Cruisers, whats the point?

@brisco:

A fleet is only as fast as its slowest unit.  On a scale such as A&A it doesn’t matter if I have a fast ship in my fleet if my slowest ship can’t keep up.  My personal opinion is the cruiser in A&A is a situational purchase.  I am not going to purchase it on a regular basis, but I may if the situation is right.Â

Fabulous post!

Where’s a moderator?  This thread should be closed.  :-)

I still fail to see why this should apply to combat moves only.

I posted incorrectly, the cruiser can move 4 in NCM.

Before we get too far in the idea of what ship can do what, let’s look at what the actually piece in A&A represents.  The battleship piece represents a heavy surface fleet that contains mainly battleships and heavy cruisers.  It can take a hit and keep on dealing hits out.  The cruiser piece represents a lighter surface fleet consisting of heavy and light cruisers, and maybe even a battleship. Note, I did not say light surface fleet.  It is only lighter in comparison to a “battleship” piece but it is heavier than a destroyer piece. The destroyer piece represents a light surface fleet consisting of destroyers and light cruisers. It is more adept at seeking and destroying submarines than its counterparts.

That is an argument that worked with AA games before 2004 (  including revised).

A battleship group is only battleships, Cruiser group is cruisers, etc.

However, a cruiser group can represent light and heavy Cruisers, just as a Battleship can represent Fast battleships or Battlecruisers.

USN Wichita class had a speed of 33 knots and an operational range of 12,000 mi. Iowa class Battleships had a speed of 33 knots also and a range of 14,000 miles.

Iowa is a fast Battleship, not even close to the average speed of a normal Battleship. IN fact the 16 Battleships USA had to start the war paced at about 21 knots.

To draw exceptions and put that label on the vast inventory of all battleship types is disengenious. On average the Cruiser is about 8 knots faster.

German Hipper class had speed of 32 knots and operational range of only 7,000 miles while the Bismarck had a speed of 30 knots but with a range of 8,500 mi.

Those are not really “battleships” they are glorified Cruisers created to circumvent the Versailles treaty.

Japanese Tone class did show good speed at 35 knots, but only 8,000 mi operational range. Yamato class battleship had a speed of 30 knots and range of 8,000 mi.

Only two Yamatos, however Japan had many more cruisers operating at faster speeds. Compare the numbers and see.

By comparison of speed the Japanese Yugmo class Destroyer had a speed of 35.5 knots and the US Fletcher class Destroyer a speed of 36.5 knots. Operational range was limited to about 5,000 miles though.

Some destroyers were fast but not as fast as Cruisers and they have horrible range. A turn is about 6 months and a ship with about 5-6 times the range of any other ship should be able to travel farther due to this range.

Also by comparison US Essex class carriers had a speed of 32.7 knots and an operational range of 20,000 miles!

Carriers are fast like cruisers because they are built on cruiser hulls ( for the most part) But this is not a discussion of Carriers because they are priced correctly…

Cruisers by operational range do not deserve any advantage over Battleships or Carriers; they had no more or less. While their tactical speed was in the 32 to 35 knot range, it was certainly not any advantage in a strategical sense compared to 30 to 33 knot battleships and carriers.

Well you might have said “compared to the most elite Battleships and Carriers built, while ignoring the much greater quantities of Cruisers which on average are alot faster.”

Also, those elite ships you indicate at full speed they run out of fuel at an alarming rate. The cruiser being built on a lighter hull have much greater economy of movement and are not typically protecting ships due to lack of range.

Also, this is not about Battleships because they are priced correctly.

And while cruisers were well armed for AA role, most battleships had as many or more AA guns.

Battleships are not escort for carriers. This is why the Cruiser alone can keep pace with a carrier and why frequently you found them in groups. Due to their excellent escort abilities, they created AA gun platforms to shoot down planes so they cant get to the Carriers.

The Battleship on the other hand has AA guns to protect herself.  Lastly, fast moving ships are better equipped to fight attacking planes which lend itself that the Cruiser was more effective at fighting them, hence the 1 free plane shot.

There is no logic for cruisers moving faster on a strategic level.

Their is logic based on Historical data and the Cruiser is over priced and if you don’t like the free AA shot, then move 3 at any time might be a good alternative also based on Historical data.

Due to their excellent escort abilities, they created AA gun platforms to shoot down planes so they cant get to the Carriers.

I’m sure Admiral Yamamoto will be glad to know that.  :-o

Kim

I like the 1AA shot per cruiser.  It makes the cruiser just about equal to carriers and planes in terms of fleet defense.

Compare 1 carrier + 2 fighters ($36) to the defensive ability of 3 cruisers ($36) with AA.  The carrier + 2 fighters roll 1@2, 2@4 and can take 4 hits.  The 3 cruisers with 1AA shot apiece will roll up to 3@1AA plus 3@3, but only take 3 hits.  If attacked by 3 or more planes, the 3AA cruisers will have a 50% chance of shooting down at least 1 plane before it rolls its attack.

I still think the best solution for cruisers is to keep them at 12 IPCs (which I doubt Larry Harris would change anyway) and have them be like AA guns on land. Each cruiser can fire up to three times @1, or the number of attacking planes, whichever is lower. Any hits are immediately removed. This occurs at the beginning of the first round of combat ONLY. After this AA shot, combat proceeds normally.

I don’t think giving them a movement of 3 spaces would be good. Keep all ships at the same movement rating. I think giving any ship an extra movement might make it a little too powerful. Also, having to remember that cruisers don’t get a movement boost from naval bases but all other ships do would be a pain in the b**t. I do agree with IL, giving them 4 spaces from a NB would just be way too powerful.

Good post, knp!

If cruisers had AA ability, it would also make planes less powerful. I think fighters and bombers are actually a little too good for the money, and this would reduce their dominance over fleets…

Although I’m not proposing any rule changes… To play a lot of different people online, your best bet is to just go with the official rules…

Of course, Uncrustable!
If there are two or more ships that have similar purposes - DD/CA/BB - then obviously one of them is going to be more optimal than the others in large numbers.  We don’t need to add fancy abilities to make them different.

If I have to defend Moscow, I’m going to buy only Infantry.  With no exceptions.  They are the superior purchase when I need to stand and defend.  Similar deal with Cruisers.  It’s simply less common to see cruisers.

If I have 12 IPCs and need to maximize how much I can defend my fleet, I’m going to buy a cruiser.  1 destroyer isn’t as good, and 2 subs are worse on defense.  BOOM.  A cruiser has become my optimal buy.

Mechs are situational.  AA guns are situational.  They don’t need to change for them to be purchased more often.

You don’t buy more destroyers if you have 1-2 already unless you really need more than 1 blocking DD and your fleet is running away and requires/should have 1 DD in the retreating fleet.

you will not be purchasing them on a regular basis

For the same money,  you won’t be building Minor Complexes on a regular basis.

Or for less money AA Guns, Or Mechanized inf.

So whats your point uncrustable?

“I win, stop arguing with me”
is hardly conducive to a thoughtful discussion.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

You don’t buy more destroyers if you have 1-2 already unless you really need more than 1 blocking DD and your fleet is running away and requires/should have 1 DD in the retreating fleet.

In '42, I would agree with you.
However, in '40, there are certain cases in which massing destroyers is very useful, and possibly necessary.
A good example is an Allied fleet in the Channel-
Often Germany will have very significant (upwards of 12 planes) land-based air power and subs massing behind the Denmark straight.
The allies can’t simply block in SZ 112, as the Italians can clear a blocker.
The fleet in the Channel, SZ 110, needs to be able to withstand a full naval and air assault on its fleet.
Losing that fleet is probably game over, assuming Germany is playing smart in the East.
Carriers are a very nice defense boost, but destroyers give the best bang for your buck.

Cruisers = best on bombard
Worst off in all other situations

If bombard is worth 3ipc to you, a cruiser should be bought instead of more destroyers.

Case closed!

I’m not sure how IPC spent on destroyers gets you better fleet defense then the same spent on carriers and fighters when you are defending against an all out attack on a fleet in a large scale scenario.  My point was after you have a few destroyers, the next 72 IPC shouldn’t be spent on 9 more destroyers.  I would think 2 fully loaded carriers would add more defense to the fleet already containing 1-2 destroyers than 9 more destroyers.

I see what you’re saying there, Malachi.
Looking only at defensive capability,

8 hits + 20 pips vs 9 hits + 18 pips is tough to evaluate.
The added ability of planes to attack land targets probably makes the carriers a better buy.

But when you’ve got a ~28 IPC UK that has to spend money on troops every turn to keep the Italians in check, 1 DD a turn becomes just about all you can afford in the Atlantic.
If I had that kind of paycheck as US, and wanted to put it all in the Atlantic, I’d probably get 1 loaded carrier, 3 DD, and 1 CA. � Or something like that, you get the idea.

@Uncrustable:

@ErwinRommel:

Cruisers = best on bombard
Worst off in all other situations

exactly.

I don’t see any sort of problem with that.  CAs are a niche buy, but they are still useful.  They’re not redundant at all.

@Uncrustable:

Cruisers should be more than niche buys

Why?

Ok well i was talking to some friend and this is what some of our “solutions” are:    ( we dont like the extra movement )

1. give cruisers 1, 2 or 3 AA gun shots. ( we couldnt decide what would be most balanced, we would need the forum to help )

or

2. change cruisers att/def and bombard to 4.  then to balance BBs allow them to either roll 2 dice per ship and choose best result ( heavy bombers ) or raise the att/def and bombard to 5. someone even said 6 lol that = a 100% hit which i dont agree with but w/e im posting everything their saying.

or

3. cruisers can take 2 hits and BBs can now take 3 hits.

or

4. cruisers can carry 1 fighter. ( no tacts )  or even an infantry? <– but then if they bombard would they be able to deploy that inf. ?? idk.

lemme know what you think. dont flame just throwing stuff out there. im going to personally try some of these.  I like #2 with BBs acting like heavy bombers.

I think cruisers and bbs are fine.

You get BBs to hit small fleets without losses and for bombardments.
If you feel you need a naval piece but also need more firepower to take over coastal territories… you buy a cruiser.
Subs are the infantry of the naval game, everyone buys a few to take casualties.
Destroyers are the artillery of the naval game, they roll 2 on defense instead of 1 that the sub brings and detect subs.

Each piece has a purpose, but yeah battleship buys tend to occur if you got a minor ic only. Cruiser buys tend to occur for bombardment needs.