Theoretical: AD and Flak units. Do we need both?

[none]

Preamble: This not a change request, it's a theoretical discussion, a "request for comments"

In my E-File I have identical units in both AD and Flak categories so people can choose, but I can't make them have the same characteristics, which is kind of silly... Example, the German "88mm Flak":
As an "Air Defense" type unit, it has: Intercept: 2 - Air Attack: 3 - Air Defense: 3
As a "Flak" type unit, it has: Intercept: 2 - Air Attack: 3 - Air Defense: 2

The issue is that for the Flak type units the "Air Defense" value is a general, one-size-fits-all setting in the E-File's .cfg file ("flak_range" setting), the same for all Flaks, be it a puny 7.62 mm MG or a huge 128 mm AA gun.


It so happens that I prefer using the "Flak" type versions, because indeed most of the AA guns in WWII were dual purpose by design. After all the first AA guns were normal field guns in a special mount, and AT guns were more often than not repurposed AA guns, because both had the same requirements (high muzzle velocity, flat trajectory).

Having a special category for units exclusively shooting at planes is IMHO unrealistic and also tactically quite cumbersome: In my own armies I gladly accept a lower efficiency against planes for the greater tactical flexibility and realism of "Flaks" (allowing my AA batteries to tackle ground targets).
Rommel is famous for having used his "88 mm Flak 18" batteries to destroy the otherwise indestructible British "Mathilda II" tanks, but at that point the idea wasn't new: Already during the invasion of France the only towed gun able to tackle the French heavy tank "Char B1" (and the British "Matilda II" already) was the 88... And the Germans weren't the only to do it, actually they all did it, Americans, Soviets, all.

IMHO "Flaks" should be the main (if only) category of AA armament in OG. Except maybe for some very specific cases like surface-to-air missiles or such. I really don't know why "Panzer General" games installed that dual system, but in my humble opinion it's not a good system.

So guys, what's your opinions on the subject (except "no more changes please" )?

[Dimitris GR]

IMO, all flak guns should can move and fire planes, all AD guns should can't move and fire (except leader).
All flak should have not big hard attack (e.g. 7.1) but have good soft attack and the AD should have big hard attack and not good soft attack.
But the designer of the efile should have make the choice. 88mm can't be a Flak e.g.

[sympatyk]

IMHO "Flaks" should be the main (if only) category of AA armament in OG. Except maybe for some very specific cases like surface-to-air missiles or such. I really don't know why "Panzer General" games installed that dual system, but in my humble opinion it's not a good system.

Two classes are not one ... and some creators ask to increase the possibilities of OG - by adding different parameters in the CFG file

Since OG is not a game of one e-file and covers the time from ancient times to the future - tell me where (in which class) to place heavy machine guns ... --> in the class infantry, AD, FLAK, anti-tank? --> you can find examples of use in all these classes ...
Creating possibilities and choices - is always on +

[none]

All flak should have not big hard attack (e.g. 7.1) but have good soft attack and the AD should have big hard attack and not good soft attack.

That's not logical, or at least not realistic. AA guns were rather small caliber. You're probably thinking of the 88, but the most common Flak was the 20 mm (2 cm), a caliber which would be pretty useless against infantry, given such a small shell can't contain much explosive (as about hitting a soldier directly, well, he would be just as dead using a smaller, much cheaper shell...).
75 mm is the smallest caliber able to have an efficient explosive shell. Even mortars, which are supposed to remain light and portable, use 80 mm shells...

88mm can't be a Flak e.g.

Check this quite informative Wikipedia article.
Keep in mind that "Flak" ("Flugabwehrkanone") is simply the German word for "AA gun": You can't say the 88 can't be an AA gun, can you...


My initial point was that the separation of "Air Defense" and "Flak" guns as two different types of units is something totally artificial, created for some mysterious reason by the "Panzer General" games, and obviously inherited by Open General, which after all is a perfected version of "Panzer General 2".

Theoretically, we should only have "Flak" (no matter how it's called), that is, guns which shoot at planes and ground units. AA guns are by technical definition good anti-tank guns, that's why they were used as such by all nations, and the game should reflect that. IMHO.

[none]

adding different parameters in the CFG file

Yes, that's how it is right now. Except that this is not very flexible, because as I said above, a light MG and a 17 tons "128 mm FlaK 40" are forced to have the same Air Defense range. (And yes, the 128 mm was used against ground targets in Berlin.)

tell me where (in which class) to place heavy machine guns ... --> in the class infantry, AD, FLAK, anti-tank?

Well, since I've had to think about it for my own E-File, the obvious choice is "Flaks". "Flaks" = dual air/ground weapons.

Creating possibilities and choices - is always on +

I totally agree.
My point is, the "Flak" types should have the same capacities as the "Air Defense" counterparts. Which means their ranges being defined in the E-File, not in a one-size-fits-all .cfg setting...

[Dimitris GR]

You know me, my English are bad and the translation make things more bad for me. As i can't explain what i believe, i think that the designer of the efile, can make what he likes So there is no reason for change something

[none]

my English are bad

Pesto sta Ellinika. Ta katalaveno perifima, aplos den boro na ta grapso...

So there is no reason for change something

No, as I said in my first post, that was not a request for change!

I just want to know how others feel about this issue, since I guess I'm not the only E-File maker who at some point wondered why the player should have to choose between two types of AA artillery.

[sympatyk]

I just want to know how others feel about this issue, since I guess I'm not the only E-File maker who at some point wondered why the player should have to choose between two types of AA artillery.

AA and FLAK --> these are not two types of AA --> just two separate classes (operating differently) --> AA is used to fight aircraft --> FLAK, on ​​the other hand, can additionally fight aircraft (it has limited parameters compared to AA, in exchange for the ability to fight other targets) --> there is no problem with this --> we should be happy that we have more options --> you yourself are constantly asking for more options and development of OG --> and in this case it is a problem for you?

If you want to have a universal gun, you choose the FLAK class --> if you want to have more specialized units, you choose two units from different classes --> do not look at it all through the prism of the 88 gun

[Dimitris GR]

my English are bad

Pesto sta Ellinika. Ta katalaveno perifima, aplos den boro na ta grapso...

[none]

it has limited parameters compared to AA, in exchange for the ability to fight other targets

That is where we disagree: I don't see why there should be any "in exchange", it's not realistic. It happens I like realism and am a perfectionist...

If you want to have a universal gun, you choose the FLAK class

Indeed, except that the "Flak" class is handicapped by that general one-size-fits-all air defense value...

do not look at it all through the prism of the 88 gun

I just used the 88 as an example because it's the best known, the star AA gun...
All AA guns were also used as AT guns, all over the world. Let's see:

• The US "90 mm gun M1" was used as main gun on the "M36" tank destroyer and the "M26 Pershing" tank.
• The Italian "Cannone da 90/53" was used on the "Semovente 90/53" tank destroyer.
• The 85mm Soviet gun being fitted to the "SU-85", later models of the "T-34" and the "KV-85" and "IS-1" heavy tank.

Need more examples?

There is no "Air Defense", there is only Zuul, sorry, "Flak"!

[sympatyk]

In your e-file you can do whatever you want ...
You can even leave one of these classes (AD, FLAK) empty
The game offers some specific possibilities
If (as you wrote) you don't want changes ... but you do want them?

If something is universal, it will not be better than something that is specialized ... because otherwise it would have to cost a fortune

[none]

In your e-file you can do whatever you want ...

If I could do whatever I want, this thread wouldn't exist, would it.

If something is universal, it will not be better than something that is specialized ... because otherwise it would have to cost a fortune

Where does that fit?
I was talking about replicating the reality of WWII warfare.

I understand you are not happy with me questioning the way the game works, but 1. this is a theoretical discussion (as I keep repeating), and 2. questioning the status quo is the way things progress. There's that famous Henry Ford quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses"...

I think it's time to repeat, in case somebody already forgot: This not a request for change, else I would had posted it in the wishlist thread. Besides I am aware Luis has moved on and is now swamped by Real Life anyway.

[sympatyk]

If something is universal, it will not be better than something that is specialized ... because otherwise it would have to cost a fortune

Where does that fit?
I was talking about replicating the reality of WWII warfare.

I look at this game from the perspective of military units (with all infrastructure) --> I don't just look at the parameters of tanks, cannons, etc. A unit, for example, that is trained to defend and fight aircraft - will do it perfectly --> a unit that is tasked with fighting tanks and additionally fighting aircraft --> will not be as good at fighting aircraft (even though it uses the same cannon) --> that's why there are differences in the parameters of the AD and FLAK classes

[none]

a unit that is tasked with fighting tanks and additionally fighting aircraft --> will not be as good at fighting aircraft (even though it uses the same cannon)

Hmm. Lets agree to disagree on that...

Some weapons were dual purpose by design. For me, shooting your cannon at an enemy = shooting your cannon at an enemy, no matter if he's high in the sky or in some field at the same level than you.