Kamikaze tokens

Here’s how our house rules vary from the official rules:

1- Japan must have less than 30 ipcs cash on hand at the beginning of Japan’s turn. (Represents Japan being under duress and trying something drastic)

2 - Japan can kamikaze strike any surface warship except submarines.

3 - Kamikazes can be used during your attack phase or during an enemy attack phase.

This works out well for us. I don’t like rules that force weird tactics like the one you mentioned above. Do we think the Japanese would say “Look, the Americans are going to land troops and take our homeland. Too bad we can’t kamikaze those lone transports. Don’t know why - its just a rule.”

I thought that I had fixed this with the following house rule:
When Allies try an amphibious assault from a sea zone containing a Kamikaze marker, and the Japanese player still has Kamikaze marker(s) left, the Allies can NOT launch the amphibious assault with unescorted transports. Transports must be accompanied by surface warships (not submarines) with an attack value (not aircraft carriers). The Japanese player may then decide whether or not to use his/her Kamikaze marker(s) against the attacking warships.
If the Japanese player uses Kamikaze and manages to destroy any escorting surface warship(s) thus leaving the transports unescorted, the accompanying transports must then retreat into a friendly sea zone.

Unfortunately, I realized transports can be escorted by aircraft which are unaffected by Kamikaze so that kind of makes the Kamikaze markers useless again. Then again, you could say the presence of Kamikaze could act like the presence of scramble planes causing the Allies to commit planes to escorting the transports instead of using them elsewhere. So, looking at it that way, the Kamikaze markers do serve a function even if they don’t get used.

@Young:

I think using Kamikaze tokens like scrambled fighters against other air units goes against the whole idea which was to dive bomb themselves into the ships. There seems to be a lot of if variables involved in your house rule, but I understand that you see the flaws in it already… will you continue to try and iron it out? have you play tested any other kamikaze house rules?

I wasn’t meaning to use Kamikaze against attacking air units in an actual combat. I meant that they serve the same purpose as possible scramble planes because they force the attacker to send something to escort the transports. If you were going into a sea zone that was served by an operational air base and it had planes that could scramble, you wouldn’t send your transports in by themselves, right? Well, the Kamikaze performs the same function here. The Kamikaze don’t actually attack the attacking aircraft, but rather forces the attacker to send aircraft to escort the transports with the idea that escorting aircraft would be able to defend the transports from the Kamikaze.
Of course, in the case of scramble planes, they would actually combat the attacking aircraft.
This house rule allows the Kamikaze to affect the deployment of enemy transports without allowing them to actually strike at the enemy transports, which of course is against the rules.

2 - Japan can kamikaze strike any surface warship except submarines.

That should have read “any surface vessel” - including transports. But we also use classic transports that can’t all get auto-sunk, so it may not work in your game.

We use 8 IPC classic transports, attack @0, def @1, range 2, with AA40 carry capacity. We have found they don’t get spammed or misused as in the past now that destroyers and 2-hit BBs are in the game.

@Der:

We use 8 IPC classic transports, attack @0, def @1, range 2, with AA40 carry capacity. We have found they don’t get spammed or misused as in the past now that destroyers and 2-hit BBs are in the game.  Â

Yes YG. I know it probably doesn’t fit in your group’s or many other player’s HRs, however there are a few of us who customize/mod our games with defense 1D6/12 @1 APs. I’ve refined my HRs a bit in regards to this, but I’m a big supporter of DK’s house rule on this as well as some of his other rules.

It’s not for some, but DK has play-tested this for quite a while and it by all reports it has worked well.

As for Kamikazes I wasn’t sure if you were still refining it and was crunching some ideas in my head. Minus my own HRs involving an AP defense and after reading your ideas on Kamikazes; I thought one addition might be to allow them to target transports as well as your ideas about letting them be allowed in both offensive and defensive combat. I personally don’t see why Kamikazes should be restricted to just warships. To me it seems watered down compared to the historical threat of Kamikazes as well in-games mechanics and strategy.

Well either way YG I liked the idea of using Kamikaze tokens for offense rather than just defense. I wasn’t sure if you had summed up the rules regarding Kamikaze tokens for your G40 project yet. So far it seems that the project is pretty solid and personally I hope you use them for the FMGC “pre-game” at the Cliffside Bunker with an after-action report  :-D.

@Young:

@toblerone77:

Well either way YG I liked the idea of using Kamikaze tokens for offense rather than just defense. I wasn’t sure if you had summed up the rules regarding Kamikaze tokens for your G40 project yet. So far it seems that the project is pretty solid and personally I hope you use them for the FMGC “pre-game” at the Cliffside Bunker with an after-action report :-D.

LOL… I was kidding about burning it, but you knew that. Of course all games played at the Cliffside Bunker will be using Delta… especially Larry if he wants to play on my table.

Well we all know when it comes to the big event in Oshuwa (hope I spelled that correctly) the “pre-game” plays a close second to the convention.

@toblerone77:

As for Kamikazes I wasn’t sure if you were still refining it and was crunching some ideas in my head. Minus my own HRs involving an AP defense and after reading your ideas on Kamikazes; I thought one addition might be to allow them to target transports as well as your ideas about letting them be allowed in both offensive and defensive combat. I personally don’t see why Kamikazes should be restricted to just warships. To me it seems watered down compared to the historical threat of Kamikazes as well in-games mechanics and strategy.

Larry Harris might have been using a little historical basis for his Kamikaze rules. Back during the war, the Kamikazes actually preferred to target warships and I don’t think they ever went after troop ships, transports, etc. It had something to do with the “Warrior code” in Japan. While it may have made more tactical sense to go after the ships with the troops on them, they simply had no interest in doing so. It meant something more for them to go after a real warship that could fight back.
Their submarines had the same kind of thinking. They would rarely go after “defenseless” merchant ships but preferred to go after enemy warships. We, on the other hand, had no such qualms which is why we practically starved out Japanese industry toward the end.

I knew about subs being used for heavier warships. I believe the US and Germany were the primary commerce raiders in WWII even to the extent that during Nuremberg US submariners testified for German submariners defending thier tactics.

Otoh I had no idea about the kamikazes not attacking troop ships. Thanks KNP.

Not attacking transports as a philosophy and not having the ability to attack transports are two different things. I prefer the option of using as few artificial rules as possible, in order to give commanders the most freedom with the game. The Japanese also practiced suicidal “bonzai” attacks against impossible odds, but there are no rules in the game requiring the Japanese player to do that. There is no rule that all Japanese infantry must go fall on a grenade when they realize they are losing. The Japanese had the ability to attack loaded transports and unarmed ships during WWII - they just chose not to most of the time. I favor leaving that choice in there for players to decide.