Anti Air

RYANWEN · May 2nd 2019, 11:02am

Anti Air has been thought useful. But it only does defend and does not attack planes. Which makes it very frustrating when enemy planes attack you anti air. I think it should attack planes

It will put 5 damage points to attack and the defend point should remain 5 for defending
This way the enemy has no choice when attacking ground units nearby the anti air unit.

Any comments on it.
Now criticize.

VorlonFCW · May 2nd 2019, 12:37pm

It would look rather silly for an Anti Air unit to jump into the sky and chase down a plane. This isn't a surface to air missile, but a heavy machine gun.

As a part of combat the planes attack and the AA returns fire, as do all units that have an air defense rating. The planes will take damage from the AA every time they attack or patrol overhead. You likely need more AA units.

If you want something to chase down planes, you can build planes of your own.

RYANWEN · May 2nd 2019, 12:39pm

VorlonFCW wrote:

It would look rather silly for an Anti Air unit to jump into the sky and chase down a plane. This isn't a surface to air missile, but a heavy machine gun.

As a part of combat the planes attack and the AA returns fire, as do all units that have an air defense rating. The planes will take damage from the AA every time they attack or patrol overhead. You likely need more AA units.

If you want something to chase down planes, you can build planes of your own.

It is not"Jump up into the air" It is shoot 'em down from the ground.

VorlonFCW · May 2nd 2019, 1:03pm

So you can only do that when the plane is close, like it is coming in for an attack

RYANWEN · May 2nd 2019, 1:04pm

It can even do it when it is close?

Restrisiko · May 2nd 2019, 2:14pm

To understand why AA works as it does, do not confuse this game with a simulation, but remember that it works like a board game, so to speak.

Fights between ground and air are mathematically always a melee, but the fight is always initiated by the planes.
Why?..

..if conversely the AA would start fire on its own the attacked planes would of course shoot back -- so there would be no change in combat calculation as it is now.
But planes would be in advantage because only the AA would attack but not the other ground forces.
That means each ground stacks with an AA would be in danger when planes on flyby will be attacked by the AA but the Anti-Air-Value of the other ground units will not influence.
So you could use planes in skillful flight routes to fight different stacks with much less own losses.

Also it could be some irritations from "invisible battles" if, for example, an AA shoots from outside into a patrol circle.

atreas1 · May 2nd 2019, 2:23pm

Add to these the fact that, since the AA use defensive fire against planes, it has a big implication on SBDE. It is much better that the AA defend (and not attack).

Restrisiko · May 2nd 2019, 6:47pm

.. and more, if AA, or more worse even all units with anti-air-value, would start attacks against planes that overfly, a skilled and active Air Force general could cause damage with his planes far more than now ..

.. currently one full assault in patrol modus per hour as maximum, as well as with upgraded airbase and close to the front even a little more in direct attack with the higher risk of vulnerability when refueling near to the front.
But if, on the other hand, AA attacked, he could shoot back endlessly per hour ..

Hans A. Pils · May 15th 2019, 2:56pm

I suppose what RYANWEN actually wants (or should have proposed) is to give AA a range, like artillery. Has been proposed many times, and I personally think that would be nice. But certainly not easy to implement - having in mind that planes move much faster, so the game would be much more busy checking which plane stacks are within the range of which AA unit. So probably the mechanism that's used for artillery can't be applied so easily to AA.
Also it would be some work to restore the balance between air and ground after such a change. In my opinion air vs. ground fights are balanced quite well since the last balancing update and there are a lot of other imperfections we should focus on.

Restrisiko · May 15th 2019, 3:55pm

Hans A. Pils wrote:

..
..to give AA a range, like artillery. Has been proposed many times, and I personally think that would be nice.
..

..ok -- but why and what for would that be nice?
Which advantage would it bring except the benefits already mentioned in this thread in favor of the airplanes?

Maybe someone who thinks that it'll be nice could explain in details why it would be nice (nicer then it is now

) with an AA range, and also explain how it should work that it not has much moore advantage for Air Forces than for Ground Forces?

Hans A. Pils · May 15th 2019, 4:50pm

I think it's obvious what would be nice about AA having a range. And why you say that would give an advantage to Air Forces I fully don't get (of course the planes wouldn't defend against a range attack from a AA gun... as I said "like artillery").

Anyhow we don't need to discuss this, because I also oppose this idea. Not only because of the as mentioned bigger implementation effort, but also because efficiency of AA against planes at travel altitude was very low in reality... additionally it would be annoying to always have to watch your planes so you don't let them travel over the range zone of a hostile AA gun by mistake. So implementing this would have further difficulties.

I only wanted to say that that would be the only imaginable way to let AA attack planes - as an answer to this thread.

RYANWEN · May 16th 2019, 1:34pm

Hans A. Pils wrote:

I suppose what RYANWEN actually wants (or should have proposed) is to give AA a range, like artillery. Has been proposed many times, and I personally think that would be nice. But certainly not easy to implement - having in mind that planes move much faster, so the game would be much more busy checking which plane stacks are within the range of which AA unit. So probably the mechanism that's used for artillery can't be applied so easily to AA.
Also it would be some work to restore the balance between air and ground after such a change. In my opinion air vs. ground fights are balanced quite well since the last balancing update and there are a lot of other imperfections we should focus on.

Good point, having a better range like artillery would be what i actually meant...

bigboss_ironfist · May 16th 2019, 2:04pm

Military aircraft will move extremely faster than ground AA units (even on patrol types) especially that the AA equipment needs to be hauled, unless motorized.

AA guns are essentially a defensive unit and will always be such, that is the only logical conclusion to AA guns to be made as an offensive unit, and that this thread is useless.

atreas1 · May 16th 2019, 2:11pm

Now, game mechanisms is one thing and reality is another. AA weapons were NOT used to aim at the aircrafts, so their speed is completely irrelevant. They were creating a wall of fire in the horizon, and even the idea that you could have slow (comparatively) dive bombers in low altitude "patrolling" over them is a bit funny.

Note the quotation marks in "patrolling". It means that the enemy planes are patrolling without completing the patrol cycle, which means they never attack (but perhaps they are only protecting their own land stack from attack). Then AA cannot do any damage to the planes that are over them, which contradicts both realism and logic - but the problem is not in the way AA function in the game, but in the way patrol is implemented.

RYANWEN · May 16th 2019, 2:11pm

People have different opinions toward things, some people think having it like artillery is good. Let them, let the game thrive and prosper with better ideas.

Anti Air

Anti Air

VorlonFCW wrote:

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Share

Similar Threads