AA Guns

@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.

@Uncrustable:

Baron you over think everything lol
And OP = over powered
Ftw = fukkk the world

You do not need an AA gun to shoot at planes SBRing under current OOB rules
Used to be you have to have anAA gun to protect your IC from SBR

Used to be you had to think about aircraft routes to avoid AA shooting at you

Now AAguns are worthless cannon fodder that no one thinks about buying

And ftw AA guns should not be able to attack that is absurd
All land units have mobile AA within their unit and can shoot down planes under current OOB rules

To me an AA gun represents a territory wide network of strategically placed radar, aircraft spotters and surface to air weapons platforms

@Uncrustable
I find it interesting the way you see AAA gun unit.
It is a way to rationalize the fact AAA can intercept and destroy some fly over aircrafts going somewhere else for combat duty.

On game level, it was more interesting.
However, don’t you think that there is also another historical basis for the new AAA rule?
Aircrafts will fly high in the sky to be out of range of this AA platform from the first territory and, when on the second territory combat-zone will go low altitude for ground attack and, as such, become much more vulnerable to AA platform.

Anyway, I like your idea.
I will probably house rule something like this but the odds for to hit ratio will be 1/12 (3/36) instead of a high regular 1/6. To apply it I find a better way than the first time I post this HR (so it is revised):

for every AAA shot against 1 aircraft rolls 1d6 and when you get a 1, reroll it and if it is a 3 or lower then the aircraft is down.

This second dice roll allows to divide by two the odds from 1/6 x 3/6= 3/36 to 1/12.
So you roll as normal and when you get a “1”, now you know that this specific aircraft unit is under a direct fire and as 50% chance of survival.
There is only 3 possibilities out of 36 to reach this rolls and get down a plane: “1”-“1” / “1”-“2” / “1”-“3”.

At this condition only, I will reintroduce the flying over AAA unit during combat move in any ennemy’s territory implies being also under AAA fire no matter what if this is or not the final combat destination.

For simplicity, every roll and hit will be directed on each individual aircraft. as by OOB AAA rule for 1942.1.
So it will be easier to get down StrB (because attacker often choose to screen them by using Fgt as cheaper casuality).

Example: To reach a combat-zone with 3AAA, 2 Fgt and 2 StrB fly over another territory with 1AAA.
1 AAA can still fire at maximum of 3 planes.

First territory: 3 rolls from 1AAA.  Defender throw 3D6.
“2” vs Fgt#1   “6” vs Fgt#2    “1” vs StrB#1     Got a “1”, reroll for StrB#1 “3”. Hit! So StrB#1 down.

Second and final combat territory: still 3 Max rolls from 1AAA.  The defender throw again 3D6.
“5”  vs  Fgt#1   “1”  vs  Fgt#2    “6” vs StrB#2    Got a “1”, reroll for Fgt #2 “2”. Hit! So Fgt#2 down, this time.

Now the remaining  Fgt#1 and StrB#2 can attack.
The defender had kill 1 StrB and 1 Fgt.

After first round, for each AAA up to the max number of aircrafts still flying allows 1 firing.
So, even if there is 3 AAA in this given territory, there is only 2 planes attacking, it get only 2 rolls.
3AAA: 1AAA vs Fgt#1 and 1AAA vs StrB#2.

Example: 1Fgt#1 and 1StrB#2 are attacking on a second cycle of combat.
3AAA can fire once at 1/12 odds. Rolls 2D6 since there is 2 planes.
Let’s suppose:   “6” vs Fgt#1    “1” vs StrB#2  Got a “1”, reroll for StrB#2

If the second rolls get either “1” / “2” / “3” then the last StrB#2 is destroyed.

It is no more a preemptive strike.
And since there was 2 targets fired at, the attacker could not choose the cheaper Fgt as casuality.

Suppose StrB#2 was down after this 2nd cycle.
On a third cycle, even if there is still 3AAA, only 1AAA can shoot at the remaining Fgt#1.

Thus, (with a lesser hit ratio 1/12 and a simpler more A&A roll of dice) I think we get a much more balance and interesting AAA unit:
Preemptive strike still on for the first combat cycle.
AAA keep fodder capacity to take 1 hit.
Up to 3 planes attacked per AAA.
Every round after, each AAA got 1 shot @1/12, up to the max of 1 per each attacking plane.
And any plane flying over a territory with an AAA during combat move, had a “chance” to be destroyed.

What is your opinion Uncrustable? Playable and fun?

I think I would also allow aircraft retreat after first round like on amphibious assault.
Just to give more tactical option to the attacker if dice get awfully wrong for him.

To the people using math to say that AA is fine at 5 IPC

I have literally NEVER seen anyone purchase an AA gun since the OOB changes…EVER

And it is ALWAYS taken first over any other unit

SO IT IS NOT FINE AT 5 IPCs (well on paper blah blah blah…everything looks good on paper)

AA currently is just fodder, noone buys them. AA guns should not be afterthought fodder units, they should be AA guns

Go back to the old rules, AA always on (i believe this is an option in tripleA for all A&A), so aircraft passing over are sucsiptable to AA, this adds to the game, forces players to actually think about what territory their planes will be flying over

To cmdr Jen: You say that AA included simulates being ‘deep in enemy territory’, well under the old rule you could place AA guns so enemy bombers would have to fly over multiple AA. This simulates being ‘deep in enemy territory’ far better. The bombers would have to survive 2 sets of AA fire before they reached their target, and then another (3rd) set to return home.
Get rid of AA ‘included’ in bases/ICs. It is a mindless rule

German 88s to me would already be included in German land divisions (armor, infantry, etc) all land units in fact have ‘mobile AA’, that is AA that moves and attacks and defends (all land units can shoot down planes ffs)

Axis and Allies is a STRATEGIC game, there is no need for 3 different kinds of armor or aircraft carriers etc, there is no need for a ‘special mobile AA unit’
To me in this STRATEGIC game, AA guns represent a territory wide system of radar/aircraft spotters/scout aircraft and strategically placed surface to air weapons batteries. This system could pack up and move just as far as an infantry division, but would be near useless in a raid. Hence why AA guns cannot move during the combat move phase.

To me giving ICs/bases ‘built in’ AA dumbs down the game.

And i cant be the only one still distraught over the cheap fix G40 got (sealion). Instead of real balance changes we just got some duck tape. “Hey just make AA guns worthless fodder units and give Britain a million of them”

As of now there is absolutely no sane reason to purchase an AA gun
-you dont need them to protect from SBR (mindless ‘built in AA rule’)
-for the price of 2 AA guns you could buy an artillery and 2 infantry, heck 1 artillery is better than 1 AA and cost less, a tank at 1 more IPC is a million times better

To barren: I dont know if its just the way you talk or what but all your ideas seem massively overcomplicated. sorry

@Uncrustable:

To the people using math to say that AA is fine at 5 IPC

I have literally NEVER seen anyone purchase an AA gun since the OOB changes…EVER
And it is ALWAYS taken first over any other unit

SO IT IS NOT FINE AT 5 IPCs (well on paper blah blah blah…everything looks good on paper)

AA currently is just fodder, none buys them. AA guns should not be afterthought fodder units, they should be AA guns

Go back to the old rules, AA always on (i believe this is an option in tripleA for all A&A), so aircraft passing over are sucsiptable to AA, this adds to the game, forces players to actually think about what territory their planes will be flying over
To cmdr Jen: You say that AA included simulates being ‘deep in enemy territory’, well under the old rule you could place AA guns so enemy bombers would have to fly over multiple AA. This simulates being ‘deep in enemy territory’ far better. The bombers would have to survive 2 sets of AA fire before they reached their target, and then another (3rd) set to return home.
Get rid of AA ‘included’ in bases/ICs. It is a mindless rule

German 88s to me would already be included in German land divisions (armor, infantry, etc) all land units in fact have ‘mobile AA’, that is AA that moves and attacks and defends (all land units can shoot down planes ffs)

Axis and Allies is a STRATEGIC game, there is no need for 3 different kinds of armor or aircraft carriers etc, there is no need for a ‘special mobile AA unit’
To me in this STRATEGIC game, AA guns represent a territory wide system of radar/aircraft spotters/scout aircraft and strategically placed surface to air weapons batteries. This system could pack up and move just as far as an infantry division, but would be near useless in a raid. Hence why AA guns cannot move during the combat move phase.

To me giving ICs/bases ‘built in’ AA dumbs down the game.

And i cant be the only one still distraught over the cheap fix G40 got (sealion). Instead of real balance changes we just got some duck tape. “Hey just make AA guns worthless fodder units and give Britain a million of them”

As of now there is absolutely no sane reason to purchase an AA gun
-you dont need them to protect from SBR (mindless ‘built in AA rule’)
-for the price of 2 AA guns you could buy an artillery and 2 infantry, heck 1 artillery is better than 1 AA and cost less, a tank at 1 more IPC is a million times better

To Baron: I dont know if its just the way you talk or what but all your ideas seem massively overcomplicated. sorry

Probably langage the problem here (not like others post ex.: transport.)

I was just trying to improve the usefulness by keeping together all interesting capabilities but at a reduce killing ratio @1D12 (1/12 instead of 1/6).
So AAA will not become a sitting duck after the first cycle of combat, for example.
Or, picking up a targeted plane by rolling against 1 airplane at a time as it was written in 1942.1 OOB AAA rule.

As you suggested, I may also add that if some AAA are in the same territory of an IC under a SBR, StrB must pass the first AAA (here at 1/12), then the in-built IC AAA (stay at 1/6). This could also simulates being ‘deep in enemy territory’ far better.

I don’t want to reduce the cost of AAA but increase the interest in AAA.

Is it simplier said this way?

Maybe, we underestimate how the psychological risk of loosing aircraft by an AAA affects the strategy. We cannot evaluate solely AAA on how much aircraft it get down.
(Like: “forces players to actually think about what territory their planes will be flying over”)

@Uncrustable:

To the people using math to say that AA is fine at 5 IPC

I have literally NEVER seen anyone purchase an AA gun since the OOB changes…EVER

And it is ALWAYS taken first over any other unit

SO IT IS NOT FINE AT 5 IPCs (well on paper blah blah blah…everything looks good on paper)

AA currently is just fodder, noone buys them. AA guns should not be afterthought fodder units, they should be AA guns

I have bought AA guns as allies around 50% of the games I have played. Not every game, but where situations demanded it, I did. In India if my initial guns have been destroyed, and as Russia for the same reason. Also bought one in Egypt when I placed a complex there, because Italy or Germany needs air to take Egypt.

Like I explained on page 3 of this thread, they are useful and replace themselves if 3 planes or more attack. If no one buys them, ask yourself if it is because they are not worth it, or because players are not seeing their worth. I see their worth, again refer to my post. IMO it’s good when you are undermanned and retreating vs your opponent, like often happens with Russia and UK-pacific.

Axis and Allies is a STRATEGIC game,

As of now there is absolutely no sane reason to purchase an AA gun
-you dont need them to protect from SBR (mindless ‘built in AA rule’)
-for the price of 2 AA guns you could buy an artillery and 2 infantry, heck 1 artillery is better than 1 AA and cost less, a tank at 1 more IPC is a million times better

As you mention it is a strategic game. Therefore calculations and odds come into play, and I believe you can use AA guns to your advantage in calculating your odds.

I buy them with Russia all the time, personally.  Likewise, I’ll buy them for Germany early on just to force Russia to debate whether to attack and risk planes or send something else to trade territories.  For Russia it’s a “well, Germany has 38,000 planes, another AA Gun cant hurt!” deal.

@Cmdr:

I buy them with Russia all the time, personally.  Likewise, I’ll buy them for Germany early on just to force Russia to debate whether to attack and risk planes or send something else to trade territories.  For Russia it’s a “well, Germany has 38,000 planes, another AA Gun cant hurt!” deal.

+1

never thought of buying them with germany though, they start with what, 6?

I once sent a tactical and a fighter into Paris… he rolled snake eyes… I’ll never attack Paris with planes ever again…

@atease:

@Cmdr:

I buy them with Russia all the time, personally.  Likewise, I’ll buy them for Germany early on just to force Russia to debate whether to attack and risk planes or send something else to trade territories.  For Russia it’s a “well, Germany has 38,000 planes, another AA Gun cant hurt!” deal.

+1

never thought of buying them with germany though, they start with what, 6?

I count 11 planes (Fighters, Tactical Bombers and Strategic Bombers) not to mention what is lost round 1, what is purchased before they get close to Moscow, etc.
I count 6 AA Guns, but as I said, I leave them on the front lines to force Russia to commit and risk planes or send something more valuable to me (artillery, armor is more valuable for me to kill on counter attack, in my opinion, since the planes usually can’t be hit on counter attack.)

Yeah, using AA guns in the front lines is a brilliant idea, especially for the Germans in Russia. I had never considered that until I set up oztea’s 1943 Global setup. Just about every German force along the front lines against Russia had an AA gun with them. The Russian forces facing the Germans also had AA guns. It really makes a difference on counter attacks.
I had previously always pretty much left AA guns alone but now I move them around and may even buy some depending on my strategy at the time.

Honestly, if I dont buy AA Guns with Germany by round 2, I don’t buy them.  Well, let me rephrase, I won’t buy them for the Russian front after round 2, takes to long to get there…replacements against the British and Americans are a different story.

For Russia, it’s usually round 4-7 I buy them, after that, I am either in Europe making a fortune or pushed so far back I can’t afford them.

I have only ever bought an aa gun when I have had 2 ipc left before my capital falls. If Tanks costed 5, I would get a tank.

Garbage unit in my opinion. One dimensional. Should cost 4.

Well Jen and Atease buy them all the time, must be some great hidden power that i am missing…

You see the very fact that you can just mindlessly send them to the front is part of my argument. The ‘build in AA’ of ICs and bases now is just that, its mindless.

Jen and Atease you agree that AA always on was not a good rule and hence was best removed (after revised i believe), again in my opinion another mindless rule.

AA guns dont necessarily need a cost decrease, just make them be… AA guns

I view AA Guns that are movable more as machine guns attached to the top of halftracks now.  They arn’t always manned, and they are highly mobile, so they go to the front with the supply trucks and supply trains to provide transportational security.  If the enemy happens to attack when they are present, then they’ll do their best to stop the incoming planes.

Built in AA Guns might need a beefup since I see these as more city wide AA Gun defensive screens of interlinked fields of fire being orchestrated by highly trained gunners and mixing canons and machine guns.

Even figuratively speaking, they still suck.