To build upon that thought… I feel like it has become a viable option to use AA on the front, at just the right moment.
Here’s an example:
I’m Russia. Germany has a pool of mechanized units behind the front lines. Those are precious pieces - the equivalent of a no-dachi. Well, I’d like to bait some of them to come in and die, and put a nick on that blade. So… I place 4, or 5 infantry in the kill zone, with an AA. Ok Germany, you either risk aircraft, or you bring some armor (or artillery) to the fight. Either way, you’re forcing Germany to expend their units that make them dangerous in the first place.
I am not saying this would be a standard operational procedure - but the type of choice you could make with more confidence, as that AA Gun also has to be considered by your opponent as a casualty, so it means they have to bring more force to kill it. But sometimes the difference in Russia being safe for one more turn, or not, is a single fighter, or armor, or tac bomber. Buying one more round might buy you the game… you never know!
And Italy, with their new bomber and a desire to open cans, certainly didn’t want any part of that fight.
I think instead of people looking at what might be lost, people should spend a little time thinking about what might be gained.