Cruisers or Destroyers for my new surface warship?
Subject of a new post: www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41552.0
For those following along at home…
-Midnight_Reaper
Cruiser Rework
-
After playing the game at least once and and examining different strategies, I’ve discovered that Cruisers are rarely or often never purchased because they are too expensive and are out-preformed by Destroyers. I feel that Destroyers are being plainly overused and create inaccurate and disproportionate navies from those that truly existed in WWII. I want to hear your opinions on whether or not Cruisers deserve a little more use in our games by being either cheaper or more powerful. Feel free to mention any other changes that could be made to Cruisers or any other pieces.
-
Our cruisers cost 10 IPCs and have AA Ability.
-
Feel free to mention any other changes that could be made to Cruisers
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36980.0
Cruiser add onhttp://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36596.0
Cruiser Ideahttp://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35442.0
Eliminating Cruisers from Global 1940http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.0
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A unitshttp://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.0
Cruisers - Combined Arms -
What’s the argument to cruisers having 2 hits like battleships?
-
Even when Cruiser is like this:
Attack 2
Defense 2
Offshore bombardment 2
Move 2 or 3 with NB
2 hits
Cost 12This unit at 12 IPCs becomes way better than Battleship on any AACalc for the same IPCs basis.
That is the issue.
You will need to rebalance BB.
Also, it affects a lot of opening battles. Not for everyone taste.
It also says that somehow, on paper, DD and CA have similar firepower. This not true.Maybe, at 15 or 16 IPCs a 2 hits Cruiser A3 D3 M2 ShoreBomb @3 can work.
-
Change the cost to 11 or 10
-
I like making them cheaper like 10 ipcs
-
Give them a move of 3.
-
@Carolina:
Give them a move of 3.
IDK if it is enough to convince people it worth 12 IPCs.
Often it is combined with something else, like AA capacity. -
Maybe I’m just a newbie, but I actually buy cruisers a fair amount, especially when I play as the UK. I really like it as a cheaper off shore bombardment ship.
-
Carrier and planes + Destroyers is the best combination.
1 Cruiser can do only a single shot @3.
1 Fighter (2 IPCs cheaper) can attack land @3, as long as needed. -
I think the problem with cruisers is that their ‘signature’ ability is shore bombardment, and shore bombardment is terrible because you only get one roll and it’s not even preemptive.
Historically, during the 1940s, there weren’t any ships at all that could outfight a modern airplane. The only defense against air attacks was to be out of range of tactical bombers, which is why people started building aircraft carriers, to extend the range of their aircraft. A carrier is somewhat vulnerable to submarines, but not if the carrier is protected by an outlying ring of destroyers. So the ideal fleet is a loaded aircraft carrier with a destroyer escort – in both the A&A game, and in real life.
In ship-to-ship combat, cruisers and battleships were mostly holdovers from World War I, both in terms of naval doctrine and in terms of when the ships were physically constructed. They were of some use as ‘tiebreakers’ in pitched battles between evenly matched groups of carriers, but the tradeoff was something like six top-of-the-line battleships was worth one escort carrier.
That said, heavy boats are pretty useful for supporting amphibious landings. There’s a nice symmetry there – you want CV + Ftr + DD to gain control of the seas, and then you want BB + CA + TN to exploit that control by delivering troops to the shores. I think we should preserve that symmetry and fix cruisers by making shore bombardment better. You should get to roll shore bombardment every round, or shore bombardment should have first strike, or maybe both.
-
In ship-to-ship combat, cruisers and battleships were mostly holdovers from World War I, both in terms of naval doctrine and in terms of when the ships were physically constructed. They were of some use as ‘tiebreakers’ in pitched battles between evenly matched groups of carriers, but the tradeoff was something like six top-of-the-line battleships was worth one escort carrier.
I mostly agree with the first sentence, but I have to disagree with the second one for a couple of reasons.
First: in terms of sheer dollars, escort carriers could hardly be described as being worth six top-of-the-line battleships. The Iowas class battleships, the US Navy’s best ones, each cost $100 million and each took three years to build – so if all six of the planned ships had been completed (only four were), they would have represented a cost of $600 million and eighteen years of labour by goodness knows how many foundry and shipyard workers. The Casablanca class escort carriers, by contrast, were very simple designs that were mass-produced quickly and cheaply; the US cranked out fifty of them, apparently at the average rate of one every one to two weeks.
Second: As far as I know, battleships never served as “tiebreakers” between evenly matched groups of carriers, for three reasons: because WWII only saw about half a dozen true carrier-vs-carrier battles; because none of those battles (as far as I know) involved evenly matched groups; and because in carrier battles the opposing fleets typically never came within sight of each other, which means that the battleships would never have gotten to fire on the enemy ships.
That being said, it’s true that battleships started WWII being seen as the capital ships of the fleet and ended WWII being seen as obsolescent dinosaurs. Some WWII admirals weren’t able to shift mental gears effectively about their evolving role, but others – like Nimitz – realized how to use them to full advantage in a new role: they used the fast ones as carrier escorts, to provide walls of AAA fire around the flattops, and they used both the fast and slow ones as shore-bombardment platforms to support amphibious landings.
-
I have a house rule I have developed for the Cruiser unit. This house rule follows historical events of cruiser armament production/refitting while also keeping a good balance at the beginning of the game, and making future battles and this particular unit more interesting and useful.
Anti-Aircraft Cruisers
Note: Turn 1 no current cruisers on the map have this ability. This means opening moves will be unaffected by this rule. Then there are two options for how AA capabilities will come into play based on a group decision:
Option 1: On turn 2 all newly purchased and existing cruisers are automatically refitted with AA capabilities.
Option 2: On or after turn 2, any newly purchased cruiser or any cruiser that begins its turn at a friendly naval base will automatically be refitted with AA capabilities. Any cruisers at sea will not have these capabilities until they begin a turn at a friendly naval base. The issue with this option is tracking these ships (but this could be done with a post it note flag or some other marking).
Ability:
At the beginning of a sea battle as a defender (does not work when an attacker), each cruiser gets to fire one AA shot (up to a maximum of how many attacking aircraft there are) @ a roll/hit of 1. In other words, the total number of air defense dice rolled is one times the number of cruisers, or the number of attacking air units, whichever is the lesser. For each “1” rolled, the attacker must choose one air unit as a casualty. Any aircraft casualties are taken out of the commencing sea battle before they can fire just like with normal AA gun rules.
-
Your idea is a fine way to solve first round opening issues.
-
I have a question on shore bombardment and blockers, like DD.
Is it a game breaker to allow surviving BB and Cruiser their one shot bombardment after a naval combat during the amphibious assault that follow?It is a single roll per ship, after all.
A player turn is around 3 to 6 months time lapse.
These warships can sail and chew gums altogether in a 6 months turn.I asked because I played long ago an A&A variant from Classic game, which have both Cruiser and BB the ability to do so.
It never appeared too much IMO.
-
I 'd like to see them move 3 and be able to non-combat move after combat (like aircraft)
-
This tourney finally convinced me of why BBs are worthy units for the AxA game. The basic analysis is that 2 fighters and a carrier give you more shots, more defense, more flexibility, more threat projection than either DDs or BBs, and therefore they are the bread and butter of your navy.
This is really, really true from a pure odds viewpoint. However, the problem is that the DD and BB both play different roles. The DD is too expensive to be the “infantry of the sea”. Really, its role is to be a blocker/screener (and to counter subs). In this capacity, I recommend buying 1 per turn in both G40 and G42 as Japan and at least 1 as Germany. If you are not sure how you will use that DD during the game, it will often become obvious why when you do not have one placed well before you needed it.
The BB really shines somewhere else; when you have plenty of $$, but only limited production spaces to create new units. This is the most powerful use of the BB I have found; to advance place them late game at an MiC or when you’ve been bombed. They are pretty much worse all around than buying carriers, odds wise, on attack or defense, because buying one big BB only lets you roll the dice 1 time per round. The other big benefit is unlike a carrier, when they take a hit, there are no drawbacks.
Usually, a carrier is better than an Airbase. they costs about the same, the carrier deploys 1 fewer plane, but it allows you to mobilize your defensive power and adsorbs same number of hits as destroyers do and the same cost.
The Airbase cant’ be sunk, and it can freely use your allies’ planes, so those are benefits. the carrier, in my opinion, is almost always the better choice than the airbase (or the battleship) unless you are planning something sneaky (often, these bases are only used once per game because they really make a difference at that one time).
The Cruiser is then, even worse than all of these options. It gets shredded by subs so if you are facing even a single enemy sub it would be better to have bought or kept a single DD in just one of your key fleets than have a Cruiser anywhere on the board. A strat bomber is the same price but much, much better threat projection. The support shot is really interesting, but it is extremely easy to block, and since it only goes 1 time, it only really shines when it is supporting a lone transport who needs just 1 punch to kill the defenders. Finally, with a 3 attack 3 defense (and vulnerable to subs) it cannot usually be relied upon to defend any fleet node by itself and so you will have to stack it with other ships, which tends to negate the independent power of the cruiser.
Several times I lost a cruiser in the first casualty round in last four games, and kept a sub instead; later when the subs acted I killed 2 tipped BBs and got a first strike retal on another cruiser…
-
If Crusiers had the opportunity to attack blockers in a new phase prior to the combat movement phase, I think they would be purchased more. It’s like a blitz ability for the trailing ships, but the Crusiers must stay where they attacked first.
-
@Young:
If Cruisers had the opportunity to attack blockers in a new phase prior to the combat movement phase, I think they would be purchased more. It’s like a blitz ability for the trailing ships, but the Crusiers must stay where they attacked first.
I like this idea because it emphasizes some kind of special movement capacity.
It is consistent with a full M3 move, M4 with Naval Base bonus.
Both could be given to Cruiser.
In addition, Cruiser can be able to do both Combat Move and Non-combat move.
So, after taking care of blocker, it can move up to the remaining move points left to reach its naval group during noncombat phase.
This would be similar to plane movement.
Suggested Topics
