Perfect AA system

  • Moderators

    @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.

  • 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.

  • Moderators

    @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?

  • 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.

  • Moderators

    @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".

  • Moderators

    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.

  • Moderators Admin

    @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.

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

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

  • Moderators

    @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.

  • 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.

  • @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.

Log in to reply