@Imperious:
++++++++ so your saying to use a new piece for AA guns? or use the same piece with a “mark” on the aa gun so it can be used as something else?
No I just hope to use the original AA gun piece.
++++++++ well aa guns can be installed anywhere… i proposed before that in every home territory or in just VC territories their could be an aa gun defense during any flyover of enemy planes. we dont need some unit to represent this do we?
Nope I am sugguesting a little chip placed under the IC to represent this. But thats only necessary if you buy my argument that you should be allowed to beef up defenses at ICs.
++++++++I was think along the same lines except this would be the difference in factories vs. VC territories, one being a heavy concentration, while the other being lighter elements of AA flak batteries. I just dont know why these rules regarding aa guns need a damm PIECE, BECAUSE they are largely fixed deployments. the piece to me only represents the idea that the gun can be moved and i dont feel thats enough of a reason to commit to a “piece”
Oh thats from my funny idea of turning it on the side when first built to show its not deployed yet and can’t fire. You then move it in non-combat to the front line and deploy them by turning upright. I guess alternatively we can use something else to show its movement and deployment from the IC to the frontline.
++++++++++The trick is whether or not these flak battleries represent a major cost that can be (or should be) brought into the same level as say a “panzer corps” or a major fleet of destroyers… is the cost something that is on the same level as major military expenditures?
Yeap I haven’t forgotten your arguement that its not at corps level. I hope its not too bad I mean ICs can’t be moved and we have a piece for it too. I am just thinking that AA can be used as a new piece shouldn’t be part of the arguement as we are gonna need more than one since we are introducing several units.
@HMS:
Yep. In September '43, about a million people (many of them kids and women, though) were mannintg German AA defences, which used 8,876 of the superb “88” anti-tank/ant-aircraft guns, and 24,500 light AA guns and 7,000 searchlights.
Quote the article too so I can hope for the AA piece to remain hehe :lol:
Though I doubt much of the 1 millon kids and women were on the frontline. Probably mostly at ICs/cities.
The figure is from Max Hastings’ book “Bomber Command”. Hastings is a very respected war correspondent, Falklands etc and his research is pretty good. There’s similar info from Speer available in Galbraith etc.
Yep, you’re right, the women and kids (well teenagers) were in the cities. Because the Germans didn’t use women in industry like the allies did, their work in AA wasn’t such as loss to war production. The amount of guns and ammo WAS significant I think.
I think the idea that ICs have their own integral AA is a good one, and it would free the AA guns to be moved around in the role of mobile AA - or even used alongside the IC so they IC has its own AA PLUS the AA gun as well.
Ok i ask you both this:
Why arent AA guns represented in basically any other strategic wargame? I dont see where they are used in Third Reich or and classic wargame from SPI… so why are they even represented in a game which is soo abtracted in every respect than many games… how does this level of abstraction indicate a need a a specific AA gun piece, where clearly this need wasnt found in far more complicated and empassing games covering the same scope of the war???
Perhaps it’s just 'cause people don’t think AA guns are cool.
Look at the way people go mad for jet fighters, which (if I remember right) shot down a mere 150 or so allied aircraft. It’s nothing in the scheme of things, but people want to play with cool weapons.
Same with Tiger tanks….overall arguably a minus for the Axis because they cost to much and were so unreliable, but most games seem to include them.
In one way, the AA gun does hit too hard…in reality, fighters and night fighters were much more of a problem. If you don’t have AA, though, it’s too easy to just build lots of bombers knowing they’ll take no losses.
Maybe the answer is to reduce the effectiveness of bombers and AA, but that doesn’t fit A&A well.
Yes and all the other units you mentioned are found in other wargames. they comprise tiger tank battalions, tank destroyers, heavy artillery, assault guns… and yet no AA guns are found…
Hey you two don’t get carried away :lol:
Forget other games. You started this mod to fix things. Not to meet the mass market.
Forget “cool”. Lets contine your arguement on historic basis.
Back to it…
Is it a typo or why doesn’t BB take 2-hits anymore?
I think increasing DD’s attack just because SS is present is flawed. It would be strange when 3 DDs attack 3 DDs + 1 SS. The attacking DDs gains an edge for no reason. I think every 1 DD nullifies 1 SS’s abilities and thats good enough.
A BB takes two hits as does a cruiser. A question remains as whether we are gonna give BB a premtive shot each round. So if they hit a ship its sunk and cannot fire back.That would be great for the BB. This represents long range guns.
No I don’t think that is wise… Ships would try to maneuver into their “range” and the “pre-emptive shot” is merely a BB advantage while it has the range… Now some BB’s were faster then their DD counterparts, but in this game, I think that giving them this advantage would discredit a vast majority of Naval encounters during '39-'45…
my 2 cents
GG
Ok in what way are BB’s getting too much value with the preemtive shot? They had larger caliber guns than all other ships and the range of these guns was much greater than say a DD, plus it reinforces the idea that if you buy more expensive units, you get more in return for your dollar and thats one of the core values that unts should have. Spend money to get something better in return. So for each point of firepower your spending in large quantities the cost per point goes down.
OK, I see your point… If this is the case then I would make AC’s 2 hit (I think you already have that in place I just thought I’d mention it)… Their Advantage does not extend to Aircraft we are merely talking about ships here correct?
thats correct.
Why do Light Carriers (equivelants of Escort Carriers?) carry as much as Big Carriers? Most Escort Carriers carried 20-30 Aircraft compared to “Big” Carriers which Carried 70-80…
GG
I think that they should have only one plane, but that looks like a waste… Another idea is to 1) scrap escort carriers or 2) increase carriers fighter cap to 3 planes and light carriers to 2 planes. Those original ideas are just a rough sketch of what might be possible. what do you think we should do with them? Consider the naval fighters idea i think they will fit in well. if we bump up the fighter capacity on carriers.
I dont like the idea with more unit types - more pieces! How ever at a glance the Mech Inf and Heavy Art looks balanced! I would prefer a tech system for these units. :wink:
Thanks for your comments… The basic idea was to offer them as optional units under phase 2… The value of some of these units is more necesary than others admitedly. The “list” includes all the possiblities so i dont expect more than 4-5 units seeing the light of day.
I am leaning towards e fewer new units and fewer map changes.
I would add that under phase one we just make like one unit per nation at a cheaper scale and NOT any new units… under phase two we add new NA’s and under the optional rules we add about 4-5 new units. That way the new units is only something that is optional in a latter stage.
Andersson since you dont like new units… if you had to come up with something under optional rules what would you introduce?
Cruiser?
SS panzer?
paratroopers?
mech infantry?
air transport?
grace us with some of your cognitive exploits.
I recall the argument that major paradrop operations failed.
Good exmaple were often missions on a tactical level only.
