I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing. Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack. Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is. If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender. I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits. In other words, the defender KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces. I don’t use the cardboard counters. I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin. Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.
The true value of the aa gun unit is that it is the only unit that fires at expensive air and not at lowly infantry. Generally the person taking the casualties doesn’t even get to choose, if the aa gun hits a bmb then you have to lose a bmb and not a ftr. If you want to hit the enemies air without having to cut through that infantry mega-stack, then aa guns are the only way that can be done. So why are we making them less valuable in their ability to shoot aircraft down by giving them only 3 shots? If the reason is because 1 aa gun couldn’t possibly shoot at that many aircraft then please remember that these units are an abstract value and do not represent actual aa guns but rather an air superiority network including radar/interceptors/flak towers/etc.
I’m more interested in playability than history.
I believe the new AA guns might be a little weaker, but don’t underestimate the ability to take a free hit. They are almost like roaming battleships. Able to absorb a hit with the aa guns and keep firing with your other units. This has made russia stronger not weaker. In total they have 6 aa guns. That is 6 extra free hits.
Back on track, Jenn seems certain the change to the aa gun is a good thing. Others have even voiced a similar sentiment! :mrgreen: Both sides of the argument seem to point to individual aa guns and their pro’s and cons vs a sealion or what have you. Have we scanned the entire board to find the other glaring weaknesses or bonuses of this unit? What about in out of the way areas?
Well, first off, I am no longer certain they prevent or delay Sea Lion at all.
Secondly, I do look at the over all ability of the guns.
A) They act as units you can take to prolong a war, allowing, for instance, a Fighter to live an extra round and do more damage - just for example.
B) They still cost a pretty penny if you think about it. 5 IPC and it might not do anything before it dies.
C) They cannot attack, so it’s up to your enemy to decide if the gun is used at all.
E) With more guns on the battlefield, Germany is WAY more inclined to use them on the front with Russia putting the Russian player in a quandry: Do I risk 33% of my airforce that I cannot afford to replace, or send a tank which will certainly be lost on counter attack? Given how ridiculous the new Russian NO is, that’s certainly a good thing!
F) Nearly all the Allied guns are unaffected by this rule. How many times do you see the American or Australian guns attacked? What about the Japanese ones? Outside of Carolines, I’d daresay never. Perhaps if one was brought to N. Africa it would be attacked, but even then, odds are it won’t be brought since it’s better to bring a tank.I have got to think the change has made ANZAC and India weaker to a concerted Jap attack, China cannot stand up to the Japanese Juggernaut if they go full bore because 1 aa gun is not going to dissuade the 15 aircraft they are bringing to the battle. I also see vast implications if a Russian player is caught sleeping and cannot retreat all his aa guns to the capital, but most players will make it back.
Hellz yes it did! 15 Japanese aircraft vs 1 AA Gun resulted in 2 losses in OOB, 15 Japanese aircraft vs 2 AA Guns results in 1 loss in Alpha 3. Not to mention the risk of 4 or 5 losses to AA Guns in OOB was significantly higher due to unlimited AA Gun shots (1 per plane up to infinite planes.)
I personally don’t like the change to the aa gun and the addition of one in Paris. If Sealion needed a boost 1 French Inf would have sufficed. Jenn herself has told me she does a UK crush as the Axis and hits India, I would assume this change to the aa gun has facilitated that. Is that the kind of balance we want?
Given all the British units plain deleted from France, I’d like to see 2 or 3 AA Guns in France now! Or better still, I’ll consider removing the French Gun (which has - to my knowledge - never done serious harm to Germany since last changes) if you add 1 armor to France instead. Hell, the French even lost an armor in the setup! Seriously, Germany has the firepower to hit SZ 106, 109, 111, 112, W. France, S. France, France and Yugoslavia in Round 1 with units left over. We don’t need to weaken France, we need to buff France!
I think the new AA Guns rule is a good thing. Limiting their fire to just 3 shots maximum I think is more realistic than having a single AA Gun marker getting a shot at every single plane in an attack. Now at least the attacker finally has a chance at not risking AA fire for at least some of his planes, if he/she attacks with enough of them that is. If the defender wants more AA coverage, he/she can always buy more AA Guns as there is now no limit to how many you have protecting your territory and they are only 5 IPCs each.
Also, once the AA guns have taken their shot, being able to use them to soak up hits is a great bonus for the defender. I have already seen a couple of close battles that were actually decided by those extra hits. In other words, the defender KEPT the territory because their AA guns took hits that would have been applied to the last couple of units that survived under the old rules.
One other thing, I just like using more of the little AA Gun pieces. I don’t use the cardboard counters. I like seeing 4 of them stacked up on London and 3 of them stacked up on Berlin. Kind of surprised that E US and W US only got 2 each.The true value of the aa gun unit is that it is the only unit that fires at expensive air and not at lowly infantry. Generally the person taking the casualties doesn’t even get to choose, if the aa gun hits a bmb then you have to lose a bmb and not a ftr. If you want to hit the enemies air without having to cut through that infantry mega-stack, then aa guns are the only way that can be done. So why are we making them less valuable in their ability to shoot aircraft down by giving them only 3 shots? If the reason is because 1 aa gun couldn’t possibly shoot at that many aircraft then please remember that these units are an abstract value and do not represent actual aa guns but rather an air superiority network including radar/interceptors/flak towers/etc.
I’m more interested in playability than history.
Wait, are you sure this is how they work still? I think it was changed to the AA Gun fires based on number of aircraft attacking, not at specific aircraft types like in Anniversary. So theoretically, you could come in with 5 fighters, 2 tactical bombers, 2 strategic bombers on a bombing run, lose fighters to the interceptors and soak all AA Gun hits on Tactical Bombers before risking Strategic Bombers.
I wasn’t looking at SBR’s ,they have their own rules and i"m fine with that.
Please stop hurting my head by saying since they removed UK from france they need more units there. No they dont, they need the UK units back. UK still had troops in France after Dunkrik….and not just a couple of guys and a bren carrier.
You like to replace one error with another! Pick a direction and drive towards it please.
To recap, you like the aa gun changes because 1 aa gun shouldn’t be able to fire at infinite aircraft, even though you realize 1 aa gun does not represent 1 aa gun but rather that territories anti aircraft abilities. You admit the change to the aa gun has made large changes to the odds of Sealion and India crush but are fine with that? Anzac is under the same blade BTW. So you prefer a game where if the Axis are willing to take chances they have an easy chance at winning the game? That board game doesn’t sound fun to me, I’d rather both sides had a similar chance at winning.
Please, jenn and others convince me the new aa guns are remotely worthwhile.
How about instead of adding units to france on defense that will surely die, we add 2 extra infantry to UK. Uk lost 2 inf in france why not put them in the capital instead. Won’t this really help in preventing sea lion?
The new AA Guns are worthwhile because Germany and Russia can use them on the front lines now without “losing” anything. (Because they gained guns, they have guns to spare.)
The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are no attack units that can be used as damage sponges for major campaigns.
The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are more realistic, they cannot shoot down 15 planes with 1 gun, they need at least 5 to do that now, meaning - among other things - that some targets will be more heavily defended than others.
France: I’m, good with restoring France to Alpha 3 initial setup. However, that’s +20 IPC worth of British units and +2 IPC in French units (Artillery restored to Armor.) That’s a 22 IPC increase (minus the 5 for the AA Gun, which really SHOULD be there…France was not without any airdefense forces you know.) I’d gladely restore the units, as it would make Sea Lion risky again (even if we leave the airbases off.)
However, if we are keeping the 20 IPC worth of British units off France, then France really needs more units for it’s defense. Germany shouldnt be able to get France, W. France and S. France with units to spare and wondering what they can do for fun.
That said, the argument I was using is based on the new setup. Given the severely diminished defense forces for France, then we should add more defenses to make up the difference between what was lost and what they have. Hell, i’d go so far as to replace the British guys with French guys if people were adamant about not putting more British units on the board (not that any of them but the Fighter could do anything usually - off chance of the infantry taking Holland.)
How about instead of adding units to france on defense that will surely die, we add 2 extra infantry to UK. Uk lost 2 inf in france why not put them in the capital instead. Won’t this really help in preventing sea lion?
The problem with adding infantry is that infantry can be used to attack. That’s why I like AA Guns. You add defense without adding anything to a nation’s ability to attack and win.
+2 Infantry means I almost have enough extra money for another destroyer to add defense to my British fleet and make it just that much harder for Germany to sink my fleet while not sacrificing any of my infantry fodder.
But wouldn’t it make sealion much harder and much less worth it? those 2 infantry in UK wouldn’t do much for a while. I don’t see UK building up a fleet and using them for at least 3 turns. Since UK lost 2 airbases 2 infanftry and a fighter why not add 2 infantry to UK to stop sea lion?
@Cmdr:
The new AA Guns are worthwhile because Germany and Russia can use them on the front lines now without “losing” anything. (Because they gained guns, they have guns to spare.)
But they did that in A2. As Germany I always kept my aa guns at the front and tried to snipe Russian air with them. Russia did the same, moving the aa guns with their stacks. These aa guns cannot be used to attack, only defend. Like before I see them as valuable to covering your vanguard as before.The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are no attack units that can be used as damage sponges for major campaigns.
meh, not really an issue because we kept our aa guns with the stack in A2. Their purpose was to fire at aircraft, not take hits from ground units.The new AA Guns are worthwhile because they are more realistic, they cannot shoot down 15 planes with 1 gun, they need at least 5 to do that now, meaning - among other things - that some targets will be more heavily defended than others.
They are still unrealistic. My 20 mm aa gun cannot shoot down 3 B24s. Realism is not a reason because due to the scale of the game it doesn’t make sense. The aa gun represents anti aircraft capabilites, not guns pointed in the air, people. Think lookouts, interceptors, radar, direction finding beams, flak towers, spotlights……
All you’re ‘points’ didn’t have an effect on the aa gun changes. They were around in A2 and are around in A3, fulfilling the same basic function of protecting your army from air attack. Now they just do it much worse and also provide a meat shield to your army after they fire. Anyone have any better thought out reasons??
All you’re ‘points’ didn’t have an effect on the aa gun changes. They were around in A2 and are around in A3, fulfilling the same basic function of protecting your army from air attack. Now they just do it much worse and also provide a meat shield to your army after they fire. Anyone have any better thought out reasons??
They fit the chips perfectly?
I don’t think AA Guns fire at each attacking plane individually at all in Alpha 3 (nor Alpha 2 and I am relatively sure not in OOB but I don’t have that rule book right now, so I won’t say definitively.)
If you attack Burma in Alpha 2 with an AA Gun with 14 fighters, 12 tactical bombers and 4 strategic bombers, the defender rolls 30 AA Shots and the attacker chooses what is lost so it’s not a strategic bomber, it’s a fighter.
Same in Alpha 3. Each gun fires up to 3 shots and in exchange for not being able to shoot down all attacking aircraft all the time, you can elect to take it as a casualty and keep a unit you decide is more important to you. As in all games, except Anniversary, AA Gun hits are designated by the attacker who selects what casualities he or she wants.
Confirmation from Krieghund:
You fire all your AA Gun shots and the attacker decides what gets hit so odds are, you will NEVER shoot down a Strategic Bomber and this was true for all versions of Global. So yea, the guns are no different than they were originally, except they are limited in scope on how many shots they can take, in exchange for less shots, you get to take them as a casualty.
Wow, well I’ve always played that the aa gun fires for each ‘class’ of air. So you roll dice for ftrs, then for tacs, then for bmbs to see which aircraft were shot down……now were talking about land battles and not SBRs correct?
Wow, well I’ve always played that the aa gun fires for each ‘class’ of air. So you roll dice for ftrs, then for tacs, then for bmbs to see which aircraft were shot down……now were talking about land battles and not SBRs correct?
Yes, this is strictly land battles, not SBRs. All facilities have their own built in AA defenses and thus have their own rules as to how to employ them. The AA Guns that we place on the board are only involved in actual land battles between the military units.
Also JimmyHat, you were doing it correctly by rolling for each class of aircraft through Alpha+2. Up through Alpha+2, we just had 1 AA gun that got a shot at each attacking aircraft and you were supposed to roll by type of aircraft (roll for fighters, roll for tacs, roll for bombers). Now in Alpha+3, we have multiple AA Guns that are limited to 3 shots per gun, or total number of planes whichever is less (Example: 7 planes attack 3 AA guns, AA guns only get 7 shots, not 9). Also, now you simply roll for ALL aircraft attacking and any hits are designated by the attacker. So, unless you have a REALLY lucky roll, odds are you will not hit a strategic bomber unless that is the only aircraft the attacker is bringing to battle.
Ugh, thats a punch in the guts. The only way to hit bmbs used to be the aa gun….now there is no way.
knp’s right, Jen.
Before Alpha 3, every single attacking plane had an equal chance to be shot down; the attacker could not choose losses to AA.
Ugh, thats a punch in the guts. The only way to hit bmbs used to be the aa gun….now there is no way.
Aye. That’s the idea. You can even insulate yourself against facility AA Guns by bringing Tactical Bombers in to soak hits on “their” runs against a base so you could preserve your strategic bombers.
@Cmdr:
Aye. That’s the idea. You can even insulate yourself against facility AA Guns by bringing Tactical Bombers in to soak hits on “their” runs against a base so you could preserve your strategic bombers.
That’s only if you bring both Tacs and Strats to attack a base, right? In SBRs against ICs, you can only have Strategic bombers so any AA hits will take out a strategic bomber.
By the way, how many of you SBR air or naval bases? How often? We don’t SBR very often, and when we do it’s always against ICs. I don’t think we have EVER SBRed an air or naval base. Never really see a reason to do so. Yeah, it would be nice to eliminate the repairing ability and extra move of a naval base or to eliminate the extra move and scrambling ability of an air base. I guess since we don’t end up doing a whole lot of SBRs, when we do we want to concentrate on the enemy’s production capabilities rather than the perks given by bases.
Against England? I do it on Round 2 EVERYTIME. 2 Tacticals to the Airbase, 2 Strategics to the Complex. That way I have great odds of doing 12 damage to England and losing an 11 IPC tactical bomber.
