Fionn vs FlaK?

[Barleyman]

I'm not sure what to think of the moratorium on FlaK guns .. I can see why you might want to be rid of the flakwagen which is clearly modelled badly by CMBO engine. But why a blanket ban on all towed pieces?

AFAIK it was hardly rare to assign FlaK guns to shoot at tanks, people, etc.. In fact, I do think there's a german heavy FlaK gun that was very good at this role..!

[Michael Dorosh]

I can think of one specific incidence in which low calibre and high calibre FlaK guns were used exclusively against ground targets; the defence of Walcheren Causeway on 31 Oct - 2 Nov 1944. They do show up quite often in historical accounts.

I think, however, the rules are intended more for play balance than historicity - the Allies had flak guns too, both low and high calibre - but they are not in CM. Historially, all the 20mm AA guns in Commonwealth service were withdrawn in I believe August 1944 - there were no more German planes to shoot at. The anti aircraft artillerymen were then turned into infantrymen, at least in the Canadian case.

[Fionn]

Barleyman,

Couple of points.

1. They are called "Balanced Force Rules" and not "historical Force Rules" for a reason .

2. BUGGER. I totally forgot about the FlaK88. It just never occured to me that people wouldn't figure out that a slow-firing, large-calibre gun should be exempted from the ban imposed because of modelling issues with fast-firing, small-calibre guns.

DOH!

3. Believe me I've seen some VERY gamey uses of massed 2cm FlaK. You wouldn't believe how quickly they can burn through a town taking every building down in turn.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

the Allies had flak guns too, both low and high calibre - but they are not in CM.

you mean the 40mm and 90mm AA guns, right

Barleyman, the reason is simply one of balance, since CMBO models the AA guns in an undesirable way: a 20mm AA gun is very hard to spot, even when fuiring all the time, from ranges of a few hundred meters, and can therefore safely take out (mostly immobilize) allied armor at will from distance.

the model also makes these "burst"-weapons overly accurate compared to AT guns.

the issue is the same with the 3,7cm FlaK and the allied 40mm AA gun (Bofors IIRC), although not as crass as with the 2cm.

in essence, the way they are now, they are overly effective and considered gamey by many.

edit: and, as Fionn poijts out, they are excellent for destryoing buildings, a thing at which the larger rapid-fire AA guns (3,7cm, 40mm, and quad-2cm) are better than the small 2cm.

[edited because Fionn had posted in the meantime]]

[ May 26, 2002, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, 40mm was the mainstay, but some units were equipped with 20mm guns (these were rare, apparently, and after Aug 44 non-existent in service). The 90mm was actually 94 - 3.7 inch to be precise...with the 3 inch (76mm) gun also never completely replaced by 1945....

...but you got my meaning.

The point being that in CM, Germans have, Brits don't, so in any kind of "balance" rules, depending on your definition of balance, the Germans can't have them for that reason.

[Fionn]

Dorosh,

Not quite correct. What you state would hold if you were relying on symmetrical balance BUT if you felt that, for example, the British could buy a 17 pounder with the AT ability of the 88 or a 25lber with the HE power of an 88 then you might say that assymetric balance could still be achieved.

I know you'll raise versatility issues but overall the balance would remain IMO.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Dorosh,

Not quite correct. What you state would hold if you were relying on symmetrical balance BUT if you felt that, for example, the British could buy a 17 pounder with the AT ability of the 88 or a 25lber with the HE power of an 88 then you might say that assymetric balance could still be achieved.

I know you'll raise versatility issues but overall the balance would remain IMO.

Wasn't even addressing the 88 in the least, actually, sorry for the confusion.

[Fionn]

Oh, I didn't realise that Dorosh. My apologies.

[Dave H]

I'm sure this subject has been one of the most discussed since CM:BO came out, but here's my take on the problem. I think the problem may be less a case of too many German FlaK guns than a case of too few Allied air attacks. Most players hate to give up the points for an air attack which they could instead use on infantry, armor, or artillery. With the price ranging from 213 points (Conscript) to 380 points (Elite) for a fighter-bomber, most Allied players will instead purchase a handful of other units. Therefore no air threat, and no need for the Axis FlaK to be sited for, and to have ammunition saved for, air defense.

Maybe there's a way to stop completely eliminating FlaK units for the Axis player. I gather this problem shows up primarily in games where the players choose their own units. Simply require the Allied player to take a fighter-bomber for each FlaK gun the Axis player selects, and charge the Axis player the full points (say 225 for a Regular) of the fighter-bomber for each AA gun. I suspect that would eliminate most of the problems with gamey tactics, because by selecting the expensive FlaK guns the Axis player is ensuring the Allied player has as many equally expensive, and potentially devastating, weapons. The Allied player can still choose more fighter-bombers than the Axis player takes FlaK guns. In conditions when fighter-bombers cannot operate, the FlaK guns are banned.

Of course, for scenarios the designer has to deal with FlaK vs. air power, but that's a different situation.

Just a possible compromise I hadn't seen mentioned before.

[Sir Uber General]

Fionn is onto it, Flak guns are cheap nasty building and light armour wreckers that are exploited in gamey hoardes by ruthless axis players.

Limit of 1 X 40mm or less flak gun per 1000pts rounded down would be fair IMO, with no air support if the game is under 1000pts.

Another way to beat the flak hoard is to insist on towed guns starting hitched (to a truck, tractor, or HT) in your next ME... they become too expensive to buy in hoards that way.

[Patgod]

i dont mind people buying 1 or 2 flak guns. hell i love the little things. i hate seeing them banned.

imo so long as the player isnt "hoarding" flak guns i dont have a problem with it.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

Fionn is onto it, Flak guns are cheap nasty building and light armour wreckers that are exploited in gamey hoardes by ruthless axis players.

Limit of 1 X 40mm or less flak gun per 1000pts rounded down would be fair IMO, with no air support if the game is under 1000pts.

Another way to beat the flak hoard is to insist on towed guns starting hitched (to a truck, tractor, or HT) in your next ME... they become too expensive to buy in hoards that way.

I think that is about right

especially this part:

"Flak guns are cheap nasty building and light armour wreckers that are exploited in gamey hoardes by ruthless axis players."

that is too true!

-tom w

[Redwolf]

The Allied 90mm is single-shot, the 40mm is an autocannon and falls under the Flak category discussed here.

One aspect missed in the discussion is that besides the extremly high hit probabilty, the German Flak units, especially the towed 20mm one, come with much ammo. When you compare the gun prices and the HE ammo load of Flak guns and other small guns, like the 50mm or 57mm AT guns, you see that you get a lot of HE ammo for the price. Combine that with the fact that the Flak guns are very hard to spot, you may even have a chance to spend the ammo, something a 88mm gun can only dream of.

Still, I personally don't find the Flak units worth banning, for a veriety of reasons mentioned the the recent threads about Fionns new and my rulesets.

[imported_Wildman]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

Fionn is onto it, Flak guns are cheap nasty building and light armour wreckers that are exploited in gamey hoardes by ruthless axis players.

Limit of 1 X 40mm or less flak gun per 1000pts rounded down would be fair IMO, with no air support if the game is under 1000pts.

Another way to beat the flak hoard is to insist on towed guns starting hitched (to a truck, tractor, or HT) in your next ME... they become too expensive to buy in hoards that way.

Egads,

Shade of David Aiken arise and take your rightful place at the lead of this endeveour

[Sir Uber General]

eh?

I dont get it.

Nothing new mind...

[Tero]

If the FLAK gets banned then the air support should be banned as well.

Also, if the use of 20mm FLAK in ground support is considered gamey doesn't that make the use of the 50cal in ground support gamey too ?

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by tero:

If the FLAK gets banned then the air support should be banned as well.

With Fionn' s rules, air support is banned.

Also, if the use of 20mm FLAK in ground support is considered gamey doesn't that make the use of the 50cal in ground support gamey too?

Not really; The .50 is considered small arms fire that is solved in a completely different (and less abusive) manner.

The tripod version also has considerably less ammo than a towed 20mm.

Cheers

Olle

[Tero]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

With Fionn' s rules, air support is banned.

Yes.

Not really; The .50 is considered small arms fire that is solved in a completely different (and less abusive) manner.

Depends how you define abusive.

50cal is 12,7mm (as opposed to 20mm). It fires an AP solid shot (compared to a either HE grenade or AP shot).

You get the 50cal (with all its benefits and no extra cost) with almost every AFV in the inventory while you have to specifically purchase the 20mm FLAK. This is historically OK, BUT the TC's seem awfully adept in using them in ground support in exposed combat conditions when IRL they would have often had to climb out of the turret to actually fire it at the target. If they had not stowed it away as they seem to have done when there was no fear from enemy air attacks.

The tripod version also has considerably less ammo than a towed 20mm.

That is what you get when you have a wheeled undercarriage and can move the gun in one piece.

[ May 27, 2002, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by tero:

Also, if the use of 20mm FLAK in ground support is considered gamey doesn't that make the use of the 50cal in ground support gamey too ?

The .50cal in CMBO doesn't have nearly as high a hit, penetration and/or knockout chance as the Flak guns, for whatever reason.

But your example is one in the right direction, if you ban Flak guns, you should also ban all 20mm armed Axis vehicles, they all have the autocannon with its high hit probability. That make choices few and someone will cry bloody murder and bash these rules and come up with his own. As I already did...

[ May 27, 2002, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Barleyman]

Well. It seems to me that the "gamey" approach is buying massed FlaK guns. As someone suggested, a limit based on battle size should serve just as well. For example, one autocannon plus one for every 1000pts.

Personally, my experiments have been a little discouraging with FlaK guns. The 50mm PaK is better at taking out tanks and the 75mm infantry gun is better at taking out GIs.

And what about the Wirblewind? It's an AFV, so it has to keep it's head well down or it'll get taken out. By that train of thought, shouldn't you ban every German AFV with 20mm AC?

[Redwolf]

I placed an article about the Flak guns on

http://thforums.com/CMBO/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=72&mode= &order=0

It contains what I know about the game mechanics and their implications for Flak guns. If you find something I missed please let me know.

[ May 27, 2002, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[FFE]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

By that train of thought, shouldn't you ban every German AFV with 20mm AC?

No. The Whirblewind is an expensive tool, unlike the rest. Cost is suppose to mirror effectivensss. This is not the case with most 20mm mounted AA guns. The light independent guns are capable of crippling heavy armor and remaining fully cloaked.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by FFE:

Yes.. But Fionn's rules bans every FlaK vehicle, including Wirblewind and Ostwind. So if you want to ban those, shouldn't every vehicle with an autocannon be banned, too?

Personally, I think armored flak vehicles should be alloved, they're quite fragile.