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
Cruiser add on
-
The idea was to promote cruiser buys. Why not just buy Battleships ?
-
I guess the question is, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities “for game purposes,” why not also give that capability to battleships “for game purposes.” At least then you don’t have an arbitrary distinction that has no basis in historical fact. The battleship is another unit that receives little love in most OOB games, so really there would be no reason (gameplay or otherwise) not to give it the same capabilities.
In our group battleship buys are just as rare as cruiser buys, I’m ok with giving both 1 AA shot each on top of their regular attack or defence, some say it should be max 3 shots @1 each for 3 or more planes like AAA, but this seems steep and would rather give just 1 shot @2 per ship… either way, the attack on the royal navy G1 will be much much different, and the Japanese navy will increase their already huge advantage over the US fleet J1.
-
I would have the AA capability kick in on rd 2. Call it an upgrade or refit or w/e. I tried it with just the CAs on rd1 and it can screw things up.
-
I think th BB is ok the way it is.
It is a scarecrow by it self. You want to use two ftrs and a SS minimum to make sure you kill it.
A CR is like a sitting duck with no objective, so players don’t buy it.
BUT if you specialize it, then it may become a nice piece for introducing it into your gameplay.
The BB should stay the way it is, bully, scarry two hit unit.
The Cr should be upgraded.
My opinion. -
I wasn’t aware cruisers had more range and were faster than battleships. The fast battleships could do over 30 knots and they also fueled the destroyers at sea so they packed a lot of oil. I guess I don’t really see how a movement of 3 is advantageous. So they’d get 4 from a NB ? I guess they could bounce between two or more fleets to multiply their support. At 12 bucks you probably wouldn’t want to sail them solo too much.
Yes, modern fast battleships in WWII did have high speed and big fuel tanks and long range, and I wasn’t implying that this wasn’t the case. The point I was making was that cruisers devoted a smaller percentage of their total weight to armour than battleships did; if I recall correctly, armour could account for a third of a battleship’s displacement. Armour is useful, but it’s basically just inert metal whose mass never changes, and lugging vast quantities of it around an ocean takes energy. Because cruisers didn’t carry as large a proportion of armour relative to their size than battleships did, my guess – and it’s only a guess – is that cruisers were more fuel-efficient than battleships, meaning that they could probably get more mileage per ton of fuel at a given speed than a battleship travelling at the same speed. Which was my reason for arguing for a movement boost from two to three to reflect this. Also note that WWII battleships tended to operate as part of fleets; operations on their own (like the Bismarck cruise) were the exception rather than the rule. Cruisers were more likely than battleships to operate on their own or as the lead ship of a small task force, though of course they also often operated in fleets.
-
@CWO:
I wasn’t aware cruisers had more range and were faster than battleships. The fast battleships could do over 30 knots and they also fueled the destroyers at sea so they packed a lot of oil. I guess I don’t really see how a movement of 3 is advantageous. So they’d get 4 from a NB ? I guess they could bounce between two or more fleets to multiply their support. At 12 bucks you probably wouldn’t want to sail them solo too much.
Yes, modern fast battleships in WWII did have high speed and big fuel tanks and long range, and I wasn’t implying that this wasn’t the case. The point I was making was that cruisers devoted a smaller percentage of their total weight to armour than battleships did; if I recall correctly, armour could account for a third of a battleship’s displacement. Armour is useful, but it’s basically just inert metal whose mass never changes, and lugging vast quantities of it around an ocean takes energy. **Because cruisers didn’t carry as large a proportion of armour relative to their size than battleships did, my guess – and it’s only a guess – is that cruisers were more fuel-efficient than battleships, meaning that they could probably get more mileage per ton of fuel at a given speed than a battleship travelling at the same speed. **Which was my reason for arguing for a movement boost from two to three to reflect this. Also note that WWII battleships tended to operate as part of fleets; operations on their own (like the Bismarck cruise) were the exception rather than the rule. Cruisers were more likely than battleships to operate on their own or as the lead ship of a small task force, though of course they also often operated in fleets.
For my part, I rather prefer this kind of Cruiser which have a more limited impact on opening moves than AA preemptive defense.
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3 (no NB boost)
Cost 12
Shore bombardment @3
Gives +1 Move to any surface vessel (TP, DD, CVE, CV, BB) paired 1:1 withThe small task force leader purpose seems better reflected by this bonus on movement.
It provides an incentive to dispatch Cruiser along Transports in SZs not deserved by Naval Base.Also, increasing range and movement provides an explanation on why on same IPCs basis cost ratio, Cruiser is the worst investment in combat values. Armor and firepower has been trade off for maneuverability and increased range.
-
I agree with BM, his is a much more productive boost because a cruiser moving 3 by it self is not much of a boost in gameplay, but if they can escort one ship… that’s more intresting.
-
Thanks for the clarification CWO. I would a gree with your assesment that cruisers were more fuel effecient. Also with the fact their were a lot of engaements that just had destroyers and cruisers or DEs. The guadalcanal campaign comes to mind along with a early war engagement with the US, Dutch and Brits in the DEIs. I don’t recall the name. When BBs did fight alone, idk for sure, but it seems like they didn’t fare well. At least Prince of Wales and Bismark didn’t.
That’s an interesting idea Baron. I’m trying to think of situations where you would use it. Maybe allow it to boost 2 ships out of subs, DDs and trprts.
-
@Baron:
Gives +1 Move to any surface vessel (TP, DD, CVE, CV, BB) paired 1:1 with
This is an interesting idea. One adjustment I’d make, however, is to limit the accompanying surface ship +1 movement boost to just destroyers. A cruiser shouldn’t be able be able to boost the movement of a ship that’s bigger than a cruiser, so that leaves out carriers and battleships. Cruisers don’t need to boost cruisers because cruisers have the boost already built into them. A cruiser boosting a destroyer sounds fine: destroyers are smaller, and the “boost” could represent the cruiser and the accompanying destroyer operating as a small task force or task group, with the cruiser as the lead ship and with the cruiser topping up the fuel tanks of the destroyer from time to time (as was indeed done during the war). A cruiser shouldn’t be able to boost a transport ship’s movement: many transport ships are quite large – some larger than a cruiser – and most transport ships are relatively slow, so they have no speed to gain from operating alongside a cruiser. (It’s actually the cruiser that would be slowed by the transport ship.) And transport ships would typically have a long range already, in part because in WWII they tended to use old-fashioned, low-powered triple-expansion steam engines rather than turbines.
Except for the destroyer, the only ship that could realistically gain a movement boost from operating in tandem with a cruiser would be a submarine, owing to its small size. In practice, though, I don’t think that subs in WWII operated in tandem with cruisers very much, if at all.
-
@CWO:
@Baron:
Gives +1 Move to any surface vessel (TP, DD, CVE, CV, BB) paired 1:1 with
Except for the destroyer, the only ship that could realistically gain a movement boost from operating in tandem with a cruiser would be a submarine, owing to its small size. In practice, though, I don’t think that subs in WWII operated in tandem with cruisers very much, if at all.Â
Plus you would have complications when it comes to the stealth movement of subs if Cruisers are with it.
-
I like the towing idea, and it makes sense to limit it to destroyers. It would make sub hunting easier or they could be paired with air for more muscle.
-
I like the towing idea, and it makes sense to limit it to destroyers. It would make sub hunting easier or they could be paired with air for more muscle.
Unfortunately, Sub hunting is far to easy even without this house rule.
-
I like the +1 on movement.
Help destroyers get out to block or support faster.
Be nice if Cruisers had only AA towards ST Bombers.
Cruiser - A3 D3 SH3 M3 SM+1 for Destroyers only AA@1 First round only C12
-
@SS:
Be nice if Cruisers had only AA towards ST Bombers.
In addition to the point mentioned earlier about cruiser AAA fire (the point that it makes little logical sense for cruisers to have AAA fire but for battleships not to have it too, and that battleships are a superior buy if both ship types have AAA capability), there’s the problem that battleship and cruiser AAA fire wasn’t designed to deal with high-flying strategic bombers, it was designed to deal with against aircraft flying at low and medium altitudes…in other words, with fighters and tactical bombers.
-
Give the AA shots for Battleships and Cruisers. But can’t hit ST bombers. I meant to give Batt. AA shots to.
-
@SS:
I like the +1 on movement.
Help destroyers get out to block or support faster.
It should be noted that movement where a cruiser is combined with a destryer should work the same way mech infantry can blitz with tanks. what I mean is that they should all end their turn in the same sea zone if combined during any movement phase.
-
All of CWO Marc’s posts should come with an automatic +1 tagged to them.
-
Thats what I meant. They end in same sea zone. It was meant also to be on the next turn they would only move 2 if the Dest. were alone.
-
@Young:
@CWO:
@Baron:
Gives +1 Move to any surface vessel (TP, DD, CVE, CV, BB) paired 1:1 with
Except for the destroyer, the only ship that could realistically gain a movement boost from operating in tandem with a cruiser would be a submarine, owing to its small size.� In practice, though, I don’t think that subs in WWII operated in tandem with cruisers very much, if at all.�
Plus you would have complications when it comes to the stealth movement of subs if Cruisers are with it.
@Young:
@SS:
I like the +1 on movement.
Help destroyers get out to block or support faster.
It should be noted that movement where a cruiser is combined with a destryer should work the same way mech infantry can blitz with tanks. what I mean is that they should all end their turn in the same sea zone if combined during any movement phase.
From a game perspective, if you cannot increase transport move to +1 (which naval base already provide), it cuts a lot of tactical possibilities for launching small invading parties where there is no naval base.
Example, suppose there is a naval base at starting point, both Cruiser and TP can reach the isolated island group 3 spaces away, but TP can not follow the Cruiser after. Sad perspective. -
I just made a fast overview of cruisers range compared to liberty ship.
Funny, I found that Liberty have a range of 20 000 nautic miles.
But Cruiser, at 15 knots have still smaller range than Liberty ships running at 11 knots.Maybe there is a different way to rationalize a +1 bonus move when paired with cruiser.
Not just refueling the thirsty little ones around.
IDK.
Game movement is not only pure speed, because at this, Destroyer seems the fastest warship.
Suggested Topics
