AA Guns

Ah, no, I had not seen that you could apply the hit to any unit.

What I am saying is make it a Axis and Allies Classic/Revised/Anniversary AA Gun again, except, it can be taken as a casualty and can fire in the opening fire stage of each round so long as there are attacking planes.  Basically, it gets Submarine Rules applied to it.

No more 3 shots in round 1 opening fire.

@Uncrustable:

@Cmdr:

No, I am thinking each AA Gun gets 1 shot regardless of how many planes attack, but they get 1 shot per round until there are no planes left in the battle.

.

What’s wrong with my idea?

AAA are treated as normal unit during normal combat. Hitting on a 1
They still get the 3 preemptive rolls at planes
This follows choose your own casualties

This is very self explainatory IMO

So once a battle begins (after the preemptive 3 AA dice), AAA roll no differently than, say an infantry. Except obviously the AAA hits only on a 1.

Does not matter if there are planes or not.

There’s nothing wrong about your idea.
Actually, I like it.
It works almost like a regular unit.
After 1st rnd, on defense @1, it is 50% less effective against any unit than Inf or Art@2.
Can not attack.
Works like an Antiaircraft artillery  division which has is own autonomy which includes some foot soldiers with hands guns to defend those artillery pieces (as you explained).

As I said earlier, I’m just working on a different rationalization of AAA, as essentially fixed AA guns with little mobility and no weapon to hit any ground units. (Since the main guns platforms are ground-to-air nothing else.)
I try to develop around the OOB classic AA which can solely hit planes.
Your help is welcome, to develop a balance AAA unit along this way.

Hey, it’s a house rule, you don’t have to take my suggestions, however, I’m all about free, unasked for and sometimes unwanted, advice giving. :P

Heck, it’s better than being yelled at for saying there is no rule prohibiting China from bidding armor or bombers or AA Guns. lol.  I’m sure there will be!

Anyway, been toying with trying to revive Delta rules for G40, a more realistic version of AA Guns might be part of that.

@Cmdr:

Ah, no, I had not seen that you could apply the hit to any unit.

What I am saying is make it a Axis and Allies Classic/Revised/Anniversary AA Gun again, except, it can be taken as a casualty and can fire in the opening fire stage of each round so long as there are attacking planes.� Basically, it gets Submarine Rules applied to it.

No more 3 shots in round 1 opening fire.�

No, I am thinking each AA Gun gets 1 shot regardless of how many planes attack, but they get 1 shot per round until there are no planes left in the battle.

You are creating almost a firewall of AAA  :evil: against small group of air support, like 1 or 2 planes.

Example If there is 4 AAA in a territory, 2 planes will get 2 shot @1 against both of them, every round. If it was only 1 plane, it means 4 shots@1. And it is also preemptive, on the first round and even more (according to your last suggestion)!

That’s the main reason to keep this rule: either 1/AAA or 1/plane whichever is less.

It is necessary to limit this snipe against “the most expensive, highest value pieces on the board”.

Even 1 shot every turn is much more powerful than OOB, as I said earlier (a better 3.5 times killing ratio vs OOB ).

No, what I am trying to say is that the AA Gun cannot shoot anymore if there are no more attacking planes, whether they were shot down or retreated.  However, it gets 1 shot a round, per AA Gun in the territory being attacked, per attacking aircraft.

So if Germany is attacked and has 3 AA Guns, but there are 15 British fighters attacking, then Germany gets 3 shots a round with the AA Guns until the aircraft are all destroyed, the AA Guns are destroyed or the Aircraft retreat.

@Cmdr:

Ah, no, I had not seen that you could apply the hit to any unit.

What I am saying is make it a Axis and Allies Classic/Revised/Anniversary AA Gun again, except, it can be taken as a casualty and can fire in the opening fire stage of each round so long as there are attacking planes.  Basically, it gets Submarine Rules applied to it.

No more 3 shots in round 1 opening fire.

So what you saying is that AAA roll a dice per aircraft each round and AAA are not stackable?
So if 2 planes roll 2 dice if 50 planes roll 50 dice?
Seems a bit overpowering to me

If you are saying each AAA roll 1 dice each round then that would reduce the effectiveness of AAA. It would work maybe with an cost reduction

But my idea slightly increases AAA’s effective with very little change to the current rules

AAA are treated as normal unit during normal combat. Hitting on a 1
They still get the 3 preemptive rolls at planes
This follows choose your casualties

So once a battle begins (after the preemptive 3 AA dice), AAA roll no differently than, say an infantry. Except obviously the AAA hits only on a 1

Does not matter if there are planes or not

You typed that as I was typing, right? lol.

3 AA Guns = 3 AA Gun shots max even if there are 50 fighters.  However, it’s only 1 or 2 shots if there are only 1 or 2 planes attacking.  This is per round, so as planes are shot out of the air, the number of AA Gun shots are reduced to compensate.

Ok well you are going the wrong direction IMO
AAA needs to be more effective not less

I just think my idea is better because it changes less and slightly increases AAA effectiveness

Your idea may be feasible if you were to give 1 shot to each AAA no matter how many fighters. And what I mean is if there are 3 AAA and 2 fighters you roll 3 dice
And would also have to look at a price reduction

But why not just keep all the current OOB rules but let AAA roll a defense dice during normal combat same as all other units. You could even let AAA attack on a 1 (would attack same as an unsupported infantry) AAA only get the 3 preemptive shots at planes on defense

It also doesn’t kill anymore planes than current OOB rules, this is what I like most about it

@Cmdr:

You typed that as I was typing, right? lol.

3 AA Guns = 3 AA Gun shots max even if there are 50 fighters.� **However, it’s only 1 or 2 shots if there are only 1 or 2 planes attacking.**� This is per round, so as planes are shot out of the air, the number of AA Gun shots are reduced to compensate.

Ok
Do you keep the preemptive strike every round? Or only on the first?

Because, if you keep it every round it has much impact and it is even more powerful vs OOB.
As I said, on your Moscow 10 rnds scenario it is 3.5 times killer than OOB.
7 planes down out of 12 vs 2 planes down on the first round.
6 IPCs is a must (at least).

Sorry to disappoint you,  :wink:
but if I have to choose between your HR and Uncrustable HR.
I prefer Uncrustable because it is still OOB in your Moscow scenario.
It is a far less Overpowered AAA.

Yes, in my opinion a house rule for AA Guns would be to treat them like submarines.  If they hit something it’s dead before it can return fire.

So, if you had 12 aircraft attacking 3 guns:

Round 1:  3 AA Gun shots
Round 2:  3 AA Gun shots
Round 3:  3 AA Gun shots
…
Because there are at least 3 attacking aircraft and you have 3 AA Guns.

If there is 1 aircraft attacking 7 AA Guns:
Round 1: 1 AA Gun shot
Round 2: 1 AA Gun shot
…
Until the plane is destroyed or all AA Guns are destroyed.

@Uncrustable:

Ok well you are going the wrong direction IMO
AAA needs to be more effective not less

I just think my idea is better because it changes less and slightly increases AAA effectiveness

Your idea may be feasible if you were to give 1 shot to each AAA no matter how many fighters. And what I mean is if there are 3 AAA and 2 fighters you roll 3 dice
And would also have to look at a price reduction

But why not just keep all the current OOB rules but let AAA roll a defense dice during normal combat same as all other units. You could even let AAA attack on a 1 (would attack same as an unsupported infantry) AAA only get the 3 preemptive shots at planes on defense

It also doesn’t kill anymore planes than current OOB rules, this is what I like most about it

AAA needs to be more effective not less
Are you kidding? Even without the first round against 3 planes/AAA.
Cmdr Jen Option 3 It is still very effective.

Option 3:
Each AAA gun would get up to 1 shot/1 plane (whichever is less)  every round.

After a 10 round battle for Moscow, that’s 4 AA Guns at 12 planes:

4 Shots round 1, 1 hit on average (rounding up)   4/0   1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 2, no hit to keep the average:        8/6
4 Shots round 3, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  12/6  1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 4, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  16/12 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 5, no hit to keep the average:       20/18
4 Shots round 6, 1 hit on average                      24/18 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 7, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  28/24 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 8, no hit to keep the average:       32/30
4 Shots round 9, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  36/30 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 10, 1 hit on average (rounding up) 40/36 1 plane destroyed

Option 3 results:
Get 3.5 times regular casualities =  7 planes will be destroyed on average but 5 planes will still be on the battlefield.

It is less effective only when the  battle last for 2 or 1 round.

Think about a tactical straffing with the 12 planes of this Moscow scenario for a single round.
4AAA OOB rules get 12@1 on each plane.
Option 3, only 4@1 on each plane.

Yer rule, I didn’t say you had to take mine. :P

@Cmdr:

Yer rule, I didn’t say you had to take mine. :P

If I was playing on your board game with a Larry’s regular set up,  I would surely pledge for the opening round preemptive shot only.
Just to somewhat reduce the OP effect of your AAA HR.

Your prefered choice of option 3 is a simpler rule but I think Larry didn’t introduce it while changing AAgun to AAAgun because of this unbalancing effect on planes.

To counterweight it, you had to increase the cost of AAA and lower the cost of plane for taking in account the higher rates of casualities amongst them.

Don’t you think?

It is my opinion that the change to AA Guns was in an effort to prevent an early Sea Lion being possible.  Honestly, I feel that Larry may have had to change his shorts the first time the round 2 Sea Lion was used against him in a game and may have over compensated a bit.

That’s just my opinion, I have no facts to support it, no facts to deny it either.  He’s never said to me, and I did ask!  I asked a LOT!  Cause at the time he was also a little worried that my KJF was unstoppable (Alpha 2) and by unstoppable, I mean no one on the boards could stop me from successfully containing Japan to a mere smattering of islands - most of which were worth 0 IPC.  It was, of course, a race from that point on to stop Germany from winning the game…

What is the difference between Alpha 2 and Alpha 3?

@Cmdr:

It is my opinion that the change to AA Guns was in an effort to prevent an early Sea Lion being possible.  Honestly, I feel that Larry may have had to change his shorts the first time the round 2 Sea Lion was used against him in a game and may have over compensated a bit. :-D

That’s just my opinion, I have no facts to support it, no facts to deny it either.  He’s never said to me, and I did ask!  I asked a LOT!  Cause at the time he was also a little worried that my KJF was unstoppable (Alpha 2) and by unstoppable, I mean no one on the boards could stop me from successfully containing Japan to a mere smattering of islands - most of which were worth 0 IPC.  It was, of course, a race from that point on to stop Germany from winning the game…

Maybe he can have done it for marketing reasons: creating new sculpts to sell more 2nd edition of the recent (1942/1940) games.

What did you ask him about AAA specifically?

@Baron:

What is the difference between Alpha 2 and Alpha 3?

Alpha 2 AA Guns were the same as any other Axis and Allies game.  They were not destroyed, they could be captured, they got 1 shot at each attacking plane in the first round and then no shots from then on, etc.
Alpha 3 they became valid targets and were destroyed before being captured, but they got 3 shots at attacking planes, each, as long as there were enough planes to shoot at.

Basically, it all revolved around Sea Lion, I think.  I mean, at the time of the change there was a lot of crying and moaning about how easy Sea Lion was and how horrible it was (Despite the fact that if you kept playing, odds were really good you could beat the Germans even if they HAD London, just cause they were so weak from using all their money on transports one round and losing all those ground troops and having to rebuild them, etc.)  Honestly, Sea Lion was a major calculation in my KJF strategy.  I assumed Germany was going to get creamed by the British but take England and thus, the only real threat on the board was going to be Japan so I devised a way to use India, Australia and America to beat the snot out of the Japanese (since America entered the war when London fell.)

It had the desired effect, IMHO, Germany was weak and still gathering herself while Russia built up against her, Japan was effectively required to do something about the wave of American bodies being thrown at it allowing the Chinese and Russians to breathe a little, and eventually, Russia could start taking any enemy territory on the board or German/Italian territory and got amazing income.  (There was even strategies about having Russians get on little boats for territories like Pauline for 3 IPC cause all those Japanese islands worth 0 for everyone else, were worth 3 IPC for Russia) and it got REALLY ridiculous.

At one time we had the Russians with 14x 3 IPC NOs for territories around the board, most of which couldn’t be taken by the Axis even if they wanted too since they had no navy to stop them.  That’s 42 IPC a round, btw, which is a HUGE benefit and why the Russian NOs were rewritten to exclude things like the Carolines, Pauline, Crete, Erie, etc… lol

Very interesting!
Thanks for taking time to write it down. :-)

I’ll ask again….

WHEN is this getting moved to the House Rules thread??

That, or please move my “France starting first” thread back here.  Otherwise, the double standard is really beginning to irritate me…