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

I finally found one of the post I once read about AA Flak efficiency. It is also talking about Pocket Battleship and a longer time of production for BB, as an HR:

@Nexus:

I think multiple AA shots might work if the maximum kills were limited in some way.  A few triple-roll AA cruisers might be too much – say max the kill-rate at one plane/cruiser regardless of the number of AA dice rolled?  But I think there are more issues that need some thought…

Cruisers were only more effective than destroyers for AA kills.  Cruisers certainly had less AA than carriers (CVEs excluded) or battleships but far more than destroyers.  Late-war US Navy stats (non-suicide) show a fairly consistent 17% - 24% of plane attacks were shot down by AA regardless of ship type.  Although one fast-carrier group shot down as many as 33% (but that is a high).  Generally, battleships, carriers and cruisers shot down the same percentage of aircraft while destroyers averaged a little better than half that rate.  These are late-war stats with increased AA mounts, improved directors, radar, mechanical computers and VT fuses against a desperate, poorly trained enemy.  AA rules allowing more than 33% AA kill rate might be pushing the envelope.  Three dice is a lot.

I’d believe it if AA shots were given to carriers and battleships but that doesn’t do much for cruisers.  Cruisers were far easier and faster to build than capital ships.  Battleships were exponentially more powerful (attack and defense) and also exponentially more expensive and difficult to build than cruisers and there-in lies the problem.  Thus the 6 cruisers to 1 battleship production rate mentioned earlier.

2 cruisers will statistically beat 1 battleship in both Global 1940 combat rules and IPC cost BUT tonnage-wise 3 heavy cruisers = one battleship (15,000 CA vs 45000 BB).  And Light cruisers were half the tonnage of heavy cruisers (7000 CL vs 15000 CA) so that makes things even worse when averaging things (I’m using general numbers here, there are extreme examples on either side).

In the real world 3 cruisers would only blind a battleship on a good day, possibly sinking it if they had torpedoes and got lucky.  The Battle of the River Plate shows just how dangerous even one small Battle Cruiser can be versus cruisers at 1 to 3 odds.  I think Battleships need more power but with limited production rules.  Give them double dice rolls to hit with both dice counting but force production over two turns while increasing their cost. That might be more realistic (can I say that in Axis and Allies?   :wink:) AND perhaps give cruisers a proper place.

No ship, no pair of ships could dare equal the mighty Battleship – it took an airplane to beat it.  Well…, excepting a pair of submarines but that’s another story.   :-D

I think there needs to be an adjustment to make the cruiser useful in this game or simply drop it.  Just my thoughts.

Here is some additional historical reasons provide by IL to give AA capacity for cruiser and even some kind of ASW:

Why are you prepared to give a Cruiser squadron (of, what, 6-9 vessels) the chance of knocking out approx 250 planes in addition to its usual Att of 3? Certainly ‘before the plane fires back’ is really very odd indeed…

Cruisers were AA gun platforms and better suited for escort duty due to their faster speeds. They could keep up with carriers and provide AA defense for the fleet. Some nations went far enough to generate an entire class of AA cruisers for this very duty.

Remember its ONE ROLL PER CRUISER @ 1… If you got 1 CA and 10 planes, just one roll…not a big deal.

A worse realism issue is SB’s their is no way a battleship or cruiser will destroy an army 3-5 corps worth of men ( preemptively).

It seems at least one level overpowered: why not either have it fire before the planes or have it fire simultaneously?

Well because planes can not attack ships unless they are FIRST IN FIRING RANGE OF THOSE SHIPS. Planes need to get level and face flak fire before they drop ordinance. This is how its done in like every wargame. If you want realism thats it.

To be clear, I don’t like the idea much at all, but I would certainly weaken it at least one level.

The ASW idea is very interesting though, and as Subs are cheaper than planes it wouldn’t have such a great effect on the statistics if a Cruiser could get an attack on Subs before they fire back… This might well be worth pursuing.

Cruisers did also have ASW capabilities, like the DD.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216

This post from IL needs to be added in this thread to provide a wider perspective on the historical capacities of cruisers and a short comparison with battleship as an escort and anti-air capacity warship for carriers:

Finally, if Cruisers get this AA benefit, what about the Battleships? The late-built (1938+) ones had good armour and believable anti-air - on a larger scale than Cruisers.

That could be true but the battleships used that to defend themselves, they could not keep up with carriers.

The AA roll is the ability to keep up with where the planes are attacking, which are defenseless Carriers.

Battleships had good flak battery’s but mostly suited to defend from torpedo attacks.
The Battleship was designed to carry heavy gun turrets, the cruiser had more space for smaller caliber weapons and became more suited to protect other ships from plane attack because they had speed to keep up with the ships under attack.

Battleships should get my old preemptive shot thing as long as the opposing side does not have a BB. This addresses the clear advantage of longer ranged guns that can blow a ship out before itself could be in range. The rule would be for the first round only, just like the CA AA roll. Perhaps the cost might go up to allow this.

The cruiser concept is to address the high cost issue and support it with something unique to cruisers.

Since the end of WW1 cruisers went into three groups:

Heavy Cruiser which where designed for long range, high speed

Commerce Raiders like the German pocket battleships, which are really cruisers

Anti-Aircraft cruisers: which were suited for protection of fast moving defenseless ships

the first would embody a move of 3 in NCM

the second would probably be a 2 hit ship

the third would be a free AA roll before start of combat if enemy plane is present.

Alternatively: you might just say if the cruiser rolls a 1 in combat, a plane can be targeted as a hit if it is attacking.

SO:
Cruiser costs 11, if it rolls a 1 in combat and the enemy has planes they lose a plane. (otherwise ignore)

Also, Cruisers gain ASW capability like Destroyers.

problem solved.

The development of the anti-aircraft cruiser began in 1935 when the Royal Navy re-armed HMS Coventry and HMS Curlew. Torpedo tubes and 6-inch (15 cm) low-angle guns were removed from these World War I light cruisers and replaced by ten 4-inch (10 cm) high-angle guns with appropriate fire-control equipment to provide larger warships with protection against high-altitude bombers.

A tactical shortcoming was recognized after completing six additional conversions of C-class cruisers. Having sacrificed anti-ship weapons for anti-aircraft armament, the converted anti-aircraft cruisers might need protection themselves against surface units. New construction was undertaken to create cruisers of similar speed and displacement with dual-purpose guns.

Dual-purpose guns offered good anti-aircraft protection with anti-surface capability for the traditional light cruiser role of defending capital ships from destroyers. The first purpose built anti-aircraft cruiser was the British Dido-class, completed shortly before the beginning of World War II. The US Navy Atlanta-class anti-aircraft cruisers (CLAA) were designed to match capabilities of the Royal Navy. Both Dido and Atlanta carried torpedo tubes.

The quick-firing dual-purpose gun anti-aircraft cruiser concept was embraced in several designs completed too late to see combat including USS Worcester (CL-144) and USS Roanoke (CL-145) completed in 1948 and 1949, two De Zeven Provincin-class cruisers completed in 1953, De Grasse and Colbert completed in 1955 and 1959, and HMS Tiger, HMS Lion and HMS Blake completed between 1959 and 1961.

Most post World War II cruisers were tasked with air defense roles. In the early 1950s, advances in aviation technology forced the move from anti-aircraft artillery to anti-aircraft missiles. Therefore most cruisers of today are equipped with surface-to-air missiles as their main armament. The modern equivalent of the anti-aircraft cruiser is the guided missile cruiser (CAG/CLG/CG/CGN).
Russian Navy cruiser of the Kirov-class, Frunze.
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Cape St. George (CG-71), firing a Tomahawk missile.
[edit] Later 20th century

The rise of air power during World War II dramatically changed the nature of naval combat. Even the fastest cruisers could not steer quickly enough to evade aerial attack, and aircraft now had torpedoes, allowing moderate-range standoff capabilities. This change led to the end of independent operations by single ships or very small task groups, and for the second half of the 20th century naval operations were based on very large fleets able to fend off all but the largest air attacks.

This has led most navies to change to fleets designed around ships dedicated to a single role, anti-submarine or anti-aircraft typically, and the large “generalist” ship has disappeared from most forces. The United States Navy, the Russian Navy, and the Peruvian Navy are the only remaining navies which operate cruisers. France operated a single cruiser until May 2010: Jeanne d’Arc, which in the NATO pennant number system was classified as an aircraft carrier, but for training purposes only.

IN this game the BB has no special ability, it is nothing but a LARGER CRUISER but it was nothing of the sort.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=8

A Wild Bill’s post discussing about giving Cruiser various additional capacities such as ASW:

Agreed, I wouldn’t look only at the cost (24 ipc) of DD vs Ca (3 DD vs 2 CA). You need to look more at how each piece fits into your fleet, and the functions you need. If Germany is going sub crazy, then build DD’s. If you already have superiority of the waters, then you start building CA for bombardment, and fleet protection. You wouldn’t send a lone CA to block out the enemy fleet (unless you have no other options), that is the job of the DD. You might send a CA to escort a transport over sending a DD however (more fire power). The CA is a supplement ship for the rich economies, but is the poor mans BB for Anz, Italy, and UK.

I have house ruled in AA for CA in AA 50 in a couple different ways. I haven’t tried it w/G40 because you can get more fleet protection through scrambling. IMO CA AA ends up being an allied advantage especially in Europe in latter rounds. Once axis loose the water battle, it will cost axis more air power. Of course you could argue the axis wouldn’t loose control w/CA AA.

The CA having ASW is interesting (either DD/CA be on a 1:1 bases w/subs). I’m not crazy about 1 DD finding several subs in the sz. When you also factor in CA ASW allowing air to target subs it may be over the top. I will say though unless you are super stacking, subs are normally spread out amongst several sz’s. As Germany I wouldn’t have all my eggs in one basket so you often have 1 DD vs 1 sub anyways. The other point is would CA getting this DD exclusive ability make the DD less attractive. Then would we be talking about DD’s being too expensive? One simple change could upset the food chain.

I would think that CA’s getting either AA, or ASW could end up being an allied advantage in the long run. Face it it’s the allies that go sub searching, and have to protect their fleets from axis air at some point. Plus CA AA could have a profound affect on the opening round when you consider Germany’s opening move on the British fleet, or the UK vs Italians in the Med. There are quite a few CA’s on the board to start.

If the CA truly is over priced (I’m not convinced) maybe lowering it to 11 ipc, or giving it +1 in movement (its own unique action) could be looked at. I don’t think it should be able to move 4 spaces from port, but maybe a 3 space max from anywhere (even if a port is damaged). Even that could end up being mostly a US thing, but Japan would make good use of it too in the Pacific. The CA raider idea of convoy @ 2 ipc is interesting (has merit). Is that just borrowing a unique characteristic from yet another unit. Plus a sub in a convoy would need a DD to hunt it down, a lone CA would be a sitting duck, but at least it can def @ 3. This would come more into play when you move an entire fleet to the convoy zone, but then you probably don’t need the +1 convoy attack because the zone is maxed out (again an allied advantage?).

Last edited by WILD BILL on Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=16

Hi IL,
thanks for your additional contribution.
I am amazed by the number of posts you have made and the wide range of solutions you introduced on this cruiser issue over the time.
I really wonder why none of this ideas could make it through and be part of the OOB G40 2nd Ed.

I can just see that Larry finally introduce the M3 cruiser in 1914.
Hope it can, at least, be part of an upgraded version in G40 or 1942.

Another question on your post:

Another option could be to make them a 4-3 unit
If you take the third option the cost must be 14ipc-16ipc

Were you talking about the regular Cruiser at 12 IPCs, making it A4D3M2C12?
Or the Heavy cruiser at 14-16 IPCs without the 2 hits, making it A4D3M2C14?

In addition, I’m not sure about what you mean on the third option, would you be more specific, please.

The best idea is to keep them at 11 IPC and +1 move, and 1 AA roll at start of combat (in addition to their combat roll)

What make you so sure about the reduced price at 11 IPCs?

A Cruiser A3D3M3C12, 1 hit, with 1 preemptive AA@1 seems having enough sideway advantage to make it interesting even if the cruiser is still less optimize buying on a combat value vs cost ratio against Subs, DDs, CVs and BBs.

No?

@Imperious:

Not talking about making a new piece, rather that to justify the OOB price, you may find that increasing the attack value at 4, will balance out this cost.

If you gave it a 2 hit capability ( kept everything else the same) the cost would need to go up to the 14-16 range

Thanks for the fast reply,

Giving 2 hits for 14 or 15 IPCs will make the Cruiser cheaper and stronger than Battleship (on the same IPCs basis comparison), making it virtually obsolete from a play-balance game POV.

It can still be a personal HR choice, for historical similarity with the building rate of BB during WWII (near zero).

About the increase attack value @4, do you have an opinion on the Shore bombardment?
Keeping it @3 or following the attack value @4?

Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?

It is only partially true.
All options which require a combined arms of cruiser with a carrier to get some AAA defensive capacity will affect only 3 SZs:
UK’s SZ 98: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)
US’s SZ 10: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
IJN’s SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship

The AA bonus for cruiser and carrier will increase as soon as a power can put them together in other turn.
Do you think that this 3 SZs are game-changer and can be attacked in the first turn?

So one attribute for the Cruiser would be 1 aa roll per ship at start of naval combat.

Were you giving it in both attacking and defending situation?

So, when a bunch of cruisers are attacking a carriers, they get some AA preemptive strike @1 against planes in addition to there regular A3 roll?

As for the many special attributes that can be given to Cruisers that will enviably result in players purchasing more… there are a lot of variables that could automatically push them into the realm of overpowering. The largest variable to consider is the problem of giving Cruisers something that will completely alter how players view opening strategies. Although we all want Cruisers to be purchased more often, and have them be a vital part of our ultimate war effort, the truth is that there are many already on the board. Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
**Cruisers attack @4 when paired with a Battleship.  **

The idea of not altering the opening strategies is a sound principles and should be taken into account for balance purpose.
I have this question, are you sure your combined arms bonus for Cruiser doesn’t fall into this trap?
Because, at first glance, there is much more opportunities than with AA flak combined with carriers:

Italy:
SZ 97: 1 transport, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship

Germany:
SZ 113: 1 battleship
SZ 114: 1 transport, 1 cruiser

UK:
SZ 110: 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
SZ 111: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleship

SZ 37: 1 Battleship
SZ 39: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser

USA:
SZ 10: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship

JAPAN:
SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
SZ 19: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
SZ 20: 1 transport, 1 cruiser

Another question, besides the game incentive toward cruiser unit, do you see some kind of historical rationalization behind this combined arms bonus?

@Imperious:

but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns?

All ships did have AA guns, but the Cruiser because of its speed sacrificed the larger guns and thicker armor plating that you find on say a Battleship in order to create a fast moving ship.
The hull however was large enough to become a platform for lots of lighter guns including AA guns. So while the Cruiser has the advantage of speed it was ideal to make them the perfect escort ships and hence the decision was made to equip them with alot more AA guns than you find on other warship classes.

So on average the Cruiser being an escort ship for Carriers and other ships on average has more AA guns because it needs to keep the weight down in order to have a good speed.

Thats why the USN and some other navy’s had entire classes of Cruisers as AA platforms.  Now the Japanese made some of their larger battleships with alot of AA guns, but at that stage they had less Carriers and the USN used Carrier based planes to great effect.

I really like these historical details.
Hope they are really accurate about average AA platforms between cruisers and battleships.

@Alfalfa29:

I see battleships and, to a lesser extent cruisers, as heavy warships that may not have the variety of capabilities as other units, but in a straight out slug match will smash other ships with bigger guns and armor. The best way to represent this would be to add hit points, but this would also make them cost far more.

Perhaps the battleship could be brought down to 18 IPCs, given the preemptive fire ability in naval combat, but also charge 2 IPCs to repair it (maybe the CV too).

The cruiser could cost eleven IPCs, and then I have the idea of a combined arms rule, so that if a CA (or CL  :-D) and transport are attacked together, the transport would have one defense. This would encourage the feel of cruisers as flagships for small task groups, but perhaps make cruisers too defensive? The AA and extra move options also had merit, however.

If a fee is required, I would probably do it to both carriers and battleships.
This point, makes me think about a way to improve battleship and carriers repair capacity.

On a Naval Base, it should be free but, on any friendly SZ which is not empty, it could cost 6-8 IPCs to proceed to repair on the spot in any SZ with some friendly island or adjacent friendly land territory.

This additional cost, could be seen as providing materials via merchant marines to complete repair on a sea port which is not a Naval Base.

The combined arms with transport will alter the game play and be very strong, because transport will get 1 hit value in addition to the D@1. Actually, the defenseless transport rule makes them without any hit capacity.

Maybe, one day or another this will come in handy:

American Naval Power

The ability America had to produce almost unlimited war supplies was of major significance during the course of World War Two. Whereas many industrial bases within each war zone were open to bombing, America’s main industrial bases were safe from this. The importance of this industrial productivity was huge in the European and Pacific sectors of the war. Once America had moved close enough to bomb Japan’s factories, Japan had nothing to fall back on. This gave America an enormous advantage in the Pacific and this was most clearly seen in the war at sea. Given the amphibious nature of the war in the Pacific, whoever had superiority at sea was almost certainly going to win the war. The following statistics give some idea of Americas capacity to produce ships when compared to Japan.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 7 battleships and Japan produced 0.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 2 battle cruisers and Japan produced 0.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 17 aircraft carriers and Japan produced 12.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 42 escort carriers and Japan produced 0.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 4 heavy cruisers and Japan produced 0.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 21 light cruisers and Japan produced 6.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 246 destroyers and Japan produced 27.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 315 destroyer escorts and Japan produced 0.

Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 122 submarines and Japan produced 74.

In total during these years America produced 776 vessels for her Pacific fleets while Japan produced 119. While America also needed naval shipping for the European sector of war, the vast bulk of her navy was used in the Pacific conflict. Such an overwhelming superiority enabled America to conduct the sort of strategy that Douglas MacArthur wanted attacking major island targets while letting others wither on the vine.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america_naval_power.htm