AA Guns

@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

But “always on” AA was never always on either.  It never fired during NCM.  What, the gunner had to go out for tea and crumpets and couldn’t be bothered to fire at the returning planes?

The Germans went for sauerkraut and bratwurst, the Russians went for perrogies and beer, the Japanese for Sushi, the Americans for beers, the aussies for beers, etc.

Jesus we’re lucky we won the war, most allies were alcoholic.

I thought in revised it did fire during NCM

To me it should

@Uncrustable:

I thought in revised it did fire during NCM

To me it should

Nope, only during combat.

@atease:

The Germans went for sauerkraut and bratwurst, the Russians went for perrogies and beer, the Japanese for Sushi, the Americans for beers, the aussies for beers, etc.

Jesus we’re lucky we won the war, most allies were alcoholic.

Dont get me started!  Cause as far as I am concerned, if you remove the whole deathcamp stuff, the Germans were the good guys in BOTH world wars!

If change were to happen I’d like AA to fire before every round, one attack per AA unit, similar to subs Surprise Strike round. Still, no combat move. Still simple and works well within the existing rules.

@P-Unit:

If change were to happen I’d like AA to fire before every round, one attack per AA unit, similar to subs Surprise Strike round. Still, no combat move. Still simple and works well within the existing rules.

Well with this i think the price would def have to come down a little from 5 IPC (they are already abit overpriced as it is)

@Uncrustable:

@P-Unit:

If change were to happen I’d like AA to fire before every round, one attack per AA unit, similar to subs Surprise Strike round. Still, no combat move. Still simple and works well within the existing rules.

Well with this i think the price would def have to come down a little from 5 IPC (they are already abit overpriced as it is)

I’d say price has to go way up if this is the case to reflect the massively increased risk to planes.

12 AA Guns would be 2 fighter hits a round on average, each round.  That QUICKLY dwarfs the cost of AA Guns at 5 IPC.  I’d say AA Guns should be 10 IPC or 12 IPC (similar to fighter or minor complex.)

@Cmdr:

Dont get me started!  Cause as far as I am concerned, if you remove the whole deathcamp stuff, the Germans were the good guys in BOTH world wars!

If you like aggressors and occupiers and treaty breakers. And forget the deathcamp stuff. Oh and forget about that crazy-ass mustachioed man. Then yes they were the good guys.

@atease:

@Cmdr:

Dont get me started!  Cause as far as I am concerned, if you remove the whole deathcamp stuff, the Germans were the good guys in BOTH world wars!

If you like aggressors and occupiers and treaty breakers. And forget the deathcamp stuff. Oh and forget about that crazy-ass mustachioed man. Then yes they were the good guys.

Germany was brought into World War 1 to help Austria/Hungary in putting down an intra-territorial, terrrorist organization.  They were invited, they did not invade.  For their trouble, Russia declared war on them, and Germany handily handed their arse to them, so France and England declared war as well.  Noticing a pattern?  Germany is invited to help with an internal dispute by an ally and the world declares war on them.  It’s the same as Milwaukee, WI inviting Chicago, IL to help put down gang violence and having Iowa, Ohio and Michigan declare war on Illinois.

Because Germany tried to help their friends not get ruthlessly assassinated and have the legal authority of government they had stripped from them by a bunch of criminals (theives, murderers, rapists and worse) and lost because the whole rest of the world sided with the criminals, they were crippled by repairing all of Europe.  Of COURSE they had to fight back again, hell if France and England could have kept their imperialistic noses out of it, there would have been no World War II at all.  Germany wouldn’t have been tired of picking which child to feed that day, Germany would not have incredibly high unemployment, etc.  Hitler would NOT have come to power in a Germany that was, even the slightest bit, stable and without him, Poland would not have been invaded (to take back land stolen by them after WWI), France would not have been invaded (to take back land stolen by them after WWI), etc.  Many of the old “Austrian-Hungarian” nations invited the Germans (again) into their lands, this time as a annexing force.  Might have been coerced, the coersion may have been written down to make the aggressors feel better about crushing Germany again.

The methodical attempt to exterminate the Gypsies and Blacks (and Jews) was horrible.  However, it could have been avoided had the British and French either stayed out of the way on WW1 or helped put down, what we would call today, criminal syndicates that were trying to take over chuncks of Austra/Hungary.  It is this last point that proves the Germans were the good guys, they were the law abiders trying to help a friend, while the “allies” were in a war to invade, conquer and do as much damage as humanly possible and may the citizens of the losing countries be d@mned, permanently and forever more. (the rationale behind the Treaty of Versailles.)

I could have sworn that Germany declared war on Russia and France first, thinking war with them was inevitable anyway.

I guess I don’t know my history enough to be able to say if Jennifer was wrong or not. But I definitely know that the conditions imposed to Germany and Germans after WW1 definitely was critical in creating WW2. Such is the fate of the nations who lose wars.

A post for the history portion of the forums for sure.

@atease:

I guess I don’t know my history enough to be able to say if Jennifer was wrong or not. But I definitely know that the conditions imposed to Germany and Germans after WW1 definitely was critical in creating WW2. Such is the fate of the nations who lose wars.

A post for the history portion of the forums for sure.

I mean it hijacks the thread, but that is my rationale yes.  There was no WW3 because the winners rebuilt instead of the losers. Â

Order of War Declarations:

• Serbian Terrorists assassinate the Archduke of the Austrian-Hungary Empire (delusions of adequacy in that name, but eh) so Austria-Hungary declares war on “Serbia” a part of their Empire on 28 July 1914
• 28 July 1914 Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary in support of Serbian rebels
• 1 August 1914 Germany declares war on Russia to support Austria-Hungary
• 1 August 1914 Honduras, et el, declare war on Germany (man, I woulda loved to see the Kaiser’s face there!  “What is a Honduras and why are they throwing rocks at us?”)
• 12 August 1914 France and England declare war on Austria-Hungary
• 12 August 1914 Germany declares war on France and England
• 13 August 1914 Japan declares war on Germany (seriously, why?  I dunno, but they did.)
• 2 November 1914 Russia declares war on Turkey (Crimean War part 2?  Or just hungary, I dunno!)
• 5 November 1914 France and England declare war on Turkey  (hey, why should the Russians get all the thanksgiving food???)
• 6 April 1917 America declares war on Germany and Austria Hungary

It’s plainly evident, to me, that France and England were the great aggressors in World War 1.  Yes, the Americans might have been the good guys, after all, they came in to stop the horrible bloodshed of innocents (Lusitania as well as towns being obliterated, etc.)  So I won’t declare the Americans the bad guys.  It seems, at least to me, and I only have a minor in history and WW1 wasnt exactly my area of focus mind you, that the whole thing could have been abated if Russia had not interfered.  Without that one pivotal moment, it would have been an internal matter of Austria Hungary. Â

Course, much of this is my opinion!  Just like AA Guns being truck mounted and not cannon installations like are depicted on the pieces in some of the AA games.  So feel free to take it with a grain of salt, or just discard it. lol. Â

Back on topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bofors-aa-gun-algeria.jpg
That is what I envision for AA Guns in the field.  That’s in 1943 so it’s pretty much in the middle of the war as we American’s know it (1941-1945 for us.) Â

http://whitbyjblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/hyde_park_anti-aircraft_guns_h_993.jpg
That is the AA gun I envision for Airfrields/Naval Bases.  It is more substantial, but more of a permanent position as well.  It is on wheels, so it can move about, just not as well as the gun the Americans are using in the picture above.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oQVDmueD-k4/TviOUJdzZUI/AAAAAAAACVc/S2n47pzqBzQ/s1600/3558172815_7f64b0b13f_z.jpg
That is the type of AA Gun I envision for city manufacturing defenses.  Notice that it is stationary, it cannot be moved but it can rotate, etc.  However, it’s not being hooked to a truck nor is it being hand carried to the front lines! Â