Are AA Guns worth buying? In this video I try to answer that question. Contango's RU-vid Channel: / @contango3439 The odds calculator: aacalc.freezingblue.com/ www.axisandallies.org/
I was thinking of a house rule that allowed AA guns to defend on a 1. They were used at times in history against infantry as basically a big machine gun, so I think it makes sense and makes them just a little bit more useful in defense alongside other units, but nothing game changing.
The German 88m flak gun was used as an effective anti-tank gun often. Change the ammo cartridge, like a shotgun slug instead of pellets. It was actually the same gun used on the first tiger model and sometimes was the only German weapon that could penetrate a kv tanks armor.
Attacking an AA gun can be a tense moment....true statement! I've been playing 1942, 2nd Ed. lately and found myself buying additional AA guns. Now your video makes me rethink, but I do like the fear effects of having multiple AA guns to make the enemy pause when considering air attacks.
Fear factor..lol. Gotta love it. It's all part of the intimidation efforts, "I Double Dog Dare you". ... It helps to know your opponents phobias, especially if you're partly to blame
We used to houserule old-style AA guns to allow you to stack several in one territory and shoot with all of them at each incoming plane. It definitely made things interesting, always preferred that rule.
For me there are two reasons to buy AA guns. Allied players, especially the USSR, facing Germany going Dark Skies. And British India looking to support Chinese infantry stacks against all those Japanese planes.
@@board-qu9iu yes I am aware of GW36 and I have to say it looks incredible. I hope one day to get a dedicated gaming group together, in which case I'll definitely be investing in GW36. Im guessing you're a fan?
Multiple AA guns scare the hell out of the Luftwaffe. A historic showdown at Moscow (Historic, to me and my friend) got me out of losing an unwinniable battle. I stuck about 8 along with a whole whack of Infantry, got lucky I guess. :)
I think that the only nation that would really benefit from buying AA (except in special cases) would be Germany. Russian fighters are so vital to Russia's survival, and if even a few can be sniped off, they are very very very costly for the Russians to replace. And like you said, even if they don't shoot down planes, they can be used as a great deterrent.
I'm an old school player from the 2004 era and AA was a common enough purchase in our play group. The UK marching into Asia from India can easily use an AA defensive piece as the bulk of Japan's power comes from their air superiority in the theater. Russia would add them if they could establish a solid defensive foothold while pushing the front forward. Germany had a lot of use for them in Western Europe to stop aerial attacks over Europe. Old AA rules allowed them to fire in each territory as planes flew over as part of the combat move. If the UK player decided to bomb Italy or wanted to attack ships in the Mediterranean, each AA gun would fire once at each plane from each territory. Your planes could be subject to 2-3 rounds of AA fire.
You missed one key detail of the original rules AA guns. In the original, any aircraft entering a territory during Combat Move was subject to AA Fire once per territory. A single aircraft attack can be subject to 3 separate AA rolls against the plane. This added utility of AA guns significantly changed the defensive use of the piece in 84 and 2004 Revised. It makes Strategic Bombing much more difficult (UK can still go across sea zones to Berlin though) when going over land. It can also limit the movement of aircraft trying to switch flanks over enemy territory that is well defended. You hit on the major aspect of AA though. It's very luck dependent and psychological. When it looks like you are about to defend with less than 30% chance of winning the battle and no real hope of a quick recapture, AA is 100% the way to go. Your odds to win on average go up very little, but the chance to score more AA hits that could significantly swing the odds of defending can be the difference between winning and losing the war.
Absolutely man! Thanks a lot for the in depth comment. To be honest I don't have/play any games using the original ruleset other than anniversary (and even then I usually house rule in the new set due to personal preference). Flyover shots sound like a great deterrent for things like SBRs, but the amount you'd have to buy to fill enough territories to make this viable... I can't see it being worth it generally. Still, thanks for pointing that out and for the comment
@@CorporalClegg I'm loving your content and comments help the algorithm so it's what I can do. AA is still very situational even in the old rules and rarely purchased, but it's nice to have that option. Honestly, knowing all the changes, I think the best solution is a hybrid model. I think AA only shooting at 3 incoming aircraft is great and using them as a casualty is a decent use for them. On the other side of it, I would love to see flyover shots come back during combat move. Instead of requiring 4-6 planes be attacking to make a 2nd AA gun useful, the 2nd could be a territory forward allowing flyover fire at smaller numbers of incoming planes. They become a lot more impactful, but retain their primary role as a deterrent rather than a damage dealer. Maybe a video on that as Renegade looks to reprint older titles and come out with their own is warranted.
Great video. I found two additional cases to support buying an AA: 1. More than fear. If you know you will lose a territory but want to do good damage. *It may be beneficial to sacrifice the lower odds of victory for a chance to eliminate more powerful (air) units.* Because, in a lot of those cases you showed, there are very low odds to get to the point where an attacking air unit is ever hit. Eliminating an air unit in one battle has major implications for other battles in a wide region. 2. Something I think the battle odds calculator may not work well with is recursion over multiple rounds of rolling. If a plane has the chance to do 5 rounds of attacking, eliminating it would have a larger impact on the battle. So you would need to not only compare it's defensive power vs. more and more planes but also more and more attacking soldiers, as they would increase the rounds that those attacking fighters will fire. For #1) One example where the odds are less important than the potential winning outcome is the initial attack of the German subs in the US Atlantic transports + destroyer. You get a very low chance of success (something like 32% with both subs), but if you win you sink two transports. *An AA that gets a hit on a place would have a major success benefits which may out way the single battle odds.* For #2) I don't have it in front of me, but you could check it's correctness! With a set of 6 attacking fighters and 1 AA. By comparing the sum of the probability of X number of hits on air units multiplied by the odds of victory with those hits (planes removed). Compare that single probability of success to a battle without the AA unit and with one less attacking plane in the first place (because that is the average that an AA would inflict).
I think winning odds in battles cannot be the only thing to consider. When someone keeps in mind that AA guns are considerably cheaper than planes, it also means that a single hit of an AA gun over the course of the game is sufficient to double down on the investment in case if hitting a fighter or even trippling in case of hitting a bomber. When the same AA gun is able to take a hit during battle, the economical relative gain compared to the enemy get's even higher.
I play Revised (the blue box) which uses the old rules, but also allows to upgrade them to rocket launchers to attack factories. Using old rules there are 2 things to consider: 1. Piece limitations. I don't recall if it's stated in the rules but I've always played as their piece limited, so when all the little gray deathtowers are bought, that's that. A strat I developed is to buy them amongst the nations for whatever side I'm playing to and spread them out, meaning the other side can't get them without fighting for them. It's a good way to get under the other side's skin. 2. Mind games. As the video said, the AA guns have major impact psychologically, not just in getting someone to doubt a move but also perhaps overextending themselves. A player who made it past the AA bombardment (unscathed or even losing some planes) may be more reluctant to retreat, knowing they will have to face them again if they do. Essentially it's the sunk cost fallacy - "in for a penny, in for a pound", even though the penny may be able to be lost, but they pound may bankrupt you. Smart use and placement of AA guns rarely serves a purely strategic end - they just don't hit that often on the whole - but monopolizing them, as well as a cold smile and a snide remark when your opponent starts pushing planes in, can have a game-changing impact even on seasoned players. "They only hit on a one! 5 out of 6 says I'm fine." "Would you take a slice from a pizza if one piece might be poisoned? 5 out of 6 says you're fine."
We play that AA guns defend on a 2 but can only damage aircraft, similar to the way that subs can't damage aircraft at all. It's worked well and made them worthwhile.
A simple solution would probably be to make AA cheaper; if they would cost 3 IPC or even only 2 IPC, they would probably be a worthwhile buy, at least in some situations.
@@sargenteclipse5658 ah dude that's awesome to hear! I'm so glad you've been inspired by my videos! I'll be following your channel 😁 By the way.. are you aware comments are disabled on your first vid? It also seems to be labelled as 'made for kids'
Great video! Good to see that you are back! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important aspect of the game. I was wondering whether you would come up with a house rule or not. Which price do you prefer: 5 or 6 IPC? Would you advocate an unlimited amount of AA Gun shots (= one shot per attacking aircraft) or a limit of 3 shots per AA Gun, allowing more than one gun per territory? Here is how I use AA guns in my Anniversary Edition: Cost: 5 IPC (not 6). More than one AA Gun per territory may be used for defense. Each AA Gun may fire up to 3 shots against attacking aircraft, but only one shot per aircraft is allowed. Thus, the second and third AA Gun defend against 4 to 6 and 7 to 9 aircraft respectively. So you need another AA Gun when your opponent has more than three aircraft at his disposal for his attack. If you use R&D: I introduced a technology that specifically improves AA Guns. It is called AA Gun Radar: each defending AA Gun gets an extra shot. If the attacker has two fighters, you get three shots, if the attacker has five fighters/bombers and the defender two AA Guns, he defends with seven rolls. And the cherry on the cake: On a roll of »2« the attacker has to withdraw one fighter/bomber back to base without attacking.
Hello! And thanks so much for your comment. I much prefer the newer ruleset for AA guns: 5 IPCs, up to 3 shots, can be casualty. Even in anniversary which uses the 'original' rules, I always prefer to houserule in the newer set, and it sounds like you do too. That tech upgrade sounds pretty awesome! One extra shot per AA is a fair boost I'd say. I believe some OOB techs for AA enable them to hit @2 which I think is too powerful. Forcing planes to retreat half does the job for the defender and will minimise the amount of flipped tables! Thanks for sharing!
I never matched it out- Put this is the exact conclusion I have come too. I have certainly bought last min AA guns for defending battlers were the enemy has lots of planes- It has made the differenced. But VERY situational
I think AA guns should work similar to Submarines, but the other way round: It fires in combat but can hit air units only, also has the first strike ability. It also should hit on 2 or 3 on defense, rather than 1 to increase it's value.
AA guns feel like the ultimate gambler's piece. High risk high reward. You can take out many of the attacker's most valuable units out, but if you don't hit you will be wishing you bought the infantry instead.
Great video on AA guns corporal, 6 out of 9AA hits ouch, we all have our scars....as a PFC I can appreciate the subject, several factors as you well stated making differences in their plannings. My favorite use came from the Classic edition we'd play, as a German player, I often deployed from my Eastern Europe pile to Ukraine, 6 infantry and 1 anti aircraft gun, the goal being to make the strongest allied player take it back (Russia being the goal) as Russia might not bring their 2 few planes over an anti aircraft gun, they become influenced to send tanks, an expensive battle for Russia, they can't move the anti aircraft gun the same turn they take it soo, Germany gets to take it back, forcing German Russia only land battles as capabilities allow. Eventually Ukraine stays German and the Caucasus becomes a steady source of income for the Germans, with enough mobile resources, this anti aircraft gun gets put in the Caucasus, possibly with large armour formations now advanced into Ukraine, this kettle is boiling, much pressure to Moscow and much more to Karelia, forcing their hand, often, even a disorderly retreat, costing expensive pieces. As the aggressor you choose the odds ( place your bets), and dare the defenders to commit something, is it too big for one of the allies, will the Russian attack, as I'd my Germany prefer ?. Will all three allies try ? Taking the Anti Aircraft gun as legitimate combat loss is certainly a noticable advantage, much like a "2" hit infantry, something gets to roll again. I recall one variant does use selective AA rolling, more bombers will be hit this way, but I think interception combat also effects the AA buying needs. Romel used his 88 mm anti aircraft guns as successful anti tank guns, proving the often much underappreciated multi role capabilities of these weapon systems. I recall a classic ruling about combat moving AA guns, with rocket technology, the player can combat move into a friendly territory, and fire their rockets ,(,AA, gun) Edit... Anti aircraft gun fires every round of combat is another variation, one dice only per AA gun, but every round, and no limits on how.many per territory, also can be taken as a combat loss. A Zeno or gamers paradise variant I think
Interesting, good analysis. I think one example is really powerful, the poorly defended empty zone that can be traded back and forth (especially thinking of Russia). If you conquered and have one or two infantry in it, is it worth it to place an AA gun with them? Whatever land units are send are lost next turn, trading that for killing the present 7 or 10 IPC, plus whatever that remaining force does in one turn defending. I think you can calculate the losses with varying setups with 80%+ win chance. One or two infantry with as many planes as can be spared is usually the cheapest option. But with an AA gun, would one risk it? One plane might not be enough, two or three will definitely make the AA gun worth its money. Note you can use up the ones you start with, you can decide to replace them or not later. Besides this back and forth attacking, you also have situations where land units are extremely limited by transport. Japan will probably often rely on planes doing damage with the rare land units (infantry) for taking a hit and capturing. An AA gun might be a nice deterrent as send a lot of planes at once becomes riskier.
The old version was good for making your opponent think twice before doing strategic bombing. Since factories cube with AA defense, and built AA guns don't contribute during strategic bombing, they seem worse. But in later editions, AA guns can be moved. I feel like they are now best at countering the air support used to bolster an amphibious attack that contains only a couple of transports. I would only buy then to maybe replace lost guns or if I'm doing very well late in the game. I also might buy a few of my opponent is building a large number of aircraft.
never used them (granted i played older editions) unless i rolled the v1/v2 rocket technology upgrade which allowed AA guns to strategic bomb (1d3) within 3 spaces * not sure if if i'm remembering all rules correctly as its been a LONG time since i played
0:30 - I thought in the original rules, the AA guns fire at every air unit flying over (entering) the territory in the combat move phase and in the non combat move phase. I do not have the original rule book with me, so do not know for sure.
I'm not sure either to be honest. I don't think that's the case in anniversary edition, and I've never played classic. But I am aware of flyover shots in the original Europe and Pacific games, although I thought they occured in the combat phase only. Could be wrong!
We never really buy them but part of the reason is you start with AA guns in most of the critical areas at the start. Old rules, probably not worth it to buy but under new rules that you posted (which I have never played), they seem worth it.
God I love your videos. Yeah they need a little something to boost them up. An incredibly un maneuverable unit who’s job it is to hunt the most maneuverable units in the game just doesn’t make sense. Honestly just drop them to 4. They take forever to get in place and your opponent can respond by switching to more ground units and flying planes at easier targets.
Ah man I appreciate that, thank you! Dropping their price to 4 bucks might make players purchase them more often. But more AA guns on the board = more unpredictability and more chances to get diced. Is that a good thing? Who knows!
@@CorporalClegg yeah it’s a pretty volatile unit. It either does nothing or 10 20 30+ damage. I think it’s necessary especially in global as basically the only consistent way to kill planes. You could go the other way and have them cost 8-10 and hit on ones and twos to try to bring down variability. Would let them discourage planes in some provinces or be useful in a last stand but you couldn’t just flood the battlefield with them. Would make it absolutely horrendous to fly into but the cost to build them would make anyone think twice. Could also make them static buildings for cheeper. I think they are fine in smaller versions but in global where there is just so much map they can just be avoided too easily. Idk it’s a funny unit
@@CorporalClegg I mean even if the Soviets bought one for every province the Germans can just overwhelm one or two spots and if they have to add just one to smaller battles which still means the aa isn’t cost effective.
@@Gingerbreadley Great thoughts! Interesting idea to increase their price but make them hit @2. It may make AAs more consistent but it would also make those brutal rolls even more devastating! I also fear small battles would become too much of a high risk-low reward deal for the attacker and generally it would discourage risk taking.. What about scrapping the rule that limits the amount of shots e.g. 2 AAA would both get to fire at 1 air unit? It's a tricky unit that doesn't seem to have an easy, simple 'fix' and since it's not completely broken I'm leaning more towards just leaving it as it is 🙂 Thanks again for your comments and support!
@@CorporalClegg I don’t think we would need to worry about small battles as I can’t see myself risking a 8 cost unit to defend something like two infantry. Especially if my opponents can reach it with say tanks for example. The doubling up is interesting. It would make amassing them more worth it but it wouldn’t really affect the small battles or ones where the planes heavily outnumber the defenses. I think it would be a good idea in conjunction with another rule that fixes the small battles not sure if it would be enough on its own. Yeah it really is just a funky unit. Target selecting the most expensive units but only being able to shoot them is just an odd niche.
I love your videos man but I need more content to work with. You make some of the best and there’s just not enough. If so I don’t know you schedule but post again soon 🙏
I appreciate that man! Thank you. I do have many videos planned, one is already half done. The only enemy is time - I don't have a lot of it to get vids done. But comments like yours keep me motivated. So cheers!
Thanks! Its a design I borrowed from my friend HellOnWheels. In a nutshell it's a magent glued to the top of an acrylic rod which is glued into a thumb nut. I need to make a few more, so when I get around to it I can do a tutorial if you want
@@michaellongenbach9265 flight stands are by far my favourite customisation. I've had them a good year now and still adore them. It is a lot of work though! But oh so worth it. Clicking a plane onto it's stand never gets old 😁 It'll probably be a couple of months before I get around to making another set, so don't hold your breath. Good luck buddy
Given that aa guns can target planes directly, while infantry hits will first be taken out on enemy infantry, then i do feel that their cost effectiveness is higher than you portray. A single hit of the aa gun takes out a unit worth double its price, while on average a single infantry hit will only take out another infantry. So what are the odds of a single infantry taking out 3 enemy infantry ? Quite low! Taking out a plane with a lucky shot does indeed alter the battle drastically, given that planes are generally the last units to be taken as casualties, if ever, while infantry will be chosen as first casualty. A single missing plane in a battle lasting 3-4 turns is a potential of 2-3 friendly units saved. So im not sure how your combat calculator works but it still seems to me that when you are sure to face planes then a minimum of aa guns is definitely worth it. I do think that for better comparison you should calculate odds of lucky streaks, say, the infantry hitting the enemy on every round, or that aa gun having all his shots hit planes, then im sure we can observe that the maximum potential of an aa gun is far greater than the maximum potential a single infantry unit could ever reach! An average calculation of the odds doesnt show maximum potential.
Whut? Roll @3 out of a 6 sided dice? 50% chance to hit 1 attacking plane (from 16,7% rolling 1)?!? Wow those are not only better but totally OP to the point of game breaking! Even if they rolled on 2 (effectively doubling the hit chance to 33,3%) they would be borderline OP and would be well worth the buy. A home rule of AA guns costing 4 instead of 5 is just enough that they would be bought in defense positions (i.e. Moscow, Berlin...) while still not game breaking.
The entire time i have played axis and allies thats axis and allies 1942 1940 pacific 1940 Europe and 1940 global there was 1 time where it was a good idea to Build an aa gun so my opponent made i Think 3 and then when i attacked at that time we had played axis and allies like 3-4 times so we didnt know the rules of the Old aa gun so each aa hit 3 times no matter the number of planes so has 4 aa guns the places Im attacking hit hits none i Think aa guns are the most useless piece in axis and allies
I think you have you the incorrect criteria for evaluation. Rather using strictly winning or losing battles you should use economic cost. If i lose a battle but the UPC cost of the units my opponent lost are 15 higher than mine most of the time im okay with that. AA guns arent going to win you battles but they very much can economically punish your opponent (which imo is usually more valuable).
