Combined arms suggestion

[Young Grasshopper]

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?

[baron Münchhausen]

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… etc

It 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.

[Genghis Khan]

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.

[Fiera]

@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?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Gargantua:

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 Battleship

Battleship
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 battleship

The 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.

[Fiera]

@Baron:

That way, it will not affect the G40 or 1942.2 opening round set-up balance.

Fair point!

[dreifeino]

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.

[baron Münchhausen]

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)

[CWO Marc]

@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.

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.

[CWO Marc]

@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.)

[General 6 Stars]

I do sometimes have to look more than once when I see the CV.  Should be AC.