@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 = Â 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
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
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?
You might want to take a look at AARHE, which was created in 2005 and the more you read the rules you find almost exact ideas from Global.
Cruisers had the AA gun thing, plus all the other units exist years before you saw them in Global as well as scrambling rules
What is the origins of the AARHE (Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition) Â ?
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?
For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship.
Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
And with the stats maths evaluation bringing up by KionAAA, I can put other cruiser in a better place of scaled cost.
There is more room for other historical units for those who use more miniatures like HBG.
Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3 Definitely balance.
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
It is the price to have a competitive unit but weaker vs CL or BB.
Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.
Battleship, BB A4D4M2**C18**, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4
After more cost eval and battle calc, I must say that BB have to be at 19 IPCs to be statistically balance with cruiser at 10 IPCs and Carrier at 16 IPCs.
It will also give more room (3 IPCs) vs heavy cruiser A3D3 with 2 hits.
To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A) Give all types of cruiser M3
B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB or 1CV
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
C) Give 1 cruiser both offence and defense on a roll of “1” on first round only, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB).
D1) Give to CA a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.
D2) Give to the BB 2 rounds of coastal bombardment @4 when there is at least 1 ground unit remaining from TT making the amphibious assault after first round.
E) Give to the BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
F) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.
H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).
With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function.
Of course, putting all of it can unbalance toward other naval units: but nevertheless DD and Subs have their own proper function.
But all this optional addition can add some historical flavor, and a real gameplay difference amongst the bigger warships.
And you can even gives different options to Light, Battle and Heavy cruiser unit to create a more representative difference amongst them.
For example:
give M3 and AA to Light Cruiser,
just M3 to Battlecruiser,
M2 and Coastal @4 to heavycruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plundging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.
@Baron:
For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship.
Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
And with the stats maths evaluation bringing up by KionAAA, I can put other cruiser in a better place of scaled cost.
There is more room for other historical units for those who use more miniatures like HBG.Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3 Definitely balance.
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
It is the price to have a competitive unit but weaker vs CL or BB.
Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.Battleship, BB A4D4M2C18, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4
To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A) Give all types of cruiser M3
B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB or 1CV
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
C) Give 1 cruiser both offence and defense on a roll of “1” on first round only, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB).
D1) Give to CA a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.D2) Give to the BB 2 rounds of coastal bombardment @4 when there is at least 1 ground unit remaining from TT making the amphibious assault after first round.
E) Give to the BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
F) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.
H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function.
Of course, putting all of it can unbalance toward other naval units: but nevertheless DD and Subs have their own proper function.But all this optional addition can add some historical flavor, and a real gameplay difference amongst the bigger warships.
And you can even gives different options to Light, Battle and Heavy cruiser unit to create a more representative difference amongst them.For example:
give M3 and AA to Light Cruiser,
just M3 to Battlecruiser,
M2 and Coastal @4 to heavycruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plundging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.
Baron I enjoyed this particular post on this thread.
@Imperious:
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
Thank you IL!
I mean this as no offense to anyone but cost and battle calculator results do not give the ultimate worth of units in the overall strategy of the game.
You make a lot of good points IL but this is a favorite for me. I think a lot of times this goes out the window when figuring what a unit’s “value” is. Not every battle will be giant stack vs. giant stack.
All numbers aside, and all arguments aside…cruisers are almost never purchased, period.
And while you cannot use math as a be-all end-all, you cannot turn a blind eye to it either.
It is a little ignorant to totally ignore mathematical data.
You can use math to see why submarines and destroyers are nearly spammed to death in every competitive game, whith very few battleships (maybe 1 per game) and maybe a cruiser every 3 games
you can then use math (*gasp) to try to find a better cost of the units
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
this is a false statement, carriers are good because of their range and flexibility. they are subpar to submarines and destroyers however when it comes to pure combat.
please i would love to see a valid argument against 10 IPC cruisers.
Do you think they would suddenly become some super unit? (we already have those, there called submarines :P…)
They suck now, a 2 IPC reduction actually makes them ‘ok’ rather than ‘terrible’
At 10 IPCs they are on par with destroyers in combat, cruisers have bombard, destroyers are ASW and remain the better fodder unit
Not to mention zero change to overall game balance, fleet damage/hp would remain the same. It is the composition that would alter.
I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.
There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.
Baron I enjoyed this particular post on this thread.
I’m very happy that you like this post on customizing Cruiser units.
It really means something coming from one like you which had many HBG, (FMG?) units.
Tell me if you ever introduce more than 1 cruiser type in your future game and which stats and cost you give them.
This post summarize numerous ideas from many posts on various threads.
Many of this optional additions to cruiser were in large part created to promote a higher interest in the OOB cruiser at 12 IPCs.
In a sense, this noncompetitive unit was kind of spark to create house rules and different capacities for the cruiser.
I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.
There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.
This post provides comparative stats between type of cruiser based on some kind of historical representation.
The cost is balance according to a direct 50% vs 50% odds of survival one type vs another type of unit.
I agree with you, the combat calc from 1 large stack vs another type, is not enough.
But the maths gives a balance cost basis, then you decide to add some capacity (A to H, above).
Additional capacity can rise the cost from 1 or 2 IPCs.
Since every unit as a cost relative to another, it had also an impact toward other pricing.
For example, giving to 1 cruiser unit 1AA@1 and 3M and keeping a 10 IPCs, will give such an advantage that vs an OOB DD, the ASW won’t be that interesting vs the 3M range mobility, AA first strike, etc.
It can imply that such a unit could be at 11 IPCs and even 12.
So a battlecruiser vs this special light cruiser CL A3D3M3C11 cannot stay at 12 to be a balance buying,
you will have to had special capacity and also add +1 / +2 IPCs to cost probably.
CB A4D4M3C13-14 bombard, etc…
All this special addition come with personal evaluation of their impact…
Maths is clearly not an end but give some means to eval and keep balance.
I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.
There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.
That’s about this very reason:
Clearly 12 IPCs cruiser has a weaker unit stats.
What was the decisive argument in which, for example, Larry decides to stay at 12 IPCs and not lowering it at 11 (as he said, that it could be a possibility)?
Play-testers and the author got many occasions to do this but never done it even on revised Global (G40 2nd ed.).
12 IPCs cruiser is clearly not a competitive units as OOB, so maybe is it the cost structure which get approval and be the main conservative reason, 1 point cost 2 IPCs for all warships?
Baron, as of yet the HBG line-up is not complete for many ships. I liked the breakdown on your cruiser stats. They may come in handy in the future.
There will soon be more Japanese and British carriers, destroyers, CVs, and BBs to the HBG line-up. There are also some existing vessels. So you can check them out on the HBG site.
The only other variable a cruiser brings is bombard.
It has been discussed to just give cruisers another ability. Such as AA dice or +1 movement.
But to do so would have greater balance implications in the game, with the potential to require setup changes and or other changes to even it out.
Changes the cost to 10 has almost no (if any at all) balance implications.
Cruisers changes from a ‘terrible’ unit to an ‘ok’ unit.
They would be no more powerful than a pure destroyer spam is currently OOB.
You say don’t just look at one unit type vs another…
10 IPC cruisers also creates a very interesting dynamic where it is beneficial to have a mixture of cruisers and destroyers than pure destroyer in pure combat.
It actually promotes a more combined arms approach.
Baron, as of yet the HBG line-up is not complete for many ships. I liked the breakdown on your cruiser stats. They may come in handy in the future.
I’ve just noted this:
1 hit cruiser vs 2 hits “cruiser”
CL A3D3C10 CA A3D3C16
BC A4D4C12 BB A4D4C18 C19
There is a +2 IPCs for 1A/1D pts.
The second hit cost + 6 IPCs.
But it doesn’t work anymore from a statistical point of view.
Here is the basis of my calculation:
@Baron:
Sorry for this long post everybody.
You can only read the first part to know my conclusion and past over the calculation.
Second part is to give proof of my assumptions.I made it because I was pretty amazed by all the results.
I thought everyone interested in G40e cost calculation/structure should know.@Baron:
@Uncrustable:
It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.
To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:
22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.
22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA 41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB
**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs
1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**
but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!
So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs. :-o :-P :roll:And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCsNor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCsI have done other calculation of Battleships vs Carrier with 2 Fgs and 1 Fg+ 1 TcB.
At my own surprise, the results give something different than KionAAA maths.
And it shows that my intuition was right when I said, to keep overall balance between warships:
lowering by 2 IPCs cruiser & BB cost imply a -1 IPC to carrier also.In summary, to get a statistical balance sea combat (assuming TcB is at 10 IPCs):
if BB cost 18, then Carrier must cost 35-20 (2 Fgs) = 15 IPCs,
if BB cost 19, then Carrier must cost 37-20 (2 Fgs) = 17 IPCs.The maths follow below:
13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB 28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv2.154x18= 38.77 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x36= 16.7 IPCs/BB on defense19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv 11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB0.579x36=20.84 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x18=31.09 IPC/Cv on defenseAverage cost of Cv+2Fgs= (38.77+31.09)/2= 34.93 IPCs
Average cost of BB= (16.7+20.84)/2 = 18.77 IPCs
Same units different costs:
13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB 28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv2.154x19= 40.93 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x37= 17.17 IPCs/BB on defense19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv 11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB0.579x37=21.42 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x19=32.81 IPC/Cv on defenseAverage cost of Cv+2Fgs= (40.93+32.81)/2= 36.87 IPCs
Average cost of BB= (17.17+21.42)/2 = 19.3 IPCs
Vs Cv+ 1 Fg & 1 TcB
14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB 26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv1.857x18= 33.43 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x36= 19.37 IPCs/BB on defense39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv 19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB0.487x36=17.54 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x18=36.95 IPC/Cv on defenseAverage cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (33.43+36.95)/2= 35.2 IPCs
Average cost of BB= (19.37+17.54)/2 = 18.46 IPCs
Same units different costs:
14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB 26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv1.857x19= 35.28 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x37= 19.91 IPCs/BB on defense39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv 19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB0.487x37=18.02 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x19=39.01 IPC/Cv on defenseAverage cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (35.28+39.01)/2= 37.14 IPCs
Average cost of BB= (19.91+18.02)/2 = 18.97 IPCs
I found something as a base to discuss also a higher cost for cruiser than 10 IPCs.
I made a little space inside statements.
@Red:
Third, real combat power is difficult to quantify and is most likely not represented by simple head-to-head equivalent IPC bases. Afterall, the attacker seeks advantage and net survivability of high value units…NOT equivalence. The potential error in just considering head-to-head, equivalent IPC match ups became apparent when I was looking at cruiser cost. As others have noted it is hard to beat an inexpensive “meat shield” or “fodder” type unit to protect the heavy hitting pieces.
Therefore, with OOB unit cost there is little reason for a cruiser purchase because they have the same hitting power per IPC as a DD, but the cruiser still can only take one hit so it has 2/3’s the hit point equivalence.
On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own.
A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces.
I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12.
What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.
Red Harvest,
do you mind to explain further this specific aspect by giving an example of your calculation and increments with 10 IPCs, 11 IPCs and 12 IPCs cruiser.
I need example to figure it out.
Please,
and thanks for your reply.
Baron,
Thank you for the invitation, but I don’t follow the House Rules forum. I sent you some examples of what I’ve been looking at in response to your earlier PM about mixed battles. I believe you will be able to reconstruct the values and create new cases as needed to explore the topic.
Not to derail this thread, I’ll note you’ve already seen my comments and figures about historical build ratios, historical cost, and the potential first turn cruiser buy for Italy and Anzac that gave me pause with respect to the idea of C10.
Good luck on the project.
