@panther This is indeed the recommendation I’ve followed. Forgot to mention I’m testing with low luck dice.
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
-
@Baron:
Do you think that this 3 SZs are game-changer and can be attacked in the first turn?
No… but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns? I believe the defense value of all surface warships already allot for anti aircraft capabilities if we consider the fact that if any surface warship hits while attacking or defending, an air unit may be used as a casualty. By giving Cruisers alone some kind of special AA attribute, it kind of negates the assumption that all surface warships automatically have this ability built in. That’s just my opinion.
-
but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns?
All ships did have AA guns, but the Cruiser because of its speed sacrificed the larger guns and thicker armor plating that you find on say a Battleship in order to create a fast moving ship.
The hull however was large enough to become a platform for lots of lighter guns including AA guns. So while the Cruiser has the advantage of speed it was ideal to make them the perfect escort ships and hence the decision was made to equip them with alot more AA guns than you find on other warship classes.
So on average the Cruiser being an escort ship for Carriers and other ships on average has more AA guns because it needs to keep the weight down in order to have a good speed.
Thats why the USN and some other navy’s had entire classes of Cruisers as AA platforms. Now the Japanese made some of their larger battleships with alot of AA guns, but at that stage they had less Carriers and the USN used Carrier based planes to great effect.
So one attribute for the Cruiser would be 1 aa roll per ship at start of naval combat.
Also, i must clarify the +1 Cruiser move is for non-combat, not combat.
-
So one attribute for the Cruiser would be 1 aa roll per ship at start of naval combat.
Were you giving it in both attacking and defending situation?
So, when a bunch of cruisers are attacking a carriers, they get some AA preemptive strike @1 against planes in addition to there regular A3 roll?
-
As for the many special attributes that can be given to Cruisers that will enviably result in players purchasing more… there are a lot of variables that could automatically push them into the realm of overpowering. The largest variable to consider is the problem of giving Cruisers something that will completely alter how players view opening strategies. Although we all want Cruisers to be purchased more often, and have them be a vital part of our ultimate war effort, the truth is that there are many already on the board. Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
**Cruisers attack @4 when paired with a Battleship. **The idea of not altering the opening strategies is a sound principles and should be taken into account for balance purpose.
I have this question, are you sure your combined arms bonus for Cruiser doesn’t fall into this trap?
Because, at first glance, there is much more opportunities than with AA flak combined with carriers:Italy:
SZ 97: 1 transport, 1 cruiser, 1 battleshipGermany:
SZ 113: 1 battleship
SZ 114: 1 transport, 1 cruiserUK:
SZ 110: 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
SZ 111: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleshipSZ 37: 1 Battleship
SZ 39: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiserUSA:
SZ 10: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleshipJAPAN:
SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
SZ 19: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
SZ 20: 1 transport, 1 cruiserAnother question, besides the game incentive toward cruiser unit, do you see some kind of historical rationalization behind this combined arms bonus?
-
@Imperious:
but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns?
All ships did have AA guns, but the Cruiser because of its speed sacrificed the larger guns and thicker armor plating that you find on say a Battleship in order to create a fast moving ship.
The hull however was large enough to become a platform for lots of lighter guns including AA guns. So while the Cruiser has the advantage of speed it was ideal to make them the perfect escort ships and hence the decision was made to equip them with alot more AA guns than you find on other warship classes.So on average the Cruiser being an escort ship for Carriers and other ships on average has more AA guns because it needs to keep the weight down in order to have a good speed.
Thats why the USN and some other navy’s had entire classes of Cruisers as AA platforms. Now the Japanese made some of their larger battleships with alot of AA guns, but at that stage they had less Carriers and the USN used Carrier based planes to great effect.
I really like these historical details.
Hope they are really accurate about average AA platforms between cruisers and battleships. -
I was working under the assumption that in your games like ours, #97, #110, #111, will be exterminated before those ships can be used in an attack role. Germany’s Battleship is always used to help eliminate those sea zones making the Cruiser and Battleship pairing obsolete, as the Battleship will get mopped up during UK1. The Pacific ships are more capable of staying paired, however… I don’t see how this rule can interrupt opening strategies considering the positioning of such units. As for historical importance of the rule, it’s just as much of an abstract strategy game as much as a historical one, the rule was meant to balance the unit cost for game play… that’s all. I figure Cruisers would have time for accuracy in battle if the enemy was focused on engaging the threat of a battleship, that’s about the full extent of the historical relevance of the rule I suppose.
-
Were you giving it in both attacking and defending situation?
only on defense, just like the AA gun
-
I see battleships and, to a lesser extent cruisers, as heavy warships that may not have the variety of capabilities as other units, but in a straight out slug match will smash other ships with bigger guns and armor. The best way to represent this would be to add hit points, but this would also make them cost far more.
Perhaps the battleship could be brought down to 18 IPCs, given the preemptive fire ability in naval combat, but also charge 2 IPCs to repair it (maybe the CV too).
The cruiser could cost eleven IPCs, and then I have the idea of a combined arms rule, so that if a CA (or CL :-D) and transport are attacked together, the transport would have one defense. This would encourage the feel of cruisers as flagships for small task groups, but perhaps make cruisers too defensive? The AA and extra move options also had merit, however.
-
I see battleships and, to a lesser extent cruisers, as heavy warships that may not have the variety of capabilities as other units, but in a straight out slug match will smash other ships with bigger guns and armor. The best way to represent this would be to add hit points, but this would also make them cost far more.
Perhaps the battleship could be brought down to 18 IPCs, given the preemptive fire ability in naval combat, but also charge 2 IPCs to repair it (maybe the CV too).
The cruiser could cost eleven IPCs, and then I have the idea of a combined arms rule, so that if a CA (or CL :-D) and transport are attacked together, the transport would have one defense. This would encourage the feel of cruisers as flagships for small task groups, but perhaps make cruisers too defensive? The AA and extra move options also had merit, however.
If a fee is required, I would probably do it to both carriers and battleships.
This point, makes me think about a way to improve battleship and carriers repair capacity.On a Naval Base, it should be free but, on any friendly SZ which is not empty, it could cost 6-8 IPCs to proceed to repair on the spot in any SZ with some friendly island or adjacent friendly land territory.
This additional cost, could be seen as providing materials via merchant marines to complete repair on a sea port which is not a Naval Base.
The combined arms with transport will alter the game play and be very strong, because transport will get 1 hit value in addition to the D@1. Actually, the defenseless transport rule makes them without any hit capacity.
-
Maybe, one day or another this will come in handy:
American Naval Power
The ability America had to produce almost unlimited war supplies was of major significance during the course of World War Two. Whereas many industrial bases within each war zone were open to bombing, America’s main industrial bases were safe from this. The importance of this industrial productivity was huge in the European and Pacific sectors of the war. Once America had moved close enough to bomb Japan’s factories, Japan had nothing to fall back on. This gave America an enormous advantage in the Pacific and this was most clearly seen in the war at sea. Given the amphibious nature of the war in the Pacific, whoever had superiority at sea was almost certainly going to win the war. The following statistics give some idea of Americas capacity to produce ships when compared to Japan.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 7 battleships and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 2 battle cruisers and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 17 aircraft carriers and Japan produced 12.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 42 escort carriers and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 4 heavy cruisers and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 21 light cruisers and Japan produced 6.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 246 destroyers and Japan produced 27.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 315 destroyer escorts and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 122 submarines and Japan produced 74.
In total during these years America produced 776 vessels for her Pacific fleets while Japan produced 119. While America also needed naval shipping for the European sector of war, the vast bulk of her navy was used in the Pacific conflict. Such an overwhelming superiority enabled America to conduct the sort of strategy that Douglas MacArthur wanted attacking major island targets while letting others wither on the vine.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america_naval_power.htm
-
This a summary post on Cruiser and Battleship options to solve the balance and cost issue.
For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship. The red additional option for Cruiser is brought by Young Grasshopper. I provided links for other topics and source.
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 Maths and statistically balance on Battlecalc.
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 (on the same IPCs basis).
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.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1282658#msg1282658Battleship, 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 when applying a great number of units.
It will also give more room (3 IPCs) vs heavy cruiser A3D3 with 2 hits.
But at the smaller scale of number in a usual sea battle (up to 20 units per sides) :
1 CA + 1 DD = 1 BB is a correct combat value approximation.IL suggested this way to solve the cruiser issue for the generic Cruiser unit:
Cruiser A4D3M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3.To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A1) Give all types of cruiser M3 max move even with Naval Base.
A2) Give all types of cruiser M3, +M1 NB bonus, going up to M4 in NCM only.B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with
1BB or1CV
More historical that way. To be more accurate, BB should get it also when paired to CV.
The next B2, is a double combined arms, both BB and CL with CV required.
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give them 3 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B4) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
B5) Give to 1 cruiser up to 3 preemptive AA@1 on defense (as an AAA).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) as AA Flak batteries.
D1) Make cruiser unit with 1 additional hit but irreparable.
D2) Make cruiser a 2 hits warships, as BB but at a lower cost and combat value.E1) Give to CA a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.
E2) Give cruiser A4/D4 when paired with an undamaged Carrier or Battleship.
E3) Give cruiser A4 when paired with a Battleship.
E4) Give to 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.
E5) Give to BB 1 coastal bombardment @5.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1281661#msg1281661F) Give to BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
G1) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G2) Give BB 2 rolls A/D@4 on the first round only, if there is at least 1 enemy’s surface vessels.
G3) Give BB 2 rolls A/D@4 per round. And takes two turn to built in SZ near IC.
G4) Give to BB Defense @5 instead of D4.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1281661#msg1281661H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).
I1) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.
I2) Give to Cruiser some sort of ASW capabilities, such as DDs, but not all ASW capacities.J1) Make BB able to load and unload 1 Infantry only, or 1 ground unit.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1281581#msg1281581J2) Make Cruiser able to transport 1 Infantry only.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=8With 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 Heavy Cruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plunging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.
After further investigation, I discover that HMS Hood and Courageous were just at 31 knots vs the 28 knots for Pocket BB.
But, the range of Battlecruiser is around 5K-6K nautical miles vs 10 000 nautical miles for Pocket BB.So it must be for these specific types of cruiser:
Battlecruiser A4D4M2C12, 1 hit
Pocket Battleship A4D4M3C13-14, 1 hitHere is the way to see by battlecalc how a Cruiser at 10 IPCs is balanced against a 8 IPCs Destroyer:
@Baron:To, at least, add another argument to prove that a 10 IPCs cruiser is at the right cost vs DD:
35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.
35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD 43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA
0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs
1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs
-
After a more extend study of stats and maths on Battlecalc, I found something to answer about this critics on the 50% vs 50% survival as a base of comparison between units. See the last quotation in the above post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.msg1224759#msg1224759This quoted post was advocating an higher cost for cruiser than 10 IPCs, at least 11 and even a 12 IPCs OOB could even be correct according to Red Harvest.
I made a little space inside statements.
@Red:Third, real combat power is difficult to quantify and is most likely not represented by simple head-to-head equivalent IPC bases. Afterall, the attacker seeks advantage and net survivability of high value units…NOT equivalence. The potential error in just considering head-to-head, equivalent IPC match ups became apparent when I was looking at cruiser cost. As others have noted it is hard to beat an inexpensive “meat shield” or “fodder” type unit to protect the heavy hitting pieces.
Therefore, with OOB unit cost there is little reason for a cruiser purchase because they have the same hitting power per IPC as a DD, but the cruiser still can only take one hit so it has 2/3’s the hit point equivalence.
On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own.
A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces.
I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12.
What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.
Amongst many topics, the interesting point of Red Harvest critic was that comparing a whole fleet of Cruisers (A3D3M2C12) against a whole fleet of Destroyers (A2D2M2C8) on a same IPCs basis was broken on a mathematical POV because one side was keeping better and costlier units than the other side.
If both sides have a 50% of survival then the outcome will probably be a few units survival of one side.
So in 12 IPCs units vs 8 IPCs units, a 50% survival means an average of 6 IPCs save on 1 side vs 4 IPCs save on the other.
It is not even and fair. Or said otherwise, cruiser side wins, it still have a 12 IPCs unit while the destroyers side wins, it is only a 8 IPCs unit.That’s could have explain that a costlier unit would have lesser chance of survival over a cheaper ones.
The balance point should be put on the IPCs gains and loss instead of units survivability.Now using a real example, taking a 24 IPCs fleet basis, you get 2 Cruisers vs 3 Destroyers/ or, for 48 IPCs 4 cruisers vs 6 Destroyers.
The Battlecalc on a 10 000 battles give you this for 2 Cruisers vs 3 Destroyers :
Overall %*: A. survives: 27.1% D. survives: 66.3% No one survives: 6.6%The main average survival results is:
17.99% 1 Cru. survived and 1 Cru. lost : 12 IPCs total loss but 12 saved: 18% * 12 = 2.16 IPCs net gains
24.18% 1 Des. survived 2 Des. lost: for 16 IPCs total loss but 8 saved: 24.2%* 8 = 1.936 IPCs net gainsSo, on average, when there is only 1 unit which survived then Cruiser is slighlty above Destroyers in IPCs gains.
Now, just imagine that instead the Cruiser unit was cheaper at 10 IPCs (according to a 50% survival battle calc eval).
The IPCs gains will be better because of a real increase in survivability.For instance, a 40 IPCs basis fleet (4 Cruisers 10 IPCs vs 5 Destroyers 8 IPCs)
Cruiser survives: 46.1% Destroyers survives: 49.8% No one survives: 4.1%Average (in yellow):
15.15% 1: 1 Cru. 3 Cru. : lost 30 IPCs : 15.15%*10 IPCs= 1.515 IPCs
12.51% 1: 1 Des. 4 Des. : lost 32 IPCs : 12.51%*8 IPCs = 1.00 IPCsNow, on the average situation, the IPCs balance between CA and DD is 1.5 time better for cruiser side.
Do you think it could be a new way to defend the Cruiser OOB price?
-
An interesting post on Cruiser price and cost calculation from Larry Harris buried in Anniversary threads.
@Krieghund:Larry’s response (posted on his site):
Hello Telamon. Thanks for your most kind posting. “Remained true to the original”!
Cruiser. Hey I’m not a great player but not all that bad either. In fact there were times when I was the best player in the world for each of my games. It is when that world population exceeded 3 people that I noticed a decline in my standings.Cruiser. They have their purpose, heck at 12 IPCs they can come in handy in mid game when I’m usually fighting for my life. And with battleships costing 20 I usually can’t afford that kind of money.
Buying a cruiser at 12 gives me 8 more IPCs to play with when compared to a BB purchase. For 19 IPCs I can buy something that the navy is really all about: a transport. I can’t really argue with a bunch of “good player” however. If they say cruisers are a good purchase at 11 and I say they are “an ok purchase” at 12$ ok I hear ya. I don’t always agree with this assumption, however. I’d like to give you some insights on how I see it. I look at the over all cost in IPCs for each unit’s ability to score a hit on the enemy.
A sub costing 6 and having a combined attack and defense total of 3 (2 on attack plus 1 on defense) cost me 2 IPCs for each opportunity to hit my opponent. That’s funny, that’s the same price-per-opportunity to kill something as a destroyer has. They cost 8 and have a combat value of 4. (8/by 4 =2).
Cruisers at 12 and divided by 6 (3/3) is also 2.
A battleships with its price tag of 20 has a cost per potential hit at 2.5. Of course a battleship has two lives so its cost really is 1.25 IPCs per hit opportunity. Good deal! But it cost so damned many IPCs. In defense of the lover priced cruiser, I’d like to point out that it has the same cost/kill ability as a destroyer or a sub. So why pick on the cruiser.
Yeah, I know DDs have a that special anti-sub thing and subs have their own special points of (I want to say: confusion) value. But a cruiser has a 50% chance of scoring a hit during a bombardment (its special ability). In any case, I assigned a value of 12 to the cruiser perhaps it should have been an 11. I could not always use this simple formula when assigning values to these various units.
I also had to take into consideration my perception of what was fun but yet made the most sense. Kind of subjective don’t you think. Look at the bomber or the carrier for example. They have a cost of 2.4 and 2.33 per kill ability. Is that long range of a bomber worth that extra .4 and is the carrier worth that extra .33 because it can carry aircraft. I guess so, I mean I think so. Who knows for sure? You got to admit, however, that all the units are certainly in the ball park when it comes to cost.
Hmm, nice reasoning. BUT dear Larry Harris, you’re forgetting the most important value of a unit! In your view, a unit’s price is determined by “kill ability” and “special ability”. These are indeed 2 major factors, but you’re forgetting the most important one: “hit taking ability”. Let’s calculate that for each naval unit shall we? sub: 1 hit for 6 IPC’s = ~0.15 DD’s: 1/8= ~0.13 Cru: 1/12= ~0.8 BB: 2/20= ~0.1 (excluding the autorepair after each battle) Loaded carrier: 3/34= ~0.9. Well now, guess who’s coming out at the bottom, also having (imho) the worst “special ability” of all. It’s big plus should be the “kill ability”, so 11 for a Cru would still make it not so good a deal. Imho, 10 would be very defendable, subs would still be bought, DD’s would still be bought to counter subs and for cheap hits, and the cru would simply be good value for the money; yer basic sea unit taking over the role of core fleet unit, from the DD who isn’t made for this role in the first place! Sorry mr. Harris, but the logic you’re using to refute cheaper cruisers is wrong/incomplete, please consider to rethink this…
So summarized: 1 inf extra in Egy, 2 in Yun, and a Cru of 11 (or 10?!). Please mr. Harris, make this the official LHTR for AA50, so I can convince my friends to play with these more balanced rules. Otherwise those shiny new Cruisers in AA 1942 will stay in the box too much :|
You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability. That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60). Extra hits. It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet. I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships. At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships. I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market. Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.
Hold on a second….why are ships always getting AA guns?
The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII!
Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, etc.No AA guns on boats, it doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.
Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
Small discrepancy, but its all relative. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost a lot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and that’s pretty unhistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargain. -
All, if there’s anything we’ve done a few times, it’s mess with Cruisers and Battleships, but I couldn’t find this exact combination or discussion elsewhere.
Here’s a chartI can’t post links with some initial data that I will clarify via edit below when I have time. My initial analysis seems to show that a CA @ 4-4-2-11 and a 2-hit BB @ 5-5-2-18 [A-D-M-C] compare well, efficiency-wise, with DDs.A less aggressive tweak would be 4-4-2-12 and 5-5-2-19; but then you lose the very near 1-1 efficiency ratio with DDs. Anyone have a customizable (as in, tweak the A/D/C/hit values) battle calculator they want to lend me to test out some equal-TUV scenarios?
You are probably right: Cruiser A4 D4 M2 C12 gives similar combat results against an A2 D2 M2 C8 Destroyer based on the same IPC basis.
Here is how I made the calculations with AACalc.
it takes 44 Destroyers A2 D2 M2 Cx vs 31 Cruiser A4 D4 M2 Cy to get near 50%-50% survival:http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=44&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=31&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 50.7% D. survives: 48.6% No one survives: 0.7%If x (cost of DD)= 8 IPCs
y (cost of Cruiser) 44*8 /31= 11,35 IPCsIf y (cost of Cruiser)= 12 IPCs
x (cost of DD) 31*12/44 = 8.45 IPCsUnfortunately, it is not possible to do it with A5 D5 units.
It can also work with a Cruiser A3 D3 C10 and a 2 hits BB A4 D4 C18:
98 DDs vs 80 Cruiser:
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=98&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=80&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 50.6% D. survives: 49.3% No one survives: 0.1%Meanings if DD worth 8 IPCs, then Cruiser worth 9.8 IPCs to be even in pure combat situation.
184 DDs vs 80 Battleship:
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=184&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=80&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 48.9% D. survives: 51.0% No one survives: 0.1%Meanings if DD worth 8 IPCs, then Battleship worth 18.4 IPCs to be near even in pure combat situation.
So, if you want to keep 50% (1 DD C8+ 1 Cruiser C12) vs 50% 1 BB 2 hits, C20
It can be 1 DD A2 D2 C8 + 1 Cruiser A3 D3 C10 vs 1 BB A4 D4 C18If 10 DD + 10 CA vs 10 BBs:
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=10&aCru=10&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=10&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 51.1% D. survives: 47.1% No one survives: 1.9%But the OOB cost structure and combat values is built in a way that fodder are more powerful than higher values unit.
It is possible to tweak a lot of combat possibilities with the actual AACalc, as you can see.
If you want to play with a Cruiser A4 D4 C12, you can make 2 hits Battleship A5 D5 C20 to keep the 50%-50% when 1 Cruiser and 1 DD against 1 BB.
That way, you will keep OOB cost (simpler for memory) and makes all your warships more cost efficient in Naval Combat.
Thanks for that idea. I will add it as another way to balance both Cruiser C12 and Battleship C20.
-
I really like the idea of giving cruisers an AAA roll before combat begins. Same rules as land based AAA. Leave the bombardment ability as well, Historically cruisers have been the “jack of all trades, master of none” ships. Able to have the flexibility to deal with a wide variety of tactical situations and what they couldn’t deal with they ran away from. In the games I’ve played cruisers never get purchased, the cost is too high and the utility to low, give them a special ability like DDs against subs and they get considered again as viable. Any good strategy game needs to have a certain rock paper scissors aspect, in my opinion. Currently aircraft have no counter at sea only on land, give cruisers this ability and you give them the perk they need to to be viable.
-
I really like the idea of giving cruisers an AAA roll before combat begins. Same rules as land based AAA. Leave the bombardment ability as well, Historically cruisers have been the “jack of all trades, master of none” ships. Able to have the flexibility to deal with a wide variety of tactical situations and what they couldn’t deal with they ran away from. In the games I’ve played cruisers never get purchased, the cost is too high and the utility to low, give them a special ability like DDs against subs and they get considered again as viable. Any good strategy game needs to have a certain rock paper scissors aspect, in my opinion. Currently aircraft have no counter at sea only on land, give cruisers this ability and you give them the perk they need to to be viable.
Welcome bptastic,
Giving Cruiser (and BB) an AAA roll seems very popular indeed.
One issue people have with it is about opening strategy. In G40 and 1942.2, there is a few Cruisers (and BBs) which are supposed to be sitting ducks but, then AAA fire from warships make it no piece of cake and increase TUV swing. Sometimes, Luftwaffe lose more planes than usual OOB.Some people pretends they get refitted after round 1 with more AA guns and apply this HR on round 2 of the game.
If you play Triple A G40, let me know, some of my friend has created a map which include such option as AAA for Cruiser and BB.
Another was also to give 3 movement to Cruiser.
-
Right leave all the units as they are, Cruiser gets 3 move because the range of this ship was much greater than others as well the speed was on the upper range to keep up with fast carriers, also they had the best AA platforms than all warships because their job was to protect warships from aerial attack. Keep price the same.
-
Too bad Mr. Harris did not made that call when you suggested this in Alpha process.
(But there would not have been so many threads and idea about Cruiser however… FWIW)But, he clearly make the change in 1914, A3 D3 M3 C9 Cruiser is at a nice place compared to C6 Submarines.
Did you suggested both M3 and AA at that time?
-
I did not suggest too much with 1914, because i knew my own version would exist and didn’t want to help make competing products better. I did laugh when somehow by osmosis he borrowed that idea about contested zones. But good for him because it was a good idea for that type of game.
The Cruiser thing i bugged and bugged those move 3 and or aa gun since day one ( thinking 2010 when Cruiser price was brought up when AAP40 came out). The bottom line is to give the 4-4,3-3,2-2 naval units some flavor. Its almost as their is no point to them unless you give some attribute to show differences greater than the math.
I also want the BB to get a “call shot” , rolling a 1 they pick target, or idea two: they fire first in combat and results don’t shoot back ( longer range guns value a common tactic of employment of these ships is to shell the enemy before they can themselves get in range).
The road less traveled and ascendancy of accepting house rules is to leave a small footprint and don’t reinvent everything, just make small changes.
-
My proposal:
Subs now cost 5 IPC. Reason: with one destroyer’s ability to completely cancel ALL subs’ abilities, I have given the subs a little help so we see them on the board more often as cannon fodder. It also makes the destroyers even more important to puchase because destroyers are the hard counter to subs. Makes the game more interesting because convoying is now a more viable strategy.
Destroyer stats are unchanged. The reson for this is that they have many uses like blocking, soaking up hits for Air only attacks and sub hunting. Because subs will now be more important, so will destroyers. In addition I have changed the anti-sub ability of destroyers to work only on a 1:1 basis. No longer will one single destroyer cancel out 20 subs. This change is inspired by DK’s house rules. I think it is quite flavourful and makes more sense, plus it makes the game more interesting by making subs more viable instead of being rendered useless after someone spends 8 ipcs on ONE destroyer.
Cruisers now cost 10 IPCs. Previously, 3 destroyers cost the same as 2 cruisers so buying a cruiser was pointless. Now with this change, cruisers are slightly better in combat, but not by much. And DDs have other uses that cruisers don’t have, and cruisers are vulnerable to subs.
Battleships now hit and defend on 6s. Reason: With cruisers and battleships having the same role, it was important to me that the math made both ships completely equal. Because two cruisers at 3/3 cost the same as one BB, I have changed the BB statline to 6/6 (and bombardment at 6). I also could not make it 5/5 or else the Aircraft carrier would still be the only option for fleet defense.
With battleships receiving a buff, I have decided to change the cost of ACs to 15 and allow them to defend on 3s to bring them back in line with the battleship. Now both capital ships are equal on defense (Assuming fully loaded carrier), but the carrier offers versatility with more range thanks to planes and better amphibious assault support. The battleship is now superior in attack power, hitting at 6s.
Overall I think these changes will make sea battles more interesting and it’s always fun to buy a variety of ships than to just buy aircraft carriers every turn. Let me know what you think of these changes!
Suggested Topics
