AA Guns

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.

If you want to see more AA guns on the map you can houserule them to cost 4IPC.

@ErwinRommel:

If you want to see more AA guns on the map you can houserule them to cost 4IPC.

5 ipc is fine.  It was 6 ipc at release.

@WILD:

Yeah I don’t like how AAA guns are just ignored after the first round of battle, and normally are the first casuality (seems like a flaw). Not sure that they should be able to fire one shot each round afterwords though unless you made it that they only fire 2 shots in the opening round, and one shot each round after that. I also agree that attacking planes should have the option to attack AAA guns directly (maybe AAA is taken as a casualty if air units roll a 1?), and/or can retreat after any round if AAA are allowed to continue firing.

I would suggest to give up the preemptives strike of AAA fire against planes.
_**Limit the AAA unit fire maximum against 2 planes instead of 3 for the first cycle.
Keep the fodder capacity to take 1 hit.
And give them the capacity to fire every round after first one, 1@1 but only to the maximum of aircraft over the territory. Even if there is more AAA than planes, it still be 1 dice/plane max.

Example: 5 planes are part of an attack on a territory containing 2AAA.
First cycle: 4 dices @1 are roll against 4 planes. 2 lucky hits.
The 5 planes can still make their attack for the first round before discarding them.
2nd cycle: 3 planes attack. 2 AAA shot @1 against 2 planes. Etc.

Otherwise, option 2: did someone ever give a try to consider them as regular unit def@1 against 1 plane?
Only one shot @1 per round, up to the maximum number of planes.
No preemptive strike.
So even against a single bomber, if there is 3 AAA on a territory it gives only 1@1/ round against the StrB.

Giving more than 1 chance to hit the same plane, is it already too much for the odds?

I find it interesting to give planes the same reciprocality against AAA, so any “1” means destruction of 1 AAA unit.**_

Average Value of an AA gun.
If three planes (assume all fighters, for example’s worth) attack, it gets 16.6% chance of killing 10IPC, times three.
That’s 1.66 IPC x 3 = 5 IPC.

Thus, on average, it replaces itself in IPC’s worth.

Add to that 3 advantages: it kills the planes preemptively, negating any attacks from these planes; it can take a “free” hit, shielding your other units; and it creates a risk factor for the opponent. That risk is evident when you look at most of Germany’s openers which involve sending no planes to Paris. There is only one reason (possibly a second - you need them for something else) for not sending planes to Paris, and that is because it is too risky.

In short, in situations where you see the opponent coming for a final push and you know he’s bringing a lot of planes to bear, you can change those odds in your favor by buying 1-2 AA guns, as you know they will on average kill its worth in IPCs, but also to gamble on the fact that it might kill planes and turn the underwhelming odds into decent odds of winning the battle.

Boom.

@Uncrustable:

No baron this will not turn into spaghetti at the wall   :-D

The original AA gun (official rules) was not OP ftw
It just added another element to the game, and AA guns played a larger role in the game
Players had to either plan aircraft routes around AA sites or risk the dice on flyovers
You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

Now AA is just battle fodder and an afterthought, an almost worthless piece on the board

Hi Uncrustable,
What does mean

OP ftw?

Out of Proportion Fighters Weapon?  :-D

You used to need an AA gun to defend against SBR

It is still the case even if they are in-built with the new IC.
I don’t understand what you mean.

What was the older rule?
Is it something like during combat move all planes passing over a territory with AA gun get 1@1 shot?
Under non-combat move, there is no AA fire.

I would like to throw spaghetti at the wall…  :roll:
Don’t you?

As I said:

AAA have 1 out of 6 chance to hit anyone aircraft (max: up to 3 aircrafts/ AAA).
I read somewhere that the real effectiveness was around 1/10.

I would like to make an AAA defense (and make it more useful and adding this element on attack) when Planes pass over a territory to get to another.
But 2 AAA @1 for each aircraft means 11/36 chance to kill each aircraft.
It becomes far from historical reality.
Maybe with a 12 sides dice. Each AAA kill on 1/12.
You can easely allow 1 first strike shot and even continuous firing @1 for each AAA after first round.

But to leap from 1/6 to 11/36 for every plane is a huge gap.

Aircrafts cost a lot and on a 1 on 1 basis casuality almost lose more; so they need ground/ocean support.
(StrB = Cruiser (TacB and Fgt) > DD / TT/ Subs/ Arm /AAA/ Art / MecInf /Inf)
Only Carrier and Battleship are really more expensive.

That’s why I think most player prefer the actual rule and accept the fatal “1” and first strike.