Cruisers - Combined Arms

@Black_Elk:

On this last point, I think the attitude comes from a sense the the names of these pieces are sometimes arbitrary.

In a sense, yes, though my guess is that Larry’s unit development process works in the opposite direction.  I imagine that his starting point is the observation (for example) that in WWII battleships were an important type of military unit, and that his next step is to figure out how the real-world abilities of battleships can be translated into unit values that fit his game system.  With later games, in which new unit types are being fitted amongst pieces that are already establised, Larry also needs to consider where the new unit’s abilities ought to fit relative to the existing units.  He needs to ask himself, for example, whether a cruiser is intermediate in combat values between a battleship and a destroyer, and whether it should have special abilities that distinguish it from one or both existing types.  Ditto for tac bombers relative to strategic bombers and fighters.  Ditto for mech infantry relative to regular infantry and tanks.  As part of this process, he may realize that he needs to tweak existing units; I suspect that’s why the carrier was given a 2-hit capacity in Global, for example.  So in this sense, it’s not a case of Larry coming up with a unit having certain combat values and then giving it an arbitrary name, it’s a case of him picking an existing unit type first and then giving it (arguably arbitrary) combat values, in view of he fact that any particular WWII unit type (like “battleship”) actually represented in the real world a broad range of models and classes with sometimes drastically different capabilities.

@Black_Elk:

I could also imagine that say, we need yet another intermediate ship in A&A. And then people just adding in a new unit like “frigate”, or “light” or “heavy” or “battle” cruiser some random name,  just because it’s needed to fit the desired unit abilities. Some intermediate unit at the Attack/Def values, with a reasonable name to fit, since that’s basically what happened when cruisers and destroyers were introduced.

As a piece junkie, I love new unit types. The above comment is interesting in the context of the present cruiser discussion, however, because in one sense it runs counter to the basic premise of this thread: that the cruiser is an intermediate unit category which doesn’t have much going for it under the OOB rules and which needs some kind of boost to make it worthwhile as a purchase.  I recall that some other units have sometimes been called “niche purchases”, which I guess has two possible meanings: a) the unit is highly suited to specialized purposes, but not useful in other cases; or b) the unit is an unhappy compromise between established types that doesn’t have any particular distinguishing features that make it worth buying.  So it’s possible that even finer gradations of units, as fun as they might be, would run into the same criticism.

Another question this raises (and I don’t have an answer to it) is the following one: do all units necessarily have to be equally attractive as purchases?  The fact is that some WWII military unit types genuinely were less useful than others (depending on the context, of course, and varying from nation to nation).  To some extent the OOB rules reflect this fact because not all game units are equally useful, or at least not equally useful to all players.  The reaction to this state of affairs tends to be: “This unit isn’t getting purchased enough, so let’s change x or y or z to make it more attractive to buy.”  This motivation is understandable in one sense, because it seems a shame to let some of these cool sculpts remain unused in their boxes, but isn’t there a danger that unit values will get distorted simply for the purpose of getting them on the board and making sure that each unit type is roughly as attractive as every other unit type?  It’s just something I’m wondering about.

I never think about something else than the usual first round single preemptive roll.
Exactly as AAA is working OOB.
Did you want something more powerful?

About #2.
It seems a gamey tactics.
When we played classic with WWII The Expansion,
Cruisers and BB could do both SZ naval combat and a Single shot bombardment.
Never been a problem.
Warships, unlike planes, can’t attack every turns. Because of slow deployement rate of naval units.
So when there a chance to use their ability in full it is a relief.

@Baron:

About #2.
It seems a gamey tactics.
When we played classic with WWII The Expansion,
Cruisers and BB could do both SZ naval combat and a Single shot bombardment.
Never been a problem.
Warships, unlike planes, can’t attack every turns. Because of slow deployement rate of naval units.
So when there a chance to use their ability in full it is a relief.

Historically one of the hardest things to do was an amphibious assault. If anything, an amphibious assault should be HARDER in this game, not easier. Not being able to bombard after a sea battle is one of the things that make an amphibious assault harder - that’s why I favor keeping it.

Proposing that ships can do both sea battles and bombardment, and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea. Bombardment makes it easier than fighting any land battle, because you are shooting at something with no risk of being hit yourself.

Have you considered, that improved shore bombardment helps the allies a lot more than the axis?

@Young:

I’m just trying to help make cruisers better.

I absolutely agree - cruisers need to be better - just throwing up a gauntlet so only your best ideas will get through. No harm meant to any.

@Der:

Historically one of the hardest things to do was an amphibious assault. If anything, an amphibious assault should be HARDER in this game, not easier. Not being able to bombard after a sea battle is one of the things that make an amphibious assault harder - that’s why I favor keeping it.

Proposing that ships can do both sea battles and bombardment, and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea. Bombardment makes it easier than fighting any land battle, because you are shooting at something with no risk of being hit yourself.

I agree with you on that point:
and their casualties cannot fire back = a cakewalk for taking islands and other land areas from the sea.
I don’t think YG was implementing this particular point.
Shore bombardment cannot be a preemptive strike, unless you have some way to do the same with reasonable occasions in the game against amphibious invaders.

Toblerone77 suggested that Shorebombard is play OOB (cannot do it if Sea Combat happen) but
Cruiser also gives a +1A (as Artillery) to an Inf/MechInf.
Battleship also gives a +1A (as improved Artillery) to 2 Inf/MechInf.
For the duration of the land combat.

I believe this can work, since there is no additional hits outside the attacking ground units.

So imagine 1 Cruiser with 1 transport 2 Infantries on it. Cost 12+7+6= 25 IPCs
Shorebombard @3, once
1 Inf A1+1=2
1 Inf A1

1 Battleship with 1 transport 2 Infantries on it. Cost 20+7+6= 33 IPCs
Shorebombard @4, once
1 Inf A1+1=2
1 Inf A1+1=2

So, making an Amphibious assault with a Battleship is like having 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery (7 IPCs):
1 Inf A1+1=2
1 Art A2

So, for every transport with a BB, you get a small reduction of 1 IPC for the same attack value.

With Cruiser, it is not exactly as having 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery (7 IPCs) because there is only one Infantry which get the Attack @2.
@toblerone77:

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.

Or
Cruiser and Battleship gives a +1A (as Artillery) to an Inf/MechInf.
And
Battleship is also able to move 1 Marines-Infantry unit on board.
1 Battleship with 1 Infantry on it. Cost 20+3= 23 IPCs
Shorebombard @4, once
1 Inf A1+1=2

And it solves the Marines unit at 3 IPCs case because it can Attack 2 Defend 2 in any Amphibious Assault supported by Battleship unit.

It fits the description of Marines, since they need less equipment, have smaller divisions and can be deployed in a short notice.
Hence, no need of Transport, just the Battleship unit (with a few support ships, as it is always the case, not represented but easily imagined.)

@Young:

No offence taken… The reason I don’t like changing cost is because the oob costs for all units is engrained in our heads and players may think $12 no matter how many times you tell them their now $10. As for giving cruisers AAA capabilities, I can’t get around the idea of giving it to cruisers and not AC Carriers or Battleships.

Well erm, the costs of specific units changed like about 10 times in the past editions. Therefore I can’t see a problem with changing some of them once more.
Changing the gameplay rules of units is more of a problem, as it changes the setup. You get completely new possibilities to open the game (however, even if it sounds interesting, the more conservative players would never accept it). If you change for example the battleship rules from for “bad” to “good”, those battleships will totally turn around the first turns of the game. Maybe you will even change the overall balance of the game.
The charming thing with only changing unit’s costs, is that it will in no way ever change anything with the starting setup of the game.

Well, I’m not totally against changing the rules, but i like it as simple as possible, and I simply can’t understand your opinion on changing costs. Imho costs is the first thing one should consider to change, and only if this can’t give the specific unit its own niche, one should consider changing the rules.

As far as I understand the defender of a firm “12 IPCs”, is also about first round set-up and placements at the end of the opening turn.
Some Powers will be able to put a 10 IPCs Cruiser in the water instead of a Destroyer and this can change some forthcoming battle in the next turn.
Just an example.

Just real quick, to CWO’s question about whether every unit necessarily needs to be a good or desireable purchase? I don’t think so. As long as there are at least some specialized cases where players have a reason to buy it. Having somekind of unique special ability would be helpful. I guess you could make the case that it’s bombardment is special, but in my experience this hasn’t been enough to get them on the board. That’s why the triple combo Anti Air idea seems like it might work, in conjunction with a carrier and battleship. I could see the anti air umbrella as a dedecent incentive. Right now though their cost at 12 seems prohibitive compared with 2 subs on attack or 1.5 destroyers on defense for the pips.

I don’t have a problem with lowering the cost, since unit costs have changed pretty frequently over the past few boards. Still I think a unique ability would be more fun for the gameplay, to cement it in the roster as something other than a nerfed Revised Destroyer with no ASW
:-D

Changing the costs of units are house rules afaik.
The easiest “house rule” to get them on board would be: Cruiser 10 IPC, Battleship 18 IPC.

@arwaker:

Changing the costs of units are house rules afaik.
The easiest “house rule” to get them on board would be: Cruiser 10 IPC, Battleship 18 IPC.

I agree but still flashed on the Black Elk Marines &BB.
It can be cool to increase action in PTO.
And it doesn’t exclude the above costs.

@Baron:

I’m more inclined to treat it exactly as an AAA unit: @1 against up to three planes.
After all, it is a known concept in ground combat adapted to Naval Battle and it requires 3 warships type, the number 3 is obviously on the board.
IC’s AAA seems too powerful and unrealistic: a defense @1 against infinite number of planes.
Defending Carriers are already much better than offensive ones. Anti-Air is providing an additional defense.

@Black_Elk:

Well the anti air for battlegroup concept seems cool. I think the hope was that we could find a combined arms that just had units pairing 1:1. That one requires a pairing of 3 different units 1:1:1, but seems like it could encourage Cruiser purchases.

Not only Cruiser but also Battleship buying incentive.
Another reason to not give IC’s AAA capacity: you want to defend against more than 3 planes, buy another Cruiser and BB to join another Carrier.
I’m pretty sure it can change some buying from Destroyers and Subs to Cruiser and Battleship.

It still cost 12+16+20= at least 48 IPCs (68 with 2 Fgs) to get this additional defensive abilities.

Maybe this concept can be simply extended to each combo of BB+Cruiser gives 1 AAA capacity as long as there is a Carrier to protect.

So 2 BBs + 2 Cruisers + 1 Carrrier will provides an AAA against up to 6 planes.

All this!  :-D

I think something along these lines could potentially bring both Cruisers and Battleships back into the mix as a purchasing consideration, and is relatively simple.

Of the combined arms proposed thus far, this one doesn’t bust the opening round combats. It would increase the swing on fleet defense making all out air assaults against a stacked battle group more risky. Right now the all air option is pretty powerful vs navies, this would give at least some way to counter that, but only at the cost of more expensive warship units, and somewhat diminished flexibility in other ways, since you have to keep the ships together to get the boost.

I still think a different bombardment bonus or marine concept could work for cruisers and battleships, or a maneuverability bonus for cruisers specifically, but both of those would surely have an influence on the opening balance.

Way Cool Baron!

Don’t know if it’s your’s alone but the idea of getting rid of limitless AA shots for infrastructure is a good one! Let them have a normal 3 shot limit and if you want more buy a AA gun.
Sorry to sidetrack on the cruiser thing but I really like this idea. :)

@barney:

Way Cool Baron!

Don’t know if it’s your’s alone but the idea of getting rid of limitless AA shots for infrastructure is a good one! Let them have a normal 3 shot limit and if you want more buy a AA gun.
Sorry to sidetrack on the cruiser thing but I really like this idea. :)

You overread my ambiguous sentence.
I was only thinking about a naval context.
So it is entirely your idea to limit IC’s AAA to up to three shots.
That can give a little incentive to buy more AAA units.