AA guns worthless?

[SerWind]

^ 1 in 6 chance of doing anything?

[gbelle]

I find them to be more useful in this version of the game. Now they can be chosen as casualties instead of being captured by the enemy. I also didn't find them worthless before. If an enemy attacks with 3 planes vs where your gun is that is a like a 50% chance of hitting one plane before the combat even begins. Not to mention this hit is vs a high value, high attack power and versatile unit.

[SerWind]

I think my issue is that.. I'd rather buy a tank than waste money on AA. You need at least 2 or 3 AA guns to have them be somewhat reliable. Then your enemy actually has to attack with planes in the zone they are in. THEN you have to roll a 1. If you don't meet both of those conditions then it's just dead weight IPC. If they helped defend against bombing runs or could defend in provinces around them as well I think I'd purchase them more.

I'm not a pro by any means though, so this is just the ramblings of a scrub. I just feel like they aren't something I want to spend IPC on compared to other things.

[Soltau Womble]

After about rd2 I start to use AAguns as fodder for USSR or Germany. Really useful for a 3v3 type of battle with say 2 air used by attacker. about 1 in 3 chance you kill ftr and then you got a fodder for rest of fight. Think they can deter some players from attacking but not a capitol so more use early on in other areas. But would never buy 1 AA = 5ipc could get 2 inf for 2 6ipc way more use.

[jasonwclark]

Pretty much

The main thing that makes the unit frustrating is its restriction to noncombat movement and defense only combat, since its the only unit that behaves that way. It makes transporting the unit particularly onerous. The cost compared to ability is also pretty lackluster. In older versions of the game it was somewhat more useful, since it could prevent fly-byes and put up hits on as many aircraft as entered a territory. It could also be captured/stolen from the opponent in older versions and had a tech aspect either with Radar or Rocket advances. As a combat unit in these latest versions of A&A I don't think the entertainment value of the unit is worth the rules overhead required to explain how it works.

I would always rather have an infantry or artillery unit than an AAgun whatever the situation, so its just not something I would see a lot of value in purchasing or trying to make use of beyond what you start out with.

[Insert Name]

Agreed. Having two kinds of AA guns, with different abilities is silly.

[Julius Borisov]

Originally posted by KILLBOT:

Agreed. Having two kinds of AA guns, with different abilities is silly.

It's a part of the rules. https://media.wizards.com/2015/rules/AA_1942_rules.pdf

[Insert Name]

Originally posted by Julius Borisov:

Originally posted by KILLBOT:

Agreed. Having two kinds of AA guns, with different abilities is silly.

It's a part of the rules. https://media.wizards.com/2015/rules/AA_1942_rules.pdf

No offence intended, just to clear that up. I understand it is a part of the rules, no problem as long as both sides play by same. Just seems odd. Especially only three planes per ground AA.

I get it, it is the rules and like I said as long as it is the same for Axis and Allies, no worries.

If it we me, I would place all my "factory AA" guns everywhere!!

[jasonwclark]

There are at least a dozen different house rules that have been proposed over the past few years that might address things like a lackluster combat AAgun, or do things to spice up the built-in factory AAfire, or different ways to handle the optional escort/intercept rules that are offered in the 1942.2 manual but which aren't currently part of this adaptation.

But yeah, basic point being that the boxed rules for aaguns are kind of lame. Wish they were different, but it is what it is I guess.

Most problems with the unit roster can be fixed simply by adjusting the price structure. The current AAgun might be a lot more interesting if it only cost 3 ipcs rather than 5 ipcs for example. Same deal with cruisers, maybe if they only cost 10 ipcs instead of 12 people would buy them more often. But our hands are kind of tied since there is no way to modify anything, and thus far haven't seen a whole lot of interest from the devs in heading up a revision or some kind of beamdog redux to the boxed rules. Kind of a missed opportunity in my view. The base map is hella old already and the house rules section for 1942.2 on A&Aorg has a ton of ideas that could be tried. If keeping the same price at 5 I think the simplest would be to just allow the combat aagun unit to move during the combat phase and enter combat as an attacker. It still has a hitpoint after all, and if it got to put up a preemptive shot vs defending aircraft then that would definitely be worth the price of entry. Maybe too cheap at that point, but at least it would be something to consider buying to break a defender's airwall.

My hope was that we'd be a bit further along than we are currently, but most of the patches since the Gencon one have just been bugfix type stuff. I still think the game needs a fairly massive UI overhaul to deal with things like endless clickfests, unit crowding and confusion on actual position/location during movement. Even the map alignment issue still hasn't been corrected yet. At a glance for example it would appear that Central USA connects to W. Canada, which it doesn't. We can't play single player to Total Victory yet, or launch a solitaire game controlling all players, export a gamesave, or chat with opponents. Lot of basic functionality things that are still absent. So whether a reduxed AAgun ever makes it onto the big list of things that could use some sprucing up, who knows lol. But probably pretty low on the totem pole I'm guessing

[aardvarkpepper]

AA guns are fine. Cruisers are a good buy in very rare conditions. Battleships are garbage.

"Battleships are garbage" - for raw power for cost, submarines outperform on attack, destroyers and/or carriers/fighters on defense, battleships can't retask to fly inland to help in ground defense (unlike fighters based on carriers), can't hunt submarines. In theory, battleships could attack, soak up hits, then retreat, but considering raw lack of offense or defense, timings, and logistics, this is almost never practical in actual games unless opponents are spectacularly bad.

To be more explicit - if the game had loads of territories with 3+ or so value with industrial complexes, each adjacent to sea zones, with each of the sea zones in question adjacent, naval attack/retreats could be a viable tactic, as every sea zone would be a point of major contention. (Or other hypotheticals with chains of 1 IPC territories with industrial complexes &c). In such a hypothetical scenario, battleships could attack then retreat to a sea zone adjacent to an industrial complex, and significant naval reinforcements (carrier and two fighters) could be placed). There are other complications of base income and unit costs and map assumptions I won't get into here.

But this is not at all what the 1942v2 map looks like (or most maps in Axis and Allies). In 1942v2, each Axis power starts with considerable air resources (even Germany in the Larry Harris setup can expect five or so fighters). Allied fleets need to be a certain size, each nation has a particular income, units cost what they do. There are not loads of industrial complexes all over the place, and even pushing to the point that an industrial complex may be secured (e.g. US taking Borneo or East Indies) usually is followed by a counter that means carriers, destroyers, fighters, and submarines are better than battleships, as rather than constant attack and retreats, a single crucial high-value naval battle determines the controller of an area - in which case battleships' lack of attack/defense power for cost makes them not good.

There are extremely rare hypothetical cases in which a battleship might possibly be thought to be of use - for example, UK can place a limit of 3 units at India, and though a battleship is ineffective for cost, its stats are quite good for unit count. But this almost never happens in practice; it's probably better to place UK fighters that can defend India ground territory and retask to West Russia and/or Russia, and save IPCs for a UK Atlantic transport fleet &c. So again - theoretically if the map were different, if conditions were different, battleships could theoretically be useful, but considering the map and game state, in practice battleships again just don't work out. Though again, *on a very different map* things could be different (and again, I think most Axis and Allies maps aren't like this).

==

As to cruisers - sometimes you want a bit of naval support, and sometimes a naval support shot can be useful. Particular examples, Japan hitting outlying islands and Germany's Mediterranean fleet. Though I do NOT recommend cruisers for EITHER, there are niche situations in which possibly they might work out (very very rare, but at least possibly extant, as opposed to the practically nonexistent conditions under which battleships are good - in 1942v2 anyways)

For Japan, why use a cruiser costing 12, when a transport costing 7 can transport two additional ground units - ground units that can attack multiple times over multiple turns and can themselves capture territories? The answer is - cruisers can attack and defend against navy and air. A fighter costing 10 doesn't have the mobility to hit enemy islands then return to a safe friendly island, and can't defend a sea zone without an expensive carrier. A bomber could attack but again couldn't defend a sea zone. A cruiser, though, could along with a destroyer, threaten any new light naval builds on US's West coast, and also would be protected against US bomber (or other) light attacks.

As to Germany, again why a cruiser costing 12 in the Mediterranean? Because again a carrier is expensive, and further a German Mediterranean carrier would pull German fighters there, leaving those German fighters unable to threaten most Atlantic sea zones the Allies would be moving into. The real early threat to Germany's Mediterranean fleet is Allied attackers of 2 fighters 1 bomber (either UK or US); such Allied attacks may fail against a lone German battleship, but adding a German cruiser to the mix makes it a chancy battle for the Allies to risk failing.

Again in both cases I don't generally recommend cruisers, as there are opportunity costs &c. But if the game develops to a certain point, maybe round 3 or 4, and certain conditions apply, then maybe cruisers are something to think about.

==

As to AA guns - they're niche, but they're certainly useful, even to the point again that in *some* games you may consider *buying more*.

I guess some players are looking at AA guns and thinking "these things can be taken as casualties but they can't attack and they have no defense value and they can't be used in combat and they cost 5 IPC so . . . garbage". But no. Really not.

First - yeah everything there is true. But they're really good if you know air units are going to be used in an attack, and you can know that, for some crucial battles and/or key timings.

Then what happens? If an opponent uses a load of air (and depending on the situation this CAN be a fairly sure bet), each AA gun gets up to three shots against a 10 IPC fighter (at worst). Even hitting on a 1, an AA gun inflicts expected casualties worth its cost.

But it doesn't end there. The AA gun can *also* be taken as a casualty. Air units destroyed do *not* participate in combat. Which works out very well. In most battles, cheap infantry die first; expensive air is the *last* to die in most cases. After attacking infantry die, then artillery dies, and only then tanks, then finally air. But AA guns jump to the head of the line and blow up expensive and hard hitting air. This is super super good.

If it's "super super good" then why aren't AA guns used more? Because they're "super super good" only in certain niche situations. The opponent *must* attack the territory with the AA gun, the opponent *must* use air (if the opponent has vastly superior forces it may not even need to use air, and of course if the opponent doesn't have superior forces they may not attack at all), and the defender must only defend that territory (rather than retreating to another territory to safety) if a defense is feasible.

That all doesn't mean I'm saying go wild with AA gun purchases. Often just what a player starts with at the beginning of a game is enough. But there are (rare) times when AA gun purchases are strategically and tactically "correct".

Why not just make AA guns better? Well they already kill expensive units (yay) that hit hard (yay) before those units have any chance to do anything in combat (yay), increasing the risk on attacks involving enemy air, changing the dynamic from attacking enemies only typically risking cheap infantry. So they're quite good already; if they were much better (say give them a defense value and/or make them cheaper), Allies could spam AA guns to punish Axis trading territories, and that would severely change the dynamic of the game.

Maybe some half measure could be taken, but as it is, I think AA guns are good enough. Not super-always-great good, but good enough.

[jasonwclark]

I understand the logic, but for my money I'd still rather have an infantry unit or almost 2 inf for the same cost as a single AAgun. Because in the end I think you're just as likely to peel off a fighter or two that way (just from the hitpoint or added attack/defense power) but at least it can do other things and take land in the interim. I suppose if you got nuked and have no more aaguns at all, then maybe you'd want a few to guard the stacks or defend a capital, but even then its still hard for me to see how its much better. I don't know, maybe its just my playstyle, but I find them pretty meh

[SerWind]

Even if you have 5 AA guns in a territory it still only rolls 3 dice, right? Just had a game where I attacked against 2 AA guns and some inf, and only 3 dice were rolled. Unless I am missing something or misunderstanding. I was gonna build more because my dad always likes to build a lot of planes, but that kinda kills my interest in doing it.

[aardvarkpepper]

Originally posted by Baldwin:

Even if you have 5 AA guns in a territory it still only rolls 3 dice, right? Just had a game where I attacked against 2 AA guns and some inf, and only 3 dice were rolled. Unless I am missing something or misunderstanding. I was gonna build more because my dad always likes to build a lot of planes, but that kinda kills my interest in doing it.

Each AA gun fires up to three shots against attacking air, limited to one shot per attacking air.

If a territory with one AA gun is attacked with two air units, the AA gun fires two shots.

If a territory with one AA gun is attacked with five air units, the AA gun fires three shots.

==

If there are multiple AA guns, additional shots may be fired, but again only one shot can be taken for each attacking air.

If a territory with three AA guns is attacked with five air units, the three AA guns fire a total of five shots.

If a territory with six AA guns is attacked with four air units, the six AA guns fire a total of four shots.

If a territory with two AA guns is attacked with eight air units, the two AA guns fire a total of six shots.

[aardvarkpepper]

Originally posted by jasonwclark:

I understand the logic, but for my money I'd still rather have an infantry unit or almost 2 inf for the same cost as a single AAgun. Because in the end I think you're just as likely to peel off a fighter or two that way (just from the hitpoint or added attack/defense power) but at least it can do other things and take land in the interim. I suppose if you got nuked and have no more aaguns at all, then maybe you'd want a few to guard the stacks or defend a capital, but even then its still hard for me to see how its much better. I don't know, maybe its just my playstyle, but I find them pretty meh

In the right situation, you'd find AA guns useful. If you find them "meh", you just haven't run into those situations yet.

Hypothetically, suppose Germany and Japan both have large air forces - Germany because it's been pushing infantry and air, using its air to threaten Allied fleet while also threatening and trading territories with Russia; Japan because it's pushing fighters to reinforce forwards German positions then bombers and fighters for the threat of Japan-held Alaska against unguarded transports in a US East Canada - Finland transport chain. Then let's also say the Allies have a fairly good hold on Moscow so that neither Germany nor Japan may break Moscow alone, then let's also say UK and US have transports incoming towards Europe so Germany can't put off attacking too long.

You can see this does require a lot of supposition. Each of the five nations involved must take particular actions with particular strategy and tactics in mind, and the rough game plan cannot have been disrupted by dice breaks (which may well have happened).

Yet I have had variations of such happen, playing as Allies *and* as Axis, repeatedly. Take my word for it or not. And mind I'm certainly not saying it happens all the time; I'd say maybe one out of forty or fifty games?

Anyways - SUPPOSE Axis air is a viable strategy, and SUPPOSE the game doesn't break open until a certain point, and SUPPOSE the forces are roughly as described.

So in this hypothetical situation, we know Germany must attack then Japan, we know the battle will be close, and if Moscow has three AA guns, those AA guns fire eighteen shots - first, nine shots against attacking German air, then another nine shots against attacking Japanese air. (Let's say Russia sets its AA guns to die after tanks until Germany's turn is over, then on UK's turn, Russia sets its AA guns to die first - so the AA guns survive Germany's attack but are the first to die against Japan's attack).

. . . now there's a bit more to it than that.

If the Axis *must* carry out sequential attacks to break Moscow, AA guns increase the risk of attack. As mentioned, AA guns can chop off major attackers right off, whereas normally only cheap infantry can get removed. A few AA gun hits can *really* change the odds.

If Germany gets super lucky, then none of the AA gun shots connect, Germany gets super great dice, wipes out Moscow, then basically Axis win.

But if Germany gets UNLUCKY, it can lose a big chunk of its air force, fail its attack to the point that Japan isn't left with good odds - then *Japan* needs to go through that AA gun fire, again risking its premium air, into a possibly lose situation.

And again - the Axis *can't* put off the attack too long, because in this hypothetical situation UK/US are pressuring in Europe. Germany can certainly stall for a long time, but there's a point at which Axis must take the chance, or see the odds turn against them.

==

Mind I'm not saying "ho ho, AA guns are really sweet and you're missing out". I'm saying in the right conditions, AA guns are potentially very nasty and increase the risk factor especially against sequential attacks - and even if not, the fact they *do* knock off high-value hard-hitting targets first without a chance for those units to hit back, is something to be considered.

In MOST situations? Yeah, I'd just go with a couple infantry or whatever myself.

But if I were playing Russia and had decent odds of holding against 9+ German air plus ground followed by 9+ Japanese air plus ground - I'd be thinking three AA guns, building a third if I didn't have one, even considering building up to three over time if I had none.

Again, this really isn't common at all. Even when accounting for variations &c when AA guns are useful, I think generally one *doesn't* buy AA guns.

But one DOES buy AA guns SOMETIMES, I'd say. VERY VERY RARELY but sometimes.

Which makes them different, to, say, battleships.

AA guns are like a fillet knife. You don't use it a lot, but if you know how to use one and you have a whole fish, well, fillet knife time.

Battleships are like that tool you use to make flowers out of vegetables. Maybe you got it as a gift, and it's cool, but you never ever use it. (Mind if you're a caterer or something maybe you use it for business, but that's different.)

[jasonwclark]

Yeah sure, if we're talking one offs, then I can imagine situations where we have exactly 5 ipcs to burn (couldn't get another hitpoint into the fight anyway), and the opponent is coming at us with some specific number of aircraft in multiples of 3s, where a single AAgun might get another like 5% odds? to prevail as the defender over what an infantry unit could get us for 2 ipcs less. But that's a lot of boxes to tick off before it becomes worthwhile. If we're talking 2 or more aaguns purchased for 10 ipcs+, almost always be better off buying more infantry for less cash. If its two successive air attacks, and we're trying to hold onto the aaguns for the next dude's run, I'd say the opponents have probably made a mistake coming at us in the first place. But sure, if we can absorb that kind of slam, or the enemy duds so hard that we're taking hits on regular combat units over units that can no longer fire, I guess it was a good buy in that instance.

Problem with the aagun though is that you can't really build a general purchasing strategy around it, the way you can with all the other units that aren't 'worthless.' Its just too easy for the opponent to counter. Like ideally you'd see the enemy buying a bunch of aircraft and think "ok if I buy a bunch of AAguns over time and consistently push them to the front, then I can neuter the opponents aircraft and eventually prevail in territory trading." But that doesn't really work, because AAgun purchases over time are so easily countered by infantry and artillery purchases over time (which the attacker already wants to do anyway). And the attacker gets to choose what they bring to the fight. So its not the sort of unit that you can bank on in any reliable way. The aagun can't even put up a shot when attacked on the ground, where its easily outgunned even by the inf grunt. So the only real reason to buy an aagun in practical terms is as a last minute, last ditch effort to save a factory tile that's probably going to get smoked by enemy aircraft regardless. If its 1 game out of 40 or 50, when they come into play, that's a pretty worthless unit in my view. Maybe its a better buy than a battleship, but I could probably conjure up a situation where a battleship might actually get bought too once in a blue moon if I really use my imagination. I don't know some weird scenario at a coastal factory sz where you've got 20 ipcs, but only 1 production slot left, and have to put up the max defense for whatever reason to try and avoid getting smoked hehe. Not the sort of thing that's going to come up very often. I'd rather it cost less, or have another ability so it might be a more viable buy.

I don't lament the inclusion of the combat AAgun in the physical game, because at least there maybe we can come up with house rules, and the sculpts do look pretty cool after all. But I do think the OOB rules for them kinda suck, and unfortunately we can't do anything about that here as an end user in this digital version. (Even the Hasbro CD in its final iteration had a way to adjust unit costs. I mean there's probably a number that would make it work, but 5 ipcs is pretty steep for what it does.)

Typically I find the unit causes more headaches than anything else. People always forgetting to move it on non com and such. I don't know that it really adds that much to the game, for all the extra rules and exceptions associated with it. The designer probably should have gone back to the drawing board with it. Probably should have let it hit at 1 in regular combat so it wouldn't get just crushed on the ground. I'd say if the average player is puzzling over whether or not they should be buying another AAgun, they're probably better off buying something else. I don't know, maybe I'm a ♥♥♥♥ cook. I'll just bring the bread knife, it works most of the time. Watch me go out choking on the fish bones lol