Anti Aircraft need Improving

Anti Aircraft is awful. It's too expensive, it doesn't provide enough defense and it can be slow even with the upgrade.

If you have the production, Infantry and militia beat AA by cost. If you don't have the production but you have the money it can be used for quick AA defense. Other than that, it's utterly useless in every way.

A Sky Menace bomber has the same offense as an AA in defense yet AA costs more and it's slow. The most I have every used was around 60-80 with 120 Infantry VS 250 bombers. I lost the city and over 100 bombers remained. Anti Aircraft needs to have more defense or it should be cheaper. Or both. As of now, they are useless.

60 AA should shred 100 bombers at least. Not one for one. Its specifically DESGINED to kill aircraft and it does a poor job.

Sort it out.

I have to disagree with you on that one Tik-Tok. I always use AA's against Sky Menace users and it worked great so far.

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 28.10.2011 at 01:38

A Sky Menace bomber has the same offense as an AA in defense yet AA costs more and it's slow.

The default Sky Menace bomber has 8 atk (cost 130), while the default AA (in any strategy) has 11 def against planes (cost 180). Also, AA's have available upgrades to its movement range and defense. In my opinion, many players underestimate the use of AA's ingame.

I would have to disagree here, Pin.

AA are way too expensive for their effectiveness in my experience. While they do manage to hold off aircraft decently well, cutting the cost down by 40-60 would make it much more balanced.

In my opinion, reducing it's cost would, in fact, unbalance it.

Ok, so 1 AA has 11 def against planes, let's put only bombers into the accounts here. Also, let's use only the maximum atk possible to be dealt by a bomber, which is a SM Bomber (8 atk)

The SM bomber (the cheapest bomber in-game, together with the IMP bomber, which has only 5 atk) costs 130 cash. The Anti Aircraft costs 180 (only exception is for IMP).

AA
180($)/11(def) = $16,4/1def

Bomber
130($)/8(atk) = $16,3/1atk

Observation: AA's have an upgrade that add +1 def to them, which make it $15/1def. Bombers have only one upgrade (+1atk with general) but so does the AA (+1def to all units in the stack).

So, I will bring back Tik-Tok afirmation:

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 28.10.2011 at 01:38

60 AA should shred 100 bombers at least. Not one for one. Its specifically DESGINED to kill aircraft and it does a poor job.

Ok, let's do the math:

60 AA's ($180) x 11(def) = 660 def against 100 SM Bombers ($130) x (8atk) = 800 atk

660 (AA) vs 800 (SM Bomber)

Considering this is an outnumbered fight, which costed 13000 to the SM players, while it costed 10800 for the players using AA's. Again, Not considering the AA +1def update, which would boost it from 660 def to 720.

While you also have to take into account the fact that it is really only effective at defending when it has that +1 against bombers.

Most people would rather just build up militia or infantry to defend against bombers because, typically, bombers are followed up by tanks, which can and will destroy your AA fairly quickly for a lower cost as well.

While I'm not saying AA should be the defensive unit of the future, it would be nice if you could build them without worrying about paying a load of cash for something that could fail your defenses.

Most people would rather just buy 2 infantry at the cost of 140, which would provide them 12 defense alone, +1 each for being in the city (Totaling 14 defense), and would actually be able to defend against something other than air units alone.

Granted, you'd have to do more pre-planning to be able to use infantry, which seems to make this point even more relevant.

Wouldn't you think that it would be easier to have a few trained troops defend your city than to build, ship, and arm anti-air guns?

But apparently not so.

Escrito por goodnames679, 29.10.2011 at 07:37

While you also have to take into account the fact that it is really only effective at defending when it has that +1 against bombers.

Not +1, +8 (+9 with upgrade).

Escrito por goodnames679, 29.10.2011 at 07:37

Most people would rather just build up militia or infantry to defend against bombers because, typically, bombers are followed up by tanks, which can and will destroy your AA fairly quickly for a lower cost as well.

It's really hard to see an SM player using Tanks, because they are expensive and have a nerf on it's atk. They will usually use Militias and Infantries carried by Air Transports protected with bombers. If the enemy is not using SM, he won't even buy that many bombers, and they will cost more and have less atk. In that case, if the player decides to use Tanks + Bombers, their land troops will take first place in batte, letting only bombers alive, and bombers can't capture cities.

There is also another factor in a battle involving AA's that have to be considered: Order of troops joining the battle. That means that, in a battle between stacks with different kind of troops the fight will be always follow that order:

Best attacking unit os the attacking players vs best defensive unit of the defending player.

If I have Infantries and AA's in my capital and you attack it with Bombers and Tanks, the order will be:

Situation 1:
Bomber x AA (all bombers defeated)
Tank x Infantry (all infantries defeated)
Tank x AA

In that situation, AA's will fight another kind of unit only if all enemy Bombers AND all the other defensive units in the city have already died.

Situation 2:
Bomber x AA (all AA's defeated)
Tank x Infantry (all Tanks defeated)
Bomber x Infantry (all Infantries defeated)

In that situation, even if the attacking side win, he will be left only with Bombers, that can't capture cities.

Escrito por goodnames679, 29.10.2011 at 07:37

Most people would rather just buy 2 infantry at the cost of 140, which would provide them 12 defense alone, +1 each for being in the city (Totaling 14 defense), and would actually be able to defend against something other than air units alone.

Well, I can't argue with that, because it has nothing to do with the trully stats of AA's, but the lack of experience of players. If I see incoming bombers or I know I'm playing against a SM player, I will for sure pick AA's. If the players is not using Bombers, why should I buy AA's in the first place?

Escrito por goodnames679, 29.10.2011 at 07:37

Granted, you'd have to do more pre-planning to be able to use infantry, which seems to make this point even more relevant.
Wouldn't you think that it would be easier to have a few trained troops defend your city than to build, ship, and arm anti-air guns?

Why should I ship my AA's? It has the same movement of militias, but the difference is that you can buy an upgrade to boost AA's range by 1, while militias can't by boosted unless you use especific strategies.

My point here is more that if you are preparing a general defense at any point, infantry are well-rounded and provide a good amount of defense for their cost, unlike AA guns

While AA guns do provide you with a good amount of defense, it is useful against aircraft ONLY, which, in a lot of cases, would make them quite impractical. While I'm not suggesting they be some uber unit that can destroy anything, it would be nice if your AA guns were a bit cheaper so you'd actually get a decent amount of bang for your buck.

You have to drop a lot of cash into AA guns, and they defend against air and air alone. While, upon seeing incoming aircraft outside your city, they are a good idea, and certainly a better idea than infantry, there are very few occasions when they actually are such a good idea.

Making them cheaper would actually make it a unit that you could have more than one occasion to use, so if you were fighting someone who did little other than spam bombers, you could actually protect your cities from them without going flat broke.

You treat it as if most people fight 1v1. In reality, for every SM you see, you'll see ten Tank Gens or Great Combinators at least.

Also, the last part of my post was more a reference to real life than to Afterwind, but whatever. Just ignore that part, if you will. Wasn't really relevant to my post in the first place...

I have lost every battle with mass AA. I don't think anyone has ever built as many as I have against SM players and they always flatten me with more than half their units to spare.

They are severely under powered and expensive.

Escrito por goodnames679, 31.10.2011 at 15:09

My point here is more that if you are preparing a general defense at any point, infantry are well-rounded and provide a good amount of defense for their cost, unlike AA guns

Yes, I agree with that, and that's the way it's supposed to be. If you need a general defense you shouldn't buy Anti-Aircrafts, their name pretty much explains it all. They are good in what they are designed for: defending against airplanes.

Escrito por goodnames679, 31.10.2011 at 15:09

You treat it as if most people fight 1v1. In reality, for every SM you see, you'll see ten Tank Gens or Great Combinators at least.

No, I don't treat like it was a 1v1. To be honest it can work even better when you are fighting more players, because the enemies that are farther tend to use only bombers to supply his allies.

Guys. I have shown you statistics trying to prove that AA's are just fine the way they are. This unit alone has the same def cost as the best offensive unit of an Sky Menace player, who has the most powerful airplane in the game, if you still find it underpowered I don't have anymore arguments to say.

Escrito por Pinheiro, 02.11.2011 at 15:15

Yes, I agree with that, and that's the way it's supposed to be. If you need a general defense you shouldn't buy Anti-Aircrafts, their name pretty much explains it all. They are good in what they are designed for: defending against airplanes.

They are simply adequate at defending, not necessarily good.

When it comes down to it, AA guns are only good for when you are in DESPERATE need of aircraft defense. You can get more defense against everything, AIRCRAFT INCLUDED, per cash, by purchasing infantry. While AA guns are effective at defense, I would say they aren't effective enough. Perhaps a bit of a buff to their defensive boost against aircraft would do it. Anything to make sure that Anti Aircraft are actually effective at their job, which is defending against air.

When infantry are better than AA guns at killing air units, there is a problem.

Let me put it this way:

You get 14 total defense in a city for 2 infantry without ANY strategy. Total cost? 140
You get 11 total defense against aircraft with 1 AA gun. Total cost? 180
On top of that, the infantry will protect you against any single other unit perfectly.
On top of that, infantry get boosts from Great Combinator or Perfect Defense if you're using one of them, while AA guns will not.


Doesn't it seem like a problem when infantry are better at an AA gun's job in every way, other than the fact that you can't build them as quickly?

Escrito por goodnames679, 02.11.2011 at 16:38

When infantry are better than AA guns at killing air units, there is a problem.

If you have 8 reinforcements available:

8 AA's = 88 (96 with upgrade) def against planes or 32 (40 with upgrade) against other units.

8 Infantries = 48 (56 with +1 bonus for defending in a city).

How are AA's weaker than Infantries?

While a single AA isn't weaker than an infantry, they alltogether are weaker for the cost of the unit. Wouldn't it make more sense, when establishing defense, to send in infantry from more than one city to whatever you are defending, rather than just relying it on simply one cities' troop income?

In most cases, there is a specific target being defended, such as a main capital.

You basically just argued the one part of AAs that is useful (Which I actually acknowledged)

You can build AAs more quickly, that is true. But you cannot get as much out of them. Therefore, they seem to me to be a bit more of a last resort type of thing.

Escrito por goodnames679, 02.11.2011 at 16:42

You get 14 total defense in a city for 2 infantry without ANY strategy. Total cost? 140
You get 11 total defense against aircraft with 1 AA gun. Total cost? 180

Exactly, you are comparing a 2/1. I coul say that 2 AA's have 22 def against 21 of 3 infantries, but let's say they have the same def in that 3/2. If you need to defend a city against bombers that has 6 reinforcements you will have 6 infantries or 6 AA's, that make it actually have the def of 9 infantries.

Anti-Aircraft were designed to defend against airplanes, arguing that it can't defend (and, in fact, it still can) against other kind of units is the same as saying that we should boost transports and air transports attack, since they are way worse than the other units.

Escrito por goodnames679, 02.11.2011 at 16:42

On top of that, infantry get boosts from Great Combinator or Perfect Defense if you're using one of them, while AA guns will not.

Meanwhile, if you play MoS, GW or SM your Infantries will be nerfed, while your AA's won't.

Escrito por goodnames679, 02.11.2011 at 16:54

While a single AA isn't weaker than an infantry, they alltogether are weaker for the cost of the unit. Wouldn't it make more sense, when establishing defense, to send in infantry from more than one city to whatever you are defending, rather than just relying it on simply one cities' troop income?

First of all, you can still move the AA's, they have the same movement range as a default militia and it can be upgraded by 1 yet.

No, it woudn't make more sense, because:

1) You will be stacking troops, which will make you way more easy to turnblock
2) You will be wasting a lot more of your available reinforcements, who are, in most cases, more important than the cash you have
3) If you concentrate your troops and "miss" the target where your enemy would attack, you will have a double loss, by losing an unprotected city and letting a lot of new potential targets that you can't reinforce anymore for, at least, 3 turns.

I don't know about you, but in the majority of the games I play, I don't have enough money to build a full stack of AA guns in all of my cities. And, generally, enemy bombers don't "miss" my main capital and hit a nearby one, which would have little to no effect at the time...

Escrito por goodnames679, 02.11.2011 at 17:16

I don't know about you, but in the majority of the games I play, I don't have enough money to build a full stack of AA guns in all

Me neither, that's why I prioritize my reinforcements while defending. The difference between you and me in that case would be:

You buy Infantries in all your nearby cities and send them where you think your enemy will attack. Next turn, if you were right, you succeded on stoping the attack, have money, but no reinforcements for the next 3 turns.

I buy AA's in my most important cities only, reinforce with a few infantries (if needed) and, by now, let's say I have no more available money. If I succeded on my defense, I will have money in the next turn AND reinforcements available, which make it possible for me to counter-attack and or prepare for the next wave. If I failed, I still managed to take some of the bombers down and still have reinforcements to send a counter-attack trying to recover the city.

I say that a good improvement for anti aircraft would be if they could work on transport ships. Im also wondering if that would be op and if not could it be implemented into the game.

I say that a good improvement for anti aircraft would be if they could work on transport ships. Im also wondering if that would be op and if not could it be implemented into the game.

Three things.
1) i hear pin loud and clear, and i understand his rational.

2) i think the bomber range should be considered when we are discussing the power of bombers. From my experience, the HP of bomber stacks makes the trades much better that the money say from the numbers. the bombers are going to come in hordes. not to mention that +bomber attack on the general (which in my opinion should be removed)

3) when we consider AA as a specialized militia for bombers, we gotta understand it is a lot harder to get a large amount of AA in the right place at the right time than the effort to get a bomber stack in the right place at the right time. Personally i have to make AT's and trans to get AA in the right place. Keep in mind that in the past you couldn't even put AA on trans or AT. I think you have to consider the inherent cost of getting the AA to a spot in cost of ATs and trans, and naturally lower the cost of AA to make them viable. It takes tremendous insight to not have to make reactionary AAs. Props if you have that pin, I haven't been that fortunate.
-Freeland

I can't even build 1 AA it's too expensive! 180$ seriously,even in Europe i can't buy AA because i would bankrupt!
I would use Turkey imp with AA against sm Ukraine but it isn't working.

AAs need more range, and maybe make them a bit cheaper. That's it. They work fine against SM Bombers but they do need range.

;_;

Escrito por clovis1122, 26.01.2014 at 19:17

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 28.10.2011 at 01:38

Anti Aircraft is awful. It's too expensive, it doesn't provide enough defense and it can be slow even with the upgrade.

Escrito por goodnames679, 28.10.2011 at 14:56

AA are way too expensive for their effectiveness in my experience. While they do manage to hold off aircraft decently well, cutting the cost down by 40-60 would make it much more balanced.

Escrito por THE_Militia, 26.01.2014 at 01:59

I can't even build 1 AA it's too expensive! 180$ seriously,even in Europe i can't buy AA because i would bankrupt!
I would use Turkey imp with AA against sm Ukraine but it isn't working.

Escrito por Guest, 26.01.2014 at 15:34

AAs need more range, and maybe make them a bit cheaper. That's it. They work fine against SM Bombers but they do need range.

Escrito por Thunderballs, 26.01.2014 at 19:19

;_;

ImgSnapLalala

I was IF.

Escrito por Pinheiro, 28.10.2011 at 05:27

In my opinion, many players underestimate the use of AA's ingame.

I never said AAs are not powerful. I said they need range.

AA to up

[EDIT] I'm a bit late to the game I see ... I started the maths on this about 10h ago ....
I agree with Pinheiro ... AA's are already suitably priced. Buffs in range or other properties essentially reduce the cost of what is already a cost-effective unit, but I think he's being too charitable by offering this as an opinion.
AA's do cost 38% more than bombers, whilst dealing only about 33% more average damage. However, with each unit's 7HP in the picture, the AA unit is 2x as likely as the bomber to survive its skirmish, and in surviving, dealing an average of 6 damage to the next unit in the battle. Even if the bomber should triumph, it would deal only an average of 4.5 damage to the next AA in the battle. For me, the key metric isn't the convergent cost/damage performance it's the AA's likelihood to survive the skirmish and gutpunch the next bomber before dying. In large-scale battles AA's should really triumph over bombers over the long term, including numerically-superior forces.
---
If I understand battle mechanics correctly (I'm rank 5, so verify please!), the first bomber attacks the first AA unit, and the AA unit simultaneously defends. Then they repeat the skirmish until only one remains, or both are dead.
- The damage each does is an integer between 1 and their max damage with an even probability for each integer to be selected along the damage continuum.
- If a unit survives the skirmish, its HP remains depleted, facing a fresh foe with full HP.
- Skirmishes continue until the battle is decided. At the battle's end, surviving units have HP restored.
Note: ARB's are not calculated in my general summary. No one else messed with them either. ARB favors AA in this scenario anyhow.

Assuming a 1v1 scenario, the bomber knocks out the AA 2/8 times (does 1-8 damage, a 7 or an 8 kills the AA) on the first 'roll', and the AA knocks the bomber out 4/11 times (does 1-11 damage, 7-11 kills the AA). There are 88 possible outcomes on the first roll (summarized/approximated):
- Bomber wins ~14% of the time 12/88 (rolls a 7 or 8 and AA rolls 6 or less out of 11), and has a average of 3.5 HP. As this isn't possible, 1/2 the time it has 3HP remaining, and 1/2 the time it has 4HP remaining.
- AA wins ~34% of the time 30/88 (rolls a 7-11 and bomber rolls 6 or less out of 8). As above, average 3.5 HP remains.
- Both die ~11% of the time 10/88 (both roll more than 7 on their respective 8 or 11 sided die).
- Both live ~41% of the time 36/88 (both roll less than 7 on their respective 8 or 11 sided die) and enter the next phase of the skirmish with a average 3.5 HP remaining.

I'll spare you the details for the remaining battles. Results ARE VERY APPROXIMATE:
SKirmish #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Average Damage Overall
Avg start HP 7.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
Bomber Wins 14% 16% 14% 11% 8% 4% - 4.5 (1-8) ~22%
AA Wins 34% 24% 20% 16% 11% 6% - 6.0 (1-11) ~46%
Both Die 11% 53% 61% 70% 80% 90% 100% ~32%
Both Live 41% 7% 5% 3% 1% <1% - ~ 0%

When dealing with large numbers of units, the key thing to remember is that about 1/3 of the time, the units kill each other. For the remaining 2/3's of the time, the AA has a 2 to 1 advantage to survive and deliver avg. 6 damage to the next unit, while the bomber when it wins only delivers 4.5 average damage.
Consider a scenario where both players have 23,400 to spend. The SM buys 180 bombers, the other buys 130 AA. 58 bombers and 58 AA 'eliminate' each other, on the average, leaving 122 bombers and 72 AA. The Bombers have a 70% advantage in numbers over the AA, however, on the average, each remaining AA has a 2 to 1 advantage over any bomber, and the overall (average) result would be that all bombers would be elimintated and about 20 AA would remain.
---
Please keep in mind I'm noob, and my maths might be full of flaws (they are honest approximations), I may misunderstand the combat mechanics etc. All that being said, I am speaking to probabilities and averages. For any particular skirmish, battle or game YMMV. My guess is that if people don't find AA effective, its because they have personal experiences where the AA didn't perform as hoped for.

Escrito por Pinheiro, 28.10.2011 at 17:09

In my opinion, reducing it's cost would, in fact, unbalance it.

Ok, so 1 AA has 11 def against planes, let's put only bombers into the accounts here. Also, let's use only the maximum atk possible to be dealt by a bomber, which is a SM Bomber (8 atk)

The SM bomber (the cheapest bomber in-game, together with the IMP bomber, which has only 5 atk) costs 130 cash. The Anti Aircraft costs 180 (only exception is for IMP).

AA
180($)/11(def) = $16,4/1def

Bomber
130($)/8(atk) = $16,3/1atk

Observation: AA's have an upgrade that add +1 def to them, which make it $15/1def. Bombers have only one upgrade (+1atk with general) but so does the AA (+1def to all units in the stack).

So, I will bring back Tik-Tok afirmation:

Escrito por Tik-Tok, 28.10.2011 at 01:38

60 AA should shred 100 bombers at least. Not one for one. Its specifically DESGINED to kill aircraft and it does a poor job.

Ok, let's do the math:

60 AA's ($180) x 11(def) = 660 def against 100 SM Bombers ($130) x (8atk) = 800 atk

660 (AA) vs 800 (SM Bomber)

Considering this is an outnumbered fight, which costed 13000 to the SM players, while it costed 10800 for the players using AA's. Again, Not considering the AA +1def update, which would boost it from 660 def to 720.

Will people please stop spreading this fiction that AA are too weak? They are perfectly fine as is and if you know when to use them they do the job better than infantry.