AA Guns

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Baron I would never give AAA an attacking AA roll. EVER

It has way to many implications, changes too much from OOB

and you are comparing apples to oranges. Absolutely AAA would be worth if you shoot down expensive planes with it

Honestly for simplicity reasons, I would leave AAA at 5 IPCs and no attack move

Only give them defense at 1 during normal combat as a normal unit to increase AAA effectiveness per it’s cost

---

Under your proposal players would strafe enemy tts with infantry and AAA just to kill some planes and maybe lose some inf. Plane purchases would be reduced and then , with planes not being purchased, AAA would no longer be purchased

Planes are not to often a purchase as is other than UK and USA
You don’t want to reduce it further, while at the same time add more complexity to the game
You hinder the overall game experience

This is the same reason I would never give cruisers an AA ability

From your perspective, this option 3 AAA, is like reverting TTs from “chosen last” to “classic”.
Instead of increasing the tactical challenge of the game, it will becomes like a stack of Inf fodders around 3 or 4 AAA. (Like stack of TTs fodder around some capitals ships).

But I don’t think it can really become like this.
On many games I played, planes were protected, for the most part, two territories behind and seldom on a front line territory.
Maybe it is different in your games?

When I try to see where adding an offensive AAA, will introduce some tactical changes, I’m only thinking about:
1- Western Europe invasion
2- Battles over Stalingrad/Causasus and Leningrad,
3- Eastern indian front in Burma and Malayia.
In this 3 fronts, will it be better to bring 1 or 2 AAA instead of 2 armors?
I doubt it.

I think, that offensive AAA will be handy only on large decisive ground battles (Capitol cities) when attacker bring so many units that defender is denied any counter-attack and just sit and reinforces his main territory while waiting another offensive charge.

On this rare occasion an offensive AAA will throw (in a single round) a few dices against defending aircraft. Will this be a game changer? Even in such long battle?

Maybe, in some attrition wars like it was the case between Karelia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe in the Classic map.
Is their something like this on Global map or 1942? I can’t say.

[baron Münchhausen]

Maybe we are just worrying (in abstract) about such a rare situation in fact, that this specific ability have no great effect:

neither for the attacker (gaining some dubious advantage),
nor the defender (crippling no plane at all, or too few to create a climatic change over the outcome of a battle.)

Thus giving it or not (1 single regular strike against 1 plane/AAA), would have had no real consequences.

So this discussion could be (in fact) more about simplicity of rule: 1 single special ability only (Option 2: 3@1 against plane, on defense)
vs
unity/simmetry  of rule (Option 3):  1 double special ability for 2 situations (1 on Def. and 1 on Off.)

[Derek]

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…

Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose

It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…
Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose

It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

Glad to see you still there.

About: “knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…”
It will be essentially possible on a straffing run on a former turn.
Or after the first 2 rounds had past. Then planes shooted down will have consequences.

As I imply when I introduce the attack against 1 aircraft/AAA on a second round only, the straffing attack will have to be maintain for 2 consecutive rounds.

I’m still thinking, a straffing run is better made when you have some good offensive punch (armor or planes), not just few @1, even against planes because you will deplete many Inf against Inf because of 1 against 2 off/def ratio.

[Derek]

You should read the whole thing.
Ignore the first line

@Uncrustable:

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…

Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose

It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

You should read the whole thing.
Ignore the first line

@Uncrustable:

If you have the chance to knock out some defending fighters before a major attack…

Anyways like I said, I would never use it. Too much
Anything that hurts planes, even if slightly, is not a Good thing

And if your right and it doesn’t change anything, then your adding complexity to no purpose
It’s a double negative

And again you compare apples to oranges, but if you want to go there…
Transports under the classic rules hurt naval purchases across the board and , to some extent, plane purchases
After the change, there have been an increase in naval and air battles over the oceans
And naval purchases increased dramatically as well as plane purchases
The transport change added greatly to the game, while only adding slightly to the complexity

The main gains are just about this:
in which way will we see a greater use of AAA and new kind of tactics?

Clearly, your thinking about AAA as regular unit is kind of changing “paradigm” as with TT’s rule change.
I’m not quite sure giving a little “punch on offense” to AAA is OP.
(Like some other give it in converting AAgun in “antitank gun after first round. Or as antitank gun when there is no attacking plane”).

Maybe, it just open some new possibilities which need patience, skills and strategies to be used effectively on offense.
You said earlier: “It has way too many implications, changes too much from OOB.”

Maybe those implications are not that unbalancing at all.

What I know for sure, is give some players the chance to try it, they will try to develop a strategy to maximized it. It will be easier to judge.

For now, we are stuck on abstract and principles thinking with few examples.

Think about the first time Larry have introduce the idea of a “taken last” transport inside his group of play-tester and before playing sea battles that way.

They were probably divided about it as the other tread reveals.

[Derek]

I do not want that, I doubt very many do…
What I want is a slight boost to AAA
To improve it’s defensive capabilities, while not breaking anything or adding too much complexity or making AAA too powerful

That is what games like this need, slight tweaks
It is already a great game, and fairly balanced as well
Just see how many play G40 on these forums alone

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I do not want that, I doubt very many do…
What I want is a slight boost to AAA
To improve it’s defensive capabilities, while not breaking anything or adding too much complexity or making AAA too powerful

That is what games like this need, slight tweaks
It is already a great game, and fairly balanced as well
Just see how many play G40 on these forums alone

For my part, I’m very curious about it.
In this tread, you was the one to suggest and advocate for an Always Active AA gun.
Talking about increasing strategy.
And I was the one defending the balance of thing.

Now, roles seem upside down.  :wink:

[Jennifer]

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?

You are creating improved units.
You will need some token or new sculpt on the board.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?

I have in mind this question: what is the real AA platform ship of the WWII?
CA?
BB?
CV?
Maybe CV and BB have much more kills because they were the prime target.
If you count the number of AA gun on 1 ship and multiply by the number in service.
Maybe, we will see that a A&A Cruiser unit was much more of a plane killer, because their was numerous cruisers (30 cruiser ships figuring 1 CA units vs 4-5 BB figuring 1 battleship unit)  fighting planes and protecting capital ship.

[Jennifer]

@Baron:

@Cmdr:

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?

You are creating improved units.
You will need some token or new sculpt on the board.

Ship with control marker under it.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?

At first sight, it is a strange idea.
Because, all those units on defense can destroy planes.
You only want to add a preemptive strike before the first round.
And in an historical sense, I think both attacker and defender were able to fire at each other.

I rather prefer to give this 1AA ability (@1, 1/ship/max 1/plane) at no cost to one unit (CA), maybe two (BB and CA).

[Jennifer]

Well, I’ve said before, if I had my druthers’ it would be on the Battleship because it’s already a ship that is much maligned in 1940 and because there are instances battleships fighting with AA Guns.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Well, I’ve said before, if I had my druthers’ it would be on the Battleship because it’s already a ship that is much maligned in 1940 and because there are instances battleships fighting with AA Guns.

As a single ship I give you right.
But what do you think of this?
@Baron:

@Cmdr:

Could always go AA gun on Cruiser, Battleship, Aircraft Carrier and add 3 IPC to the cost of each of these units?

I have in mind this question: what is the real AA platform ship of the WWII?
CA?
BB?
CV?
Maybe CV and BB have much more kills because they were the prime target.
If you count the number of AA gun on 1 ship and multiply by the number in service.
Maybe, we will see that a A&A Cruiser unit was much more of a plane killer, because their was numerous cruisers (30 cruiser ships figuring 1 CA units vs 4-5 BB figuring 1 battleship unit)  fighting planes and protecting capital ship.

[Jennifer]

I have always looked at the battleship as a fleet marker and not just a specific battleship.

For instance, the Battleship Missouri was labeled BB-63 and travelled with Task Force 58.  Task Force 58 included the battleship, a few submarines, a few destroyers and destroyer escorts, some cruisers and a couple light carriers.  All this, in my mind, is part of the Battleship piece.

The Cruiser piece might be 3 cruisers.  The destroyer piece might be half a dozen destroyers with no superior ships along side, etc.  Submarines are probably 3, for instance, a German Wolfpack might be 3 submarines represented by one submarine piece.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I have always looked at the battleship as a fleet marker and not just a specific battleship.

For instance, the Battleship Missouri was labeled BB-63 and travelled with Task Force 58.  Task Force 58 included the battleship, a few submarines, a few destroyers and destroyer escorts, some cruisers and a couple light carriers.  All this, in my mind, is part of the Battleship piece.

The Cruiser piece might be 3 cruisers.  The destroyer piece might be half a dozen destroyers with no superior ships along side, etc.  Submarines are probably 3, for instance, a German Wolfpack might be 3 submarines represented by one submarine piece.

I can’t be as accurate than you but you need to increase the numbers of ships for each units to get a kind of relative proportion between historical set up and game set up.

I agree that you need some escorts vessels within a BB unit but not that large as a Task force since now we have many different units on the board.

I find it weird to add fighters and escort carriers inside a BB unit.
It should be more homogeneous, from my perspective.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

Well, I’ve said before, if I had my druthers’ it would be on the Battleship because it’s already a ship that is much maligned in 1940 and because there are instances battleships fighting with AA Guns.

About your main topic,
if you think that Cruiser are more often bought than Battleship in your game, I think you can add 1 or 2 @1 preemptive strike AA/ship, to create an incentive. It will be see as a more dangerous unit for sure.
But on an historical point of view, US Admirals rather prefer attacking Yamato and others BBs with airplanes rather with their own capital ship (they saw greater risk in direct contact to their capital ships than their airfleet).

Your HR will create a distortion compare to history since many BBs were sink by attacking planes.

[Jennifer]

I add escort carriers, and heavy cruisers to Aircraft Carrier units too.

An arrangement of:

• 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 3 Cruisers, 9 Destroyers and 6 Submarines might include 30 escort carriers, 30-50 escort destroyers, 20 escorting submarines, tanker ships, transports and medical ships, etc.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I add escort carriers, and heavy cruisers to Aircraft Carrier units too.

An arrangement of:

• 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 3 Cruisers, 9 Destroyers and 6 Submarines might include 30 escort carriers, 30-50 escort destroyers, 20 escorting submarines, tanker ships, transports and medical ships, etc.

IMO, this Task force will be represented in A&A by 1 CV unit and 1 BB unit+ at least 1-2 DD unit and 1 Sub unit.