AA guns on the front lines

Thank you

@Tall:

Gentlemen,

––I think ya’ll are doing really well as far as the Coastal Guns rules go,…Well Done

@Razor:

The only allied ships that got sunk during D-day were sunk by German destroyers, not coastal guns. Come to think about it, I guess KM Blucher was the only ship sunk by coastal guns during WWII.

**––I just thought for Historical Accuracy I’d remind you of the U.S. Marine defence of Wake where they damaged and sank ships with Coastal Guns.

Tall Paul**

One thing to keep in mind when designing house rules for coastal guns is that “coastal guns” (a.k.a. coastal artillery) is a term that can refer to two very different things.  In the broad sense, it refers to any gun situated on a coast and intended to engage targets at sea.  By that definition, coastal guns don’t have to be very powerful weapons.  The coastal guns at Guam which Tall Paul mentions were 5-inch guns, which by battleship standards are regarded as secondary armament.  The narrower definition of coastal guns refers to very heavy artillery pieces (guns that would qualify as primary armament on a battleship) that are situated on a coast, sometimes set in very elaborate fortifications and sometimes mounted on railroad-track turntables.  Actual naval guns with large calibers were often used for this purpose; one example was the Lindemann Battery, which used 16-inch guns originally earmarked for the H-class battleships.

Coastal guns, as far as I know, weren’t responsible for sinking very many ships.  Their basic problem was that they couldn’t move, that their locations were generally known to the enemy, and that the enemy would try as much as possible to bypass them in favour of easier points to attack.  Japan’s conquest of Singapore from the landward side (rather than from the sea side, which was covered by British 15-inch guns) is one example of this principle; another is the choice of Normandy for the D-Day landings, one of its advantages being that it bypassed the powerful German coastal artillery located in the Pas de Calais area, for instance at Cap Nez Gris.

Indeed it was.  :-)    However I did not get to see the inside of the box.  :-(

@creeping-deth87:

@MacNaughton:

The USA is not allowed to take control of DNG until it is in the war, right?
It would be great if the economic giant could be responsible for building the NB and AB on that island fortress.

The Americans are never allowed to take Dutch territories unless they are taking them back from the Axis powers. Only UK and ANZAC can pick up Dutch territories while they’re still Dutch.

Very unfortunate for sure.  Does make UK/Anzac Alliance reconsider who takes DNG with the potential it poses for the Allied Strategy.  Still, DNG is a full 3 turn move from any US IC even if the US controls it.

Europe Rulebook, page 13:

Air units attacking territories that have antiaircraft guns will be fired upon.  This doesn’t include territories containing antiaircraft guns that are only being flown over.

Europe Rulebook, page 26:

An antiaircraft gun can only fire at an air unit when that unit attacks the territory containing that antiaircraft gun.

Thats a good question Gargantua.  We dont usually Tech in games,  maybe 1 in 20 to 25 its so tough to roll that 6 when you need it. I like the Anniversary Edition’s Tech development.
To answer you question I would say  it is between 90 and 105 times and thats on a table top not a lap top, Im probably way out in left field with my answer

@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!

Allowing a brief digression, if we were to compare AA50 to AA42, we find AA50 adds:

More board spaces

[liA nicer looking larger board[/li]

An additional power Better rules for China Cool new factors such as NOs and technology

AA50 is a better game with more bells and whistles, but some might prefer the relative speed and simplicity AA42 has to offer.

Back to the topic at hand,  if we were to compare AA50 to AAG40, we find AAG40 adds:

More board spaces

A nicer looking larger board

Additional powers

Much better rules for China

Cool new factors such as Politics, bases, neutrals, and convoy disruption

Tactical bombers and mechanised infantry

New rules for ICs

expanded rules for 2 hit warships

AAG40 has more features above and beyond AA50 than AA50 has over AA42.  Some people still might prefer the relative speed and simplicity of AA50, but you have to decide if you think you’ll be one of them.

Me, I think AAG40 is the best A&A game ever!  It obsoletes AA50 more than AA50 obsoletes AA42 (though all three are highly playable solid games).

One more thing, although AAG40 is new and optimal strategies are nowhere near having been refined, it looks like AAG40 has more viable strategic options than previous versions of the game.