anti-air, anti-tank necessary?

[myperfectvictory]

In my playthroughs, I always skip over this tech. I have watched some youtubers and they dont seem to research them either. Is it generally fair to skip over anti-air and anti-tank? Because in my view, my planes would be enough to counter the enemies, and the enemy AI generally doesn't seem to make it a priority to produce tanks. Wanted to see what thoughts anyone have on this matter

[Panda V4]

Anti air can kinda counter both Air and Tanks, since it gives a decent hard attack and penetration.

I wouldnt use it as a frontline battalion, but I always try to attach one AA as a support battalion if there is a free slot.

[myperfectvictory]

Originally posted by Panda V4:

Anti air can kinda counter both Air and Tanks, since it gives a decent hard attack and penetration.

I wouldnt use it as a frontline battalion, but I always try to attach one AA as a support battalion if there is a free slot.

Couldn't my air superiority and close air support be enough to counter the enemy air attack on my ground units though without the need for anti-air?

[drewbstar]

Against the AI?

AT - no, just counter their armor with your armor and encirclements.

AA - depends, if you're playing a major with total air control it doesn't do as much. However, if you're playing defender as a lower-IC country or have many multiple air zones to defend (USSR, China, etc.) it can be a life saver. Also the extra hard attack/pierce is nice. AA is also cheap in terms of IC and resources.

[lakupupu]

Originally posted by Mr. A:

Originally posted by Panda V4:

Anti air can kinda counter both Air and Tanks, since it gives a decent hard attack and penetration.

I wouldnt use it as a frontline battalion, but I always try to attach one AA as a support battalion if there is a free slot.

Couldn't my air superiority and close air support be enough to counter the enemy air attack on my ground units though without the need for anti-air?

aa reduces cas damage from what i remember, even with aerial dominance its a nice addition

i try to include towed aa once or twice on my tank templates to ensure they dont lose tanks or gear to air support no matter how much aerial dominance i have

[drewbstar]

Originally posted by dragon:

Originally posted by Mr. A:

Couldn't my air superiority and close air support be enough to counter the enemy air attack on my ground units though without the need for anti-air?

aa reduces cas damage from what i remember, even with aerial dominance its a nice addition

i try to include towed aa once or twice on my tank templates to ensure they dont lose tanks or gear to air support no matter how much aerial dominance i have

^
If you're fighting in a contested region with expensive divisions support AA is often a no-brainer given how effective it is at not only protecting your divisions but also shooting down their planes. It's extremely effecient in terms of IC and combat effectiveness.
I'd almost always go with support AA with the first stages of a war against an air-powered major. Once you've shot down most of their airforce you can care a little less, but AA will help you make the initial pushes/punish their airforce all that much faster.

[Včelí medvídek]

Maybe not necessary but quite worthy.

Most was said, so i would not repeat. In the past I tend to use AT for infantry with air superiority but as formulas were changed AA is clear choice most of time.

That said AI now build tanks much more frequent and various countries than used to. (it is still abysmal in using it though)

[Ken-sama]

Support AA is crazy cheap for how much it toughens up the division it's attached to. Slap it on your infantry blob workhorse division and check the combat stats from time to time. You'll get a good giggle out of how much that one little support company completely stuffs enemy air activity. Even if it didn't add enough piercing to also threaten tanks, it would be worth an auto-include on your frontlines.

It becomes less a question of "do I need AA if I have all this fighter/cas" and more a question of "do I need so much fighter/cas if I have all this AA?"

[Fighteraviator120]

its good but not necessary

[glythe]

Originally posted by Mr. A:

Is it generally fair to skip over anti-air and anti-tank? Because in my view, my planes would be enough to counter the enemies

It largely depends on who you are playing. Let's say you are playing Romania and want to do *anythng remotely interesting*. You will not be making a significant number of planes to fight a major. You can at best make enough planes to beat up another minor.

You will eventually be fighting a major with Romania. If you have AA researched you can basically not use your planes against them and not suffer much at all because your divisions have AA. You dont need to bother with tanks due to the AA guns also giving you significant levels of piercing. This is especially true if you rush the most modern infantry weapon research ahead of time.

Minor nations cant really afford the production of tanks and mechanized so doing AT with them would be a waste.

---

But what if you are playing Germany?

You could make a western front army that does not have AA since you know where those troops will be stationed (and likely will build AA guns in territories to counter UK planes in the English channel. Since you likely will be using tanks against the allies in france you dont need AT guns. However AT gun research gives you new guns for tanks. It also gives you new options for planes. The AT cannon II is very powerful when you put it on a plane for CAS missions.

Note: If you build a navy later you will probably want AA guns because carriers wreck ships and the sub meta was obliterated.

Are you familiar with the ME 410? It was a "medium" airframe with a 50mm cannon for destroying tanks. You can make this in HoI 4 now -It is extremely effective at destroying tanks.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-me-410-and-the-colossal-five-centimetre-bk-5-cannon-the-story-of-the-backbone-of-reich-defence/

[dasaard200]

My thoughts on AA and CAS are "You wanna take a bite outta my XX, I'll take MY bite outta your CAS !" and vice versa ; both are expendable, there are NO free lunches .

[Zorelnam]

depending on how much air power the enemy has and how your own airforce is doing your only choice to counter the enemy air might be Anti-air, the way i like to think about it is that if you want the CAS support bonuses for combat then you want to invest in your planes, if not then you can survive with only AA on your divisions and a few fighters, generally speaking i like to slap 1 support anti-air and 1 or 2 towed or motorized depending on the combat width i am aiming for

[Virsia]

I would say AA is a must have, while AT nah it never worth it, I only build ATG for my puppet lend lease purpose so they not as useless.

[velvetcrabman]

Originally posted by Ken-sama:

It becomes less a question of "do I need AA if I have all this fighter/cas" and more a question of "do I need so much fighter/cas if I have all this AA?"

This ^^

Against the ai using aa is super cost effective, that frees up factories you'd use for aircraft to equip land forces which can capture airfields/ factories, victory points, can't do that with aircraft. The war is won by holding the enemies ground, green air helps, but can't replace boots on the ground.

As ever, it all depends on your play style and what allows you personally to enjoy the game tho'.