Matrix Games Forums

There is no mention of these units in the manual, but they raise a few questions:
1) Do they negate the attacking aircraft shift in combat resolution?
2) Do they play a role in interdiction prevention?
3) Do they have a defence radius?
4) What is the best way to use these units in the game?

They have no effect on air power at all.

They are just more ground units like any other unit.

They are often weaker than infantry but they are wheeled or tracked.

Not a bad suggestion though

but do you think it is relevant to this scale.

I'm not sure.

Chris

Originally posted by Chris Merchant
but do you think it is relevant to this scale.

I'm not sure.

Chris

I do for 1) and 2). It would be a nice addition for defending flak units to have some chance to drive off close air support, or to negate interdiction in their hex.

Regarding 3), at this scale I don't think more than an in-hex effect is appropriate.

Not sure how to answer 4). I usually move flak last and use them to fill in the line where needed or escort supply trucks. They probably would make cheap recon units but that isn't historical so I wouldn't do it.

Talking about historical, has a flak unit ever been able to break up or intervene with an aerial attack? Sure, they're a nuisance and may hamper accuracy, but I believe the bombs will fall anyway....

Once again, to give the benefit to the larger picture of the design, perhaps the airpower level in the game is based in part of the flak capability of the units in the game. The actual use of the units, though, is limited to their "historical" effectiveness as combat units, since their anti-air function is abstracted. Just a guess.

Were they missing, many would complain about it, and they do have some combat value even w/o considering their effectiveness vs. aircraft. It's a matter of scale, as was noted, and I agree pretty much with Belisarious that Flak units wouldn't break up a dedicated ground support mission. Might take out some planes, but the air attack is still going to take place.

The problem would be, IMO, with the "overkill" were these units given some kind of effect on air attacks.

Sometimes, a good abstraction is better than what can be nothing other than imperfect "precise modelling".

Originally posted by Belisarius
Talking about historical, has a flak unit ever been able to break up or intervene with an aerial attack? Sure, they're a nuisance and may hamper accuracy, but I believe the bombs will fall anyway....

The bombs may fall but if the accuracy is off due to flak then that is equivalent to breaking up the strike. I'll try to make time to dig up some sources when I get home.

Capitaine

Good points. Air support in KP, including flak effect, is abstracted for sure. It is in PzC too although to a much lesser degree based on the scale difference. It just seemed like giving flak a chance to affect tactical air support would be some nice "chrome". If nothing else it would add some uncertainty to what is otherwise precisely known odds before the die is rolled. And no, I haven't tried the unknown units option yet.

elmo3

It just seemed like giving flak a chance to affect tactical air support would be some nice "chrome".

I, too, endorse this addition.

What if we turn this around a bit and say that air attacks occur normally if there is a flak unit w/in x hexes of the target hex. Otherwise, there is an even greater chance of effect from the air strike? IOW, you don't have any flak around and the attacker might get 2 column shifts?

IMO, if one wishes to fiddle with this, make it to encourage flak coverage evenly around the front; not to encourage an unrealistic concentration of flak in order to discourage an air attack in just isolated locales. It would also encourage a player not to throw them away as recon fodder since they are adding a measure of protection to the troops to which they are assigned.

Moreover, if adding (or subtracting) column shifts is too great an impact for flak presence, perhaps die roll modifiers on an attack involving air could be used.

Anyway, one needs to know the underlying air attack scheme used in the game in order to tweak it. We don't really know all the assumptions in place so it's best to tread lightly rather than suggest a strong change of effectiveness.

To me it would be more micromanagement and therefoe less enjoyment.

Currently I need to micromanage engineers, so that thye can build/destroy bridges and cleasr minefields.

I also micromanage supply trucks and artillery and thats enough micromanagemt for me.

To me it would be more micromanagement and therefoe less enjoyment.

But, Joe, a game like this is all about micromanagement. As it stands, the AA formations are near vestigial units. Giving them some anti-air capability would deepen the strategy a bit. And that's good.

The Russian AA units often have anti-shock value, which many Russian infantry units lack. They are useful defensive units, to be stacked with infantry to form a solid line. They aren't much cop as recon , as they can't use extended movement in enemy territory, and they aren't much good in attack, with an attack strength of 2 (generally). In many scenarios they start scatterred throughout the Russian force - move them en masse to areas you wish to defended, freeing up armour and gaurds units for offensive duties. AA units combinded with the 1 or 2 step infantry regiments can be useful if used correctly.

No, its not.

TAO2 was all about a great advance over a large tract of land – with lots of fluid movement – and then a slow withdraw.

The only micromanagement needed is to keep the units of each division together so you get the divisional bonus.

It is the lack of micromanagement that makes the game great.

KP is even better – the combat advisor removes the micromanagement required in calculating combat odds.

Micromanagement = drudge.

Computers can be used to end the drudge.

If AA units had an effect in the game then:

I need to click on one AA unit and have all other AA units across the map highlighted as we do now with supply trucks

This feature needs to be added to engineer units.

Hmmm. And AA units would need to be kept behind the lines at crossroads – the most likely place for interdiction markers. I am interested

Originally posted by Matthew Urch
The Russian AA units often have anti-shock value, which many Russian infantry units lack. They are useful defensive units, to be stacked with infantry to form a solid line. They aren't much cop as recon , as they can't use extended movement in enemy territory, and they aren't much good in attack, with an attack strength of 2 (generally). In many scenarios they start scatterred throughout the Russian force - move them en masse to areas you wish to defended, freeing up armour and gaurds units for offensive duties. AA units combinded with the 1 or 2 step infantry regiments can be useful if used correctly.

Grouping AA units for ground defense would seem to be ahistorical - there should be a penalty for donig this (removing AA cover for other areas). As bad as having engineers all over the place as 'cheap' infantry (aklthough historically useful in stopping Germans in the bulge, this was out of desparation)

Agree that AA units should have their AA functions reflected a little, like less successful air effects near them. That was the whole point of having them after all - mobile protection for mobile units. OK the 88s were useful AT, but not as goodas generally assumed, and the smaller AA cannon make useful defense but ONLY if protected by INF or AT.

A thought to tweak the system to encourage proper AA use would be good IMHO

Regards

Space§man