Cruisers, whats the point?

I’ve always thought cruisers should be able to move an extra space.

At least historically, they were made for higher speeds and more fuel capacity.

A mixed bag is always good thing.

And cruisers DO serve several purposes.

That said, it is only ever the “odd” time that a cruiser is the best buy.  Specifically in situations where you’re looking to add bombard capabilities to your fleet, as well as defending naval staying power,  for some of the MINOR nations, like ANZAC.

Or in desperate situations, where you are limited by resources, and production capabilites, but you want to add that extra bang to your fleet  (Like building out of a distant auxiallry minor complex, when you’re already adding two ground units to the factory que)

You also can’t always afford to build an aircraft carrier, and you don’t always have the aircraft to put on it.

There are times when the build is right, though I agree, most of the time it should be avoided.

It’s just another facet to add depth to a great game!  Like Mechanized infantry, and Artillery.

For $20 I would often rather have a cruiser plus a destroyer rather than a battleship.  I can attack and defend 1@2 + 1@3 rather than just 1@4.  I also get antisub capability, I can shore bombard @3 (almost as good as the BB), and I can still take 2 hits.  If I take 1 hit I can lose the destroyer and still fight with 1@3 (again almost as good as the BB).

The best part is my 2 ships can be in 2 places at the same time.  If I need to block other sides movement I can use the destroyer for that while the cruiser is safe with the carrier and transports.  The downside is I can’t repair a hit for free at a naval base, but the destroyer is cheap to replace anyway.

@Uncrustable:

All opinions aside i merely present the facts…

$ per $ cruisers are terrible in comparison to destroyers or battleships

let me explain in further detail…

6 battleships = 120 IPCs
10 Cruisers = 120 IPCs
15 Destroyers = 120 IPCs

6 BBs vs 10 CGs = BB victory ~75% of time with a tie occurring ~3% of the time (Very one sided)
10 CGs vs 15 DDs =  Destroyer victory 88% of the time with a tie occurring ~1% off the time (Total rape)
6 BBs vs 15 DDs = Destroyer victory ~70% of the time with a tie occurring (One sided)

So if your looking to win naval battles on the open sea nothing beats a mass of destroyers.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that…

Gargantua explained to you why and when one should buy cruisers…and his answer is almost word for word the answer Larry Harris gave to the people who asked him the same question on his site(a few years ago). can’t find the post in question, but i’m certain i have read it.
People wanted Cruisers at 10 IPC, and the answer was no because then, nobody would buy battleships, ever.
Then people wanted cruisers at 11 IPC, and the answer was still " no, but feel free to do that as a house rule".

When you reduce the comparison to 6 ships versus 15 ships you lose the significance of small scale battles.  Situations where you are expecting to take 1 hit and maybe outside chance of 2 in which case you only lose a supporting fighter or sub are the ideal situations for a battleship.

I wouldn’t be a fan of changing the range of ships based on their speed, why not destroyers too?  The difference in speed of the classes of ships are not that great in my humble opinion.  Cruisers were just much more economical to operate to ‘cruise’ around and show the colours from what I understood.

I prefer Carriers to DD’s, Cruisers, or BB’s. Subs are my second favorite.

IMHO Carriers are so much more versatile, and if you pair them with a DD…still strong vs. subs.

I think I will do the cruiser-move-3, 4 with Naval Base thing.

My friend is obsessed with cruisers. It does help me win…, but I think 3-3-3-12 gives cruisers their advantage, like all other ships (DD’s anti-sub, BB’s 2 hits+bombard, Carriers carry planes, subs convoy raid, transports…transport).

Uncrustable.

You should play someone here a game of Pacific 1940.

And you’ll quickly see what spamming Destroyers is a BAD idea.  Same as spamming infantry.

Mr MalachiCrunch is absolutely correct.

I hope you realize, that in most instances,  Destroyers won’t even be able to reach Carrier fleets en-mass,  and that most tactical naval battles are small in scale, until the bitter end, or until one opponent eekes out an edge, or takes a chance on the other.

The same can be said for Battleships,  I like them in my navy, for the purpose of strafing attacks.  Like when you’re holding out in the sea of Japan, you can strike out at a nearby allied fleet, return to japan after 1 round, and build into your fleet without losses, or with limited loss, whilts your opponent is now on the run.

A mixed bag is always best,  6 Cruisers 6 Destroyers is a better build than 15 destroyers IMO.  And the more you vary up that build, the better and more versatile that navy will be.

Do you know how tactically INEPT a navy becomes when you reduce all of it’s options to a single unit?  In a game of masters, dice aside, he who makes the most of his opponents mistakes wins.  I just nailed Djensen (Founder of AA.org) last week, because his miscalculated the range of 2 extra fighters, from a foreign aircraft carrier, located another theatre of war.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26249.120

You don’t see either of us spamming destroyers out, and the 2 cruisers I purchased for the United Kingdom, are giving me the staying power I need in Europe.

But hey, if you want to tell us we’re wrong, be my guest :)

Uncrustable,

Just so I know we are speaking the same language here,  this is your arguement,

Artillery, Whats the point?
Mech Inf, Whats the point?
Tanks, Whats the point?
AA Guns, Whats the point?

When compared to infantry, at the $120 IPC level, enmass infantry is the ONLY choice that makes sense, because they will win every battle on defense.

:)

Let us know when you start to see where we are coming from.

My main point is that cruisers are overpriced and its stupid to build them in almost all circumstances.

I will agree that cruisers are expensive,  but I disagree that they are a “stupid” build.  They aren’t.

They are just a “rare” build, and I am glad that the option to build them exists.

meh if i got 4 extra ipc…i can turn a destroyer to a cruiser.

I think cruisers are much like artillery.  If you have a bit of spare cash you upgrade 1 infantry to artillery or upgrade a destroyer to a cruiser then that is the time to purchase one.  I think the situation you buy more than 1 artillery is exceedingly rare and the same can be said of cruisers.

However, I don’t see any situation you purchase lots of destroyers unless you plan on needing them all at once to act as blockers or will need blockers used up for a few rounds and will be unable to build them as you need them.  Sure, if you expect you fleet to be attacked and wiped out and have 26 bucks you think.  1 fighter and a carrier or 3 destroyers…. Well, since I would have a carrier with 1 fighter or 3 destroyers and 2 IPC left over, in this one case 3 destroyers is slightly better than 1 fighter and 1 carrier.  If you had 1 extra fighter or an ally could land on the newly built carrier before it’s attacked then 3 destroyers is the worse option.

On the other hand, a purchase of 4 subs might mean the enemy doesn’t move to within attacking range.

Of course, with a fleet of destroyers and no real investment in air or carriers…if you fleet can’t force a decisive battle then your investment is not paying the kinds of returns fighters on carriers could give you by being useful as a land threat too.

I play Spring 42 mostly.  Germany loves to see a fleet in the Baltic that is mostly surface ships excluding carriers and fighters.  A swarm of destroyers or even cruisers and battleships creates little threat to land.  Navy support shots only work if you use them.  Landing a few infantry and artillery supported by a few surface ships against a stack of infantry and tanks will attrit that stack a bit but SBR inflicts more damage on average for both what you plan to lose on average and does it for less investment.  However, if I have to account for all the planes defending that fleet as also being able to attack land then I must devote more resources to stacking against an amphibious assault.

I find in a long game, decisive battles are rare.  It’s the dance that wins the game.  If I can make you dance harder then I have the initiative and can dictate to you more than you can dictate to me what will be purchased and where your forces go.  If I can make you devote more and more to my threats, then you have less and less to threaten me.

I agree that a 20 ship vs. 15 ship battle is rarely if ever going to happen.

That’s why I said all ships have their point, and 3 movement should be cruisers’ point.