AA Guns

Maybe it lacks a bit of spaces to be more readable, because it worth the effort to learn about it.

Very interesting side of history.  :-)

This is a U.S.A. point of view here:
in French
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiCL42AiUds

In English
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuTNJ2oz1aE

I think I saw that special on History. Â

I get that, from the Anglo-Saxon perspective (verses the Bolshevik perspective) the Germans were the bad guys and I understand that a lot of this has to do with their U-boot campaigns.  It’s my opinion that much of the dislike of the German U-boot campaigns rubbed off on the crew and ship of the Bismarck.  Kind of a guilt by association thing?

War is war, it’s really hard to say “good guys” and “bad guys” you know?

Edit:

And yes, watched it again, on Netflix, I’ve seen it a few times.  It’s okay, but it’s definitely edited for a western audience, not a German or Italian or Russian one that’s for sure.

Yeah it had nothing do with German death camps
And killing Jews  :lol:

@Uncrustable:

Baron with AAA having an AA dice on attack and with cruisers with AA abilities as you stayed,
It will wreck plane purchases

I certainly do not want this

Just give cruisers +1 movement and could even give them ASW as destroyers do
And No preemptive AA shots on attack for AAA

Players would start to suicide AAA into enemy positions just to try to take out planes

About cruiser:
it is a good thing to get M3 in Global. But in 1942.1 and 1942.2, the oceans are smaller and there is no naval base to increase movement of the others ships.
It is more useful to give CA (AkA: cruiser) somekind of AAA.

At first, it seems terrible to destroy a plane on any “1” from the cruiser but in many naval battle, it is also a “no nuisance casualty” since, no matter what, the other player will destroy a plane anyway instead of a cruiser or some bigger fish in his fleet.

In Atlantic, very often, there is only german’s planes left to destroy Uk’s and USA’s fleet, so anyway a “1” is not a dramatic hit.

About AAA in offense:
in my rationalization of this Anti-Aircraft Artillery  Division on offense,
it will be better to give them the opportunity to take down 1 plane only on the second round. AAA on offense must move and built their defensive AAA. That’s why, I prefer this ability come in handy only on a second round of an offensive. It takes time to create as salient worthing the effort to fortified it with AAA guns from a mobile division.

So the special AAA ability come:
in first round (on defense) as First Strike and against up to 3 planes (whichever is less);
in the second round (on offense) as a regular attack against only 1 plane.

And keep the regular attack @1 for the first round and after the second round and others following.

Thus, this restriction will limit by himself the case of suicidal (and awfully dumb) AAA strategy.

In other part, would you really consider an effective strategy of putting in harm’sway some lonely AAA (for a single roll @1) instead of keeping them behind (for a triple roll @1)?

Like you said before, if someone is foolish enough to buy many AAA to doing it, so be it.
Don’t forget, it is the same price as an armor A3D3M2C6 vs A1D1M1C6, 1@1 for 1 plane?!

You make it too complicated now
Change NOTHING from OOB except:
-AAA defend at 1 as a NORMAL unit in NORMAL combat
-AAA can move 1 space during combat move phase
-AAA attacks at 1 as a NORMAL unit
-Increase cost of AAA to 6 IPCs

AAA still get 3 preemptive rolls at enemy aircraft before normal combat begins DEFENSE only

OR,
Change NOTHING from OOB except:
-AAA defend at 1 during NORMAL combat as a NORMAL unit

AAA still get 3 preemptive rolls at enemy planes before normal combat DEFENSE only
No change to cost

Cruisers:

What does naval bases have to do with giving cruisers +1 movement?
And why do you say the +1 movement is not good in the 42 versions?
If anything it would be even more effective because of the smaller map/less SZs

Cruisers +1 movement works in any version
And it’s less complicated and it’s being extensively tested (1914)

@Uncrustable:

Cruisers:

What does naval bases have to do with giving cruisers +1 movement?
And why do you say the +1 movement is not good in the 42 versions?
If anything it would be even more effective because of the smaller map/less SZs

Cruisers +1 movement works in any version
And it’s less complicated and it’s being extensively tested (1914)

I mean, that cruiser with M3 either work independently from the fleet core ships, or work with BB and CE and must slow down to 2 move pace.

IMO, it doesn’t give much incentive to buy more CA.

@Uncrustable:

Omw
I’m sure glad you 2 are not the game developers lol

I imagine the mech inf represents a mechanized division
Distinct from an infantry or armored division
I believe USA calls it an armored Calvalry division however

A division is a large military unit (10000-30000 soldiers) capable of independent operations due to it’s self sustaining role and it’s range of combat personal and suitable combat support forces

Infantry division
Mechanized division (armored Calvalry)
Armored division
Artillery division
Anti aircraft division

Capable of independent operations
Due to…combat support forces

An anti aircraft division does not need to be towed around by a mechanized division lol
It’s perfectly capable of moving itself

@Uncrustable:

You make it too complicated now
Change NOTHING from OOB except:
-AAA defend at 1 as a NORMAL unit in NORMAL combat
-AAA can move 1 space during combat move phase
-AAA attacks at 1 as a NORMAL unit
-Increase cost of AAA to 6 IPCs

AAA still get 3 preemptive rolls at enemy aircraft before normal combat begins DEFENSE only

OR,
Change NOTHING from OOB except:
-AAA defend at 1 during NORMAL combat as a NORMAL unit

AAA still get 3 preemptive rolls at enemy planes before normal combat DEFENSE only
No change to cost

OPTION 1:

Change NOTHING from OOB except:
-AAA defend at 1 during NORMAL combat as a NORMAL unit

AAA still get 3 preemptive rolls at enemy planes before normal combat DEFENSE only
No change to cost

This option is very consistent with the actual AAA unit (with little move on NCM).

OPTION 2:

Change NOTHING from OOB except:
-AAA defend at 1 as a NORMAL unit in NORMAL combat
-AAA can move 1 space during combat move phase
-AAA attacks at 1 as a NORMAL unit
-Increase cost of AAA to 6 IPCs

AAA still get 3 preemptive rolls at enemy aircraft before normal combat begins DEFENSE only

This option is crafted under a totally different rationalization than OPTION 1.

Actually, I’m just going where leads your ideas.
You have made a clear point about the real nature of AAA division.
You have converted the slow almost unmovable AAA unit to a combat unit as all the others ground units.

I could also add to your rationalization  that the fixed (original) AAgun positions are now in-built to IC, NB & AB, instead.

So the new AAA unit (you suggest) are now a basic ground unit: A1D1M1C6.

What remains is about AAA specific ability.

Why does it get a real specific ability in DEFENSE and nothing about it in OFFENSE?
Don’t forget: it is name and sculpt as an AAA division unit.
You said any unit can hit plane, that’s true.

But AAA is specially made to be more effective against planes. But how?

This Question will rise:
Why a 6 IPCs unit: 1@1 on OFFENSE is less effective against planes than 2 Inf units (6 IPCs): 2@1 on OFFENSE?

Maybe you don’t want to go there, on a personnal preference level, but many ideas you introduce point in this direction. I find it very interresting to open this field of thinking.

A- We can say: AAA are better in defense than offense. But it doesn’t totally compromise a specific offensive capacity for AAA unit.

B- And, we can no more say: AAA are just a defensive unit against plane (as was the old AAgun).

You may prefer your OPTION 2 AAA unit.

I said we can think about an OPTION 3 AAA unit with specific offensive capacity.

Just think about Subs: in offense and defense, they got there same Surprise Strike and Submerge capacities. But, Subs attack @2 while defend @1.

Why not do the same here for AAA division unit?

I would also add:
Compare those 3 units at 6 IPCs for themselves
(forgeting a moment about the old AAgun):

2 Infs M1   2A1    2D2   if paired with 2 Arts gain 2A2
1 Arm M2    A3      D3   can blitz / give +1 att. to 1 TacB
1 AAA M1    A1      D1   Defend once, up to 3 preemptive strike @1 vs up to 3 planes (whichever is lower).

Do you honestly find the last one unit totally worthing the 6 IPCs cost?

Giving 1 regular shot @1/AAA against 1 defending aircraft, doesn’t seem too OP from this abstract comparison, I think.

Baron I would never give AAA an attacking AA roll. EVER

It has way to many implications, changes too much from OOB

and you are comparing apples to oranges. Absolutely AAA would be worth if you shoot down expensive planes with it

Honestly for simplicity reasons, I would leave AAA at 5 IPCs and no attack move

Only give them defense at 1 during normal combat as a normal unit to increase AAA effectiveness per it’s cost

Under your proposal players would strafe enemy tts with infantry and AAA just to kill some planes and maybe lose some inf. Plane purchases would be reduced and then , with planes not being purchased, AAA would no longer be purchased

Planes are not to often a purchase as is other than UK and USA
You don’t want to reduce it further, while at the same time add more complexity to the game
You hinder the overall game experience

This is the same reason I would never give cruisers an AA ability

@Uncrustable:

Baron I would never give AAA an attacking AA roll. EVER

It has way to many implications, changes too much from OOB

and you are comparing apples to oranges. Absolutely AAA would be worth if you shoot down expensive planes with it

**Honestly for simplicity reasons, I would leave AAA at 5 IPCs and no attack move

Only give them defense at 1 during normal combat as a normal unit to increase AAA effectiveness per it’s cost**

---

Under your proposal players would strafe enemy tts with infantry and AAA just to kill some planes and maybe lose some inf. Plane purchases would be reduced and then , with planes not being purchased, AAA would no longer be purchased

Planes are not to often a purchase as is other than UK and USA
You don’t want to reduce it further, while at the same time add more complexity to the game
You hinder the overall game experience

This is the same reason I would never give cruisers an AA ability

If I have to propose something to my friend next game it will probably be this:
**Honestly for simplicity reasons, I would leave AAA at 5 IPCs and no attack move

Only give them defense at 1 during normal combat as a normal unit to increase AAA effectiveness per it’s cost** :wink:

Or another defensive AAA guns which attacks planes every round but at a lower hit ratio than 1/6 per plane. (I will come back later on this.)

Once this said…

For the OPTION 3 AAA:
I feel it also that it can change a bit the game, but to what extent? I don’t think it would be a total revolution.
At least the “spagghetti is on the wall” and anyone can tell if it seems too OP or not.

@Uncrustable:

Baron I would never give AAA an attacking AA roll. EVER

It has way to many implications, changes too much from OOB

and you are comparing apples to oranges. Absolutely AAA would be worth if you shoot down expensive planes with it

Honestly for simplicity reasons, I would leave AAA at 5 IPCs and no attack move

Only give them defense at 1 during normal combat as a normal unit to increase AAA effectiveness per it’s cost

---

Under your proposal players would strafe enemy tts with infantry and AAA just to kill some planes and maybe lose some inf. Plane purchases would be reduced and then , with planes not being purchased, AAA would no longer be purchased

Planes are not to often a purchase as is other than UK and USA
You don’t want to reduce it further, while at the same time add more complexity to the game
You hinder the overall game experience

This is the same reason I would never give cruisers an AA ability

From your perspective, this option 3 AAA, is like reverting TTs from “chosen last” to “classic”.
Instead of increasing the tactical challenge of the game, it will becomes like a stack of Inf fodders around 3 or 4 AAA. (Like stack of TTs fodder around some capitals ships).

But I don’t think it can really become like this.
On many games I played, planes were protected, for the most part, two territories behind and seldom on a front line territory.
Maybe it is different in your games?

When I try to see where adding an offensive AAA, will introduce some tactical changes, I’m only thinking about:
1- Western Europe invasion
2- Battles over Stalingrad/Causasus and Leningrad,
3- Eastern indian front in Burma and Malayia.
In this 3 fronts, will it be better to bring 1 or 2 AAA instead of 2 armors?
I doubt it.

I think, that offensive AAA will be handy only on large decisive ground battles (Capitol cities) when attacker bring so many units that defender is denied any counter-attack and just sit and reinforces his main territory while waiting another offensive charge.

On this rare occasion an offensive AAA will throw (in a single round) a few dices against defending aircraft. Will this be a game changer? Even in such long battle?

Maybe, in some attrition wars like it was the case between Karelia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe in the Classic map.
Is their something like this on Global map or 1942? I can’t say.

Maybe we are just worrying (in abstract) about such a rare situation in fact, that this specific ability have no great effect:

neither for the attacker (gaining some dubious advantage),
nor the defender (crippling no plane at all, or too few to create a climatic change over the outcome of a battle.)

Thus giving it or not (1 single regular strike against 1 plane/AAA), would have had no real consequences.

So this discussion could be (in fact) more about simplicity of rule: 1 single special ability only (Option 2: 3@1 against plane, on defense)
vs
unity/simmetry  of rule (Option 3):  1 double special ability for 2 situations (1 on Def. and 1 on Off.)

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…

Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose

It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

@Uncrustable:

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…
Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose

It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

Glad to see you still there.

About: “knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…”
It will be essentially possible on a straffing run on a former turn.
Or after the first 2 rounds had past. Then planes shooted down will have consequences.

As I imply when I introduce the attack against 1 aircraft/AAA on a second round only, the straffing attack will have to be maintain for 2 consecutive rounds.

I’m still thinking, a straffing run is better made when you have some good offensive punch (armor or planes), not just few @1, even against planes because you will deplete many Inf against Inf because of 1 against 2 off/def ratio.

You should read the whole thing.
Ignore the first line

@Uncrustable:

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…

Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose

It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

@Uncrustable:

You should read the whole thing.
Ignore the first line

@Uncrustable:

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…

Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose
It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

The main gains are just about this:
in which way will we see a greater use of AAA and new kind of tactics?

Clearly, your thinking about AAA as regular unit is kind of changing “paradigm” as with TT’s rule change.
I’m not quite sure giving a little “punch on offense” to AAA is OP.
(Like some other give it in converting AAgun in “antitank gun after first round. Or as antitank gun when there is no attacking plane”).

Maybe, it just open some new possibilities which need patience, skills and strategies to be used effectively on offense.
You said earlier: “It has way too many implications, changes too much from OOB.”

Maybe those implications are not that unbalancing at all.

What I know for sure, is give some players the chance to try it, they will try to develop a strategy to maximized it. It will be easier to judge.

For now, we are stuck on abstract and principles thinking with few examples.

Think about the first time Larry have introduce the idea of a “taken last” transport inside his group of play-tester and before playing sea battles that way.

They were probably divided about it as the other tread reveals.

I do not want that, I doubt very many do…
What I want is a slight boost to AAA
To improve it’s defensive capabilities, while not breaking anything or adding too much complexity or making AAA too powerful

That is what games like this need, slight tweaks
It is already a great game, and fairly balanced as well
Just see how many play G40 on these forums alone

@Uncrustable:

I do not want that, I doubt very many do…
What I want is a slight boost to AAA
To improve it’s defensive capabilities, while not breaking anything or adding too much complexity or making AAA too powerful

That is what games like this need, slight tweaks
It is already a great game, and fairly balanced as well
Just see how many play G40 on these forums alone

For my part, I’m very curious about it.
In this tread, you was the one to suggest and advocate for an Always Active AA gun.
Talking about increasing strategy.
And I was the one defending the balance of thing.

Now, roles seem upside down.  :wink:

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?