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

@CWO:

Regarding the alphabetic abbreviations you mention: technically they’re hull identification codes which are specific to the US Navy, though of course they’re useful as abbreviations for use in dice-roll tables.

As I recall, the USN used CA to designate heavy cruisers, CL to designate surface-combat light cruisers and CLAA to designate anti-aircraft light cruisers.�  Some projected post-WWI battlecruisers were supposed to be designated as CCs, but they were scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers.�  The CB designation was used to designate the Alaska class 12-inch gunned “large heavy cruisers”; these were essentially battlecruisers, but the USN never called them battlecruisers and the “CB” designation was a bit controversial at the time for that reason.

So, trying to balance completeness and historical accuracy with some simplifying assumptions, I’d recommend grouping cruisers into four basic types:

Battlecruisers (dice table abbreviation CB): with a few arguable exceptions, any cruiser with 11-inch (or larger) guns

Heavy cruisers (dice table abbreviation CA): mostly cruisers with 8-inch guns

Light cruisers (dice table abbreviation CL): mostly cruisers with 6-inch guns

Anti-aircraft cruisers (dice table abbreviation CLAA): cruisers with guns in (or around) the 5-inch category

So it seems to me we can agree about the code name and stats given to them (there is still room for discussion about little adjusment though.)

Light cruisers (dice table abbreviation CL): mostly cruisers with 6-inch guns

Anti-aircraft cruisers (dice table abbreviation CLAA): cruisers with guns in (or around) the 5-inch category

CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit bombard 1@3

• Light cruisers.  These were defined by the Washington Naval Treaty as any cruiser with guns of 6-inch caliber or less.  The term “light cruiser” was roughly synonymous with “6-inch cruiser”, which was the most common type.  A significant number of cruisers, however, were what I call “ultra-light cruisers” (a term which, like ultra-heavy cruisers, wasn’t actually used during WWII).  In many cases they were designed as 5-inch gun anti-aircraft platforms, like the British Dido class and the American Atlanta class.

All this makes sense to give on a roll “1” to hit a plane since this group of cruiser is an antiaircraft Platform.

Heavy cruisers (dice table abbreviation CA): mostly cruisers with 8-inch guns

CA A3D3M2C15, 2 hits bombard 1@3

I thought Heavy cruiser have much better armour than light cruiser. Is it ?
If not, at least we can be sure that a 2 hits cruiser can still make damage after receiving a hit instead of being sunk like a light cruiser.
Maybe you have a better stat adjustment to get more realism?

Battlecruisers (dice table abbreviation CB): with a few arguable exceptions, any cruiser with 11-inch (or larger) guns

CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit bombard 1@4

• Battlecruisers.  These were basically cruisers that were the size of battleships, which carried heavy guns of the same caliber as battleships (though typically in smaller numbers), which were more lightly armoured than battleships, but which generally had higher speeds.  Hood (for which A&A 1941 provides a sculpt) is a clear-cut example of a battlecruiser; her 15-inch guns were actually larger than those of the more modern KGV class battleships, which carried 14-inchers.

This one fit the description I think.

@Imperious:

To balance Cruiser you don’t change all the other naval units…

keep cost and add ability.

Move 3 ( or 4 from port)

and or add one free AA roll against any planes @1

Hi IL, I’m happy you show a little interest on this one.

The solution is exactly the opposite.

Just this simple and easy change on the cost (-2 IPCs) for both CL and BB, nothing more.

Of course, if you want more historical feeling and similarities, you can add the other option you just mentioned (and much others I posted in the first posts of this thread), in addition.

Said otherwise, why this reduced cost will not give a better balance between all naval units and even aircrafts?

Is there any reason to stick on the 12 IPCs cruisers and the 20 IPCs battleship?

The earlier reasons developed on other threads take about the lack of interest in a 20 IPCs BB when you get a Cruiser at 10 IPCs. Cruiser became too strong. To keep their relative strength, lower the price of BB to 18 IPCs.

So with 18 IPCs you can still buy 1 BB (of course) or 1DD and 1CL, keeping the same balance.

BB A4D4M2C18 vs 1DD A2D2M2C8 + 1CL A3D3M2C10= 39% vs 43% chance of survival
(which is the same as actual OOB rules) little advantage toward Cruiser and Destroyer.

Do you have any doubt about some unbalancing consequences (on buying? on the first few turns in any given game)?

Is this modifier a too great game changer that Germany fighters (10 IPCs) will fall under too much British and US cruisers (10 IPCs) protecting transports?

For now I need the community to help me foresee the disaster that will fall on a OOB global or 1942 game making this sole modifier on the cost.

@Imperious:

Is there any reason to stick on the 12 IPCs cruisers and the 20 IPCs battleship?

Yes because nobody wants to change everything, just what is broken. Otherwise it will be a rule for a few people.

Most people just want the most minimal thing changed. not changes that invalidate all the player aids. The prices of the other units are just fine. If you change everything you make the game worse.

The original design was to make Carriers the best buy, followed by Battleships. Not equalize every naval unit. Otherwise, just have one naval unit. Differences are what the game is about.

Just allowing them move +1 is the most simple thing possible.

Your argument is mainly an appeal to traditions.

Let’s suppose that when Spring 1942, and Global 1940 were edited, Larry Harris and Wizard of the Coast has made Cruiser a 10 IPCs unit and BB a 18 IPCs unit.
I don’t think anybody will have complained.

However creating an OOB 3 Moves cruiser would have sound strange since all ships have a move of 2 spaces. (As allowing AA gunnery to a cruiser, etc.) And would have need more rules for explanations.

The idea I propose need a double change because this two units have the same function in a fleet. Lowering cost for one and not the other make one more appealing than the other when you have to purchase a surface warship, it is a balance issue.

Glad you still want to discuss it.

About the 3 moves cruiser, I like it indeed.
I’m glad that they introduced it in 1914.
But other players, and some of my friends, will find disturbing to give this special move to cruiser.
For others, it is the AA capacity which is great.
In any case, both of this change will affect the starting board scenario. Some units will be in range of a M3 CL that wouldn’t for a M2.
Some fighters will have to pass an AA fire.
These situations were not anticipated by OOB set up.

The changing cost will certainly affects the rounds to come.
But who will change his strategy and buy 3 BBs now because they are cheaper (saving 6 IPCs on a 60 IPCs purchase) ? Maybe sometimes, 1 more BB will be bought on and off.

Or buying only cruisers
because 3 cruisers (30 IPCs) (and a 6 IPCs bonus sub, for example) versus a carrier (16 IPCs) and 2 planes (20 IPCs)
CL 3A3D3 + SS 1A2D1 vs 1CV A0D2 + 2FgA3D4 are better on offense and equal on defense?
Def: 10 (4 hits) vs def: 10 (4 hits).
Att: 11 (4 hits) vs att: 6 (4 hits).

3 CL+1 Sub attacking vs 1CV+2Fg defending 45% vs 46% chance of survival

1CV+2Fg attacking vs 3 CL+1 Sub defending 20% vs 77 % chance of survival

It is forgeting that with 3 cruisers, you will only bombard once and fighters can combat many other rounds of any amphibious assault.

Bringing this example with 36 IPCs in the OOB:
you get only 3 CL A3D3 vs 1CV A0D2 + 2FgA3D4 .
Def: 9 (3 hits) vs def: 10 (4 hits). 52% vs 45%
Att: 9 (3 hits) vs att: 6 (4 hits) Â

3 CL attacking vs 1CV+2Fg = 10% vs 83%

CV+2Fg attacking 3 CL = 52% vs 45%

I found this later OOB 36 IPCs cost very unbalanced toward fighters and carrier.
Don’t you?
1 simple cost adjusment and it will be better balance based on this same 36 IPCs purchase comparison.

@Imperious:

The fighting attributes of the units having different values is part of the great design. So it may be true that some units are better buy than others FOR COMBAT.

Giving a dynamic movement of +1 gives the unit distinctive flavor and you would have a purpose to buy a faster ship. This also gives new options for players.

Players will build rapid reaction forces of Cruisers.

It is not only about numbers. If it were, Carriers with planes would be the best option for Naval defense. And it is and your not balancing that so why should Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers be any different?

I’m the kind of guy which like historical influence present in the game.
And a Cruiser M3 is a way to represent a ship which

have the greatest range before refueling.

I don’t reject this kind of Option for HR.

Because cruiser and battleship were suppose to be the warships in the surface fleet. And compared to all others air and naval combats units seems less interesting when you compare the cold numbers.
(I have no details but I think it summarizes many posts in various threads.)
Any cruiser buy, virtually becomes a “styled purchase” instead of a maximized investment.

How two rarely buy naval units will unbalance everything at a 10 and 18 IPCs cost?

Much more player will at least think about buying one, and it will just create more variety of ships in a fleet because cruiser and BB can become a real optimized option for war between ships, at least.

On the other side, it will not make the end of Subs, DDs, CVs and Fgts buying.

It will be like every naval units will have a balance place in the system.

Maybe, I don’t see enough of the big picture?

Help me see it through, please.

To better see the problem, here is another way of comparison:
1 subs = 1 hit/ 6 IPCs
1 Destroyer= 1 hit/ 8 IPCs
1 Carrier = 2 hits/ 16 IPCs= 1 hit / 8 IPCs
1 Battleship= 2 hits/20 IPCs= 1 hit/ 10 IPCs
1 Cruiser= 1 hit/ 12 IPCs

When a cruiser is sunk, you lost 12 IPCs. It is the ship which cost the most.
Same IPCs cost than loosing 1 Strategic Bomber (A4 M6 which give a very large projection of power.

Lowering the cost of both CL and BB will imply:
1 BB = 2hits/18 IPCs = 1 hit/ 9 IPCs
1 CL = 1 hit/10 IPCs
Both will still be the more expensive unit hit/IPCs ratio.

@Imperious:

I can make the following true statements…

When faced with a problem only fix the problem…not the system.

When making changes always opt for the one that is the most simplest to employ, that ensures most people will try it.

If making changes appeal to increased player options, greater balance, or Historical in that order.

It is not a competition between two HR about cruiser.

My solution was to link 2 major complains in the bigger issue about warships. I grab both in the same because they were linked:

A lower cost CL will make it a better warship than BB. Then no more interest in buying them.
2CL A3D3M2C10 +2@3 bombard splitable vs 1BB A4D4M2C20, 2 hits 1@4 bombard
50% vs 33%, in favor of Cruisers.

Maybe just a minus 1 IPCs for both is enough.
BB= 2 hits/19 IPCs =   1hit /9.5 IPCs
CL= 1 hit/11 IPCs

@Imperious:

A BB gets a free hit and can repair. It does not cost 9 IPC to take one hit.
True. Sometimes a fleet is not totally destroy. Then a BB can recover. A country doesn’t lose any IPCs from this hit.

It is not only about numbers. It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC spent.
I agree, even with this IPCs change, all other units will have a specific function, but planes have more versality. I can had that no game is won by navy only. All out navy investment is still recipe for failure.

Cruiser is CA not CL. CL is light cruiser, most nations had more heavy cruisers than light.
It is the important thing. On any other thread I will used CA but talking about a 10 IPCs cruiser as the light cruiser is another way to be more specific about it. At 10 IPCs there is much room upward for any CA and CB specifications.

While discussing on Global development, Larry said:

Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-e

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4060&hilit=cruiser+11+IPC+cruiser+11IPCs&start=80

After all, maybe a Cruiser can be balance this way while adding some historical features (M3, AA):
CL A3D3M3C11, 1 AA@1 on def. vs 1 plane

Because, of course at 10 IPCs with 2 others additions, cruiser will be overboosted.

@Baron:

While discussing on Global development, Larry said:

Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-e

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4060&hilit=cruiser+11+IPC+cruiser+11IPCs&start=80

With this last post and the reference to Larry Harris, come this question is their any play-tester on this forum?

Have they swear an oath to not reveal any results about crazy and not so crazy play-testing?

So they never reveal the reasons and discussion made about something like a 11 IPCs Cruiser.
Did anyone hear what disqualified this cost adjustment for cruiser, while they play-tested it?

What is the origins of the AARHE (Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition)  ?
Who was on the project?
Is there any rulebook or rules compendium?
What is the link with the discussion on the Forum?
Does it have a real influence on the Global OOB rules?

Thanks.
P.S. Does all the answers to my questions are on the threads of AARHE in this forum?