Cruisers, whats the point?

[techroll42]

Yeah but Axis can put out subs which are best countered by destroyers.

[gamerman01]

@techroll42:

Yeah but Axis can put out subs which are best countered by destroyers.

I’m sure Rommel has in mind that the UK already has destroyers.  So the subs would just get annihilated whether you bought more destroyers or cruisers.

Shortcoming of destroyers is that if there is no enemy fleet anymore, they’re just protecting from air strikes and nothing more.  Cruisers protect from air strikes and also can bombard.

[techroll42]

But destroyers will dissuade Germany from building subs to possibly counterattack the fleet.

[Gargantua]

1 destroyer = dissuation.

10 destroyers = stupid.

[GeodrivE]

Question to all.  Did cruisers get used to transport troops? I know it would be a small amount per ship if they did but I don’t know the history on the different ships and all they did and so on and so on…… An idea came for AA GC and being able to transport an inf. on a destroyer.  So how crazy would it be to make cruisers able to carry one inf. in global? I wonder if that would make uncrestable rethink cruisers?  Maybe then they would be $13? or $14?

[Alsch91]

@Gargantua:

10 destroyers = stupid.

Usually.  Unless Germany has a significant air/sub presence threatening your Atlantic fleet, which is fairly common.
In that case, more destroyers are necessary as US/UK, as they are best on defense.

[trackmagic]

I always liked the idea of giving cruisers the anti-aircraft ability of AA guns, but for a fleet since they had a lot of deck guns. That ability would make it worth it to have a cruiser in the fleet I think.

[Shin-Ji]

Having a bunch of Destroyers is often helpful.  Admittedly, having carriers and planes gives you better defense and more versatile offense, but when you need to combine multiple countries into one fleet Destroyers are the way to go.  Great value for money.

[Derek]

Most of these replies confirms my origional point lol

cruisers are overpriced for what you get
they do bombard well, but building or having more than 1 or 2 is silly
Cruisers should be a fleet mainstay, not a secondary option with limited usefulness

making them 11 IPCs would help or an AA ability would work also
making destroyers cost 9 and leaving cruisers at 12 is another way to go

[gamerman01]

So house rule them to 11 and have fun, Uncrustable.  As it is, they cost 12 and it ain’t gonna change.  :-)

[Derek]

@Gamerman01:

So house rule them to 11 and have fun, Uncrustable.  As it is, they cost 12 and it ain’t gonna change.  :-)

This is a thread to discuss it, and hear other peoples ideas/thoughts.

[Guest]

This has been discussed at length a long time ago in the House Rules forum.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23388.0

[gamerman01]

And I’m sure in many other threads that are not even in the house rules forum.

IL was talking about AA capability on cruisers in the first year (2008-2009) after the game came out, I believe.

Anyway, I’m actually in a situation where I might buy four cruisers as Germany (1941 scenario of AA50).
But yeah, you’d see more diverse fleets if cruisers cost 11.  But they don’t.

[Imperious Leader]

Yes the idea was lower cost to 11 and give it one shot per cruiser at 1 before combat if the enemy has planes. ( note: not one roll per plane).

Alternatively, another idea was to give it a 3 speed rating for any combat move ( not 4 from NB however)
This is consistent with the Cruiser having the best range of any warship to patrol and it’s speed.

[techroll42]

1. Why the extra range in combat only? If anything, it should be in non-combat where you don’t have to manuever around the enemy and can keep cruising.
2. Why no bonus from a NB?
3. The AA bonus sounds decent with an 11 IPC cruiser. Making it the equivalent of a landborne AA gun would be all right with cost 12.

[Imperious Leader]

1. Because Cruisers are the fastest ships and have the greatest range. They can travel long distance without refueling.
2. Because it is too strong to have a 4 move ship.
3. It can’t be a “landborne AA” 3 shots per ship is too strong even if the ship stays at 12 IPC

[techroll42]

I guess 2 and 3 make sense, but you didn’t answer my question in #1.

And I quote

@Imperious:

Alternatively, another idea was to give it a 3 speed rating for any combat move

Your answer,

@Imperious:

1. Because Cruisers are the fastest ships and have the greatest range. They can travel long distance without refueling.

merely states that cruisers have a long range. That is true, but I still fail to see why this should apply to combat moves only.

[KimRYoung]

@Imperious:

1. Because Cruisers are the fastest ships and have the greatest range. They can travel long distance without refueling.

Facts not in evidence.

USN Wichita class had a speed of 33 knots and an operational range of 12,000 mi. Iowa class Battleships had a speed of 33 knots also and a range of 14,000 miles.

German Hipper class had speed of 32 knots and operational range of only 7,000 miles while the Bismarck had a speed of 30 knots but with a range of 8,500 mi.

Japanese Tone class did show good speed at 35 knots, but only 8,000 mi operational range. Yamato class battleship had a speed of 30 knots and range of 8,000 mi.

By comparison of speed the Japanese Yugmo class Destroyer had a speed of 35.5 knots and the US Fletcher class Destroyer a speed of 36.5 knots. Operational range was limited to about 5,000 miles though.

Also by comparison US Essex class carriers had a speed of 32.7 knots and an operational range of 20,000 miles!

Cruisers by operational range do not deserve any advantage over Battleships or Carriers; they had no more or less. While their tactical speed was in the 32 to 35 knot range, it was certainly not any advantage in a strategical sense compared to 30 to 33 knot battleships and carriers.

And while cruisers were well armed for AA role, most battleships had as many or more AA guns.

There is no logic for cruisers moving faster on a strategic level.

Kim

[Col. Ty Webb]

Kim,

All facts, but not implemented very well.

You compared a heavy cruiser to a fast battleship with the Wichita and the Iowa classes.

In real life each different type of ship (battleship, cruiser, destroyer) had their own variations within each other. Yes, there are many times when the line was almost completely blurred between one ship and the other, but in Axis and Allies there are no different classes among each of the ships. There is one type of battleship, one type of cruiser, etc.

To say that the fastest of the battleships was the same speed and range of the slowest of cruisers is an unfair comparison.

There were also cruisers in the Alaska Class that were as big and sometimes bigger as some battleships.

By your logic, they should take two hits to sink.

[brisco]

Before we get too far in the idea of what ship can do what, let’s look at what the actually piece in A&A represents.  The battleship piece represents a heavy surface fleet that contains mainly battleships and heavy cruisers.  It can take a hit and keep on dealing hits out.  The cruiser piece represents a lighter surface fleet consisting of heavy and light cruisers, and maybe even a battleship. Note, I did not say light surface fleet.  It is only lighter in comparison to a “battleship” piece but it is heavier than a destroyer piece. The destroyer piece represents a light surface fleet consisting of destroyers and light cruisers. It is more adept at seeking and destroying submarines than its counterparts.

Yes, it would be cool to have more specialization of units, but at the scale in which A&A represents, individual ship classes and abilities can not be represented.  A fleet is only as fast as its slowest unit.  On a scale such as A&A it doesn’t matter if I have a fast ship in my fleet if my slowest ship can’t keep up.  My personal opinion is the cruiser in A&A is a situational purchase.  I am not going to purchase it on a regular basis, but I may if the situation is right.