I think cruisers are much like artillery. If you have a bit of spare cash you upgrade 1 infantry to artillery or upgrade a destroyer to a cruiser then that is the time to purchase one. I think the situation you buy more than 1 artillery is exceedingly rare and the same can be said of cruisers.
However, I don’t see any situation you purchase lots of destroyers unless you plan on needing them all at once to act as blockers or will need blockers used up for a few rounds and will be unable to build them as you need them. Sure, if you expect you fleet to be attacked and wiped out and have 26 bucks you think. 1 fighter and a carrier or 3 destroyers…. Well, since I would have a carrier with 1 fighter or 3 destroyers and 2 IPC left over, in this one case 3 destroyers is slightly better than 1 fighter and 1 carrier. If you had 1 extra fighter or an ally could land on the newly built carrier before it’s attacked then 3 destroyers is the worse option.
On the other hand, a purchase of 4 subs might mean the enemy doesn’t move to within attacking range.
Of course, with a fleet of destroyers and no real investment in air or carriers…if you fleet can’t force a decisive battle then your investment is not paying the kinds of returns fighters on carriers could give you by being useful as a land threat too.
I play Spring 42 mostly. Germany loves to see a fleet in the Baltic that is mostly surface ships excluding carriers and fighters. A swarm of destroyers or even cruisers and battleships creates little threat to land. Navy support shots only work if you use them. Landing a few infantry and artillery supported by a few surface ships against a stack of infantry and tanks will attrit that stack a bit but SBR inflicts more damage on average for both what you plan to lose on average and does it for less investment. However, if I have to account for all the planes defending that fleet as also being able to attack land then I must devote more resources to stacking against an amphibious assault.
I find in a long game, decisive battles are rare. It’s the dance that wins the game. If I can make you dance harder then I have the initiative and can dictate to you more than you can dictate to me what will be purchased and where your forces go. If I can make you devote more and more to my threats, then you have less and less to threaten me.
I agree that a 20 ship vs. 15 ship battle is rarely if ever going to happen.
That’s why I said all ships have their point, and 3 movement should be cruisers’ point.
Cruisers rock!
Cruisers do have their point. They do shore bombardment whereas destroyers don’t. They are more cost effective than battleships for shore bombardment if that is your thing. They are also a price point where if you can’t buy an additional ship, you can upgrade your destroyer purchase to a cruiser for less than the cost of a sub. They are also affordable for minor nations.
The fact they ‘could’ move three I think is a bit too much of a perk of the unit in my humble opinion. Now the basis for the speed 3 is that they are that much faster than other units? I don’t think cruisers are faster than destroyers if so, not by a significant margin. I think getting close to the range of air units based on the premise that cruisers are faster than other units in real life (are they?) unbalances things too much. A p51 mustang easily is 10x faster than a cruiser but if a cruiser can move 3 than a p51 only covers 33% more distance being 1000% faster.
I think it should be played as a house rule, but again, my suspicion is that it would tend to unbalance things a bit too much, but if the goal is to have cruisers play a bigger part it certainly will do that!
You have a point but remember that planes can’t fly for months across water :wink:
And you do have a point about bombardment strength…
As I said, every unit has its specialty, excluding bombardment, except for cruisers.
You people will never see the light of day lol
ALL OPINIONS ASIDE (Yes Cruisers look very cool and I understand what their role is SUPPOSED TO BE)…however…
Cruisers are overpriced
Yes if you are a dirt poor nation such as Italy or Anzac it might make sense to buy one at one point in the game (I highly doubt it)
But for the main players (Germany, Japan, USA) Where they are not cash strapped but rather have 50+ IPCs to spend it makes absolutely no sense at all to build cruisers.
I would like to play someone who is adding cruisers in their navy where i am not…
My odds of dominating the seas are drastically increased with each Cruiser you buy and i dont.
3 range not so much speed but speed + Fuel capacity, Yes a plane is faster ffs but it will run out of fuel in a matter of hours. Ships can go days or weeks. Cruisers were the fastest ships on the sea in WWII and they had at the same time greater Fuel capacity that a destroyer.
And your artillery Speel is pants on head retarded. One artillery and one infantry is far better than one tank and only costs one more IPC. The only downside is Range.
If tanks only moved one space then they would be like cruisers are now…no point they are overpriced.
Artillery and Infantry are far far better in combat (both defense and offense) than are tanks, they are just constricted to less range.
You build tanks because they can get to the front faster than INF and arty and when there their they can blitz, but build too many tanks and you will be crushed. Same with cruisers except they do not move any more than any other ship and therefore are pointless.
They are slightly more cost effecient for shore bombardment but not by much…
@Uncrustable:
I would like to play someone who is adding cruisers in their navy where i am not…
It’s very easy, just download Battlemap, and let’s play by forum.
I won’t buy tons of cruisers though, just one or 2 for USA, and maybe one for Anzac, just as it’s suposed to be.
What do you say ?
@Uncrustable:
I would like to play someone who is adding cruisers in their navy where i am not…
It’s very easy, just download Battlemap, and let’s play by forum.
I won’t buy tons of cruisers though, just one or 2 for USA, and maybe one for Anzac, just as it’s suposed to be.What do you say ?
Id say you already conceded the point.
If you only build one or two cruisers then you must be massing everything else.
Cruisers should be the mainstay of any naval power (As they were in mid -late WWII)
But in this game they are not because they are overpriced, it makes more sense to build everything but Cruisers. (One or 2 cruisers as USA is not going to hurt enough to notice, thats only 4 to 8 IPCs overpaid total, a small amount relative to USA income post DOW)
And it really doesnt matter what Anzac builds in the sea they will be crushed by Japan in the sea if the need ever arrises and it will not take much,
If you removed Cruisers completely from the game you would not even notice (save aesthetics)
I dont want them removed i want them to have a valid role where the cost is justified
+1 range does both in my opinion.
Axisplaya: im curious though if you only build 1 or 2 cruisers as USA then what DO you build as your navy ?
Carriers and destroyers is my bet…
IF you make cruisers move 4, and cost 11, why would anyone build a battleship?
Pretend that tanks move the same as infantry and artillery (1 space) then there would be no point in building tanks ever.
INF and arty on  1 to 1 would be better in every circumstance
Yea but, tanks DON’T move 1. Â And they wouldn’t cost 6 if they did.
And for the record, you are obviously not a pro, and neither the people you are playing online against.
DESTROYERS ARE A BAD BUY. - en mass. Â Having more than 2 or 3 is usually pointless.
The game is about money, and destroyers have absolutely NO effect on land. Â Fighters are a way better buy, because of their dual purpose capabilities, in both defending/advancing your navy, and supporting your ground troops where needed, Â with twice the range, and defensive power, for a mere $2.
I laugh everytime my opponents pump out destroyers, because they won’t be having any effect on amphibious landings, or my economic placement, anytime soon, if ever.
What an idiot.
DO you build as your navy ?
TRANSPORTS, and as FEW combat naval vessels as possible.
Gargantua: You avoided the question like a good ol American politician ;) fine job
and honestly id love to see your transports halfa** defended in the middle of the pacific.
Also noone ever said make cruisers move 4 (it was +1 i believe, which in my calculations 1 + 2 = 3 though i am pretty stupid :P)
Yes fighters are better than destroyers this is completely beside the point however, my only point WAS CRUISERS ARE OVERPRICED
wow it is incredible the reading and comprehension skills of some people.
And im sorry you couldn’t understand my tank hypothetical.
All im saying is making Cruisers move 3 instead of 2 would give you reason to build them PERIOD
@Uncrustable:
honestly id love to see your transports halfa** defended in the middle of the pacific.
Ummm dude. You have no idea what you are talking about or the calibre of player who you are trying to argue with. Please take some advice and quit making a fool of yourself.
He got to crusiers move 4 cause of the +1 from NB’s. I think CA’s are just fine, /if/ they were to get a perk, I suggested to larry it be in the new theatre of Convoy raiding. Basically my suggestion was to make CRD happen only from tac bombers, CA’s, Subs and perhaps dd’s. This would fit their historical role of a fast surface ship plus greatly limit the amount of possible convoy raiding by surface ships.
Still, its not going to happen, CA’s are a little pricey but still serve a valuable niche as a cheaper Shore bombard and possilbe fleet build, I know I have at times built a DD/CA instead of a BB if I see enemy subs in the water.
My only point is Cruisers are overpriced
There are many possiblities to fix this
+1 movement
some added perk (Convoy raid at 2?)
or lower cost
etc… etc
I do not stand alone in this either i know many have argued with larry in the past about lowering the cost of Cruisers to 10, or atleast 11. Larrys argument was if cruisers cost 10 noone would ever buy battleships. at 11 IPC i dont know why that was shot down. cant find an explanation.
How about the idea of each cruiser firing an AA shot at 1 attacking plane? I think they are fine the way they are, but something like that could be a House Rule if you want to motivate people to build cruisers.
Yes that is another option.
I like cruisers personally just would be nice if they were actually efficient like cruisers historically were.
One thing i thought of is making cruisers a capital ship.
It takes 2 hits to sink a cruiser or an aircraft carrier, but battleships are now a super capital (takes 3 shots to sink a BB)
Not sure if this would even work but it is an idea
Here’s a question,
How often do people REALLY buy Battleships? maybe, once or two a game, as Japan or USA?
I certainly don’t think I’ve ever seen a player in a normal game have more than 4.
Perhaps Battleships are overpriced?
And maybe you should also consider, that Cruisers aren’t overpriced, but that subs, destroyers, fighters, and bombers. are _under_priced?
Uncrustable, what is retarded is taking a sentence out of context then treating it like a straw man to attack.
Lets take the context of the sentence….gawd its a sad day when I have to explain grammar…
Navy support shots only work if you use them. �Landing a few infantry and artillery supported by a few surface ships against a stack of infantry and tanks will attrit that stack a bit but SBR inflicts more damage on average for both what you plan to lose on average and does it for less investment.
So, the way grammar works is we start out with a sort of context, kinda like what the first sentence does. “Navy support shots” is the concept at hand. Reading further we see the word “attrit”, let me spell it out for you… attrition, look it up if you are not familiar with the concept. So we are talking about building ships (cruisers) in order to attrit a large stack of units you can’t hope to win a full out a battle against. In that case, it is more cost effective to lose an infantry and artillery in a 1 round of expected combat than it would be to lose a tank and infantry. If you do the cost benefit analysis of single round of combat in order to attrit a large stack, Infantry and Artillery win. I then went on to mention if your plan is to build cruisers or battleships in order to support a plan of attrition, you’re better off to use SBRs.
Having to explain this in gruesome detail makes me think you are not as well versed in the game as you should be in order to shoot your mouth off like you are.
Gargantua, I personally NEVER buy battleships, ever. Of course, I lack the experience in other versions of AA to understand the nuances that might make a BB attractive to purchase.
In spring 42, if you buy battleships you are probably going to lose. It’s carriers and planes to make the enemy defend against more threats. It’s all about threat projection and making your opponent defend against as much as possible (dictating his purchases) with as little investment as possible on your part as possible.
As for other purchases, you don’t win the game with a navy, a navy cannot win you a single IPC (other than convoy routes say). IPCs are what wins the games between experts for the most part.
You invest the bare minimum in things other than land units and transports. You have just enough navy to allow you to deliver land units to battle.
