ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
Since stationary AA units rarely seem to be in a position to actually shoot down planes as is (which is what they are for)...maybe this tactic could be considered more "design-for-effect" rather than gamey?
Exactly, and for the way that the game plays
now, it is a reasonable abstraction to attempt to draw fire to moving AAA units, to model an interaction that should occur, but does not yet do so, in TOAW III.
ORIGINAL: Industrial
Most allied bombers were shot down by german FLAK installations on their flightpath to the target, not directly over the cities.
True, and this aspect is not currently modeled in TOAW III. AAA fire is only added into combats where air units are directly attacking, or indirectly supporting attacks against a hex.
I went back and did some tests under TOAW III, and found that, contrary to my earlier statement, units that are already in the hex do add their AAA fire to that of the "moving" unit during interdiction attacks. In CoW, AAA was completely ineffective against high altitude bombers, and much less ineffective against low-level bombers, so straight empirical observations tended to support that assumption. However, by viewing the toawlog in a test scenario, I can conclusively say that I was wrong in that assumption, as all the units in the interdicted hex do contribute to the defensive fire.
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
JAMiAM has convinced me that we need to look at the bigger picture to fix it.
We need to do some work on this aspect of the game, and we want to do it right. This means finding the right balance between a reasonable management of assets, and effects, both direct and abstracted within the framework of the design philosophy of the game. This will take some time and will not be done overnight.
In the meantime...game on!
