New flak rules for AA gun

@Imperious:

Id keep the same rule as in AAE. Attacking bombers bring in fighter escorts rolling 1, Defender gets fighters at 2

Bombers at 12 and these increased IPC totals for UK make these tactics much more viable. The flak rule is an attempt among other things to address the concern of people who like the AA gun to be more realistic and not be too luck based and potentially wipe out too much. The defender @2 is getting enough of an advantage in the dogfight and i feel these new flak rules balance out the math.

The other thing is how the AA gun in the game is always considered the same strength no matter what. You can have 20 AA guns but only one working in a zone. IN the war some areas had greater protection than others, and these rules allow a smaller investment to get some defense going, which makes the AA gun more viable than just keeping the ones you got and never buying them.

OK, in conjunction with the escort rule you state, then I like the modifiable flak capability.  I’ve thought of this before but never felt the need with escorts.  However, I can definitely see your point about upping the flak capability WITHOUT relying on ftrs to do the job of SBR defense.

If a normal AA gun hits on a 1d10 at 1, what about radar?  Doesn’t that 10% include AA w/ radar, since the warring powers had radar for most of the war?

hmmm IMO creating a range of AD expenses seems a odd way to take the game… At some point the defender must say “hey, I’m blowing IPCs on AA to protect my IPCs from SBR.” 
(OK he may not say it five times fast but still…)

If we’re bombing Germany, for instance, well the Russian would be giggling in his vodka watching chips go back and forth under that AA gun instead of under the panzer stack.

@Imperious:

…. resolves the issues that your allied AA gun does not protect your factories…

:? where does it say that in the rules?  Given that Allies jointly defend a space, this seems a little out of sync, eh?  :|

@Imperious:

All enemy captured AA flak batteries should be considered destroyed.

Well I definitely agree with that.

Always seemed a little puzzling. And I’ve tried to rationalize that the piece represents infrastructure as well as armament and maybe that’s why it survives… but not all the voices in my head are falling for it.

@Imperious:

In the game the AA gun IS not ‘planes’

Thats like the old often defeated argument that “transports are also warships and not just transports”

or “Battleships are also cruisers”

Each piece is what it is and not a hybrid of different types of units.

Only the artillery could also include tanks in terms of self propelled artillery.

How is that often defeated?  I have actually never heard anybody argue against that and make sense.

With land units I think it makes more sense that there is a slight mix of unit types in each piece.  With naval units, however, a battleship simply represents battleships and carriers are carriers and so on, but each unit would probably also include a very small amount of support ships.

In a game that isn’t very detailed, like in Axis and Allies, its foolish to have very specific rules applying to one-off moments in history or to minutiae like this rule involving AA guns.  It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

SBR doesn’t represent one bombing run, it represents a month long campaign and its effects.  A bomber piece is assumed to have escorts fighters with it already - without them the bombing runs would be far less effective.

Likewise, If a piece is destroyed, it doesn’t necessarily represent EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THAT DIVISION dying, it represents a significant enough number of them being taken as casualties, making the unit is ineffective in combat.

Sorry to go on this rant in this thread, but back on topic.

All above said: AA guns are not planes.  That simply doesn’t work out right.

I don’t really like this rule, at least not for AA 50 or revised, but maybe for a game that has a lot of focus to detail.  I feel like Germany and possibly UK would be the only powers to throw money at it, and even then, nothing more than two levels.

@Imperious:

Radar should provide a boost. definatly.

By how much then? roll at a 2 or 3?

@Cobert:

It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

Well I can see your point ref scale of the action and so I’d support the geographic boundary with no house rule for CAP or any FTRs defending adjacent space etc.

But otherwise, I’m leaning towards the optional escort / interceptor rule as it reflects the operational decision on whether you use your fighter resources defensively or base them forward to project air cover.