AA Poll

@krieghund I knew I read it somewhere thanks!

Hey…

Thanks all for answering! It was just something I hadn’t taken into consideration till I thought about it…

Love this forum as always .org!

This seems to involve two different types of attacks.
Is the capital ship itself being attacked? Or is it an SBR on the Naval Base?
If it is the ship itself, then the AA from the Naval Base can NOT fire.
If it is an SBR, then the AA from the Naval Base CAN fire. However, the capital ship can not defend the naval base.

@Eqqman:

@Cow:

It is why I hate ignoring sz 110 for my G1. Gibraltar merge is pimp with cruiser and bship on top to boot.

Doesn’t that just give a free pass of sorts to Italy?  They can wave goodbye to the Brits who are probably leaving to go deal with the Germans and use their nearly intact navy to get Cairo all the sooner.

Uk usually wont care about germany since he is not going sealion.  UK will easily stack 92 and be able to threaten the italian fleet where ever it goes.  (stacking 97 would be the best thing italy can do).

@elque:

London’s 5 AA guns should be able to role once against each of three attacking German fighters in an amphibious assault then for a maximum of 15 die rolls. 5 AA guns each firing 3 times against each of 3 attacking air units.

the 5 London AA guns  could generate no more than 3 die rolls against the 3 German airplanes.

So … which is the correct interpretation?

In the Alpha+3 rules, London begins the game with 4 AA guns ( not sure if your scenario had the UK purchasing one or not, but just wanted to point that out)

@knp7765:

<snip>However, if we end up forcing USA to split their involvement over both theaters, which seems to me to be a losing proposition nearly every time, aren’t you then imbalancing the game toward the Axis?</snip>

I don’t think it is a loosing proposition nearly every time, so I disagree with your premise.
It’s a game opener more than anything else. Remember originally - the stand alone games were balanced with a half USA in each. If you then combine the boards and throw the USA into one side of the conflict, you’re effectively putting two countries into one side. And the other allies basically just need to avoid loosing, and the game is won. India doesn’t need to win the game, they just need to not loose. Russia doesn’t need to win, they just need to slow down the axis enough. And so on.

I don’t see many other viable choices to a balancing act upon USA to be frank.
By buffing/nerfing the other axis/allies you’re effectively removing strategy and closing options by making alternatives too easy. If it becomes easier to take Russia by Germany/Italy for example - nobody will go Sealion. Strategy removed and game made more narrow.
By giving USA a clear incentive to split attention somewhat (I’m not saying 50/50 product limit or something) you open up the game and provide the chance for more strategies. If the USA can’t dump 2 battleships, 1 crusier and plans into the Pacific each round at war without loosing something on the Atlantic side - it will provide more possible strategies for the game overall.
A clear benefit as I see it.

Tweaking the USA is a win/win in my opinion. It makes the game more balanced and it will provide more choice for how to play. All other options as I see it might balance the game, but will remove choices.

Yeah, I read that thread and decided to implement it. It’s working so far. I like having a quick reaction force from Germany to intervene in Africa if need be. I don’t have very strong forces in the former french territories and I’m about to rectify that situation. My opponent is obsessed with regaining the UK right now (has already failed twice) and sees Africa as a sideshow. I see it as a potential door to the “soft underbelly” of the Axis and am a bit disgruntled with my lack of defences in the region.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

@kcdzim:

@Rorschach:

Consider it that the fighter escorts would have peeled away before they get to the actual facility (lack of range and/or their job of defending the bombers against interceptors is already acomplished so no need to risk going down from AA gun fire as well).

Thinking of it like that makes sense to me.  Interceptors would be intercepting as far AWAY from the facility as they possibly can, while the AA gun is fixed AT the facility.

Not to mention that AA flak is rather indiscriminate.  If it were firing on the escort, it would be firing on the interceptors as well, and the dogfight would be occuring in the thick of the flak.  And that’s not what the defender would want to do (and it would suck in the game cause the defender might lose more than the attacker due to friendly fire).  Especially since it’s the escorts duty to peel the interceptors away from the bombers and NOT keep the dogfight in the same area.

Yes, I was going to go into a much more detailed explanation including all this but time was a restraint (I was at work when I made that reply).

Really, it just makes sense if you think about it.  :)

If your (fixed position) AA guns are firing into the skies, it’s too late to scramble interceptors as this means the bombers are already over their targets AND you’d hit your own interceptors just as often as you’d  hit the enemy bombers.  Escorting fighters would have turned back before entering AA gun range so as to mitigate losses (once the bombers are over their target, no need to risk losing extra fighters that aren’t going to help out in the raid)!  AND, once the bombers are dropping their payload, what’s the point of intercepting them anyway as the damage is already done!