiers?

You make my point but you think that you are making your own point.

The Japanese WERE NOT, no how, never were and never could, use kamikaze EN MASSE. Perhaps it's a poor choice of wording? The japanese went through several tens of thousands of planes.

Your point about the naval units is puzzling since they are, in fact, used by many nations when realizing naval strategy. I know of no nation current or throughout history that began a war with a kamikaze strategy in mind. But perhaps you can enlighten me...???

[QUOTE]
This one we agree on. I have also noted that I am against including the unit in the game... Although kamikaze were used in RELATIVELY (see above) huge numbers, their effectiveness was pretty low - because with the exception of the short initial "surprise" period, they were actually unable to get close enough to the allied shipping to cause significant damage. Most of them ended their desperate one-way missions being shot down, that's correct. Even though they did take a toll out of the allied shipping anyway, the toll was not that high, considering their numbers...[QUOTE]

Allied shipping??? The kamikaze's roll was to fly smack dab into the carriers taking out the US Navy's ability to project power. They rarely (if ever) went after allied shipping. Too meaningless in the short run and futile in any case.

OTOH... the Japanese were just making "effective use" of what they had at their disposal. They had obsolete aircraft enough. They had very limited supplies of fuel, so they were unable to keep their obsolete planes flying. Exchanging one obsolete plane, its pilot, and a load of explosives for one allied ship would have been a very good deal. However monstrous and cynical this approach was...

Again, you need to go back and watch the History Channel a bit closer. The planes the Japanese were using can not be considered obsolete. That would mean they were using Red Baron type tri-planes. And the idea of one kamikaze plane per ship is reaching very far...

Again, I am sorry, but your reasoning is flawed. How many catapults or war elephants were there in ancient armies compared to the number of foot soldiers? How many aircraft is there compared to the number of foot soldiers in our times? My country has an army of tens of thousands of men, but we have only first tens of fighters... and we very well end up having none at all. How many ironclads were there in the whole history? The fact that there were relatively few units of a given type is - in the Civ3 game terms - not a good reason to exclude a unit.

Wrong. Just because Firaxis included something (ironclads) doesn't mean it's right. I think ironclads are stupid and useless. War elephants are special units.

Makes no sense. Kamikaze were not "happening". Their suicidal missions were ordered. You can't control where and when leaders appear, which is "historically accurate", 'cause you can't simply order one of your cities to "build a leader". But - should the kamikaze unit be included in the game - you should have been able to order your city to "build a kamikaze" in the same way you order it to "build a rifleman". That's something that is controlled by the ruler/goverment. And they should cause no unrest, 'cause they never did in the real world. OTOH, I do agree that they should be exclusively available in a government that ignores humanity and the value of the human life. As there is no "suitable" government modelled in Civ3, we shall better drop the idea...

I don't understand your reasoning. How do you think the people of Ostrava would react if their boys were selected to fly suicide missions? Can you say "Hello Poland"? No unrest, my a$$.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Or just add lethal bombardment to the airplanes.

That should do the trick. So why do we need a poll if this is so easily modded?

[Demerzel]

Quote from a US WWII sailor
The invasion of Okinawa began with routine anti-submarine patrol, then providing anti-aircraft defense as Japanese air raids started to intensify. The Japanese came in waves and sent everything at us. All attacks were now Kamikaze's and every type of aircraft was used, some barely able to fly. What a waste of human life as we shot them down. Once the airfield on Okinawa was secured, our Marine pilots began using it, but had a difficult time because everybody was so trigger happy from the constant Japanese attacks. The air raids were endless and our nerves became frayed and stomach churned at the thought of being killed in a horrible blast or gasoline fire. This was absolute total unforgiving war and everyone was scared! The only way to stop a Kamikaze plane was to kill the pilot before he crashed into you. There was no surrender, no mercy given or expected. You had to kill to live!

Quote from a US WWII sailor
The US destroyer picket stations around Okinawa numbered about 26 ships positioned about 75 to 100 miles off the island. They were the "eyes" of the early warning system and the Japanese attacked them prior to every raid.

emphasis is my work.

Japanese pilot picked for Kamikaze duty
I am pleased to have the honour of having been chosen as a member of a Special Attack Force that is on its way into battle, but I cannot help crying when I think of you, Mum. When I reflect on the hopes you had for my future ... I feel so sad that I am going to die without doing anything to bring you joy.

and finally

Yet, even though nearly 5 000 of them blazed their way into the world's collective memory in such spectacular fashion, it is sobering to realise that the number of British airmen who gave their lives in the Second World War was ten times greater

oh and

About 40 U.S. ships were sunk and hundreds damaged by kamikaze attacks.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by fittstim
You make my point but you think that you are making your own point.

The Japanese WERE NOT, no how, never were and never could, use kamikaze EN MASSE. Perhaps it's a poor choice of wording? The japanese went through several tens of thousands of planes.

I usually know what point I am making...
Just some people don't get it...

Woud you like me to rephrase my "en masse" to "in huge numbers"? 'cause if you disagree even with "huge numbers" (which is, IMHO, almost the same), then you are simply lacking information. There were suicide kamikaze attacks consisting of as much as 400 planes! If that is not "en masse", then I do not know...

nye mentioned that there were as much as 5000 planes used for kamikaze missions (I am not sure if the number is accurate, but it seems to me that it should be close). Compared to the number of aircraft Japan had at its disposal, it was a very high number. Also, it is not true that Japan had that many aircraft at the end of the war, when kamikaze were used. Most of their airpower was already gone. I do not believe they had "several tens of thousands of planes" in 1944-1945.

Originally posted by fittstim
Your point about the naval units is puzzling since they are, in fact, used by many nations when realizing naval strategy. I know of no nation current or throughout history that began a war with a kamikaze strategy in mind. But perhaps you can enlighten me...???

I sure can enlighten you about my point on the naval units, no problem, feel free to ask. You argued that including kamikaze would be completely wrong, as the number of kamikaze used was negligible compared to the number of foot soldiers fighting in WW2. That reasoning is flawed. How many battleships were there in WW2/history? Perhaps not even 5000? And still, they are, quite appropriately, depicted in Civ3. Comparing sheer numbers of units is incorrect. A rifleman is actually not a guy with a rifle, it is a unit of riflemen (say, 100 or 1000 of them?). OTOH, the battleship Civ3 unit certainly is not 100 or 1000 battleships, right?

The only proper comparison would be to the number of fighters/bombers. 5000 of kamikaze planes compared to "several tens of thousands of planes" does not yield that fancy 1:2000 ratio you mentioned... Compared to the overall number of Japanese planes (especially compared to the number of planes available in 1944-45), kamikaze was not just a negligible thing. It was a WIDELY USED tactics. I believe there were more kamikaze raids then regular dogfights.

And it was only logical. Japan had obsolete planes and untrained pilots. They were absolutely no match to the American pilots. Just remember The Great Mariana Turkey Shoot (is that the expression? I guess so...) - Americans shot down so many Japanese naval aircraft there that the Imperial Navy Airforce actually ceased to exist. The untrained pilots flying obsolete planes had absolutely no chance in dogfights, but had a so-so chance in hitting a ship.

Originally posted by fittstim
Allied shipping??? The kamikaze's roll was to fly smack dab into the carriers taking out the US Navy's ability to project power. They rarely (if ever) went after allied shipping. Too meaningless in the short run and futile in any case.

My bad. Wrong expression used. I did not realize that the term "shipping" is used for the merchant vessels only. What I had in mind were all naval vessels of the US Combined Fleet. You are right that the kamikaze's primary target were carriers. However, due to lack of skills, they were often hitting other vessels, not carriers (the untrained Japanese pilots probably had troubles determining what their actual target was).

Originally posted by fittstim
Again, you need to go back and watch the History Channel a bit closer. The planes the Japanese were using can not be considered obsolete. That would mean they were using Red Baron type tri-planes. And the idea of one kamikaze plane per ship is reaching very far...

How about saving that fancy crap like "go back and watch the History Channel a bit closer"? I am not trying to make you look like an idiot, even if it might be viable.

Japanese planes WERE obsolete, HOPELESSLY obsolete. They could not match the new American naval planes in no aspect. Remember, we are talking about 1944-45. Planes designed just few years before were simply outdated by that time. The progress was very fast during WW2. The fact that Japanese did not manage to keep pace with the US in the technology race was one of the primary reasons leading to their eventual defeat (the other being their economic inferiority and lack of raw materials).

Even if it was not one kamikaze per ship, but two or three, it would still be a great deal. Even damaging a ship and forcing it to head back to a port for repairs was a good deal. Just consider what you need to construct an airplane (not mentioning that the airplane is already built and not much of other use) and what you need to build a ship.

Originally posted by fittstim
Wrong. Just because Firaxis included something (ironclads) doesn't mean it's right. I think ironclads are stupid and useless. War elephants are special units.

See my enlightening paragraph on the naval units before. I am just illustrating the fact that you can't simply say "the number of kamikaze was negligible to the number of foot soldiers" and use it as an argument against including kamikaze. It is incorrect to compare just the numbers of units in the game. One unit represents different number of "elementary units". A "riflemen unit" is certainly more riflemen than a "battleship unit" is battleships. War Elephants are special units. Yep. So what about making kamikaze a special Japanese unit? IIRC, this poll is about the idea of putting kamikaze in... it is okay to say why it should and why it should not be put in. But your reasons were incorrect. Even if we agree on that they should not be included, we disagree on why...

Originally posted by fittstim
I don't understand your reasoning. How do you think the people of Ostrava would react if their boys were selected to fly suicide missions? Can you say "Hello Poland"? No unrest, my a$$.

The reasoning is simple. "Historical accuracy". Use of kamikaze units caused no unrest in WW2 Japan. Period. Including them in Civ3 (however I oppose that) and making them cause huge unrest would be very inaccurate.


My primary objection against including kamikaze units would be that you can easily model the principle behind them by using the currently available means. Like making the planes capable of lethal bombardment (and maybe increasing their bombard rating for the mission), but making them die irrespective of whether they sink/damage the target ship or not... just like they are assigned recon and bombing missions, they could be assigned kamikaze attacks. Kamikaze was not a special aircraft, but a special way of conducting the mission, therefore adding a new air mission option would be more appropriate than adding a new unit.

fittstim, if you wish to continue the discussion, be so kind and try countering my arguments, not attacking me personally, ok? I do not have anything against you personally, I just disagree with what you say and am doing my best to put things correct.

P.S.:

Demerzel, nice effort!
Thanks for the support, man, I am running out of ammo!

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Stuie


That should do the trick. So why do we need a poll if this is so easily modded?

One of three reasons

A: They feel changing anything in the editor is cheating and are in short, purist.

B: They don't how to use the editor and are too lazy to ask or look it up.

C: They want someone to make a plane with LB named kamikaze.


IMHO, I find 'A' the most common answer for things like this. They want Firaxis to do it, since they think anything Firaxis does is "CANON".

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by fittstim
What are you talking about? Why would I be mad (I assume you mean that in terms of being angry and not implying that I am mentally derranged)? Are you a sour-puss who can't "get" sarcasm or subtle humor?

Sarcasm? I guess you're not good at reading it either.

1000 kamikaze missions at Okinawa alone. Is that mass for you?

[Sea41571]

Only if you play Japan .. j/k .
why not make a cruise missle Hmmmm
Its just as easy !

[Fighter]

I think what no one has mentioned yet is the fact that the Japanese leadership had no illusions of being able to destroy the American fleet. The gamble with Kamikaze's was an attempt to make the Americans bleed, hopefuly making them take a step back because of all the blood.

The first actual kamikaze attack occured at "The Turkey Shoot" also known as the battle of the Phillipines in 1944. Isnt it amazing that in the same battle that the Japanese navy ceased being an effective opposition to the American navy that they started using Kamikaze's? What a coincidence.

Also the underlying aspect of the Kamikaze in our society is funny, people find the idea of kamikaze attacks abhorent and yet when a hero in a movie makes the ultimate sacrifice, ramming speed and all, we find it heroic and great. Isnt that odd?

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Fighter
I think what no one has mentioned yet is the fact that the Japanese leadership had no illusions of being able to destroy the American fleet. The gamble with Kamikaze's was an attempt to make the Americans bleed, hopefuly making them take a step back because of all the blood.

Good point. The Japanese military command was trying to make the US forces bleed heavily in order to force them negotiate a peace treaty acceptable for Japan. The unconditional surrender was unimaginably humiliating for the Japanese and they would do just about anything to avoid it. It took the atomic bomb to change their opinion (and not entirely, it was largely a bold deed of Hirohito to take over the initiative and surrender - his generals/ministers were still hesitating).

Originally posted by Fighter
Also the underlying aspect of the Kamikaze in our society is funny, people find the idea of kamikaze attacks abhorent and yet when a hero in a movie makes the ultimate sacrifice, ramming speed and all, we find it heroic and great. Isnt that odd?

Not only that (even though this is a very good example). Thousands of soldiers of all nations were sent to missions that were either clearly suicidal or offered such a small chance of survival that it made no difference. I am no military expert, but I believe that generals simply have to make this kind of decisions. Soldiers die in wars, that is a matter of fact. Kamikaze were dying in a rather "spectacular" way, that's why it looks "worse" or "more inhumane", but I personally don't think it's very different...

Perhaps the reason is that - from our point of view - they were dying "because of the wrong thing". The Japanese are considered the WW2 bad guys (I do not question this view, my personal opinion is the same), so sacrifices in the name of their victory do not seem justified to us. It was necessarily different from the Japanese point of view, though.

BTW, is there anybody from Japan hanging around? I would love to hear opinions coming from there... All my sources are basically of Western origin and may be not very accurate as far as the feelings and attitudes of the Japanese people go.

[Fighter]

Your absolutely right there vondrack about why we think of kamikaze's as so bad. Our society feels the need to condone what our side does in war and villify what the other side does. Kamikaze's were desparate terror methods, however the idea of "bleed them till they quit" is used all the time throughout history. Sherman's march to the sea as a classic example, and its even American to boot!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by vondrack
Kamikaze were dying in a rather "spectacular" way, that's why it looks "worse" or "more inhumane", but I personally don't think it's very different...

Wouldn't have looked worse... if it had worked.

And once again, we should avoid applying our standards of better and worse to other cultures.

Inhumane? That's in the eyes of the humans. Don't assume that your group of humans have sole domain in defining the term.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Wouldn't have looked worse... if it had worked.

Yep, that's very true.

Originally posted by notyoueither
And once again, we should avoid applying our standards of better and worse to other cultures.

Inhumane? That's in the eyes of the humans. Don't assume that your group of humans have sole domain in defining the term.

Exactly - that was why I put the terms inside quotation marks. What is good or bad and what is humane or not largely depends on who defines the term (and that is the winner, for the most of the time..)..

[Panag]

hi ,

it would be great as a Japanese second or third UU in a mod or scen , ...

have a nice day

[Grumbold]

Every nation has sent troops on suicide missions. Japan just had an honor code that explicitly made it a heroic thing to accept such a mission. The allies might have been slightly more squeamish about actually ordering their troops on missions where there was no chance of survival but gladly handed out bravery medals for any of their troops who undertook similar deeds, like charging machine gun nests or holding a bridge to allow other troops to retreat.