Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators
Yep. I do, too.
Agree. "18" is just too much. I haven't tried lowering those myself, but I'd guess that going to max. "15" should be sufficient enough.
Like you, it would be nice to have a concrete example with heavy AA guns with large air attack can kill 4 or 5 str from bombers in one go (and get proximity fuse on top as spec).Spotlight22 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:44 am Not sure about the AA gun change but I certainly agree with the Stug change.
I'm playing RedStar right now and I had a perfect example over Smolensk:terminator wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 am Like you, it would be nice to have a concrete example with heavy AA guns with large air attack can kill 4 or 5 str from bombers in one go (and get proximity fuse on top as spec).
Panzer Corps / OoB WWII :terminator wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:06 amLike you, it would be nice to have a concrete example with heavy AA guns with large air attack can kill 4 or 5 str from bombers in one go (and get proximity fuse on top as spec).Spotlight22 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:44 am Not sure about the AA gun change but I certainly agree with the Stug change.
Great response especially in some scenarios; the Heavy AA placement means you can't just fly in too much, you need to scout out for AA or you will be punished badly- a scenario that especially stands out is Panzerkreigs Stalingrad were the enemy AA is very strategically placed. I suggest going with the stug change and leaving the AA change as stated it's meant to make sure you don't fly in your bombers without thinking and represents significant AA set up.prestidigitation wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:13 am I think nerfing the heavy AA is a questionable call.
It has 1 move, meaning it cannot move any distance on its own. Therefore it requires a truck and costs +1 CP relative to the light AA, which is sufficiently foot mobile. It cannot chase enemy air due to extremely limited dismount mobility, especially off road.
When you consider these severe mobility issues and the CP disadvantage it really _should_ perform.
Then there's the consideration of how players and the AI play. When the heavy AA is used by the AI it is to defend a fixed point as part of a tactical puzzle. The player is expected to solve the tactical puzzle by suppressing it with artillery before engaging with air. If it isn't extremely dangerous to heavy bombers then players will simply soak the damage on their bombers. A silly outcome!
When the player uses it, it is generally as part of a mobile offensive. The player is lugging an expensive AA around presumably to defend their artillery. Given how easy it is to garner air superiority in most campaigns with pure air (to the point that several players on the forum declared it was the first time they had tried AA) it seems odd to further diminish an already rare unit.
Finally there's the consideration of artillery. 4-6 range artillery can trivially suppress heavy AA which has a mere 7 artillery defense and cannot move into defensive terrain it doesn't start adjacent to. As the AI -- and most players -- targets the most vulnerable unit, it tends to eat a lot of artillery fire. This can get expensive quick if you aren't very careful with where you place it.
I personally prefer foot mobile light AA and do not use heavy AA. But IMO we should be very cautious about nerfing such a rarely used unit.
Thanks, Mr. T, nicely done.terminator wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:43 pm I did various tests by reducing the value of air large attack (18(original value) -> 17 -> 16 -> 15):
