I’m a bit confused as to why Kamikazes were included in this game. I realize that they add historical flavor and were included because AAP had them but they seem to be unnecessary (kinda like a lot of the china specific rules). Hear me out on this one. In my opinion every rule has a cost and benefit side to it. The cost of the rule is its complexity and the benefit is the enjoyment added to the game because of the new rule. Therefore if adding a special rule adds more complexity than it does enjoyment it is a bad rule. Since Kamikaze take up a couple paragraphs in the rulebook and statically will likely only result in 2 causalities over the course of the whole game I believe the rule does not add enough flavor to the game to justify adding in an additional rule. Perhaps if Kamikaze hit easier, or if Japan got more of them, or they could be purchased some how then i might feel different, but 6 chances to hit on a 2 or less and only in specific seazones and only after certain islands have been taken over (and the game is likely decided anyway) seems to be too much baggage for a single rule that does little to affect actual game play.
Please don’t get me wrong. I love AAP40. It is an excellent game. I still use Kamikazes in the games I play, however I feel that Kamikazes in their present form are more of a liability than an asset.
RJL518 last edited by
Not a bad rant either…
Admiral_Yamamoto last edited by
I have not played it in AAP40, but I used it in AAP, and they were similar. They don’t cost anything, and adds flavor to the uniqueness of Japan. But you don’t have to use it if you don’t want to. So I will always support Kamikazes in AA games.
Hobbes last edited by
however I feel that Kamikazes in their present form are more of a liability than an asset.
I think the rule is clear enough and, like you said, it requires specific and clear conditions that may never appear during a game, depending how the war is going.
China’s specific rules on the other hand are used since turn 1 and there are plenty of exceptions that can occur (UK being at war or not with J, Burma Road, etc.). Putting both on the same bag might be an unfair comparison.
I’m a bit confused as to why Kamikazes were included in this game. I realize that they add historical flavor and were included because AAP had them but they seem to be unnecessary.
I kind of like them. They’re by no means a game changer, but since you don’t have to burn a plane, it’s like a free shot, so I don’t see how they’re a liability.
kinda like a lot of the china specific rules
When I first opened this Christmas night, I almost dreaded playing after trying to decipher all of the China rules. After the first play, though, I think they add to the strategy. I’m just a casual player, but each time I play AAP40, I like it even more!