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!

Edit: blaah

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.

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:

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.