AA Guns

@Cmdr:

I have always looked at the battleship as a fleet marker and not just a specific battleship.

For instance, the Battleship Missouri was labeled BB-63 and travelled with Task Force 58.  Task Force 58 included the battleship, a few submarines, a few destroyers and destroyer escorts, some cruisers and a couple light carriers.  All this, in my mind, is part of the Battleship piece.

The Cruiser piece might be 3 cruisers.  The destroyer piece might be half a dozen destroyers with no superior ships along side, etc.  Submarines are probably 3, for instance, a German Wolfpack might be 3 submarines represented by one submarine piece.

I can’t be as accurate than you but you need to increase the numbers of ships for each units to get a kind of relative proportion between historical set up and game set up.

I agree that you need some escorts vessels within a BB unit but not that large as a Task force since now we have many different units on the board.

I find it weird to add fighters and escort carriers inside a BB unit.
It should be more homogeneous, from my perspective.

@Cmdr:

Well, I’ve said before, if I had my druthers’ it would be on the Battleship because it’s already a ship that is much maligned in 1940 and because there are instances battleships fighting with AA Guns.

About your main topic,
if you think that Cruiser are more often bought than Battleship in your game, I think you can add 1 or 2 @1 preemptive strike AA/ship, to create an incentive. It will be see as a more dangerous unit for sure.
But on an historical point of view, US Admirals rather prefer attacking Yamato and others BBs with airplanes rather with their own capital ship (they saw greater risk in direct contact to their capital ships than their airfleet).

Your HR will create a distortion compare to history since many BBs were sink by attacking planes.

I add escort carriers, and heavy cruisers to Aircraft Carrier units too.

An arrangement of:

• 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 3 Cruisers, 9 Destroyers and 6 Submarines might include 30 escort carriers, 30-50 escort destroyers, 20 escorting submarines, tanker ships, transports and medical ships, etc.

@Cmdr:

I add escort carriers, and heavy cruisers to Aircraft Carrier units too.

An arrangement of:

• 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 3 Cruisers, 9 Destroyers and 6 Submarines might include 30 escort carriers, 30-50 escort destroyers, 20 escorting submarines, tanker ships, transports and medical ships, etc.

IMO, this Task force will be represented in A&A by 1 CV unit and 1 BB unit+ at least 1-2 DD unit and 1 Sub unit.

yes lets wreck plane purchases entirely  :-P

While were at it, why not let tanks choose their ground targets, subs can choose their targets on first strike if DD is not present, fighters/tac bombers can choose their ground targets, etc…

Jen your ideas better fit a smaller tactical game such as A&A minis or battle of the bulge/D-day, etc…

@Uncrustable:

yes lets wreck plane purchases entirely  :-P

While were at it, why not let tanks choose their ground targets, subs can choose their targets on first strike if DD is not present, fighters/tac bombers can choose their ground targets, etc…

Jen your ideas better fit a smaller tactical game such as A&A minis or battle of the bulge/D-day, etc…

Oh oh Uncrustable’s irony on sight!  :lol:

I doubt having battleships with AA Guns are going to ruin aircraft.  Might make some of the cheap battleship battles a bit more interesting.  I don’t think 2 fighter squadrons should be able to sink a battleship, since it took more than 5 squadrons to sink the Bismarck

Cruisers rolling a 1 in combat (attack or defense) can choose a hit taken against enemy planes ( owner decides which type)

Now cruisers are fixed for that crappy price.

Either that or they move 3 spaces with or without a port

I finally made my opinion on which kind of “AAA fire only against aircraft” I could introduce as HR.

@Baron:

Thank you for your answer, it helps a lot to see more clearly where this goes.
Your example fit whith no option on the table but it is a reference if AAA were all outs.

I borrow your post to insert it in my proposition:
@Cmdr:

If 1 AA Gun got 1 Shot per round in opening fire, as long as there existed at least 1 attacking plane, then there would be no need to have the 1/6 chance of the plane surviving being shot.

What I read, and I may have misread, was that each gun would get up to 3 shots per round. �After a 10 round battle for Moscow, that’s 4 AA Guns at 12 planes (just using starting units, assuming no planes lost by Germany or if they were, they were rebuilt) so that’s:

12 Shots round 1, 2 hits on average
10 Shots round 2, 2 hits on average (rounding up)
8 Shots round 3, 1 hit on average (rounding down)
7 Shots round 4, 1 hit on average (rounding down)
6 Shots round 5, 1 hit on average
5 Shots round 6, 1 hit on average (rounding up)
4 Shots round 7, 1 hit on average (rounding up)
3 Shots round 8, No hits on average (rounding down)
3 Shots round 9, 1 hit on average (rounding up)
2 Shots round 10, no hits on average.

So you went from getting 2 hits on average with the current rules, to 10 hits on average with the proposed rules. That’s a SIGNIFICANT increase! �It’s way more than is necessary to turn the tide of battle in Russia, and Germany has to hope to crush Russia pretty darn quick to win the game as it is now. �(And hellz yes, I am keeping all four of those guns operational until it comes down to trading armored units or the number of attacking planes has been decimated to the point it’s not worth keeping them alive anymore!)

Option 1: AAA, a hit after 1st round force plane to withdraw.
Each gun would get up to 3 shots per round.

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

12 Shots round 1, 2 hits on average � � � � � � � � � � 12/0 � � 2 planes destroyed
10 Shots round 2, 2 hits on average (rounding up) 22/12 � 2 planes must retreat.
8 Shots round 3, 1 hit on average � � � � � � � � � � � � 30/24 �1 plane must retreat
7 Shots round 4, 1 hit on average (rounding down) 37/30 �1 plane must retreat
6 Shots round 5, 1 hit on average (rounding down) 43/36 �1 plane must retreat
5 Shots round 6, 1 hit on average � � � � � � � � � � � � 48/42 �1 plane must retreat
4 Shots round 7, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 52/48 �1 plane must retreat
3 Shots round 8, no hit on average (rounding down)55/54
3 Shots round 9, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 58/54 � 1 plane must retreat
2 Shots round 10, no hit on average. � � � � � � � � � � 60/60
� � � � � � 8 planes have retreated.

So you went from getting 2 hits on average with the current rules, to 10 hits on average with the proposed option 1.
This means Germany still kept �10 planes and only lose 2 planes.
But, there is only 2 planes on the battlefield.

Option 2:
Each gun would get up to 3 shots per round and 1 shot/rnd after first round.

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

12 Shots round 1, 2 hits on average � � � � � �2 planes destroyed
4 Shots round 2, 1hit on average (rounding up) � � �1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 3, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 4, no hit to keep the average: 2 hits/12 shots
4 Shots round 5, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 6, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 7, no hit to keep the average � � � � � �
4 Shots round 8, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 9, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 10, no hits on average.

Option 2 results:
Get 4 times regular casualities = �8 planes will be destroyed on average but 4 planes will still be on the battlefield.

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.

Option 4:
Each gun would get up to 3 shots per round at 1/18 rates of casualities.
After a 10 round battle for Moscow, that’s 4 AA Guns at 12 planes:

12 Shots round 1, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � � �12/18 �1 plane destroyed
11 Shots round 2, no hit on average (rounding down) �23/18
11 Shots round 3, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � � �34/36 1 plane destroyed
10 Shots round 4, no hit on average (rounding down) �44/36
10 Shots round 5, 1 hit on average � � � � � � � � � � � � � �54/54 �1 plane destroyed
9 Shots round 6, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � � � 63/72 �1 plane destroyed
8 Shots round 7, no hit to keep the average : � � � � � � 71/72
8 Shots round 8, no hit on average (rounding down) � 79/72
8 Shots round 9, 1 hit on average (rounding up) � � � � 87/72 � 1 plane destroyed
7 Shots round 10, no hit on average (rounding down) �94/90

Option 4 results:
5 planes will be destroyed on average and 7 planes will still be on the battlefield.

OOB rule (3 rolls@1 on 1st rnd only): 2 killed �10 remaining
Option 0 (3 rolls@1 after 1st rnd): � � 10 killed 2 remaining
Option 1 (3 rolls@1 after 1st rnd): � � 2 killed �2 stayin’ battle 8 compel to retreat planes
Option 2 (1 roll@1 after 1st rnd): � � �8 killed �4 remaining
Option 3 (1 roll@1 each rnd): � � � � � 7 killed �4 remaining
Option 4 (3 rolls@1/18 always): � � � �5 killed �7 remaining

Now we can better compare between them.

Do you think option 1 can still be viable and interesting purchase?
Since their is only 2 kills as OOB, but it can also hinder seriously an attacking Germany, for instance, by compeling all aircrafts being hit to withdraw from the battle. Some attacking punchs will be missing in combat for sure.

Planes are not destroyed, so no IPC directly lost but indirectly it is the case via the lack of airsupport to attack ennemy’s ground units �and causing less casualities than expected.

And what about option 4? Is it still too overpowering?
And we didn’t consider at all taking some AAA as casualities, which could be a very possible option in a long lasting battle, which could mean lesser odds to make casualities on planes.

Option 5:
Each AAA gun would get up to 3 shots for the first round at 1/12 rates of casualities.
Each AAA gun would get up to 1 shot/1 plane (whichever is less) at 1/12  every round after the first.

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

12 Shots round 1, 1 hit on average:                    12/0  1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 2, no hit to keep the average:       16/12
4 Shots round 3, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  20/12 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 4, no hit to keep the average:       24/24
4 Shots round 5, no hit to keep the average:       28/24
4 Shots round 6, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  32/24 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 7, no hit to keep the average:       36/36
4 Shots round 8, no hit to keep the average:       40/36
4 Shots round 9, 1 hit on average (rounding up)  44/36 1 plane destroyed
4 Shots round 10, no hit to keep the average:     48/48

Option 5 results:
Get 2 times regular casualities =  4 planes will be destroyed on average but 8 planes will still be on the battlefield.

OOB rule (3 rolls@1 on 1st rnd only):                          2 killed  10 remaining
Option 0 (3 rolls@1 after 1st rnd):                              10 killed 2 remaining
Option 1 (3 rolls@1 after 1st rnd):   2 killed  2 stayin’ battle 8 compel to retreat planes
Option 2 (1 roll@1 after 1st rnd):                                 8 killed  4 remaining
Option 3 (1 roll@1 each rnd):                                      7 killed  4 remaining
Option 4 (3 rolls@1/18 always):                                   5 killed  7 remaining
Option 5 (3 rolls@1/12 then 1 roll@1/12 after 1st rnd):  4 killed  8 remaining

Now when I compare between option 5 and all others option, I see it is nearer to OOB rule,
I will prefer this. On average, it takes 6 rounds to get more hits than OOB rule.

So, my AAA gun only will be under this rule:
Always preemptive strike (for simplicity).
1 AAA can attack up to 3 planes on first round, but max 1 attack per plane.
after first round, 1 AAA attack/ round, up to 1 plane, but max 1 attack per plane.
Hit ratio: 1/12 which is obtain this way:
        one first roll: “1” and a second roll “3” or less to destroy one plane.

@Imperious:

Cruisers rolling a 1 in combat (attack or defense) can choose a hit taken against enemy planes ( owner decides which type)

Now cruisers are fixed for that crappy price. :-D

Either that or they move 3 spaces with or without a port

I played almost like that in my last game.
Cruisers also get 1@1 preemptive strike on defense.
Uk bought many more cruisers and no destroyers.
But Germany was played by a player which was craving for planes and no sub at all…

Maybe in 1940 it is more interresting to get a 3 moves cruiser…

@Cmdr:

I doubt having battleships with AA Guns are going to ruin aircraft.  Might make some of the cheap battleship battles a bit more interesting.  I don’t think 2 fighter squadrons should be able to sink a battleship, since it took more than 5 squadrons to sink the Bismarck

However, it can change a lot the initial attacks from Germany against UK Battleships in 1942, and UK against IJN battleship.

@Cmdr:

I doubt having battleships with AA Guns are going to ruin aircraft.  Might make some of the cheap battleship battles a bit more interesting.  I don’t think 2 fighter squadrons should be able to sink a battleship, since it took more than 5 squadrons to sink the Bismarck

5 squadrons will be figured by 2 planes unit atmost: 1 TacB and 1 Fgt.

Baron I could read your post, or read an encyclopedia lol
Either way I would fall asleep very soon!

Jen: 1 air unit represents 1 squadron? I highly doubt that, at least 60+ aircraft (a wing) if not more, certainly enough to take on a battleship squadron/task force whatever

Giving all ships AA dice would wreck plane purchases, why buy 3 fighters that would more than likely die to AA fire, when you could buy 3 tanks and 2 destroyers. Or some other combination of land + sea units  vs air units
It would also wreck AAA purchases.

So adding AA dice to ships = added complexity, less plane purchases and less AAA purchases
So it hinders the game and makes it more complicated :P
We would a net negative impact on the overall game experience.

A&A, instead of using a complex battle system as some other games do, simply uses ‘choose your own casualties’. With a couple exceptions(transports, and subs vs aircraft)

Obviously all ships are more than capable of shooting down aircraft, as are infantry and tanks, other aircraft , etc…

If your going to make anything more complicated, at least make it something that would add equally or greater to the overall experience

For example: Letting AAA defend on a 1 during normal combat, as a normal unit (no other OOB changes) actually slightly reduces the complexity of the game, while at the same time slightly enhancing the AAA unit (which this thread was created for) Most importantly, this change would not effect aircraft in anyway positive or negative.
It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would recieve
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

In summation, we would have a net, slight to moderate, positive gain on the overall game experience

@Uncrustable:

Baron I could read your post, or read an encyclopedia lol
Either way I would fall asleep very soon!

A hint: read bold first.
Then, if you want more details go into regular texts. :wink:

Only, if you need the context of the dialogue, read all the first quote.

It is how I see my post and construct them.
Maybe you have better suggestion to get to the point without avoiding important details?
I’m open to it.

@Uncrustable:

Baron I could read your post, or read an encyclopedia lol
Either way I would fall asleep very soon!

Jen: 1 air unit represents 1 squadron? I highly doubt that, at least 60+ aircraft (a wing) if not more, certainly enough to take on a battleship squadron/task force whatever

Giving all ships AA dice would wreck plane purchases, why buy 3 fighters that would more than likely die to AA fire, when you could buy 3 tanks and 2 destroyers. Or some other combination of land + sea units  vs air units
It would also wreck AAA purchases.

So adding AA dice to ships = added complexity, less plane purchases and less AAA purchases
So it hinders the game and makes it more complicated :P
We would a net negative impact on the overall game experience.

A&A, instead of using a complex battle system as some other games do, simply uses ‘choose your own casualties’. With a couple exceptions(transports, and subs vs aircraft)

Obviously all ships are more than capable of shooting down aircraft, as are infantry and tanks, other aircraft , etc…

If your going to make anything more complicated, at least make it something that would add equally or greater to the overall experience

For example: Letting AAA defend on a 1 during normal combat, as a normal unit (no other OOB changes) actually slightly reduces the complexity of the game, while at the same time slightly enhancing the AAA unit (which this thread was created for) Most importantly, this change would not effect aircraft in anyway positive or negative.
It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would recieve
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

In summation, we would have a net, slight to moderate, positive gain on the overall game experience

I would severely argue against adding any AA dice to any ships. It would (this is a fact) impact planes negatively.

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

There are already 3 cruisers that Germany attacks and 1 in the med that either Germany or Italy attacks.

This would not slightly, but moderately shift the balance early game towards the Allies. So now players would start bidding for the Axis to counter this.

So we would have a net of zero on balance, added complexity (a negative), while cruisers become more viable (a positive), but planes (even if slightly) become less viable (another negative, maybe)

so 0 - 1(or 2) + 1 = 0(or -1)
A net gain of zero to a negative, on the overall game experience.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Baron I could read your post, or read an encyclopedia lol
Either way I would fall asleep very soon!

A hint: read bold first.
Then, if you want more details go into regular texts. :wink:

Only, if you need the context of the dialogue, read all the first quote.

It is how I see my post and construct them.
Maybe you have better suggestion to get to the point without avoiding important details?
I’m open to it.

Ok well it definitly adds complexity to the game, there is no doubt about that.
It also (if it even slightly adds to AA rolls) hinders aircraft, atleast slightly.
If im wrong and it reduces AA rolls then it hinders AAA and whats the point?

So either way thats 2 negatives, to 1 positive (enhancing AAA)

But 2 things are not taken into account yet….
1-what does it do to game balance, and
2-does it make AAA too powerfull

Even if both 1 and 2 are slim to zero, we still have a net negative impact on the overall game experience

So at best, its a slight hindrance to the game, and at worst, it wrecks the game

Why i ask would you want to implement this? It is a high risk with no rewards…

@Uncrustable:

I would severely argue against adding any AA dice to any ships. It would (this is a fact) impact planes negatively.

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

There are already 3 cruisers that Germany attacks and 1 in the med that either Germany or Italy attacks.

This would not slightly, but moderately shift the balance early game towards the Allies.
So we would have a net of zero on balance, added complexity (a negative), while cruisers become more viable (a positive), but planes (even if slightly) become less viable (another negative, maybe)

so 0 - 1(or 2) + 1 = 0(or -1)
A net gain of zero to a negative, on the overall game experience.

Uncrustable,
you said this thing:

It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would receive.
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

If you agree to give 1 single AAA roll for each cruiser, then it seems you won’t need any more bid.
Maybe it can slighlty change the tide toward Allies.

I think it can be an acceptable shift in balance (and it depends on which AA you give to cruiser:

@Imperious:

Cruisers rolling a 1 in combat (attack or defense) can choose a hit taken against enemy planes ( owner decides which type)

Now cruisers are fixed for that crappy price.

Either that or they move 3 spaces with or without a port

Or 1 AA preemptive strike from a defending cruiser. (This one change much more the tide, I think.)

Or 1 AA preemptive strike from a defending cruiser. (This one change much more the tide, I think.)

vs. Roll one and that player can force the other player to lose any plane.

hmmm.  The first one is weaker, but the AA roll should be either attacker or defender IMO.

Yea that is a small change but fair for both sides.

Baron, you took what i said out of context, i talked about the balance implications of giving AA to cruisers…
I will highlight it in bold below…

Giving all ships AA dice would wreck plane purchases, why buy 3 fighters that would more than likely die to AA fire, when you could buy 3 tanks and 2 destroyers. Or some other combination of land + sea units  vs air units
It would also wreck AAA purchases.

So adding AA dice to ships = added complexity, less plane purchases and less AAA purchases
So it hinders the game and makes it more complicated :P
We would a net negative impact on the overall game experience.

A&A, instead of using a complex battle system as some other games do, simply uses ‘choose your own casualties’. With a couple exceptions(transports, and subs vs aircraft)

Obviously all ships are more than capable of shooting down aircraft, as are infantry and tanks, other aircraft , etc…

If your going to make anything more complicated, at least make it something that would add equally or greater to the overall experience

For example: Letting AAA defend on a 1 during normal combat, as a normal unit (no other OOB changes) actually slightly reduces the complexity of the game, while at the same time slightly enhancing the AAA unit (which this thread was created for) Most importantly, this change would not effect aircraft in anyway positive or negative.
It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would recieve
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

In summation, we would have a net, slight to moderate, positive gain on the overall game experience

**I would severely argue against adding any AA dice to any ships. It would (this is a fact) impact planes negatively.

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

There are already 3 cruisers that Germany attacks and 1 in the med that either Germany or Italy attacks.

This would not slightly, but moderately shift the balance early game towards the Allies. So now players would start bidding for the Axis to counter this.

So we would have a net of zero on balance, added complexity (a negative), while cruisers become more viable (a positive), but planes (even if slightly) become less viable (another negative, maybe)

so 0 - 1(or 2) + 1 = 0(or -1)
A net gain of zero to a negative, on the overall game experience.**

@Uncrustable:

Ok well it definitly adds complexity to the game, there is no doubt about that.
It also (if it even slightly adds to AA rolls) hinders aircraft, atleast slightly.
If im wrong and it reduces AA rolls then it hinders AAA and whats the point?

So either way thats 2 negatives, to 1 positive (enhancing AAA)

But 2 things are not taken into account yet….
1-what does it do to game balance, and
2-does it make AAA too powerfull

Even if both 1 and 2 are slim to zero, we still have a net negative impact on the overall game experience

So at best, its a slight hindrance to the game, and at worst, it wrecks the game

Why i ask would you want to implement this? It is a high risk with no rewards….

The long demonstration is to show that in a long battle (6 rounds+), AAA (@1/12) will prevail over OOB AAA rule probability.
Hence, usually after the first few rounds, defending player will take AAA as casualty because OOB AAA will not fire anymore after first round.

So any player will think twice before taking them as casualty, since each AAA can still take 1 shot at 1/12 ( you can roll 1D12 and take a hit on a roll “1”, if you prefer.)

On first and second round, OOB are better.

On the third to the fifth round, OOB is similar.

But you get much more rolls against planes than OOB (and much funny “continuous stress” for the attacking player.)

Your AAA and this one are two different ways of rationalizing AAA.

And I like both, for my part.
Even, yours slightly modified (as I proposed earlier: Option 3) can be able to open different tactical use of AAA, if you give it offensive capacity.