Perfect AA system

[simon33]

I think to get this to work the way I think it should, which would be to require the AA Gun to be present for SBR but to still have individualised fire per facility and also only shoot at bombers, not escorts or interceptors, that would require code changes to the engine. This is not about to happen with the generally available version being stuck at 1.9-13066 for a very long time. I would probably also keep the limits of 3 shots per AA Gun and 1 shot per enemy plane.

Of course, it could work fine in v5 where there is only one possible facility if there was a desire to do so. I guess not many people care that much for that map though.

[Cernel]

@simon33 said in Perfect AA system:

Of course, it could work fine in v5 where there is only one possible facility if there was a desire to do so. I guess not many people care that much for that map though.

I can only speak for the lobby, and I can say I doubt there is more than 1 game of that per month. Does anyone know if the official Axis&Allies Online is doing good? I really wonder about that, because around here seems like nobody likes v5 (I don't either).

[simon33]

I don't really understand why revised is so much more popular than v5. The former is really just an inferior version of the latter as far as I can see. Directed tech maybe?

[Panther]

@Cernel said in Perfect AA system:

I can only speak for the lobby, and I can say I doubt there is more than 1 game of that per month. Does anyone know if the official Axis&Allies Online is doing good? I really wonder about that, because around here seems like nobody likes v5 (I don't either).

It looks like it is doing good at a targeted group of A&A players missing GTO and (most of them) not even being aware of the existence of TripleA or related forums. However it is not a 1:1 implementation of the boardgame but has some specific alterations that makes it more a variant of 1942.2 instead of the original.

You wouldn't believe it, but for many players AA1942 Online is the "long awaited solution to finally digitally play Axis&Allies on the PC (online or offline)".

[Cernel]

@Panther Maybe it is a lot self fueling. Maybe most people play Revised (OOB) because that is the only basic simple map that it is played a lot, which means you can join the lobby any time and find someone to play with, wasting very little time searching for. As now, if you would want to play v5, I guess you would most likely fail to find anyone to play with even if waiting for 1 hour.

Could be that if we would remove all basic "WWII" games except only v5, folks would move on playing that, instead, if faced with the choice of either that or nothing "official".

I guess so, if it is true that the ex GTO have moved playing 1942 2nd, not having the Revised option anymore, while here in TripleA they stick to Revised, instead, looks like.

p.s.: I think 1942 2nd Edition should be called 1942.1, rather, since first edition would be 1942.0, then.

[simon33]

I think it's very daft that it's officially called 2nd Edition. What's the first edition? Classic, which was also second edition (with something slightly different as a first edition). Shouldn't it be called fifth or (preferably) sixth edition?

What is GTO?

And you're probably right.

[Cernel]

@simon33 GTO is the acronym of those that detained the right to the official name before the current Online.

What makes 1942 the "second" is that Spring 1942 was the first edition ever that started in the Spring of 1942, as all the preceding editions used to start in the Summer of 1942 (if @Panther confirms).

The first edition of Spring 1942 is called "v4", here. Practically:

first edition: absent
second edition: Classic
third edition: Classic 3rd Edition
fourth edition: Revised
fifth edition: v4 (Spring 1942 First Edition)
sixth edition: v5 (1942 Second Edition)

You can see there is not LHTR, as that never was a new edition (it was considered updating the OOB ruleset to LHTR, but that was never actually done), but always remained a variant of Revised, and also there is not v3, as that is a parallel edition, not something in between of Revised and v4 (as TripleA incorrectly lists it), as well as there is no v6, as that is a parallel edition, not the successor of v5 (as TripleA incorrectly lists it).

[simon33]

Is there any actual distinction in the start date?

[Cernel]

@simon33 What do you mean? All those games are so unhistorical, that, if you mean the setup (ownerships and units disposition), there is very little point trying to find it. In Classic you can find the timeline reference in the rulebook, that makes clear the game is supposed to start when the Axis is at the high point of its expansion, which means late in the summer of 1942, if not even the autumn.

[simon33]

What I mean is that it's non-sensical to say that it is different because it has a Spring (presumably northern) start date if there's no actual discernible difference in the setup.

[Cernel]

@simon33 Well, the setups are not exactly the same, and who decides when they are different enough? Besides, there's no point confronting in the moment the maps are different (different territories and connections). I suppose you would not have anything against that if all the previous ones were 1939 and v4 was the first one ever in 1942, so why the season or month not, while the year yes?

[simon33]

Well the year has a pretty big effect on the at war powers. Saying 1941 in AA50 is a little cheeky because everyone is at war at the start and that only applied for less than a month of that year. Still, I understand the desire to do so and it's a good way to distinguish the setups.

I guess I'd just be happier with calling it 2nd Ed if it was "Spring 1942 Second Edition". Dropping the Spring makes it quite awkward to my way of thinking.

[Cernel]

@simon33 Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. @Panther you happen to know why dropping the "Spring" part going from 1st to 2nd Edition of 1942? I agree that it should have been called "Spring 1942 2nd Edition".

[Cernel]

Anyways, here there are a lot of guesses going on from my part, to be honest. Maybe the fact that was "first edition" has nothing to do with being the first in the "spring", but just the first one having the year actually spelled in the title itself. That would also make more sense, considering dropping the "Spring".

I should have made more clear that a lot of what I said are guesses or partial guesses, on my part. But if v4 would be the "first edition" just because the first one having the 1942 in the name, that would not make a lot of sense, as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Revised were all in 1942 too.

Also, my edition listing is not official at all, past the 3rd. Revised is unofficially known as the 4th Edition, but officially it is just known as Revised.

[Panther]

@Cernel said in Perfect AA system:

@simon33 Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. @Panther you happen to know why dropping the "Spring" part going from 1st to 2nd Edition of 1942? I agree that it should have been called "Spring 1942 2nd Edition".

I can only guess that it maybe was for "better" distinction.

[simon33]

So back to topic, would the changes proposed in either of these feature requests get it to work the way I want?

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1079/multiple-aa-attachments-per-unit
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/417/further-expand-enhance-the-aa-xml-options-for-tons-of-upside/3

Doesn't seem so to me. Maybe I should have posted this in "Feature Requests".

[Cernel]

@simon33 If you are thinking to do everything with AA attacks, since you can use those to target, I see that as sort of a hack, and, anyways, that would not work, because if your transport planes just cannot be targeted by some units and have no power value, then you could stay there doing battle forever, nobody hitting.

As I said, what I strongly suggest doing is having transport planes (or any air) as infrastructures, but either changing the program or adding a property so that if you are left with attacking air infrastructures alone, they are not captured, but just remain in the territory like when you retreat air unit, and you can move them for their remaining movement, during NCM (if it is v3, at least). Especially in the moment air infrastructures are captured even when you retreat, I cannot see the current behaviour as sensible.

[simon33]

I'm not specifically thinking about this change for the purposes of dealing with air transports. I did indeed set them to be infrastructures which are destroyed on capture by the way (edit mode fix if this happens).

I'm thinking of if there's a way to get rid of the stupid inbuilt AA guns in Global and v5. Works fine in v5 but Global it revives the old strategic bombing bug, i.e. all bombers targeted together. Which is not acceptable.

[tinfoil666]

@Cernel

For WWII scenarios, and thinking about the way the 88s were used in reality (ignoring their use in the late-model panzers), it would be nice if:

• AA were treated like any other unit for purchase, movement, etc, except as below:

• on defense, AA acts as flak/air defense if any attacking aircraft are present, and as anti-tank/inf artillery if no aircraft are present, at start of defensive fire phase (SBR is just a special type of attack, so AA would be 'flak mode'). No input required from defending player.

• on offense, the attacking player has to specify the default mode of the AA guns (flak vs anti-tank) during combat movement, similar to how bombers have to select 'bomb vs attack' in most current maps (I have no idea how complex the coding would be for this, but existing bomber behavior shows that this is possible). If the Attacker wants some of each, move them in two separate moves, just like we do now with bombers attacking and bombing a single territory today.

• In 'flak mode', AA hits more rarely (1/6 in most maps), but cherry-picks aircraft only for casualties

• In 'anti-tank mode', AA behaves like Artillery in most maps, with better hit chance (say 2/6), but allows full defender-choice on casualties.

• If all defending aircraft are eliminated but attack still underway, then AA is in 'anti-tank' thereafter.

So, in effect, AA would just be artillery with a special 'anti-air' mode available.

Cost, cargo size, movement rates, and combat strengths would need to be balanced carefully. If a player wants to buy a bunch of AA rather than 'normal' artillery, then it should be an option, but come with a cost premium. I would think that a slightly higher cost and the fact that they would still count as a placement should prevent unreasonable AA unit spamming.