it’s one of those things where you have “12 IPC’s left” and someone is wanting to build ships but dont just want 2 subs
Cruisers - Combined Arms
-
Everything about the cruiser suggests to me that its advantage should have something to do with speed or maneuverability, but the game has no good way to model this. All naval units move at the same speed in A&A, because here speed just equals distance. They move 2 (or 3 in the case of the naval base) same as any other naval unit.
So speed is out, the game doesn’t do speed well. But how about Maneuverability?Hmm…I wonder if speed is necessarily out as an option for cruisers when you take operational range into consideration. WWII cruisers had much more range than destroyers (those thirsty little ships needed frequent refuelling) and cruisers also tended to have more speed than battleships (although there were exceptions)…so I’m thinking, what if we gave cruisers some sort of naval equivalent of the blitzing ability which tanks have in A&A? An ability that would not apply to any other type of naval unit?
-
So speed is out, the game doesn’t do speed well. But how about Maneuverability?
Maneuverability might be something we could try to represent somehow. What if the Cruiser could ignore blockers on non combat? “Race past” Or if you don’t like that, then Cruisers move 3 on non combat?
Short of a movement type advantage, the idea to have them attack at 4 is at least something. Attack 4, defend 3? What value would you have it bombard at then though? Still a 3?
Other concepts that I have tried were Cruisers and Battleships can load a single infantry unit, which I liked, since it basically provides a kind of alternative to defenseless transports (albeit really expensive ones) but definitely makes the unit more attractive as a purchase. In this case, we said that the infantry units loaded onto these Warships represent marines, whereas the units loaded onto transports are more like army soldiers. These dudes are the marines, which was fun with the non com move at 3 idea. For launches, with these units first on the scene in the Pac.
Given that there is no marine unit represented in the game, the idea was that, when loaded onto a Cruiser or Battleship the infantry unit just is a marine or naval- amphibious infantry unit.
Cruisers and Battleships carrying 1 Marines Infantry unit are interesting since it can depicts some historical fast deployement of US Marines.
I like it when you show it that way.Since there is some move @3 via NB, why not input the 1914 Cruiser Move?
A Cruiser basic move is 3 spaces CM and NCM and get no bonus from Naval base.The high 12 IPCs with the lesser combat value will be explained and balanced by the extended range and Marines deployment capacity.
Battleship heavier firepower can even gives a +1A as Artillery capacity to help Marines assault. (Toblerone77 get this idea first, I think)
Cruiser and BB get their one shot shore bombardment @3 or @4, which is forbid with Naval combat.
But Battleship can still provide a +1A to her Infantry unit on board for every combat round of an amphibious assault.So Cruiser gets 3 moves, while Battleship gets an Artillery support capacity.
I think this will makes more interesting depiction of Pacific Invasions.
@Baron:
Without getting too wild, and fitting within game mechanics, you could simply boost firepower to land units + 1 in uncontested amphibious assaults for all rounds just like artillery does making BBs more valuable. this could be modified to include cruisers too. BBs can support 2 INF and cruisers can support 1. Do this for all rounds of combat and not simply a bombardment.
Interesting idea which I completly forgot could be used as a way to promote BBs and CAs (when we were trying to introduce a more historically accurate shore bombardment for Destroyers and in general).
Destroyers able to get a Shore Bombardment? (1942/1940) http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30249.msg1260861#msg12608611942.2 & G40 Improving historical accuracy of amphibious assault
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33217.msg1262175#msg1262175This should be kept within the limits of only paired Infantry units being unloaded from transports in an Amphibious assault get this bonus.
But any INF cannot get both bonus from Art and BBs or Cruiser. It is still a combined arms, right?Even if it is for all combat rounds, this will be a limited bonus since Infantry units is always the first casualty taken.
It will mostly fade by itself in subsequent rounds, due to attrition.
As read another time, by " boost firepower to land units + 1" do you really intent to make Armor A4 and Art A3 during a debarkment?
Probably, it is in this post you got the first development of this idea of BBs and Cruisers providing support to Infantry/Marines:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg1101675#msg1101675 -
@Baron:
Interesting idea based on a real tactics.
I wonder what could be this combined arms in game terms.
+1 Defense for Tank when paired 1:1 with an Infantry unit?
+1 Attack to Infantry when paired 1:1 with a Tank (same as an Artillery unit)?One or both of those might work. If I had to choose just one, I’d pick the +1 defense for tanks because I think tanks generally get the better end of the combined arms bargain when they’re paired with infantry (at least in restrictive terrain) because tanks are potentially quite vulnerable to determined and well-trained infantrymen who have the right weapons and who can find adequate cover for an ambush. (US Marines are apparently fond of saying that “hunting tanks is fun an easy”, which is perhaps a slight overstatement but which definitely shows the right attitude for a foot soldier to take when confronted with armoured forces.) Soviet soldiers in WWII proved to be quite good at this sort of thing, for instance by lying under cover as a Panzer rolled past, then scrambling to their feet and tossing a satchel charge (or even a Molotov cocktail, when nothing better was at hand) onto the rear engine compartment.
The one qualifier, however, is that this defensive bonus would not apply when tanks are blitzing. Working closely with infantry does make a tank safer, but it has a downside: it slows the tank to a crawl, and hence negates its ability to operate at high speed in open terrain (like the desert).
Black Elk makes a valid point when he says that there are already lots of OOB combined arms bonuses to keep track of, and that these complicate the resolution of battles. On the other hand, one way to see house rule additions (like the proposed bonuses being discussed here) is that they’re strictly optional, and that one is under no obligation to use all or most or even any of them. House rules simply provide players with a range of options to tinker with the OOB rules; selecting and adding a few HRs (out of the many available ones) to a local game provides variety while still keeping things manageable, as long as one doesn’t go overboard and throw in so many HRs that the game collapses under its own weight.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
Interesting idea based on a real tactics.
I wonder what could be this combined arms in game terms.
+1 Defense for Tank when paired 1:1 with an Infantry unit?
+1 Attack to Infantry when paired 1:1 with a Tank (same as an Artillery unit)?One or both of those might work. If I had to choose just one, I’d pick the +1 defense for tanks because I think tanks generally get the better end of the combined arms bargain when they’re paired with infantry (at least in restrictive terrain) because tanks are potentially quite vulnerable to determined and well-trained infantrymen who have the right weapons and who can find adequate cover for an ambush. (US Marines are apparently fond of saying that “hunting tanks is fun an easy”, which is perhaps a slight overstatement but which definitely shows the right attitude for a foot soldier to take when confronted with armoured forces.) Soviet soldiers in WWII proved to be quite good at this sort of thing, for instance by lying under cover as a Panzer rolled past, then scrambling to their feet and tossing a satchel charge (or even a Molotov cocktail, when nothing better was at hand) onto the rear engine compartment.
That will change sometimes the casualty order in defense.
Artillery will be chosen before the Infantry unit paired with Tank to keep the defense @4 bonus.This will also help better resist counter-strike because there is not very often such a @4 in a just conquered territory. Attacker will need to have enough Infantry to survive the first combat.
Again, in such situation sometimes an attacker will pick Artillery as casualty instead forseeing the next battle in which he will need Inf to protect his Tank and get the +1 defense bonus.
-
I kinda like the Cruiser costing 10.
Gets 1 shore attack.
Gets 1 AA shot at planes but don’t matter how many planes attack. If 3 planes are attacking, the Cruiser gets 1 shot only ( gets to pick plane ) at any 1 plane. Hits on a 2 or less. -
I got a new idea considering the Battleship/Cruiser problem:
I also dont like those complicated unit combination stuff rules. How could one make the Cruiser AND the Battleship worthwhile buys, and giving ANY sea unit it’s specific role, without too much complicated new rules?Cruisers should outfight destroyers. Without any change of the rules of cruisers and destroyers and keeping destroyer’s price the same (8). How much do cruisers need to cost to outfight a 8 IPC Destroyer? I did some simulations, and 9 IPC for Cruisers is the solution. Then it is a worthy buy as anti air platform AND as anti submarine ship (in combination with at least one Destroyer).
Cruisers are now a rather useful allround warship, being able to rather face any threat.
What are Battleships good in? Killing other surface ships. What are Battleships bad in? Moneuverability. How are Submarines destroyed? Throwing waterbombs on them. What is necessary for that? Moneuverability! => Battleships can’t shoot at submarines. Like Aircraft Carriers should also not be able to (unlike the fighters, they can drop waterbombs).
Therefore, one can make Battleships the strongest over water unit at all, with the disadvantage of not being able to shoot Submarines. At a price of 18 IPC Battleships outfight Cruisers (costing 9 IPC) and any other surface warship, except submarines.
After that, one can go like this:
Submarines : No change
Transports : No change
Destroyers : No change
Cruisers : Price dropped to 9 IPC
Aircraft Carriers : Can’t shoot Submarines
Battleships : Price dropped to 18 IPC; can’t shoot submarinesWhat are your thpoughts about that? Would it make Battleships too stong vs air?
-
9 IPC for Cruisers is the solution. Then it is a worthy buy as anti air platform AND as anti submarine ship (in combination with at least one Destroyer).
WWII cruisers did not have any anti-sub capability; they were to big to maneuver sharply enough to conduct depth-charge runs. WWII cruisers did have decent anti-aircraft capabilities, and some light cruisers were even optimized for that role. Destroyers were good ASW platforms. I’m confused, however, by the idea that pairing a cruiser with a destroyer makes the cruiser an anti-submarine ship because in such a pairing 100% of the ASW capability comes from the destroyer. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.
-
@SS:
So if you have 4 Cruisers being attacked by 6 planes, the Cruisers get 24 AA shots at planes then ?
No no - it works like a classic land AA gun - no matter how many cruisers you have in the zone, you roll one die per attacking plane.
-
No no - it works like a classic land AA gun - no matter how many cruisers you have in the zone, you roll one die per attacking plane.
Is it limited to three shots per cruiser? That would encourage more cruiser buys I would think
-
I posted an idea a while back (which Baron sort of quoted) of Cruisers and Battleships granting infantry and mechs artillery support in amphibious assaults. 1:1 for cruiser +1 for one inf/mech, and 1:2 for battleships so +1 for 2 Inf/Mech units.
I’m of several minds here. CmndrJennifer pointed out that the CA isn’t always a bad buy and she finds them useful in quite a few situations. That’s one view I kind of get and like.
Two, just lower the cost of CAs.
Three up the attack power of the BBs.
I’ll post more when I have the time.
-
@CWO:
9 IPC for Cruisers is the solution. Then it is a worthy buy as anti air platform AND as anti submarine ship (in combination with at least one Destroyer).
WWII cruisers did not have any anti-sub capability; they were to big to maneuver sharply enough to conduct depth-charge runs. WWII cruisers did have decent anti-aircraft capabilities, and some light cruisers were even optimized for that role. Destroyers were good ASW platforms. I’m confused, however, by the idea that pairing a cruiser with a destroyer makes the cruiser an anti-submarine ship because in such a pairing 100% of the ASW capability comes from the destroyer. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.
I’m confused, I thought that Cruisers have depth-charge capabilities.
They just not use Cruiser on specific anti-sub mission, but was able to sunk a submarine by itself.
I’m wrong on this? -
What are your thoughts about that? Would it make Battleships too strong vs air?
Here is probably what can be disturbing in your proposition:
I quote Imperious Leader:
@Imperious:Is there any reason to stick on the 12 IPCs cruisers and the 20 IPCs battleship?
Yes because nobody wants to change everything, just what is broken. Otherwise it will be a rule for a few people.
Most people just want the most minimal thing changed. not changes that invalidate all the player aids. The prices of the other units are just fine. If you change everything you make the game worse.
The original design was to make Carriers the best buy, followed by Battleships. Not equalize every naval unit. Otherwise, just have one naval unit. Differences are what the game is about.
Just allowing them move +1 is the most simple thing possible.
I also saw that the 3 moves Cruiser that I suggested earlier is coming from him.
-
I posted an idea a while back (which Baron sort of quoted) of Cruisers and Battleships granting infantry and mechs artillery support in amphibious assaults. 1:1 for cruiser +1 for one inf/mech, and 1:2 for battleships so +1 for 2 Inf/Mech units.
I’m of several minds here. CmndrJennifer pointed out that the CA isn’t always a bad buy and she finds them useful in quite a few situations. That’s one view I kind of get and like.
Two, just lower the cost of CAs.
Three up the attack power of the BBs.
I’ll post more when I have the time.
I cannot see why, unless very hypothetical situations. Short in time to boost a fleet against an inevitable mainly air assault, 12 IPCs left, playing low luck so 2 Cruisers give 1 hit.
The issue is that the original Destroyer/Cruiser (before Destroyer and Cruiser appear for themselves) was the best all around warships units:
Attack 3
Defend 3
Move 2
Bombard 3
Anti-Sub Weapon
Cost 12.
And since now, this unit loose the ASW capacity, it can no more do both jobs with a higher cost but weaker combat odds against the 8 IPCs unit. -
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
-
I didn’t suggest they were a great buy. I’m simply stating that there are a few applications to where they are desirable. I’m also not suggesting that an HR isn’t appropriate.
The problem I think lies mostly in that they don’t fit in well as is with the formulated strategy that is inherently tied to the set-up and opening round of the game in order to win.
In other words, if a player wants to win the game they must follow a small number of strategies and purchase combinations to have an effective campaign. This is where the cruiser unit fails. It simply doesn’t compute into the common winning strategy or purchase combination of the more frequent or avid OOB gamer.
-
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
That my friend is an excellent idea to think about! +1!
-
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
If you want to discuss some details of a 3 hits BB:
@Baron:Cruiser at 10 seems about appropriate for me, largely for the reasons other people have explained compared fighters and destroyers.
On the other hand, I would be very wary of reducing the cost of battleships. The 2-hit mechanic has the potential to make naval battles oppressive and not fun. At a cheaper cost, it becomes very viable for US to stack battleships and battle and retreat with little consequence. 6 BB with say a mixed fleet of 1 car, 2 fig, and 1 dest can deliver 5-6 naval hits with no losses then retreat.
For me, a fun naval game involves naval positioning, deadzoning, calculated fighter support from land, and smart blocking (using destroyers). I would hate to see a naval battle devolve into stacks of BB with a winner takes all battle.
Battleships will be definitely obsolete and un-optimized choice if cruiser goes 10 IPCs:
20 Cruisers against 10 Battleships:
A. survives: 74.2% D. survives: 24.4% No one survives: 1.4%
6 cruisers against 3 BBS:
A. survives: 62.3% D. survives: 32.2% No one survives: 5.5%Your 2 hits BBs strafing tactics is well anticipated.
Good points.
The main problem is that when you have a lot of BBs together, you can take too many hits making them and the fleet almost invulnerable with a good strafe tactics.
I would suggest keeping 20 IPCs but a different way of playing additional hits and repair.
However, BBs get 3 hits now.
Here the rule:
“Battleship are always main target: you cannot put a hit on another BB until you destroyed a crippled one or put another hit on a damaged one.”Here, how you could play it:
during combat, a single hit put on BB make it damaged but has no big consequence.
A damaged BB will fully recover once put on the board, according to OOB 1942.2 rule.A second hit (put on the same, according to the main target rule) make a BB really crippled.
When put on the board, it is only fully repaired at the beginning of player’s turn (and, if playing Global, when on a SZ deserved by NB).A third hit destroyed a crippled battleship.
This make an average of near 7 IPCs/hit. Just between Subs and Destroyers.
So, for the high cost investment, it will make Battleship a competitive unit against small warships.
And a bunch of BBs fleet cannot create a loophole in which you can do a massive hit and run without too much casualties. -
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
4 Subs against 2 Cruisers with 2 hits make the fight more interesting, even if Subs still gets the better hand:
Overall %*: A. survives: 58.3% D. survives: 41.7% No one survives: 0%If you compared to OOB:
4 Subs against 2 Cruisers 1 hit each:
Overall %*: A. survives: 94.4% D. survives: 5.6% No one survives: 0%Now, swaping side:
2 Cruisers, 2 hits, against 4 Subs are making a carnage! :-D
Overall %*: A. survives: 82.8% D. survives: 17.2% No one survives: 0%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=2&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=2&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=4&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Tra-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Tra-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=2 OOB Cruisers vs 4 Subs, Subs still win:
Overall %*: A. survives: 30.3% D. survives: 69.7% No one survives: 0%
However, it maybe an issue for Destroyers:
2 Cruisers, 2 hits against 3 Destroyers:
Overall %*: A. survives: 79.2% D. survives: 16.4% No one survives: 4.4%OOB:
2 OOB Cruisers vs 3 DDs:
Overall %*: A. survives: 27.1% D. survives: 65.6% No one survives: 7.3%
This would mean that Destroyer have only an Anti-Sub role (for Planes also) and are no more an interesting fodder unit.
Cruiser and Battleship taking hits will play this roll instead.
Another point,
Battleship 20 IPCs (/3 hits = 6.67 IPCs/hit) are weaker against Cruiser 12 IPCs (/2 hits= 6 IPCs per hit):
5 x 2 hits Cruiser against 3 x 3 hits Battleship
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.8% D. survives: 17.8% No one survives: 3.4%And base on this last point, I think hits on a 3 hits BB should be put anyway you want.
However, I still suggest that a single hit upon them should be treated as in 1942.2 OOB rules, repairing them at the end of the battle. -
Not that I’m back paddling from 3 hit Battleships, but here’s another idea I just had…
Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, and Battleships may carry 1 tactical bomber each (all Aircraft Carrier rules would apply except the ability to carry fighters).
-
These ideas are all interesting, but they will definitely alter the openings. Especially when you start getting into things like adding extra hit absorption.
When I read the suggestions made here I think what people really want is a Cruiser unit that serves as a catch-all. Basically a CA + CL + CC/Pocket Battleship + Destroyer Flotilla leader + Anti-Air + you know, pretty much every conceivable kind of cruiser all-in-one! haha
:-DI see two basic suggestions, one is to lower the cost and keep the current abilities. The other is to keep the current cost, but increase the abilities. The former is easier, but not quite as interesting. The latter is more entertaining for dynamic gameplay, but also more complicated to implement.
Don’t have any problem with a single Cruiser unit abstractly representing the abilities of many different kinds of Cruisers, but it seems like there should be some kind of trade off. Like if you use cruiser ability X, then you can’t use cruiser ability Y in the same round, along those lines. The thing about combined arms though, is that the cruiser as a unit with its basic abilities has existed since AA50, unlike Tacs and Mech which are new. To expand the combined arms concept to older units, invites the further idea that all units should just have unique interactions with each other, but I think that might be overkill.
CWO has a good grasp on how these ships were used at the time. So what do you think dude? If you had to pick a single unit with which to pair a cruiser in A&A what would it be?
I vote infantry or destroyer.
If infantry, say the combined arms is part of a broader marine concept for the whole navy, just being represented here abstractly between the ship and the ground via the cruiser (since its the naval unit that gets the least play right now.) Focus on the bombardment aspect, or the transport idea, or some sort of transport + movement advantage. Basically a combined arms for amphibious model.
If destroyer, you could try to work out some kind of flotilla or cruiser which leads destroyer-groups concept. If the cruiser boosted the destroyer attack +1, people would probably buy more of them, and it would make existing cruisers much more valuable. Basically combined arms for naval.
Then I think they would definitely be purchased, even at 12 ipcs, because players will already be buying a fair amount of DD anyway. Cruiser purchases would be much more attractive, since they would activate a DD 1:1. It would be more effective to have Cruisers boost Destroyers to attack at 3, from a purchase enticement standpoint, than the reverse, where destroyers boost cruisers to attack at 4 (since players will have more dd destroyed as fodder than cruisers). Though I suppose either might work. This whole dd:ca pairing would definitely rely heavily on the “destroyer leader” concept for the Cruiser unit. I think that might be more fun than the anti-air role for the cruiser, since it would do more to encourage naval vs naval, rather naval vs air. But again, all these things might be made to work in conjunction.
I still think the Marine thing is cool. Toblerone’s idea could play into that sort of idea too. It would be fairly easy if we just kept the unit pairing 1:1, Ship:Infantry, or to all ground if desired. Amphibious support, Flotilla lead, or Anti Air screen seem like cool options, but perhaps not all at the same time in the same round?
Agree also with Barons point, that the current G40 Cruiser is basically exactly the same as the Revised Destroyer, but nerfed of its ASW role.
It costs the same, has a similar hit/defense value, but is not needed to counter subs anymore. Sure it has the bombard at 3 (which in Revised had to be tech activated) but that’s not nearly as important as the ASW for unit buy considerations. The ASW unit, is also now the main fodder unit, in addition to CV defense, which makes the cruiser just seem irrelevant.
If I had to pick just one though, I still think some kind of basic movement advantage would provide the most entertainment value (without really needing a unit paired, just a boost to the cruiser directly). Movement at 3 is likely possible, maybe just on Non-Com if it proves breaking at 3 on combat. All these ideas are better than the OOB cruiser though which doesn’t seem to be all that great for the cost.
Suggested Topics
