AA50: Rockets AD

Imperious Leader

Piston fighters can shoot down V-1’s

Nothing can shoot down a V-2

The game can only account for one type of rocket, and the V-2 is really in a class of its own and more clearly a ‘rocket’ I would think none of these can be negated. Techs should not invalidate other techs. To me thats not the intent of the design.

allboxcars

@Imperious:

Piston fighters can shoot down V-1’s

Not all piston fighters could and I believe the RAF found the jet fighters to be even more effective than piston fighters in this role… to the point that perhaps a house rule should allow one to act as an AA gun does against SBR.

@Imperious:

Nothing can shoot down a V-2

Well I would think rocket technology would embrace the range of weapons and not just the more advanced ones.

@Imperious:

Techs should not invalidate other techs. To me thats not the intent of the design.

Well given that the tug-of-war between attack and defense has been driven by technology since somebody first put a handle on a cutting tool and somebody else picked up a crude shield, that seems to be the point of weapon development….

OK so then radar shouldn’t give any bonus to shoot down or invalidate long range AC?
How do you see heavy bombers and increased industrial production working without one invalidating the other?

Imperious Leader

OK so then radar shouldn’t give any bonus to shoot down or invalidate long range AC?
How do you see heavy bombers and increased industrial production working without one invalidating the other?

Each technology can always make a original unit better, It does not deflate the abilities of another. Of course HB and having better production efficiency are cases where both bombers and factories have greater uses, but in this case they dont directly deny the abilities of the other. The damage potentially from bombers is still the same.

The games design does not process any aspect where: “hey i got rockets, so your other tech is now modified by the fact that i have this weapon”

Radar should only ADD to the ability of AA guns to shoot planes, or provide a defensive benefit like the ability to scramble fighters from adjacent territories to defend the SBR target with interceptors.

AS for the capabilities of the English jet aircraft.

The RAF initially reserved the aircraft to counter the V-1 flying bomb threat with No. 616’s Meteors seeing action for the first time on 27 July 1944 with three aircraft active over Kent. After some problems, especially with jamming guns, the first two V1 “kills” occurred on 4 August. The Meteor accounted for 14 flying bombs. The anti-V1 missions of 27 July 1944 were the Meteor’s (and the Royal Air Force’s) first operational jet combat missions.

14 kills of over 5,000 V1’s sent ( about 2300 were shot down by non jet planes) does not make any case for Jets as a superior vehicle to destroy ‘rockets’ At least to model any potential modifier for these planes shows no research to validate that modifier. Not to mention the V-2 had no counter weapon.

allboxcars

@Imperious:

Each technology can always make a original unit better, It does not deflate the abilities of another.

Well then IF that were the case, there is serious need for a house rule or two since in real life technology does not fall into nice neat improvements that do not effect other technologies… much like how long range AC enhances the paratrooper technology.

And we’re not discussing “deflating” rockets but countering them where in the OOB there is no counter-measure or defence.
And you can discuss which rocket we’re countering all you want but there may be no right answer and I think it all comes down to should there be a 1:6 chance of defending?

But then again it’s just thrown out there for general discussion and consideration eh?

Good thing we’re in the house rule section otherwise I’d be wondering how that radar should permit interceptors in Normandy to protect Berlin from Russian SBR…. LOL

As for the Meteor, IMFO its limited kills reflect (a) limited numbers and (b) recurring gun problems, the latter not inherent in this tech breakthru.
Missile interception requires speed… and ain’t that what jet engines provide?

Imperious Leader

there is serious need for a house rule or two since in real life technology does not fall into nice neat improvements that do not effect other technologies… much like how long range AC enhances the paratrooper technology.

But in the GAME they do in fact follow a path that does not negate the benefits of other techs. To all of a sudden change this does not seem consistent with the designers intent. LH clearly did not make his technologies so that they can be played like poker with one hand beating another. Of course realistically its the other way around, but again the FMG ideal is to be able to plug and play with the existing OOB all of these new pieces and ideas…just add, not reduce or alter existing rules. That would be reserved for just house rules.

I figure this thread had some relationship to the new pieces coming out, but if its just “hey whats a better rule for rockets?” then even so to model 14 kills by one type of plane and hold that as a greater efficiency than the 2,000 kills by piston fighters for the last year of the war is not correct modeling approach.

What if one jet fighter took out a V-1? would you then take this as proof that Jets do a better job at taking out a V-1?

Then on a few more months, the V-2 appears and again nothing can touch them. Clearly no rule should be made with respect to rockets to provide a interception modifier for Jet fighters against them.

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

allboxcars

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

:?
It makes sense for any ol’ 10 IPC fighter - without a rare and random tech breakthru - to have a 33% lethality against the invincible V2 but granting jet fighters a 17% lethality goes against the spirit of the game?

Anyway, IMO one can argue that the jet fighter does not give you an effective AD against the rocket tech on the grounds of how the Meteor historically performed in WW2 (although it raises the issue are we just repeating WW2 instead of re-playing / exploring what-might-have-beens).

But - again IMO - to play the heresy card and say that LH didn’t intend for any tech to give an edge against another tech… well in that case then radar should not work to shoot down jet fighters, long range AC, heavy bombers or paratroop-laden bombers.
And there definitely is no room in any rule set for ASW breakthrus that diminish the advantages of the super sub breakthru… well, the list goes on and seems out of place.

Imperious Leader

It makes sense for any ol’ 10 IPC fighter - without a rare and random tech breakthru - to have a 33% lethality against the invincible V2 but granting jet fighters a 17% lethality goes against the spirit of the game?

The rule comes from AAE verbatim. I was not talking about jet fighters, but normal fighters involved in air defense to SBR.

IN the case of jets these would defend at 3 and attack at 2 if used as escorts. So in both cases they are +1 vs the side w/o jets

allboxcars

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

@Imperious:

The rule comes from AAE verbatim. I was not talking about jet fighters, but normal fighters involved in air defense to SBR.

Ummm do you have a special version of AAE? :wink:

OK if you meant SBR instead of rockets then your point is clearer… although AAE limits interception to the target territory which some house rules would extend dramatically! :-o

Imperious Leader

The OOB rules for AAE describe fighter escorts and defense.

Jet fighters is another matter altogether, not in AAE

I was talking ONLY about how it was done in that game, while ADDING the part of jet fighters so they have an advantage by a factor of 1 in both cases.

allboxcars

@Imperious:

The OOB rules for AAE describe fighter escorts and defense.

Jet fighters is another matter altogether, not in AAE

I was talking ONLY about how it was done in that game, while ADDING the part of jet fighters so they have an advantage by a factor of 1 in both cases.

uh yeah but your post actually referenced rocket attacks which do not appear in AAE, verbatim or otherwise, hence my confusion

@Imperious:

But fighters defending in the target of a rocket attack, could be given a roll of 2 or less for each plane. That could make sence.

AA50: Rockets AD

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

AA50 National Advantage Cards

[AA50] Updating Anniversary to Modern Standards

[AA50 & AA42.2] Fixed Cost Techs + Tech Expansion

Imperious Leader Pimps your AA50 game in two pages or less:

AA50: House Rule for those starved for playing pieces

AA50 Enhanced

AA50 Variant Setup Shades of Grey

Need help with AA50e

34

17.0k

39.3k

1.7m