Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

@general-spengler said in [Global 1940] Units Expansion Set:

Also if anyone has thoughts on the values (particularly cost) and if they seem balanced that would be good info as well.

Good action here. Global 40 House Rules has Escort CVs at C 9. I figured at 10, you’d just buy a 2 hit Fleet CV at 16 instead, although Italy or ANZAC might still buy one. There’s also an option that gives them ASW ability as well to encourage buys.

board 3659 has them moving only 1 +1 w/NB. In my tests Italy buys them and sometimes ANZAC, but not really anybody else. I just test against myself though. I still like them and think they’re a cool unit.

The Conscripts are A0 D1 C2 max build of 8. Can conquer empty TTYs though. They get spammed otherwise. I think with your limit of 2 per turn and using the Recruitment Centers are good ideas to limit that though as well as not being able to attack.

I always stick em in the front line and use them as bullet stoppers lol. Russia really likes em.

These could be added to the House Rules Mod for triplea if you want. Idk if you use triplea or not, but it’s real good for testing stuff from a time standpoint even if you prefer the physical board.

Once again, Good Action : )

To follow up on this, here’s the interpretation I’d put on the concept of fast versus slow groupings of capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) with other ships.  The concept did exist in both WWI and WWII, but it took different forms.

In WWI (and the decade leading up to it), naval technology such as turbine engines and face-hardened armour, plus ship design philosophy in general, had progressed to the point where the dreadnought-type capital ship (uniform-caliber main battery in more than two twin turrets, good protection, and fairly high speed) had become feasible, but it had not progressed to the point where all three features (firepower, protection and speed) could be optimized at the same time.  That would have to wait for WWII, when the true “fast battleship” type emerged.  (The same thing happened with tanks, but with a one-war difference: in WWII, tanks could be optimized for two of three features, or have medium performance in all three areas, but it was only during the Cold War that technology allowed a tank to have excellent performance in all three areas.)

During WWI, technological limitations (plus the considerable influence of Admiral John Fisher, who was a visionary in both the good and the bad sense of the concept) led to the emergence of two varieties of dreadnought-type capital ships: the battleship and the battlecruiser.  Basically, dreadnought battleships were reasonably fast (but not as fast as cruisers), and had both heavyweight firepower and heavyweight armour that allowed them to slug it out with anything afloat; the rule of thumb was that a balanced battleship design had “proportional” armour capable of dealing with an enemy ship carrying the same caliber of main guns as it itself carried.  Battlecruisers were similar to dreadnought battleships (the British, in fact, tended to create a parallel class of battlecruiser for its respective battleship classes), but they carried fewer main gun turrets and had less armour so that they could achieve higher speed than a battleship; they were roughly as fast as a normal cruiser, considerably better-armed, and somewhat (but not always by much) better protected.  Battlecruisers, according to British doctrine, were operated as part of what could be called “fast heavy scouting divisions,” in advance of the main formation of the more powerful but slower battleships.  For a classic example of this, have a look at the two main British formations at the Battle of Jutland: Jellicoe’s slower battleship force, and Beatty’s faster battlecruiser force.

In WWII, the picture becomes more complicated.  There were relatively few battlecruisers at that time, and they were a strange mixture of British and Japanese WWI hold-overs, weird German designs reflecting (or intended to cheat) treaty limitations, clear-headed French and Italian modern evolutions of the battlecruiser concept, plus the well-made but rather pointless American Alaska class (which the Americans denied were battlecruisers).  To me, these odd ships muddy the picture more than anything else.  In my opinion, the real fast-versus-slow capital ship distinction in WWII wasn’t between battlships and battlecruisers, it was between the modern 1930s- and 1940s-era “fast battleships” on the one hand and the surviving WWI-era battleships (some of hwich had been modernized between the wars) on the other hand.  The classic example of that distinction can be found at Leyte Gulf, where the Americans assigned their old slow battleships (plus some escort carriers) to support the amphibious invasion directly (I think they were officially under McArthur’s command), and assigned their fast battleships and their fleet carriers (under Halsey) to fight the main Japanese fleet if it showed up.  Halsey’s carrier pilots did take a substantial crack at the IJN during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea (they sank the Musashi, notably), but Halsey later took the bait of a Japanese decoy operation and charged off to the north with his fast battleships and his fleet carriers to engage Japan’s remaining fleet carriers (which actually had few or no planes left aboard, and were simply meant to draw him away from Leyte Gulf).  As a result, the Japanese surface-combat forces (in two groups, operating well away from the decoy force) had a clear shot at Leyte – and the American forces which ended up stopping them were, respectively, the US Navy’s older battleships at the Battle of Surigao Strait and a force of escort carriers and light surface-combat vessels at the Battle off Samar.  In the latter engagement, the hopelessly outclassed (if you go by the raw ship types and numbers) Americans engaged the Japanese battle fleet so aggressively that the Japanese commander, Admiral Kurita, ended up retreating because, in his mind, the tiny American forces couldn’t possibly be attacking him so energetically unless they were expecting massive US Navy reinforcements to arrive at any moment.  In fact, Admiral Sprague, the US commander on the spot, knew perfectly well that Halsey was nowhere near him; he dealt with a hopeless situation by going on the offensive because that was he was a leader in the tradition of WWI’s Ferdinand Foch (who at the Battle of the Marne reputedly signaled to his superiors: “My left flank is driven in; my centre is giving way; the situation is excellent: I attack!”)

Battleship is damaged. On next players turn in purchase phase you roll 1 D6 for repair no matter where it is. If you want that hit back it should cost you. Otherwise go with your rule YG where on next turn it’s repaired. I don’t like the rule where at end of turn it’s repaired and now you get another defense roll for free and 1 less casualty.

@Bob77:

Would this be at the beginning of game turn or each players turn?

Each players turn.

Hey guys/girls,

First time posting on the forums, thus first time submitting my house rules, so bear with me. I created a stylized rule sheet, but as far as I understand I’m not allowed to post a hyperlink yet, so I will have to type them out here. I apologize for the lack of aesthetic.  :-P

It is important to remember that I have no idea if these rules are balanced or not. I have only had a couple of chances to test it out. That’s why I would love some feedback; any observations, improvements, and criticisms are encouraged and welcomed. Don’t hold back, folks.

HBG provides beautiful blue acrylic naval mine tokens that I use when implementing these rules. In essence, my naval mines act as ocean AAAs and the similarities can be easily discerned. This also helps in understanding their affect.

Naval Mines
Cost: 6 IPCs
Attack: N/A
Defense: 1
Movement: N/A

Unit Characteristics

Blocks Enemy Movement: Sea zones containing naval mines block the movement of enemy sea units. However, cruisers may bypass naval mines, as well as disarm them.

Sea Defence: A naval mine unit can defend only when enemy units enter the sea zone containing the naval mine. Naval mines defend only once, before the first round of combat. Naval mines may defend up to three times, but only once per attacking sea unit. For each “1” rolled, the attacker chooses one sea unit as a casualty. These casualties are removed immediately, and will not participate in the remainder of the battle.

Amphibious Assault Defence: In the event of an amphibious assault on a coastal territory with naval mines in the adjacent sea zone, transports must be chosen as casualties first. A die is rolled by the defender for each transport engaging in the amphibious assault, up to three times. For each “1” rolled, the attack chooses one transport as a casualty.

Limited Placement: Naval mines can only be placed in sea zones adjacent to coastal territories.

Cannot Hit Air Units: When defending, naval mines cannot hit air units.

When a coastal territory is captured by enemy land units, any naval mines in adjacent sea zones are destroyed.

The transports taken as casualties first may seem, “iffy” (for lack of a better term) but it is meant to emulate the real danger posed by naval mines. I am worried this might be imbalanced/overpowered, but I think it adds a whole new dimension to Amphibious Assaults.  
In addition to the Naval Mines, I sought to expand the role of cruisers. I think the general opinion is that Cruisers aren’t worth their cost (though I could be mistaken.) With this in mind, I decided to provide a specific foil for the Naval Mines, but merging the role of a Minesweeper/hunter with that of the Cruiser.

Cruiser/Minesweeper
Cost: 12 IPCs
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Movement: 2

Unit Characteristics

Minesweeper: Cruisers are specially equipped for mine sweeping duties. When entering a sea zone containing naval mines, cruisers cancel the Sea Defence and Amphibious Assault Defense characteristics of the naval mine.

Minehunter: Cruisers can also attempt to disarm naval mines. After combat (if any) is resolved, cruisers can attempt to disarm any naval mines present. If a “4” or less is rolled, the naval mines are disarmed and removed from play. If a “5” or more was rolled, the naval mines were not disarmed, and the cruiser must wait until the next round to attempt to disarm them again.

Treat hostile Naval Mines as Friendly: Cruisers can move through a sea zone containing enemy mines. Their movement is not blocked by the Naval mines.

Any and all comments are appreciated. If you notice anything even just by reading these, share it. I’m also open for rule clarifications, in case there’s any confusion.

Thanks guys/girls.

we have a house rule that captured majors turn into fully damaged minors and captured minors are destroyed.
i have also seen rules that when you capture IC you role a D20 for major and D6 for minor to determine how much damage it received during the battle.

I always buy cruisers. They are better than destroyers on attack and do offshore bombardment but lack anti-sub duties. Whenever Im making a fleet I build up cruisers, because they have a decent attack, and can massively support landings for far cheaper than Battleships. When America needs to invade Europe or Japan, I see cruisers as the best buy besides transports.

maybe Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier shouldn’t take 2-hits after all

I haven’t played games with all optional units select for play (usually only select naval fighter)
but yeah its funny how:
BB 2-hit, 2-turn
CA 2-hit, 1-turn
CV 2-hit, 2-turn

yes but we are working on that now with 4.1 no more 2 turn naval builds.

carriers could go to 1 hit units and of course the latter file for AA50HE will have them just at 1 for both CA and CV.