Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

[baron Münchhausen]

Glad you still want to discuss it.

About the 3 moves cruiser, I like it indeed.
I’m glad that they introduced it in 1914.
But other players, and some of my friends, will find disturbing to give this special move to cruiser.
For others, it is the AA capacity which is great.
In any case, both of this change will affect the starting board scenario. Some units will be in range of a M3 CL that wouldn’t for a M2.
Some fighters will have to pass an AA fire.
These situations were not anticipated by OOB set up.

The changing cost will certainly affects the rounds to come.
But who will change his strategy and buy 3 BBs now because they are cheaper (saving 6 IPCs on a 60 IPCs purchase) ? Maybe sometimes, 1 more BB will be bought on and off.

Or buying only cruisers
because 3 cruisers (30 IPCs) (and a 6 IPCs bonus sub, for example) versus a carrier (16 IPCs) and 2 planes (20 IPCs)
CL 3A3D3 + SS 1A2D1 vs 1CV A0D2 + 2FgA3D4 are better on offense and equal on defense?
Def: 10 (4 hits) vs def: 10 (4 hits).
Att: 11 (4 hits) vs att: 6 (4 hits).

3 CL+1 Sub attacking vs 1CV+2Fg defending 45% vs 46% chance of survival

1CV+2Fg attacking vs 3 CL+1 Sub defending 20% vs 77 % chance of survival

It is forgeting that with 3 cruisers, you will only bombard once and fighters can combat many other rounds of any amphibious assault.

Bringing this example with 36 IPCs in the OOB:
you get only 3 CL A3D3 vs 1CV A0D2 + 2FgA3D4 .
Def: 9 (3 hits) vs def: 10 (4 hits). 52% vs 45%
Att: 9 (3 hits) vs att: 6 (4 hits) Â

3 CL attacking vs 1CV+2Fg = 10% vs 83%

CV+2Fg attacking 3 CL = 52% vs 45%

I found this later OOB 36 IPCs cost very unbalanced toward fighters and carrier.
Don’t you?
1 simple cost adjusment and it will be better balance based on this same 36 IPCs purchase comparison.

[Imperious Leader]

The fighting attributes of the units having different values is part of the great design. So it may be true that some units are better buy than others FOR COMBAT.

Giving a dynamic movement of +1 gives the unit distinctive flavor and you would have a purpose to buy a faster ship. This also gives new options for players.

Players will build rapid reaction forces of Cruisers.

It is not only about numbers. If it were, Carriers with planes would be the best option for Naval defense. And it is and your not balancing that so why should Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers be any different?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

The fighting attributes of the units having different values is part of the great design. So it may be true that some units are better buy than others FOR COMBAT.

Giving a dynamic movement of +1 gives the unit distinctive flavor and you would have a purpose to buy a faster ship. This also gives new options for players.

Players will build rapid reaction forces of Cruisers.

It is not only about numbers. If it were, Carriers with planes would be the best option for Naval defense. And it is and your not balancing that so why should Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers be any different?

I’m the kind of guy which like historical influence present in the game.
And a Cruiser M3 is a way to represent a ship which

have the greatest range before refueling.

I don’t reject this kind of Option for HR.

Because cruiser and battleship were suppose to be the warships in the surface fleet. And compared to all others air and naval combats units seems less interesting when you compare the cold numbers.
(I have no details but I think it summarizes many posts in various threads.)
Any cruiser buy, virtually becomes a “styled purchase” instead of a maximized investment.

How two rarely buy naval units will unbalance everything at a 10 and 18 IPCs cost?

Much more player will at least think about buying one, and it will just create more variety of ships in a fleet because cruiser and BB can become a real optimized option for war between ships, at least.

On the other side, it will not make the end of Subs, DDs, CVs and Fgts buying.

It will be like every naval units will have a balance place in the system.

Maybe, I don’t see enough of the big picture?

Help me see it through, please.

[Imperious Leader]

I can make the following true statements…

When faced with a problem only fix the problem…not the system.

When making changes always opt for the one that is the most simplest to employ, that ensures most people will try it.

If making changes appeal to increased player options, greater balance, or Historical in that order.

[baron Münchhausen]

To better see the problem, here is another way of comparison:
1 subs = 1 hit/ 6 IPCs
1 Destroyer= 1 hit/ 8 IPCs
1 Carrier = 2 hits/ 16 IPCs= 1 hit / 8 IPCs
1 Battleship= 2 hits/20 IPCs= 1 hit/ 10 IPCs
1 Cruiser= 1 hit/ 12 IPCs

When a cruiser is sunk, you lost 12 IPCs. It is the ship which cost the most.
Same IPCs cost than loosing 1 Strategic Bomber (A4 M6 which give a very large projection of power.

Lowering the cost of both CL and BB will imply:
1 BB = 2hits/18 IPCs = 1 hit/ 9 IPCs
1 CL = 1 hit/10 IPCs
Both will still be the more expensive unit hit/IPCs ratio.

[Imperious Leader]

A BB gets a free hit and can repair. It does not cost 9 IPC to take one hit.

It is not only about numbers. It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC spent.

Cruiser is CA not CL. CL is light cruiser, most nations had more heavy cruisers than light.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

I can make the following true statements…

When faced with a problem only fix the problem…not the system.

When making changes always opt for the one that is the most simplest to employ, that ensures most people will try it.

If making changes appeal to increased player options, greater balance, or Historical in that order.

It is not a competition between two HR about cruiser.

My solution was to link 2 major complains in the bigger issue about warships. I grab both in the same because they were linked:

A lower cost CL will make it a better warship than BB. Then no more interest in buying them.
2CL A3D3M2C10 +2@3 bombard splitable vs 1BB A4D4M2C20, 2 hits 1@4 bombard
50% vs 33%, in favor of Cruisers.

Maybe just a minus 1 IPCs for both is enough.
BB= 2 hits/19 IPCs =   1hit /9.5 IPCs
CL= 1 hit/11 IPCs

[baron Münchhausen]

@Imperious:

A BB gets a free hit and can repair. It does not cost 9 IPC to take one hit.
True. Sometimes a fleet is not totally destroy. Then a BB can recover. A country doesn’t lose any IPCs from this hit.

It is not only about numbers. It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC spent.
I agree, even with this IPCs change, all other units will have a specific function, but planes have more versality. I can had that no game is won by navy only. All out navy investment is still recipe for failure.

Cruiser is CA not CL. CL is light cruiser, most nations had more heavy cruisers than light.
It is the important thing. On any other thread I will used CA but talking about a 10 IPCs cruiser as the light cruiser is another way to be more specific about it. At 10 IPCs there is much room upward for any CA and CB specifications.

[baron Münchhausen]

While discussing on Global development, Larry said:

Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-e

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4060&hilit=cruiser+11+IPC+cruiser+11IPCs&start=80

After all, maybe a Cruiser can be balance this way while adding some historical features (M3, AA):
CL A3D3M3C11, 1 AA@1 on def. vs 1 plane

Because, of course at 10 IPCs with 2 others additions, cruiser will be overboosted.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Baron:

While discussing on Global development, Larry said:

Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-e

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4060&hilit=cruiser+11+IPC+cruiser+11IPCs&start=80

With this last post and the reference to Larry Harris, come this question is their any play-tester on this forum?

Have they swear an oath to not reveal any results about crazy and not so crazy play-testing?

So they never reveal the reasons and discussion made about something like a 11 IPCs Cruiser.
Did anyone hear what disqualified this cost adjustment for cruiser, while they play-tested it?

[Imperious Leader]

You might want to take a look at AARHE, which was created in 2005 and the more you read the rules you find almost exact ideas from Global.

Cruisers had the AA gun thing, plus all the other units exist years before you saw them in Global as well as scrambling rules

[baron Münchhausen]

What is the origins of the AARHE (Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition)  ?
Who was on the project?
Is there any rulebook or rules compendium?
What is the link with the discussion on the Forum?
Does it have a real influence on the Global OOB rules?

Thanks.
P.S. Does all the answers to my questions are on the threads of AARHE in this forum?

[Imperious Leader]

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7188.0

[baron Münchhausen]

For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship.

Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
And with the stats maths evaluation bringing up by KionAAA, I can put other cruiser in a better place of scaled cost.
There is more room for other historical units for those who use more miniatures like HBG.

Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3 Definitely balance.
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
It is the price to have a competitive unit but weaker vs CL or BB.
Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.

Battleship, BB A4D4M2**C18**, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4
After more cost eval and battle calc, I must say that BB have to be at 19 IPCs to be statistically balance with cruiser at 10 IPCs and Carrier at 16 IPCs.
It will also give more room (3 IPCs) vs heavy cruiser A3D3 with 2 hits.

To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A) Give all types of cruiser M3
B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB or 1CV
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
C) Give 1 cruiser both offence and defense on a roll of “1” on first round only, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB).
D1) Give to CA a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.

D2) Give to the BB 2 rounds of coastal bombardment @4 when there is at least 1 ground unit remaining from TT making the amphibious assault after first round.
E) Give to the BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
F) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.
H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).

With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function.
Of course, putting all of it can unbalance toward other naval units: but nevertheless DD and Subs have their own proper function.

But all this optional addition can add some historical flavor, and a real gameplay difference amongst the bigger warships.
And you can even gives different options to Light, Battle and Heavy cruiser unit to create a more representative difference amongst them.

For example:
give M3 and AA to Light Cruiser,
just M3 to Battlecruiser,
M2 and Coastal @4 to heavycruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plundging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.

[toblerone77]

@Baron:

For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship.

Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
And with the stats maths evaluation bringing up by KionAAA, I can put other cruiser in a better place of scaled cost.
There is more room for other historical units for those who use more miniatures like HBG.

Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3 Definitely balance.
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
It is the price to have a competitive unit but weaker vs CL or BB.
Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.

Battleship, BB A4D4M2C18, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4

To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A) Give all types of cruiser M3
B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB or 1CV
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
C) Give 1 cruiser both offence and defense on a roll of “1” on first round only, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB).
D1) Give to CA a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.

D2) Give to the BB 2 rounds of coastal bombardment @4 when there is at least 1 ground unit remaining from TT making the amphibious assault after first round.
E) Give to the BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
F) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.
H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).

With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function.
Of course, putting all of it can unbalance toward other naval units: but nevertheless DD and Subs have their own proper function.

But all this optional addition can add some historical flavor, and a real gameplay difference amongst the bigger warships.
And you can even gives different options to Light, Battle and Heavy cruiser unit to create a more representative difference amongst them.

For example:
give M3 and AA to Light Cruiser,
just M3 to Battlecruiser,
M2 and Coastal @4 to heavycruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plundging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.

Baron I enjoyed this particular post on this thread.

[toblerone77]

@Imperious:

It is not only about numbers. It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC

Thank you IL!

I mean this as no offense to anyone but cost and battle calculator results do not give the ultimate worth of units in the overall strategy of the game.

You make a lot of good points IL but this is a favorite for me. I think a lot of times this goes out the window when figuring what a unit’s “value” is. Not every battle will be giant stack vs. giant stack.

[Derek]

All numbers aside, and all arguments aside…cruisers are almost never purchased, period.
And while you cannot use math as a be-all end-all, you cannot turn a blind eye to it either.
It is a little ignorant to totally ignore mathematical data.

You can use math to see why submarines and destroyers are nearly spammed to death in every competitive game, whith very few battleships (maybe 1 per game) and maybe a cruiser every 3 games
you can then use math (*gasp) to try to find a better cost of the units

It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC

this is a false statement, carriers are good because of their range and flexibility. they are subpar to submarines and destroyers however when it comes to pure combat.

please i would love to see a valid argument against 10 IPC cruisers.
Do you think they would suddenly become some super unit? (we already have those, there called submarines :P…)
They suck now, a 2 IPC reduction actually makes them ‘ok’ rather than ‘terrible’
At 10 IPCs they are on par with destroyers in combat, cruisers have bombard, destroyers are ASW and remain the better fodder unit

Not to mention zero change to overall game balance, fleet damage/hp would remain the same. It is the composition that would alter.

[toblerone77]

I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.

There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.

[baron Münchhausen]

Baron I enjoyed this particular post on this thread.

I’m very happy that you like this post on customizing Cruiser units.
It really means something coming from one like you which had many HBG, (FMG?) units.
Tell me if you ever introduce more than 1 cruiser type in your future game and which stats and cost you give them.

This post summarize numerous ideas from many posts on various threads.
Many of this optional additions to cruiser were in large part created to promote a higher interest in the OOB cruiser at 12 IPCs.
In a sense, this noncompetitive unit was kind of spark to create house rules and different capacities for the cruiser.

@toblerone77:

I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.

There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.

This post provides comparative stats between type of cruiser based on some kind of historical representation.
The cost is balance according to a direct 50% vs 50% odds of survival one type vs another type of unit.

I agree with you, the combat calc from 1 large stack vs another type, is not enough.

But the maths gives a balance cost basis, then you decide to add some capacity (A to H, above).

Additional capacity can rise the cost from 1 or 2 IPCs.
Since every unit as a cost relative to another, it had also an impact toward other pricing.

For example, giving to 1 cruiser unit 1AA@1 and 3M and keeping a 10 IPCs, will give such an advantage that vs an OOB DD, the ASW won’t be that interesting vs the 3M range mobility, AA first strike, etc.
It can imply that such a unit could be at 11 IPCs and even 12.
So a battlecruiser vs this special light cruiser CL A3D3M3C11 cannot stay at 12 to be a balance buying,
you will have to had special capacity and also add +1 / +2 IPCs to cost probably.
CB A4D4M3C13-14 bombard, etc…

All this special addition come with personal evaluation of their impact…

Maths is clearly not an end but give some means to eval and keep balance.

[baron Münchhausen]

@toblerone77:

I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.

There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.

That’s about this very reason:
Clearly 12 IPCs cruiser has a weaker unit stats.

What was the decisive argument in which, for example, Larry decides to stay at 12 IPCs and not lowering it at 11 (as he said, that it could be a possibility)?

Play-testers and the author got many occasions to do this but never done it even on revised Global (G40 2nd ed.).
12 IPCs cruiser is clearly not a competitive units as OOB, so maybe is it the cost structure which get approval and be the main conservative reason, 1 point cost 2 IPCs for all warships?