@all-encompassing-goose Sounds good - hope you have lots of fun with it!
Combined arms suggestion
-
@Baron:
Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.If keeping 14 IPCs Cruiser and full 3 hits BB, I would suggest to put Destroyer at 7 IPCs and Subs at 5 IPCs.
That way DD vs CA will be 50% odds. And 3 hits BB remains better than DDs.
So, if you need ASW you buy DD, if you want ShoreB and more hits, Cruiser or BB.Sub A2 D1 C5 may compensate for less useful surprise strike, but 6 IPCs is still good price.
Also, this C5 may increase action in Atlantic for Germany more willingly use Subs as fodders for Air raid against UK and US fleet.TcB should be lowered to 10 IPCs to slightly compensate for the high increase in strength of CA and BB vs aircrafts.
Might be fun this roster with heavier warships. :-)
SS A2 D1 C5, 1 hit (or C6)
DD A2 D2 C7, 1 hit
TP A0 D0 C7, 1 hit
CA A3 D3 C14, 2 hits, SB @3
CV A0 D2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes
BB A4 D4 C20, 3 hits, SB @4TP might be lower to 6 IPCs. And this will totally increase action in water without adding too much heavier ships such like Advanced Shipyard Tech would.
You built sturdier but still a high cost. -
@Baron:
Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.Yes for UK, Italy and Anzac it will make the cruiser better. I like it. Now instead of buying a carrier in are game and place on west side of S Africa and send to Anzac for Anzac figs to give them a boost for island take over.
Will have to see how cruiser is now for Anzac.Italy in our game starts with 2 cruisers and UK with 2 cruisers if they send one from India for the med.
Also in are game US can LL Anzac and UK can buy up to 2 pieces a turn for Anzac. If UK decides to buy some cruisers for Anzac then they better get 1 or 2 victory city’s for sure to make up the less money spent in Europe.
US will have to build more cruisers in Pacific because Japan has more unless US still just buys carriers. Will see.I crunched the numbers with Baron. He also recommend the cost for cruiser be 15. I’m gonna go with C14 because I lowered the AD value by 1. I use D12 die in my games.
Cruiser C14 A5 D5 SB 4. 2 hitsLet me know in your game how much more cruisers were bought in the Pacific region.
-
**We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!
In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.**
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.Your answer was far outside YG opening post suggestion but, nonetheless help me think further about balance problem and solve some issues I got with side project within G40 Redesign. Thanks man.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1682831#msg1682831 -
@Baron:
Your answer was far outside YG opening post suggestion but, nonetheless help me think further about balance problem and solve some issues I got with side project within G40 Redesign. Thanks man.
You are welcome Baron, good to know that I was helpful to you. And a big sorry to YG! :oops:
-
Has anyone explored a CV at C14A0D2 1 hit, like it was in anniversary edition?
I can’t say I’m thrilled with increasing hit points because it decreases the effectiveness of subs and one of our goals is to increase submarine warfare effectiveness (Convoying and sea combat). Right now suprise strike is useless unless you have at least 20 submarines so that they survive until second round.
My proposal CA = C10A3D3 no AA, BB = C18A4D4 no AA
OR: CA = C10A3D3 no AA, BB = C20A5D5 no AAAND: bombers hit at 3 against sea units.
-
Here’s the original idea… everything stays the same for Cruisers and Battleships except…
When cruisers and/or battleships are in combat (attacking or defending) against sea units, than they get 1 die each to hit. If either of them are in combat (attacking and or defending) against air units, than they also get 1 die each to hit. However, if either of them are in combat (attacking or defending) against both air and sea units… than they get 2 die each and may choose the best result from both.
So a single cruiser rolls 6+5=0 hits, 4+5=1 hits, 4+6=1 hit, 2+3=1 hit, 1+1=1 hit, 5+5=0 hit… etc
That was my idea, and I think it’s good, gives big ships a better chance to hit in big battles…
Can you crunch those numbers for me baron?
-
If I understand, when there is both air and naval on opposite side, Cruiser and BB work like G40 Heavy bomber tech, right? 2 rolls, but only 1 is chosen as result. So, you cannot get 2 hits in a single combat round.
This is not working like classic Heavy bomber tech, 1 bomber get 3 rolls and may does up to 3 hits.
Do I clearly understand ?You wrote:
a single cruiser rolls 6+5=0 hits, 4+5=1 hits, 4+6=1 hit, 2+3=1 hit, 1+1=1 hit, 5+5=0 hit… etcIt should have been a battleship, right? Only BB can hit on a 4.
Getting a kind of reroll if you miss (or rolling twice keeping the best result) has marginal effect outside SBR.
As far as a comparison between a regular BB or a kind of heavy BB against DDs, both remains weak and maybe 2% better odds of survival at most for heavy bomber kind of roll.
Probably AACalc is broken on this one.In fact, you get a strength increase around 22.2% (2/6*4/6 = 2/9) for a @4 roll (66.7%), this 89% is higher than rising BB to @5 (83.3%)
And for Cruiser basic 50% you get 25% (3/6*3/6 = 1/4), rising to 75% rate of success, also higher than @4 66.7%.
So, instead of two rolls your rule maybe simpler by just adding +1 attack or defense when Cruiser or Battleship are fighting air and naval units.
-
YG have you also changed the cruiser to 4/4? It seems like it reading your example. Also why do the cruiser and BB get a bonus when fighting air and sea but not only air? Don’t we want to reduce the effectiveness of dark skies against sea units? Seems like this idea would force germany to buy only bombers and not attack with subs as support.
-
@Baron:
As far as a comparison between a regular BB or a kind of heavy BB against DDs, both remains weak and maybe 2% better odds of survival at most for heavy bomber kind of roll.
I tried a battle of 2 (heavy) cruiser and 2 (heavy) battleships against 8 destroyers (both worth 64 IPC) and it turns out to be either 1 destroyer left (AACalc) or 1 damaged battleship (Excel).
@Baron:
In fact, you get a strength increase around 22.2% (2/6*4/6 = 2/9) for a @4 roll (66.7%), this 89% is higher than rising BB to @5 (83.3%)
And for Cruiser basic 50% you get 25% (3/6*3/6 = 1/4), rising to 75% rate of success, also higher than @4 66.7%.
So, instead of two rolls your rule maybe simpler by just adding +1 attack or defense when Cruiser or Battleship are fighting air and naval units.
How about the idea to get the increase (which ever) only if you have a combined fleet of cruisers and battleships, but not for single ships?
-
Ultimately we are all playing a game.
And as a game mechanic - combined arms should only reward the side that has combined arms. (So as to encourage its use).
Implementing rules to discourage fundamental activities is generally a poor practice.
Whilst I don’t support this concept as written, I am a strong supporter of cruisers and possibly battleships getting typical AAA capability.
Cruisers and battleships aren’t purchased often enough if ever, and giving them AAA capability, would ENCOURAGE thier purchase.Aircraft carriers don’t need this ability, as they are already a standard purchase with powerful capabilities.
Still talking combined arms and in a similar direction. Combining many suggestions:
Cruiser get +1 Move.
In addition, when part of Carrier Task Force group, it get combined arms.Cruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 1 hit
+1A, +1D if paired with 1 Carrier and 1 BattleshipBattleship
A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits
+1A, +1D if paired with 1 Carrier and 1 Cruiser
+1 AAA@1 vs up to 3 Fgs if paired with 1 Carrier and 1 Cruiser.So, when these 3 are together, Cruiser attack and defense @4 and BB, @5
and roll AAA @1 against up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max.That way, it will not affect the G40 or 1942.2 opening round set-up balance.
Rationalization: each weaknesses is compensate by other warships and Carrier can more easily find enemy’s fleet. Cruiser and Battleship without air cover were not very efficient.
These bonuses giving an excellent reason to buy and match them to get the best out of them.Alone each Cruiser or Battleship is sub-optimal vs Destroyer.
With Carrier, they can compete in pure combat situations.You get a glimpse of such US Carrier Task Force group at 21min. 30 sec.:
Battlefield 360 episode 8.
https://youtu.be/RkxVcqW90a4@Baron:
Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
It is only partially true.
All options which require a combined arms of cruiser with a carrier to get some AAA defensive capacity will affect only 3 SZs:
UK’s SZ 98: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)
US’s SZ 10: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
IJN’s SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleshipThe AA bonus for cruiser and carrier will increase as soon as a power can put them together in other turn.
Do you think that this 3 SZs are game-changer and can be attacked in the first turn?Only SZ6 and SZ10 get this initial AAA defense. US SZ10 is out of reach, Japan is the first offender in PTO.
@Young:
The Cruiser balance question has always been interesting to me, here are my thoughts….
One can go in two directions… lower the price, or justify the price with a new special attribute, I personally lean toward the latter. The price dilemma gets tricky if you consider making the cost of building a Cruiser, equal to the cost of building an air unit (understanding the idea of 1 plane equaling a squadron etc…). Also, it compels people to change the whole price index of everything else just to bring a sea unit into a proper comparison price with all other units. Although I like the simplicity of changing the price, I honestly don’t believe that players will buy more if they are $10 instead of $12. If you consider what a battleship can do for $20, or even what half a battleship can do for $10, a single Cruiser just doesn’t measure up. Therefore, I like the idea of adding a special attribute to Cruisers while leaving their cost at $12.
As for the many special attributes that can be given to Cruisers that will enviably result in players purchasing more… there are a lot of variables that could automatically push them into the realm of overpowering. The largest variable to consider is the problem of giving Cruisers something that will completely alter how players view opening strategies. Although we all want Cruisers to be purchased more often, and have them be a vital part of our ultimate war effort, the truth is that there are many already on the board. Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
About a year ago, I was speaking with a friend at work who happens to be a regular player at my bunker, and he had what I considered at the time to be a flash of genius when he said…
**Cruisers attack @4 when paired with a Battleship. **
Here’s what I love about this idea…
1. It’s simple
2. It uses a game mechanic that already exists within the game (combined arms).
3. It benefits newly purchased Cruisers much more than those already on the board.
4. It’s battle accurate considering the enemies concentration on destroying the powerful Battleships first.and finally…
5. It’s simple
Here’s the only question left… is it enough to make a Cruiser worth $12?
@Young:
No… but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns? I believe the defense value of all surface warships already allot for anti aircraft capabilities if we consider the fact that if any surface warship hits while attacking or defending, an air unit may be used as a casualty. By giving Cruisers alone some kind of special AA attribute, it kind of negates the assumption that all surface warships automatically have this ability built in. That’s just my opinion.
-
@Baron:
That way, it will not affect the G40 or 1942.2 opening round set-up balance.
Fair point!
-
Good idea; but I have the following question: Does the carrier need at least one air on board before the battle to get the combined arms bonus? (Sorry for the question but sometimes it may happen that a carrier is empty).
@M 3 for cruisers: Why should the cruiser get faster if combined with CA and BB? And it is not useful because you loose bonus if cruiser moves away from rest of fleet.
We use in addition to normal (OOB) heavy cruiser a light cruiser with A3 D2 M3 C10. This is often bought after CA, DD, SS. -
No need to add recon planes. Even empty carrier can be considered. There is also early radar tech on board.
Move 3 Cruiser is the specific bonus capacity of Cruiser.
It does not need combined arms. Cruiser can reinforced in a faster way a carrier group.A 10 IPCs Cruiser becomes always interesting.
CA= Heavy Cruiser
CV= Aircraft carrier (v-shaped aircraft) -
@Baron:
CA= Heavy Cruiser
CV= Aircraft carrier (v-shaped aircraft)The “V” in CV has no relationship to V-shaped aircraft. Aircraft with swept wings didn’t exist when carriers were first developed. The “V” comes from the second letter of “aviation”. Carriers were originally considered to be an extension of the cruiser reconnaissance role, (which is where the “C” comes from), but “CA” (for “cruiser aviation”) couldn’t be used as a hull designation code for them because it was already used to designate heavy cruisers, so “CV” was chosen instead.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
CA= Heavy Cruiser
CV= Aircraft carrier (v-shaped aircraft)The “V” in CV has no relationship to V-shaped aircraft. Aircraft with swept wings didn’t exist when carriers were first developed. The “V” comes from the second letter of “aviation”. Carriers were originally considered to be an extension of the cruiser reconnaissance role, (which is where the “C” comes from), but “CA” (for “cruiser aviation”) couldn’t be used as a hull designation code for them because it was already used to designate heavy cruisers, so “CV” was chosen instead.
Thanks Marc,
I did not invent this out of nowhere.
Do you know how this “v-shaped” myth in CV abbrev. appear as a naval (urban?) legend explanation?P.S. I was aware that V was not for Carrier Vessel. But not that v-shaped was also wrong.
-
@Baron:
Do you know how this “v-shaped” myth in CV abbrev. appear as a naval (urban?) legend explanation?
I have no idea where the story about the V-shape originated, but it’s not the only “plausible-sounding but actually wrong” theory that exists on the subject. An even stranger theory which I once heard – from someone who was serving on a U.S. Navy carrier at the time he wrote to me – was that “V” stood for “vixed-wing aircraft,” in reference to the term “fixed-wing aircraft”. The first flaw with that theory is that “fixed” is spelled with an “f”, not a “v”. The more serious flaw is that “fixed-wing aircraft” is a term which is used to distinguish conventional aircraft from helicopters, which are known as rotary-wing aircraft. Helicopters didn’t exist when aircraft carriers were first developed; all aircraft at the time were fixed-wing aircraft, so there was no need to call them “fixed wing” aircraft; the term “aircraft” sufficed. (Similarly, the term “analog watches” only had to be devised after digital watches were invented; prior to that time, a watch was just a watch.)
-
I do sometimes have to look more than once when I see the CV. Should be AC.
Suggested Topics
