Aircraft are a big issue imo

[Cinphul]

I get that AA isn't supposed to kill planes, that's fine, I don't really care. The problem with aircraft is that they can so easily and quickly repair - unless you kill them, they will be back in play at full effect in two or three minutes. No other unit is like this - I can't reconstitute an infantry unit that's been reduced to one man, or even repair the tracks on a tank that's been immobilized, because the time frame to do these things is considered to long within a battle. Yet I'm to believe a plane that's been damaged is able to fly home, be repaired, rearmed, refueled and fly back to the battle in two or three minutes? That's broken.

The impact of this is that air power becomes dominant - if you win the skies, you can just keep blasting your enemy and they have no effective recourse. And yes, I know some of you are thinking, but if you own the skies, you do dominate! It's realistic! Sure, but it's not realistic for planes to be able to fly home, be repaired, rearmed and refueled in just a few minutes. If you're going to talk realism, you have to consider all of it. But in the end, this is a game and balance is what matters.

Back to the point - sure you can spend more slots on AA and beat them off to a degree, but again, by design AA almost never kills planes. So in the end you can't eliminate their air power, so any time you move slightly past your AA coverage you get wrecked, or they simply send in a bunch of "fodder" plains to take the heat while the attack planes wreck you. And those fodder planes don't actually even die... So they pay basically no price for this because the planes are quickly repaired and ready to fly in minutes.

I want to play the strategic ground battle game that Steel Division: Normandy 44 was so clearly meant to be, not the air war that it so clearly is.

I don't know what the best fix is, but just to add a suggestion, I'd say make the repair time 10 minutes+ for planes. This way if you're using planes against someone with no AA at all, you won't really notice a change, but if they do have AA, if you try to blast through it, you'll pay a much higher price with a long wait.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Some modes, it's not worth bringing AA...either the plane trains or off-board IRBM's will statistic your troops anyway.

 

[Protosszocker]

I get that AA isn't supposed to kill planes, that's fine, I don't really care. The problem with aircraft is that they can so easily and quickly repair - unless you kill them, they will be back in play at full effect in two or three minutes. No other unit is like this - I can't reconstitute an infantry unit that's been reduced to one man, or even repair the tracks on a tank that's been immobilized, because the time frame to do these things is considered to long within a battle. Yet I'm to believe a plane that's been damaged is able to fly home, be repaired, rearmed, refueled and fly back to the battle in two or three minutes? That's broken.

The impact of this is that air power becomes dominant - if you win the skies, you can just keep blasting your enemy and they have no effective recourse. And yes, I know some of you are thinking, but if you own the skies, you do dominate! It's realistic! Sure, but it's not realistic for planes to be able to fly home, be repaired, rearmed and refueled in just a few minutes. If you're going to talk realism, you have to consider all of it. But in the end, this is a game and balance is what matters.

Back to the point - sure you can spend more slots on AA and beat them off to a degree, but again, by design AA almost never kills planes. So in the end you can't eliminate their air power, so any time you move slightly past your AA coverage you get wrecked, or they simply send in a bunch of "fodder" plains to take the heat while the attack planes wreck you. And those fodder planes don't actually even die... So they pay basically no price for this because the planes are quickly repaired and ready to fly in minutes.

I want to play the strategic ground battle game that Steel Division: Normandy 44 was so clearly meant to be, not the air war that it so clearly is.

I don't know what the best fix is, but just to add a suggestion, I'd say make the repair time 10 minutes+ for planes. This way if you're using planes against someone with no AA at all, you won't really notice a change, but if they do have AA, if you try to blast through it, you'll pay a much higher price with a long wait.

Last Patch already changed alot about this. now its usefull to get aa gun because repairing of airplanes now needs a lot longer (refueling is still the same so you have to deal dmg) and bombers arent the killing monsters anymore since they loose a lot of acc if they get stressed now. I dont feel like it is impossible anymore to win with out air domination though it is still powerfull as it should be in a combined arms game. but attacking with bombers against a german with some 88s and some fighters is sooo risky now and AA now at least holds the air above you save in combination with some fighters. I killed so many players that had like 5 fighters while i just had 2 but 4-5 aa guns that stressed the enemy fighters down so my fighters where able to kill them. I think thats the way to go. Only problem i see is the amount of airplanes some airborne divisions can call in but everything else is fine for me.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

Air is still extremely dominant, especially against the many divisions with weak AA and few planes.

Problem is asymmetry of impact. Air can have huge impact on ground game, but ground game at best has marginal impact on air. You might with good AA configuration, the right division and some luck bring down a few planes with AA and stun a bunch of others. And with some divisions -- esecially in A -- you will be virtually defenseless against air attack even if you commit heavily to AA. But anyone who commits to using air is virtually guaranteed to kill lots of stuff with planes either directly or indirectly.

It is entirely possible to down planes with specific AA pieces that have unusually good performance and access to vet. Other AA pieces with the same gun caliber are completely useless. 2x M16 GMC with a star of vet in 3AD with a commander nearby will murder high resilience planes no problem. 2x polsten as guards armor with commander nearby will struggle to scare off a single 2x star low resilience fighter strafing them. While in later phases of the game most divisions have somewhat decent access to AA, in many it is a grab bag of random crap whose values are absurdly out of whack with one another even when it is literally the exact same gun on a different chassis. And in many cases for many divisions it is literally impossible to bring as many AA units in your deck as an airborne player can call out in a reasonably competitive game, let alone match how many planes they can bring in their deck. Given that it is impossible to stop a plane train with an equal number of AA pieces, this is an issue. Standardization of AA performance and improving access to AA for most divisions could help with this, as could substantially reducing the price of AA and above all cutting the number of planes available to airborne decks.

Meanwhile planes, especially axis planes, can have game winning impact. A single duck or a pair of ju87g can mow down multiple medium tanks in a single run. I just watched a game Firestarter recorded where Tigga did that to a duo of Harold Alexander/You Shall Suffer, both players of recognized skill. They lost 3-4 tanks in a single run and went from a decent position to utterly fucked in a few seconds. They failed to buy AA, but buying AA wasn't particularly warranted as those were Tigga/Firestarter's first ground attack planes.

Allied planes can have similar impact on infantry, especially the mosquito and the mustang bombers of the 101st. These planes combine a good payload with a fast rearm time and high speed, allowing them to have excellent impact over the course of the game with minimal risk of death and low risk of damage induced repair time due to a lack of extended loitering. Planes can have substantial impact on tanks as well, but given the asymmetry between allied and axis tanks I see this as an acceptable issue.

If a tank is out of position for even a second or two by just a few meters it risks instant death. If infantry moves even in heavy cover while under fire it will take heavy casualties. Meanwhile, in almost every situation planes that are out of position risk nothing more than a mild increase in their repair time unless the enemy risks equal points in fighters to bring the bomber down. An appeal to history has been made to justify this situation where the direct counter to a unit is wildly ineffective in countering that unit, but this argument falls flat when air units exhibit wildly ahistorical performance and resilience. From a game design perspective, it beggars belief that developers would seriously claim that a unit is performing to expectations even when with appropriate use by good players it is still being hunted to extinction by the units it supposedly counters so well. Planes should require good play and cautious use -- as all ground units do -- to perform well. They currently do not, and this situation must be recitified.

 

[Archonsod]

And with some divisions -- esecially in A -- you will be virtually defenseless against air attack even if you commit heavily to AA. But anyone who commits to using air is virtually guaranteed to kill lots of stuff with planes either directly or indirectly.

IIRC most phase A air is limited to a single plane per card, so the odds on them managing to kill lots of stuff is kinda slim (particularly given the cost of those units). If anyone was losing a lot of units to air attacks in phase A I don't think air power is the problem. Some divisions will struggle more than others to defend against air attack in the phase, but I think the scarcity of available air power restricts it's effectiveness (not to mention the hundred and odd points spent on airplanes in phase A are points not spent on units that can actually advance the frontline, which I think is probably the most important part of that phase).

2x M16 GMC with a star of vet in 3AD with a commander nearby will murder high resilience planes no problem. 2x polsten as guards armor with commander nearby will struggle to scare off a single 2x star low resilience fighter strafing them.

That's because you're not supposed to use two of the same AAA. AAA does one of two things - rapid fire, low damage and high suppression, or low ROF, high damage and low suppression (largely because suppression is dependent on rate of fire). Pair up one of each and you'll generally get much better protection (plus a good chance of dropping the lighter aircraft). The only time you can really get away with just one type of AAA is if your using it to support your own interceptors rather than relying on it as a primary defence.

And in many cases for many divisions it is literally impossible to bring as many AA units in your deck as an airborne player can call out in a reasonably competitive game, let alone match how many planes they can bring in their deck.

It's not the AAA availability that's the problem, it's that there's nothing stopping a player sending in four or five planes at the same time. I suspect 90% of the complaints about air power would probably vanish if they restricted the number of planes in the air per player (or given the way these things usually goes, we could have several months of people complaining AAA was too powerful and planes were woefully underpowered instead ).

Given that it is impossible to stop a plane train with an equal number of AA pieces, this is an issue. Standardization of AA performance and improving access to AA for most divisions could help with this

I'd agree with upping the number of AAA units per card (particularly in the B/C phases). Not sure about altering how AAA works or basic access though; I don't see a problem with how AAA actually works, and I think there should be divisions with poor AAA ability (as long as it's made up for somewhere else, eg interceptor/fighter abilities). I also don't think you should be able to stop a plane with a single AAA gun; not unless you're going to up the cost of the AAA to match the planes.

as could substantially reducing the price of AA and above all cutting the number of planes available to airborne decks.

That's pretty much the entire schtick of the airborne decks, and they generally pay for it elsewhere. Not sure how you'd restrict it without basically turning them into another infantry / armoured deck.

A single duck or a pair of ju87g can mow down multiple medium tanks in a single run.

If that's a game winning change I'd be inclined to say the problem isn't the air power, it's having your entire strategy pivot around a couple of medium tanks, and maneuvering said tanks without considering enemy air power. You could easily fix the problem in this example by flying two spitfires.

both players of recognized skill .....
They failed to buy AA,

If they failed to buy AA, then got toasted by air, it's not their skill I'd be recognising. I don't see any problem if a player who invests in air power can use it to defeat players who don't invest in anti-air, I'd say that should be the case.

planes that are out of position risk nothing more than a mild increase in their repair time unless the enemy risks equal points in fighters to bring the bomber down.

Which is like saying a tank out of position risks nothing unless the enemy risks points in anti-tank to blow it up
AAA isn't supposed to be a silver bullet where you can deploy one Bofors and render everything in the surrounding area immune to air attack. It's quite possible to build an effective AAA screen which will indeed destroy aircraft that blunder through it the wrong way. The key there though is effectiveness; it requires an investment in points and planning, and can still be destroyed or disrupted by the enemy. I don't consider that a problem though; I don't think players should be able to render themselves immune to air attacks, any more than they should be able to make themselves impregnable to infantry or armour attacks.

even when with appropriate use by good players it is still being hunted to extinction by the units it supposedly counters so well.

The only example you've provided so far the players didn't even buy any of the counter units. Naturally they don't work so well when you don't have them on the field Have you got any examples where players did invest in AAA and still had problems with enemy air? (excluding death by plane train; no arguments from me that it's a huge problem).

 

[Cinphul]

The only example you've provided so far the players didn't even buy any of the counter units. Naturally they don't work so well when you don't have them on the field Have you got any examples where players did invest in AAA and still had problems with enemy air? (excluding death by plane train; no arguments from me that it's a huge problem).

The bolded text pretty much undoes everything you said about air power as it exists in the game right now - one or two planes attacking you isn't that bad, it can be harassing but isn't typically devastating. Five planes swooping in at the same time is devastating. When I have practiced against the computer I can deal with the way the game designers have their AI use air power. It's when you get an actual player that min / max's a mechanic that you can get truly unbalanced results, and this is exactly what is going on with planes. So you can't say it's fine, it's fine, it's fine, except when they do this one terrible thing, because that one terrible thing becomes the norm - air power is broken right now because of this huge problem.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

@Archonsod those two teams have both done well in tourneys and on ladder solo and as pairs. The fact that one of them can completely hose the other with a pair of planes is stupid. There's nothing else you can buy in this game for that little points that can cause such a total and gigantic swing as AT planes. Given that AT plane access is asymmetric and largely ahistorical (especially the HS129 B3, which never flew a combat mission), it's pretty stupid how effective they are.

And as far as not buying much or any AA before planes come out that is normal in high level play and tournies even in WRD. You can make much of it, but planes aren't supposed to be able to close out a game.

WouldTigga/Firestarter have won anyway? Almost certainly, they're a much better team. But they would have won at the 40m mark, not the 20m.

You might think having planes liked that in the game is cool, but most people sure don't seem to enjoy watching their shit get roasted from on high and the sheer number of complaint threads about planes indicates that a serious problem exists.

Also, dude, Eugen has said specifically that 20mm guns are intended to kill planes. And I told you that 2x 20mm gun trucks for American 3AD will reliably kill the Hs129 aka working as designed) while 2x 20mm guns for British won't even reliably stun stun stuff (let alone kill) like the bf109 even after the patch (aka totally useless). There's definitely something screwy going on behind the scenes whatever the UI and patch notes say about gun performance.

And while you might think that multiple AA types should be used, the devs clearly don't. 3AD gets 2x 1 per card M16 20mm trucks in A and nothing else. Poles get 2x one per card crusader 37mm guns iirc. Lots of other divisions are monotype AA in A, some of them like guards and 12ss with little or nothing by way of fighters. Oh and those 2x AA trucks for 3AD cost 25pts more than they get per tic.

Also, A is literally the most important phase of the game in 1v1. You can come back after a bad A, but it is generally tough to pull off. So don't give me any bunk about recovering late game when a +2 for 5m can create a nearly untouchable lead.

 

[Cinphul]

So yeah, anyone that says planes aren't stupid OP is just lying so they can continue to play OP units. I just recently got this game and already ready to quit because all I'm facing are plane torrents every battle. I don't mind being whopped by enemy maneuvers, but being planed to death is dumb game play.

 

[-HP-]

Air is still extremely dominant, especially against the many divisions with weak AA and few planes.

Problem is asymmetry of impact. Air can have huge impact on ground game, but ground game at best has marginal impact on air. You might with good AA configuration, the right division and some luck bring down a few planes with AA and stun a bunch of others. And with some divisions -- esecially in A -- you will be virtually defenseless against air attack even if you commit heavily to AA. But anyone who commits to using air is virtually guaranteed to kill lots of stuff with planes either directly or indirectly.

It is entirely possible to down planes with specific AA pieces that have unusually good performance and access to vet. Other AA pieces with the same gun caliber are completely useless. 2x M16 GMC with a star of vet in 3AD with a commander nearby will murder high resilience planes no problem. 2x polsten as guards armor with commander nearby will struggle to scare off a single 2x star low resilience fighter strafing them. While in later phases of the game most divisions have somewhat decent access to AA, in many it is a grab bag of random crap whose values are absurdly out of whack with one another even when it is literally the exact same gun on a different chassis. And in many cases for many divisions it is literally impossible to bring as many AA units in your deck as an airborne player can call out in a reasonably competitive game, let alone match how many planes they can bring in their deck. Given that it is impossible to stop a plane train with an equal number of AA pieces, this is an issue. Standardization of AA performance and improving access to AA for most divisions could help with this, as could substantially reducing the price of AA and above all cutting the number of planes available to airborne decks.

Meanwhile planes, especially axis planes, can have game winning impact. A single duck or a pair of ju87g can mow down multiple medium tanks in a single run. I just watched a game Firestarter recorded where Tigga did that to a duo of Harold Alexander/You Shall Suffer, both players of recognized skill. They lost 3-4 tanks in a single run and went from a decent position to utterly fucked in a few seconds. They failed to buy AA, but buying AA wasn't particularly warranted as those were Tigga/Firestarter's first ground attack planes.

Allied planes can have similar impact on infantry, especially the mosquito and the mustang bombers of the 101st. These planes combine a good payload with a fast rearm time and high speed, allowing them to have excellent impact over the course of the game with minimal risk of death and low risk of damage induced repair time due to a lack of extended loitering. Planes can have substantial impact on tanks as well, but given the asymmetry between allied and axis tanks I see this as an acceptable issue.

If a tank is out of position for even a second or two by just a few meters it risks instant death. If infantry moves even in heavy cover while under fire it will take heavy casualties. Meanwhile, in almost every situation planes that are out of position risk nothing more than a mild increase in their repair time unless the enemy risks equal points in fighters to bring the bomber down. An appeal to history has been made to justify this situation where the direct counter to a unit is wildly ineffective in countering that unit, but this argument falls flat when air units exhibit wildly ahistorical performance and resilience. From a game design perspective, it beggars belief that developers would seriously claim that a unit is performing to expectations even when with appropriate use by good players it is still being hunted to extinction by the units it supposedly counters so well. Planes should require good play and cautious use -- as all ground units do -- to perform well. They currently do not, and this situation must be recitified.

ASF

 

[Claremont Waltz]

ASF

Some divisions get no fighters in A, or few fighters in all phases like 716. Barely any divisions get as many fighters as the airborne ones. Some divisions with limited fighter access also get limited AA access or only bad AA.

What's your answer to them, go fish?

It's also stupid that the only counter to a unit is that unit, or that some people apparently can't understand that some 20mm AA is freaky good at killing planes and some of it sucks at everything and there isn't any way to tell the difference beyond dicking with it a bunch. Which is yet another example of Eugen not taking new player needs into consideration.

 

[-HP-]

Some divisions get no fighters in A, or few fighters in all phases like 716. Barely any divisions get as many fighters as the airborne ones. Some divisions with limited fighter access also get limited AA access or only bad AA.

What's your answer to them, go fish?

It's also stupid that the only counter to a unit is that unit, or that some people apparently can't understand that some 20mm AA is freaky good at killing planes and some of it sucks at everything and there isn't any way to tell the difference beyond dicking with it a bunch. Which is yet another example of Eugen not taking new player needs into consideration.

Go fish. If a 2 person team - doubtlessly coordinating if like you say they often play together - can't bring a single phase A ASF between them, that's a bad team.

 

[Cinphul]

Go fish. If a 2 person team - doubtlessly coordinating if like you say they often play together - can't bring a single phase A ASF between them, that's a bad team.

So your responds depends on team coordination to fight of one players OP unit, and you don't see how laughable that is?

 

[roirraw]

You should hotkey your AA and focus fire on one plane at a time to make sure you get at least one kill per engagement, don't just let it free fire. Always have leaders near the AA, have a fighter circling for planes that are going in too deep or get suppressed. If you kill 1 or 2 planes per engagement, you are deleting a large part of someone's deck. This is why I enjoy the 352nd Pegasus, you get some really good AA options and you can counter enemy artillery or AA with your SK 18's. It takes 6, 1 Vet quad 20mm flak firing at the same target for 1.5 full bursts to down any light aircraft. It takes about 2 full bursts to kill a mosquito, this is where 88s help, as they damage the aircraft before it gets to your kill network.

 

[roirraw]

6 to 7 Flak 88s with a leader, focused on the same plane will down it on the 2nd burst almost every time. This does not work for B 26s and it takes about 3 bursts to kill a mosquito. Knowing these things about long range and short range AA, you can plan your networks overlap and screen the AA position with crew weapons and infantry against off map artillery which is the largest counter to your AA positions.

 

[IS-2]

6 to 7 Flak 88s

wtf

 

[Sydalesis]

The problem IS AA is shooting PEAS. Any plane coming low and in straight line would get decimated by a battery. This sword/shield system is cringe-worthy and needs to be fixed.
Planes have no fear of death except other fighters. Not normal.

 

[Claremont Waltz]

The problem IS AA is shooting PEAS. Any plane coming low and in straight line would get decimated by a battery. This sword/shield system is cringe-worthy and needs to be fixed.
Planes have no fear of death except other fighters. Not normal.

Again, this isn't true. Some 20mm guns like the American m16 truck or the tripolsten or the flakvier are capable of bringing down planes reliably (generally when paired near a leader). Other stuff even when massed (like the 20mm polsten) struggles even to suppress planes, let alone seriously harm them.

This wouldn't be an issue if divisions had access to a diverse set of AA options in all phases. If every division could pick between decent availability cards of 20mm and 40ish mm AA guns in all phases -- preferably of multiple types -- planes would not be near so large an issue. Many do not, or at the least are extremely limited in A.

That said, i absolutely agree that AA killing power on 20mm guns should be increased across the board. Players shouldn't feel that they have free reign to strafe and bomb everything they see without risk so long as they know they have more fighters or the enemy has too few to risk engaging. Committing planes to an action should be a serious and weighty choice.

 

[Nebelwerfer 42]

I've stopped bringing AA in most of my games, it's cheaper and far more efficient to just invest in 1-2 vetted fighters and micro them properly to at least whittle away at the enemy's air force. You can invest hundreds of points in AA to only temporary stun lock the enemy's air force and have them come bomber train you to death 2 minutes later, or you can invest half of that in planes and have immediate options to take down enemy planes. As if airborne decks needed yet another thing their favor, they can send out waves of planes especially in Phase A with no fear of any kind of threat being able to shoot down their aircraft, and if the enemy dare send a fighter out against them they can just retaliate with their cancerous 1-2 star vet fighters that insta nuke everything in the sky.

The sword and shield system is beyond stupid. Yes, we know AA pieces were not the most effective things in WW2, they're not radar guns after all, but massed AA against aircraft was still very much potent and had a chance of taking them down, Allied planes regularly went down over Germany due to Flak 88 fire. In this game I can mass 88's together and have 5,6,7 of them fire at a single low and slow flying bomber and the only thing that happens is the crew turns around and has some tea time for 2 minutes before coming back to bomber train my 88's.

Again, this isn't true. Some 20mm guns like the American m16 truck or the tripolsten or the flakvier are capable of bringing down planes reliably (generally when paired near a leader).

We must not be playing the same game. I have quite literally laughed out loud at enemy 20mm's when I'm cancer plane spamming as Luftlande or 6th Airborne

 

[IS-2]

I've stopped bringing AA in most of my games, it's cheaper and far more efficient to just invest in 1-2 vetted fighters and micro them properly to at least whittle away at the enemy's air force. You can invest hundreds of points in AA to only temporary stun lock the enemy's air force and have them come bomber train you to death 2 minutes later, or you can invest half of that in planes and have immediate options to take down enemy planes. As if airborne decks needed yet another thing their favor, they can send out waves of planes especially in Phase A with no fear of any kind of threat being able to shoot down their aircraft, and if the enemy dare send a fighter out against them they can just retaliate with their cancerous 1-2 star vet fighters that insta nuke everything in the sky.

The sword and shield system is beyond stupid. Yes, we know AA pieces were not the most effective things in WW2, they're not radar guns after all, but massed AA against aircraft was still very much potent and had a chance of taking them down, Allied planes regularly went down over Germany due to Flak 88 fire. In this game I can mass 88's together and have 5,6,7 of them fire at a single low and slow flying bomber and the only thing that happens is the crew turns around and has some tea time for 2 minutes before coming back to bomber train my 88's.



We must not be playing the same game. I have quite literally laughed out loud at enemy 20mm's when I'm cancer plane spamming as Luftlande or 6th Airborne

1776ZOOMSNIPE1911 can show u a few 20mm tricks when he plays allies believe me

u ever seen 5, 6, 7 planes get downed by AA guns back to back???? henschel, ju88, bf109 doesnt matter he calls his AA defences citadels if u think AA sucks u havent seen his citadels...

and don use flak 88 for killing planes. use flakveirling, tri polsten, crusader AA and M16. i have also seen my vetted nueve halftracks shoot down lots of planes and personally have lost multiple spitfires to a couple vetted spw 222.

 

[Protosszocker]

I've stopped bringing AA in most of my games, it's cheaper and far more efficient to just invest in 1-2 vetted fighters and micro them properly to at least whittle away at the enemy's air force. You can invest hundreds of points in AA to only temporary stun lock the enemy's air force and have them come bomber train you to death 2 minutes later, or you can invest half of that in planes and have immediate options to take down enemy planes. As if airborne decks needed yet another thing their favor, they can send out waves of planes especially in Phase A with no fear of any kind of threat being able to shoot down their aircraft, and if the enemy dare send a fighter out against them they can just retaliate with their cancerous 1-2 star vet fighters that insta nuke everything in the sky.

The sword and shield system is beyond stupid. Yes, we know AA pieces were not the most effective things in WW2, they're not radar guns after all, but massed AA against aircraft was still very much potent and had a chance of taking them down, Allied planes regularly went down over Germany due to Flak 88 fire. In this game I can mass 88's together and have 5,6,7 of them fire at a single low and slow flying bomber and the only thing that happens is the crew turns around and has some tea time for 2 minutes before coming back to bomber train my 88's.



We must not be playing the same game. I have quite literally laughed out loud at enemy 20mm's when I'm cancer plane spamming as Luftlande or 6th Airborne

Combined arms is the way to go. 3x flakvierlings can stun the enemy planes for you and cover the retread way for your planes while your planes can chase down shocked enemy fighters. Thats the way to go. with this you can ruel the air pretty easy with a low investment (2 asf and 3 flak vierling can stop around 6 asf from being effectiv) if you put out some 88s (which support your ground forces too and not just stand 10 miles behind the front) you can make it even more effective and prevent 200 p!! bombers from hitting your vierling flaks effective. since shock effects acc bombers became much weaker compared to their prize. and if ozu can dmg them they need up to 5 mins to come back if you can not shoot them down.