Terif

In the second allied turn it is clear: there a 1:3 is expected with HQ and so 4 is possible (33% chance). But also in the first allied turn it is possible ! Allies only have to move the maginot army away and use the french army next to Paris to attack the corps. This army is nearer to Paris and therefore has a higher supply and readiness. I just tested it: this army has a 1:3 expected result . So 4 damage are possible.

@ Zapp: Sorry, I don´t like smack talk. And from bad experiences I know what your ´question´ has for a purpose. Last time you asked it, one of your ´nice´ campaigns followed. I think I made my position concerning AA pretty clear. If it is really not clear for you, then it is your problem, not mine. That you don´t know when to stop is also not my problem any more, since I will certainly not answer such questions from you again, no matter how many times you repeat or rewrite them . Sorry, not interested in another round of smack talk. @Desaix: At the first glance I also thought AA could be limited to "no german AA research". Certainly there are other house rules thinkable and workable than a total banning, but you have to take care of the long-term effects, effects on the strategic possibilities and play balance as a whole. Against most opponents I am also sure it is not necessary to have a rule at all since average players make enough mistakes or are simply using other strategies so AA will not be a real factor in most games. Nevertheless, if you want to be sure that AA will not be the decissive element in the game or you know your opponent will use it if it is allowed, then a rule is necessary (All scenarios are based on the assumption that the opponent is willing and able to use AA for its fighters. That means also that he knows how to exploit the AA bonus efficiently – when this is not the case, then a rule is not really necessary, but you often don´t know it in advance). - only no german AA research: then Italy still can research AA. This can even be better for Axis than Germany researching it, cause then Germany can use its 10 chits for something else, Italy can invest up to 5 chits in AA, so it will get some levels for sure. Then Axis only needs to give Vichy or other territories to Italy and german AFs can be placed in at least 3 italian cities to use the italian AA bonus and kill any allied invasion. - To allow UK AA research while it is forbidden for Axis gives me not a good feeling. Would be also kind of unfair when Axis are not allowed to develope countermessures. In the long-run Allies could also get an undefeatable advantage when developing high AA levels. Same as Axis can do today. OK, they have only London + eventually Manchester to use it, but whith AA 3+ even this can be enough to kill any enemy resistance with the AA bonus. Not to forget they will liberate other cities at the front and then can use the AA bonus from these ressources too. - To allow Russia AA: Ok, this would be an option. As long as Axis is keeping pressure there, Russia has no chance to build a competitive airpower and is so not able to use an eventual AA bonus. So in this situation it would really be only to improve the ground units defence. Problem is, when Axis shifts their forces to somewhere else (and many players do this), then Russia can build air again and use the AA bonus to kill Axis. And Russia has enough cities so Axis will have no chance when Russia developes AA 2-3+ and buys enough air. So in the end it would limit Axis strategies at the moment Russia developes AA, cause after this moment Axis can´t allow Russia a breath and have to attack there no matter what other plans they had – also not a good effect.

First, congratulations to Dragonheart for a very well played game and his first victory against me . It was a really interesting game with several turning points that was not decided until nearly the end in 1944. Here a summary from the allied point of view: - France went well for Axis with only 1 corps on the ground lost and fell the axis turn after June 23, 1940. Remarkable: Germany sent its fleet to Brussel to fight against the Royal Navy. Cruiser and sub got sunk, the last cruiser escaped. Later Germany bought another sub to destroy the russian navy. Nevertheless Allies were able to save 3 armies, 8 corps and the 2 med units from France – so it was not bad for both Allies and Axis. - After France the usual minor grabbing, german air in Egypt showed already lv 2 LR. - September/October 1940 Italy sent 3 battleships to Gibraltar for bombarding the garrison. Allies took revanche and sunk all 3 italians. Transports threatened Sicily and Algier, so Germany was forced to operate HQ + some AFs to Sicily. - To celebrate christmas , Axis assaulted Russia and killed all heavy units except one air with their LR lv 3. Western Allies immediately promised to send help and launched a massive invasion fleet against the occupied France. - Unfortunately the allied scientists were bribed by enemy undercover agents and sabotaged all advances despite 5 chits in jets since around a year. So UK was only able to steal jet lv 1 technology and some LR from Germany. But for a successful invasion, England needs at least lv 2 jets, better lv 3. - So during D-day number 1 in March/April 1942, Allies were able to conquer Brussel and Brest, but without sufficient jet technology it was not possible to kill all the german AFs hiding in their cities (only 2 got destroyed). Germany sent 8 AFs to the West (3 in Russia) using german cities and mines as airbases so every single AF was able to use the lv 2 AA bonus they had researched – in every city and mine from Bordeaux, Marseilles, Cologne, Essen, Hamburg up to Berlin there was an AF forcing intercepts. So Allies had no choice than to go for Dunkirk 2 and they left France to first research a higher jet level before they would come back. - Allies took heavy losses in the fightings and at the end of the battles, Axis were 2:1 superior in numbers according to the report screen. But the game was not over – Some quick jet research results could have turned the tide very fast...or a surprise attack at another front can have the same effect . - So since most of the german air was in the west and the russian front was quiet, Russia first conquered Finland and then started the attack on Turkey in July/August 1942. Istanbul got conquered, the eastern turkish city fell and russian units were entering Iraq/Egypt. But when italian units operated to the turkish capital and a HQ and other transports arrived, it was not possible any more to force Turkey surrendering. Italian corps with AT 3 can´t be killed by 3 ground units any more and Russia had only 1 AF left. So Russia built a defense line east of the capital and rescued as much from the units in western Turkey as possible. - Germany sent its AFs to Russia and Turkey, conquering the middle part of Russia from Leningrad to Kharkov – the elite of the russian forces had been sent to the middle east battles, so there was not much resistance. - While the battles in Turkey were still raging, UK finally developed jets lv 3 in September 1942 (with 5 chits this was already over a year behind the average...). Now they were able to compete with the german air and to kill them in their cities if necessary. - So a winter offensive and D-day number 2 was started in September 1942. Until April 1943 Allies liberated LC and France including Bordeaux, and the french mine. Russia liberated Iraq and Beirut. Many axis units died in the heavy battles, so in April 1943 Allies managed to reach nearly a 1:1 unit ratio again (from 2:1 ! ). Since with France (80mps), LC (30mpps) and Iraq (80 mpps for England) + Middle east, Allies now had effectively more mpps/turn than Axis, so the situation looked relatively good for Allies for some time. A good example that you never should give up too early, even if the situation looks grim . In SC there are a lot of opportunities to turn the tide even if at the moment beeing inferior in mpps, tech and units – like Allies were after D-day 1 . - But not only Allies can turn the tide, Axis can do the same. Unfortunately Germany catched up in jets very fast and when it reached lv 3 jets too, it swiched all air back to the West. So most of the 13 german AFs operated to their german cities to use the AA bonus (up to Berlin and Prague...). Since with AA Germany was 2 tech levels ahead of the UK air (and 3 vs USA, they still were at lv 2 jets...) and since AA works also against carriers, the allied air got trashed – no AF killed, but all out of order after the first battle. So Allies had no choice than to perform Dunkirk 3 and to leave France another time. - Some time later Germany switched some AFs back to Russia and bought another 2 (increasing the AFs to 15). Axis took Moskov and started killing one corps/turn to advance slowly further east. 8-10 AFs were still waiting in their cities in the West. - England trained in the meantime their carriers at Oslo while waiting for better tech. When they finally got jets 4 in Sept./Oct. 1943 and Axis abandoned Oslo to avoid further training, they started their final offensive – the last chance to turn the war. UK forces liberated Norway and strong US ground forces entered Sweden – protected by the 3 carriers and several AFs. - The end of the war: Secretly Germany developed LR 4 (UK LR 3, USA: LR 1). So they now were able to reach the allied carriers from their cities in Germany and to attack them directly. In the following airbattles 2 german AFs got destroyed, but Germany had enough mpps to replace them in contrary to Allies and again was at 15 AFs – vs 6 allied ones + 3 now heavily damaged carriers. The end came fast since there was no sense in retreating any more and delaying the inevitable – so Allies sent into battle what was left of them and like expected they lost some air and their carriers. Nevertheless, as a last act: Allies sent a commando unit and 3 US armies into Sweden to find the house of a certain person (codename: Z... ), the traitor scientist who helped Germany 1940-42 until he had been discovered and fled to his home town in Sweden. After killing the german army protecting him, his execution and buriing down his house was the last allied success before surrendering .

Don´t turn around my words in the mouth - like you did and loved to do it in the past.. First, when I don´t research AA as Axis, then I can´t use it "only in key situations so nobody notices" - even if I would have wanted to. Second, I said clearly that I consider it an unfair strategy as Axis - I never did it, nor do I want to ever use it. That doesn´t mean that I never place AFs in cities, AFs have to be bought in cities, operate to cities and in some areas they can only be placed in cities to reach the target - thats one of the reason why as AA rule it is better to forbid AA research and not to forbid placing AFs in cities. So in the rare cases my Axis researched AA they benefited from it. But usually only the 1-2 AFs in the middle of my fleet were able to use the AA bonus at my side and not all of them - I never placed them only in the cities (like you perhaps noticed in our games...)and misused the AA bonus. As Allies it is different, they have no other choice than to use London as airbase and since Allies are in the disadvantage anyway, there it is legitimate in my eyes to use the starting level (nevertheless until now I never researched a higher AA level for UK...) everyone is doing it even if they don´t know about the AA bonus since even without it cities provide better supply and protection – and I didn´t say something else if you read my posts again, I spoke from the AXIS AA strategy. Allies also can´t develope a whole strategy around the AA bonus. They simply have not enough cities to really use it – in contrary to Germany. A "nice feature" means it has no important impact on the game. And as long as there was no AA strategy, this was the case. That you turn it around into hiding it from others to get an advantage is simply crap – you know it if you would be honest or have some honour and the ones who played me knows it too.

As long as nobody misused it (or even if he wanted to, was not able cause he didn´t know how... ), the AA bonus WAS no big issue. As long as only a couple of AFs use it and not the whole strategy is solely based on it, the AA bonus IS only a nice feature. Remember, the last 2 years the AA bonus was no problem and in deed not a big factor. The habit to excessively use the AA bonus and to base the entire strategy only on this is a new habit and not very old – but in this new form it can destroy the game or at least the fun playing it. BTW: As Axis I never used the AA bonus by purpose and in large numbers since I always considered it an unfair axis strategy – so in around 95% of my games I even didn´t research AA (If I don´t want to use it, then I don´t need it and only for ground defence it is not really worth it). Perhaps this was the reason why it took so long until somebody developed a strategy around it that worked – since I didn´t use it, nobody was able to copy it . Unfortunately somewhere in the last weeks/months someone developed a strategy around the AA bonus. Via games/forum/AARs it is now wide spread. So the knowledge is out of Pandora´s box and can´t be put in again. Before this, there was no need for a AA rule, but now it is necessary and at least I will use a rule in my games. For Zapp: Concerning your policy to make everything public (not only the AA thing..), no matter what it is or what consequences will follow: Here we really have different opinions. I think that sometimes it is necessary not to tell about everything and to keep secrets if you know that it can and will do a lot of harm to others if you make it public. Like e.g. in real life: If you have found an easy way for everyone how to build some weapons of mass destruction, biological/atomic weapons or some little bombs...etc. Then it is in my eyes not a good choice to make it public for everybody, but to keep it for yourself – and also not to use it (Besides that it is not right, someone would copy it and use it too and soon everyone could do it...) . Ok, you may find this example exagerated. Yes, it is. SC is only a game and nobody takes real harm if it – or the fun playing it - gets destroyed. Nevertheless I prefer to keep it intact and to have a good and enjoyable game. If I have to keep some secrets and not to use certain things, then so be it. I know this can be difficult cause it bolsters the ego and you are proud if you „discovered“ something and you want everybody to know it that you discovered it - here comes responsibility into play. Sometimes it is better to not make certain things public.

@Desaix: Yes, originally the AA tech was used to limit the air attacks on ground troops and in this function it is a good tech. But unfortunately in the last time more and more players tend to use it only as an air tech. So Axis places all AFs in cities, build not much ground units but only air and try to trash the Allies by forcing intercepts. And in this function it is a very bad tech and can really kill the fun in the game. To play without AA research is the best way to avoid the destructive tendency of the AA tech. An alternative house rule could be, not to allow Axis to attack with air from ressources. But in the game reality it is too complicated to take care of this all the time and creates many new problems.... No AA research is simple and fine . This is because in a normal game where Axis don´t use the AA bonus excessively, time is against Axis like it was historically and how it is better for play balance too. Axis get some mpps more than Allies after Barbarossa and before D-day, but the allied carriers even out this advantage cause they get more powerful with time and tech. That´s also the reason why carriers should better not be limited by jet level restrictions - if you have jets 3 or 5 makes not much difference for pure airbattles, but for carriers it is a huge difference. Since Allies are usually inferior in mpps and units, they need the better units to be able to beat Axis in the long run – and these are the carriers and ships . The main problem is, when Axis are allowed to use AA, then the long term balance strongly shifts towards Axis cause when they reach AA lv 2+, then Allies are pretty much dead if they have not won the game already at this time or can kill most of the axis air in the first strike. With AA Axis have more mpps/turn, more units and now also have the better units. Since AA also works against carriers, they will be trashed too by the axis air – AFs are toast anyway if Axis can do the first strike or have enough AFs to strike back (and that´s why axis players build only air when they want to use the AA bonus, they need to be superior in numbers...) - and Allies have only disadvantages left. So with time and AA research Axis get more and more powerful instead of the opposite in a normal game without AA. Therefore Allies will have only a small time window to beat Axis: a couple of turns after Barbarossa started and where they get their bonus mpps – at this moment they have more units and are stronger than Axis (in case of an appropriate bid). If they can´t kill Axis within the next turns, they are most likely dead cause then there is nothing that could turn the tide again when Axis are getting more and more mpps and more and more AA too in the course of time – even if AA stays the same, if it was enough to break Allies the first time then it is also enough to keep them down in the future too – AA is unfortunately a permanent bonus and Allies can´t even it out or catch up. Even if Allies would have the mpps to research AA, they couldn´t use it cause they have only London and maybe Manchester to start attacks from. Germany in contrary can use with some LR a dozen AFs/cities to benefit from the AA bonus. Summary: In a normal game without AA for Axis (or if Axis don´t use it by purpose for its AFs), the advantage will usually shift several times during a long game. Sometimes Axis is in the advantage and have good chances to win, sometimes Allies – and with the right strategic decissions they have always the chance to turn the tide and this for a pretty long time. As long as one side is not 2:1 superior, game is in most cases not over and the other side still has a chance to turn the tide and win. This creates very interesting games that make a lot of fun. AA can prevent this possibility. Since only Axis can really use this technology, it gives them a huge and increasing long term advantage and when they are in the advantage after Barbarossa, they will keep this advantage and Allies have nearly no chance to break this advantage. At the point Axis got enough AA, it is a downhill game for Allies, even if they could gain the mpp upperhand for some time. Axis always can kill their AFs with the AA bonus, so every strategic victory would be only a pyrrhic victory. And that´s the reason why in the future I will only play without AA research as Allies against veteran players (or with such a high bid, that Axis are dead at the moment Russia gets its bonus mpps ). It is a much better game without AA, not luck based (does Axis get AA or not, together with LR...?), bids can be reasonable and the game makes a lot more fun when both sides have a very long time the possibility to decide the war for their side – even if the enemy is superior at the moment. That makes most of the fun for me: the posibility to turn the tide at every moment of the game until nearly the end (usually 1944-47...). And this possibility only exists without AA research. [ November 26, 2004, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

No landings in Russia mean no landings in Russia . So you are not allowed to land in russian hexes you took control of. This would lastly eliminate the rule since then you only had to move a tank north and could land near Riga and take the city again + landing additional transports along the coast till Leningrad - from the last landing the hexes are grey... . So if it would be allowed the whole rule would be senseless .

I know you trust in luck and normally restart a game until you get your desired combat rolls and tech advances...if you try it often enough, no doubt you can kill Axis sometimes with this strategy - but I prefer to use the better strategy and to win in the first try . This strategy simply is only good against new or impatient (like Rambo ) axis players and when Allies have a lot of luck. In average they will loose France early (April-July 40, just have a look at our 3 games...) and will sacrifice way too much mpps to be dangerous any more in the long run. I had a look at our last old games too with you as Allies - you used exactly the same identical strategy, including giving up the Med. It didn´t work last year and now after all this time where new and better strategies got developed it is clearly a sure way to loose against a good and prepared axis opponent. So in the end: Sorry, as long as you use this obsolete strategy, you are no danger at all .

Question 2: - If Allies want to defend the Med, this is against an experienced player only successful possible in combination with an italian gambit. So I prefer it to play without a landing rule for Italy because then Allies have a lot more strategies available. - If landings in Russia are allowed and the axis player knows how to execute them, then Axis will conquer Riga during the first turn + land near Leningrad and bring Finland in the war. So with landings Russia can´t defend its northern coast any more and also Minsk + Smolensk + Kharkov will fall like domino-stones. With landings Axis can avoid the first 2 russian defence lines that are normally also the strongest ones (behind the river Riga-Minsk and behind the swamps west of Leningrad). So the front is wide open in the north and Axis can move over the open terrain. In the end this limits Russia extremely, since it neither can conquer Finland nor defend the western part of their homecountry. Not to talk about invading Turkey and Iraq. Therefore I prefer to play without landings in Russia. - In competitive games most veterans play with a no landing rule for all major countries as standard rule. The game with Zapp was for competition (not so much to have fun )and he always plays with this rule, so I logically offered the standard rule and not something else . - So far no strategy is a "game breaker" except the Rome invasion that is forbidden. Nevertheless, some strategies make more fun and provide more action and differences, others less. So it depends on what you prefer. E.g. the landings in Russia: if you want to allow it, then you know what will be coming and can prepare. This also means that Allies need more bonus mpps via the bid to compensate for the disadvantage of loosing its best defence lines in Russia.

hen or egg...here it is clear : Since Allies sacrificed all mpps for airbattles during and after France, the simple counter for Axis is to place enough AFs in France to avoid invasion. So because Allies choose this strategy, Axis have to choose the counter . By sacrificing nearly all mpps in airbattles, UK has not enough for research, so their carriers will be useless at the start of Barbarossa and they don´t have the mpps to build enough AFs also. So Axis is superior in numbers and can stall any allied offensive in the West - even if they are so unlucky in tech like in these games . Ok, this slows down the russian campaign, but with western Allies neutralised due to their aggressiv play, Axis have all the time till 47 to conquer Russia. Concerning France: With an aggressive defence it nearly always falls early. That it survived until August was due to good combat rolls for Allies...and Axis didn´t want to go the risky path, otherwise Paris could have fallen much earlier since it was empty several turns - some lucky airstrikes and Game over for Allies . However, with this strategy Allies loose every mpp in France and can not save something for later. Germany has no problems replacing its losses later since it gets much more mpps, but when Allies don´t prepare and save some mpps for D-day, Axis have an easy game .

Ok, games are over - another 3 losses for Zapp (now 52 losses vs me...). AARs: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=003927 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=003928;p=1 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=003929;p=1 Zapp used exactly the same strateg he already used a year ago. All 3 games were exact copies of each other and from the games a year ago. 2 allied HQs during France, heavy airbattles throughout the game, no defence of the Med or other neutrals (kamikaze, so it falls next turn) and only tanks and armies for Russia, most of them placed around Kiev. Such an extremely aggressive strategy only works against new or uncautious/impatient axis players. Even if this strategy would have been good a year ago (which it was not since he there lost with it also every game...). Today strategies are a lot more developed and this old strategy can be easily countered - no chance to win with such an obsolete strategy.

July 1943: WAR IS OVER...ALLIES SURRENDER Allies loose a last US AF in the airbattles in France and with all carriers out of order and no power pieces left in Russia they surrender unconditionally. @ Dragonheart: Yes, today 18.45

July 4, 1943: German army lost, 2 russian armies and a corps killed in return. Breakthrough along the whole line north of Kharkov. Russia is building every turn an army or 2, so they are lacking corps now. West: Airbattles continue, Axis corps outflank Allies northwest of Paris to threaten 2 US AFs near Brussel. Italian corps land in southern USA, Italian battleships at the coast - port is defended by Valiant battleship, so it will be a short journey for the italians.

June 20, 1943: Russian corps killed, army survives at str 1. Frontline: Smolensk-Kharkov-Sevastopol - a more or less straight line from north to south in open territory. West: The heavy airbattles continue, Allies use their damaged carriers for the airbattles, seems they are short in mpps now . Italian sub found and destroyed by a UK battleship. Italian battleships sail home for repairs. US transports outside Canada, Italian hero in Canada dies in the air bombardment.

May 30, 1943: Russia goes aggressive again, killing a german army and a corps. Russian tank, army and corps killed as retaliation. Only 1 russian tank and 2 armies left besides some corps . West: 2 AFs lost in the allied counter, but the UK carriers are now pretty much damaged too, carrier in port attacked by corps... Warspite battleship sunk in the battle near Canada. Italian sub str 1 retreats home for repairs - in case it arrives in one piece . Italian troops land in Canada. Canada surrenders, Italy plunders 275 mpps .

May 2, 1943: 2 russian armies and a corps destroyed, central mine conquered - Russia is now defending in open terrain and has not enough units to fill all gaps...increasing russian losses. West: Paris bombed free by allied air and a lonely US corps liberates it. Axis corps in France retreat into better supplied territories. First german air-offensive near Brussel, US army survives barely, but a UK AF gets killed . UK again down to 2 AFs. USA: US air now defending their homecountry, nevertheless a US corps transport for Canada got sunk by the italian navy. Transports outside Canada. Subs still raiding.

April 4, 1943: Russian corps killed, corps in the central mine surives at str 1 - next turn. West: Heavy ground and airbattles. Italian navy bombarding USA. Subs raiding in the Atlantic.

March 7, 1943: ..and siberians will not arrive until Axis marches further east . Finally Minsk and Kiev conquered after many months of heavy battles around those cities. 2 russian tanks destroyed in the process. Now Russia has only 1 tank, 3 armies and a couple of corps left . West: Minor battles in LC, 2 corps lost. 3 german AFs move in strike range. The naval battle near USA continues, Nelson sunk. USA defended by a couple of corps - shore bombardment by italian battleships.

January 10, 1943: Units within 4 hexes of Moscov are relevant for siberians, but only one corps is not enough to trigger them - otherwise I would not have placed it there . Axis is now 2:1 superior in numbers to Allies . No losses in Russia, 2 russian corps killed. Kiev and Minsk under fire, entrenchment of the 2 tanks reduced to 0 - they will fall next turn. German forces again in front of Smolensk. Russian tank survives luckily at str 1. West: Small battles in LC, another US army landed (3 US armies there now). Allied forces surounded by a corps ring and under attack. UK shows Jets lv 3 and built a third AF. German cruiser near Denmark retreats for repairs, 2 allied ships damaged too. Naval battle near Washington : Nelson battleshipgroup reduced to str 2 by italian battleships. Italian transports approaching the US coasts...

November 29, 1942: German tank in front of Smolensk lost. Only 2 russian corps killed this time, but key positions conquered: Kiev cut off and surounded again and a second pocket cut off at Minsk. West: Heavy airbattles. US HQ + 1 army + 1 UK corps land west of Brussel. A US AF moves to the elbow. Axis force attack, damaging all units heavily. Glorious carrier in port damaged by a german corps. German air retreats some hexes so they are not in range of the US air in the elbow. US army tranport outside Oslo. German cruiser attacks Rodney battleship - reduced to str 4.

November 1, 1942: Russian tanks kill a german one NE of Kiev and reopen the route to Kiev. German forces destroy 2 russian tanks in return. German tanks in front of Smolensk, attacking Konev HQ in the city. West: Western Allies have not much ground forces due to the expensive airbattles throughout the whole game. Only 2 US armies (Brest + Brussel) and a corps near the french mine. Axis forces go in the offensive, surounding Brussel and damaging both army and corps heavily. Glorious carrier in Brussel port attacked by corps. [ November 24, 2004, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Question 1: - The problem is that some veterans don´t use the AA for a better defence of entrenched land units against enemy attacks. In the meantime it is a bad habit to place all AFs into cities and to force enemy intercepts - since then the AA level increases the combat value of the AFs placed in cities (1 lv AA is equal to 1 lv jets). Allies/UK have usually not enough mpps to research Anti-Air - so there will be no catch up -, this gives Axis a huge advantage in case they are lucky to get AA advances. But Axis can only use this advantage if they have air superiority in the west and UK has only jets 1-2 - otherwise western Allies will destroy the AFs before they can force intercepts. So the players that want to use the AA bonus always have to buy a lot more AFs than normal to be superior in numbers in the west and they need luck to get LR (so targets are in range), Jets and AA. Therefore with an AA strategy Axis can´t afford so many ground units and it will be a pure airwar. Usually they go into the defensive on the ground - waiting for the necessary techs and battling for air superiority. So in the end: With an AA strategy Axis needs luck to get the right techs. If they don´t get them in time they have lost since they are too weak on the ground. Especially since when AA research is allowed Allies need a larger bid to compensate this posibility that Axis gets lucky and researches several AA advances (since no one is ahead there is no catch-up and it is simply luck if Germany can reach lv 2+ or not). That´s why I play without AA research now against other veterans. When it is allowed, most of them buy only air, try to get AA and neglect their ground forces so they have to go in the defensive on the ground. This creates a static game and is highly luck based. Do they get their desired techs in time, they have a chance, otherwise they have lost - doesn´t make so much fun when there is no action. Since air is everything Axis have, such games are often decided withing 1-2 turns during one single, huge airbattle where one side looses most of its air. So it is waiting around 2 years, then one big battle and Game Over . I have experienced it is a much better game without AA research .

October 4, 1942: German corps lost in Russia. 2 russian armies destroyed as retaliation. Kiev now completely surounded and cut off. Leningrad conquered. West: Allies kill the axis corps in Brussel and take the city. Heavy airbattles with some german AFs in southeast France. Germany researches lv 4 Jets.

September 6, 1942: No losses in Russia, another russian army killed + a corps. Approaching Smolensk. Leningrad will fall next turn. West: German cruiser and sub lost to ship and carrier attacks, US transport reduced to str 2. Italian corps near Brussel destroyed. Germany developes Jets lv 3 at the end of the turn.

August 23, 1942: No losses in Russia, russian army killed, another one survives with str 1. German forces break through towards Smolensk. West: Italian corps lost. Naval battle near Norway, UK cruiser sunk by some german ships.