Why AA over fighters?

[trsj]

Why AA over fighters? I've read a lot of strategy ideas that suggest AA over fighters? It seems the Wallies should opt for fighters for a lot of reasons: op fire, sweeping out the German airforce, covering fleets and just to trade losses. So should the Germans until they are solely on the defensive. Even the SU and possibly China should opt for fighters to trade losses and for the occasional air attack. But so many espouse AA over fighters. Why?

[MarcelJV]

AAA counts as a ground unit and thus counts in the 2:1 or 3:1 odds need to occupy where fighters do not. But personally I see your point and perfer them to AAA as Allies. Actually I perfer my 8 evasion infantry to anything, but that is a whole other thing.

[lojishen]

I don't think AA counts as a ground unit, so that isn't a reason to prefer AA over fighters.

The big advantag of AA is that they generally attack bombers first. So, if you are going to lose air superiority, AA still gives you a way to target bombers and thus protect your land units and resource/factories.

For example, take Russia. If the Germans have 4 or 5 fighters, plus numerous bombers on the Russian front, the Russians will have a hard time maching those fighters. Thus, any fighters you build, just give the German fighters a targe, while the German bombers will always get through. If, instead, you build AA, the AA will target German bombers, and it will be the German fighters that have few viable targets.

[trsj]

Applying your Russian example to a surrounded Great Britain facing an imminent bomber attack and probable invasion, would I be better off (a) building only AA, while improving its attack or (b) building fighters, and improving their attack and their range to two? I like that AA targets bombers first, however, I can't cover my fleet with AA, and my fleet is the only thing between me and an amphibious invasion. Also, if I loaded up on fighters I could pave the way to retaliate later on. Of course, I may be getting ahead of myself.

[Harrybanana]

Below are the answers that Jan and I gave in a previuos post to the question of why AA are better than fighters if you are defending. We are not saying that AA are better than fighters in all situations, fighters are definitely better once you're on the offennsive, but AA are better for defense.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Fighters are much easier to kill because you can use the German figthers to do that - and the Germans fighters dont have other targets. AA is harder to kill - because you need to use bombers to do so - and those have lots of other targets too. Also, AA shoots before air to ground combat while FTR vs FTR has both sides shooting at the same time.



Thanks Jan, you've explained it better than I can.

Essentially the WA has a choicen to build either fighters or AA; but whatever you build they will have to split between Scotland and England. If you decide to build lots of fighters you could perhaps have 12 built by SP41 (not including the frozen ftr in the US) which will allow you to place 6 in each of England and Scotland. But by this time the Germans will usually have at least 9 fighters they can use and at least 12 bombers (usually more). Assuming that as the WA you also have 4 AA, 4inf, 4 artillery and 12 militia which you split equally between Scotland and England, this means that the Germans can concentrate their entire airforce on a force in Scotland consisting of 6 fighters, 2AA, 2inf, 2artillery, and 6 militia. Let' assume the Germans attack this force with 9 fighters and 15 bombers. 1st the air to air battle will probably result in all 6 WA ftrs being at least damaged with a few being destroyed; these WA ftrs will only be able to shoot at the German ftrs, probably damaging 5 of them. Lets say the WA get lucky and both AA shoot at and damage 2 German bombers (rather than the less expensive fighters). This still leaves 4 fighters and 13 bombers to attack the 12 WA land units in Scotland; each unit will probably be attacked at least once and several twice (though since targetting is done before air to air it is possible that some WA units will be attacked twice and some not at all). Total WA losses would be something like 6 fighters (say 2 destroyed), 2 AA, 2 art, 6 milita (total production cost 18) ; all at the cost to the Germans of only 5 fighters and 2 bombers (total production cost 9).

If, alternatively, the WA had 6 AA in Scotland along with the 2 inf, 2 artillery and 6 militia; then those 6 AA would hopefully damage 2 fighters and 4 bombers before air to ground attack. This would leave 7 fighters and 11 bombers to attack 16 WA units. The fighters are unlikely to damage anything by themselves so you'll probably only lose 10 units. Net effect is that the WA will lose approx. 10 production points of units and Axis will lose approx. 10. A much better trade off then if you had built fighters.

[trsj]

Great post. Thank you. I game played several options against human players. With the caveat that your choices should be flexible to best serve your strategy, I think the following generally applies:

China should build AA and never build fighters until the end of the war when the Japanese are almost done. Of course at that time it's probably not worth the effort.

The Russians should build AA, not fighters. The Germans will upgrade their fighters in response to the Allies; therefore, unless the Russians are willing to forgo some infantry, artillery and/or tank upgrades (foolish), the Russians are better served building AA.

I had success building fighters with the UK pre-US entry. They op fire and can cover fleets. Plus I like pre-emptive strikes against German airpower. However, it is a medium to big risk. If the Germans max their fighter range increase research the Germans can hit the UK first and take out the UK fighters in connection with Sea Lion. However, if the Germans don't max their range research then the UK can hit the Germans first and any damaged UK fighters can be rebuilt the same turn in the UK. In contrast, unless the German fighters improve to a range of three they must be repositioned before attacking the UK. Sadly, they won't get the chance because the Allied player will wipe them out again the next turn. I think this last fact puts off a Sea Lion assault too long. If you plan to do Sea Lion I think the German player MUST improve fighter range ASAP in order to carry out Sea Lion on turn four or five.

The Japanese should build fighters to op fire at early US incursions or for use against the Russians. Afterwards it all depends on Japanese success. If historical, start building AA.

The Germans should build fighters to conduct Sea Lion and/or for the initial Russian invasion. Afterwards, it all depends on German success. If success is historical, build and upgrade AA.