Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

We could, I thought it would be easier to just have one battleship.

If we took the bonus of plunging fire off, the battleship is the same with my formula.  It just keeps coming back that Submarines and Aircraft Carriers are mispriced…lol

Then why making it a 3 hits unit?
2 hits and Plunging Fire seems enough, no?

[Derek]

Why cant it just be a super battleship ?

We already have super subs…thru tech

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Why cant it just be a super battleship ?

We already have super subs…thru tech

I buy this idea.
Super BB technology:
A4D4M2C20 (OOB) , 3 hits, 1 bombard @4, 1@1 First Strike Plunging Fire vs DD, CA, CV, BB.

It will explain the longer gunning range for Plundging Fire first strike and additionnal 1 Hit.

Because, as I said earlier, giving 1@1 first strike to regular BB make them too powerful against poor overpriced Cruiser.

[Derek]

Wouldn’t it be a million times easier to just say attack/defense 5. 2 hits
Similar to super subs

Should not be 3 hits to kill, as it is still a ‘task force’ and not a single unit
The task force would most likely only consist of 1 super BB, only what 5 total Bismarck and Yamamoto BBs were built in the war?

Giving it 2 hits would not only be a gross exaggeration but also difficult to keep track of in game

Also it brings up how many hits are repaired each turn?

Way to much complication, and fantasy, leave at 2 hits

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

Wouldn’t it be a million times easier to just say attack/defense 5. 2 hits
Similar to super subs

Should not be 3 hits to kill, as it is still a ‘task force’ and not a single unit
The task force would most likely only consist of 1 super BB, only what 5 total Bismarck and Yamamoto BBs were built in the war?

Giving it 2 hits would not only be a gross exaggeration but also difficult to keep track of in game

Also it brings up how many hits are repaired each turn?

Way to much complication, and fantasy, leave at 2 hits

Because rising the hit ratio to 5 will also apply against planes and subs. Instead:

History reveals Admirals better prefer launching planes against Yamato and Bismarck.
And the Plundging first strike capacity vs surface vessels was inspired by the longer range of their guns.  Of course the demise of H.M.S. Hoods help finding the name of this first strike.

[Derek]

I seriously dont think 1 single ship would have that much impact on a game of this strategic level

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

I seriously dont think 1 single ship would have that much impact on a game of this strategic level

Of course, we are talking about HR, in which someone create special tech for it.

It won’t be a game changer one way or another.

I just think creating a super BB need some historical background.
Plundging was at first an idea to replace the AA platform Jen insist to add to BB which I found historically inaccurate.

@Baron:

To Cmdr Jen,
about your BB problem,
if there is so few BB in your game, give them a little something that as some historical basis.
Instead of giving a non-historical AA, since Battleships were the big guns-carriers with the longer range over any other ships:
When fighting any ships and not just planes,
each BB get 1@1 additionnal attack & defense in first rnd against any of Sub, DD, CA, CV, BB. The player taking the hit choose his own casuality, including plane if he prefer. This hit is treated as a regular casuality.
So, it won’t give any limitation for the player’s which chose casuality.

What do you think about this?

@Baron:

Hi Cmdr Jen,
a BB@5 and 1BB@4 + 1@1 is very different, since you can get two hits in the first round.

I’m thinking about it, and heard that many US admirals feared the Yamato and forbid a direct combat with ships against it.

Maybe this BB @1 can be 1 first strike against surface vessels only: DD,CA,CV,BB, (and even TT, if their is both scramble planes and TTs)
I think that can inspire some kind of fear of risking a direct shot without being able to be in range of the BB group.
Don’t you think it could be more historically grounded, seems you like navy battle?

[Derek]

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

subs destroyers and aircraft carriers are the predominate purchases right now

Its cruisers that need help, Jen is litterally the ONLY person ive ever ran into that said cruisers are fine BB need a buff
Yet there are many on this forum that have agreed that cruisers need something.

Cruisers literally lose to everything, the only place where they gain an edge is shore bombardment.
With +1 movement, they would be purchased more.

I will say that BB are weakest in G40, compared to other versions (this should be obvious). because of needing to repair.
But still an excellent way to absord hits without losing any units

[baron Münchhausen]

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

subs destroyers and aircraft carriers are the predominate purchases right now

Its cruisers that need help, Jen is litterally the ONLY person ive ever ran into that said cruisers are fine BB need a buff
Yet there are many on this forum that have agreed that cruisers need something.

Cruisers literally lose to everything, the only place where they gain an edge is shore bombardment.
With +1 movement, they would be purchased more.

I will say that BB are weakest in G40, compared to other versions (this should be obvious). because of needing to repair.
But still an excellent way to absord hits without losing any units

I agree on this.
Adding a free 1@1 Plundging Fire First Strike to OOB BB will again makes Cruiser weaker (than they already are) against them.

The +1M his interesting because in Global, Oceans have numerous sea-zone.
And it makes any additionnal type of Cruiser if someone “really” want them:
Armored Cruiser CA and Battlecruiser CB with this special move of 3 spaces more valuable.
Cruisers are now in a different class.
Think of a CA A3D3M3C15, 2 hits, 1SB@3 / CB A4D4M3C16, 1 hit, 1SB@4.

And in themselves are different from OOB Light Cruiser CL A3D3M3C12, 1 hit, 1SB@3.
And all other fighting vessels: DD (M2/no SB), BB (M2, 2 hit vs M3, 1 hit).

The game don’t really need them, but it is easier to create a different type of unit with the M3.

I’m still pondering about the special rule for “1” to destroy a plane, interesting addition to “pimp up” Cruisers but I don’t know if I will  do it to all other units you propose…

For historical reference:

B. Andersson, Game Master:
Cruisers

A cruiser is a multipurpose ship. During World War 2, there are three kind of cruisers: the heavy, the light and the antiaircraft ones.

The heavy cruiser (10 000 to 12 000 tons, with 10 or so 8 inches guns) is a small battleship. A little quicker (she was able to follow the carriers, which was not the case of most battleships) and with a handsome armor.

The light cruiser (6 000 to 8 000 tons, with 10 or so 6 inches guns) is less protected (the French and Italian light cruisers were especially badly protected). Her role is more akin to that of destroyer, as flotilla leader. She can operate at the same speed, with guns and torpedoes and can provide a solid complement of firepower.

The anti-aircraft cruiser is as big as a light cruiser (sometimes as a heavy cruiser), she has more but smaller guns (5 inches or less) and are able to lay a deadly fire on incoming enemy planes. They rarely operate independently or against surface ships, by lack of heavier guns.

Impy mentioned the battlecruiser. She is not really a cruiser but rather a battleship (as to the weight and the weaponry), in which protection is sacrificed for the need of speed. That kind of ship proved a failure during the battle of Jutland, during World War 1. Almost only remnants of that period appeared in the order of battle during World War 2. The newly built battlecruisers were in a fact either full blown battleships (such as the Scharnhorsts) or very heavy cruisers (such as the American Alaska). Both had an adequate protection.

A last word to mention the auxiliary cruisers (Armed Merchant Cruisers) which were merchant ships with a couple of guns. They were used either to attack isolated merchant ships (the German used a dozen of them), or to defend them (the British had much more of them).

Destroyers
A destroyer weight from 1000 to 3000 tons. She sails fast, up to 40 knots. She is the fastest ship in the fleet. Her weak point is the range. Whereas a battleship or a cruiser can sail 10 000 miles upward, the destroyer can hardly put more than 1000 or 2000 miles, a couple of days of sailing. That forced the task forces during the war to perform lengthy and dangerous fueling operations, where either fleet tankers or bigger ships (carriers, battleships) gave away part of their fuel to the guzzling destroyers.

The armament of a destroyer is about 6 guns, around 5 inches (The Germans built bigger destroyers with 6 inches guns, but they were not successful). Some World War 1 leftovers had guns of less than 4 inches. The most deadly weapon of the destroyer was the torpedo.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

subs destroyers and aircraft carriers are the predominate purchases right now

Its cruisers that need help, Jen is litterally the ONLY person ive ever ran into that said cruisers are fine BB need a buff
Yet there are many on this forum that have agreed that cruisers need something.

Cruisers literally lose to everything, the only place where they gain an edge is shore bombardment.
With +1 movement, they would be purchased more.

I will say that BB are weakest in G40, compared to other versions (this should be obvious). because of needing to repair.
But still an excellent way to absord hits without losing any units

I agree on this.
Adding a free 1@1 Plundging Fire First Strike to OOB BB will again makes Cruiser weaker (than they already are) against them.

The +1M his interesting because in Global, Oceans have numerous sea-zone.
And it makes any additionnal type of Cruiser if someone “really” want them:
Armored Cruiser CA and Battlecruiser CB with this special move of 3 spaces more valuable.
Cruisers are now in a different class.
Think of a CA A3D3M3C15, 2 hits, 1SB@3 / CB A4D4M3C16, 1 hit, 1SB@4.

And in themselves are different from OOB Light Cruiser CL A3D3M3C12, 1 hit, 1SB@3.
And all other fighting vessels: DD (M2/no SB), BB (M2, 2 hit vs M3, 1 hit).

The game don’t really need them, but it is easier to create a different type of unit with the M3.

I’m still pondering about the special rule for “1” to destroy a plane, interesting addition to “pimp up” Cruisers but I don’t know if I will  do it to all other units you propose…

However, with this little Plundging Fire, I find it very funny to recreate the battle between BB Bismarck unit and CB HMS Hood unit.
And how it increase the slight advantage of aircrafts over surfaces vessels against BB.

BB A4D4M2C20 2 hits, SB@4, 1@1 First Strike vs surface vessels.
CB A4D4M3C16, 1 hit, 1SB@4.

I know, I know, Plundging Fire is not required here.
Only 1 hit from BB and roll of “5” or “6” from the CB.

Let’s me dreaming… :-D

In fact, it seems that it was 2 BB A4D4M2 units against each other.
BB HMS Prince of whales (including 1CB escort) vs BB SMS Bismarck (including CH escort SMS Prinz Eugen).

[Jennifer]

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

I disagree with that statement.  As I pointed out before, it is far superior to purchase 2 cruisers than 1 battleship which is precisely why there are significantly more cruisers being purchased.

Yes, its 4 IPC more for 2 cruisers, but you get 2 shots at 3, instead of 1 at 4, you get divisibility (they can sail in different directions) etc.  Other than the United States, and possibly Japan every once in a while, I never see people purchase battleships.  However, I see England, Australia, US, Japan, Italy and sometimes Germany buy Cruisers.  Hell, I see Russia buy more cruisers than Germany or Italy buy battleships!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

@Uncrustable:

BB dont need any help, they get purchased more than cruisers as is (though neither are ‘massed’)

I disagree with that statement.  As I pointed out before, it is far superior to purchase 2 cruisers than 1 battleship which is precisely why there are significantly more cruisers being purchased.

Yes, its 4 IPC more for 2 cruisers, but you get 2 shots at 3, instead of 1 at 4, you get divisibility (they can sail in different directions) etc. Other than the United States, and possibly Japan every once in a while, I never see people purchase battleships.  However, I see England, Australia, US, Japan, Italy and sometimes Germany buy Cruisers. Hell, I see Russia buy more cruisers than Germany or Italy buy battleships!

Whether people buy Cruisers because they cannot afford a better unit, hence BB;
maybe it is see as an hindrance when they need to visit NB when damaged.
Or as you said they need to spread out and cannot afford expensive BB everywhere.
Their Cruiser buying are a compromise purchase. It is a second choice vessel.
Otherwise, they will do like USA and Japan which have the money to afford their real first choice.

More, in theory, on a same IPCs level, Cruiser is the sole true combat unit (Sb, DD, CA, BB) which has less chance of survival compare to a costlier one.

10 Subs [98%] will destroy 3BBs [2%],
5 DDs [60%] have better odds of survival 2BBs [35%],
5 CAs [28%] vs 3 BBs [65%].
Even when 3 attacking BBs  [41%] vs 10 Subs@1 [59%], Subs have better odds of survival.
3 DDs [66%] vs 2 CAs [27%], still less odds of survival for cruiser.
2 Subs [86%] vs 1 CA [14%], still few odds of survival for cruiser.

5 CAs A15D15 5 hits, 5 SB@3  vs 3BBs A12D12 6 hits, 3SB@4.
The real superiority is the number of Shore Bombardment.
For me it is not enough.
I prefer to buy StrB to bombard @4 for the same 12 IPCs.

[Jennifer]

I am not going to argue that 6 BBs are not better that 12 CAs.  Personally, I’d say 6 CA and 3 BB are better than both options since it’s flexible, has more attack dice, more survivability, etc…kinda best of both worlds…

What I am going to argue is 2 CA is far better than 1 BB, especially for United Kingdom Countries (England, India and ANZAC) because:

• 1 You can buy two cruisers by breaking the cost between two rounds if you want
• 2 You have two attack dice, instead of 1.
• 3 You have the same number of hits you can absorb.
• 4 My mother always told me not to put all my eggs in one basket, I think this is good advise for Axis and Allies as well!
• 5 If you need too, you can send or build the two units in different areas (especially good for the United States and Japan, but also true for England)

Now yes, once you get to massive fleets, sure.  Or if you have build restrictions, like the US does if they are not at war.  (Although, I kinda liked the Mexican IC for that, so you could toss out half dozen ships anyway, lol!)

The question is, however, does it matter anymore which unit you go with once you get to a massive fleet status?  After 10 rounds of building battleships or cruisers every other round, you either own the sea lanes or you don’t.  If you don’t own the sea lanes, you probably don’t have all the ships together anyway.  If you do own the sea lanes, then you are probably using the ships to protect transports on route or to soften beach heads in which case, it’s a matter of opinion which would be better.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

I am not going to argue that 6 BBs are not better that 12 CAs.  Personally, I’d say 6 CA and 3 BB are better than both options since it’s flexible, has more attack dice, more survivability, etc…kinda best of both worlds…

**What I am going to argue is 2 CA is far better than 1 BB, especially for United Kingdom Countries (England, India and ANZAC) because:

• 1 You can buy two cruisers by breaking the cost between two rounds if you want
• 2 You have two attack dice, instead of 1.
• 3 You have the same number of hits you can absorb.*** 4 My mother always told me not to put all my eggs in one basket, I think this is good advise for Axis and Allies as well!
• 5 If you need too, you can send or build the two units in different areas (especially good for the United States and Japan, but also true for England)

Now yes, once you get to massive fleets, sure.  Or if you have build restrictions, like the US does if they are not at war.  (Although, I kinda liked the Mexican IC for that, so you could toss out half dozen ships anyway, lol!)

The question is, however, does it matter anymore which unit you go with once you get to a massive fleet status?  After 10 rounds of building battleships or cruisers every other round, you either own the sea lanes or you don’t.  If you don’t own the sea lanes, you probably don’t have all the ships together anyway.  If you do own the sea lanes, then you are probably using the ships to protect transports on route or to soften beach heads in which case, it’s a matter of opinion which would be better.

Jen,
you are comparing 2 fleets of different value. Of course, when you have 4 IPCs more in one, then it will prevail.

Let’s add 1 small Sub to the BB (26 IPCs) vs 2 Cruisers (24 IPCs).
The BB and Sub will wins most of the time: 79% vs 13%.

[Derek]

You can compare a cruiser + destroyer to BB

BB are great for fleet staying power, absorbing hits without losing any units. This is great when te fleet is far from home, and any ICs.

[Jennifer]

BB are great for large fleets (fleets with combined value over 60 IPC)  and I won’t argue adding one or two when you already have a few carriers and a half dozen destroyers submarines isn’t a good idea.

But I am looking at your typical small fleet buy, what you usually see the smaller powers (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, India, whatever) buy in any given round.  Not looking at multiple round builds.  If you have a choice between 2 cruisers or 1 battleship yes, 2 cruisers win.  If you only have 20 IPC then Cruiser, Destroyer still win over Battleship.  It’s only when you already have support ships that the battleship even becomes a viable build.

For instance, the Japanese are in the Sea of Japan.  Do you buy a battleship as your only fleet unit for India, or do you buy a cruiser or two?  ONLY fleet unit, you have no other ships in the area (perhaps America has beat back or threatened an invasion of Japan itself, so if you are attacked, it will be by air power alone.)  Same could be said for England itself.

America’s unique.  I grant that.  You’ve got EONS to build what you want and so much money it’s freaking ridiculous so why not put a BB out every round?  You can easily do BB, CA, 2 DD a round and have money left over to replace lost fighters and submarines.  Not really fair to look at a nation like that, if you ask me.

[baron Münchhausen]

I still think Cruisers are a second choice buying and only for impatient purchaser (who want to see a ship on a sea-zone, NOW).
Adding the 3 spaces move help them balance this unit vs all others. Because now they have a greater range, at least with this HR.
It helps accept the fact that they are lesser fighting vessel vs all others ships:

4 subs A8D4 (4 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= Subs win! (95% vs 5%) / on defense: 70% vs 30%, CA still loose.
3 DDs  A6D6 (3 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= DDs wins 66% vs 27%.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1 CV + 1 Fg A4D6 (2 hits 1942) / A3D6 (3 hits 1940)= 37% vs 44%
The last Cruiser have lesser chance of survival than the last Fg.
1 BB A4D4 (2 hits) vs 2 CA A6D6 (2 hits) =  32% vs 51% (Great exception when 4 IPCs over the BB!)
1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 vs 2 Ca A6D6 (2 hits) = 79% vs 13% 2 IPCs over against CA.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 = 18% vs 72% when Sub on defense.
1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4  =  42% vs 39% almost a draw.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

Just be patient for one turn, before putting a large combat vessel (BB or CV) on the board.

2DD1Ca A7D7 3 hits vs 1DD1BB  A6D6 3 hits = 45% vs 44% still a draw. (Mostly because of 2 DD which help balance it overall.)

1DD2CA A8D8 3 hits vs 2Sub1BB A8D6 4 hits = 31% vs 60% CA are a worst choice even on offense / on defense: 18% vs 75% against poor CA.
2DD2CA A10D10 4 hits vs 1BB 1DD 2 Sub 5 hits = 33% vs 60% CA are worst choice on offense /
CA on defense  still  worst: 23% vs 71% against CA’s fleet.

The cold maths should show you that:
when you buy an OOB cruiser, you didn’t get enough A/D/hit points for your IPC.

It is only for stategical reasons, not tactical ones, that you buy them.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Cmdr:

BB are great for large fleets (fleets with combined value over 60 IPC)  and I won’t argue adding one or two when you already have a few carriers and a half dozen destroyers submarines isn’t a good idea.

But I am looking at your typical small fleet buy, what you usually see the smaller powers (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, India, whatever) buy in any given round.  Not looking at multiple round builds.  If you have a choice between 2 cruisers or 1 battleship yes, 2 cruisers win.  If you only have 20 IPC then Cruiser, Destroyer still win over Battleship. It’s only when you already have support ships that the battleship even becomes a viable build.

For instance, the Japanese are in the Sea of Japan.  Do you buy a battleship as your only fleet unit for India, or do you buy a cruiser or two?  ONLY fleet unit, you have no other ships in the area (perhaps America has beat back or threatened an invasion of Japan itself, so if you are attacked, it will be by air power alone.)  Same could be said for England itself. Â

America’s unique.  I grant that.  You’ve got EONS to build what you want and so much money it’s freaking ridiculous so why not put a BB out every round?  You can easily do BB, CA, 2 DD a round and have money left over to replace lost fighters and submarines.  Not really fair to look at a nation like that, if you ask me. Â

If you only have 1 round of built and must defend a bare naked IC’s sea-zone, you go buy only DD and Subs to maximize AD/hit ratio.
4 subs A8D4 4 hits have better survival odds than just 2 CA A6D6 2 hits.
3 DDs A6D6 3 hits have better survival odds than just 2 CA A6D6 2 hits.

But, if you have Fgts already on the board, you will max out your defense with CV and Sub/DD 14+6/8 (1942) or 16+6/8 (20/22/24 IPCs).
Because you can add A6D8, 2 hits from a previous purchase in this sea-zone.

It means simply forget it about Cruiser buying:
2CA A6D6 2 hits vs 1Cv A0D2 2 hits +1DD+2Fgs= A8D12 5 hits.

[Jennifer]

I always envisioned the Cruiser as the World War 1 battleship, you know, with the 2x4 deck boards left unarmored and the huge magazines in the middle of the ship, etc.  The “battleship” piece, to me, was more of the World War 2 battleship, the one bristling with cannons and anti aircraft guns and had the 12-20 inch thick armor plating and basically, barely had enough power to turn, let alone stop or start moving!

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

I still think Cruisers are a second choice buying and only for impatient purchaser (who want to see a ship on a sea-zone, NOW).
Adding the 3 spaces move help them balance this unit vs all others. Because now they have a greater range, at least with this HR.
It helps accept the fact that they are lesser fighting vessel vs all others ships:

4 subs A8D4 (4 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= Subs win! (95% vs 5%) / on defense: 70% vs 30%, CA still loose.
3 DDs  A6D6 (3 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= DDs wins 66% vs 27%.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1 CV + 1 Fg A4D6 (2 hits 1942) / A3D6 (3 hits 1940)= 37% vs 44%
The last Cruiser have lesser chance of survival than the last Fg.
1 BB A4D4 (2 hits) vs 2 CA A6D6 (2 hits) = 32% vs 51% (Great exception when 4 IPCs over the BB!)
1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 vs 2 Ca A6D6 (2 hits) = 79% vs 13% 2 IPCs over against CA.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 = 18% vs 72% when Sub on defense.
1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4 =  42% vs 39% almost a draw.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

Just be patient for one turn, before putting a large combat vessel (BB or CV) on the board.

2DD1Ca A7D7 3 hits vs 1DD1BB  A6D6 3 hits = 45% vs 44% still a draw. (Mostly because of 2 DD which help balance it overall.)

1DD2CA A8D8 3 hits vs 2Sub1BB A8D6 4 hits = 31% vs 60% CA are a worst choice even on offense / on defense: 18% vs 75% against poor CA.
2DD2CA A10D10 4 hits vs 1BB 1DD 2 Sub 5 hits = 33% vs 60% CA are worst choice on offense /
CA on defense  still  worst: 23% vs 71% against CA’s fleet.

The cold maths should show you that:
when you buy an OOB cruiser, you didn’t get enough A/D/hit points for your IPC.

It is only for stategical reasons, not tactical ones, that you buy them.

I said:

1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4 =  42% vs 39% almost a draw but CA+DD have a slight advantage.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

It needs to be details better:

Since CA+DD have a slight 3% over BB, and it is also Anti-Sub. I must say it should be the first 20 IPCs put on bare IC’s Sea-zone.
This A5D5, 2 hits is more versatile.

But, when you can add another 20 IPCs, you should buy CV (if you already have some Fgts) or BB.
Adding another CA+DD is already less powerful mix than the BB+CA+DD:

2CA+2DD A10D10, 4 hits vs 1BB + 1CA+1DD, A9D9, 4 hits =  45% vs 47% toward BB & co.

So buying a CA with a DD is a good first choice, but you never buy a second CA to get rapidly a more powerful fleet.
Unless, you need CA+DD to protect different group of TTs