kamikaze planes

Discussion in 'Planetary Annihilation General Discussion' started by themindlessone, March 2, 2013.

?

Would you like to willfully crash your planes into targets?

  1. Yes

    26 vote(s)
    47.3%
  2. No

    29 vote(s)
    52.7%
  1. ucsgolan

    ucsgolan Member

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    It may be a considerable tactic in games like Starcraft or C&C but in TA style, Kamikaze is like nothing more than donating your resource to the enemy.
    The Czar (T4 Suicidal bomber) was an exceptional case, but PA will be less super unit concentrated so I believe that this does not matter.
  2. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    Yeah. Some units are meant to be kamikazi units while others are less appropriate.

    Didn't you see the video? The plane was vaporized. You might be able to suck up the metal dust in the air but with that logic no metal should be lost at all and you should always be able to reclaim the metal worth of the original unit.

    I've already said that you do a cost/benefit analysis compared of doing future bombing to bombing+kamikazi. Nothing else needs to be said. If kamikazi is worth it then you do it.

    Even the tiny crash damage of ASFs in SupCom is enough to destroy omni sensors. Realistically an air unit would be able to do at leasts its amount of HP in damage against targets of similar structural integrity.

    Similar target. Lots of damage. Hardened target. Less damage.

    Look. I never said that a suiciding bomber should be more effective than a dedicated kamikazi unit for cost.
  3. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    Radars have poor health anyway.

    You can kill them with scouts, let alone a crashing T3 fighter.
  4. ayceeem

    ayceeem New Member

    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm perplexed that even though simulated physics is confirmed, a lot of you want deterministic combat.

    Physics should be the only limit to a unit's capabilities.
    ---
    Actually, don't we already have a kamikaze unit in the form of the Cybran Loyalist? It's EMP destruction is noted as one the the unit's distinct capabilities. "Oh, but aren't units meant to survive?"
  5. mcodl

    mcodl Member

    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    17
    Some time ago I saw how a nuclear reactor's containment has been tested by smashing an interceptor at full after burner into it. It didn't really do too much damage. Some pieces of concrete were missing but the structure was fully intact.

    So from this point of view only a subset of special kamikaze units with enough payload would be viable against reinforced buildings. Or just add a kamikaze command to all units (like in Homeworld) to allow you smash your 100 aircrafts fleet into the enemy commander :twisted: .
  6. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    A kamikaze unit is just a controllable weapon is it not?

    I don't see the point in allowing normal units to do this, but TA walking mines were always a fun opponent, especially on the hilly maps.
  7. thorneel

    thorneel Member

    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    1
    IIRC, in SupCom, a plane crashing into something didn't leave wreckage. While I could be wrong, it's something that one would easily expect.

    But either way, having planes leaving more wreckage when they hit something (hard) than when hitting (softer) ground would make no sense. And bring absolutely nothing gameplay-wise in addition to be confusing.
    So the "it would give more metal to the enemy" argument is kind of absurd, in fact.

    So, basically, when the plane is going to crash either way, I'd like it to crash in something useful instead of nicely put a bit of metal right in front of the enemy base. And any air run against a defended position will have planes shot down, being it right before or just after dropping their bombs.
    So let the AI willingly crash into something useful instead of mindlessly crash into nothing. Having an option to force it to kamikaze could be interesting, for example when you see an interceptor wing and know they have no chance to make it back home.
  8. bobucles

    bobucles Post Master General

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    558
    Supcom planes sometimes left wreckage, and sometimes they disintegrated in the air. I'm not sure what caused one to happen over the other. TA planes disintegrated and never left any wreckage.

    When you drop a huge hunk of metal in the enemy base, they have a huge hunk of metal in their base. I don't know how you can interpret it any other way.

    When a huge chunk of metal explodes in the air, the wreckage could end up anywhere. It could be in their base. It could be on the outskirts. It could be lost forever. At least it wasn't a foreign aid package hand delivered into their starving factories!
  9. godde

    godde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    499
    When a plane explodes it is hardly left in 1 piece. As seen in the video I provided the plane is mostly vaporized.
    When 2 objects of the same density collide at high speeds both are obliterated and the remaining parts spread out far apart.
  10. krashkourse

    krashkourse Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    5
    I support the dupe nukes that rain death and destruction upon all those who seek to be left standing.

Share This Page