@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??
-
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
-
This is an old debate. The numbers say if you made then 11 IPC and gave them one free AA roll at 1 against a plane ( one cruiser = one die roll) you got as balanced unit.
Or you can make them 10 and reduce the SB to 1-2 ( 3 is too strong) you also got a balanced unit.
Just do battles of DD vs CA using total IPC of say 80 ipc or 160 ipc ( 8 or 16 CA vs> 10 or 20 DD)
Then also plug in numbers adding BB to each side ( say 3 per)
You will get a small DD advantage ( like 56%), the tipper is this AA roll or the 1-2 SB….you decide.
Suggested Topics
