AA Guns

@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

@Cmdr:

@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!

I’m very curious, do you know some documentary about this side vision of history?
As someone said: “History is written by the victorious.”
And as far as I’m concerned, Allies win both wars…
Just a piece to think about it: UK declare and enter war on Germany for the behalf and good of Poland sovereignty.
But, at the end of the war they entirely left it to Soviet Union communism. They forgot to save Poland, the first reason they use to justify war on Germany.

Yup, I hail from the Ukraine, we have a different perspective.  We were both winners and losers in the Great War, added to what I learned in school, I have to say, France and England are the great war criminals who were never charged with instigating one world war and creating a situation that engendered an environment in which a second world war was inevitable.

But, unlike many who I have debated with here in the States, I won’t be offended if you think I am wrong and choose to believe your version of history.  There is, of course, a 3rd version of history as well, the Germans/Hungarians who were the real losers of the war also have their perspective.

@Uncrustable:

I thought in revised it did fire during NCM

To me it should

Some may think that a version of A&A included Always Active AA gun.
Maybe it is because it was an option in Iron Blitz computer version of A&A.
As I remember, Always Active AA gun means it fire also during NCM.
It was a basic rule that, during Combat Move, any territories flyed over can use any AA gun to try to shot down planes.

About introducing more possibilities to fire with the AA(A) gun, I agree with the principle, it gives more strategical chalenges.
But not in practical situation of game balance. That’s the problem.

I already promote, in my previous posts, an AAA with odds at 1/12 instead of 1/6 for every occasions it could fire at plane.

You can see easily the balance issue:

**Suppose 3 StrB has to fly over 1 territory with AAA before reaching the war-zone territory in which their is also an AAA.

Actual rule: each StrB endure 1@1 = 3 planes are shot at.

With Always active AAgun: each StrB endure 3@1 = 3 planes x 3 shots = 9@1.
1AA for coming in, 1AA for fighting over, 1AA for returning home.**

If you want something balance Always Active AA gun which respect Axis System:
You allow only 1 plane per AAA (instead of 3).
You allow any AAA 1@1 against any one aircraft in any territory flied over.
You limit the max roll to the number of aircraft present, i. e. 3AAA against 1 plane mean a single roll @1 against this aircraft.

With this House Rule, the same 3 StrB didn’t face the same fate:
At all, their is only 3 AAA shots against them (instead of 9 shots for Always Active AA):
1AA shot for coming in, 1AA shot for fighting over, 1AA shot for returning home for all the group instead of each StrB.

In this way, you get the same odds as actual OOB rules:

Actual rule: each StrB endure 1@1 = 3 planes are shot at.

However, with this HR, if you have only 1 plane it is at higher risk since this single aircraft endure 3 rolls @1 (instead of only 1 roll@1 in the OOB Global rule).

Consequence?
To minimize the casuality efffect, air raid will be made with at least two or more planes on the same target using the first plane as a screen/buffer against AAA.
To destroy more aircrafts, you will need more AAA to put in the flight path of the attacker.

Their is still a paradox:
the non-fighting territory get 2 chances to fire against moving plane (CM and NCM) while the war-zone territory get only 1 chance during CM.

To rectify this situation, I will use what was suggested by this post:
@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.

we should give each AAA unit an unlimited number of preemptive fire, but up to 2 shots against the same plane, never more.

So, in our same example about 3 StrB against 2AAA in two different territories.

During first round in the combat-zone, 1 StrB#1 was fired at.
Second round in the combat-zone, another: StrB#2 or the same StrB#1 can be fired at.
Third round in the combat-zone, a third or second plane can be fired at.
Fourth round, StrB#2 is shot for the second time.
Fifth and Sixth round (if their is), StrB#3 can be shot at.

Final result: maximum of 8AAA shots will be fired over 6 rounds of battle. 2 inbound CM/outbound NCM and 3x2 in the war-zone CM.

If their is only one single plane making the same bombing run, it will face: 4 shots maximum, 2 shots inbound CM/outbound NCM and 2 in the war-zone, CM.

If their was two planes or more: 6 shots maximum , 2 shots inbound CM/outbound NCM and 4 in the war-zone, CM.

Is it better balance?
(Even if it allows up to 4 shots on a single plane, a maximum of 2 on each plane during battle but it is limited by 1 shot/AAA/round instead of a bloody first cycle of preemptive strikes against 3 planes/AAA) ?

Does AAA will become a more interesting buying?

@Cmdr:

Yup, I hail from the Ukraine, we have a different perspective.  We were both winners and losers in the Great War, added to what I learned in school, I have to say, France and England are the great war criminals who were never charged with instigating one world war and creating a situation that engendered an environment in which a second world war was inevitable.

But, unlike many who I have debated with here in the States, I won’t be offended if you think I am wrong and choose to believe your version of history.  There is, of course, a 3rd version of history as well, the Germans/Hungarians who were the real losers of the war also have their perspective.

I’m just opening my mind on this aspect; last week, I saw a French (strange?! isn’t it?) documentary defending something near your former assertion.

This post is getting oddly complicated.

@atease:

This post is getting oddly complicated.

Baron tends to do that lol

I just think classic AA was better  :wink:

@Uncrustable:

@atease:

This post is getting oddly complicated.

Baron tends to do that lol

I just think classic AA was better  :wink:

He! I was just trying getting back to an Old version of Iron Blitz but without the outbalancing it could create in OOB Global… :cry: