Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns

@Cmdr:

I am not going to argue that 6 BBs are not better that 12 CAs.  Personally, I’d say 6 CA and 3 BB are better than both options since it’s flexible, has more attack dice, more survivability, etc…kinda best of both worlds…

**What I am going to argue is 2 CA is far better than 1 BB, especially for United Kingdom Countries (England, India and ANZAC) because:

• 1 You can buy two cruisers by breaking the cost between two rounds if you want
• 2 You have two attack dice, instead of 1.
• 3 You have the same number of hits you can absorb.*** 4 My mother always told me not to put all my eggs in one basket, I think this is good advise for Axis and Allies as well!
• 5 If you need too, you can send or build the two units in different areas (especially good for the United States and Japan, but also true for England)

Now yes, once you get to massive fleets, sure.  Or if you have build restrictions, like the US does if they are not at war.  (Although, I kinda liked the Mexican IC for that, so you could toss out half dozen ships anyway, lol!)

The question is, however, does it matter anymore which unit you go with once you get to a massive fleet status?  After 10 rounds of building battleships or cruisers every other round, you either own the sea lanes or you don’t.  If you don’t own the sea lanes, you probably don’t have all the ships together anyway.  If you do own the sea lanes, then you are probably using the ships to protect transports on route or to soften beach heads in which case, it’s a matter of opinion which would be better.

Jen,
you are comparing 2 fleets of different value. Of course, when you have 4 IPCs more in one, then it will prevail.

Let’s add 1 small Sub to the BB (26 IPCs) vs 2 Cruisers (24 IPCs).
The BB and Sub will wins most of the time: 79% vs 13%.

You can compare a cruiser + destroyer to BB

BB are great for fleet staying power, absorbing hits without losing any units. This is great when te fleet is far from home, and any ICs.

I still think Cruisers are a second choice buying and only for impatient purchaser (who want to see a ship on a sea-zone, NOW).
Adding the 3 spaces move help them balance this unit vs all others. Because now they have a greater range, at least with this HR.
It helps accept the fact that they are lesser fighting vessel vs all others ships:

4 subs A8D4 (4 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= Subs win! (95% vs 5%) / on defense: 70% vs 30%, CA still loose.
3 DDs  A6D6 (3 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= DDs wins 66% vs 27%.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1 CV + 1 Fg A4D6 (2 hits 1942) / A3D6 (3 hits 1940)= 37% vs 44%
The last Cruiser have lesser chance of survival than the last Fg.
1 BB A4D4 (2 hits) vs 2 CA A6D6 (2 hits) =  32% vs 51% (Great exception when 4 IPCs over the BB!)
1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 vs 2 Ca A6D6 (2 hits) = 79% vs 13% 2 IPCs over against CA.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 = 18% vs 72% when Sub on defense.
1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4  =  42% vs 39% almost a draw.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

Just be patient for one turn, before putting a large combat vessel (BB or CV) on the board.

2DD1Ca A7D7 3 hits vs 1DD1BB  A6D6 3 hits = 45% vs 44% still a draw. (Mostly because of 2 DD which help balance it overall.)

1DD2CA A8D8 3 hits vs 2Sub1BB A8D6 4 hits = 31% vs 60% CA are a worst choice even on offense / on defense: 18% vs 75% against poor CA.
2DD2CA A10D10 4 hits vs 1BB 1DD 2 Sub 5 hits = 33% vs 60% CA are worst choice on offense /
CA on defense  still  worst: 23% vs 71% against CA’s fleet.

The cold maths should show you that:
when you buy an OOB cruiser, you didn’t get enough A/D/hit points for your IPC.

It is only for stategical reasons, not tactical ones, that you buy them.

@Cmdr:

BB are great for large fleets (fleets with combined value over 60 IPC)  and I won’t argue adding one or two when you already have a few carriers and a half dozen destroyers submarines isn’t a good idea.

But I am looking at your typical small fleet buy, what you usually see the smaller powers (Germany, Italy, England, Australia, India, whatever) buy in any given round.  Not looking at multiple round builds.  If you have a choice between 2 cruisers or 1 battleship yes, 2 cruisers win.  If you only have 20 IPC then Cruiser, Destroyer still win over Battleship. It’s only when you already have support ships that the battleship even becomes a viable build.

For instance, the Japanese are in the Sea of Japan.  Do you buy a battleship as your only fleet unit for India, or do you buy a cruiser or two?  ONLY fleet unit, you have no other ships in the area (perhaps America has beat back or threatened an invasion of Japan itself, so if you are attacked, it will be by air power alone.)  Same could be said for England itself. Â

America’s unique.  I grant that.  You’ve got EONS to build what you want and so much money it’s freaking ridiculous so why not put a BB out every round?  You can easily do BB, CA, 2 DD a round and have money left over to replace lost fighters and submarines.  Not really fair to look at a nation like that, if you ask me. Â

If you only have 1 round of built and must defend a bare naked IC’s sea-zone, you go buy only DD and Subs to maximize AD/hit ratio.
4 subs A8D4 4 hits have better survival odds than just 2 CA A6D6 2 hits.
3 DDs A6D6 3 hits have better survival odds than just 2 CA A6D6 2 hits.

But, if you have Fgts already on the board, you will max out your defense with CV and Sub/DD 14+6/8 (1942) or 16+6/8 (20/22/24 IPCs).
Because you can add A6D8, 2 hits from a previous purchase in this sea-zone.

It means simply forget it about Cruiser buying:
2CA A6D6 2 hits vs 1Cv A0D2 2 hits +1DD+2Fgs= A8D12 5 hits.

@Baron:

I still think Cruisers are a second choice buying and only for impatient purchaser (who want to see a ship on a sea-zone, NOW).
Adding the 3 spaces move help them balance this unit vs all others. Because now they have a greater range, at least with this HR.
It helps accept the fact that they are lesser fighting vessel vs all others ships:

4 subs A8D4 (4 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= Subs win! (95% vs 5%) / on defense: 70% vs 30%, CA still loose.
3 DDs  A6D6 (3 hits) vs 2 cruisers A6D6 (2 hits)= DDs wins 66% vs 27%.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1 CV + 1 Fg A4D6 (2 hits 1942) / A3D6 (3 hits 1940)= 37% vs 44%
The last Cruiser have lesser chance of survival than the last Fg.
1 BB A4D4 (2 hits) vs 2 CA A6D6 (2 hits) = 32% vs 51% (Great exception when 4 IPCs over the BB!)
1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 vs 2 Ca A6D6 (2 hits) = 79% vs 13% 2 IPCs over against CA.
2 Cruisers A6D6 (2 hits) vs 1BB 1Sub (3 hits) A6D5 = 18% vs 72% when Sub on defense.
1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4 =  42% vs 39% almost a draw.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

Just be patient for one turn, before putting a large combat vessel (BB or CV) on the board.

2DD1Ca A7D7 3 hits vs 1DD1BB  A6D6 3 hits = 45% vs 44% still a draw. (Mostly because of 2 DD which help balance it overall.)

1DD2CA A8D8 3 hits vs 2Sub1BB A8D6 4 hits = 31% vs 60% CA are a worst choice even on offense / on defense: 18% vs 75% against poor CA.
2DD2CA A10D10 4 hits vs 1BB 1DD 2 Sub 5 hits = 33% vs 60% CA are worst choice on offense /
CA on defense  still  worst: 23% vs 71% against CA’s fleet.

The cold maths should show you that:
when you buy an OOB cruiser, you didn’t get enough A/D/hit points for your IPC.

It is only for stategical reasons, not tactical ones, that you buy them.

I said:

1Ca1DD A5D5 vs 1 BB A4D4 =  42% vs 39% almost a draw but CA+DD have a slight advantage.
Even in this last situation, I think it means that when you are building a fleet, make de BB the backbones of your fleet never a Cruiser.

It needs to be details better:

Since CA+DD have a slight 3% over BB, and it is also Anti-Sub. I must say it should be the first 20 IPCs put on bare IC’s Sea-zone.
This A5D5, 2 hits is more versatile.

But, when you can add another 20 IPCs, you should buy CV (if you already have some Fgts) or BB.
Adding another CA+DD is already less powerful mix than the BB+CA+DD:

2CA+2DD A10D10, 4 hits vs 1BB + 1CA+1DD, A9D9, 4 hits =  45% vs 47% toward BB & co.

So buying a CA with a DD is a good first choice, but you never buy a second CA to get rapidly a more powerful fleet.
Unless, you need CA+DD to protect different group of TTs

@Cmdr:

I always **envisioned the Cruiser as the World War 1 battleship, you know, with the 2x4 deck boards left unarmored and the huge magazines in the middle of the ship, etc.**  The “battleship” piece, to me, was more of the World War 2 battleship, the one bristling with cannons and anti aircraft guns and had the 12-20 inch thick armor plating and basically, barely had enough power to turn, let alone stop or start moving!

Maybe the first cruisers on OOB board can be considered outdated BB from the previous WWar I. Whether Armored Cruiser or Battlecruiser kind of.

But it is a game about WWII, so it is normal to see which type and capacity of cruisers were commissioned in 1941-42. It is according to their purpose and performance we should adjust the historical background of a cruiser type unit IMO.

If anyone wants to create an historical board game which modify performance of different units over 2 or 3 turns to simulate the improvement of the new ships, I made a list of CV type on the other active tread in HR. It can be a starting ground. Simply Cv can improve from Yorktown-class to Essex-class (in a NB).
Then latter, someone can buy a Midway-class CV.

Feel free to develop something like this about cruiser and BB.  The only limit is the miniature sculpt and markers.

For instance, if submarines are the only units being attacked, then the destroyers should have to roll a hit to find them, then a hit to sink them, to simulate the fact submarines aren’t going to be just sitting there when a destroyer is present and waiting to be sunk!  (but said submarines don’t get to return fire, they’re busy diving for the ocean bottom!)  A la the movie Das Boot.

David Schwartzer’s World War II The Expansion rule for A&A version from Gamer’s Paradise had a search and destroy Subs phase.
Only destroyers and planes could have done it.
For every searching unit you roll 1 dice.
If you roll “1” or “2” then subs are “ping down”, if there is only plane then it is a 1 round only attack. 1 dice for every fighters and bombers.
If there is a DD then (as OOB), all DD must be destroy before subs can escape.

It was also possible for DDs to go on search and patrol in the next sea-zone, even destroying all ennemy’s subs and to come back to the original sea-zone to protect all others ships left there.

Subs were harder to find but if there is many units on search mission then it need only one success to make all units fire against subs.
Example: 3 StrB are searching: 3 rolls: “3” “4” “2”.
The 3rd find the subs, then all 3 StrBs are attacking @4.
OOB is better for Subs since it needs DD for aircraft to be able to attack them.
But it is automatic attacking.
There Don’s version requires from each DD a roll of “2” to find any.
In addition, it is only this DD that can fire at the subs even if there is 2 or more DD, only those which roll 2 or less can make an attack vs subs.
That’s the difference between DDs and Air patrol mission, in which anyone makes all planes attack 1 round.

@Cmdr:

**I was thinking the destroyers had to find the submarines and then any attacking ship that was in the sea zone or over the sea zone (airship?  Fine airplanes, better?) could fire at it.  **

Might have to include increasing destroyer base movement to 3, maybe not.�  I mean if it’s a 3, then it really shouldn’t get a bonus from being near a navy base, since it kinda always has the bonus then.

Sorry, I can’t remember exactly. I will look in the web if someone already scanned this.

“World War II Expansion rules” for Axis & Allies from Gamers Paradise.
That’s the title.
Made by Philip Schwartzer.

need to add mobile artillery

would work same as mech inf, that is, it is an artillery peice same as OOB with +1 movement and +1 cost
and like mech inf it can blitz when paired 1:1 with armour

The only naval unit i would willingly add (and even maybe) is the carrier escort unit
–a carrier with 3 movement and carriers one plane

and of course give cruisers +1 movement aswell ;)

The only naval unit i would willingly add (and even maybe) is the carrier escort unit
–a carrier with 3 movement and carriers one plane

Jeep carriers were pretty slow compared to fast carriers with cruiser hulls.

SPA: 3-2-2-5

@Imperious:

The only naval unit i would willingly add (and even maybe) is the carrier escort unit
–a carrier with 3 movement and carriers one plane

**Jeep carriers were pretty slow compared to fast carriers with cruiser hulls.**SPA: 3-2-2-5

That’s why we can make 2 differents unit of carrier able to carry only 1 plane.
1 CVLA0D1M3C10-11, the fast one 3 spaces.
And the slow one at 2 spaces:
1 CVEA0D1M2C9-10
It can works for someone willing to have a wider historical sense.

But in a strategical game level, it adds very little IMO.
That’s why merging both in a CVL unit seems more interresting to play.
It creates different opportunity while pairing it with a Cruiser HR at M3.
It is a little historical twist since only 9 CVL were built by USA.
And there was almost 60 CVE in operation in Pacific and Atlantic.

However, for gaming purpose I defend a CVL unit.
It will create two different fleet dynamics with her older sister the fleet CV unit M2.
I bet that at a cost of 10 IPCs someone will likely sink them instead of plane.
It will better recreates the higher rate of casuality amongst them.

@Cmdr:

Higher rate of casualty AND mini-fleets.� � I love to see little tiny fleets of units out performing tasks and you really don’t see them with the way the game is set up now.� �

Wasn’t it pretty standard, in the real war, to have different flotillas in different island groups at the same time?� � So while someone may be fighting in the Caroline Islands others may be fighting in New Zealand and yet others in the Aleutian Islands (yes those three didn’t happen simultaneously, that’s why I chose those three!)

If all those fast cruiser moving 3 spaces are just following the main fleet moving at 2 spaces, what is the interest of this HR and why would it increases buying of cruisers?

So I’m coming back with something else to increase both buying of cruisers and BB.

Why not considered the combines arms (like many other units)?
Let’s say that when 1 cruiser is inside a fleet with 1 Battleship, this fleet gain somekind of AA fire.
I think about 1:2 ratio.
1 battleship gives up to 2 cruisers 1AA@1/each cruiser on defense (max 1 roll/plane of course).
It is more historical, since I learned that to protect carriers against planes, their was an inner circle of battleships then an outer circle of cruisers.

So in a sense it is both cruiser and battleship which provides AA screen.
A basic fleet to protect against an attacking fleet carrier of 2 aircrafts will be:
1 BB + 2 Cruiser, then each attacking planes will have to survive 1 AA fire before attacking any target.

It will create an incentive to buy BB along the first cruiser.
Anyone will like to have this AA screen I think.