Adding range to Anti air units.

This sounds good, TB are OP.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.

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.

[/img]

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 :

[/img]

And lasers:

[/img]

Fun fact:

Spoiler

They all have RANGE

Bionoman wrote:

I mean, even America currently is investing in Laser technology to shoot down at medium range planes and or missiles

Bionoman wrote:

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.

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

- https://www.quora.com/Whose-long-range-artillery-was-superior-in-World-War-II-both-in-terms-of-strength-and-effectiveness-the-Germans-the-Western-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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

This bit isn't strictly true. Countless other examples e.g. Operation Rolling Thunder.

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.

https://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.

Didn't they pretty much kill the SAM sites from extreme range (with cruise missiles and such) before flying over them?

CityOfAngels wrote:

Didn't they pretty much kill the SAM sites from extreme range (with cruise missiles and such) before flying over them?

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.

MontanaBB wrote:

Guys, I know more specifics about......

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.

I would like to add a couple points for consideration.

- an AA battery does not have range, in the same way a SAM would.

- AA protected cities had AA batteries deployed all around the city to provide a broader area defense.

- when the sirens would sound, AA would activate, and provide a defensive effect while the threat existed.

- currently, my understanding of AA in CoW is that its usefulness is when attached to a stack of units, to provide defensive value to that stack when under attack. This seems to be an appropriate use for that situation.

However, what about the AA networks for cities? How is that represented on CoW? I would suggest that it should, if not already, be addressed by city "fortifications". Perhaps later levels of the fortification building could add an air defense range for the city. The AA unit would in that case still be a point defense unit.

Another quick thought is that the "area of effect" component could be added as a special effect for AA stacks over a certain size, indicating that the AA is deploying out into a defensive network.