AAG40 FAQ

@Cmdr:

@SAS:

@Young:

Russia controls Poland and has 1 Cruiser and 1 submarine in SZ#114. Germany conducts an amphibious assault from SZ#114 with 11 loaded transports and 1 loaded aircraft carrier. Germany declares that they wish to ignore the Russian submarine and attack the cruiser before they land troops in Poland. The Russia Player argues that since there is an enemy surface warship attacking in the sea zone it occupies, it may defend. The Germany player argues that since he has no attack value against the sub, he can ignore it. Who is correct…. (sorry, but I have lost my rule books recently).�  �Â

The Russian player is correct: the German units cannot do anything to the Russian submarine, however, the submarine is perfectly capable of sinking the German transports.�  The rules allow transports to ignore subs and land troops anyway, but once a sea battle takes place in that zone the rules do not prevent the sub from joining that battle.�  Therefore, the German units can sink the cruiser, but not the sub, so the sub will destroy all of the transports before the amphibious assault can take place.

Incorrect.  The attacking transports can retreat at any time they choose.  So the Submarine might decide to engage, but it won’t necessarily kill all the attacking transports unless the attacking player is either unaware of the rules or fails to understand their importance.

I covered that 2 posts pror to yours.  :wink:

@moralecheck:

Ok, I’ve got a question now.  I think I have just found a sleeze tactic.  When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft.  If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft.  I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update

Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed.  So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too.  I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.

@Cmdr:

@moralecheck:

Ok, I’ve got a question now.�  I think I have just found a sleeze tactic.�  When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft.�  If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft.�  I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update

Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed.  So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too.  I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.

No aircraft is required in Global to carry them.  They are simply launched from an airfield and subject to AA fire.  But yes, in the older games you needed a bomber and this was not an issue.

@moralecheck:

@Cmdr:

@moralecheck:

Ok, I’ve got a question now.��  I think I have just found a sleeze tactic.��  When you send paratroopers into an attack, are the AA roles against them done separately, or at the same time as the roles against your aircraft.��  If it is the latter (and I think it is), it seems the real use of paratroopers is to send 3ipc inf units to absorb the AA hits instead of your aircraft.��  I would suggest this be addressed in Alpha 4 or the next 3 update

Traditionally the AA Gun roles are applied to the aircraft before the paratroopers are deployed.�  So if you hit the bomber, then you lose the paratroopers too.�  I’m not 100% sure if it’s still that way in Global, but I would suspect it is.

No aircraft is required in Global to carry them.  They are simply launched from an airfield and subject to AA fire.  But yes, in the older games you needed a bomber and this was not an issue.

I have not run into this problem yet, as I can’t find anyone with the testicular fortitude to play me in a game with technology!  (which is really an insult, coming from me. mwuhahahaha!)

I suppose then they would be immune to aa gun fire and thus a much more serious threat than before!  Although, it probably wouldn’t come into play very often.  First you need to get the technology, then you have to have a method to deploy the technology where your opponent has a gun, and then you have to have the desire to deploy the technology in a territory where your opponent has a gun.  Though, it does raise some interesting ideas!

It does say they are subject to aa fire, but it does not cleary specify individually or with your other aircraft. � I think the western allies could use this from the UK vs Western Europe to negate german AA fire against aircraft units, for example. � It reminds me of the old transport rules where they were used as cheap fodder to protect warships.

Worse still:  Players can use them in attacks against adjacent land territories they could have walked into just to pad their aircraft from aa hits. Yikes.

You get two paratroopers per airbase per turn, no limit.  I would have prefered limit 2 per turn in total, deploying from airbases.  The way it is written could have paradrops left, right and centre. Paratroopers are supposed to be a bit rarer than that.   However, they cannot attack by themselves (there must be other land units), so that is a bit of a balance, I suppose.

I’m really interested in an official ruling.  I hope they are targetted on their own, that will solve any issues with them.

Official ruling:  You roll AA for paratroopers along with AA for air units, and the attacker chooses casualties, as normal.

Thanks Kevin.  Can we fix that in the next update (pleeeease)?  They aren’t paratroopers as it stands, so much as cheap fodder to protect fighters and bombers from AA fire.  The technology is more like:  “You can now use infantry to take AA hits instead of your aircraft units as long as you have an airbase nearby.”

Anyone else feel strongly about changing this?  It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.

I will, of course, defer to your judgement.  My suggested fix is to have the paras rolled on their own (and maybe limit their use to 2 per turn per power, but that is more minor).  You are right in that it is rare, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it. � It just seems like it is really easy to abuse the intent of the technology.  If I were playing against someone who did this turn after turn, I’d find it infuriating.  In terms of realism, it’s like the sea rules.  They disallowed transport fodder because it was really unrealistic.  Picture the allied command saying “We can sacrifice the entire 82nd and 101st airborne divisions to save 200 fighters.  We’ll send them first, when the AA guns are out of ammo, send in the fighters (General Zap Brannigan)”.  It really seems like it doesn’t work as is.  Don’t make me grovel!  :lol:

@moralecheck:

Thanks Kevin. � Can we fix that in the next update (pleeeease)? � They aren’t paratroopers as it stands, so much as cheap fodder to protect fighters and bombers from AA fire. � The technology is more like: � “You can now use infantry to take AA hits instead of your aircraft units as long as you have an airbase nearby.”

@Krieghund:

Anyone else feel strongly about changing this?  It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.

No, I’m more inclined to leave it as it is.  If you get Paratroopers then you’ve earned the insurance on your fighters if you ask me.  Should make them more fun, previously I only ever used them for sniping undefended islands or territories I could get in range too, now I could actually use them for something else.

@Cmdr:

@moralecheck:

Thanks Kevin. �� Can we fix that in the next update (pleeeease)? �� They aren’t paratroopers as it stands, so much as cheap fodder to protect fighters and bombers from AA fire. �� The technology is more like: �� “You can now use infantry to take AA hits instead of your aircraft units as long as you have an airbase nearby.”

@Krieghund:

Anyone else feel strongly about changing this?  It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.

No, I’m more inclined to leave it as it is.  If you get Paratroopers then you’ve earned the insurance on your fighters if you ask me.  Should make them more fun, previously I only ever used them for sniping undefended islands or territories I could get in range too, now I could actually use them for something else.

So in essence…you agree that they are not paratroopers, but just “fighter insurance”.  See, already a sleeze tactic before it was even used.  :evil: :-D

@moralecheck:

@Cmdr:

@moralecheck:

Thanks Kevin. ��� Can we fix that in the next update (pleeeease)? ��� They aren’t paratroopers as it stands, so much as cheap fodder to protect fighters and bombers from AA fire. ��� The technology is more like: ��� “You can now use infantry to take AA hits instead of your aircraft units as long as you have an airbase nearby.”

@Krieghund:

Anyone else feel strongly about changing this?�  It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.

No, I’m more inclined to leave it as it is.�  If you get Paratroopers then you’ve earned the insurance on your fighters if you ask me.�  Should make them more fun, previously I only ever used them for sniping undefended islands or territories I could get in range too, now I could actually use them for something else.

So in essence…you agree that they are not paratroopers, but just “fighter insurance”.  See, already a sleeze tactic before it was even used.  :evil: :-D

Not as sleazy  as using an American destroyer to open the way for a fleet of British destroyers to take Frankfurt W. Germany - if you ask me.

Besides, I don’t see this being nearly as common as can opening.  It might happen occassionally.

The technology will only happen occasionally, true.  But when it does it can be used each turn anywhere there is an airbase.  It can be more abused.  At least the US destroyer in your example was at risk.  Tech only benefits rich powers.  Making rich powers aircraft basically immune to AA is a bit disproportionate, I think.  We saw that in AARE.  The USA gets a superfortress advantage (bombers immune to AA) and gets heavy bombers that attacked with 2 dice (in the OOB rules).  USA cranks out bombers, axis powers has no money left each turn due to SBRs, get absolutely crushed as they can build zip, have no fun, and never want to play again (yes it happened, waste of evening).  For some reason this para thing is reminding me of that…either Germany will use it to overwhelm Russia or the USA will use it everywhere on the map.  Nobody else is likely to spend on tech (not a law, but that’s what I’ve seen).

The fact that is uncommon does not mean we shouldn’t fix it, especially when the fix is really easy.

I think the happy middle ground could be that paratroopers aren’t rolled independently.  ALL of the paratroopers from a single airbase could succumb to a single AA roll (it should have to be each airbase, so the attacker can still potentially send 1 from two or three airbases, for example).  The attacker could choose between saving a single fighter or bomber, or losing two fodder units for that single hit.  Cheaper yes, but an attack is often a numbers game, where each unit can count as much as a roll.

Just an opinion though.

@Gamerman01:

@Krieghund:

Anyone else feel strongly about changing this?�  It seems like a relatively minor issue to me, given how often it will come into play.

So the latest on global paratroopers is that they are sent from airbases, subject to AA fire, and if there are fighters and bombers attacking the same place the attacker gets to choose their AA casualties?

Wasn’t it a few versions of A&A ago, when the attacker could choose fighters instead of bomber casualties?  In AA50, Spring 1942 and 1940 (at least through Alpha2), AA fire was segregated by type so that every aircraft had equal chance of being shot down.  Why go back now?  Moralecheck is saying you can now shield fighters and bombers with cheap infantry (paratroopers)?  If so, then yes I also feel strongly about changing this.  AA fire should be separated and rolled for infantry (paratroopers), fighters, and bombers.  If attacker gets to choose AA casualties, then all their expensive air could effectively be practically immune from AA fire, which is really not good.

Unfortunately, because AA no longer fires on everything (only 3 each), then it can’t really be rolled separately.  And the defender choosing doesn’t work either, because that’s obviously too strong.

Theoretically, the attacker could select which units will be fired on, and then the defender could roll for each - casualties assigned by the roll attributed to each, so while the attacker can limit what units might possibly be hit, there’s still an element of random.  But still not as clean.

That’s why I suggested that a single aa hits the entire group of paratroopers from a base - if you’re using more than 1 paratrooper then they’re possibly worth more than the fighter, just due to numbers.

Otherwise, paratroopers should just be immune to AA roles - it’s such a situational tech, pretty rare, probably rarely going to be a game changer, but it certainly shouldn’t serve as an AA screen.

@Gamerman01:

@kcdzim:

Unfortunately, because AA no longer fires on everything (only 3 each), then it can’t really be rolled separately.�

Forgot about this. He lost my interest after Alpha2.

Otherwise, paratroopers should just be immune to AA roles - it’s such a situational tech, pretty rare, probably rarely going to be a game changer, but it certainly shouldn’t serve as an AA screen.

I see. Maybe borrow a common aspect of other wargames - draw to see which units got hit.

For example: 2 AA guns (6 shots maximum)
3 paratrooper units, 3 fighters and 2 bombers attacking (8 units total)

AA scores 1 hit with its 6 rolls @ 1. Hit should be determined randomly, IMO
Put chits in a “hat”. Use country markers. Put in 3 of 1, 3 of another, and 2 of a 3rd country marker. Designate which represents which units. Draw number of hits (1 in this case).

Not very A&A-like, but this is a very logical solution, isn’t it?

I forgot about the effect of the new AA rules.  Kinda messes up my idea to separate them, too.  Actually, your random AA gun idea is a lot like A&A Bulge, so it is not too far out.  I like it.

Kd: if you make it so the AA gun wipes out all the paras from one airbase at a time, players will just send one para from each airbase and get around your solution.  Paras being immune to AA is an interesting solution but it
doesn’t really feel right either, given that they would be vulnerable to it.  Gamers who don’t know why that rule existed could sart to complain that they can’t fire at them.

It’s still better than what we have now though, and as paras can only support existing attacks, it means they can’t attack on their own (no more surprise paradrops behind the lines) and are just added to an existing land force.  So exempting them from AA is quite a legit workaround, but like I said it doesn’t quite feel right to me.

3 ideas:

1. Do the AA shots as normal (exempting Airborne units).  Then ‘reset’ the AA’s for a second phase vs the paras.  It may let some AA guns fire twice, but it can be justified by trying to keep things simple and by how slow transport planes are.

2. The defending assigns his shots to 2 categories: planes and paras.  Defender has 2 AA guns, attacker has 7 planes and 2 paras.  The defender says “I’m gonna shoot 5 dice vs planes and 1 vs paras”.  The beauty of this idea is that the defender will really only choose planes (so it is similar to exempting paras), but at least this way he has the option and he can still fire at the attacker if the attacker sends paras but no aircraft.

3.  The simple plan.  We take a page from the transport rules.  Paras are chosen last.  This elminates the unrealistic paradrop on the next door territory you could have walked into and stops them from being ‘fighter insurance’.  I think this idea is the easiest to implement and it follows precedent.

This solution gives the defender a bit more of a balance (vs the paras ability to cross oceans with no transport) as the para units could activate more AA shots if the defender has a surplus of AA guns.  This will keep a power with paras from going too nuts with them.  For example, the attacker will not send 6 paras (which is a really unrealistic amount) and a fighter into a territory with 2 aa guns as the odds say fighter is gonna get hit.  A player will think twice about heavy para use on a territory that is fortified with aa as it will cost them in escorts–-also realistic.  But in most cases, only one or two airbases will be in range, and the defender will rarely have a surplus of AA guns.  What I am eliminating here is a late war sleaze move where the USA has taken all western Europe and uses several airbases in territories there to invade germany (which is adjacent), just to block their AA. If they tried that with this rule, all they would accomplish is maximizing Germany’s AA shots.  So instead, that will attack by land, and maybe fly in the odd para to actually use as a land unit.

The last thing we want to do is write a bunch of complicated rules for a tech.  Of all of the suggestions so far, I think I like the idea of limiting the total number of paratroopers per turn, thus limiting their “shield” potential.  The question is, would this make the tech not worth having?