Revised objectives and Victory Cities chart to correct error spotted by beaudoin996:
Hopefully no more corrections will be required…
Cred
How useful are cruisers??
-
Ahh someone from the accounting school of Axis and Allies
Axis & Allies is not an accounting game.
Let that sink in a moment.
What a great point, bigdog.
I’ve been a professional accountant my entire adult life, and I echo this sentiment.
Axis & Allies is NOT an accounting game.
Sure, math and averages and stat analysis are useful in helping you play smart, and ignorance of these things will hurt your game a lot. But by the same token, Axis and Allies cannot be reduced purely to formulas. One of the great appeals of the game is that decisions every turn are so situational. I don’t want to play a game where the optimal strategy is always “buy max bombers per turn with the USA and strat bomb Europe every single turn”, for example. Or “never ever buy cruisers because they are a sub-optimal unit”. -
I guess it means what you mean by accounting. If you compare your income to that of your enemy, is that not ‘accouting’ for differences. If you don’t know if you are outearning your enemy and you don’t know if you are winning the battle of attrition then I want to play you next!
I ‘account’ for every move, what can hit me, what can I hit. Am I safe here, can I force the enemy to retreat because he ‘accounts’ for the fact he is going to lose a battle. If you put out some ‘bait’ you account for the fact you might lose more in that battle but the strategic position is improved to a greater extent.
The argument was cruisers are awesome cause they can do shore bombardment. My premise was that the utility in that action is not so good so is it that great a benefit to sway you to have 2 CC over 3 DD?
-
Gamerman gets it.
So many times I hear people stating that X unit that cost Y IPCs will never do Y damage to the enemy therefore it is useless, btw the bombers for SBRs that you were posting about generally fall in this category. My point is that this is not a ledger sheet. I don’t care if a unit does it’s value in IPC damage as long as it achieves the strategic purpose that I purchased it for.
As far as your question about 2 CAs vs 3 DDs that depends on the situation. If I need pure fodder the DDs are the obvious choice. If I need either shore bombardment or some more offense with a fleet then the 2 CAs are the better choice. As Gamerman said, it is all situational.
And if you ever want to play me start playing in the League as that is where I play. I may not be the best player on this site but I have no problems putting my money where my mouth is so to speak. I deal with Axis and Allies from the viewpoint of years of gaming experience, not from the theoretical viewpoint.
-
Well, I never once said a cruiser or any other piece was useless first of all, so let’s be crystal clear on that. All pieces have utility, some a bit more than others. I also stated earlier that a mix of pieces is ideal.
For fleet offense, 3 DDs beats 2 CCs
For fleet defense, 3 DDs beats 2 CCs
Using as a blocker piece saves you 4 IPC versus using a cruiser and can’t be sub shot killed like a cruiser, nice when using as a blocker because you always have a 1/3 chance of killing something (other than a BB). I will acount for the fact 1/3 of an enemy sub equals 2 IPC when my destroyer kills 1/3 of it….on average or better if I take out an air unit. On the other hand if a sub is not used to kill the blocking CC then yeah, you have a 1/6 greater chance of hitting back. If you think my accounting is wearing you down, wait until Japan turn 15… then the averages start to work out in the long run.
A destroyer obviously has the advantage of sub warfare over a cruiser, so the ONLY thing a CC has going for it over a DD was the shore bombment.
That utility was the crux if my thinking. IF you are buying CCs over DDs because you have lots and lots of opportunity to use shore bombardment against targets with AA guns (else a plane is way way better than a cruiser shot) and large stacks of pieces ‘just to whittle them down’ then maybe a cruiser. Honestly, you dropping off lots of pieces in futile battles turn after turn to ‘wittle them down’ then you play a different game then me.
As for my thinking being all theory… :-) Ever read the Art of War by Sun Tze or something like that spelling. Great book.
-
Well, I never once said a cruiser or any other piece was useless first of all, so let’s be crystal clear on that. All pieces have utility, some a bit more than others. I also stated earlier that a mix of pieces is ideal.
No argument there.
For fleet offense, 3 DDs beats 2 CCs
For fleet defense, 3 DDs beats 2 CCs
With a mix of units already in a navy I would prefer the 2 CAs on offense as opposed to the 3 DDs, I will already have DDs in my navy for fodder purposes and would prefer some additional rolls @3 as opposed to @2. Also I find it is less of a matter of purchasing 3 DDs or 2 CAs especially with the UK. It is more a matter of purchasing 1 ship in a turn and for offense I would again prefer the CA @3 as opposed to the DD @2. And yes I know that is no longer truly an equal comparison due to the differences in IPCs.
Using as a blocker piece saves you 4 IPC versus using a cruiser and can’t be sub shot killed like a cruiser, nice when using as a blocker because you always have a 1/3 chance of killing something (other than a BB). I will acount for the fact 1/3 of an enemy sub equals 2 IPC when my destroyer kills 1/3 of it….on average or better if I take out an air unit. On the other hand if a sub is not used to kill the blocking CC then yeah, you have a 1/6 greater chance of hitting back. If you think my accounting is wearing you down, wait until Japan turn 15… then the averages start to work out in the long run.
A destroyer obviously has the advantage of sub warfare over a cruiser, so the ONLY thing a CC has going for it over a DD was the shore bombment.
DDs ARE the go to blocking piece. The use of any other should be restricted to emergencies, rare but it sometimes comes up mostly with the US in the Pacific.
That utility was the crux if my thinking. IF you are buying CCs over DDs because you have lots and lots of opportunity to use shore bombardment against targets with AA guns (else a plane is way way better than a cruiser shot) and large stacks of pieces ‘just to whittle them down’ then maybe a cruiser. Honestly, you dropping off lots of pieces in futile battles turn after turn to ‘wittle them down’ then you play a different game then me.
There are some circumstances in my Allied play where this does arise with the UK. It is not often but it does happen. Germany id forced by the threat of the bombardments to keep more troops in coastal locations and once this is going on it can be beneficial to start “whittling” down the stacks. As I said before Germany must make good on these loses or they stand to loose either France or even Germany depending on the situation.
As for my thinking being all theory…… :-) Ever read the Art of War by Sun Tze or something like that spelling. Great book.
Yes I have read the Art of War by Sun Tzu and Clausewitz and a few others. Purchasing CAs to threaten bombardments to tie up Axis troops is straight out of the Art of War.
I think for the most part we are talking past each other. I get real twitchy though when I see players state stuff such as a unit must do its IPC value in damage to be effective and other such ledger-sheet approaches to the game. I also want less experienced players that might be reading this to understand that Cruisers can have their uses and should not be dismissed out of hand due to cost calculations when it is the strategic calculations that need to be addressed.
-
My question is for 20ipc is the ca dd combo better than the bb ?
-
My question is for 20ipc is the ca dd combo better than the bb ?
:lol:
Situational!Do you already have any battleships? How much does the opponent have?
Battleships are awesome for deflecting the enemy’s attempt at 1-2 or 1-2-3 punching your fleet, because they deter that by absorbing a hit every time. Also, they deter hit and runs on your fleet, which destroyer fleets invite. Also, battleships are awesome for your own hit and runs, because you get X number of free hits in the first round.
Obviously, BB can bombard better than a cruiser. And if you take one hit, you lose a DD if you have DD and CA, but if you have BB, you lose nothing. However, a battleship cannot be two places at once, while a DD and CA can. Also, a battleship can only hit once per round, but a DD and CA could hit twice.
Of course, this question could be analyzed further, but most of it would be a waste of time, because it’s entirely situational. Depends on what your opponent has and what you’re trying to accomplish. :-)
Cheers, maxo.
-
I’m not sure what the difference is about rolling 2 big 3’s versus 3 small 2’s. Other than that I think we are pretty much on the same page. Having only played spring 42 and second edition I must defer to your more varied experience.
My philosophy on wearing the enemy down is I guess a longer term view. The games i play rarely end before each country has at least 10 turns, often its out to 15 turns before one or the other side sees the writing on the wall, with no techs its easier to see defeat coming. In these games I would prefer to land the units even if means they must travel 3-4 turns before fighting. When they do fight, its not going to be a fair fight. Its going to be my 2-4 land units against a border territory with 2-4 land units but I have air support and I will win the battle of attrition. On the other hand, I’ve been playing in a small pool and I am sure I have much to learn.
You make an excellent point in regards to new players reading this thread. I would never suggest never purchasing a piece and every purchase must be viewed in context of the current game state and goals. Sometimes a BB is a better choice over a DD+CC sometimes it is not, it depends on the current fleet mix as you said well.
-
My question is for 20ipc is the ca dd combo better than the bb ?
:lol:
Situational!Do you already have any battleships? How much does the opponent have?
Battleships are awesome for deflecting the enemy’s attempt at 1-2 or 1-2-3 punching your fleet, because they deter that by absorbing a hit every time. Also, they deter hit and runs on your fleet, which destroyer fleets invite. Also, battleships are awesome for your own hit and runs, because you get X number of free hits in the first round.
Obviously, BB can bombard better than a cruiser. And if you take one hit, you lose a DD if you have DD and CA, but if you have BB, you lose nothing. However, a battleship cannot be two places at once, while a DD and CA can. Also, a battleship can only hit once per round, but a DD and CA could hit twice.
Of course, this question could be analyzed further, but most of it would be a waste of time, because it’s entirely situational. Depends on what your opponent has and what you’re trying to accomplish. :-)
Cheers, maxo.
Once I did buy only BBs after my opponent hit Heavies but now that they are pussified I dont know if i would do it again. :lol:
-
I’ve seen a couple of posts were a party has a stack of BBs and does a hit and run against the enemy. Doesn’t the enemy have a vote in how the battles unfold? Why is the enemy allowing a hit and run to occur? It reminds me of a buddy who always claims to have the perfect defense against a knife attack. All you have to do is attack him in a carefully choreographed fashion that he himself devised, if you play the perfect victim….errrr attacker then his defense works all the time. If you want to do a hit and run against me, you build up your stack of 6 BBS, and you get within 2 spaces of my 20 subs that represent the same investment of 6 BBs (I’ll toss in not only 1 but 4 DDs for free) and all ya have to do is count on me to not only NOT attack but to wait for you to do a hit and run.
BBs are great in the initial stages of the game, when you already own them and they are involved in several small skirmishes where absorbing a hit represents a fair percentage of damage if not all received. I feel after the initial chaos, it becomes more of a dance between navies. Once a fight is forced, its usually a big fleet on fleet in my experience and the hit and run advantage of the BB are less pronounced. When you expect ‘on average’ to do 10 hits, absorbing a few hits while always a help, does not change the numbers much as a percentage due to the large numbers involved.
-
BBs are great in the initial stages of the game, when you already own them. I feel after the initial chaos, it becomes more of a dance between navies. Once a fight is forced, its usually a big fleet on fleet in my experience and the hit and run advanted of the BB are less pronounced.
One thing navies learned as a result of WWII was that a carrier was/is far superior to a BB.
-
I’ve seen a couple of posts were a party has a stack of BBs and does a hit and run against the enemy. Doesn’t the enemy have a vote in how the battles unfold? Why is the enemy allowing a hit and run to occur? It reminds me of a buddy who always claims to have the perfect defense against a knife attack. All you have to do is attack him in a carefully choreographed fashion that he himself devised, if you play the perfect victim….errrr attacker then his defense works all the time. If you want to do a hit and run against me, you build up your stack of 6 BBS, and you get within 2 spaces of my 20 subs that represent the same investment of 6 BBs (I’ll toss in not only 1 but 4 DDs for free) and all ya have to do is count on me to not only NOT attack but to wait for you to do a hit and run.
BBs are great in the initial stages of the game, when you already own them and they are involved in several small skirmishes where absorbing a hit represents a fair percentage of damage if not all received. I feel after the initial chaos, it becomes more of a dance between navies. Once a fight is forced, its usually a big fleet on fleet in my experience and the hit and run advantage of the BB are less pronounced. When you expect ‘on average’ to do 10 hits, absorbing a few hits while always a help, does not change the numbers much as a percentage due to the large numbers involved.
I just did a hit and run with my BB last night. With a battleship I had purchased. With the UK - trapped German fleet in Z5. BB takes free hit, I retreat after 1 round, USA cleans up the rest. It does happen. And BB’s are worth buying sometimes.
-
One thing navies learned as a result of WWII was that a carrier was/is far superior to a BB.
A great point. However. For a carrier to be great, one must have fighter planes. Not everyone does, not all the time.
Secondly, in WWII battleships didn’t get free hits and auto-repair. :-D
In the 1940 edition, where battleships don’t automatically repair immediately, they suck a lot more. I never buy them in 1940. I definitely do at times in AA50.
-
One thing navies learned as a result of WWII was that a carrier was/is far superior to a BB.
A great point. However. For a carrier to be great, one must have fighter planes. Not everyone does, not all the time.
Secondly, in WWII battleships didn’t get free hits and auto-repair. :-D
In the 1940 edition, where battleships don’t automatically repair immediately, they suck a lot more. I never buy them in 1940. I definitely do at times in AA50.
Also in 1940, the bigger pacific makes carriers VERY important, as a friendly island when there are no friendly island. Just as islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers, aircraft carriers are uncapturable islands.
-
Also in 1940, the bigger pacific makes carriers VERY important, as a friendly island when there are no friendly island. Just as islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers, aircraft carriers are uncapturable islands.
Amen. I like the unsinkable, uncapturable phrase.
If 1940 has a lot of the same techs as AA50, then battleships might be more attractive at times. Like you have improved shipyards and your opponent has radar (with CV’s being capital 2 hit ships, I wonder if the discounted price will be 14, or 13). But with no tech, battleships are never or almost never worth it (1940).
-
As for spending 20 IPC in order to do a hit and run in order to avoid taking a casualty. So you only did 1 round of combat? No doubt there is more context to the battle such as existing fleet mix and threats the luftwaffe presented, in a pure vacuum however…. after the battle how useful is the 20IPC BB? Spending 12 IPC on 2 subs gives you the same punch power, first strike ability the BB lacks and it costs you 6 IPC to absorb the hit by taking a sub off. You spend 12 and end up with 6 on average, or spend 20 and get 20 back unless you had to take 2 hits… Obviously the BB protects against air, but subs are immune to air unless supporting DD is present. With the Brit example, having the BB later for fleet defense is certainly not a waste, but if there is overkill for fleet defense after the naval battle then perhaps 2 subs would have been better. on the other hand, the attacker has to be strong enough to defend against attack while also getting in range to attack. I’m guessing there was combined US/Brit fleet? I usually roll that way and I actually did seriously think of a BB to knock out the German fleet, but by that time it consisted of a Jap BB and fully loaded carrier to go along with the German fully loaded CV, BB, DD and 6 subs. I decided the brits were in a better position to deliver land forces to Russia to fend off the Germans and the US was in a better position to clear out the Med and then sail off into the indian ocean to harasses the Japs. The US went with 7 subs over 2 BBs for about the same price. The combined fleet was great on defense so could protect the subs coming over, the suez was now owned by the allies. The simulator indicated the addition of 7 subs was huge comapred to 2 BBs for the existing fleet/air mix I had.
While you can always construct a narrow example that does show it works, looking at the entire picture…At what cost in other options is spending potentially more on a military solution?
The case cited much earlier with the US purchasing 10-12 BBs then going on a crusade to crush the willing Japs… What were the japs doing while the US fleet was building and waiting around?
-
As for spending 20 IPC in order to do a hit and run in order to avoid taking a casualty. So you only did 1 round of combat?
Yes, 1 round. I had CA, BB, 4 FTR, BMB vs. SS, DD, CA, 3 CV, 4 FTR. I destroyed (with some good luck) SS, DD, CA, CV, and I lost 2 FTR. Then I retreated. A very successful attack. My BB is whole again.
No doubt there is more context to the battle such as existing fleet mix and threats the luftwaffe presented, in a pure vacuum however…. after the battle how useful is the 20IPC BB?
I’ll provide you the link so you can see everything. The 20 IPC BB is EXTREMELY useful. My opponent will have 2 German bombers, and at the time I thought, 2 Italian fighters until he squandered them, and the BB provides tremendous deterrent to him ever air-striking my fleet. Also, a lone BB, or a BB and a DD could provide ample protection for transports when I’m splitting them up and terrorizing Europe. SS and DD just don’t cut it for these purposes.
Spending 12 IPC on 2 subs gives you the same punch power, first strike ability the BB lacks and it costs you 6 IPC to absorb the hit by taking a sub off. You spend 12 and end up with 6 on average, or spend 20 and get 20 back unless you had to take 2 hits…… Obviously the BB protects against air, but subs are immune to air unless supporting DD is present.
Yeah - see my game. No way SS buys were the way to go. Also, my 20 IPC BB provides great amphibious assault support for multiple future amphibious assaults.
With the Brit example, having the BB later for fleet defense is certainly not a waste, but if there is overkill for fleet defense after the naval battle then perhaps 2 subs would have been better.
No way 2 subs would better. You’re talking about concerns of useless units after clearing the oceans, but advocating the purchase of subs? My BB is very very useful after clearing the seas for defense and also amph support. Subs are completely, utterly useless after clearing the seas. Of course, they would be the first casualties to go, usually, but there would be no BB remaining to protect transports and provide supporting shots.
-
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18819.0;topicseen For the UK BB hit and run example. Saved me a casualty. Also, you can see that the BB will be extremely useful for deterring future Axis airstrikes on sea zones, as well as providing bombardment capability, along with a wonderful cruiser (subject of this thread!)
I didn’t buy the cruiser - starting one in Z1. Z2 BB and DD were destroyed on G1, I believe.
-
I’m guessing there was combined US/Brit fleet?
Yep. USA is going to finish off the German fleet with a mixed force - a few boats, including 3 subs and 2 DD, fighters, and bombers.
While you can always construct a narrow example that does show it works, looking at the entire picture…At what cost in other options is spending potentially more on a military solution?
I understand that. I have won over 80% of my 50 games against a variety of opponents under a variety of bids and rulesets. Battleships are practical, in many situations, especially if you are using the bombardment and auto-repair functions. But it’s more than that. There is the psychological effect. BB’s make your opponent more intimidated, more tentative, more defensive. BB’s raise the stakes of naval battles. If you can’t wipe me out, my BB’s and transports survive and auto-repair. If you have no BB’s and I do, advantage to me. BB’s DETER AND PREVENT hit and runs! They make attacks much higher risk for the opponent facing them.
The case cited much earlier with the US purchasing 10-12 BBs then going on a crusade to crush the willing Japs…. What were the japs doing while the US fleet was building and waiting around?
I would never dream of having more than 3 BB’s in my fleet, and that would be with Japan when she starts with 2 already.
That said, if a player really wanted 10 USA battleships, he already starts with 1 in the Pacific, and assuming 43-48 IPC’s per turn income, it would only take about 4 turns to have 10 or so battleships. The Japanese player would be busy taking over the rest of the Pacific and Africa and China and Russia, obviously. And then the USA just storms across the Pacific in 2 turns and annihilates any Jap boats in its wake? Interesting strategy. Might be effective once. I wouldn’t build battleships every turn, though, I would save up the money for 4 turns so the opponent doesn’t know you’re going to build battleships in the Pacific. Then WHAM - buy 10 battleships for 11 total. Probably not the most effective strategy, but DEFINITELY one of the most FUN strategies! :lol: And who knows, maybe if you roll improved shipyards for 5 IPC’s in the first round……
That’s the other thing. DD and SS take up more production capacity for your factories than BB. This can be a HUGE factor for the UK, and may have been a factor when I built mine. Say you have 50 IPC’s with the UK, and you’re trying to build up assaults on Europe. Do you build DD of BB to protect your fleet? BB’s EVERY TIME. 1 BB and 7 ground units for 30 IPC’s. Maximizes ground units purchased, and BB’s can participate in amphibious, whereas DD do not. So when production capacity is a constraint, you are more likely to need to buy BB than DD or SS for max effectiveness.
Also, if your factory is damaged (I keep having to say this on this site) then expensive units aren’t as expensive, relatively speaking, as cheap units any more. What about when your factory is damaged and SS costs 7 and DD costs 9 and BB costs 21? BB looking better all the time.
These last two points apply to cruisers as well (already made these points), so keeping in the spirit of the thread. Cruisers are more desirable, relatively speaking, when your factory is damaged, or you’re maxing out production, and don’t have enough money for a Battleship.
-
You do make a number of excellent points. I have never played a variation of AA with Italy. Your example of the deterent to the smaller italian airforce is a good point. It does prevent some small scale skirmishes where if you hope to get on average 3 hits on the navy and get only 1 and do nothing to a fleet with a BB it can be a disaster.
The issue over the number of slots available to produce units is a great point, suprised nobody else mentioned it as its pretty important. I am a huge fan of the infantry push still even with spring 42 and the inability of the US to shuck into europe every round. The income levels you cite for England are much greater than I am used to as my experience is limited to AA second edition 100s of games and Spring 42 about 15-20 games were England starts at 30 and often falls to the high teens or low 20s until africa is retaken, by the time your income hits mid-20s the limitations of 8 units per round becomes an issue. Certainly, building 1 BB and 7 INF beats 3 SS, 4 INF and 1 plane because you HAVE to spend your money. 3 less land units in my way of fighting hurts.
The psychological effect…yeah, I’ll grant you it’s worth something. Preventing foes from doing hit and runs, yes but so does having an overwhelming initial D. 2 fully loaded ACs cost 68, so does 3 BBs and a DD. While the latter addition to a fleet can absorb 3 hits and in theory has 7 total hits to offer, the former has 6 hits to offer and defends with a full 6 more punch doing an extra hit per round. That’s the great thing about having many types of units, the debates are great! As for surviving and useless pieces, its a balance. If you need BB fleet defense for air later on, not a waste. If you are only looking to save hits merely for hit and runs…not so clear.
Suggested Topics
