@Aaron_the_Warmonger I don’t know exactly the long term goal in Italian hands. The only conclusion I can come up with is to give Italy more of a northern Can Opening attack as well as give Italy more money for longer term play. Again, I find this foolish since it serves great use for Germany anyways. It’s been talked about, as said before, I’ve never seen it done and I have no plans to do it if I am ever Axis. I can see Bulgaria going Italian but not Finland.
Which Nations should buy Cruisers?
-
Cruisers are the units to purchase for bombardment purposes where you have limited units for the landing and wish to preserve them AND you have excess IPC to spend that will be relevant in the upcoming turns for planned landings.
In example, the Philippines for Japan where your aircraft are elsewhere harassing China and you wish to land 4 units. An additional CR may make it so you have 3 surviving units instead of two to face that last Inf or Ftr. Those units will be useful in continuing forward into the DEI instead of having to choose between leaving Flip empty or not. Which makes the use of CR in that attack more valuable than fleet screens elsewhere.
Outside of that purpose, DD are better options for fleet screens, CV for projecting power and BB for a backbone to naval fleets. Italy is a very good example of a reason to purchase CR to take places like Morocco or similar where you’ll be landing 2 ground units against the French Inf there and you cannot bring more die rolls on the next turn outside of purchasing a CR that turn. Granted, Italy probably doesn’t have that luxury, but the purpose behind the purchase is valid assuming there is excess IPC available.
-
To me, the UK could need some.
Why:- not so expensive as an Battleship.
- helps defending your fleet
- can make coastal bombardment, when you want to take a terretory
- can make coastal bombardment, when you just want to weaken the enemy, while you don’t want to risk your precious planes in a fight you will loose, or if you need your planes else where (soften up Normandy for example)
You could as well use some with the US, ANZAC, Japan or Italy
-
I’ve only ever bought these as ANZAC, and only when my IPCs were flowing, but not quite to the point where I could afford to max out my build AND set up a new factory in the north. Maximum 2 per game.
Costing them at 11 might make them relevant purchases, in so far as tactical bombers are relevant purchases.
-
If they were 11 ipcs I would buy them. 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers… Usually I am looking for cannon fodder for my fighters/carriers against air and the combination of getting subs is great.
As far as naval bombardments go… how much bombarding am I going to do realistically? USA already starts with 2 cruisers and battleship pacific, cruiser atlantic. Am I really going to drop 4+ units a turn somewhere and bombard?
If I am just going to get one or two bombardments out of it… I will pass. I rather have a more robust fleet.
-
The United States.
It makes for easy fleet math. Dst + Crs = 20, BAM! you have a fleet.
-
What you mean destroyer 2 subs?
2 subs or a cruiser. HARD CHOICE HMMM.
-
No problem for the US in the first round. You can go subs from there. I prefer punching power - it keeps GER & ITL in check. US is usually landing in occupied territory in the games I have played - the ability to bombard is a plus.
-
It is one roll per unit you drop at the start of combat, that is it. Budget it tight for USA fighting in two theaters.
-
This notion of the cruiser as a powerful unit that adds punch is a fallacy. 3 destroyers costing 24 IPC provide the same amount of “punch” on offense and defense in the first round of combat as do 2 cruisers costing the same amount. And the destroyers are better in subsequent rounds of combat as casualties get taken.
The cruisers you start out with? Yes, they are a more powerful unit than a destroyer. Because they’re free.
If you’ve got 12 IPC in hand, and you’re not defending the water on the IC on that turn, buy the destroyer. Then next turn instead of having 12 IPC in hand again, you’ll have 16. And buy 2 destroyers. As my post above illustrated, 3 destroyers are better than 2 cruisers as efficient naval combat units.
-
The utility from bombardments is lacking… too many spaces to shuffle effectively.
-
the only reason to buy them is bombardment, or if you are anzak an for some reason can’t buy aircraft carrier.
DDs and subs are better in all cases where if you don’t need shorebombardment.
I disagree with the people buy BBs, in EVERY case.
I hear someone have said they build BBs for holding phillipines, I don’t see how that is doable. Ok, maybe USA will have more defence on hawaii if they build BB on round 1 than DDs, because of the placement limit, but then, why not build CVs + ftrs instead?.
-
As I stated before, UK (Europe) is the only nation benefiting from crusiers. They can bombard every turn, need a fleet defense and are not in the position to build Battleships for this duty. You just need to kill 3 German/Italian Infanterie to be “equal” to building Destoyers. (2 Crusier instead of 2 Destroyer). This will be accomplished with approximately 3 amphibious landings in Europe. Afterwards they will effectiveley save you money or Infantery or at least cost germany 3 IPC every landing, succesful or not. A Fighter might be cheaper and even better in attacking a terrretory, but it is possibbly lost to bad dice, a bombarding crusier won’t get sunk while bombarding.
-
actually, you are entirely on the “kill 3 inf”
first off all, you are assuming the axis will defend weakly, on the shores. many axis wont do that, secondly you are assuming that you could not get the same result by adding planes, and the planes would gain something by not helping.
an eksample would be
invading with 2 inf against 1 inf, with 2 Cr, against 1 inf, your average losses is 1.5 ipc
invading 2 inf against 1 inf with 2 ftr support, you take 1.3 IPC in losses
the inf you have left, will attack defend and kill about 1.5 IPC on defence.
most axis players will deny you the advantage of doing microinvasions agains weak stacks.
-
Agreed about UK Europe, if anyone, but it is extremely rare that I can ever pull the trigger on one for any nation… same IPCs would be destroyers or subs, or an air unit. Air power is more versatile for the same 12 PUs, unless you need to build up the backbone of a fleet.
-
actually, you are entirely on the “kill 3 inf”
first off all, you are assuming the axis will defend weakly, on the shores. many axis wont do that, secondly you are assuming that you could not get the same result by adding planes, and the planes would gain something by not helping.
an eksample would be
invading with 2 inf against 1 inf, with 2 Cr, against 1 inf, your average losses is 1.5 ipc
invading 2 inf against 1 inf with 2 ftr support, you take 1.3 IPC in losses
the inf you have left, will attack defend and kill about 1.5 IPC on defence.
most axis players will deny you the advantage of doing microinvasions agains weak stacks.
I am not assuming the axis is weak defending! Thats the point. You won’t attack a stack you are likely to loose against with air, but you can with crusier bombardment. UK does not really need 2 additional infantry, but needs to distract Germany from solely focusing on the USSR. So attack a Stack of ANY size with 2 Inf and 2 Crusier bombardment. You have a reasonable chance to inflict 2 losses by shore bombardment for the loss of two infantry. Every plane you would have sent would be lost. Thats my point.
To get to your point:
invading with 2 infantry against 10 Infantry would economically be prefareable with crusier bombardment and not by sending in planes. Thats what I wanted to say.At last: Infantry and fighter are the most valuable pieces in play. Best Bang for the Buck. But if you need to add to your fleet and you are thinking about a destroyer, just keep in mind, if you are planing to start a lot of amphibious assaults it just needs 4 landings until the crusier (1) will give you a benefit.
@Kreuzfeld: As far as I read this discussion, we were discussing by comparing crusier to destroyer or submarines, not to planes. Planes are always the better by than ships.
-
To get to your point:
invading with 2 infantry against 10 Infantry would economically be prefareable with crusier bombardment and not by sending in planes. Thats what I wanted to say.If the whole purpose is to merely inflict casualties via bombardment, why even send 2 INF? One would suffice.
-
To get to your point:
invading with 2 infantry against 10 Infantry would economically be prefareable with crusier bombardment and not by sending in planes. Thats what I wanted to say.If the whole purpose is to merely inflict casualties via bombardment, why even send 2 INF? One would suffice.
My guess would be because you can only bombard once for every ground unit you are attacking with.
-
For me the silliest part about Cruisers is you shouldn’t even buy them for bombardment. If you aren’t strapped for unit cap, just buy a transport and an artillery for less than a single cruiser. Now you are rolling an extra die on the ground battle every round (that the unit lives) and not just the first round.
-
I am not assuming the axis is weak defending! Thats the point. You won’t attack a stack you are likely to loose against with air, but you can with crusier bombardment. UK does not really need 2 additional infantry, but needs to distract Germany from solely focusing on the USSR. So attack a Stack of ANY size with 2 Inf and 2 Crusier bombardment. You have a reasonable chance to inflict 2 losses by shore bombardment for the loss of two infantry. Every plane you would have sent would be lost. Thats my point.
To get to your point:
invading with 2 infantry against 10 Infantry would economically be prefareable with crusier bombardment and not by sending in planes. Thats what I wanted to say.At last: Infantry and fighter are the most valuable pieces in play. Best Bang for the Buck. But if you need to add to your fleet and you are thinking about a destroyer, just keep in mind, if you are planing to start a lot of amphibious assaults it just needs 4 landings until the crusier (1) will give you a benefit.
you should not attack a stack you are likely to lose against WITH cr bomb.
simple calc;
1 inf + 1 cr, attacking 5 inf;
you will then kill 1.5 IPC with the CR, and 0.5 IPC with the inf.so you are wasting 3 ipc to kill 2.
what is worse is that you are wasting a turn with your fleet, (you gotta protect the fleet landing), and you are not building up for your main landing in europe. You are rarely operating outside fighterrange, so you can always add fighters to your small attacks.
against good german play, the shorebombardment is next to useless. saving those 4 ipc, and building 4 inf + plane , instead of 6 inf is in most cases a much better use of your resourses.
@Kreuzfeld: As far as I read this discussion, we were discussing by comparing crusier to destroyer or submarines, not to planes. Planes are always the better by than ships.
you can never look at the resourses you are using isolated, every ipc counts. Winning the game is about not overspending (or underspending) on your supportunits (fleet, planes), while using the rest of your money to maximize your ability to hold the terretories you take.
-
This discussion is about what power might buy a cruiser. Not a number crunching which is the better buy dd vs cruiser debate. Anyone that has played the game would tell you that having a destroyer screen for any fleet is a top priority to allow your big guns (bb’s & ftrs) to continue to roll in battles. Most would also include cruisers as a big gun (does roll at 3), and take a dd as a casualty before a cruiser depending on if the enemy has subs on the board. There is no doubt that you will buy many more dd’s in a game then cruisers, but to say that cruisers should never be bought is very short sighted, because they have a role in the game. It might be limited, and situational, but can be very successful, and all the axis capitals are coastal. There is also the old “I don’t roll deuces very well” LOL.
Just looking at the western powers in the Atlantic (you are normally building a combined fleet), as the UK early in games your trying to rid the Atlantic of subs and get a fleet going at the same time, so many dd’s will be bought to chase down subs. Once the US starts coming over, and the sub threat in the Atlantic diminishes you are looking to build a surface fleet that will withstand a hit by the Luftwaffe combined w/German subs generally hiding in the Baltic at this point (could also be a double hit w/Italy). The western powers need to make a landing, but can’t afford to lose the transport fleet, so your likely to buy more dd’s to screen and a couple carriers to get air support if/when you leave the safety of the UK airbase. A cruiser added to the mix might be more the fact that you can’t afford two carriers, so you buy 1 carrier and a cruiser to get higher def rolls (because you already have a good dd screen). As the UK you are spread pretty thin and just might have to spend some IPCs in S Africa to keep the fight going. Keep in mind that you generally also have some US ships to beef up the Royal Navy.
Besides fleet protection, cruisers also offer cheap bombardment. Having 2-3 cruisers and a BB in the US Atlantic fleet (keep turn order in mind, and the US starts with a cruiser in the Atlantic) can also be very helpful in two ways. 1) If the Euro axis stack the coastline, you can bombard them to soften up the landing. 2) Because of potential bombardment, and the vast coastline they may pull back for a counter attack, leaving the shores weak or empty. In either case the cruisers will have an effect on the enemies decisions (and that isn’t measured in the best buy debates). If you can easily land a large US ground force, and have the UK reinforce your position with more ground, an AA gun, and the entire RAF the axis could be in trouble. Lets see 3-4 destroyers clear a coastline.
Cruiser(s) can also be helpful to the Anz. The US kills off Japanese blocker ships, NCM the US fleet next to one of the DEI Isles, and the Anz follow them in to kill off any Japanese inf to capture it. Bombardment could make this easier if they only have one transport and no air power available.
All I’m saying is that bombardment (or even the threat of bombardment) can be part of an effective strat. It’s like SBR, some will say it is the worst bang for your buck (to much risk), but some use it as part of the big picture and it works well for them.
Suggested Topics
