Cruisers - Combined Arms

@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.)

@Black_Elk:

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.)

@Black_Elk:

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?

@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.

@CWO:

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.

The 1942.2 1 hit and 14 IPCs Aircraft Carrier is much more vulnerable and precious.
It is the most costlier on a IPC/hit ratio. In itself, it is weaker than the 12 IPCs Cruiser.
In G40, at 8 IPCs/hit, the Carrier is much sturdier than the Cruiser unit. But it has no attack value to counterweight this change compared to 1942.2.

In addition, this provides another unit with an increase interaction to justify Naval Base repair capacity.

By suspending Air Operation for damaged Carrier, it makes them less effective than her damaged Battleship counterpart which can still work as an undamaged one.

@Young:

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.

Nice creative thinking on this.

I was just thinking how it would have been a loss if Larry had put Cruiser and Battleship at their right cost and combat value balance:
Battleship at 18 IPCs and Cruiser at 10 IPCs.
This would have give a lot less intense debates and thinking outside the box.

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 changes to Battleship.

For 60 IPCs:
5 2 hits Cruisers against 3 Battleships:
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.3% D. survives: 19.5% No one survives: 2.3%

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=5&aSub=&aDes=5&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Tra-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Battleship still need a little boost against such a Cruiser, but it can works.

2 2-hits Cruisers against 3 Destroyers, is just slightly above.

Overall %*: A. survives: 58.7% D. survives: 37.2% No one survives: 4.2%

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=2&aSub=&aDes=2&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=3&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Tra-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

So you pay for a cheaper unit, you get a less powerful ones.
You pay for a costlier, you get a better one.

@Young:

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).

I hadn’t noticed this one until now.  With the exception of a couple of bizarre hybrids, WWII battleships did not carry tactical bombers nor even fighter planes.  The only aircraft normally carried on battleships (and on some heavy cruisers) were small, light floatplanes that were launched from a catapult, and which were recovered by landing on the water (it only worked in calm seas) and being picked up by the ship’s crane.  They were used for reconnaissance and, to some extent, for spotting the fall of shells when the ship was firing at distant targets; the plane would radio the information back to the gunners to help them correct their range.

@Young:

@Baron:

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 changes to Battleship.

For 60 IPCs:
5 2 hits Cruisers against 3 Battleships:
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.3% D. survives: 19.5% No one survives: 2.3%

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=5&aSub=&aDes=5&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Tra-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Battleship still need a little boost against such a Cruiser, but it can works.
2 2-hits Cruisers against 3 Destroyers, is just slightly above.

Overall %*: A. survives: 58.7% D. survives: 37.2% No one survives: 4.2%

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=2&aSub=&aDes=2&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=3&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Tra-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

So you pay for a cheaper unit, you get a less powerful ones.
You pay for a costlier, you get a better one.

This is very interesting.

You still need to find a combat booster for Battleship, but I think it can really work.

In addition, Naval Base will be more useful because 3 units can now need a repair: Cruiser, Carrier, Battleship.

5 Shore bombardment @2 = A10 vs 3 Shore bombardment @4 = A12.
Now Battleship has a better coastal bombardment capabilities than Cruiser as historical accuracy seems to require.
Any ideas which kind of combat capacities should be provided to Battleship to balance the odds against Cruiser?

Anti-aircraft against 1 plane?
2 rolls @4 per Battleship?
Giving an extended +1 NCM to all own’s Power surface ships in the SZ?

Do you also think about letting BB rolls Shore bombardment after a Naval combat in the surrounding SZ during an amphibious assault?

@Young:

I would make shore bombardments every combat round during an amphibious assault.

Just this will not totally work because Cruiser will be far better against BB on the same IPC basis (4 times better):
Overall %*:   A. survives: 78.3%    D. survives: 19.5%    No one survives: 2.3%

Everybody will buy 2-hits Cruisers and count on Planes (with Carrier) for an increase Amphibious support attack.

What about a first round plunging fire @4?
Can be First Strike, if you wish.
It gives 2 rolls @4 in the opening combat round.
And only one after this first round.

That way, it can slightly counterweight the combat advantage of Cruisers, since the opening round is the most important.
And, most often, after this first round, Battleships all have taken 1 hit and are damaged.
They wouldn’t operate at their full combat capacities, anyway.

In addition, a 2 shot@4 in the first round imply that a Cruiser unit could be destroyed in a single round in a 1 on 1 Naval battle.
This would make Battleship more impressive in small naval skirmishes.

@Baron:

I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12

I like this because it leaves also room for either Light Cruiser or BattleCruiser, custom pieces.

@Young:

What was it CWO Marc was saying about the fire power on Cruisers essentially the same on destroyers? this would help validate the att @2 def @2 similarities between the two units.

@CWO:

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.

Maybe this A2 D2 unit combat values similarities could give an orientation for CWO Marc comments on historical Cruisers and Destroyers?

That would be fun if somehow history could provides some back up on this 2 hits Cruiser.  :-)

@Young:

What was it CWO Marc was saying about the fire power on Cruisers essentially the same on destroyers?

I was saying that there was some overlap between cruiser and destroyer armament (in terms of type), but I also noted that there were major differences too.  I should have been clearer about the overlaps because even in cases where cruisers and destroyers carried the same type of weapons, they didn’t carry the same quantities.  To illustrate this with concrete figures, here are some numbers drawn from (as examples) the WWII-era Fletcher class destroyers and the Baltimore class heavy cruisers.

8 inch/55 caliber guns (surface-attack)
Fletcher class destroyer: No
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 9 (in 3 triple turrets)

5 inch/38 caliber dual-purpose guns (AAA / surface-attack)
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 5 (in 5 single mounts)
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 12 (in 6 double mounts)

40 mm Bofors heavy AAA guns
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 6 to 10
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 48

20 mm Oerlikon AAA autocannons
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 7 to 10
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 24

21-inch torpedo tubes
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 10
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: No

K-gun depth-charge launchers
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 6
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: No

Depth charge racks
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: No