AA Guns

@Cmdr:

Hmm, I honestly don’t think Cruisers are that maligned.  They get short bombardments and cost almost half what a Battleship does so you generally see many more of them being produced than Battleships, or at least I do.

If you look at historical reality, the Aircraft Carrier would be the ship that would have the superior AA Gun screen.  But since the Carrier is SO well loved and so utilized in the game, I hardly think they need another benefit.  The Battleship is still a capitol warship (cruisers are not in my opinion) and I almost never see anyone but the US produce any new battleships.  Couple that with stories of the Bismarck almost single handidly taking out the RAF for mile after nautical mile and it seem plausible that the battleship would have superior air defense capabilities.

Just a thought.

WHAT? What ‘stories’ were you reading lol

“In the course of the warship’s eight-month career…Bismarck conducted only one offensive operation, in May 1941, codenamed Rheinübung. The ship, along with the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, was to break into the Atlantic Ocean and raid Allied shipping from North America to Great Britain. The two ships were detected several times off Scandinavia, and British naval units were deployed to block their route. At the Battle of Denmark Strait, Bismarck engaged and destroyed the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the pride of the Royal Navy, and forced the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to retreat; Bismarck herself was hit three times and suffered an oil leak from a ruptured tank.
The destruction of Hood spurred a relentless pursuit by the Royal Navy involving dozens of warships. Two days later, while heading for the relative safety of occupied France, Bismarck was attacked by obsolete biplane Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers from the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal; one scored a hit that rendered the battleship’s steering gear inoperable. In her final battle the following morning, Bismarck was neutralised by a sustained bombardment from a British fleet, was scuttled by her crew, and sank with heavy loss of life. Most experts agree that the battle damage would have caused her to sink eventually.”

So Bismarck sunk ONE ship before it got sunk lol
And it essentialy was crippled by a BIPLANE! lmao
What a waste :P

Its sister ship  ‘Tirpitz’ didnt fare too much better.

“In September 1943, Tirpitz, along with the battleship Scharnhorst, bombarded Allied positions on the island of Spitzbergen, the only time the ship used her main battery, in anger. Shortly thereafter, the ship was damaged in an attack by British mini-submarines and subsequently subjected to a series of large-scale air raids. On 12 November 1944, British Lancaster bombers equipped with 12,000 pounds (5,400 kg) “Tallboy” bombs destroyed the ship; two direct hits and a near miss caused the ship to capsize rapidly. A deck fire spread to the ammunition magazine for one of the main battery turrets, which caused a large explosion.”

So the Bismarck class was an epic failure. Massive waste of resources, and on the other side of the Globe Japan did the same dumbassr thing with the Yamamoto class.

Yea, because the biplane was all England had left - or so I’ve been told.  Keep in mind, I am Russian, your stories of past events may not mirror my stories of past events wholly and completely.

For instance, your Patton is considered a hero, but to us, Patton was a tyrant and a threat to the stability of world peace.  We do agree he was a general of the American 3rd Army, however.

(Yes, the victory over the hood is known even where I grew up.)

As for massive disaster, uh…well they DID sink the pride of the British navy!  The diplomatic coups from that alone makes the warship at least partially successful.  However, if you want to compare it to those things skulking beneath the waves and sniping poor, innocent, surface going ships, then yes, treachery and deceit usually beat honor and virtue when in battle.

@Cmdr:

Yea, because the biplane was all England had left - or so I’ve been told. � Keep in mind, I am Russian, your stories of past events may not mirror my stories of past events wholly and completely.

For instance, your Patton is considered a hero, but to us, Patton was a tyrant and a threat to the stability of world peace. � We do agree he was a general of the American 3rd Army, however.

(Yes, the victory over the hood is known even where I grew up.)

As for massive disaster, uh…well they DID sink the pride of the British navy!  The diplomatic coups from that alone makes the warship at least partially successful.  However, if you want to compare it to those things skulking beneath the waves and sniping poor, innocent, surface going ships, then yes, treachery and deceit usually beat honor and virtue when in battle.

Stories? How about facts lol

Bismarck lasted only 8 months while only scoring 1 kill
And was crippled by obsolete biplanes, which directly led to its defeat lol

Those are facts, not stories

The Yamamoto in the pacific is an even better example of the poor performance of large BBs in WWII

They were outdated by the advances in aviation, esp the carrier

Bismarck was in the ocean for months, blowing up and disabling British ships and taking out British planes when an old, WWI British torpedo plane scored a lucky hit locking the rudder in place.  If the British were not so bloody riled up about her, she would have been repaired easily and stayed out to raid enemy shipping. :P

The Battleship Bismarck was launched on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, 1939.  On May 18, 1940 the Bismarck is sent out to attack the enemy (along with support ships.) May 23rd 1941 the Bismarck group attempts to engage the cowardly British naval forces who realize their situation and run like hell for home, artfully evading the German kriegsmarine.  May 24th 1941 the HMS Hood & Prince of Wales engage the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen.  HMS Hood and another British battleship sunk, 2 British Heavy Cruisers damaged and assumed unfit for combat (they fall back and “observe”) while Bismarck changes heading to return to port and replace a generator that became damaged in the battle. #4 generator, to be exact.  Suffolk, Prince of Wales and King George harry the Bismarck, achieving nothing while taking minor damage themselves (still May 24, 1941.)  May 25 the HMS Victorious (Aircraft Carrier) launches night air raids against the Bismarck causing 1 casualty aboard the ship and “insignificant damage” an unknown amount of planes is reported shot down by anti-aircraft fire (8 torpedo planes are reported to have survived the mission from Victorious.)  May 25th, Bismarck changes course and evades British tracking, after numerous inconclusive exchanges of fire with Prince of Wales, King George and Suffolk (but this point, the Prinz Eugen had already been sent home for repairs.)  Essentially, we have a mostly useless British carrier (most planes destroyed, what they have left is aging) and 3 pansies commanding warships staying at max distance tracking the valiant and mighty battleship Bismarck!  In the late morning of May 25th, the Bismarck suckers the British into getting close enough for a real engagement and destroys / cripples all remaining British warships tracking her (Carrier is not one of the attacking warships, of course.  Carriers don’t attack, they defend, they send aircraft to attack.)  Bismarck’s greatest damage from the engagement is the loss of one of their radar arrays.  May 26, 1941 the Bismarck is sighted by British patrol aircraft.  England knowing that it cannot take the Bismarck in a fair fight, does what it can, it send every available plane it has left at the Bismarck: 810th, 818th, and 820th Squadrons from carrier Ark Royal resulting in multiple hits on the Bismarck by torpedoes, of all the torpedo hits from THREE FULL SQUADRONS OF ATTACKING AIRCRAFT against a SINGLE WARSHIP THAT HAS EFFECTIVELY DESTROYED THE BRITISH NAVY AT THIS POINT, ONE gets a lucky hit and locks the rudder in place.  This is damage that can only be repaired in dock, but there’s no way the British are going to let the Germans retreat honorably (as the Germans allowed the British on numerous occasions thus far) and get tugged back to dock for repairs.  Admiral’s report back to HQ West:  “Ship is weaponry-wise and mechanically fully intact; however, it cannot be steered with the engines."  Essentially, the boat STILL isn’t sunk after taking 2 carrier’s worth of aircraft, multiple battleships and heavy cruisers and anything else the British could throw at her. May 27th 1941, a U-boot is sent to retrieve the ship’s log for safe keeping.  Assumed at this time British cowardly and will keep attacking even though the defenders can do nothing but steam for home.  HMS Rodney and HMS King George catch up to the Bismarck on May 27, 1941 and score the first naval hits against the great battleship, disabling two forecastle turrets.  Full cowardice of Britain exhibited:  Battleship Bismarck virtually defenseless, all major gun ports damaged, rudders still locked, two engines down, is signaling surrender meanwhile HMS King George and HMS Rodney drive up to point blank range to maintain fire: “0936-1016: Receives an indeterminable number of hits from point blank range between 2,500 and 4,000 meters, but is still afloat.”  Remarkably, the Bismarck is STILL FLOATING!  20 minutes later, German saboteurs scuttle the Bismarck to prevent it falling into British hands.  At 10:39 in the morning, the Battleship Bismarck is officially sunk.

So, essentially, that’s the record of the Bismarck.  I left out all the details about them testing this, or testing that, or fixing a crane that broke in dry dock cause no one cares.  The ship was afloat for 2 years and 2 months in total.  It took on the RAF and the Royal Navy destroying just about everything that was put in its way until the tide turned with a lucky torpedo hit, one that managed to hit the only part of the ship to do any significant damage.  The ship is ruthlessly and mercilessly hunted down like a rabid dog and even when they signaled surrender, the British KEPT pounding it, yet were unable to destroy it, and it was finally scuttled and sent to the bottom of the ocean.

However, note that the ship was able to survive 6 squadrons of enemy aircraft.  It had to have had one helluva AA Gun screen!

Now, yes, I am sure that being an Anglo-Saxon country that the US is, for the most part, and that England wrote the history books about the battle that was probably used in the local schools here in America, you may have a different flavor of history.  There is probably no mention of British cowardice and British brutality in your books.  Since the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not IN that battle, nor have or had any racial ties to England that would make us more sympathetic to their version of the story, our books describe the battle as listed above.  Pieced together by ships logs & radio logs from the Wales, King George, Bismarck and Prinz.

To be honest, the only ones who can know what the Germans or British were thinking are probably below the surface of the ground and the waves now.

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