Revised objectives and Victory Cities chart to correct error spotted by beaudoin996:
Hopefully no more corrections will be required…
Cred
How useful are cruisers??
-
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.
-
Right on, Malachi, thanks for posting again.
50 IPC UK is not uncommon in AA50 because national objectives are worth 5 IPC’s each.
Dude, you have got to play AA50! It is as big an improvement over Revised, or 2nd edition as Revised is over the original.
Spring 1942 is the next best thing, I suppose, but the tech and Italy and NO’s are all missing. Also, China and other additional territories. AA50 is the best thing going right now. 1940 will be better in some respects, but in others AA50 will still be the best A&A game (1940 will be much busier, more complicated, maybe too involved for many players, or take too much time to play. Also, just plain more work, at least 1v1)
-
I agree on need to learn the other variations. It seems few people are using Spring 42, to be honest, in our backwaters up here we have been playing in a vaccuum for decades. I am the only one of the group who has ever visited here and its only been since last month other than a few visits pre Iraq invasion. We had never even heard of any of the other variations other than original which I started with in 1982 I think, 2nd edition, Pacific and europe original versions. I’ve got some links to the other rule books or can find them I think.
My situation consisted of 2 mixed/nation fleets facing off against each other. Both great on combined defence, no so good on individual attack. My foe the German goes hard into Africa. I go KGF which allows the Japanese some surplus navy that he slips in with the Germans. I am not sure I would do that, but he does. I’m pretty good with logistics, I setup a US/Brit shuck into algeria, very efficient. Each transport brings over 2 lands units per round and I only have to defend 1 SZ. I got a foot hold into North Africa and outlanded units overpowering the germans. I came across north africa and took 1 side the suez before he thought I could and trapped him. I had no need to buy more navy to kill his now useless and trapped navy. I had 3 russian subs, a few brit subs, DDS, 1 CC and 1 CV 2 ftr, a few american subs, DDs, 1 CC, 1 BB, 2 CVs 4 ftrs as a base.
My problem was with no flow into europe Germany was getting a bit too strong and it was getting tougher for the infantry train to survive past africa as it was getting into Jap strength before returning to russian strength up north. I had to bunch them up and come across in waves too big for the Japs to overwhelm with massive air and modest amphibous assult units. Units were taking too long to go and at this point the US could stop building units, the infantry chain was 6 turns long, take a few transports with you on your way through the germans and into the indian ocean and in theory, the US didn’t need to build land units anymore for the forseeable future. Whereas the Brit land builds could be hitting germans the very next round. The problem was the brits move first, then the Japs who had air units on their carrier plus a few well placed bombers. Or conversely, the US moves, then the Germans could attack before the Brits could reinforce. It meant building much more navy to defend my split fleet. Moreover, Sz14 in spring 42 is in such a great place as to be able to hit everything of value. The location was a force multiplier and it had to be cleared.
My thinking for the US was to move fast, through them and my surviving navy would right away be pressed into action agasint a second navy. I went 1 round all subs for 7 more I think bringing the US total to 10. With 1 defensive DD present all first round hits go to my subs, 2 BB capital ships are preserved so their round #2 hits also go to subs if the DD is gone and I get first round attacks in that case with my subs so the BBs big 4 and 2 hits to kill are not so powerfull now. My next wave of builds was bombers so as to get into the fight with the subs. My second round of sub shots was going to be so powerful, my question was whether or not to take off a fighter rather than a sub if possible as in round #2 the remaining targets would be BBs and CVs.
My situation was also fairly unique granted. I wanted to employ the Powell doctrine as much as possible. I ended up bringing in so much more power to bear in 2 rounds (a perfect build of 7 subs then 3 bombers and 1 fighter (ftr would not get into battle but was ready in reserve for the indian ocean)) that the odds tilted far to quickly for the Germans to balance and the japs could not fly in fighters for new German CVs in time to help. In a fair fight you don’t mind leaving your fighters on the CVs to die if they take out other fighters. In this case I had enough air to ensure my subs were hitting ships and my planes hitting planes. Leaving his planes on was not going to attrit much more for me as in the first round they kill subs with the german DD and in the second round there aren’t many left anyways. By taking them off it meant my subs had their way with the rump fleet left.
-
A quick thought on using CCs with amphibious assults to whittle away the enemy. It’s pretty obvious I am not a fan of this at all and that I am an ‘accountant type’ or as I prefer a more accurate label a ‘statistician’ when deciding a course of action. In any event, assuming your foe remembers what you have done exactly the same 6 turns in a row s/he will ensure there are enough infantry so nothing more of value is lost. On a statistical basis for every 1 point of punch power you use you kill 0.5 IPC per round when killing Infantry. If you are playing a long game then a purchase of a BB will provide you with an extra IPC of whittling away every 2 rounds while providing all the benefits of the last few posts highlights of the 2 hit advantage of the BB.
So again, for pure ship to ship fighting, DDs and subs are better. If you only have enough money for a choice of 1 CC or 1 DD, you have enough money for 2 SSs. 2 SSs attack better and defend about as good once you factor in 2 units over 1 unit. Obviously, SSs are a poor choice against a pure or majority air attack. Again however, 3 DDs beat 2 CCs on defense of every sort and much more so when facing subs.
The only advantage a CC has over DDs is shore bombardment or the case where you have enough for a CC and not 2 DDs and you really need a unit NOW not next turn and that extra 1 punch power might make a difference.
If you are going to spend 12 for shore bombardment, spend 2/3 more and get 1/3 more shore bombardment power and overall offense/defense and get 100% more hit points and the ability to autoheal 1 HP so to speak.
-
I believe that’s a good summary on cruisers there, Malachi. 8-)
-
The only advantage a CC has over DDs is shore bombardment or the case where you have enough for a CC and not 2 DDs and you really need a unit NOW not next turn and that extra 1 punch power might make a difference.
:-o Not the only advantage! We just communicated about 2 hours ago, that cruisers are better than destroyers for building efficiency! Each is one unit of production, but obviously a cruiser is a better unit than a destroyer except for anti-sub capabilities! You’re also ignoring the situation where your factory is damaged. Crunch the numbers for us when a cruiser costs 13 and a destroyer costs 9.
If you are going to spend 12 for shore bombardment, spend 2/3 more and get 1/3 more shore bombardment power and overall offense/defense and get 100% more hit points and the ability to autoheal 1 HP so to speak.
What if you don’t have 2/3 more! Another time when cruiser may be ideal. What if you have 12 IPC’s and you’re looking to build fleet defense/offense and you need more defense against air? Cruiser made to order.
The cruiser is always going to be the least purchased unit in the game, coming in last place even after AA guns and artillery. There are still good reasons to buy them - but not very often at all.
-
Right, of course, how quickly we (I) forget! The number of slot’s availble for units of course plays a roll in choice of CC over a DD or SS and should not be overlooked in particular with variations whereby you have lots of money to spend. I see it being most particular for Britain, less so for Japan I would wager close to nil for the americans and others. Although I have no experience with the new industrial complex rules minor/major or with building on islands for island hoping, though I see that is often prohibited. However, that same argument also argues for you to build a BB over a CC where number of slots are limited.
Where factories are damaged, you make a valid point, though I might question the ‘weight’ of the benefit and cost calculus. Spending money to repair a factory is not exactly like adding to the cost of a unit, you do get two things for your money, the unit and the ability to produce the unit. While subtle, the ability to produce that and more units in the slots newly available after the repair do not go away with the production or even destruction of the first unit produced after repair but accrue with time. In a situation where you need the unit NOW and there is no time for the benefits of the repaired factory to accrue then sure, treat the IC repair cost as an additional unit cost for the calculus for that upcoming battle or ability to avoid battle through strength with newly acquired unit.
I did somewhere mention if you have a pressing need, then purchase what you can, 2/3 of any unit does you no good when you need it NOW!
-
The cruiser is always going to be the least purchased unit in the game, coming in last place even after AA guns and artillery. There are still good reasons to buy them - but not very often at all.
Agreed!
Think about AA Classic and the limits in buying navy. (only 3 types of attack units)The cruiser helps out in some buying options.
-
I hope you don’t take this wrong as I am not trying to slag on you.
OK MrMC, I see where some of your “confusion” (not the best term) is coming from:
1. Not having played AA50.
2. Limited opponent pool.AA50-41 and AA50-42 are vastly different animals from the original editions, Revised, or Spring '42 (Which is Revised warmed over with the AA50 rules minus techs.) It is not uncommon for the Allies to be able to continue the fight after Russia has fallen. It is also not uncommon to see France and Germany very heavily stacked with AA guns in both territories. At this point adding CAs for the UK and “whittling” down the massive stacks of infantry in France or Germany is not a bad option for the UK. Germany will have a serious air force at this point (actually in many AA50 games Germany has a serious air force at all times). Since Germany is threatening air attacks against the fleet and something must be done about increasing German Infantry numbers piling up in these territories, again the “whittling” attacks are not as bad an option as they sound. You gave the example of your 4-6 units with air against the opponents 4-6 units, this is not the case. It is more of your 6-8 units with or without air against their 12 or so, this is where those added bombardment shots come into play. Most of those will be infantry but as I said earlier Germany must make good these units or stand loosing a critical territory. This is especially important as far as France; because if the UK can take it, the US can push enough fighters in to stop liberation and then Germany is behind the 8-ball.
As far as the limited opponent pool, I think I can safely say that 90% of us here match what you posted. We were all big fish in small ponds. We played some local players, and could handle them easily. I think this point is also exacerbated, in that most people tend to play a certain way and counters for their play become routine. I think you have already started playing here so you are well on the way to overcoming this deficiency. There are many great players here and many different approaches and strategies. If nothing else it will make you a bigger fish in the small pond. :evil:
I posted about having 6 or 7 BBs and taking down Japan. Actually they took down Japan and Italy. This was also in game where Germany held Russia! Again this is not that out of line for AA50, while for other version of A&A if Russia went it was game over 95% of the time. This is a link to that game. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15677.0 While the Axis did suffer some setbacks dice wise early, this approach has worked at other times as well. I think you can see that Japan did not just stand by and “let” this happen but was more unable to do much about it. I think this is the most BBs I have had in an online game and some of the biggest navies I have seen in online play. My opponent was a very competent A&A player as well.
As far as strafing attacks, I think they are more common than you are envisioning. Sure you can push out a DD to stop my fleet, but I will take that out and at that point you have to be able to take out my fleet and survive or there will be follow on units attacking the next round. Against a heavily battleship anchored fleet (3 or more) this is not always that easy.
-
My example of 4-6 units on 4-6 units would be on the territories that russia would normally be trading back and forth with the axis and in that case it’s usually 1-3 infantry per territory. Even in games I have never played, I would imagine there are still soviet territories that get occupied with just a few infantry each turn no? Normally in the games I play, the russians have 2-4 territories that the axis just took but could no occupy in force for fear of all out assult by by the russians. That being said, 4 soviet territories with 2 enemy infantry each is usually too much for the soviets alone to ‘clear off’ with infantry and air support, but if you don’t take them, then next turn the axis could land air and might be able to defend the spot with force. The choice of whittling is now made easy I would think, choose a stack or choose a territory with 2 INF on the russian frontier.
Now for russia falling and playing on. Fair enough, I have never had to play that scenario so really can’t compare notes on an even footing. In my revised and 42 experience, when russia falls its game over unless you made a huge mistake in letting the axis walk in via back door and even then it has been too hard for the allies to recover. I will obviously have to get some experience in your world.
I am a fan of power projection, its often not the attack that changes the board but threat. If there is a standoff between the germans and russian stacks, then 4 extrabrit infantry means 4 less russians to balance. Those 4 russians might be enough to allow them to occupy a territory and hold it thus denying the axis a bit of income. Ahhhh I really am going to have to get up with aa50.
-
I just used some bombardment last night as the Allies. I bombarded Germany back to back with the UK and USA with 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 1 infantry and 1 artillery each. The UK attack took out 3 German infantry and the US attack took out 1. It is nearly impossible to trade 1 for 1 like I did (4 for 4) against a large stack, without bombardment. Cruisers bombard more economically than battleships, so cruisers are THE most efficient bombarding unit in the game.
Production capacity has a lot to do with effectiveness of strategies. If Germany can only produce 10 units a turn, and is fighting all 3 allies, the UK and US taking out 4 units a turn via bombardment is HUGE. After taking out bombardment losses, Germany is only able to gain a maximum of 6 units per turn. She can’t keep up with the Allies for long at that pace.
My conclusion: Cruisers can be extremely useful.
-
Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….
Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?
For 10 IPC I get:
- More range
- More defense
- Same attack
- Can be used on both land and sea.
- A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
- A unit that does NOT need 1 infantry to enter land combat.
- Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.
Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?
Want to know more about the fighter?
- It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )
CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect. :x
Suggested Topics
