AAG40 FAQ

@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?

The russians will still greatly prefer it to super subs.  :-)  Maybe a limit of 2 per turn (can originate from 1 or 2 airbases), per theatre?  That will cheer the allies up a bit.  If you think about it, it’s like a free transport ship of movement every turn per theatre, and it’s still gonna be used as fodder to save expensive units from AA.  That’s a pretty decent tech, I’d say.

Or replace the tech with enhanced transports that can carry mech inf as if they were an inf.  :evil:  Cool, but not crippling.

Or what if each airbase is required to target a different territory with its paratroopers?  That would limit the shield effect to two max for each territory, which still makes any IPCs spent on building extra airbases worthwhile (rather than only allowing two of them to be used each turn), but still putting aircraft at risk more than flooding a single territory with paratroopers as flak magnets.  That way a defender can load up on AA and it still be worth it because the paratroopers have to be spread out.

@SAS:

Or what if each airbase is required to target a different territory with its paratroopers?  That would limit the shield effect to two max for each territory, which still makes any IPCs spent on building extra airbases worthwhile (rather than only allowing two of them to be used each turn), but still putting aircraft at risk more than flooding a single territory with paratroopers as flak magnets.  That way a defender can load up on AA and it still be worth it because the paratroopers have to be spread out.

Let’s do the math.  Using my suggestion of 2 paras per turn per theatre.  Let’s say the USA has the tech and he he is playing to use them as shields.  The axis player is super lucky at rolling ones:

The USA sends 2 paras as shields against Germany and 2 against Japan.  They are big battles with lots of air support.  The axis both get 2 AA hits.  We’ll even assume the USA was only using fighters, the cheapest aircraft.  The 4 paras just saved the USA 28 ipcs (7 ipc cost diff times 4).  on top of that he gets to move 4 inf for free each turn saving 14 ipcs in transport costs.  This is already a HUGE benefit.  I would still consider this a very powerful tech.  Your suggestion helps with the AA thing a bit.  But think about this.  Aside from the huge cash benefits I have already shown,  each airbase reduces your need for 1 transport ship, so the power has huge incentive to build more as they are basicly unsinkable transports.  The 15 cost is nothing if it gives you the normal airbase benefits plus the ability to move inf without ships.

Again, even at just 2 per theatre per turn, the USA is potentially saving 28-36 (if bomber shields) ipcs per turn, plus they are much more fluid with their inf, which can drop from different airbases each turn.  It’s a big tech to score.

@moralecheck:

@SAS:

Or what if each airbase is required to target a different territory with its paratroopers?�  That would limit the shield effect to two max for each territory, which still makes any IPCs spent on building extra airbases worthwhile (rather than only allowing two of them to be used each turn), but still putting aircraft at risk more than flooding a single territory with paratroopers as flak magnets.�  That way a defender can load up on AA and it still be worth it because the paratroopers have to be spread out.

Let’s do the math.  Using my suggestion of 2 paras per turn per theatre.  Let’s say the USA has the tech and he he is playing to use them as shields.  The axis player is super lucky at rolling ones:

The USA sends 2 paras as shields against Germany and 2 against Japan.  They are big battles with lots of air support.  The axis both get 2 AA hits.  We’ll even assume the USA was only using fighters, the cheapest aircraft.  The 4 paras just saved the USA 28 ipcs (7 ipc cost diff times 4).  on top of that he gets to move 4 inf for free each turn saving 14 ipcs in transport costs.   This is already a HUGE benefit.  I would still consider this a very powerful tech.  Your suggestion helps with the AA thing a bit.  But think about this.  Aside from the huge cash benefits I have already shown,  each airbase reduces your need for 1 transport ship, so the power has huge incentive to build more as they are basicly unsinkable transports.  The 15 cost is nothing if it gives you the normal airbase benefits plus the ability to move inf without ships.

Again, even at just 2 per theatre per turn, the USA is potentially saving 28-36 (if bomber shields) ipcs per turn, plus they are much more fluid with their inf, which can drop from different airbases each turn.  It’s a big tech to score.

I’m not debating that it’s still a big advantage even with only being able to send paratroops to different territories, but it’s a vast improvement over the current rule without being quite as restrictive as your suggestion, especially to the Axis, who each are usually only involved in one theater.  Furthermore, since you can’t send paratroops as part of a SBR you still have to have other units anyway or your planes could still be toast from first round shots, so that’s going to limit the number of territories you would be attacking on a single turn in the first place.  Your rule would mean that the US and UK would get a doubled advantage over any of the other powers in the game (barring a weird Russian airbase build in Siberia or something).  That being one of the fews disadvantages, your rule may be better, but I thought I’d offer another simple suggestion that allows more flexibility.

I had thought about it benefitting the UK and USA 2 times vs the axis, but in essence there are really 2 wars going on at the same time and the UK and USA are really the only powers fighting in both so it sort of works out.

Your suggestion is just as valid as mine though.  :-)

I’m sure Larry and Kevin will figure something out.

Just had a thought….

For whatever we come up with, can we add the sentence “Paratroopers cannot be dropped in territories adjacent to the territory that launched them.”  The ONLY reason someone would to that is to shield aircraft.

If I am doing an amphibious assault through a seazone that has no warships but the territory can choose to scramble fighters do I have to designate units to counter the possible scramble before the battle{this would take them out of the main battle I presume}or does a scramble with nothing designated to counter it automatically stop barrages and makes any warships in the assault take on the srambled fighters?

If the defender scrambles, there will be a sea battle in which all of the attacking units in the sea zone will participate, and there will be no bombardment.

@fighter:

If I am doing an amphibious assault through a seazone that has no warships but the territory can choose to scramble fighters do I have to designate units to counter the possible scramble before the battle{this would take them out of the main battle I presume}or does a scramble with nothing designated to counter it automatically stop barrages and makes any warships in the assault take on the srambled fighters?

Yes, you must put units in the sea zone during your combat move. You do not get to pull units out off the land battle after your combat move phase. This means you must balance your needs for clearing the sea zone and attacking by selecting which units go where before the end of your combat move. When finished, you cannot change things and your opponent decides if and how much to scramble thus making scrambling a powerful tool. Scrambling one air unit causes a sea battle and prevents naval bombardment.