If the Pripet Marshes…

TL;DR: I think Kamikaze tokens are worth about 4-5 IPCs each to Japan, and probably worth more as deterrents and bombardment stoppers than solely as ship-killers.

@AlphaKappa I would defer to people with more experience, but Kamikazes have two concrete or ‘hard’ purposes and at least one ‘soft’ purpose.

1. [Hard] Sink valuable ships
With their target select feature, Kamikazes can hit large ships directly and ignore cannon fodder like destroyers and subs. (or maybe sink a couple key destroyers to allow subs to dodge planes and surprise strike a now-exposed fleet).

In the simplest sense, there are a bunch of scenarios for Kamikaze hit values:
– Destroyer (8 IPC)
– 1/2 Carrier; No lost fighters (8 IPC)
– 1/2 Battleship (10 IPC)
– Cruiser (12 IPC)
– 1/2 Carrier causing 1/2 sunk Fighter (16/2 + 10/2 = 13 IPC)
– 1/2 Carrier causing 1 sunk Fighter (16/2 + 10 = 18 IPC)
– 1/2 Carrier causing 2 sunk Fighters (!!) (16/2 + 20 = 28 IPC) Calculating the average value here could be as simple as figuring out the expected damage per Kamikaze roll with an equation like $Kavg = %h x $Tavg, where %h = 1/3 (Kamikazes hit on a 2) and the $Tavg = ~12 (trying to place this near the ‘center of gravity’ for hit scenarios) . So with those numbers, the average value of a Kamikaze is about 4 IPC. Of course, you’d probably want assurance you’re going to sink those targets and not simply allocate one Kamikaze per expected hit. This pushes the value of Kamikazes down considerably, since you can’t wait to see if they were effective before sending out the next wave. The laws of RNG say that you’re bound to overallocate in some cases and underallocate in others. Finally, this assumes that these targets would even present themselves in the relevant Sea Zones. However, this objection can be resolved by qualifying the question to be: How much is a Kamikaze worth assuming that valid uses present themselves? I would gloss, then, that for this purpose ship-sinking Kamikaze tokens are worth between 3-4 IPC each.

2. [Hard] Prevent Bombardment during Amphibious Landings

A single Kamikaze token can prevent all naval bombardment from a given SZ during amphibious invasion. Figuring the value in this use case is speculative and situational, but we can try with some big assumptions:

Lets assume that the targets for bombardment are always infantry units, so a successful bombard hit is going to cost Japan 3 IPCs. Because most contested amphibious invasions land at least 4 units with bombardment support increasingly likely in the mid-endgame where Kamikaze could happen, lets broadly assume that the average number of prevented bombard shots in a Kamikaze-contested landing is 3, and that those shots are going to be taken by 2 battleships and 1 Cruiser.

With these assumptions and the simplest setup, we can roughly guess that A kamikaze token used this way is worth $Kavg = Bh x $Tb, where BHavg = 1 5/6 (the average prevented bombardment hits = 0.66 + 0.66 + 0.5) and $Tb = 3 IPC (the cost of each prevented infantry hit), for a total savings of 5.5 IPCs worth of Infantry units.

The real impact of the Kamikaze in the case, however, would be how much extra the attacking player has to bring to account for the lost bombardment. In this case, that’s probably close to the expected damage that those three saved infantry are going to inflict on his landing force, which for a single round of combat against a far-superior landing force is about 3 IPC (0.33 hit chance/inf x 3 infantry); in a much closer battle (in which case, why are you invading in the first place?) lasting multiple rounds the impact could be closer to 6 or even the full 9. Let’s say then that our impact to the attacker is somewhere between 3 and 6 IPCs.

But finally, the spent Kamikaze token might actually hit something! If we go after a cruiser, say, then using the equation from 1. above gives an additional average value of 4 IPC (12 IPC cruiser sunk x 1/3 of the time).

This would give the average bombardment-preventing Kamikaze token a conservative value of 4 + 3 = 7 IPC, varying wildly by situation.

3. [Soft] Deter Naval Incursions

With at least the potential to sink 6 escort ships in one go, Kamikazes have a fun ‘soft’ threat value in the game. It’s unlikely to come off that way, of course, and the threat dissipates with each spend token as the game goes on, but it’s at least possible that one single massive Kamikaze strike could net the Japanese player an incredible 72 IPC of impact or 12 IPC per token. This would be enough to swing a majority of endgame naval confrontations, and has to at least be accounted for by the US player if mounting a KJF. If I were the US and wanted to conservatively plan around a massive endgame kamikaze strike, I would plan to take fully three hits and so overbudget for that attack by at least 36 IPC. So for the purpose of deterring an endgame naval incursion, I would give Kamikaze tokens a value of 6 IPC each.

All of this asks what they’re worth, not what I would pay as Japan where resources are precious and actual units are worth much more than mere potentialities.

While my assumption-ridden stuff above yields a value of around 6, I would personally probably only pay 4-5.

Allowing the Japanese player to purchase/replenish 1 Kamikaze token per turn to a maximum of 6 at a cost of 5 IPC each seems like a fun and relatively fair house rule… although it has the potential to make the home and home-adjacent islands perpetually un-bombardable. Then again, those dug-in Japanese were awfully tenacious on those islands…

@Galendae

I noticed that, but I wasn’t completely sure whether you implied bids in that specific sentence.

@Krieghund Thanks!

@Cornwallis Nice video I really enjoyed it, I do agree the best strategy for Anzac is a sub navy.

@Faramir

I haven’t tried the Korea move yet. To me though, fewer units earlier seems better than more units later.

Once again, I’ll test it out. China may be harder with a bid which would require more units than usual.

@crockett36 https://github.com/triplea-maps/France_Goes_First
This is complete, reviewed and stamped with approval.

Like I said earlier I have looked into transporting troops from east coast to west/central Africa. I have never really tried it because I think the consequences will be too big elsewhere. Once the shuttle is established you need 6 transports and this will allow you to put 2 fast movers and 2 infantries to French equatorial Africa each round: You need two transports in 89, 3 transports in 87 and 1 transport in 82. You build 2 inf and 2 fast movers in central USA each round and move to Mexico area bordering sz 89. Then you have 4 transports (2x2) shuttling 89/87 and 2 transports (1x1) shuttling 87/82 with the 2 infantries. Of course you have some starting units you can start with, but once you buy 2 infantries and 2 fast movers it takes 5 rounds for the fast movers to get to Egypt and 6 rounds for the infantries. This is the main reason why I have never tried, because it takes for ever.

But you also need more stuff: You need to control Gibraltar with a three-fighter scramble with at least a destroyer in 92 or 91, probably both. This will prevent axis sub from 93 to kill 87. Likewise, you need to control Morrocco and Algeria. Bombers from W-Germany or southern France can land here after killing 87. Or if axis control Algeria you have the same problem. Finally, you need to control the Atlantic Ocean so there are no enemy subs. In summary you need some navy and some planes.

So, what does this achieve, at best little, I think. Yes, you will get a nice number of American units to Egypt/middle east, easily 20 American land units by round 9 or 10. Like pointed out it’s possible to combine with Middle Earth and this will provide an allied fortress in the middle east. So, it can be a way to secure Cairo from axis take over and then prevent the win

Most likely there will be no pressure on Germany on the western front, and this will mean Russia is captured at the latest on G8. You also need to look out for a late sea lion. Finally, the question becomes if USA has enough resources to contain Japan. I don’t know.