Evil 8.8 cm Flak vs other AA guns

[Casaubon]

...
Another idea would be not to count any unit as 1 unit against the maximum of core units. So if Tiger would count 100% against core units limit, but a PzIII just 75%, we would see more of those units on the battle field. Infantry is the only kind of units, where every units makes sense to buy and I have many types of infantry within one battle. In most other cases (tanks, AT, Ari) it is better to buy just the bigger one

very true! I second this 100% ... many folks seem to use cores consisting of tiger panther wurfrahmen mostly in later DLCs. I don´t like that. The game should encourage a more diverese core unit schedule with more mediocre units.

[robman]

...
Another idea would be not to count any unit as 1 unit against the maximum of core units. So if Tiger would count 100% against core units limit, but a PzIII just 75%, we would see more of those units on the battle field. Infantry is the only kind of units, where every units makes sense to buy and I have many types of infantry within one battle. In most other cases (tanks, AT, Ari) it is better to buy just the bigger one

very true! I second this 100% ... many folks seem to use cores consisting of tiger panther wurfrahmen mostly in later DLCs. I don´t like that. The game should encourage a more diverese core unit schedule with more mediocre units.

Another (and perhaps simpler) means of achieving this end would be to increase the marginal cost of the purchase of additional "high value" units. So, for example, the first Tiger costs "x," the second costs "1.5x," the third "2x." I realize this might not be simple in terms of game programming, but it would be simple for the player to understand.

[ivanov]

I think ultimately it's up to the player, what kind of core he wants to build. I build a historical core with one Tiger and spend the cash on reparis of the weaker hardware. It's my choice. If there are people who want to use only Tigers and Panthers, then it's their choice too.

What I think is that the heavy tanks and aircraft are too cheap. If Germans managed to build few times more Panzers IV than Tigers, then I think that the Tiger should be maybe 3 times more expensive than older tanks.

[Kerensky]

I don't like Tigers, didn't use them at all in my 1943 play through. It really it something up to the player.
I definitely plan to get Tiger IIs in 1944 though.

[Gwaylare]

Kerensky, Ivanov that is just an argumentation for playing a campaign not for a multiplayer game. So I just had a look at units available in Bocage Breakout for the german side. Here is what is worth a buy in general, not this scenario only (bold ones I would use more often then other ones):

Infantry:
43 Wehrmacht Inf
43 Grenadier
43 Gebirgsjäger
43 Fallschirmjäger
Pioniere 43

Artillery:
21 cm Mrs 18
Hummel or stG 38(t) M
Wurfrahmen 40
StuH 42
15 cm Mrs 18 (may be a deal because of better ROF)
280mm K5 (yes I have bought that

Tanks:
Tiger II
Panther G

Recon:
Panzer II Luchs

Anit-Tank:
Elefant
Jagdpanther (never tried Jagdpanther so far)
(may be Nashorn and 88 Pak will be a deal in some situation)

So I do not buy AA or aircraft, only in very special situations. So this are more or less hypothetical thoughts
AA:
8.8 cm FlaK 36
SdKfz 7/2

Fighter:
Fw 190D-9
Me 163B (never tried that, may be it is a deal)

Tactical Bombet:
Ju 87G

Strategic Bomber:
He 177A (why is the best naval bomber, the best strategic bomber overall??)

So for Infantry and Artillery this is quite fine and there is no standard unit to choose. I use all infantry units, because they have different stats, but there is no best one. For Artillery it is important what should be that Artillery used for. For all other classes most units are without sense. The worsed thing is, that you do not need to view the stats. Price is the only criterium I use in most cases, because the most expensive units is best deal
The infantry is a good example of small is beautiful! A couple of units without balance makes no sense in my eyes.

It is interessting, we are looking for historical correctness of the stats of all those tanks and we get historical incorrectness of the types used in battle, just because availability is ignored. Same has happend in world of tanks, a battle of prototypes

Best regards
Gwaylare

[deducter]

Actually on the map bocage, the only units worth buying are infantry and artillery (I usually get the wespe and the StuG IV). All tanks and AT are worthless to buy, use your starting ones wisely.

[Gwaylare]

That is why I wrote "not this scenario only". I just picked a late war szenario. The problem is the same for late scenarios, the top tanks are a little bit different.
For sure I never bought a tank in bocage breakout
But lists for Return to Kiev or Steamroler against Steel are nearly the same for the germans.

Best regards
Gwaylare

[deducter]

I purchase StuG IIIGs all the time. I also do purchase Panthers on SAS, and I purchase the cheapest all terrain recon vehicle. I also don't get the Hummel.

So there is no obvious answer what is the ideal in MP. One thing that is true is that the Panzer IVs and the T-34 are still not worth buying on all maps except Iron Cross Red Star. Even those two units aren't really necessary on that map. That I think is a problem.

Btw the StuG IV is OP in MP, it is significantly better than the StuG IIIG despite having one less HA and GD. The reason is that it has 11 ROF in AT mode and it has an ART mode. One extra dice roll is very useful. This unit needs a cost increase. There are a few other things in MP that could using some balancing (most notably the map Iron Cross Red Star).

[MartyWard]

If other flak units could attack with their soft attack they would become much more valuable. From what i have read some of them were pretty good anti-infanrty weapons when there were no planes around.

[ivanov]

If other flak units could attack with their soft attack they would become much more valuable. From what i have read some of them were pretty good anti-infanrty weapons when there were no planes around.

I was thinking about it aswell, but that would probably make them too powerful in the game. For the DLC's as they are balanced now, it would be the best if the dual purpose 8.8cm flak, was good against the bombers and not so much against the fighters/attack planes. In case of the lower caliber weapon systems, it should be the other way around.

Right now, I am playing the DLC 42 and my experienced, core 8.8cm are able shot to down 6-9 strenght points of the enemy fighters in one salvo. They are much more efficient than my fighters, plus unlike the fighters, they don't risk any loses on their own. Another super weapon.

[MartyWard]

I was thinking about it aswell, but that would probably make them too powerful in the game. For the DLC's as they are balanced now, it would be the best if the dual purpose 8.8cm flak, was good against the bombers and not so much against the fighters/attack planes. In case of the lower caliber weapon systems, it should be the other way around.

Right now, I am playing the DLC 42 and my experienced, core 8.8cm are able shot to down 6-9 strenght points of the enemy fighters in one salvo. They are much more efficient than my fighters, plus unlike the fighters, they don't risk any loses on their own. Another super weapon.

If flak units caused more disruptions that actual losses the it would probably better reflect what they were good at, making the planes miss their target.

I think the 88 is the flak weapon of choice due to the long range and the AT ability. Other flak can cause just as many losses but don't have any other use so once you clear the skies they are pretty much useless. Give the Quad 20's the ability to soft attack and they may become more popular.

[ivanov]

I was thinking about it aswell, but that would probably make them too powerful in the game. For the DLC's as they are balanced now, it would be the best if the dual purpose 8.8cm flak, was good against the bombers and not so much against the fighters/attack planes. In case of the lower caliber weapon systems, it should be the other way around.

Right now, I am playing the DLC 42 and my experienced, core 8.8cm are able shot to down 6-9 strenght points of the enemy fighters in one salvo. They are much more efficient than my fighters, plus unlike the fighters, they don't risk any loses on their own. Another super weapon.

If flak units caused more disruptions that actual losses the it would probably better reflect what they were good at, making the planes miss their target.

I think the 88 is the flak weapon of choice due to the long range and the AT ability. Other flak can cause just as many losses but don't have any other use so once you clear the skies they are pretty much useless. Give the Quad 20's the ability to soft attack and they may become more popular.

The real problem with the 88's is that they are REALLY much better against any air target, than the other AA systems. Throught the DLC 42 I've practically never used them against the ground targets, because they do such a good job against the enemy planes. Too good IMO.

[MartyWard]

[The real problem with the 88's is that they are REALLY much better against any air target, than the other AA systems. Throught the DLC 42 I've practically never used them against the ground targets, because they do such a good job against the enemy planes. Too good IMO.

I agreee that the amount of losses are high but that is the case for almost any AA gun that gets 3-4 stars. I think they should not cause as many losses but more disruptions, to simulate aircraft breaking off the attack. And most people eventually clear the skies of enemy plane so flak, other than the 88 becomes totally useless.

[KeldorKatarn]

What if the flak was implemented in a way like artillery, doing long term supression rather than alpha damage? That would help the fighters out and defend ground units, while keeping the flak from being a plane killer.

[Kerensky]

FlaK and air defense units are already the most unpopular unit for a player to use in their CORE. Making them weaker by switching to a suppression model is going to make them even less popular.

[Rudankort]

What if the flak was implemented in a way like artillery, doing long term supression rather than alpha damage? That would help the fighters out and defend ground units, while keeping the flak from being a plane killer.

I think we had it like this for some time during the beta. Everybody told us that AA units were useless and did not buy them. So we had to change the rules.

[Anfield]

FlaK and air defense units are already the most unpopular unit for a player to use in their CORE. Making them weaker by switching to a suppression model is going to make them even less popular.

You think? I would think towed anti-tank are guns are the least used. Since for almost all battle you have to attack but for a few, ive find the towed ATG are just pointless to have. Which sucks as id like to use them, but that 1 movement just makes them to hard to get into postion. Be nice to see guns Pak40 and smaller get a 2 movement but thats off topic.

As for the 88's they do seem an uber weapon. Not just agaisnt air units, but as ATGs too. Its always one of the first things I add to a core. The smaller AA arent to bad, but given the choice to score hits of 7 and up agaisnt air targets, or 2-3's with the others, again, 88 are a no brainer to add.

[Kerensky]

Considering the historical potency of the 88, I think its fantastic that it is such a well used unit. I'm pretty sure that they aren't overused (5+ in a player's CORE) but everyone seems to be using 1 or 2.

[ThvN]

I usually buy one 88mm FlaK early in GC '39 because it fills an important niche in my core: bunker-busting.

It's too slow to reliably go after tanks unless they come to you, but it excels in taking out strongpoints, even without artilllery support when it is experienced. It is very good for taking out multiple bunkers close together because it has lots of ammo, needs little support and rarely takes losses. The Pioniere (and Fallschirmjäger) can follow the more mobile forces around instead of getting stuck with mopping up forts and taking losses. The Germans actually used the gun this way, so it's even historical.

[Razz1]

I have had success in the AT and AA Mod by increasing the light AA rate of fire and some of them had a 1 point increase in damage.

Increasing the fighter AD is a good idea, but then you would have to increase all the AA fire from ground units that are not AA. For example the tanks and recon units that shoot back.

The SdKfz 10/40 has an Soft attack value but no HA. It works very well. In fact the SA is probably one point too high.

For AT weapons, I have made the light AT move 2 and be able to enter dense woods.