Flak

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Flak

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Flak

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Flak - 5/24/2008 1:11:53 PM

LazyBoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

Are flak sub formations worth it, or are the resources better used for fighters?

Thanks

Post #: 1

RE: Flak - 5/24/2008 2:21:43 PM

Shambling Strider

Posts: 123
Joined: 1/16/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

Hi LazyBoy,

I'm far from an expert, but I would say it depends of what scenario you're playing. Flak is very useful to protect a defensive position. Most of the time, I'm trying to include some Flak in Artillery units as basic protection. I'm trying to use flak units in clusters by splitting them in a small area, when it's possible.

And, most important, flak is costing half the price of fighter.

So, I say yes, flak sub formation worth it.

Have fun!

_____________________________

War is patience.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 2

RE: Flak - 5/24/2008 2:52:59 PM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

Also it is usualy an idea to equip your armored spearheads with some flak since they tend to run out of aircover if they advance.

(in reply to Shambling Strider)

Post #: 3

RE: Flak - 5/24/2008 5:23:31 PM

Joshuatree

Posts: 507
Joined: 12/30/2007
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

And, aeroplanes use up a lot of supply!

(in reply to Vic)

Post #: 4

RE: Flak - 5/24/2008 5:58:01 PM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

And, aeroplanes use up a lot of supply!

Yes, in WaW....

Flak is imho a alternate way to protect the spearheads.
It forces the opponent to use bigger numbers of planes for his attacks and this way he can attack less units.
Best defense is still the fighter. With the short intercept range they have for example in the scenario WaW it�s nearly
impossible to protect the frontline using fighters. Here you should use flak. Try to put flak in ALL units to allow as much protection to
neighbour hexes as possible.
Place also some flak in frontline HQ�s.

(in reply to Joshuatree)

Post #: 5

RE: Flak - 5/24/2008 8:20:58 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LazyBoy

Are flak sub formations worth it, or are the resources better used for fighters?

Thanks

Ive noticed that the AI uses it quite a lot, I have not used it as yet because the AI doesn't seem to build enough planes to warrant it.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 6

RE: Flak - 5/25/2008 9:30:47 AM

LazyBoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

Thanks for the replies.

I am playing Third Reich ( the one where you play Axis againest the AI.

My first attempt, I was plagued by Allied air power.
Second atempt, used flack, but did not see the benefit, because I took a year to capture Northern France

.

Third try I have done much better, but have invested heavily in air power.

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)

Post #: 7

RE: Flak - 5/25/2008 10:44:39 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Could be interesting for you to read:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1759298

If you play "normal" AI you can easily defend with own fighters.
In PBEM that�s often not that easy since even a averaged human opponent is much better
than the AI. He�ll use his planes with better effect and don�t waste them.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 8

RE: Flak - 5/26/2008 6:39:28 AM

LazyBoy

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline

Good information.

Thanks Seille that thread has good information.

The experience factor I must admit is some thing I have not taken to much notice of, I will now

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 9

RE: Flak - 5/26/2008 7:23:01 AM

Daniel_machinegun

Posts: 84
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline

I don't think AA worth the price. AA cost 1.000 plus 500 to motorize it (half a truck). I just don't like it.

Moreover, a plane can be more expensive but a Plane fights every turn once or twice!! while AA fight once every three turns.

This mean, why would you buy AA if they cost around 1.500 and play once every two or three turns???

Seille said: "place your AA with tanks"... still, it cost 1.500 because you are using your Tank's transport capacity.

This mean, it is better to not move your plane in active turn, and transport it for defense! rather than buying AA.

I think AA is as worthles as Anti Tank.

(in reply to LazyBoy)

Post #: 10

RE: Flak - 5/26/2008 7:33:11 AM

Daniel_machinegun

Posts: 84
Joined: 5/19/2008
Status: offline

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1759298
Here was mentioned that Flak has XPerience dissadvantage. That is because AA never fight.

For me, AAA and AT should cost 500 and then maybe I will start using them.

The core problem with AAA and AT is that those are Static Defense units. And Advanced tactis is not about Static Defense, so they will not coordinate with the bulk of your army.

This is just a humble opinion. Of course I respect you Seille because you are one of the best players in Advanced Tactics.

< Message edited by Daniel_machinegun -- 5/26/2008 7:38:51 AM >

(in reply to Daniel_machinegun)

Post #: 11

RE: Flak - 5/26/2008 1:30:10 PM

zook08

Posts: 138
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

I think flak unit are about right in AT. Cost and other attributes may be debatable (depending on the scenario, as usual), but overall, it "feels right" for me. AA does and can not destroy the enemy air force. It cannot win you air superiority, like fighters can. In my experience, AAA rarely shoots down anything, unless you build huge numbers of guns. In which case you would probably be better off spending the money on fighters. Instead, AA guns, in small numbers, can soften the blow of enemy air attacks, up to the point where tactical bombardment becomes almost ineffective. So don't compare apples and oranges. In AT, fighters are best placed in a huge flying circus, where they can win air battles by weight of numbers. That, together with low range in some scenarios (WaW), means they can't cover the entire front. But you can still protect production cities and valuable units with AAA. A gun or two can make all the difference between losing half the forces in a hex and losing only a few foot soldiers. In real life, one of the biggest effects of flak was making the enemy pilots nervous, thereby making them attack from a higher altitude, drop their bombs prematurely or abort the attack altogether. And that's what you see in AT, too. Not a huge number of kills, but much less bomb damage. If you ask me, Vic got it right.

(in reply to Daniel_machinegun)

Post #: 12

RE: Flak - 5/26/2008 1:56:08 PM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Flak will gain XP automaticly without any fight up to around 40.
40 is already great compared to green flak with 0XP.
If you have flak units with 70 or more XP the enemy will attack that hex only one time since it is too expensive (depending on number
of attacking planes of course)
And flak don�t has to be static. 10 flak+5 trucks = mobile flak unit.
But such a unit has it�s disadvantages when it is alone in that hex and no flak in neighbour hexes.
When this will come under direct air attack you�ll see your flak guns dying fast.
Place flak in urban hexes, fortifications or heavy forrest with some other troops in same hex and flak in neighbourhexes
and you�ll see a effect.
As i said a good flak protection will force the opponent to fly concentrate attacks. he can�t longer do several smaller attacks causing
much more damage that a attack on a single hex.

And never forget: Flak does not only kill planes, it can also do damage (higher supply consumption) and makes
aiming harder for the attacking planes.
If you have serious problems with enemy air it may be a good idea to upgrade the flak to level II or III.

(in reply to zook08)

Post #: 13

RE: Flak - 5/26/2008 9:44:55 PM

all5n

Posts: 371
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline

By themselves, flak probably are not worth it.

Coupled with a moderate fighter force for air defense, you can easily achieve air superiority over your own defensive positions.

This forces the attacker to rely on artillery to soften up your units.

Basically, you are denying them (or at the very least making much more costly) the use of their airforce in certain situations.

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 14

RE: Flak - 6/5/2008 3:18:51 PM

Ande

Posts: 197
Joined: 7/5/2007
From: G�teborg/Sweden
Status: offline

the AAA is a great way to equalize target value, consider this: should I go for high value target (artillery and armour) and face the possebility of additional losses or settle with some infantry unit packed with mortars?

The AT gun is very useful if your on the defencive if you face anything bigger than armoured cars, yes, bazookas work against light tanks to but AT guns cut through them like knife through butter in the desert.
If you you are on the defence you rely mostly on infantry, so the enemy will spend much on light armour and artillery. this is the kind of fighting the At gun was made for

(in reply to all5n)

Post #: 15

RE: Flak - 6/5/2008 11:38:39 PM

SSFSX17

Posts: 182
Joined: 10/14/2001
From: California
Status: offline

I like to use Flak in all of my rear-line units, mixed with artillery, staff and engineers. Flak does a very good job of scaring enemy airplanes away - it doesn't hurt them much, but as soon as enemy pilots start seeing the black smoke appear in the sky, they decide that they don't want to take excessive risks.

At the same time, Flak can be beaten by a sufficient quantity of divebombers, but then of course that's a lot of supply that could be put to better use.

(in reply to Ande)

Post #: 16