How useful are cruisers??

@MrMalachiCrunch:

I’m guessing there was combined US/Brit fleet?

Yep.  USA is going to finish off the German fleet with a mixed force - a few boats, including 3 subs and 2 DD, fighters, and bombers.

While you can always construct a narrow example that does show it works, looking at the entire picture…At what cost in other options is spending potentially more on a military solution?

I understand that.  I have won over 80% of my 50 games against a variety of opponents under a variety of bids and rulesets.  Battleships are practical, in many situations, especially if you are using the bombardment and auto-repair functions.  But it’s more than that.  There is the psychological effect.  BB’s make your opponent more intimidated, more tentative, more defensive.  BB’s raise the stakes of naval battles.  If you can’t wipe me out, my BB’s and transports survive and auto-repair.  If you have no BB’s and I do, advantage to me.  BB’s DETER AND PREVENT hit and runs!  They make attacks much higher risk for the opponent facing them.

The case cited much earlier with the US purchasing 10-12 BBs then going on a crusade to crush the willing Japs….  What were the japs doing while the US fleet was building and waiting around?

I would never dream of having more than 3 BB’s in my fleet, and that would be with Japan when she starts with 2 already.

That said, if a player really wanted 10 USA battleships, he already starts with 1 in the Pacific, and assuming 43-48 IPC’s per turn income, it would only take about 4 turns to have 10 or so battleships.  The Japanese player would be busy taking over the rest of the Pacific and Africa and China and Russia, obviously.  And then the USA just storms across the Pacific in 2 turns and annihilates any Jap boats in its wake?  Interesting strategy.  Might be effective once.  I wouldn’t build battleships every turn, though, I would save up the money for 4 turns so the opponent doesn’t know you’re going to build battleships in the Pacific.  Then WHAM - buy 10 battleships for 11 total.  Probably not the most effective strategy, but DEFINITELY one of the most FUN strategies!  :lol:  And who knows, maybe if you roll improved shipyards for 5 IPC’s in the first round……

That’s the other thing.  DD and SS take up more production capacity for your factories than BB.  This can be a HUGE factor for the UK, and may have been a factor when I built mine.  Say you have 50 IPC’s with the UK, and you’re trying to build up assaults on Europe.  Do you build DD of BB to protect your fleet?  BB’s EVERY TIME.  1 BB and 7 ground units for 30 IPC’s.  Maximizes ground units purchased, and BB’s can participate in amphibious, whereas DD do not.  So when production capacity is a constraint, you are more likely to need to buy BB than DD or SS for max effectiveness.

Also, if your factory is damaged (I keep having to say this on this site) then expensive units aren’t as expensive, relatively speaking, as cheap units any more.  What about when your factory is damaged and SS costs 7 and DD costs 9 and BB costs 21?  BB looking better all the time.

These last two points apply to cruisers as well (already made these points), so keeping in the spirit of the thread.  Cruisers are more desirable, relatively speaking, when your factory is damaged, or you’re maxing out production, and don’t have enough money for a Battleship.

You do make a number of excellent points.  I have never played a variation of AA with Italy.  Your example of the deterent to the smaller italian airforce is a good point.  It does prevent some small scale skirmishes where if you hope to get on average 3 hits on the navy and get only 1 and do nothing to a fleet with a BB it can be a disaster.

The issue over the number of slots available to produce units is a great point, suprised nobody else mentioned it as its pretty important.  I am a huge fan of the infantry push still even with spring 42 and the inability of the US to shuck into europe every round.  The income levels you cite for England are much greater than I am used to as my experience is limited to AA second edition 100s of games and Spring 42 about 15-20 games were England starts at 30 and often falls to the high teens or low 20s until africa is retaken, by the time your income hits mid-20s the limitations of 8 units per round becomes an issue.  Certainly, building 1 BB and 7 INF beats 3 SS, 4 INF and 1 plane because you HAVE to spend your money.  3 less land units in my way of fighting hurts.

The psychological effect…yeah, I’ll grant you it’s worth something.  Preventing foes from doing hit and runs, yes but so does having an overwhelming initial D.  2 fully loaded ACs cost 68, so does 3 BBs and a DD.  While the latter addition to a fleet can absorb 3 hits and in theory has 7 total hits to offer, the former has 6 hits to offer and defends with a full 6 more punch doing an extra hit per round.  That’s the great thing about having many types of units, the debates are great!  As for surviving and useless pieces, its a balance.  If you need BB fleet defense for air later on, not a waste.  If you are only looking to save hits merely for hit and runs…not so clear.

Right on, Malachi, thanks for posting again.

50 IPC UK is not uncommon in AA50 because national objectives are worth 5 IPC’s each.

Dude, you have got to play AA50!  It is as big an improvement over Revised, or 2nd edition as Revised is over the original.

Spring 1942 is the next best thing, I suppose, but the tech and Italy and NO’s are all missing.  Also, China and other additional territories.  AA50 is the best thing going right now.  1940 will be better in some respects, but in others AA50 will still be the best A&A game (1940 will be much busier, more complicated, maybe too involved for many players, or take too much time to play.  Also, just plain more work, at least 1v1)

I agree on need to learn the other variations.  It seems few people are using Spring 42, to be honest, in our backwaters up here we have been playing in a vaccuum for decades.  I am the only one of the group who has ever visited here and its only been since last month other than a few visits pre Iraq invasion.  We had never even heard of any of the other variations other than original which I started with in 1982 I think, 2nd edition, Pacific and europe original versions.  I’ve got some links to the other rule books or can find them I think.

My situation consisted of 2 mixed/nation fleets facing off against each other.  Both great on combined defence, no so good on individual attack.  My foe the German goes hard into Africa.  I go KGF which allows the Japanese some surplus navy that he slips in with the Germans.  I am not sure I would do that, but he does.  I’m pretty good with logistics, I setup a US/Brit shuck into algeria, very efficient.  Each transport brings over 2 lands units per round and I only have to defend 1 SZ.  I got a foot hold into North Africa and outlanded units overpowering the germans.  I came across north africa and took 1 side the suez before he thought I could and trapped him.  I had no need to buy more navy to kill his now useless and trapped navy.  I had 3 russian subs, a few brit subs, DDS, 1 CC and 1 CV 2 ftr, a few american subs, DDs, 1 CC, 1 BB, 2 CVs 4 ftrs as a base.

My problem was with no flow into europe Germany was getting a bit too strong and it was getting tougher for the infantry train to survive past africa as it was getting into Jap strength before returning to russian strength up north.  I had to bunch them up and come across in waves too big for the Japs to overwhelm with massive air and modest amphibous assult units.  Units were taking too long to go and at this point the US could stop building units, the infantry chain was 6 turns long, take a few transports with you on your way through the germans and into the indian ocean and in theory, the US didn’t need to build land units anymore for the forseeable future.  Whereas the Brit land builds could be hitting germans the very next round.  The problem was the brits move first, then the Japs who had air units on their carrier plus a few well placed bombers.  Or conversely, the US moves, then the Germans could attack before the Brits could reinforce.  It meant building much more navy to defend my split fleet.  Moreover, Sz14 in spring 42 is in such a great place as to be able to hit everything of value.  The location was a force multiplier and it had to be cleared.

My thinking for the US was to move fast, through them and my surviving navy would right away be pressed into action agasint a second navy.  I went 1 round all subs for 7 more I think bringing the US total to 10.  With 1 defensive DD present all first round hits go to my subs, 2 BB capital ships are preserved so their round #2 hits also go to subs if the DD is gone and I get first round attacks in that case with my subs so the BBs big 4 and 2 hits to kill are not so powerfull now.  My next wave of builds was bombers so as to get into the fight with the subs.  My second round of sub shots was going to be so powerful, my question was whether or not to take off a fighter rather than a sub if possible as in round #2 the remaining targets would be BBs and CVs.

My situation was also fairly unique granted.  I wanted to employ the Powell doctrine as much as possible.  I ended up bringing in so much more power to bear in 2 rounds (a perfect build of 7 subs then 3 bombers and 1  fighter (ftr would not get into battle but was ready in reserve for the indian ocean)) that the odds tilted far to quickly for the Germans to balance and the japs could not fly in fighters for new German CVs in time to help.  In a fair fight you don’t mind leaving your fighters on the CVs to die if they take out other fighters.  In this case I had enough air to ensure my subs were hitting ships and my planes hitting planes.  Leaving his planes on was not going to attrit much more for me as in the first round they kill subs with the german DD and in the second round there aren’t many left anyways.  By taking them off it meant my subs had their way with the rump fleet left.

A quick thought on using CCs with amphibious assults to whittle away the enemy.  It’s pretty obvious I am not a fan of this at all and that I am an ‘accountant type’ or as I prefer a more accurate label a ‘statistician’ when deciding a course of action.  In any event, assuming your foe remembers what you have done exactly the same 6 turns in a row s/he will ensure there are enough infantry so nothing more of value is lost.  On a statistical basis for every 1 point of punch power you use you kill 0.5 IPC per round when killing Infantry.  If you are playing a long game then a purchase of a BB will provide you with an extra IPC of whittling away every 2 rounds while providing all the benefits of the last few posts highlights of the 2 hit advantage of the BB.

So again, for pure ship to ship fighting, DDs and subs are better.  If you only have enough money for a choice of 1 CC or 1 DD, you have enough money for 2 SSs.  2 SSs attack better and defend about as good once you factor in 2 units over 1 unit.  Obviously, SSs are a poor choice against a pure or majority air attack.  Again however, 3 DDs beat 2 CCs on defense of every sort and much more so when facing subs.

The only advantage a CC has over DDs is shore bombardment or the case where you have enough for a CC and not 2 DDs and you really need a unit NOW not next turn and that extra 1 punch power might make a difference.

If you are going to spend 12 for shore bombardment, spend 2/3 more and get 1/3 more shore bombardment power and overall offense/defense and get 100% more hit points and the ability to autoheal 1 HP so to speak.

I believe that’s a good summary on cruisers there, Malachi. 8-)

@MrMalachiCrunch:

The only advantage a CC has over DDs is shore bombardment or the case where you have enough for a CC and not 2 DDs and you really need a unit NOW not next turn and that extra 1 punch power might make a difference.

:-o  Not the only advantage!  We just communicated about 2 hours ago, that cruisers are better than destroyers for building efficiency!  Each is one unit of production, but obviously a cruiser is a better unit than a destroyer except for anti-sub capabilities!  You’re also ignoring the situation where your factory is damaged.  Crunch the numbers for us when a cruiser costs 13 and a destroyer costs 9.

If you are going to spend 12 for shore bombardment, spend 2/3 more and get 1/3 more shore bombardment power and overall offense/defense and get 100% more hit points and the ability to autoheal 1 HP so to speak.

What if you don’t have 2/3 more!  Another time when cruiser may be ideal.  What if you have 12 IPC’s and you’re looking to build fleet defense/offense and you need more defense against air?  Cruiser made to order.

The cruiser is always going to be the least purchased unit in the game, coming in last place even after AA guns and artillery.  There are still good reasons to buy them - but not very often at all.

Right, of course, how quickly we (I) forget!  The number of slot’s availble for units of course plays a roll in choice of CC over a DD or SS and should not be overlooked in particular with variations whereby you have lots of money to spend.  I see it being most particular for Britain, less so for Japan I would wager close to nil for the americans and others.  Although I have no experience with the new industrial complex rules minor/major or with building on islands for island hoping, though I see that is often prohibited.  However, that same argument also argues for you to build a BB over a CC where number of slots are limited.

Where factories are damaged, you make a valid point, though I might question the ‘weight’ of the benefit and cost calculus.  Spending money to repair a factory is not exactly like adding to the cost of a unit, you do get two things for your money, the unit and the ability to produce the unit.  While subtle, the ability to produce that and more units in the slots newly available after the repair do not go away with the production or even destruction of the first unit produced after repair but accrue with time.   In a situation where you need the unit NOW and there is no time for the benefits of the repaired factory to accrue then sure, treat the IC repair cost as an additional unit cost for the calculus for that upcoming battle or ability to avoid battle through strength with newly acquired unit.

I did somewhere mention if you have a pressing need, then purchase what you can, 2/3 of any unit does you no good when you need it NOW!

@gamerman01:

The cruiser is always going to be the least purchased unit in the game, coming in last place even after AA guns and artillery.  There are still good reasons to buy them - but not very often at all.

Agreed!
Think about AA Classic and the limits in buying navy. (only 3 types of attack units)

The cruiser helps out in some buying options.

I hope you don’t take this wrong as I am not trying to slag on you.

OK MrMC, I see where some of your “confusion” (not the best term) is coming from:
1. Not having played AA50.
2. Limited opponent pool.

AA50-41 and AA50-42 are vastly different animals from the original editions, Revised, or Spring '42 (Which is Revised warmed over with the AA50 rules minus techs.) It is not uncommon for the Allies to be able to continue the fight after Russia has fallen. It is also not uncommon to see France and Germany very heavily stacked with AA guns in both territories. At this point adding CAs for the UK and “whittling” down the massive stacks of infantry in France or Germany is not a bad option for the UK. Germany will have a serious air force at this point (actually in many AA50 games Germany has a serious air force at all times). Since Germany is threatening air attacks against the fleet and something must be done about increasing German Infantry  numbers piling up in these territories, again the “whittling” attacks are not as bad an option as they sound. You gave the example of  your 4-6 units with air against the opponents 4-6 units, this is not the case. It is more of your 6-8 units with or without air against their 12 or so, this is where those added bombardment shots come into play. Most of those will be infantry but as I said earlier Germany must make good these units or stand loosing a critical territory. This is especially important as far as France; because if the UK can take it, the US can push enough fighters in to stop liberation and then Germany is behind the 8-ball.

As far as the limited opponent pool, I think I can safely say that 90% of us here match what you posted. We were all big fish in small ponds. We played some local players, and could handle them easily. I think this point is also exacerbated, in that most people tend to play a certain way and counters for their play become routine. I think you have already started playing here so you are well on the way to overcoming this deficiency.  There are many great players here and many different approaches and strategies. If nothing else it will make you a bigger fish in the small pond.  :evil:

I posted about having 6 or 7 BBs and taking down Japan. Actually they took down Japan and Italy. This was also in game where Germany held Russia! Again this is not that out of line for AA50, while for other version of A&A if Russia went it was game over 95% of the time. This is a link to that game. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15677.0 While the Axis did suffer some setbacks dice wise early, this approach has worked at other times as well. I think you can see that Japan did not just stand by and “let” this happen but was more unable to do much about it. I think this is the most BBs I have had in an online game and some of the biggest navies I have seen in online play. My opponent was a very competent A&A player as well.

As far as strafing attacks, I think they are more common than you are envisioning. Sure you can push out a DD to stop my fleet, but I will take that out and at that point you have to be able to take out my fleet and survive or there will be follow on units attacking the next round. Against a heavily battleship anchored fleet (3 or more) this is not always that easy.

My example of 4-6 units on 4-6 units would be on the territories that russia would normally be trading back and forth with the axis and in that case it’s usually 1-3 infantry per territory.  Even in games I have never played,  I would imagine there are still soviet territories that get occupied with just a few infantry each turn no?  Normally in the games I play, the russians have 2-4 territories that the axis just took but could no occupy in force for fear of all out assult by by the russians.  That being said, 4 soviet territories with 2 enemy infantry each is usually too much for the soviets alone to ‘clear off’ with infantry and air support, but if you don’t take them, then next turn the axis could land air and might be able to defend the spot with force.  The choice of whittling is now made easy I would think, choose a stack or choose a territory with 2 INF on the russian frontier.

Now for russia falling and playing on.  Fair enough, I have never had to play that scenario so really can’t compare notes on an even footing.  In my revised and 42 experience, when russia falls its game over unless you made a huge mistake in letting the axis walk in via back door and even then it has been too hard for the allies to recover.  I will obviously have to get some experience in your world.

I am a fan of power projection, its often not the attack that changes the board but threat.  If there is a standoff between the germans and russian stacks, then 4 extrabrit infantry means 4 less russians to balance.  Those 4 russians might be enough to allow them to occupy a territory and hold it thus denying the axis a bit of income.  Ahhhh I really am going to have to get up with aa50.

I just used some bombardment last night as the Allies.  I bombarded Germany back to back with the UK and USA with 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 1 infantry and 1 artillery each.  The UK attack took out 3 German infantry and the US attack took out 1.  It is nearly impossible to trade 1 for 1 like I did (4 for 4) against a large stack, without bombardment.  Cruisers bombard more economically than battleships, so cruisers are THE most efficient bombarding unit in the game.

Production capacity has a lot to do with effectiveness of strategies.  If Germany can only produce 10 units a turn, and is fighting all 3 allies, the UK and US taking out 4 units a turn via bombardment is HUGE.  After taking out bombardment losses, Germany is only able to gain a maximum of 6 units per turn.  She can’t keep up with the Allies for long at that pace.

My conclusion:  Cruisers can be extremely useful.

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• A unit that does NOT need 1 infantry to enter land combat.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

@Corbeau:

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

CA’s can’t be hit with AA.

The fact that you can’t sacrifice the CA can be a good thing: if you strafe a TT with a ftr and some inf, the ftr will die. The CA will not

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Corbeau:

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

CA’s can’t be hit with AA.

The fact that you can’t sacrifice the CA can be a good thing: if you strafe a TT with a ftr and some inf, the ftr will die. The CA will not

Fighters don’t need an infantry feeding each of them to enter land combat… It does not mean you have to be stupid about it and strafe a TT without at least the minimal infantry meat shield, infantry you would sacrifice anyways to feed every single of your 1 pot shot CAs…

If France is too heavily stacked with infantry and AA gun for you to take it, instead of hoping to whitle it away, you might want to do something more useful like a double drop in NWE and use your fighters to actually hold it… Poland, Bulgaria and Balkans comes to mind too for the 10 NO.

And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs, I will risk AA hits anytime over being stuck with a useless bunch of rotting CAs.

@Corbeau:

And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs

I’ve had Europe nearly covered with radar, when Italy got it once.

We’re not trying to talk you into buying a cruiser.  If you’re a fighter lover, then buy them.

I rarely buy cruisers, but they are a unique unit and are better per IPC at bombarding than anything else, so there will be times when they are desirable.

Also, I don’t think this has been covered - cruisers can always hit subs (thinking of defense, not attack), but fighters can’t always.  Sometimes that is significant.  Could save you all your transports.

In the case of the UK (I don’t see a case for a cruiser buy for any other power), even if Germany decided to place an aa gun on NWE (which isn’t a bad thing, because Germany would have to risk its own air in trades), fighter/acs remain superior because they increase your attack punch/count and allow the Allies to project power to more locations, forcing Germany to expend more resources to defend each coastal territory.  Not to mention that fighters can be deployed on the mainland as needed.  A cruiser is only a 1/2 count because I know it will just roll one 3, while a fighter means an extra 3 for each round of the battle.  When thinking about defense for Germany, this is a key consideration.

Bottom line is the many advantages of fighter/acs (mobility, superior defense, cost-effectiveness, power projection, control of space, flexibility) outweigh the one defect (exposure to aa guns) by such a margin that I can’t justify buying either battleships or cruisers.

@Zhukov44:

Corbeau Blanc has it right.  8 pages in and we have no good reason to buy a cruiser.

Read into it what you want, but I saw several reasons to buy throughout this thread.  Just a difference in perspective, I guess.

Everyone knows carriers and fighters are awesome.  Especially now that carriers only cost 14 (or 11) and fighters only 10, compared to 16 and 12 in the original.  (Anyone else feel like fighters are a bit too cheap?)  But a carrier and fighters would not allow me to kill 4 German infantry in Berlin with a guarantee of not losing more than 2 infantry and 2 artillery.  (Not to mention, a potential of slaughtering 8! Germans)

As bigdog has already said very well, bombardment is the only way to take out units from a huge stack with limited loss/risk.  Cruisers are the most cost-effective bombardment unit.  It is impossible to lose anything to AA fire with a cruiser strike.  They continue to be useful after the enemy’s fleet is destroyed, whereas destroyers are not as useful (both still defend your transports)

I can see dissing a unit that costs more and does absolutely nothing that other units don’t do.  But destroyers can’t bombard.  Fighters get shot down by AA fire and are completely helpless to attacking a stack much larger than yours.  And fighters don’t defend in the water without carriers.  And fighters can’t hit subs without a destroyer.  So there you have several reasons and I forgot some, to having a cruiser, and once in a while, even buying  :-o one.

Also, cruisers are useful for showing your opponent how confident you are that you can whip him.  Just buy 1 on R1 and drop it in the Black Sea (especially with Dard closed) and he’ll get the message.

I don’t really like to cite specific battles to show probability outcomes for a particular battle scenario.  I had a recent battle whereby the german navy with 10 units scored 8 hits on the first round of combat.  Since 2 out of my 3 subs hit on 1s and 2 out of 2 cvs hit on 2 I could cite that as a reason to purchase subs and cvs for defense because those units did just as well as my 4 ftrs and 1 BB who also got 4 out of 5 hits.  Sure, a bit silly and over-the-top for an example but it only differs in magnitude of the silliness.

You drop an inf and art with 2 cc shots and its a 10 punch.  If you get 3 great, count yourself lucky because you could have also got zero.  With a 10 punch you count on 1 2/3 hits.  More likely to get 2 than 1 but much more likely to get 1 than 3.  You spend 7 to kill 5 on average,  period.

You are also tying up 2 CCs and a transport.  Yeah CCs might not have anything else to do, right, should have purchased fighters to help clear off some territories with a few enemy infantry.  You are also not building up a Brit land force of sufficient force to push around other units on the map.  There is NO brit centre of gravity landforcewise.  Once you get a critical number of tanks (and I go 3 IN to each tank in general) all kinds of options open up the opponent must defend against.  The old 1 ally cracks the door open to let allied tanks blits hapless fighters.  It means there are fewer safe places for planes to land.  The case that this is the only way to wittle the enemy?  Really?  How about if you just lock them in place into a disadvantaged IPC income level comapred to yourself.  Then ensure your battles of attrition favour you, then play a long long game and slowly smother the enemy.  The obvious flaw in that is it lacks a vicious knockout punch and technologoies can tilt the balance of power away from you.

IWhy does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?

Limited number of production slots and spending what you have ie, if you have 12 and need a ship……I would still myself get two SSs or if you need air cover would really think about a multi-turn purchase and get a CV, even if it meant moving the fleet out of harms way for the turn.  But maybe you have to stay put to protect new navy pieces and need to augment your fleet and can only afford a CC.  I would suggest this is a failure in long term planning and threat assessement and is basically a purchase to mitigate the damage of the failure to plan correctly.

CCs are useful however only in a number of limited scenarios.  Spending a ratio of 7 IPC to destroy 5 IPC while requiring over 30 IPC of navy in that ratio to deliver the 5 IPC blow I think is not the most efficient utilization of resources and suffers several drawbacks including:  Limited power projection, less flexibility, slows down the buildup of brit land forces to the point where they become a centre of gravity and limits ability of your side to trade territories in a more favourable attrition ratio