AA Guns

Agreed.

They are a deterant to war, not an “I win” button.

Maybe I should have started a new topic for this, but it’s kind of related.

It seems to me that you would rarely want more than 2 AA guns in a given territory, unless maybe it is your capitol, and the other side has a large number of bombers (like, at least 9-10) within striking distance.  Wouldn’t it be better to scatter them around one per territory?  Particularly, say, the British moving AA guns up into China, since the Japanese are so dependant on their aircraft for offensive punch.  Or maybe the Russians building a few and scattering them along the retreat path to Moscow and Leningrad.  In the few games I’ve played, the Germans have been deterred from sending any aircraft against Paris on turn 1 by that single AA gun.  Granted, they also wanted to maximize the damage to the Royal Navy, but without that AA gun they probably would have sent at least one or two aircraft.  Has anyone tried spamming AA guns around the map?  If so, was it effective?

I think most people move them around. Makes sense. I think losing an air unit to AA is very demoralising to the attacker. Sometimes I avoid using Air units against territories with AA for precisely that reason!

Maybe have AA’s hit on all rounds of combat  with a D8, D10, D12 at a 1. But only allow 1 AA gun per territory outside of Capitals? Or 3 everywhere. I would use a D12 just to see if it’s to strong.

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?

Maybe I need to show my work on the math?

@Fortress:

+1 Jen. Part of the reason they only fire once at the beginning of the battle is that they’re able to specifially target air units. No other land unit gets to pick off opponents pieces when they hit, owner always gets to choose order-of-loss. As it is, a 5 IPC AA gun firing 3 times at 3 fighters worth 10 IPC each stands a 34.7% chance of hitting exactly once, a 6.9% chance of hitting exactly twice, and a 0.5% chance of hitting on all three shots. Against three 10 IPC, fighters, the total value of the kills is EXACTLY 5 IPC. I don’t think you can form an argument for more perfectly balanced gameplay than that.

AA guns are perfect the way they are.

AA gun firing 3 times at 3 fighters:

1/6 hit * 5/6 miss * 5/6 miss = 11.57%
5/6 miss * 1/6 hit * 5/6 miss = 11.57%
5/6 miss * 5/6 miss * 1/6 hit = 11.57%
-Those are the three ways to get exactly 1 hit = 34.7% hit exactly once * 10 IPC fighter = 3.47 IPC damage caused

1/6 hit * 1/6 hit * 5/6 miss = 2.31%
1/6 hit * 5/6 miss * 1/6 hit = 2.31%
5/6 miss * 1/6 hit * 1/6 hit = 2.31%
-Those are the three ways to get exactly 2 hits = 6.9% hit exactly twice * 20 IPC for 2 fighters = 1.39 IPC damage caused

1/6 hit * 1/6 hit * 1/6 hit = 0.46%
-That is the only way to get exactly 3 hits = 0.5% hit exactly three times * 30 IPC for 3 fighters =  0.14 IPC damaged caused

3.47+1.39+0.14=5.00 IPC

A 5 IPC AA gun causes 5.00 IPC average damage.

That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

I’m not necking you or anybody else on AA guns not being balanced or fair. I’m responding to oztea and Vance’s questions about using AA guns for combat against ground troops. Will take it to house rules so you can relax.

I guess the issue is that AA guns are of equal value to fighters, as Fortress said, but only in terms of defense.  Fighters are expensive units, but are often a good buy because they provide defense, offense, and mobility.  AA guns are all defense, only move 1 space in NCM and have no offense at all.  So while its true that a $5 AA gun has a 50/50 shot at taking out a $10 plane (and yes sometimes they get 2 or even 3 planes, including more expensive tacs or bombers), overall you don’t see people building AA guns very often, if ever.  A house rule for AA guns getting something extra like antitank capability would add some extra historical flavour to the game.

like ryguy, i also would like to know why aaguns were changed but still suck.

aaguns were a boring unit that no one purchased. 2nd edition did a good job changing them to behave like a regular unit that can have more than one in the same territory and be taken as casualties. however, they are still boring and a bad purchase.

@Fortress:

Why are we trying to fix something that’s not broken? I laid out the math very specifically. Nobody has refuted it. It literally couldn’t be fairer. They are worth exactly what they should be worth. Where’s the case that there is a problem?…

aaguns are broken and should have been fixed with the 2nd edition revision. they are overpriced.

@Fortress:

….That is absolutely perfect. You can’t improve on that. Literally.

i think you are being disingenuous. you are a better player than what your posts in this thread would have readers believe. you do not purchase aaguns yourself as they are the least flexible and cost efficient unit.

your math works with the framework of a single battle with fighters attacking aaguns. thankfully the game is more than just this one type of battle.

like vance states, they are the unit with the least offense, they are the unit with the least mobility, they only fire if planes are attacking them, they are only used in land battles, they are the 2nd most expensive land unit.

@allweneedislove:

…they are the least flexible and cost inefficient unit.

They also happen to target planes, without any hits being soaked on infantry.
One AA gun alone can make an opponent think twice about an attack that needs aircraft to back it up.

For a unit that can potentially remove powerful units in a battle from the very beginning and deny them shots, 5 IPCs seems like a fair price.

@almashir:

Maybe I should have started a new topic for this, but it’s kind of related.

It seems to me that you would rarely want more than 2 AA guns in a given territory, unless maybe it is your capitol, and the other side has a large number of bombers (like, at least 9-10) within striking distance.  Wouldn’t it be better to scatter them around one per territory?  Particularly, say, the British moving AA guns up into China, since the Japanese are so dependant on their aircraft for offensive punch.  Or maybe the Russians building a few and scattering them along the retreat path to Moscow and Leningrad.  In the few games I’ve played, the Germans have been deterred from sending any aircraft against Paris on turn 1 by that single AA gun.  Granted, they also wanted to maximize the damage to the Royal Navy, but without that AA gun they probably would have sent at least one or two aircraft.  Has anyone tried spamming AA guns around the map?  If so, was it effective?

Moscow, Berlin, London and Calcutta are the only 4 territories I can think of that are important enough to stack AA Guns in.  Note, I said stack, not purchase.

As for “spamming AA guns around the map” yes, I like 3 infantry, 1 armor, 1 AA Gun in territories bordering Moscow when I have eliminated the western front of Moscow.  This forces the Russians to expend a great deal more in liberating a territory than they earn and it is worth. (Thinking only Volo, Sam, Bry and Tam - Japan should take the other one, but Japan almost never has an AA Gun near there)  The idea being to starve the Russians out and minimize my losses. (Hey, losing 1-3 infantry a round is a lot more than you might think!)

I’ve played with AA Guns costing 1 IPC before, but to offset that, we allowed them only one shot each.  Basically turned them into free fodder units for last minute defenses for Berlin, Rome, London, Moscow, since you could purchase 3 of them for the same price as an infantry (but you only got 1 shot for each gun and only in the first round of opening fire.)

It worked okay, but you’ll never get Larry Harris to make that rule in 1940.  Perhaps if you ask him about it for the next game.

I think 5 dollas should give me 4 shots!

I think the reason why people don’t buy AA guns is that they start out with enough of them.

@ch0senfktard:

I think the reason why people don’t buy AA guns is that they start out with enough of them.

Agreed, with the exception of the United States.  I have purchased guns for them before, since it’s just a royal pain in the tushy to get one over to Europe.  Sometimes it’s more effective at controlling Germany than another tank/infantry at that factory, especially if the luftwaffe has sustained significant damage and you have Americans in the Balkans.

I personally think it is weird that more AA guns don’t get you more shots at the same plane, logically.

It’s a tough issue from a balance perspective.

In general, I think they should cost more, have fewer on the board to start (and no-built-ins), and shoot more in the next iteration of this game.

Very confusing for beginning players.

I believe it was because of sea lion.  It gives England defense while not giving them offense.

@ryguy:

@Cmdr:

I believe it was because of sea lion.  It gives England defense while not giving them offense.

Which I understand in the case of London, but in doing so AA guns are doomed to a strange existence everywhere else.  More pondering to be had by me on this subject.

I have found that the rule actually encourages you to push your AA Guns out with your infantry, thus simulating a more realistic (in my opinion) battlefield complete with air cover, and anti air guns.  As I pointed out earlier, a nice stack to trap an enemy could be 3 infantry, 1 armor 1 aa gun - especially effective in Russia, not too bad in Europe either.