AA Guns

@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.

@Cmdr:

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.

How in worlds do you view AA guns as half tracks with machine guns?
Would not these units already be there regardless of the AA gun? Armor, Infantry, Artillery; all these units can shoot down 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.

This is more what AA guns SHOULD be

@Uncrustable:

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.

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.

And in reality i highly doubt you buy as many AA guns as you seem to talk up, they are better fodder units (what each nation starts with) than they are at being AA guns
Built in AA is a mindless rule. You can send your AA to the frontlines for fodder to protect your army ranks and no worry in the world about how your going to protect your bases/ICs
They may still have their use, but far less than they use to

I didnt say I bought huge quantities of AA Guns.  I’d say I purchase about 2 AA Guns for every 1 Battleship I buy, perhaps slightly less.  Then again, I don’t buy huge quantities of Battleships either…

Anyway, no, I view the AA Gun unit as a dedicated unit for shooting down aircraft, not the run of the mill soldier who gets a lucky shot with his Springfield bolt-action rifle.  Akin to the AA Guns on Aircraft carriers, etc.  I just said on a half track as an option, maybe on the back of a jeep, maybe as a trailer on a hitch…

Uncrustable I never said my opinion on “always on AA”. I haven’t played the old rules enough to remember what they were like.

First time I played the new rules with the built-in AA i thought it was weird, I mean you don’t invest in any defense at all and you still have 16.6% chance of killing every bomber that is SBRing? Very strange indeed. And i don’t buy them in big quantities neither.

I just bought one today, in India where Japan had killed my stack of AA guns, and no way he is taking India without losing any planes… Bought one to create a risk factor, much better than 1.6 infantry in that situation in my opinion.

I just think AA guns (and A&A in general) would benefit from the removal of ‘built in AA’ and the addition of the old rule ‘AA always on’

If anything I would increase the cost to 6 (what they used to be)

I dont like the always on.  I can’t be sure since I am not that familiar with them, but didn’t the planes have to be at something other than max altitude to even be in range?  I got the impression that they had to drop down to bombing level before they could drop bombs and that level was under the maximum range of the AA Guns hence the guns could only shoot at them when they were down a certain level.

I’d like to see CAP turned into more of an attrition thing though.  (Attacking Bombers + Attacking Fighters)/6 for defender losses; (Defending Fighters + Defending AA Gun Shots)/6 for attacker losses.

So if there were 3 AA Guns that’s 9 shots at 1 or 9 punch + 5 scrambled fighters each at 4 or less or 20 punch would give you a total defensive punch of 29.  29/6 = 4 hits with 1 die roll at 5 or less
Attacker, meanwhile, gets 9 bombers at 1 or 9 punch + 9 escorting fighters each at 3 or less or 27 punch would give you a total offensive punch of 36.  36/6 = 6 hits

Any bombers remaining may then conduct bombing runs.  AA Guns, in this instance, would be valid targets for the battle and there would be no built in AA Guns - just add x amount of AA Guns to the board to compensate for losing them on complexes.  (+1 gun per naval base, air base or industrial complex for a max of +3 guns in any given territory.)

Interesting idea of adding an AA gun for each facility and doing away with the “automatic” AA defense of facilities. If you bought a new air base, naval base or IC, would you automatically get an AA gun with it? I think you should. Then, of course, since the AA gun would be a separate, physical unit, it could be destroyed and your facility then would be defenseless. Might make you think twice about taking them as fodder hits in some attacks.

As for using AA guns as fodder, I have had a few situations where I actually kept the AA gun and wasted an infantry. Usually it is cases where the battle is pretty close and I’m hoping that I will win the defense and have the AA gun around for the next attack.

One other thing: If you did away with the “built in” AAA and assigned actual physical AA guns to those territories, you would also have to assign AA guns to defend certain targets, right? Like if you had 3 AA guns in a territory with military units, an IC, an air base and a naval base. An enemy sends planes to attack all three facilities AND the military units in the territory. Those 3 AA guns could not defend both bases, the IC and the military units. One would have to be left without AA defense, right?

The way I thought of it, and I am not saying it is the right way, was the following:

Bases would cost the same, but you would NOT get an AA Gun with them if you purchased them.  Since they cost that much in all versions, it was just at the end that they slapped an AA Gun on them.
AA Guns would not count against # of units being built in an industrial complex.  Perhaps there should be some kind of limit, like minors can’t build AA Guns and majors can only build a maximum of 3 at a time?  You know, so someone doesn’t drop 10 infantry and 500 AA guns on Germany right before it gets attacked by the allies.
SBR would be conducted using LL or what I call the Attrition method (term I took from Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich from Avalon Hill bookshelf games.)  Otherwise, AA Guns would be as they are now for all other combat - a unit that fires in opening fire and can be taken as a casualty.
In the attrition method the guns can be taken as casualties and so can any scrambled fighters - likewise bombers or escort fighters can be taken as casualties.  Except there is no limit anymore of how many can go up.  The battle of Britian was HUGE, why limit it to 3 squadrons or 12 squadrons?  Let them send what they want, and risk what they send!

@Cmdr:

The way I thought of it, and I am not saying it is the right way, was the following:

Bases would cost the same, but you would NOT get an AA Gun with them if you purchased them.  Since they cost that much in all versions, it was just at the end that they slapped an AA Gun on them.
AA Guns would not count against # of units being built in an industrial complex.  Perhaps there should be some kind of limit, like minors can’t build AA Guns and majors can only build a maximum of 3 at a time?  You know, so someone doesn’t drop 10 infantry and 500 AA guns on Germany right before it gets attacked by the allies.
SBR would be conducted using LL or what I call the Attrition method (term I took from Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich from Avalon Hill bookshelf games.)  Otherwise, AA Guns would be as they are now for all other combat - a unit that fires in opening fire and can be taken as a casualty.
In the attrition method the guns can be taken as casualties and so can any scrambled fighters - likewise bombers or escort fighters can be taken as casualties.  Except there is no limit anymore of how many can go up.  The battle of Britian was HUGE, why limit it to 3 squadrons or 12 squadrons?  Let them send what they want, and risk what they send!

So you are in agreement ‘built in AA’ should go away  :wink:
I see your point on ‘always on AA’. It may not be historically accurate considering flight altitudes, but historical accuracy aside I think it improves the game. It adds a level of depth to flight paths and AA placement.
Heavy bombers and jet fighters would only be susceptible to AA in the territory they are attacking