Attacking an AA gun can be a tense moment....true statement! I've been playing 1942, 2nd Ed. lately and found myself buying additional AA guns. Now your video makes me rethink, but I do like the fear effects of having multiple AA guns to make the enemy pause when considering air attacks.

I was thinking of a house rule that allowed AA guns to defend on a 1. They were used at times in history against infantry as basically a big machine gun, so I think it makes sense and makes them just a little bit more useful in defense alongside other units, but nothing game changing.

Great video mate. 3:03 - You successfully captured the speed that AA gun rolls feel like they happen in real life.

We used to houserule old-style AA guns to allow you to stack several in one territory and shoot with all of them at each incoming plane. It definitely made things interesting, always preferred that rule.

I don't think I've ever played a game where anyone built an AA gun.

I absolutely adore your camera work m8. The dramatic pans and zooms are top notch and add a lot of personality to inanimate pieces.

For me there are two reasons to buy AA guns. Allied players, especially the USSR, facing Germany going Dark Skies. And British India looking to support Chinese infantry stacks against all those Japanese planes.

When the AAA dice are hot, they're hot -- 10-15 seconds in the microwave, before you roll them, is my advice

I think that the only nation that would really benefit from buying AA (except in special cases) would be Germany. Russian fighters are so vital to Russia's survival, and if even a few can be sniped off, they are very very very costly for the Russians to replace. And like you said, even if they don't shoot down planes, they can be used as a great deterrent.

You missed one key detail of the original rules AA guns. In the original, any aircraft entering a territory during Combat Move was subject to AA Fire once per territory. A single aircraft attack can be subject to 3 separate AA rolls against the plane. This added utility of AA guns significantly changed the defensive use of the piece in 84 and 2004 Revised. It makes Strategic Bombing much more difficult (UK can still go across sea zones to Berlin though) when going over land. It can also limit the movement of aircraft trying to switch flanks over enemy territory that is well defended. You hit on the major aspect of AA though. It's very luck dependent and psychological. When it looks like you are about to defend with less than 30% chance of winning the battle and no real hope of a quick recapture, AA is 100% the way to go. Your odds to win on average go up very little, but the chance to score more AA hits that could significantly swing the odds of defending can be the difference between winning and losing the war.

Multiple AA guns scare the hell out of the Luftwaffe. A historic showdown at Moscow (Historic, to me and my friend) got me out of losing an unwinniable battle. I stuck about 8 along with a whole whack of Infantry, got lucky I guess. :)

The sequel we needed. Awesome video, I though of something similar

There is the strategic aspect against bombers doing an economic raid. Also if you get rockets you have a strategic bombing option.

Excellent video! I agree 100% with you. Keep up the great work!

Missed you Corporal Clegg!

Really great video, just found my old love A&A❤. Now this is next level A&A. So back to A&A school

5 out of 6 bombingruns shot down, cost me a window once 😬

AA guns feel like the ultimate gambler's piece. High risk high reward. You can take out many of the attacker's most valuable units out, but if you don't hit you will be wishing you bought the infantry instead.

This is an exceptionally high quality channel. Some of the best A&A content I’ve seen. Great job

Return of the King

Fear the mighty AA: It's coming for YOU!

Your back!!

For me, I think that AA Guns give you a better chance of taking out enemy planes before they can do any damage

YOU ARE BACK!!! great video by the way.

HELL YEAH, my bad day feels a lot better since you uploaded another video!

Great video. I found two additional cases to support buying an AA: 1. More than fear. If you know you will lose a territory but want to do good damage. *It may be beneficial to sacrifice the lower odds of victory for a chance to eliminate more powerful (air) units.* Because, in a lot of those cases you showed, there are very low odds to get to the point where an attacking air unit is ever hit. Eliminating an air unit in one battle has major implications for other battles in a wide region. 2. Something I think the battle odds calculator may not work well with is recursion over multiple rounds of rolling. If a plane has the chance to do 5 rounds of attacking, eliminating it would have a larger impact on the battle. So you would need to not only compare it's defensive power vs. more and more planes but also more and more attacking soldiers, as they would increase the rounds that those attacking fighters will fire. For #1) One example where the odds are less important than the potential winning outcome is the initial attack of the German subs in the US Atlantic transports + destroyer. You get a very low chance of success (something like 32% with both subs), but if you win you sink two transports. *An AA that gets a hit on a place would have a major success benefits which may out way the single battle odds.* For #2) I don't have it in front of me, but you could check it's correctness! With a set of 6 attacking fighters and 1 AA. By comparing the sum of the probability of X number of hits on air units multiplied by the odds of victory with those hits (planes removed). Compare that single probability of success to a battle without the AA unit and with one less attacking plane in the first place (because that is the average that an AA would inflict).

Great video - thanks a lot! Long live the infantry! 🙂

The old version was good for making your opponent think twice before doing strategic bombing. Since factories cube with AA defense, and built AA guns don't contribute during strategic bombing, they seem worse. But in later editions, AA guns can be moved. I feel like they are now best at countering the air support used to bolster an amphibious attack that contains only a couple of transports. I would only buy then to maybe replace lost guns or if I'm doing very well late in the game. I also might buy a few of my opponent is building a large number of aircraft.

Always a good watch. Wonder how BBR Radar tech changes the equation.

I play Revised (the blue box) which uses the old rules, but also allows to upgrade them to rocket launchers to attack factories. Using old rules there are 2 things to consider: 1. Piece limitations. I don't recall if it's stated in the rules but I've always played as their piece limited, so when all the little gray deathtowers are bought, that's that. A strat I developed is to buy them amongst the nations for whatever side I'm playing to and spread them out, meaning the other side can't get them without fighting for them. It's a good way to get under the other side's skin. 2. Mind games. As the video said, the AA guns have major impact psychologically, not just in getting someone to doubt a move but also perhaps overextending themselves. A player who made it past the AA bombardment (unscathed or even losing some planes) may be more reluctant to retreat, knowing they will have to face them again if they do. Essentially it's the sunk cost fallacy - "in for a penny, in for a pound", even though the penny may be able to be lost, but they pound may bankrupt you. Smart use and placement of AA guns rarely serves a purely strategic end - they just don't hit that often on the whole - but monopolizing them, as well as a cold smile and a snide remark when your opponent starts pushing planes in, can have a game-changing impact even on seasoned players. "They only hit on a one! 5 out of 6 says I'm fine." "Would you take a slice from a pizza if one piece might be poisoned? 5 out of 6 says you're fine."

A simple solution would probably be to make AA cheaper; if they would cost 3 IPC or even only 2 IPC, they would probably be a worthwhile buy, at least in some situations.

We play that AA guns defend on a 2 but can only damage aircraft, similar to the way that subs can't damage aircraft at all. It's worked well and made them worthwhile.

Awesome video

Great video! Good to see that you are back! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important aspect of the game. I was wondering whether you would come up with a house rule or not. Which price do you prefer: 5 or 6 IPC? Would you advocate an unlimited amount of AA Gun shots (= one shot per attacking aircraft) or a limit of 3 shots per AA Gun, allowing more than one gun per territory? Here is how I use AA guns in my Anniversary Edition: Cost: 5 IPC (not 6). More than one AA Gun per territory may be used for defense. Each AA Gun may fire up to 3 shots against attacking aircraft, but only one shot per aircraft is allowed. Thus, the second and third AA Gun defend against 4 to 6 and 7 to 9 aircraft respectively. So you need another AA Gun when your opponent has more than three aircraft at his disposal for his attack. If you use R&D: I introduced a technology that specifically improves AA Guns. It is called AA Gun Radar: each defending AA Gun gets an extra shot. If the attacker has two fighters, you get three shots, if the attacker has five fighters/bombers and the defender two AA Guns, he defends with seven rolls. And the cherry on the cake: On a roll of »2« the attacker has to withdraw one fighter/bomber back to base without attacking.

Great video 👍

I never matched it out- Put this is the exact conclusion I have come too. I have certainly bought last min AA guns for defending battlers were the enemy has lots of planes- It has made the differenced. But VERY situational

I think AA guns should work similar to Submarines, but the other way round: It fires in combat but can hit air units only, also has the first strike ability. It also should hit on 2 or 3 on defense, rather than 1 to increase it's value.

For the old rules the fact that they get captured also makes it tricky with territories you may need to retake later.

Immaculate. Agree on every word. Well done my friend. I am The Good Captain and I approve this message. ;)

Yeahhhh your back so glad to see a Video made, I just made a Video and recommended people to your channel 😂😂😂

I've never built one but they greatly helped this one turn when I destroyed my friends airforce

never used them (granted i played older editions) unless i rolled the v1/v2 rocket technology upgrade which allowed AA guns to strategic bomb (1d3) within 3 spaces * not sure if if i'm remembering all rules correctly as its been a LONG time since i played

Interesting, good analysis. I think one example is really powerful, the poorly defended empty zone that can be traded back and forth (especially thinking of Russia). If you conquered and have one or two infantry in it, is it worth it to place an AA gun with them? Whatever land units are send are lost next turn, trading that for killing the present 7 or 10 IPC, plus whatever that remaining force does in one turn defending. I think you can calculate the losses with varying setups with 80%+ win chance. One or two infantry with as many planes as can be spared is usually the cheapest option. But with an AA gun, would one risk it? One plane might not be enough, two or three will definitely make the AA gun worth its money. Note you can use up the ones you start with, you can decide to replace them or not later. Besides this back and forth attacking, you also have situations where land units are extremely limited by transport. Japan will probably often rely on planes doing damage with the rare land units (infantry) for taking a hit and capturing. An AA gun might be a nice deterrent as send a lot of planes at once becomes riskier.

I think winning odds in battles cannot be the only thing to consider. When someone keeps in mind that AA guns are considerably cheaper than planes, it also means that a single hit of an AA gun over the course of the game is sufficient to double down on the investment in case if hitting a fighter or even trippling in case of hitting a bomber. When the same AA gun is able to take a hit during battle, the economical relative gain compared to the enemy get's even higher.

Another classic to go with "Are Cruisers for Losers?"👍

Great video on AA guns corporal, 6 out of 9AA hits ouch, we all have our scars....as a PFC I can appreciate the subject, several factors as you well stated making differences in their plannings. My favorite use came from the Classic edition we'd play, as a German player, I often deployed from my Eastern Europe pile to Ukraine, 6 infantry and 1 anti aircraft gun, the goal being to make the strongest allied player take it back (Russia being the goal) as Russia might not bring their 2 few planes over an anti aircraft gun, they become influenced to send tanks, an expensive battle for Russia, they can't move the anti aircraft gun the same turn they take it soo, Germany gets to take it back, forcing German Russia only land battles as capabilities allow. Eventually Ukraine stays German and the Caucasus becomes a steady source of income for the Germans, with enough mobile resources, this anti aircraft gun gets put in the Caucasus, possibly with large armour formations now advanced into Ukraine, this kettle is boiling, much pressure to Moscow and much more to Karelia, forcing their hand, often, even a disorderly retreat, costing expensive pieces. As the aggressor you choose the odds ( place your bets), and dare the defenders to commit something, is it too big for one of the allies, will the Russian attack, as I'd my Germany prefer ?. Will all three allies try ? Taking the Anti Aircraft gun as legitimate combat loss is certainly a noticable advantage, much like a "2" hit infantry, something gets to roll again. I recall one variant does use selective AA rolling, more bombers will be hit this way, but I think interception combat also effects the AA buying needs. Romel used his 88 mm anti aircraft guns as successful anti tank guns, proving the often much underappreciated multi role capabilities of these weapon systems. I recall a classic ruling about combat moving AA guns, with rocket technology, the player can combat move into a friendly territory, and fire their rockets ,(,AA, gun) Edit... Anti aircraft gun fires every round of combat is another variation, one dice only per AA gun, but every round, and no limits on how.many per territory, also can be taken as a combat loss. A Zeno or gamers paradise variant I think

I love your videos man but I need more content to work with. You make some of the best and there’s just not enough. If so I don’t know you schedule but post again soon 🙏

AAs are great because it makes attackers think twice about bringing their planes. If an attacker can’t afford to lose planes, they may choose to direct their planes elsewhere that turn. On the other hand, they may feel like they need to bring more planes to the battle (planes that could have gone elsewhere that turn) to offset any potential losses. The attacker is forced to plan around the presence of that AA gun. I find AAs most useful for both factions on the European coast. For Germany, the presence of AAs could make the Allies choose a different target for an amphibious assault. Luckily, the powers already start with plenty of AA guns, so you don’t even need to build more most of the time. The AA gun influences the decision calculus of your opponent. It gives them less options and forces them down paths you can manipulate. This is the value of the AA gun.

0:30 - I thought in the original rules, the AA guns fire at every air unit flying over (entering) the territory in the combat move phase and in the non combat move phase. I do not have the original rule book with me, so do not know for sure.

God I love your videos. Yeah they need a little something to boost them up. An incredibly un maneuverable unit who’s job it is to hunt the most maneuverable units in the game just doesn’t make sense. Honestly just drop them to 4. They take forever to get in place and your opponent can respond by switching to more ground units and flying planes at easier targets.

Never bought one and immediately knew I would win when I saw an opponent buy 2 on turn 1.😊

I will say that i had a game where i had 18 aircraft and i lost all of them do to AA.

Old sport is back!!!

We never really buy them but part of the reason is you start with AA guns in most of the critical areas at the start. Old rules, probably not worth it to buy but under new rules that you posted (which I have never played), they seem worth it.

Awesome video. How do you make your flight stands?

I love your alias!

Does the odds calculator taking into account that the shot down planes do not participate in the following battle?

AAA guns are better in GW1936 since they roll @ 3, can attack, and be railed to the front lines fast

I don't get the argument that the infantry can shoot multiple times over the course of the battle. When you buy the aa gun it's allways with the purpose of having it shoot once at start then taking it as casualty. The additional infantry you would've bought instead would fare exactly the same: shoot once then you take it as casualty, but won't get the benefit of having shot preemtively at expensive "high rolling" planes. Moreso if you do get 3 rolls with the AA, that's an attack power of 3(instead of a 2 from inf). That's 50% more => justifies 4.5 of it's 5 ipc cost compared to inf by this alone, not considering the aa hits are prebattle and targeting expensive planes. Something must be wrong with the odds calculator used here. There's no way 1 aa rolling 3 dice is worse than an inf in any fight configuration(even rolling only 2 dice should still be better than 1 additional inf)

Given that aa guns can target planes directly, while infantry hits will first be taken out on enemy infantry, then i do feel that their cost effectiveness is higher than you portray. A single hit of the aa gun takes out a unit worth double its price, while on average a single infantry hit will only take out another infantry. So what are the odds of a single infantry taking out 3 enemy infantry ? Quite low! Taking out a plane with a lucky shot does indeed alter the battle drastically, given that planes are generally the last units to be taken as casualties, if ever, while infantry will be chosen as first casualty. A single missing plane in a battle lasting 3-4 turns is a potential of 2-3 friendly units saved. So im not sure how your combat calculator works but it still seems to me that when you are sure to face planes then a minimum of aa guns is definitely worth it. I do think that for better comparison you should calculate odds of lucky streaks, say, the infantry hitting the enemy on every round, or that aa gun having all his shots hit planes, then im sure we can observe that the maximum potential of an aa gun is far greater than the maximum potential a single infantry unit could ever reach! An average calculation of the odds doesnt show maximum potential.

The entire time i have played axis and allies thats axis and allies 1942 1940 pacific 1940 Europe and 1940 global there was 1 time where it was a good idea to Build an aa gun so my opponent made i Think 3 and then when i attacked at that time we had played axis and allies like 3-4 times so we didnt know the rules of the Old aa gun so each aa hit 3 times no matter the number of planes so has 4 aa guns the places Im attacking hit hits none i Think aa guns are the most useless piece in axis and allies

I think you have you the incorrect criteria for evaluation. Rather using strictly winning or losing battles you should use economic cost. If i lose a battle but the UPC cost of the units my opponent lost are 15 higher than mine most of the time im okay with that. AA guns arent going to win you battles but they very much can economically punish your opponent (which imo is usually more valuable).

18:36 Flaktürme!!

Once I killed 4 out of 12 planes and my friend ammited defeat

AA are nice to have but Infantry are better, mainly because they fire every round.

Dude this guy has his math wrong. 1 AA gun against 3 planes has a 50% chance since 3/6=.50

No.