Should AA guns be rebalanced?

[Ilyasviel]

There are two things about AA guns right now that bother me somewhat.

1- They might be too good against air targets. Having only one support AA per division is super cheap, and it's enough to make ground attacks nearly irrelevant. They are so cost-effective at this job that it's pretty easy to make an army full of support AA and completely avoid making an airforce, and still win. This would have never worked in ww2 against a major power.

2- Too weak against soft targets. Take 1940 AAs, for example, which are represented by guns such as the 2 cm Flakvierling 38. This gun, if added to a tank, has the same amount of soft attack as a heavy MG (8). This doesn't make sense, because the Flakvierling has 4 20mm autocannons, which is significantly better. This is represented to some degree by the improved automatic cannon, which is unlocked by the same tech, and has 20 soft attack, but can't hit air targets. Why is there such a big difference? AA guns mounted on tanks were perfectly capable of hitting ground targets, and they were even pretty good at it:

The four 2 cm guns were also, from time to time, used for attacking ground targets. While useless against tanks, it had a destructive effect on any soft armored vehicles and infantry.
The Wirbelwind proved to be an effective anti-aircraft vehicle. This can be seen in the report of the s.Pz.Abt.503:

‘… the Vierling (Wirbelwind) have proven especially useful. Through their armor and mobility, they are always immediately capable of providing adequate air defense and they are also outstandingly effective in ground combat. In a short period, the Vierling section scored three confirmed and two probable aircraft kills.’

– Panzer Tracks No.12.

Flakpanzer IV (2 cm Flakvierling 38) ‘Wirbelwind’ - Tank Encyclopedia

The 'Wirbelwind' was a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun built on the hull of the Panzer IV medium tank. It was armed with four 20 mm cannons.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[Happy Trigger]

Part of this problem is because air defense doesn't affect the effectiveness of AA. I hope the Devs will reveal the equations of air combat and AA soon, so we can understand why AA is so effective.

 

[Cavalry]

The real life AA can not be in position to attack infantry and planes at the same time. And mobile AA ammo is limited so they will not attack infantry unless it is easy target.

The big bonus of CAS is air support bonus for land

 

[bitmode]

Part of this problem is because air defense doesn't affect the effectiveness of AA. I hope the Devs will reveal the equations of air combat and AA soon, so we can understand why AA is so effective.

We already know, see https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_missions#Enemy_units_damaging_CAS

 

[Cavalry]

Well as the user of mass AA I should complain that no matter AA I have I cannot lower the troop casualties or lower the air support bonus of enemy.

The BBA introduce super CAS that have very high ground attack, that you should pay attention if you want to defend successfully. No amount of AA can help, but use smaller width for more division will help.

 

[Cavalry]

We already know, see https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_missions#Enemy_units_damaging_CAS

Some mentioned he has good result when using fighter disruption and AA together against CAS. Any hint about these combination? Do disrupted CAS not bomb but still be shot by AA?

 

[Corpse Fool]

Lets bring back the 18 SA/W SPAA

 

[Cavalry]

Lets bring back the 18 SA/W SPAA

SPAA now can store fuel for the whole tank division!

 

[FlinzP]

The real life AA can not be in position to attack infantry and planes at the same time. And mobile AA ammo is limited so they will not attack infantry unless it is easy target.

The big bonus of CAS is air support bonus for land

In division designer everything is line combat unit which is weird. We can argue supports being all over front fighting but also there is issue with artillery. Would have been great to have end of the columns be slots for non frontline units like artillery and aa. You could still put aa and light artillery front but it would have different stats or something. With different doctrines you could have more of these slots. This would encourage to have different equipment in production and design different divisions.

 

[bitmode]

Some mentioned he has good result when using fighter disruption and AA together against CAS. Any hint about these combination? Do disrupted CAS not bomb but still be shot by AA?

Yes, that should work. For CAS disruption reduces damage dealt but not the number of planes.

 

[Corpse Fool]

SPAA now can store fuel for the whole tank division!

So can recon or flame? Unless of course, you need moar.

 

[Reman]

AA has been bizzarely overpowered for a while now. It wasn't always like this. For the first few years of the game's life, AA was a good investment if you expected red air but it wasn't crazy. Basic '36 tech would reduce CAS damage by like 20-30% and would shoot down the occasional plane. This is how it should have stayed.

At some point it got buffed so the '36 tech support AA gave almost the max 75% CAS damage reduction, and can shoot down planes by the dozens. It's completely absurd. The devs just... never bothered to look at it again for some reason.

 

[Cavalry]

For the first few years of the game's life, AA was a good investment if you expected red air but it wasn't crazy.

Well, if some says AA is a good investment then something wrong and need to change to "AA is a must". Killing CAS is another balance, but it is a big random so need to account for hundred times AA killing nothing.

With BBA, AA role as anti tank turn bigger and worth keep it at current tech. AT is still expensive to arm 10 millions army.

 

[The Colonel]

It is bizarre to me how cheap it is to achieve max CAS damage reduction. For just a company of support AA to provide the max reduction, I feel like that should require like having completed the entire AA tech tree and actually have modern AA in the division. Otherwise you should need to invest more IC adding additional AA or, you know, some planes to protect your boys.

I guess the counterpoint is that meta CAS designs would be absurdly effective in this case, and maybe you'd wanna tone down overall ground attack values a bit, but it's just so weird to be like "yeah 24 dinky 30mm hand-cranked guns is the epitome of AA".

Also, maybe if, like, there was actually any way to design a CAS plane that would make it less likely to be shot down by AA, people would do something other than make guntrucks with an AT cannon 2 and 2 bomb bays. I certainly think reduced damage and reduced losses would be an interesting trade off. But as it is, CAS losses feel super inconsistent (as in, you get sudden ticks of massive damage if battles last long enough rather than a semi-consistent trickle) and aren't really something that the CASing player can interact with much besides simply taking planes down for a period of time.

 

[Cavalry]

It is bizarre to me how cheap it is to achieve max CAS damage reduction. For just a company of support AA to provide the max reduction, I feel like that should require like having completed the entire AA tech tree and actually have modern AA in the division. Otherwise you should need to invest more IC adding additional AA or, you know, some planes to protect your boys.

Don't pay too much attention to the word "reduction". The damage after reduction is what Paradox feels good balance. If we don't have AA, think it as 4 times damage penalty.

The AA user may complain that no matter how much AA he has, he cannot get more reduction.

 

[Dimmie_Dumm]

I'm not saying of any numbers in particular, but AA has to be potent given how bizzarely overpowered airpower is designed in general where you can't destroy planes pro-actively neither by ships, nor by tanks, nor by other planes, and one even has an unlimited stockpile pool to 'conveniently' store them.

Aircraft on carries are ethereal and don't go down once the carrier is sunk even when lacking range to make it to the other airfield. Aircraft on islands are ethereal and somehow dodge any incoming naval gunfire. Aircraft on landfields are ethereal and evade bombs. Overruning them with tanks is never possible. Aircraft production or conversion is done in underground facilities obviously and is never a target to anything either.

Make airpower interesting to use by giving it proper limitations and we could sensibly speak of AA afterwards.

At the moment airpower is a magic wand one gets out of his pants as he sees fit and then hides it back. Silly.

 

[Secret Master]

At some point it got buffed so the '36 tech support AA gave almost the max 75% CAS damage reduction, and can shoot down planes by the dozens. It's completely absurd. The devs just... never bothered to look at it again for some reason.

Whether it was balanced badly before the air designer, I think now that aircraft costs are much higher and we can design planes with more armor, AA guns needs to be rebalanced in light of the changes we see in aircraft these days.

The balance causes ground attack design to favor cheaper planes (since you can't armor your planes up and make them resistant to enemy AA guns) while the design needs for things like fighters favors well armored and and armed aircraft that are more expensive (since air defense and air attack are both valuable). Like, there's not a good reason to use medium air frames for any kind of ground attack if the enemy has AA in their divisions because of the high cost of planes based on that air frame.

It's kind of weird considering that the Ju-87G was designed in part as a response to the Hs-129 being vulnerable to catching fire when getting hit.

EDIT: I should have said something like "the Ju-87G was more armored than the Hs-129" to make it clearer.

 

[Cavalry]

The balance causes ground attack design to favor cheaper planes (since you can't armor your planes up and make them resistant to enemy AA guns) while the design needs for things like fighters favors well armored and and armed aircraft that are more expensive (since air defense and air attack are both valuable). Like, there's not a good reason to use medium air frames for any kind of ground attack if the enemy has AA in their divisions because of the high cost of planes based on that air frame.

It's kind of weird considering that the Ju-87G was designed in part as a response to the Hs-129 being vulnerable to catching fire when getting hit.

Well if cheaper planes is CAS vs TAC then it is like that a long time. TAC is for attacking weak return fire like log strike, or where CAS cannot reach. TAC is not for replace CAS but add to it. Save your small precious TAC force for the time you really need it.
For CAS it is very difficult to use cheaper CAS, because module is cheap. Most CAS was designe to max ground attack on the available weight.

A typical CAS, ground att: 27, cost 36.1, range 1080 from AI Expert mode.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

AA has been bizzarely overpowered for a while now. It wasn't always like this. For the first few years of the game's life, AA was a good investment if you expected red air but it wasn't crazy. Basic '36 tech would reduce CAS damage by like 20-30% and would shoot down the occasional plane. This is how it should have stayed.

At some point it got buffed so the '36 tech support AA gave almost the max 75% CAS damage reduction, and can shoot down planes by the dozens. It's completely absurd. The devs just... never bothered to look at it again for some reason.

i'm still more amused that you can use maintenance companies to capture planes shot down by aa, lol.

that said, i don't think just support aa will be enough to really put hurting on cas, and the side with air superiority will enjoy both direct damage and multiplicative penalty to enemy stats...both remaining non-trivial at reduced values.

if you nudge it back too far, then winning air war once again becomes the only relevant factor, too much damage that can't be mitigated hitting everything.

 

[Secret Master]

Well if cheaper planes is CAS vs TAC then it is like that a long time.

It means also generally cheaper planes even if you are just using smaller air frames.

That plane isn't bad, but the armor module has no impact on whether it dies from AA guns. So, from the perspective of losses to AA guns, it's wasted weight and cost.

Now, most planes don't operate in a vacuum. You have to consider survivability from air threats as well as AA threats. But if I'm running a set up where my CAS aren't interacting with enemy fighters very often (because I have a ton of my own fighters covering them in air superiority), then I would definitely want to forego the armor module. Maybe even put in non-standard materials module to reduce cost further.

On the other hand, if I'm running multi-role planes against the AI, I'm expecting the planes on ground attack to also be fighting in the skies. In that case, I really do need the armor modules.