We need a correction for future because some units are simply never bought or so rarely bought that it is not worth the effort to talk about them in the game, because they are gone after a few rounds of play (the starting ones)
This game is best so far but it can be even better, with improving the qualities of the rarely bought units, or by lowering their cost. Or both if necessery.
Re cruiser: True, the are never bought because bad value for money.
15 Destroyer easily kill 10 cruiser for the same money and they cannot even detect submarines.
I think 11, more likely 10 would be an appropriate price for them.
Battleship: I think they are a bit underestimated and the only reason why not bought that often because often one simply needs more flexibility and blocking capabilities and this prefers DDs any time.
However they are way less ineffective in terms of value for money than Cruisers.
When fleets get very large, 20 DD + 4 Battleships do 51/1/48 vs 30 DD
40 BS + 8 DD already score 55% vs 60 DD.
this is not very relevant as fleets usually do not get that big and still, more hitpoints = more flexibility. But considering the healing capability I think I would frequently buy battleships if they’d cost 18. Especially in a defensive position with e.g. Japan facing a KJF, this would make annihilation battles a bit less attractive. However this would also depend on the price of a carrier, I think 16 is appropriate.
aa gun for 4 is also a valid idea. They are usually never bought unless facing a decisive battle, usually on India or Egypt.
However, in this case already the price of 5 is good value for money.
When facing an attack with overwhelming amount of air, 1 AA gun improves the odds of the battle better than 1.2 Inf when 3 shots would be guaranteed.
But still, I think 4 would be also a good idea, maybe one would buy them a bit more often then.
Regarding the rest, I think any change in prices would influence the dynamics of the whole game without any need.
And also AA for 4 would usually prefer the Allies.
Changing prices for TT would be an unnecessary change in a currently nicely balanced game.
I think JDOW has a point, the Destroyer is purchased more often because it’s cheap fodder - not because it is superior.
As for me, I buy cruisers, but then, it’s because I want the shore bombardments for Normandy/Germany/S. France usually, it’s not about fodder, it’s about 2 cruisers = punch 6 so 1 hit usually vs 1 battleship which has punch =4 which means 33% of the time you are going to miss. (By that point I should have a half dozen loaded carriers anyway, and destroyers.)
It’s not better or worse destroyer vs cruiser, it’s utility and function as well as time in the game. If we reduced the cruiser in price to 10 then there would be no need at all to ever purchase battleships - unless we just make it that a battleship hits once a round every round it’s undamaged and attacks at 4 for each round it is damaged but alive.
Destroyers are bought for the fodder and that makes them superior. 3 destroyers vs. 2 cruisers is the same price. 3 destroyers will always win by far. Getting a one time bombardment is rarely worth it, although there may be a case for it.
But the point is, the destroyer is not suppose to be or was ever the work horse of the Navy’s at the time. Only shields against subs. So for the purpose of naval power, the way it is now, you would never, or should never buy destroyers or battleships. Ever. It is never worth it.
It is true that changing the prices would alter the game balance. Exactly how, I am not sure, but if it was ever done for a new edition, the proper adjustment would have to be made. But they need to be made. The way it is now is not very historical or realistic. Navy’s are still way to expensive and require to much of you resources.
See, in my mind they are incomparable units.
Cruisers hit more often than destroyers. So if you have the money for two cruisers or three destroyers, and you already have 100 submarines and 200 destroyers in your fleet, why not get the cruisers for the increased punch? It’s like buying tanks. Sure, 3 artillery is better than 2 armor, does not mean you don’t buy armor!
Also, I use cruisers a lot for shore bombardments. Transport + Cruiser + 2 Infantry means I generally take an island from one defender. As the Americans I can almost always afford a couple cruisers for behind the scenes. (not to mention, the odds of a fighter coming out and trying to hit your cruiser by Japan is far less than the same fighter attacking a destroyer. 17% higher odds of losing the fighter!)
What I am saying is, they are different units and you have to look at more than just cost and punch! There’s cost, punch, ability, what you already have on the board, etc. Now Battleships, for instance, could be compared to cruisers as they are virtually identical units in as much as they are used the same way, they have the same abilities, it’s just harder to sink a battleship. In that regard, I would say the cruisers are by far superior to the battleships (you can buy more, the off shore punch differential is negligible, and you can split them up.)
cruiser + destroyer is often better than a battleship. You get anti-sub, better defense against air attack, can split them up to block movement, and bombardment. Not repairable but $8 isn’t so much.
Every units has its value:
Here is the advantages of the least bought units
Cruiser: Best bombarder (if you already have a destroyer and are willing to pay 2$ for bombard option this is your unit)
Battleship: Best defence per unit, ability to absorb hits (a minor IC can pump out 3 battleships for maximum fleet protection, this happends in some games)
AA gun: Always kills units for its own value, great way to spend the last 5$ so enemy dont steal it, increase luck factor of battles (Round before capture of India or Russia you might as well spend your last $ on an AA gun if that means youll fire on more enemy planes)
Tac bomber: Underestimated unit, gives punch for 1$ less than bomber, great for offencive carrier based battles, good last round buy for germany before killing Moscow. Even soviet might considder buying 1 of these to give more punch when attacking. (1if 1fgt 1tac will close to always hit, 1inf and 1fgt miss quite alot)
Again, I’d like to say that a Cruiser with an AA gun value (same as the ground unit) would make the Cruiser a little more interesting to buy because of the additionnal defensive protection for a fleet.
The point was that you cannot really compare destroyers and cruisers because they are not similar enough to make any comparison worth much, just like you cannot compare the aircraft carrier and submarine, even though they both have to stay in the water.
In my mind the cruiser is a lightweight, cheap, disposable battleship. One would purchase cruisers to add high value pieces to an already created fleet (a fleet of destroyers and submarines is no fleet at all, just as a defense force consisting of infantry and artillery alone is no defense force.)
In my mind destroyers are the infantry of the sea. They can block movement and they make good fodder. Just as you would never want to leave a stack of tanks out to be attacked by someone without infantry, likewise you would not want to leave a stack of warships out to be attacked without destroyers to soak hits. To me, the destroyer is throw away trash except on occasion when you must seek and destroy submarines.
Battleships I almost never purchase. You only get 1 shot with them which can make the battle longer and allow units that should have died on round 1 last to round 3 or 4 of a battle giving them more opportunities to hurt you. IMHO, it’s the battleship that needs an AA Gun (and increase in price to 24 IPC then) OR price reduction to 18 IPC. 3 Battleships may beat 5 cruisers, but if you look at it as a fleet battle (naval slugfest) I would say the cruisers are a better addition IPC for IPC. There is also the restatement that a transport, infantry, artillery and cruiser makes picking off islands simple and adds significant threat to that lone attacking plane should the enemy send one out. (though I generally add a destroyer or two as well, to force a real naval battle.)
These are just my opinions, not saying you have to agree or it’s the only way to see it.
@Sire:
Again, I’d like to say that a Cruiser with an AA gun value (same as the ground unit) would make the Cruiser a little more interesting to buy because of the additionnal defensive protection for a fleet.
I have lobbied for giving Cruisers an AA capability. Each cruiser in a fleet that is attacked by planes works like a land based AA gun. You roll up to 3 dice, OR the number of attacking planes, whichever is smaller, and any roll of 1 removes an attacking plane. That would certainly validate it’s 12 IPC cost and each ship in your fleet would have it’s own special abilities.
Submarine = surprise strike, stealth, convoy raiding
Destroyer = ASW–prevents surprise strikes of subs
Cruiser = bombard, AA gun
Battleship = bombard, hit soak
Carrier = hit soak, carries planes
I also think Destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In a lot of the amphibious invasions, Destroyers fired at coastal positions right along side Battleships and Cruisers. In some of the earlier US assaults, Destroyers were the primary bombardment ships because we didn’t have any Battleships ready yet.
Destroyer bombard was a rule in AARe given you had improved ships or whatever that tech was called then.
We incorporated it in our condensed 6 technology chart for home play. Which, I might actually find one day, if I can figure out what box it’s in.
@Cmdr:
See, in my mind they are incomparable units.
Cruisers hit more often than destroyers. So if you have the money for two cruisers or three destroyers, and you already have 100 submarines and 200 destroyers in your fleet, why not get the cruisers for the increased punch? It’s like buying tanks. Sure, 3 artillery is better than 2 armor, does not mean you don’t buy armor!
Hey Jen,
3 Destroyer still increase the punch more or at least the same like 2 Cruisers:) In an infinite large navy it would be equal (1 hit in average per round) but in realistic scenarios 1 additional hitpoint is always better. Once fleets getting small, suddenly 2 DDs fight 1 CC and will win.
regarding tanks you would be right if there wouldn’t be the extra features tanks have:
re: Shore bombardment. I would say I am not in the position to dictate you in any way what you should like, but according to all games I have seen, shore bombardment is almost neglectable. Of course nice to utilize with the given resources on the starting map but this one time shot is almost never game relevant for any battles. In Normandy/Holland usually there are no big battles allowing shore bombardment anyway and the Allies get them often for free while Axis rather counts on counter attacks from France.
Cheers,
Tobias
An army or navy with nothing but infantry/artillery or destroyers is easy prey for a well defined army, which is why we purchase air cover, armor, cruisers and battleships and leave the destroyers for fodder and picket screens.
re: Shore bombardment. I would say I am not in the position to dictate you in any way what you should like, but according to all games I have seen, shore bombardment is almost neglectable. Of course nice to utilize with the given resources on the starting map but this one time shot is almost never game relevant for any battles. In Normandy/Holland usually there are no big battles allowing shore bombardment anyway and the Allies get them often for free while Axis rather counts on counter attacks from France.
I can’t quite agree with that. In fairly large battles, you are right. Unless the invader has a large number of cruisers/battleships with the invasion fleet, one or two extra hits won’t mean that much, especially when you consider cruisers have a 50% chance of not getting a hit.
However, in the smaller battles, the shore bombardment can be the key to victory. A lot of times, mainly in the Pacific, I have seen either USA or Japan go after the little islands defended by a single infantry with 1 transport carrying 2 infantry and escorted by a battleship or cruiser. Since the 2 infantry only attack @ 1, you kind of rely on that bombardment shot. Of course, that’s why I would prefer a battleship escort but sometimes just have to go with a cruiser.
Of course, that’s not fool-proof. I have had times where the dang battleship rolled a 5 or 6 and both invading infantry ended up getting killed because I could never roll a 1. Most times it works though.
3 Destroyers have about a 45% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle. I know, the punch says 100% chance of getting a hit since there is a combined 6 punch, but we both know from empirical evidence that such a statement is hogwash. Further, the calculators that run using statistics and have multiple years of good track records in predicting battles back up the statement of 45% odds of getting a hit in one round of battle.
A cruiser by itself has a 50% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle, but by punch and by calculator.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if you have 30 destroyers you are far better off purchasing a few cruisers to add a hammer to your fleet than buying yet more destroyers. I have found this to be true in empirical results myself. 3 Cruisers added to a large fleet has provided a much better return (for me) than just buying more cruddy destroyers.
Just like when you have 90 infantry it helps to buy tanks instead of yet more infantry.
Of course this is all moot in LL. LL is a completely different game using the same map and pieces, but with different strategy and rules. Of course in LL you’d rather have 9 destroyers than 6 cruisers. There’s very little luck involved then and you can look at the entire battle, not just each piece.
I just think the Cruiser needs something altered on it so it is bought a little more often. If it had a move of 3 sea zones and ignored naval bases I think that would make it more likely to be bought.
I don’t mind giving it something, I am just saying it’s not as useless as some are making it out to be.
Personally, I’d like to see it reduced in price to 10 IPC (same cost as a fighter wing, with similar states only instead of range = 4 it has range = 2 + shore bombardment) but that doesn’t mean it does not have a significant role to play as the anchor point of a naval fleet. Italy, Australia, India and Japan should all be purchasing this unit. I can see Germany using it as well later on, though tbh, they are close enough to the coast that carriers are way better for them. USA of course, being ridiculously over paid, can bloody well just throw half a dozen battleships in the water every round and not even feel a minor impact on their economy, so who cares what they buy!
This is just my opinion. I back this up with the unqualified claim that no one has ever beaten me on attack or defense in a naval engagement in any version of Axis and Allies - despite what the calculators say. Of course, I don’t play Low Luck very often and when I do, I cannot remember anyone getting into a large naval battle with me (since you can see 100% of the time you win, or 100% of the time you lose in naval combat.) I’d also point out that calculators in general are notoriously bad at accurately predicting naval warfare results. My opinion is that it is the 2 hit principle that does them in, not sure. But I’ve yet to see a calculator give me the results that actually happen, generally, my gut is more accurate. I’ve seen many an opponent’s fleet sink to the bottom of the ocean with ALL my capitol ships floating around afterwards (that includes cruisers) when the calculators returned 50/50 odds or even 40/60 odds for my side. Just my opinion, however.
Then again, I also never see anyone sit there with a stack of nothing but infantry on a capitol. Almost always there are aircraft (lots and from every nation possible that can get some there!) and armor present. If cruisers are such a bad purchase, and they have the same stats as armor, then why are the same people purchasing armor units? Okay, fine, a tank is half the cost of a cruiser, but a destroyer is more than twice the cost (almost three times!) of an infantry!
i can’t wait to sink your fleet in our league game Jenn. :-P :evil:
@Cmdr:
3 Destroyers have about a 45% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle. I know, the punch says 100% chance of getting a hit since there is a combined 6 punch, but we both know from empirical evidence that such a statement is hogwash. Further, the calculators that run using statistics and have multiple years of good track records in predicting battles back up the statement of 45% odds of getting a hit in one round of battle.
A cruiser by itself has a 50% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle, but by punch and by calculator.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if you have 30 destroyers you are far better off purchasing a few cruisers to add a hammer to your fleet than buying yet more destroyers. I have found this to be true in empirical results myself. 3 Cruisers added to a large fleet has provided a much better return (for me) than just buying more cruddy destroyers.Â
Just like when you have 90 infantry it helps to buy tanks instead of yet more infantry.
Of course this is all moot in LL. LL is a completely different game using the same map and pieces, but with different strategy and rules. Of course in LL you’d rather have 9 destroyers than 6 cruisers. There’s very little luck involved then and you can look at the entire battle, not just each piece.
Wow… if empirical evidence says 3 destroyers have a 45% chance to score 1 hit that’s bad… I mean the punch of 3 defending SUBS is even better. Should be 50% but now I am really curious about the empiric chance for subs as well.
Makes me wonder if something was odd about the ‘empire’ where those results came from :-P. Maybe its population was extremely unlucky :wink:.
I wonder how a cruiser has 50% chance of getting a hit in one round BOTH by punch and calculator but a destroyer does NOT have the same chance (33%) both by punch and calculator. In other words: why would a CA follow different rules than a dd?
Don’t get me wrong but the day I accept a dd even has less chance than a defending sub, I 'll only ever buy a minimum number of dd for sub hunting purposes.
Anyway, BB and CA were heavily outclassed by aircraft from CV in the real war, so why would we want these units gain in importance in game? They already have much more importance than normal and aircraft at sea is by far not as lethal as was/is the case in reality so why would we want to make the BB and/or CA more useful?
If anything I would argue to make the CV even more dominant in sea battles to at least create a slight historic feel, but currently I like it exactly the way it is!
