Adding range to Anti air units.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Adding range to Anti air units.

      Do you agree that AA units should have Range to interdict planes? 20
      1.  
        Yes (17) 85%
      2.  
        No (3) 15%
      I would like to raise the issue regarding Anti air units not having a area defence feature, like normal artillery has a attack range, or airplanes having a patrol range.

      The reason i am raising this issue, is because i have noticed that stacked units with anti air in them are not actually shooting at planes? I am not exactly sure about this, i noticed a explosion effect go off on air units near
      other units, however did not notice any damage on the planes or any efficient damage on air units.

      Anti air is basically artillery, like the german 88 mm flak cannon, used both in tanks for ground to ground, and
      ground to air. These cannons have a range, and as thus are used to shoot down bombers far up in the sky.
      Now why is it that anti air in this game does not have a range?

      I have come across a massive problem, as i have attempted to invade another continent with landing troops only to learn that my landing convoys were being sunk unchallenged by enemy bombers, flying overhead my AA stacked units.

      In a normal scenario, these planes would have a hard time flying overhead or would take serious damage even be destroyed by ground anti air.

      I have noticed that Airplanes only get damaged when they directly and specifically bomb a stacked unit with AA in them.

      So how are AA units supposed to be used effectively if they cannot provide area Anti air interdiction capability?
      ie, they cannot block an area from enemy bombers?

      Eventually, it took me 2 weeks to invade a continent, as the other player was bombing my landing troops unchallenged even though on his continent, some of my troops got through, AND had AA capability, however did not fire at the bombers flying overhead.

      Here is a example image of what i am referring to:

      In the image above, the enemy player is sending bombers to sink landing craft unchallenged, as they slowly make their way on land, ... the 34 tank unit in " Caico " has 14 - lvl 4 Anti air units in the stack.
      The bombers are flying directly overhead and not taking damage.


      These AA units SHOULD be shooting at those bombers, within range, and, if i were the staff or dev team, i would add a Flak explosion animation to the bombers for cosmetic, but awesome purpose. :)

      here is an example of the flak effects that i am referring to :


      This would make AA unis effective in their role on providing what they are indended to provide, anti aircraft capability. I noticed other steam rolling players build up their nuclear bomber arsenal, bombing away at their
      enemies at will, because the other players ( even though they had AA units ) did not actually shoot down the
      Nuclear bombers. This i believe is a large issue in the game and should be fixed.

      Thanks! :thumbsup:

      Edit: blaah

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Bionoman ().

    • I have found AA to be of no usefulness, Other then being a waste of research and construction, time and materials. They are slow moving aerial targets at best that can't even defend a single point stationary position. Best to do as I have, forget them and put your time and effort into fighters - at least they do more then wait to be bombed before they inevitably fall out of the sky from a Tac. bomber onslaught.
      Killings my business, and business is good!
    • AA is usefull, they only defend when getting attacked. That either by a direct attack or when planes patrol over them. When theres a unit next to it not containing AA and planes attack that stack when the stack next to it does contain AA the AA is indeed useless. But only then. AA must be packed in every stack. Which makes them obsolete becouse apart from militia they are the slowest unit (weird becouse irl artillery is heavier and less cumbersome so in fact should be slower) AA can be higly effective if you add 6 to 9 of them in a stack but lvl3 and lower are allot less effective.
      The same counts for cruisers, those should be the AA naval variant, though they have higher AA values then the rest of the ships, its the same thing. I totally agree that Tacs are OP. Once can not do anything when chosing to only go groundforces with a interceptor combo. Even ints have a hard time getting rid of those pesky mosquitos. Increasing the AA dmg just a little bit and giving it a simmilar effect radius as artillery would not only be more realistic, it would also balance things out more. I suggest to do the same thing for Cruisers, that way cruisers will not be useless anymore.
      If this is dont then interceptors will not have to be tinkered with.

      But do keep the same specs for TACS. If lowering those specs and implementing this as well then AA would suddenly become OP
    • Alphared wrote:

      I have found AA to be of no usefulness
      @Alphared Here's something to try: place a fighter CAP over your high-value assets, with current level AA units on the ground. I have found the combination of fighter CAP and AA to be very effective against attacking TB wings. With adequate AA and fighter CAP, I would expect an attacking stack of 20 TB squadrons to lose 3 to 5 squadrons per attack. FYI, I am a big fan of self-propelled AA units -- I need something that can keep up with my attacks, and the conventional towed AA units are too damn slow.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      Alphared wrote:

      I have found AA to be of no usefulness
      @Alphared Here's something to try: place a fighter CAP over your high-value assets, with current level AA units on the ground. I have found the combination of fighter CAP and AA to be very effective against attacking TB wings. With adequate AA and fighter CAP, I would expect an attacking stack of 20 TB squadrons to lose 3 to 5 squadrons per attack. FYI, I am a big fan of self-propelled AA units -- I need something that can keep up with my attacks, and the conventional towed AA units are too damn slow.
      Self-propelled are useful in that they are at least a moving target, but I think fighters are the better defender over AA's.

      I am running some ideas through a few games now. AA/M-AA are showing little worth even in direct attacks. I had half of a heavily fortified NZ wiped in less then a day from TB on carriers. I may have to face the fact that, as of now, there is no defense against the tactic.
      Killings my business, and business is good!
    • AA is strong in this game, stationary AA was and is in this game designed to defend a province. Mobile AA is what is needed for defending troops on the move and of course fighters do well also. I am not overly hyped by the idea of extending the range of AA as it may make them to powerful, but if the right plan were implemented I could see it being useful.

      "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war"




      "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy."Friedrich Nietzsche
    • AA units are not doing what their design meant them to do.
      AA is supposed to provide area interdiction from aircraft.
      Meaning airplanes should be kept away from entering an area that has Anti aircraft in it.

      What use is it to have anti aircraft guns and defences if they only defend 1 Tiny dot, and that being stacked units.
      Or only engage planes that literally patrol overhead.

      AA guns should, and must have a area range around it, that would engage enemy planes on sight. This is how AA guns work, and what their intention is made to do, IRL, In Games, and in every aspect of reality.

      In this modern era, military Jets and bombers Strictly *(DO NOT)* fly over other countries because of Radar and Missile technology, theres a reason its called " Anti aircraft area denial " and they all have ranges.

      The argument that AA is strong in this game, but does not provide area defence, makes zero sense.


      No offence, but your personal preference of using airplanes in game should not be the reason for voting.
      Logically anti air units in this game should have a range around them just like planes have a patrol range and damage everything in them.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Bionoman ().

    • Bionoman wrote:

      In the modern era, military Jets and bombers Strictly *(DO NOT)* fly over other countries because of Radar and Missile, and they all have ranges.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

      This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Bionoman wrote:

      In the modern era, military Jets and bombers Strictly *(DO NOT)* fly over other countries because of Radar and Missile, and they all have ranges.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19
      This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.
      well yeah, those battles involved destroying Sam batteries, ... i mean technology at the time could only go that far, missiles can be avoided with countermeasures and chaff, ... The priority target still were sam sites, as obviously, they provide the defences against aircraft <_< ?

      Wiki : " IAF aircraft carried electronic countermeasures pods to foil radar tracking. " -

      still, ( Modern ) i mean modern ground to air missiles surely are a threat, like russian S200 missiles that can reach 300 km or even more, Now its modernized to s500 that can reach up to god knows how far, and 9K333 cheap modernized Manpad replacing the feared Igla. Still pose huge threats to countries like America that operate mainly through airforce.

      Russian widely used BUK, useful, but getting outdated was produced in 1970 - 1980, still used today is the "sams" you are referring to, they are old, and need modernizing.



      :)

      I mean, even America currently is investing in Laser technology to shoot down at medium range planes and or missiles.
      Even railguns can be modified to fire at incoming planes at huge distances. Yes, Railguns :



      And lasers:


      Fun fact:
      Display Spoiler
      They all have RANGE :D

      The post was edited 7 times, last by Bionoman ().

    • In the other thread someone commented "These AA guns couldn't reach 70km like CoW artillery"

      Of course typical WW2 artillery couldn't reach nearly that far either, so...:

      M-30: Range - 11.8 km , HE charge - 3.67 kg
      leFH-18/40: Range - 12.3 km , HE charge - 1.59 kg
      M101: Range - 11.2 km , HE charge - 2.18 kg

      - quora.com/Whose-long-range-art…ern-Allies-or-the-Soviets (interesting thread about the related topic)
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Bionoman wrote:

      In the modern era, military Jets and bombers Strictly *(DO NOT)* fly over other countries because of Radar and Missile, and they all have ranges.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19
      This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.
      Operation Rolling Thunder didn't demonstrate much beyond the value of an overwhelming technological advantage imo.
    • CityOfAngels wrote:

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Bionoman wrote:

      In the modern era, military Jets and bombers Strictly *(DO NOT)* fly over other countries because of Radar and Missile, and they all have ranges.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.
      Operation Rolling Thunder didn't demonstrate much beyond the value of an overwhelming technological advantage imo.
      It wasn't a question of superiority, simply flying over a country with radar and missiles.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

    • CityOfAngels wrote:

      Didn't they pretty much kill the SAM sites from extreme range (with cruise missiles and such) before flying over them?
      Depends. I heard of a story where two EA-18G Growlers were nearly shot down by a SAM, but knocked out the radar just in time. Another story was that a helicopter was shot down by a SAM in ex-Yugoslavia so A-10 Warthog's had to go looking for it. So it varies.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

    • Guys, I know more specifics about American anti-SAM tactics than I do other countries', but I would imagine other air forces' tactics are similar. The basic technique is that the USAAF and USN employ a team of specialized aircraft, at least one of which is the primary detection platform, one or more of which serve as "bait" for the SAMs to reveal themselves, and one or more of which are armed with radar-signal-homing missiles. When the bait plane entices the SAM site and/or its accompanying radar site to turn on its active radar, the detection plane picks up the signal and determines the location, the bait plane engages in extreme evasive maneuvers, and the attack planes close to within missile range of the SAM and/or radar sites and fire their homing missiles. The USAAF pioneered the tactics in the mid-1960s, after the Soviet Union equipped North Vietnam with the then-latest generation of Soviet AA radar and SAMs. If you want to read more, just google "Wild Weasel," and you will find reams of online material.
    • Im no expert, i was just pointing out that AA needs a range circle in the game, just as the new thread added requesting strategic bombers to have higher ranges.


      As you may know, those planes cost resources. Strategic bombers should have a larger range than missiles, specifically to avoid them. I dont see any unit having advantage over V2 rockets and nukes, and think it would best be the Strategic bombers job to have advantage over those.