John DiFool the 2nd Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 At the risk of adding yet another item to Hubert's list, IMHO AA tech should certainly be applicable to ships. Compare the AA schemes of most non US pre-war ships and what the US had by the end of the war. I guess you could call level 5 guided missiles if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 One of the problems with throwing AA tech around is the need for applicable counter tech otherwise techs get out of balance as they did in SC1. Currently AA tech is balanced against the tech upgrades available to Bombers but to extend it further I would have to create new categories of tech for other units... although I could have an AA tech for naval units that is only applicable to Bomber attach and not AF attack etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anoldman Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 One issue with AA is what AA means. I think of bombers flying through bursts, but I also think of AA machineguns blazing away at fighters. I would like some way to equip my forces with increased AA capability vs. tech boosted fighter aircraft. Sort of like ZSU-23-2, and -4's or maybe quad .50's? Some games I have played, Germany invests heavily in Advance Aircraft. One of the challenges of the game for the allies is certainly, where will Germany invest? Subs? Air? Tanks? All three can really influence the war. Problem is that as the Allies, my MPP flow is so restricted that I can only really pick one to 'counter'. Tech investments reward those who invest heavily in an area. Basically, the only counter to advanced air is advanced air. Russians though for example, they have a lot of infantry. I can boost them to counter Hvy Tanks but not fighters, and my Russian tanks get decimated by air. I appreciate that some of the answer is play style. Invest russian costs in Adv. Aircraft and buy planes. I guess my question would be, did they have Anti-Aircraft companies back then? I would certainly love to invest in vehicles with quad mounted .50's or equivalent and attach them to my units. Wasn't Advance Fighters an issue in SC1? Love the game, seems like it would be nice to upgrade ground units to resist fighters a bit more. Maybe that is completely ahistorical though. Maybe it would ruin gameplay to allow ground units increased air-defense upgrades? I don't know. --An Old Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Wasn't Advance Fighters an issue in SC1? Love the game, seems like it would be nice to upgrade ground units to resist fighters a bit more. You already have AA attached to units, AOM. When a fighter (... partially posited as TAC) Attacks a ground unit, **And is NOT intercepted, And yet, Takes a hit of... 1 or 2 strength points, What do you suppose CAUSED that hit? Flak? A wing-strut falling off Due to forced slave labor? I would guess... well, That hit had come zinging out of nowhere? Is due to an imagined Yet fully "attached" - AA brigade, Mobile or static." [ May 27, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 Man with the Mojo: ...although I could have an AA tech for naval units that is only applicable to Bomber attach and not AF attack etc. I wouldn't mind it. Naval Bombers! Ship-to-sky Flak attacks! I say - go for it! LOL! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Koponen Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 I agree. AA tech should be applied to ships. One of the reasons the American navy did so well against the Kamikaze was that few got through the proximity fused AA fire. If Kamikazes had been used before the US got proximity fused AA shells a much higher percentage of them would have damaged the targeted ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 An Old Man. Advanced Aircraft only boosts fighter vs. fighter capabilities. A level 0 fighter vs. a level 5 fighter against a ground unit have the same benefits. That was not the case in SC. And was the 2nd major issue in the game, first being USA/USSR producing peanuts in MPPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Koponen Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I suspect most of us were thinking of Anti-Aircraft tech when refering to AA. Perhaps we should have used AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) instead. Do missiles count as artillery? Probably. I, at least, was not thinking about Advanced Aircraft when referring to AA in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts