No no - it works like a classic land AA gun - no matter how many cruisers you have in the zone, you roll one die per attacking plane.
Is it limited to three shots per cruiser? That would encourage more cruiser buys I would think
I posted an idea a while back (which Baron sort of quoted) of Cruisers and Battleships granting infantry and mechs artillery support in amphibious assaults. 1:1 for cruiser +1 for one inf/mech, and 1:2 for battleships so +1 for 2 Inf/Mech units.
I’m of several minds here. CmndrJennifer pointed out that the CA isn’t always a bad buy and she finds them useful in quite a few situations. That’s one view I kind of get and like.
Two, just lower the cost of CAs.
Three up the attack power of the BBs.
I’ll post more when I have the time.
@CWO:
9 IPC for Cruisers is the solution. Then it is a worthy buy as anti air platform AND as anti submarine ship (in combination with at least one Destroyer).
WWII cruisers did not have any anti-sub capability; they were to big to maneuver sharply enough to conduct depth-charge runs. WWII cruisers did have decent anti-aircraft capabilities, and some light cruisers were even optimized for that role. Destroyers were good ASW platforms. I’m confused, however, by the idea that pairing a cruiser with a destroyer makes the cruiser an anti-submarine ship because in such a pairing 100% of the ASW capability comes from the destroyer. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something.
I’m confused, I thought that Cruisers have depth-charge capabilities.
They just not use Cruiser on specific anti-sub mission, but was able to sunk a submarine by itself.
I’m wrong on this?
What are your thoughts about that? Would it make Battleships too strong vs air?
Here is probably what can be disturbing in your proposition:
I quote Imperious Leader:
@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.
I also saw that the 3 moves Cruiser that I suggested earlier is coming from him.
I posted an idea a while back (which Baron sort of quoted) of Cruisers and Battleships granting infantry and mechs artillery support in amphibious assaults. 1:1 for cruiser +1 for one inf/mech, and 1:2 for battleships so +1 for 2 Inf/Mech units.
I’m of several minds here. CmndrJennifer pointed out that the CA isn’t always a bad buy and she finds them useful in quite a few situations. That’s one view I kind of get and like.
Two, just lower the cost of CAs.
Three up the attack power of the BBs.
I’ll post more when I have the time.
I cannot see why, unless very hypothetical situations. Short in time to boost a fleet against an inevitable mainly air assault, 12 IPCs left, playing low luck so 2 Cruisers give 1 hit.
The issue is that the original Destroyer/Cruiser (before Destroyer and Cruiser appear for themselves) was the best all around warships units:
Attack 3
Defend 3
Move 2
Bombard 3
Anti-Sub Weapon
Cost 12.
And since now, this unit loose the ASW capacity, it can no more do both jobs with a higher cost but weaker combat odds against the 8 IPCs unit.
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
I didn’t suggest they were a great buy. I’m simply stating that there are a few applications to where they are desirable. I’m also not suggesting that an HR isn’t appropriate.
The problem I think lies mostly in that they don’t fit in well as is with the formulated strategy that is inherently tied to the set-up and opening round of the game in order to win.
In other words, if a player wants to win the game they must follow a small number of strategies and purchase combinations to have an effective campaign. This is where the cruiser unit fails. It simply doesn’t compute into the common winning strategy or purchase combination of the more frequent or avid OOB gamer.
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
That my friend is an excellent idea to think about! +1!
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
If you want to discuss some details of a 3 hits BB:
@Baron:
Cruiser at 10 seems about appropriate for me, largely for the reasons other people have explained compared fighters and destroyers.
On the other hand, I would be very wary of reducing the cost of battleships. The 2-hit mechanic has the potential to make naval battles oppressive and not fun. At a cheaper cost, it becomes very viable for US to stack battleships and battle and retreat with little consequence. 6 BB with say a mixed fleet of 1 car, 2 fig, and 1 dest can deliver 5-6 naval hits with no losses then retreat.
For me, a fun naval game involves naval positioning, deadzoning, calculated fighter support from land, and smart blocking (using destroyers). I would hate to see a naval battle devolve into stacks of BB with a winner takes all battle.
Battleships will be definitely obsolete and un-optimized choice if cruiser goes 10 IPCs:
20 Cruisers against 10 Battleships:
A. survives: 74.2% D. survives: 24.4% No one survives: 1.4%
6 cruisers against 3 BBS:
A. survives: 62.3% D. survives: 32.2% No one survives: 5.5%Your 2 hits BBs strafing tactics is well anticipated.
Good points.
The main problem is that when you have a lot of BBs together, you can take too many hits making them and the fleet almost invulnerable with a good strafe tactics.
I would suggest keeping 20 IPCs but a different way of playing additional hits and repair.
However, BBs get 3 hits now.
Here the rule:
“Battleship are always main target: you cannot put a hit on another BB until you destroyed a crippled one or put another hit on a damaged one.”Here, how you could play it:
during combat, a single hit put on BB make it damaged but has no big consequence.
A damaged BB will fully recover once put on the board, according to OOB 1942.2 rule.A second hit (put on the same, according to the main target rule) make a BB really crippled.
When put on the board, it is only fully repaired at the beginning of player’s turn (and, if playing Global, when on a SZ deserved by NB).A third hit destroyed a crippled battleship.
This make an average of near 7 IPCs/hit. Just between Subs and Destroyers.
So, for the high cost investment, it will make Battleship a competitive unit against small warships.
And a bunch of BBs fleet cannot create a loophole in which you can do a massive hit and run without too much casualties.
@Young:
This may be a totally different direction of thought, but what if Cruisers and Aircraft carriers required 2 hits to sink, and Battleships required 3 hits to sink.
4 Subs against 2 Cruisers with 2 hits make the fight more interesting, even if Subs still gets the better hand:
Overall %*: A. survives: 58.3% D. survives: 41.7% No one survives: 0%
If you compared to OOB:
4 Subs against 2 Cruisers 1 hit each:
Overall %*: A. survives: 94.4% D. survives: 5.6% No one survives: 0%
Now, swaping side:
2 Cruisers, 2 hits, against 4 Subs are making a carnage! :-D
Overall %*: A. survives: 82.8% D. survives: 17.2% No one survives: 0%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=2&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=2&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=4&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Tra-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Tra-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
2 OOB Cruisers vs 4 Subs, Subs still win:
Overall %*: A. survives: 30.3% D. survives: 69.7% No one survives: 0%
However, it maybe an issue for Destroyers:
2 Cruisers, 2 hits against 3 Destroyers:
Overall %*: A. survives: 79.2% D. survives: 16.4% No one survives: 4.4%
OOB:
2 OOB Cruisers vs 3 DDs:
Overall %*: A. survives: 27.1% D. survives: 65.6% No one survives: 7.3%
This would mean that Destroyer have only an Anti-Sub role (for Planes also) and are no more an interesting fodder unit.
Cruiser and Battleship taking hits will play this roll instead.
Another point,
Battleship 20 IPCs (/3 hits = 6.67 IPCs/hit) are weaker against Cruiser 12 IPCs (/2 hits= 6 IPCs per hit):
5 x 2 hits Cruiser against 3 x 3 hits Battleship
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.8% D. survives: 17.8% No one survives: 3.4%
And base on this last point, I think hits on a 3 hits BB should be put anyway you want.
However, I still suggest that a single hit upon them should be treated as in 1942.2 OOB rules, repairing them at the end of the battle.
Not that I’m back paddling from 3 hit Battleships, but here’s another idea I just had…
Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, and Battleships may carry 1 tactical bomber each (all Aircraft Carrier rules would apply except the ability to carry fighters).
These ideas are all interesting, but they will definitely alter the openings. Especially when you start getting into things like adding extra hit absorption.
When I read the suggestions made here I think what people really want is a Cruiser unit that serves as a catch-all. Basically a CA + CL + CC/Pocket Battleship + Destroyer Flotilla leader + Anti-Air + you know, pretty much every conceivable kind of cruiser all-in-one! haha
:-D
I see two basic suggestions, one is to lower the cost and keep the current abilities. The other is to keep the current cost, but increase the abilities. The former is easier, but not quite as interesting. The latter is more entertaining for dynamic gameplay, but also more complicated to implement.
Don’t have any problem with a single Cruiser unit abstractly representing the abilities of many different kinds of Cruisers, but it seems like there should be some kind of trade off. Like if you use cruiser ability X, then you can’t use cruiser ability Y in the same round, along those lines. The thing about combined arms though, is that the cruiser as a unit with its basic abilities has existed since AA50, unlike Tacs and Mech which are new. To expand the combined arms concept to older units, invites the further idea that all units should just have unique interactions with each other, but I think that might be overkill.
CWO has a good grasp on how these ships were used at the time. So what do you think dude? If you had to pick a single unit with which to pair a cruiser in A&A what would it be?
I vote infantry or destroyer.
If infantry, say the combined arms is part of a broader marine concept for the whole navy, just being represented here abstractly between the ship and the ground via the cruiser (since its the naval unit that gets the least play right now.) Focus on the bombardment aspect, or the transport idea, or some sort of transport + movement advantage. Basically a combined arms for amphibious model.
If destroyer, you could try to work out some kind of flotilla or cruiser which leads destroyer-groups concept. If the cruiser boosted the destroyer attack +1, people would probably buy more of them, and it would make existing cruisers much more valuable. Basically combined arms for naval.
Then I think they would definitely be purchased, even at 12 ipcs, because players will already be buying a fair amount of DD anyway. Cruiser purchases would be much more attractive, since they would activate a DD 1:1. It would be more effective to have Cruisers boost Destroyers to attack at 3, from a purchase enticement standpoint, than the reverse, where destroyers boost cruisers to attack at 4 (since players will have more dd destroyed as fodder than cruisers). Though I suppose either might work. This whole dd:ca pairing would definitely rely heavily on the “destroyer leader” concept for the Cruiser unit. I think that might be more fun than the anti-air role for the cruiser, since it would do more to encourage naval vs naval, rather naval vs air. But again, all these things might be made to work in conjunction.
I still think the Marine thing is cool. Toblerone’s idea could play into that sort of idea too. It would be fairly easy if we just kept the unit pairing 1:1, Ship:Infantry, or to all ground if desired. Amphibious support, Flotilla lead, or Anti Air screen seem like cool options, but perhaps not all at the same time in the same round?
Agree also with Barons point, that the current G40 Cruiser is basically exactly the same as the Revised Destroyer, but nerfed of its ASW role.
It costs the same, has a similar hit/defense value, but is not needed to counter subs anymore. Sure it has the bombard at 3 (which in Revised had to be tech activated) but that’s not nearly as important as the ASW for unit buy considerations. The ASW unit, is also now the main fodder unit, in addition to CV defense, which makes the cruiser just seem irrelevant.
If I had to pick just one though, I still think some kind of basic movement advantage would provide the most entertainment value (without really needing a unit paired, just a boost to the cruiser directly). Movement at 3 is likely possible, maybe just on Non-Com if it proves breaking at 3 on combat. All these ideas are better than the OOB cruiser though which doesn’t seem to be all that great for the cost.
These ideas are all interesting, but they will definitely alter the openings. Especially when you start getting into things like adding extra hit absorption.
If infantry, say the combined arms is part of a broader marine concept for the whole navy, just being represented here abstractly between the ship and the ground via the cruiser (since its the naval unit that gets the least play right now.) Focus on the bombardment aspect, or the transport idea, or some sort of transport + movement advantage. Basically a combined arms for amphibious model.
If I had to pick just one though, I still think some kind of basic movement advantage would provide the most entertainment value (without really needing a unit paired, just a boost to the cruiser directly). Movement at 3 is likely possible, maybe just on Non-Com if it proves breaking at 3 on combat. All these ideas are better than the OOB cruiser though which doesn’t seem to be all that great for the cost.
A pretty solid analysis of various options. I like it.
About Cruiser movement 3 CM & NCM, I still think it is the most A&A Global friendly rules.
Larry H. in 1914 directly implemented it.
Naval Base allows them for all Naval units.
In game PTO, allowing them to make such a move by themselves will probably increase independant actions out of paved ways linked to Islands with Naval Base.
So, this will allows not only a greater range but depict the better maneuverability of Cruisers.
Maybe one additional pairing to increase action in Pacific, if people don’t like the 1 Marines-Infantry on board Cruiser and BB, is:
to provide an additional +1 move bonus to a transport when paired 1:1 with Cruiser.
So that way, it will be more useful to get this CM bonus +1, while being at the expanse of loosing the ASW cover provided by the slower Destroyer.
@CWO:
Everything about the cruiser suggests to me that its advantage should have something to do with speed or maneuverability, but the game has no good way to model this. All naval units move at the same speed in A&A, because here speed just equals distance. They move 2 (or 3 in the case of the naval base) same as any other naval unit.
So speed is out, the game doesn’t do speed well. But how about Maneuverability?Hmm…I wonder if speed is necessarily out as an option for cruisers when you take operational range into consideration. WWII cruisers had much more range than destroyers (those thirsty little ships needed frequent refuelling) and cruisers also tended to have more speed than battleships (although there were exceptions)…so I’m thinking, what if we gave cruisers some sort of naval equivalent of the blitzing ability which tanks have in A&A? An ability that would not apply to any other type of naval unit?
Does this can fit the bill for Cruiser “blitz ability”?
It will probably generate some come and go moves with Cruisers and transports to increase the rate of supplying new Infantry units to the frontlines.
Does such addition to Cruiser at 12 IPCs which get no movement bonus from Naval base:
A3 D3 M3 ShBomb3 +1M to transport when paired 1:1
is making the OOB Battleship uninteresting?
If the case, what can we suggest to balance with such Cruiser unit?
Giving BB the Anti-aircraft role?
An increase in shore bombardment capacity?
(Allowing them to make the single roll @4 anytime, even when a naval combat occur, for example.)
Allowing Battleship the 1 Marines-Infantry unit pairing?
In addition, such additional capacities will not hinder and slow down naval combats like can do the combined arms with Infantry, MechInf, Artillery, TcBs & Tanks/Fighters.
@Young:
Not that I’m back paddling from 3 hit Battleships, but here’s another idea I just had…
Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, and Battleships may carry 1 tactical bomber each (all Aircraft Carrier rules would apply except the ability to carry fighters).
You are outstretching the IJN Hyuga concept?
Her complement of 14 Yokosuka D4Y dive bombers and eight Aichi E16A seaplanes were catapult-launched, but landed either on conventional carriers or land bases.
There was only 22 planes on board. And it is not clear if they can land on the battleship-carrier.
Jeep-Carrier (Casablanca-class) were able to load up to 28 planes and are all cheaper, so each scuplt could represent many more aircrafts for a single plane unit put on board an Escort Carrier.
From a game-play perspective, I also think it is going too far. Black Elk with his Infantry-Marines transport-Battleship has probably reach the upper limit.
@Baron:
I’m confused, I thought that Cruisers have depth-charge capabilities.
To the best of my knowledge, WWII cruisers were not equiped with depth charges. The types of ships used for ASW in WWII were, in decreasing order of size, destroyers, destroyer escorts (also known as frigates) and corvettes. The most important characteristic for a good ASW vessel isn’t speed (though speed is very useful), it’s agility – or, in more precise terms, a small tactical radius, meaning the ability to make sharp turns.
When a WWII U-boat was being approached by a sonar-equiped ASW ship, a common U-boat tactic (especially in the first half of the war, before forward-launching ASW weapons like Hedgehog and Squid were developed) was to wait until the ship passed directly overhead, then turn sharply to try to wiggle out from under it. This sometimes worked because sonar, which worked best when tracking a target directly ahead, had trouble getting an accurate bearing on a U-boat directly below the ship. This was a problem for the ASW ship because conventional depth charges were fired from launchers to port and starboard and were rolled from the stern of the ship, meaning that they fell into the water behind the ship and on each side of it. A U-boat taking advantage of the blind spot below the ship could sometimes evade a depth-charge attack successfully for this reason.
The more maneuverable an ASW ship was, however, the more difficult it was for the U-boat to pull this trick. Cruisers and battleships weren’t agile enough for this because their large mass gave them too much momentum to turn on a dime. Ironically, this meant that little dinky corvettes, with their old fashined triple-expansion engines, moderate speed, single propellers and single rudders, were actually better suited to depth-charging than big, fast, powerful, turbine-driven, four-propeller, twin-rudder battleships like the Iowa class. The Iowas were exceptionally nimble for ships of their size, but corvettes could still beat them in terms of agility in close-quarters combat because it’s much easier to turn a 925-ton corvette going at 16 knots than a 52,000-ton battleship going at 33 knots (since the momentum of a moving object equals its mass multiplied by its velocity). Cruisers were smaller than battleships, but they still didn’t have enough agility to make good ASW ships.
A further consideration is that battleships and cruisers were very expensive, and hence were available in much smaller numbers than destroyers, frigates and corvettes. Convoy protection requires lots of escort vessels, so small ASW ships, in addition to being very agile, had the advantage that they could be produced quickly and in large numbers. (Churchill once called corvettes “the cheap and nasties”, which was a good characterization.)
When I read the suggestions made here I think what people really want is a Cruiser unit that serves as a catch-all. Basically a CA + CL + CC/Pocket Battleship + Destroyer Flotilla leader + Anti-Air + you know, pretty much every conceivable kind of cruiser all-in-one! haha
This sounds a bit like the all-round features that the Tactical Bomber developed under a number of house rule proposals. :-D This kind of thing works fine for Swiss army knives, but not for real-world military units because any vehicle or weapon system design is a compromise between competing features. Generally speaking, you can design a weapon (like the T-34) which has a pretty good performance in most or all of its features, or a weapon (like the Maus) which has fantastic performance in some features but terrible performance in others, but you generally can’t design a weapon whose performance is fantastic in every respect (unless, perhaps, you’re prepared to pay a fantastically high price for it, and to own it in fantastically small numbers – the WWII A-bombs being a good example.)
CWO has a good grasp on how these ships were used at the time. So what do you think dude? If you had to pick a single unit with which to pair a cruiser in A&A what would it be?
I vote infantry or destroyer.
If infantry, say the combined arms is part of a broader marine concept for the whole navy, just being represented here abstractly between the ship and the ground via the cruiser (since its the naval unit that gets the least play right now.) Focus on the bombardment aspect, or the transport idea, or some sort of transport + movement advantage. Basically a combined arms for amphibious model.
If destroyer, you could try to work out some kind of flotilla or cruiser which leads destroyer-groups concept. If the cruiser boosted the destroyer attack +1, people would probably buy more of them, and it would make existing cruisers much more valuable. Basically combined arms for naval.
Just in terms of historical realism, my general impressions on the various possible cruiser combinations would be:
Cruiser + Infantry? Not in terms of transportation, since cruisers weren’t suited to transporting troops. (The Japanese used destroyers as improvised troop transports at Guadalcanal, but that was a peculiar situation arising out of US air superiority in daytime…and in any case, it involved destroyers, not cruisers.) The concept of cruiser fire support for amphibious landings, however, is perfectly valid, since it was a common WWII practice.
Cruiser + Aircraft Carrier? Yes, cruisers added to the protective rings of AAA fire that were thrown up around carriers, whose own AAA abilities were limited. US practice was to put the carriers in the middle of a formation, with battleships surrounding the carriers, cruisers surrounding the battleships, and destroyers surrounding the cruisers.
Cruiser + Battleship? Nothing much to be gained there since, as I’ve already outlined, both ship types differ mainly in scale rather than in fundamental ability.
Cruiser + Destroyer? This has potential, and I’ll need to think about it in more detail later today. Here are some preliminary thoughts for now. First, these two ship types did have somewhat diffferent fundamental abilities, with some overlap. US destroyers and cruisers (the ones I know best) both tended to have 5-inch dual-purpose guns (usable in AAA and surface-attack roles), and both typically had torpedoes, but many cruisers also had 6-inch or 8-inch guns for heavy bombardment, whereas destroyers had anti-sub depth charges. A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills. (They often mooched from battleships too. The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.) Second, the “destroyer leader” concept is interesting, since it did actually exist in WWII. I’ll need to read up on how it actually worked, but as I recall it was used (at least in part) to justify the construction of certain ship designs that were, arguably, either very big destroyers or very small cruisers. I think the Tribal class sort of falls into this category, as did certain Italian cruisers. Also, if memory serves, destroyers sometimes operated in formations called flotillas, with a light cruiser serving as the flotilla’s flagship (though not always under the command of a genuine flag officer, i.e. an admiral). Anyway, more to come later.
Cruiser + Submarine? No. Their mission types were too different to benefit from combined-arms cooperation.
Cruiser + Transport ship? Perhaps, in the sense that cruisers could (in principle) protect them from attack with their AAA batteries. I’m not sure, however, to what extent cruisers were actually used in that role in WWII; destroyers may have been cheaper to use in the same capacity.
@CWO:
Cruiser + Aircraft Carrier? Yes, cruisers added to the protective rings of AAA fire that were thrown up around carriers, whose own AAA abilities were limited. US practice was to put the carriers in the middle of a formation, with battleships surrounding the carriers, cruisers surrounding the battleships, and destroyers surrounding the cruisers.
Cruiser + Battleship? Nothing much to be gained there since, as I’ve already outlined, both ship types differ mainly in scale rather than in fundamental ability.
Cruiser + Destroyer?
A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills. (They often mooched from battleships too. The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.)Cruiser + Transport ship? Perhaps, in the sense that cruisers could (in principle) protect them from attack with their AAA batteries. I’m not sure, however, to what extent cruisers were actually used in that role in WWII; destroyers may have been cheaper to use in the same capacity.
Ok, talking about Cruiser and Combined Arms
1- Cruiser always moves at 3 CM and NCM.
2- Cruiser gives +1 CM & NCM to boost the moving range of any other surface vessel if paired 1:1 (BB, CV, DD and TP, only).
3- Cruiser with Battleship and Carrier get the Anti-Air capacity (same as AAA: @1 against up to 3 planes, preemptive).
Battleship get nothing else, except as being part of #2 and a requirement for #3.
Carrier is in the same situation as Battleship.
However, to get a 3 move CM or NCM without Naval Base is costly for a Task Force Fleet: 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, needs 4 Cruisers.
The mandatory pairing 1:1 provides a very restrictive limit, since Cruisers are the worst Combat effective units of the Naval roster.
Speed and maneuverability is gained at the cost of optimized Att/Def values.
Can this be within historical accuracy, A&A system and a balance limit?
Thanks for that CWO Marc, very informative.
From what I keep getting from all your posts on the topic is that Battleships and Cruisers are just platforms with big guns (Battleships being the more formidable of the two). I see the naval units in this game more as playable pieces rather than historically accurate weapons, that’s why the most appealing house rules for me are the simple and basic ideas. I like to compare Cruisers and S. Bombers as playable purchasable pieces within a global 1940 game, primarily because they cost the same, although there are many differences. Bombers are better in the way that they are more powerful on attack, have a larger and more flexible range, and their SBR speciality is more effective than the Cruisers Bombardment capabilities. However, the most prominent difference for me is that the S. Bomber is at the top of it’s unit class (Fighter, T. Bomber, S. Bomber) where as the Cruiser is middle-ish in a 6 unit naval arm. I don’t see how improving Cruisers by improving the lesser naval units will balance purchasability throughout the 6 available units. The enhancements should travel upwards and not backwards or we will see even more tall stacks of destroyers on the board.
I think giving the Cruiser a damage capability (2 hits to sink) automatically balances, and justifies their 12 IPC price, however, Battleships now become obsolete under this rule and need a boost to balance and justify their 20 IPC cost. Giving Battleships 3 hits to sink is unnecessarily complicated making naval battles long and frustrating, but there are abilities that can be given to Battleships that make more sense than making Cruisers too powerful. So if Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, an ability or two has to be given to Battleships which I believe is a better discussion than what to give Cruisers. Here are some Battleship ability ideas…
Battleships get 2 dice when attacking and/or defending
Battleships get 2 dice when attacking and/or defending and may apply the best result
Battleships that hit may choose which enemy unit is to be a casualty
Hits from Battleships must be applied to enemy capital ships first
Hits from Battleships must immediately be removed from the battle board
Hits from bombarding Battleships must immediately be removed from the board
Battleships may bombard every combat round during Amphibious assaults
Naval units may move 3 spaces from sea zones that contain a friendly Battleship
My point is, it’s much easier to give the Cruiser the 2 hits to sink bonus, and discuss more palatable improvements to the top unit in the naval arm, rather than make the Cruiser to powerful as a middle unit.
@Young:
I think giving the Cruiser a damage capability (2 hits to sink) automatically balances, and justifies their 12 IPC price, however, Battleships now become obsolete under this rule and need a boost to balance and justify their 20 IPC cost. Giving Battleships 3 hits to sink is unnecessarily complicated making naval battles long and frustrating, but there are abilities that can be given to Battleships that make more sense than making Cruisers too powerful. So if Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, an ability or two has to be given to Battleships which I believe is a better discussion than what to give Cruisers. Here are some Battleship ability ideas…
My point is, it’s much easier to give the Cruiser the 2 hits to sink bonus, and discuss more palatable improvements to the top unit in the naval arm, rather than make the Cruiser to powerful as a middle unit.
Giving Cruiser 2 hits for 12 IPCs is exactly making them the most powerful unit on the sea and against planes.
Makes some simulations, you will see, it is a big booster.
At 6 IPCs/hit, it is the same rate as Subs and cruiser have the ability to hit planes.
And making BB as powerful as them is escalating the combat value higher against other sea-able units.
If you want to go this way, I think you need to show us that is not a major change in balance roster, even if 2 hits is very easy to implement, as such.
The 2 hits bottom price should be put at 16 IPCs, for 8 IPCs/hit, the same as cost as a Destroyer.
And at 16 IPCs, it is not as affordable as a mid-ship should be.
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12
Probably it is much better balance this way.
And no need to make tremendous change to Battleship.
@Young:
I think giving the Cruiser a damage capability (2 hits to sink) automatically balances, and justifies their 12 IPC price, however, Battleships now become obsolete under this rule and need a boost to balance and justify their 20 IPC cost. Giving Battleships 3 hits to sink is unnecessarily complicated making naval battles long and frustrating, but there are abilities that can be given to Battleships that make more sense than making Cruisers too powerful. So if Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, an ability or two has to be given to Battleships which I believe is a better discussion than what to give Cruisers.
This is a tough one to decide because, if Global 1940 were more realistic, a carrier itself would actually require only 1 hit to be sunk, not 2. WWII carriers with heavily armoured flight decks (like the British Illustrious class) were the exception, not the norm. Most carriers of the time were quite vulnerable to dive-bombing attacks because of this lack of armour, and for other reasons: their flight deck elevators, if open, allowed a bomb to drop right into the ship’s interior, and their flight decks (if you caught them at a bad moment, as happened to the Japanese at Midway) and their internal hangars (most of the time) often housed large quantities of explosive ordnance and of aviation fuel. The Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi both absorbed great numbers of torpedo and bomb hits before sinking, whereas the four Japanese carriers at Midway were fatally damaged by just a few bombs each.
I can nevertheless understand why, for game reasons, the OOB rules give carriers the same two-hits-to-destroy capacity as battleships. Both units are expensive (battleship = 20, carrier = 16), so the sinking of either unit is a big loss. For the battleship, this risk of sinking is partially offset by its defensive rating of 4 (which I’d say is valid historically). The carrier, on the other hand, only has a defensive rating of 2. This too is valid historically, but it means that the carrier is more vulnerable than the battleship. If carriers didn’t have a two-hits-to-destroy capacity, this would make them even juicier targets than they are now, and would serve as a disincentive to their purchase.
Should cruisers likewise be granted a a two-hits-to-destroy capacity, for the same reason that carriers have this capacity? As I said, that’s a tough one to decide…but my inclination would be to say no. Cruisers cost less than carriers (12 versus 16) and have a higher defensive rating (3 versus 2), so in my opinion they have less need than carriers for the 2-hit capacity because cruisers are less likely to be sunk and less of a financial loss if they do get sunk. And in terms of historical accuracy, their defensive rating of 3 (more than a carrier, less than a battleship) accurately reflects the fact that cruisers tended to be more heavily armoured than carriers and less heavily armoured than battleships.
