@general-LD
“When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines
unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units in the battle.” (Rulebook, page 30)
HTH :slightly_smiling_face:
How useful are cruisers??
-
@Corbeau:
And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs
I’ve had Europe nearly covered with radar, when Italy got it once.
We’re not trying to talk you into buying a cruiser. If you’re a fighter lover, then buy them.
I rarely buy cruisers, but they are a unique unit and are better per IPC at bombarding than anything else, so there will be times when they are desirable.
Also, I don’t think this has been covered - cruisers can always hit subs (thinking of defense, not attack), but fighters can’t always. Sometimes that is significant. Could save you all your transports.
-
In the case of the UK (I don’t see a case for a cruiser buy for any other power), even if Germany decided to place an aa gun on NWE (which isn’t a bad thing, because Germany would have to risk its own air in trades), fighter/acs remain superior because they increase your attack punch/count and allow the Allies to project power to more locations, forcing Germany to expend more resources to defend each coastal territory. Not to mention that fighters can be deployed on the mainland as needed. A cruiser is only a 1/2 count because I know it will just roll one 3, while a fighter means an extra 3 for each round of the battle. When thinking about defense for Germany, this is a key consideration.
Bottom line is the many advantages of fighter/acs (mobility, superior defense, cost-effectiveness, power projection, control of space, flexibility) outweigh the one defect (exposure to aa guns) by such a margin that I can’t justify buying either battleships or cruisers.
-
Corbeau Blanc has it right. 8 pages in and we have no good reason to buy a cruiser.
Read into it what you want, but I saw several reasons to buy throughout this thread. Just a difference in perspective, I guess.
Everyone knows carriers and fighters are awesome. Especially now that carriers only cost 14 (or 11) and fighters only 10, compared to 16 and 12 in the original. (Anyone else feel like fighters are a bit too cheap?) But a carrier and fighters would not allow me to kill 4 German infantry in Berlin with a guarantee of not losing more than 2 infantry and 2 artillery. (Not to mention, a potential of slaughtering 8! Germans)
As bigdog has already said very well, bombardment is the only way to take out units from a huge stack with limited loss/risk. Cruisers are the most cost-effective bombardment unit. It is impossible to lose anything to AA fire with a cruiser strike. They continue to be useful after the enemy’s fleet is destroyed, whereas destroyers are not as useful (both still defend your transports)
I can see dissing a unit that costs more and does absolutely nothing that other units don’t do. But destroyers can’t bombard. Fighters get shot down by AA fire and are completely helpless to attacking a stack much larger than yours. And fighters don’t defend in the water without carriers. And fighters can’t hit subs without a destroyer. So there you have several reasons and I forgot some, to having a cruiser, and once in a while, even buying :-o one.
Also, cruisers are useful for showing your opponent how confident you are that you can whip him. Just buy 1 on R1 and drop it in the Black Sea (especially with Dard closed) and he’ll get the message.
-
I don’t really like to cite specific battles to show probability outcomes for a particular battle scenario. I had a recent battle whereby the german navy with 10 units scored 8 hits on the first round of combat. Since 2 out of my 3 subs hit on 1s and 2 out of 2 cvs hit on 2 I could cite that as a reason to purchase subs and cvs for defense because those units did just as well as my 4 ftrs and 1 BB who also got 4 out of 5 hits. Sure, a bit silly and over-the-top for an example but it only differs in magnitude of the silliness.
You drop an inf and art with 2 cc shots and its a 10 punch. If you get 3 great, count yourself lucky because you could have also got zero. With a 10 punch you count on 1 2/3 hits. More likely to get 2 than 1 but much more likely to get 1 than 3. You spend 7 to kill 5 on average, period.
You are also tying up 2 CCs and a transport. Yeah CCs might not have anything else to do, right, should have purchased fighters to help clear off some territories with a few enemy infantry. You are also not building up a Brit land force of sufficient force to push around other units on the map. There is NO brit centre of gravity landforcewise. Once you get a critical number of tanks (and I go 3 IN to each tank in general) all kinds of options open up the opponent must defend against. The old 1 ally cracks the door open to let allied tanks blits hapless fighters. It means there are fewer safe places for planes to land. The case that this is the only way to wittle the enemy? Really? How about if you just lock them in place into a disadvantaged IPC income level comapred to yourself. Then ensure your battles of attrition favour you, then play a long long game and slowly smother the enemy. The obvious flaw in that is it lacks a vicious knockout punch and technologoies can tilt the balance of power away from you.
IWhy does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?
-
Limited number of production slots and spending what you have ie, if you have 12 and need a ship……I would still myself get two SSs or if you need air cover would really think about a multi-turn purchase and get a CV, even if it meant moving the fleet out of harms way for the turn. But maybe you have to stay put to protect new navy pieces and need to augment your fleet and can only afford a CC. I would suggest this is a failure in long term planning and threat assessement and is basically a purchase to mitigate the damage of the failure to plan correctly.
CCs are useful however only in a number of limited scenarios. Spending a ratio of 7 IPC to destroy 5 IPC while requiring over 30 IPC of navy in that ratio to deliver the 5 IPC blow I think is not the most efficient utilization of resources and suffers several drawbacks including: Limited power projection, less flexibility, slows down the buildup of brit land forces to the point where they become a centre of gravity and limits ability of your side to trade territories in a more favourable attrition ratio
-
Why does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?
Sucks, doesn’t it? At least we don’t get 50x or 404 errors all the time. That was worse.
-
No one is saying that anyone should purchase cruisers on a regular basis.
Everyone knows that destroyers/subs/fighters/carriers are almost always a better buy.
I’ve only been pointing out that cruisers are a unique unit - no other unit like it - and have their place. I probably buy one about 1 out of 40 turns.
Consider this - maybe you have a complex on a 1 IPC territory. Need something to protect a transport you’re going to build next turn. Don’t want to spend 20, need a bit more protection than a destroyer offers, and need bombardment. Cruiser.
I don’t understand your point about center of gravity and slowing down buildup of ground units. Malachi. And to be honest, your run-on sentences make your posts hard to read. Can’t you build MORE ground units in the UK if you’re building cruisers instead of destroyers or fighters and carriers?
And I attacked Germany with 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, and 1 BATTLESHIP. I wasn’t intending to imply that a 1-time example was average odds. However, since you have gone there - My forces had 11 punch, so doing it twice was 22 punch, so 4 hits was actually average. 4 hits is more likely than 3 hits. There is no other way to reduce Germany 1 for 1 (nearly) in the situation I was in. I couldn’t land enough in NWE or France to avoid complete obliteration, so fighters were useless in this situation. My cruisers (which I didn’t buy) were perfect for the task. One of them even hit! :roll:
-
Here’s a new example of where a cruiser is ideal.
You want to take a territory that is 2 spaces from your current fleet. The enemy has a strong counterattack force that will annihilate any boats you send. You can’t get any of your air to the territory and to a safe landing place. To land on a carrier would mean certain death of the fighter and carrier in the sea zone. You need more attacking power than your ground units can provide, to up your chances from about 40-50% to 80%. The cruiser is the only unit for this task. Nothing else even comes close.
I’ve enjoyed this discussion, because it’s made me think about the utilities of cruisers. As BadSpeller said, there are quite a few - more than you would see at first glance.
-
OK, you did it twice with a BB so your punch was 22 rather than 11. Doesn’t that mean you dropped troops off twice as well? So wouldn’t that cost you 2 INF + 2 ART to kill 4 INF and a slight bit of luck to get 4 hits from a power punch of 22? OK, its not a bad ratio when a BB is used, it ups the average to 5.5 inflicted for the cost of 7 IPC. It’s an interesting point about Germany feeling the restrictions on ability to build large numbers of Inf and having amphibious assult attrition cut into Germanys ability to produce large walls of infantry? In spring 42 its pretty easy for germany to build 16 INF per turn so I would guess in over versions its not as easy for germany to produce lots of infantry?
As for centre of gravity. The way I play Britain is to shuck troops into russian territories to:
A) Clear german (or japanese) troops of territories that get traded back and forth. Attrition on favourable terms with air support. This only requires only a few infantry per turn with some air units.
B) Establish a land force sufficiently strong to take a territory and hold it and perhaps force the retreat of forward enemy forces to a more favourable defensive positions. Power projection from a centre of gravity. This requires some tanks to threaten blitz operations and protection by infantry with supporting air units. With sufficient mass, the british become more than a force of attrition but a force that can effect larger changes in the battlespace. With constant attrition against the germans it can take some time to grow the brit force to a sufficient size.I’m not sure how many units generally flow across in other games for the Brits. Does 2-4 units per turn represent a large percentage? In my situations, I am lucky to get 8 units per turn across, 4-5 on average are consumed each turn trading soviet territories back and forth on generally more favourable terms then losing 7 for 5 and I actually liberate territories and earn the soviets IPCs over and above the attrition ration I achieve. This leaves me with about 3 units per turn I can conserve to establish a force large enough for the brits they can do more than exchange territories but ‘project power’ from a ‘centre of gravity’.
-
It’s an interesting point about Germany feeling the restrictions on ability to build large numbers of Inf and having amphibious assult attrition cut into Germanys ability to produce large walls of infantry? In spring 42 its pretty easy for germany to build 16 INF per turn so I would guess in over versions its not as easy for germany to produce lots of infantry?
Buying them will be easy, but placing them won’t be, unless they have extra IC’s, of course.
Then again even 10 unites per turn is quite a lot.Edit: about cruisers: sometimes i buy one for USA to help out in the Pacific when i want to take back islands. Every extra hit (coastal) there is valuable, since those japanese soldiers often manage to defend pretty good, taking away a unit each time. Far away from home a shrinking ground force is a problem.
I know a bomber can do that work too, but, depending on the fleet, that cruiser can help in defense.
Another situation can be when i start building a fleet at a 3 IPC factory (for ex. Brazil or India) i choose for a cruiser + some other units (for abit extra initial defence)… but if i can easily afford a BB i would buy that instead.
-
In what versions of the game is it that casualities from amphibious assults do not get to fire back? In those versions I would think amphibious assults would be or should be supported with as many naval units as the rules would allow.
-
In what versions of the game is it that casualities from amphibious assults do not get to fire back? In those versions I would think amphibious assults would be or should be supported with as many naval units as the rules would allow.
Revised.
Yeah, you could land 1 inf and bombard with 10 battleships and come out on top
-
In what versions of the game is it that casualities from amphibious assults do not get to fire back? In those versions I would think amphibious assults would be or should be supported with as many naval units as the rules would allow.
I don’t know about older versions but in AA50, casualties from an amphibious assault can fire back … but those who are hit by bombardment can NOT.
Of course, you need one landing ground unit for every bombardment unit, but that is fairly managable for the attacker in most cases.
Having added cruisers in the pacific for the US taking islands is an advantage when playing both theaters and your IPC’s are stretched thin as it is.
-
Ah right, my choice of wording was poor. Casualities from bombardment…… I have heard some versions of the games do not have these casualities able to return fire? In that case one could make a serious argument for CCs and have some ammunition to insist on BBs over CCs for the most part.
-
That version was Revised, which didn’t have cruisers but had 3/3 destroyers costing 12 and could bombard if you get the combined bombardment tech
-
I just re-read the AA50 rules and we’ve been playing wrong. Apparently those units eliminated during bombardment CAN defend during the land assault. Oops!
Personally, I prefer that they cannot. I mean really … how can a bunch of infantry that got bombarded by ships then defend against the ensuing amphibious assault? /sigh
-
I would tend to agree with you Rorschach but on the otherhand…… History has shown that amphibious assults for the most part got little benefit from offshore bombardment. One notable exception was during the D-day landing, was it omaha beach where the US was getting shot up by German pillboxes? I think 19 of 20 supporting tanks sank before reaching shore as their floatation devices were overwhelmed by waves and they were let go too far out from shore. As a result the german pillbox and gun emplacements were causing the landing to stall and possibly fail, serious thought was given to abondoning that landing beach and concentrating on the other 4.
It was typical superior US ‘in-theatre’ leadership exhibited by the captain of one (or more?) US destroyers who against orders took their boats in so close to shore as to seriously risk grounding and risk of mines I believe. As a result of the super accurate direct fire support from the destroyer(s) the German heavy emplacements were smashed and the landings success was ensured.
-
Why does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?
Sucks, doesn’t it? At least we don’t get 50x or 404 errors all the time. That was worse.
This only happens to me on my Win7 box at home, not at work on XP. Is it O/S related rather than site?
-
I think both cruiser and battleship retain purpose. For battleships, you absorb two hits, just as a cruiser and destroyer would. But if only one hit occurs against you, you are able to keep your battleship in tact without losing a ship. A cruiser or destroyer would needed to be sacrificed if one takes a hit in battle. Battleships bombard at 4 as well and I believe their is a psychological advantage/disadvantage(depends on if its yours or not) when you see a battleship. There are also many advantages to having a cruiser and destroyer. Variety is one. They both have abilities such as detecting subs and bombardment shots. Although the cruiser only bombards at 3, it can still be used as an effective weapon. Possibility of hitting twice in one turn instead of once. And also mobility choices. You can keep your ships together or break them apart to do various missions on the board. It allows you to be flexible and with your naval units. I think you have to look at your country and situation, which should be the deciding to whether go with a battleship or a destroyer and cruiser.
-
I would like to point out that the value of cruisers is tied to value of invasions and in particular the threat of invasion. The Allies can tie down a significant number of Axis units in Europe with an invasion fleet in SZ 7 or SZ 12. Trs need protection off course or the enemy will destroy them with air and here the cruiser has a fine role of both providing defense and being able to contribute to the land campaign.
I agree that you should anchor an Allied invasion fleet around a UK CV using startup Ftr´s, maybee even 2 CV´s. I prefer to keep the fleet UK only to max mobility and firepower on the invasion. You need 1 destroyer to handle subs initially but from then on I would spend my money on cruisers. Allthough it would be prudent to buy more destoyers to soak up hits if the enemy invests heavily in air units.
By the way i voted the cruiser to be usefull and consider infantry the only unit to be very usefull.
Cheers
Quark
Suggested Topics
