AA Guns

[Imperious Leader]

Or 1 AA preemptive strike from a defending cruiser. (This one change much more the tide, I think.)

vs. Roll one and that player can force the other player to lose any plane.

hmmm.  The first one is weaker, but the AA roll should be either attacker or defender IMO.

Yea that is a small change but fair for both sides.

[Derek]

Baron, you took what i said out of context, i talked about the balance implications of giving AA to cruisers…
I will highlight it in bold below…

Giving all ships AA dice would wreck plane purchases, why buy 3 fighters that would more than likely die to AA fire, when you could buy 3 tanks and 2 destroyers. Or some other combination of land + sea units  vs air units
It would also wreck AAA purchases.

So adding AA dice to ships = added complexity, less plane purchases and less AAA purchases
So it hinders the game and makes it more complicated :P
We would a net negative impact on the overall game experience.

A&A, instead of using a complex battle system as some other games do, simply uses ‘choose your own casualties’. With a couple exceptions(transports, and subs vs aircraft)

Obviously all ships are more than capable of shooting down aircraft, as are infantry and tanks, other aircraft , etc…

If your going to make anything more complicated, at least make it something that would add equally or greater to the overall experience

For example: Letting AAA defend on a 1 during normal combat, as a normal unit (no other OOB changes) actually slightly reduces the complexity of the game, while at the same time slightly enhancing the AAA unit (which this thread was created for) Most importantly, this change would not effect aircraft in anyway positive or negative.
It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would recieve
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

In summation, we would have a net, slight to moderate, positive gain on the overall game experience

**I would severely argue against adding any AA dice to any ships. It would (this is a fact) impact planes negatively.

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

There are already 3 cruisers that Germany attacks and 1 in the med that either Germany or Italy attacks.

This would not slightly, but moderately shift the balance early game towards the Allies. So now players would start bidding for the Axis to counter this.

So we would have a net of zero on balance, added complexity (a negative), while cruisers become more viable (a positive), but planes (even if slightly) become less viable (another negative, maybe)

so 0 - 1(or 2) + 1 = 0(or -1)
A net gain of zero to a negative, on the overall game experience.**

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Ok well it definitly adds complexity to the game, there is no doubt about that.
It also (if it even slightly adds to AA rolls) hinders aircraft, atleast slightly.
If im wrong and it reduces AA rolls then it hinders AAA and whats the point?

So either way thats 2 negatives, to 1 positive (enhancing AAA)

But 2 things are not taken into account yet….
1-what does it do to game balance, and
2-does it make AAA too powerfull

Even if both 1 and 2 are slim to zero, we still have a net negative impact on the overall game experience

So at best, its a slight hindrance to the game, and at worst, it wrecks the game

Why i ask would you want to implement this? It is a high risk with no rewards….

The long demonstration is to show that in a long battle (6 rounds+), AAA (@1/12) will prevail over OOB AAA rule probability.
Hence, usually after the first few rounds, defending player will take AAA as casualty because OOB AAA will not fire anymore after first round.

So any player will think twice before taking them as casualty, since each AAA can still take 1 shot at 1/12 ( you can roll 1D12 and take a hit on a roll “1”, if you prefer.)

On first and second round, OOB are better.

On the third to the fifth round, OOB is similar.

But you get much more rolls against planes than OOB (and much funny “continuous stress” for the attacking player.)

Your AAA and this one are two different ways of rationalizing AAA.

And I like both, for my part.
Even, yours slightly modified (as I proposed earlier: Option 3) can be able to open different tactical use of AAA, if you give it offensive capacity.

[Derek]

@Uncrustable:

Giving all ships AA dice would wreck plane purchases, why buy 3 fighters that would more than likely die to AA fire, when you could buy 3 tanks and 2 destroyers. Or some other combination of land + sea units  vs air units
It would also wreck AAA purchases.

So adding AA dice to ships = added complexity, less plane purchases and less AAA purchases
So it hinders the game and makes it more complicated :P
We would a net negative impact on the overall game experience.

A&A, instead of using a complex battle system as some other games do, simply uses ‘choose your own casualties’. With a couple exceptions(transports, and subs vs aircraft)

Obviously all ships are more than capable of shooting down aircraft, as are infantry and tanks, other aircraft , etc…

If your going to make anything more complicated, at least make it something that would add equally or greater to the overall experience

For example: Letting AAA defend on a 1 during normal combat, as a normal unit (no other OOB changes) actually slightly reduces the complexity of the game, while at the same time slightly enhancing the AAA unit (which this thread was created for) Most importantly, this change would not effect aircraft in anyway positive or negative.
It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would recieve
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

In summation, we would have a net, slight to moderate, positive gain on the overall game experience

**I would severely argue against adding any AA dice to any ships. It would (this is a fact) impact planes negatively.

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

There are already 3 cruisers that Germany attacks and 1 in the med that either Germany or Italy attacks.

This would not slightly, but moderately shift the balance early game towards the Allies. So now players would start bidding for the Axis to counter this.

So we would have a net of zero on balance, added complexity (a negative), while cruisers become more viable (a positive), but planes (even if slightly) become less viable (another negative, maybe)

so 0 - 1(or 2) + 1 = 0(or -1)
A net gain of zero to a negative, on the overall game experience.**

However…giving cruisers +1 movement, does not hinder planes in any way, enhances the cruiser (slightly, which is all it needs).
It would however, allow Germany to use its cruiser in the Baltic against the UK fleet in the Atlantic, BUT, the Allies start the game with more cruisers ( 5 for axis vs 11 for allies) so this would balance out or if anything swing it again towards the allies. (which would be a positive, if at all)

So lets say balance change of zero to 1, enhanced cruiser is a +1, and it adds slightly to the complexity (cruiser at +1 move is not hard, and is an OOB rule in 1914)

So the balance change plus the complexity change equals out to zero, that leaves us at a net GAIN on the overall game experience

[Derek]

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

Ok well it definitly adds complexity to the game, there is no doubt about that.
It also (if it even slightly adds to AA rolls) hinders aircraft, atleast slightly.
If im wrong and it reduces AA rolls then it hinders AAA and whats the point?

So either way thats 2 negatives, to 1 positive (enhancing AAA)

But 2 things are not taken into account yet….
1-what does it do to game balance, and
2-does it make AAA too powerfull

Even if both 1 and 2 are slim to zero, we still have a net negative impact on the overall game experience

So at best, its a slight hindrance to the game, and at worst, it wrecks the game

Why i ask would you want to implement this? It is a high risk with no rewards….

The long demonstration is to show that in a long battle (6 rounds+), AAA (@1/12) will prevail over OOB.
Hence, usually after the first few rounds, defending player will take AAA as casualty because OOB AAA will not fire anymore after first round.
So any player will think twice before taking them as casualty, since each AAA can still take 1 shot at 1/12 ( you can roll 1D12 and take a hit on a roll “1”, if you prefer.)
On first and second round, OOB are better.
On the third to the fifth round, OOB is similar.
But you get much more rolls against planes than OOB (and much “a continuous stress” for the attacking player.)

Your AAA and this one are two different ways of rationalizing AAA.
And I like both, for my part.

So which is it? Is your AAA improved from OOB? or weakened? im not sure you even know lol

But either way is a negative

Whether it is a weakened AAA or a stronger one, which weakens aircraft.

Add to this the fact that your AAA is very complicated compared to OOB

My extremely simple change to AAA defense does not affect aircraft, AT ALL

For example: Letting AAA defend on a 1 during normal combat, as a normal unit (no other OOB changes) actually slightly reduces the complexity of the game, while at the same time slightly enhancing the AAA unit (which this thread was created for) Most importantly, this change would not effect aircraft in anyway positive or negative.
It also would, if at all, slightly shift the balance towards the allies (which currently requires a bid) due to the few extra defense rolls at 1 that Calcutta, London and Moscow would recieve
This would in turn, if at all, reduce the bids in the global game

In summation, we would have a net, slight to moderate, positive gain on the overall game experience

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Or 1 AA preemptive strike from a defending cruiser. (This one change much more the tide, I think.)

vs. Roll one and that player can force the other player to lose any plane.

hmmm.  The first one is weaker, but the AA roll should be either attacker or defender IMO.

Yea that is a small change but fair for both sides.

That is one of the reason, if I drop something about AA and cruiser it will be the initial preemptive AA@1.
But, you should know that on a Battle simulator, if you oppose 60 IPCs worth of unit:

5 Cruisers on defense against 6 planes on attack: planes survives 75%/ CA 21%.
3 Battleships on defense against 6 planes on attack: planes 62% / BB 32%.
Battleship will prevail vs Cruiser.  But both still loose against fighters.

If you had 1AA fire at beginning for cruisers, now it is almost even combat: Fgt 49% / CA 48%
Battle calculator imply 6 rolls@1, but as the HR said it will be only 5@1, since there is only 5 cruisers. It means Fgt have more than 50% of survival and CA less than 48%.

It helps but 6 fighters will still be slightly better for the same cost than 5 Cruisers.
5 StrB vs 5 cruisers = 71% /21% survival.
With 1AAA shot: 43% / 51% chance of survival.

I found this more statically significant to give an even chance of survival for the same worth and value of unit.

And in all the scenarii, any “1” from cruiser doesn’t change anything, since it is all planes attack.

[Imperious Leader]

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

They get ONE roll at the start of combat for each cruiser. It is not the case that they get a roll against EVERY PLANE.

One freaking roll will not significantly effect plane buys. It will make cruisers worth their cost.

It will protect Italy from UK1 ( you will get 2 rolls). Also, it does not have to be preemptive. Just one extra roll for any player with cruiser

[baron Münchhausen]

So which is it? Is your AAA improved from OOB? or weakened? im not sure you even know lol

But either way is a negative

Whether it is a weakened AAA or a stronger one, which weakens aircraft.

On a short battle OOB will prevail (so planes will have much more impact on the first few round), since it base on the assumption that all AA fire in the first phase and no more after.

On a longer run, OOB is weaker (so planes will have lesser chance of survival but they got some better chance to mark a hit in the first few rounds).
And it is logical to think this, since planes are much longer expose on the battlefield.
More, it is around a much historically real 1/12 odds to survive against AA fire than 1/6.
(I still can not tell in which post I read it was around 10%.)
This AAA unit is HR to always fire against plane and nothing else.

Your AAA has simplicity of the game mechanics on his side, but it creates an hybrid AAA division able to fire at planes and everything else.
Let’s suppose a situation where the only plane was shut down on the opening phase.
Your AAA unit will continue firing against attacker, as any regular unit.
The other AAA unit will stop firing since their is no target for them, as an exclusive AA unit.
That is the big difference.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

They get ONE roll at the start of combat for each cruiser. It is not the case that they get a roll against EVERY PLANE.

One freaking roll will not significantly effect plane buys. It will make cruisers worth their cost.

It will protect Italy from UK1 ( you will get 2 rolls). Also, it does not have to be preemptive. Just one extra roll for any player with cruiser.

That would be an interesting option (but a slightly different than a regular first strike AA roll.)
This means that cruiser on first round will get 2 rolls:
1@1 against plane and
1@3 against any unit (attacker’s choice).

Will you chose between 3 moves or this first no preemptive shot against plane.
Or will you give both to cruiser?

[Imperious Leader]

1@1 against plane and
1@3 against any unit (attacker’s choice).

The Cruiser would either need to choose one, or obviously a stronger option is they get both.

I would choose one: either AA or 3 space, not both.

[baron Münchhausen]

cruiser at +1 move is not hard, and is an OOB rule in 1914.

It is a real incentive to add this to cruiser in Global.

But is it really a good incentive in 1942?

What can do cruiser wandering alone while the rest of the main fleet is at a slow 2 spaces pace.
It seems to me that overexposing cruiser on the front line give nothing.

Maybe for reinforcement situation when many ships are lost 5 sea-zone away.

It will only take 1 turn to joined both Cruisers fleet and a main crippled fleet: 3 spaces+2 spaces= 5 sea-zones.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

1@1 against plane and
1@3 against any unit (attacker’s choice).

The Cruiser would either need to choose one, or obviously a stronger option is they get both.

I would choose one: either AA or 3 space, not both.

In summary:
A- Attacking and defending cruiser hit a plane on “1”.
B- Defending cruiser get 1@1 AA preventive strike.
C- Defending cruiser get an additionnal 1@1 AA regular strike on first round.
D- Cruiser get 3 spaces move.
E- C+D.
F- A+B (I played 1942.2 with this HR).
G- B+D (as below)
H- Any other combination?

I found this:

Imperious Leader:
AS you may know Cruisers were the primary naval unit that were built for AA defense and id say (to keep it simple) they should have a free roll just like an AA gun against attacking enemy planes hitting at a 1. Plus they were built for speed and should move 3 (along with Carriers). AS you also know at Midway the Japs sent their faster Carriers ahead of the main body of slower ships so they can strike quickly and leave the area. The downside is they were not protected or supported by ships such as Cruisers to help shoot down planes as they prepared to launch into torpedo attacks.

Stats:  Cruisers cost 12, attack/ defend at 3, moves at 3 takes one hit.
If you want other ships battlecruisers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers i got some info for you as well.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

1@1 against plane and
1@3 against any unit (attacker’s choice).

The Cruiser would either need to choose one, or obviously a stronger option is they get both.

I would choose one: either AA or 3 space, not both.

IL,
do you have any idea about which single ship is a much historical AA platform between Cruiser and Battleship? Do you still agree about Cruiser as historical AA platform as quote in the last post?

Because, if, for sure, Cruiser are faster (so giving them A3D3M3C12).
Maybe it is BB the real AA platform (to the pleasure of Cmdr Jen), so it is them which need a little AAA punch?

[Imperious Leader]

In summary:
A- Each Attacking and defending cruiser hit a plane ( loss is choice of owning player) on “1” on the first roll only
B- Defending cruiser get 1@1 AA preventive strike.
C- Defending cruiser get an additional 1@1 AA regular strike on first round.
D- Cruiser get 3 spaces move.
E- C+D.
F- A+B (I played 1942.2 with this HR).
G- B+D (as below)
H- Any other combination?

Yes you said it well enough, but i modified A.

I found this:

Quote
Imperious Leader:
AS you may know Cruisers were the primary naval unit that were built for AA defense and id say (to keep it simple) they should have a free roll just like an AA gun against attacking enemy planes hitting at a 1. Plus they were built for speed and should move 3 (along with Carriers). AS you also know at Midway the Japs sent their faster Carriers ahead of the main body of slower ships so they can strike quickly and leave the area. The downside is they were not protected or supported by ships such as Cruisers to help shoot down planes as they prepared to launch into torpedo attacks.

Stats:  Cruisers cost 12, attack/ defend at 3, moves at 3 takes one hit.
If you want other ships battlecruisers, light cruisers, heavy cruisers i got some info for you as well.

Good digging, as you can see this is a very old issue stemming from AA50. Many threads on this sort of discussion.

IL,
do you have any idea about which single ship is a much historical AA platform between Cruiser and Battleship? Do you still agree about Cruiser as historical AA platform as quote in the last post?

The Cruiser’s job is two fold: Long range warship capable of operating for long periods and great distance. Second, to escort fast moving ships ( carriers or fast battleships and provide AA platform for their defense)

The long range would be the 3 space idea

Cruisers typically were large hulls, but to create greater speed they didn’t have large heavy guns. Instead all that deck real estate was devoted for smaller guns including AA’s. AS a % of the total space on the superstructure and deck, the Cruiser has easily the most AA guns. Of course, Musashi and some other BB’s got outfitted with improvements but they are the exceptions. The space was devoted to the biggest guns they could carry.

Because, if, for sure, Cruiser are faster (so giving them A3D3M3C12).
Maybe it is BB the real AA platform (to the pleasure of Cmdr Jen), so it is them which need a little AAA punch?

Jennifer has argued for some years for BB’s getting AA, but as a class of ships and looking at all navy’s in this regard, the claim does not hold much water.

Cruisers by and large had the most AA guns because they needed the lighter guns to keep their great speed and protect Carriers from aerial attacks.

[Jennifer]

@Imperious:

Just think of this scenario: Give cruisers 1 AA dice, now what is going to happen during EVERY game round 1 in global 1940?

They get ONE roll at the start of combat for each cruiser. It is not the case that they get a roll against EVERY PLANE.

One freaking roll will not significantly effect plane buys. It will make cruisers worth their cost.

It will protect Italy from UK1 ( you will get 2 rolls). Also, it does not have to be preemptive. Just one extra roll for any player with cruiser

Exactly.

Still, applying to Battleships in my mind is worth it far more than cruisers.  People already purchase cruisers, or maybe it’s just people I play?  No one I know buys mass quantities of battleships.

Generally, I only see the United States buy battleships and then, only until they have 3 or 4 of them to counter the Japanese (yes, that’s +2 or 3 battleships over 10 rounds of game play!  And some of that has to do with their 3 unit limit in the Pacific!)  I see Japan, England, Australia, India, the United States, Italy and sometimes Germany buy cruisers.  It’s not a stretch for me to imagine a battle with a total of 12-15 cruisers from both sides (9 for the US + 6 for Japan perhaps?)

So if you have a battle where Japan attacks the American fleet with 15 aircraft.  If the United States has a total of 3 Battleships, that’s 3 AA Gun rolls.  Attacking a single AA Gun unit gives the defender 3 AA Gun rolls!

[baron Münchhausen]

To Cmdr Jen,
about your BB problem,
if there is so few BB in your game, give them a little something that as some historical basis.
Instead of giving a non-historical AA, since Battleships were the big guns-carriers with the longer range over any other ships:
When fighting any ships and not just planes,
each BB get 1@1 additionnal attack & defense in first rnd against any of Sub, DD, CA, CV, BB. The player taking the hit choose his own casuality, including plane if he prefer. This hit is treated as a regular casuality.
So, it won’t give any limitation for the player’s which chose casuality.

What do you think about this?

[Jennifer]

Hmm…maybe.  An interesting thought.

I’ve played with rules that say Battleships hit on a 5 or less, damaged Battleships hit on a 2 or less.  But at the time, we also paid 1d6 IPC to repair battleships, it wasn’t free if you were located close enough to a friendly naval base (as defined as being in a sea zone adjacent to one.)

The battleships still only hit on a 4 or less on offshore bombardments, but it gave them significantly higher punch against enemy warships.  With their two hit ability, they were virtually immune to being attacked by submarines (the damage took effect after the battle, so damaged or not, for THAT battle where they got damaged, they stayed at 5 or less) and it reduced the instances of “cheap shots” where 2 fighters would attack a battleship and sink it with an average loss of 1 fighter.  Of course, this was AAR days where there were two hit battleships and I think they just auto repaired on your next turn back then.

Too many rule sets. lol.

Maybe I’ll go back to 5 or less battleships in my games.  We had some really nifty rules like that.  Japanese and German battleships took 3 hits to sink (because they were super battleships) but cost 10 IPC more (30 IPC instead of 20 IPC so it was the same cost per hit ratio) etc, but American carriers could carry 3 fighters (because you could LITERALLY balance 3 fighters on them) and cost 24 IPC - it was a way to reduce the amount of American carriers.  My friends and I are HUGE navy fanatics in these games, sometimes to the point we blind ourselves to the ground combat.

Hey, now there’s an idea for Larry!  He has a Pacific game, why not an Atlantic game but instead of land you need to grab, its control of sea lanes with virtually no land on the board (Eastern Sea Board, Western Europe and England with a Iceland, Greenland, Ireland and parts of Canada being the only land masses from which to use aircraft)

I’d buy 5 copies of that in a heartbeat!  (I buy 5 copies of games.  I have too much money, I know.  I don’t even OPEN them most of the time)

[baron Münchhausen]

Hi Cmdr Jen,
a BB@5 and 1BB@4 + 1@1 is very different, since you can get two hits in the first round.

I’m thinking about it, and heard that many US admirals feared the Yamato and forbid a direct combat with ships against it.

Maybe this BB @1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
I think that can inspire some kind of fear of risking a direct shot without being able to be in range of the BB group.
Don’t you think it could be more historically grounded, seems you like navy battle?

[Jennifer]

Yes, but you are referring to all battleships, I was referring to only German/Japanese battleships.

I am starting to think more along the lines of each fleet having a special unit that is similar to what they could do in WWII.

ie:

• Germany/Japan have battleships that, when not damaged, attack at 5 or less
• Italy/France have fast destroyers that attack at 2, defend at 1, move 3
• America has super carriers that can carry 3 fighter/tactical bombers or 1 strategic bomber (because of that battle soon after Pearl where they launched, what was it, B17s? off an AC over Japan.)
• England/ANZAC get improved shipyards technology as it is now - it just isn’t a technology, it’s what they get.

Since Italy/France rarely have ships ANYWAY and what they do have usually ends up being coral reefs for the fishes to live in at the bottom of the ocean, I don’t see they need anything, I just didn’t want to leave them out.  Could just leave their destroyers as is, but I could see a break out Italian destroyer making a run for Brazil being an issue for the Allies.  Maybe swap it so it’s ATT 1, DEF 2 that way it can snipe at enemy shipping.  The French one would probably be  that destroyer they start with by Africa racing to Australia or up to England as the player sees fit.  Dunno, that’s what makes it interesting.

Then nothing would need AA Guns.  Battleships for the axis would, essentially, have it built into their increased damage output.  Since America was heavily focused on carriers, USS Enterprise anyone? we’d give them a bonus there instead - and a good bonus too, imho.  England would make up for not having AA Guns on their ships by having cheaper ships - reflecting the reduced cost of not putting massive anti-aircraft screens on their oats.

[baron Münchhausen]

Do you ever read my post about carriers ?:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30262.0#new

You get some comparison between US carriers. It was based on 1942 carrier.

I don’t want to derail this post on AAA. We can discuss more about ships on that one about carriers.