Cruiser Idea

Here’s my changes for ships and using other people’s ideas and I thank you for them(and I’m basing it off of G40 but you can use it for 42.2 or 41 or anything else if you want).

Battleships- Their new change is that they can carry 1 infantry even if damaged.

Cruisers- Cost 10 and has a built in AA gun that can shoot up to 1 plane but only up to 4 CVs.

Destroyers- Cost 7 and Attack is 1 and Defense is 2.

Submarines- Cost 5 and Attack is 2 and defense is 1 and aircraft may attack subs without a DD but the sub may choose to submerge and the aircraft gets one shot at killing it.

Transports- Cost 5.
Any comments?

@Frederick:

Here’s my changes for ships and using other people’s ideas and I thank you for them(and I’m basing it off of G40 but you can use it for 42.2 or 41 or anything else if you want).

Battleships- Their new change is that they can carry 1 infantry even if damaged.

Cruisers- Cost 10 and has a built in AA gun that can shoot up to 1 plane but only up to 4 CVs.

Destroyers- Cost 7 and Attack is 1 and Defense is 2.

Submarines- Cost 5 and Attack is 2 and defense is 1 and aircraft may attack subs without a DD but the sub may choose to submerge and the aircraft gets one shot at killing it.

Transports- Cost 5.
Any comments?

My thoughts:

Battleships: Battleships already have two special “things” they do - they can take two hits and shore bombard. Infantry carrying seems superfluous and reduces the role of the transport.

Cruisers: I don’t understand what you mean here  “only up to 4 CVs”

DDs: Your stats would mean a pack of DDs attacking a pack of subs would be an even battle, with the subs defending at “1” - when clearly the DDs would have an advantage with their speed and depth charge ability.

Subs - pretty good except the price of “5” makes subs too cheap - especially if you combine them with a “navy production” tech, where they would then cost “4” - you could spam the oceans with them.

@Der:

@Frederick:

Destroyers- Cost 7 and Attack is 1 and Defense is 2.

Submarines- Cost 5 and Attack is 2 and defense is 1 and aircraft may attack subs without a DD but the sub may choose to submerge and the aircraft gets one shot at killing it.
Any comments?

My thoughts:

DDs: Your stats would mean a pack of DDs attacking a pack of subs would be an even battle, with the subs defending at “1” - when clearly the DDs would have an advantage with their speed and depth charge ability.

Subs - pretty good except the price of “5” makes subs too cheap - especially if you combine them with a “navy production” tech, where they would then cost “4” - you could spam the oceans with them.

About A1 Destroyer, I could rationalize it that it is harder to search and  destroy subs in open sea rather than waiting for a torpedo trail against an escorted vessel and react against the attacking Sub with hedgehogs and depth charges. A1 includes the search result. 50% to find and 2/6 to hit = 1/6 on attack.
In an old WWII The Expansion from Philip Schwartzer, DE Destroyer Escort got A1D2.
The search, named Anti-Sub patrol, was 2/6 and the attack roll 2/6 vs Sub only. Sum: 4/36 which is less than the A1 suggested.

Besides, if planes can shoot submerging Sub the issue would become that Sub are going to be sitting duck with no retaliate roll against planes only attack. DD won’t be as necessary as OOB.

My idea to simplify interactions between Subs, planes and DDs still requires that Subs keep their surprise or submerge phase when destroyer is not present. So, a planes only attack have no impact on enemy’s submerge Sub. This imply that at least 1DD must block Subs to let planes a chance to hit unsubmerged Subs.
Also, DD A1D2 increase the need to bring along planes to be more efficient while on offense searching and seeking to sink Subs. Something which is historically correct.

Der Kuenstler up to 4 cruisers means that in a sea battle and lets say you have something like 5 cruisers and they are attack with aircraft only 4 of them may use their AA gun ability. The reasons why subs are 5 ipc is because they were cheap back then and Germany built 1,154 of them so there’s a reason why there cheap and the chances of getting the shipyards tech is really rare.

Baron Munchhausen are you saying that DDs attack should be 2? Because I am thinking about changing it to that.

@Frederick:

Baron Munchhausen are you saying that DDs attack should be 2? Because I am thinking about changing it to that.

I was simply explaining the old rule.
The Destroyer escort was a A1 D2 M2 Cost 8 but was only to protect Transports.
On Anti-Sub Patrol, the Attack rise to 2 against Sub only for a single shot at sub, after the sub is safe.
However, in this WWII The Expansion rule set, Subs have no defense at all.
ASP was a special search required first before being able to roll for attack.

In my own HR, DD is A1 D2 M2 Cost 6 IPCs and Sub is still A2 D1 M2 Cost 6 IPCs.
The change is that in multi-types naval combat you don’t need to look about DD presence to hit Sub with any plane. (Simpler compared to OOB.)
The OOB rule was because if planes hit Subs without DD, Subs becomes the best all-around naval fodder. But it should be Destroyer, historically speaking, so at 6 IPCs both DDs and Subs can be fodder. On offense, clearly you would chose to loose DD first. On defense, you could prefer to loose Subs but sometimes saving Subs by submerging them would be the best option. Hence, Destroyers could still be an interesting fodder on defense.

I should add that DD blocks Subs’ submerge on a 1 on 1 basis (and for a single combat round) according to my HR inspired by DK.

@Baron:

@Frederick:

Baron Munchhausen are you saying that DDs attack should be 2? Because I am thinking about changing it to that.

I was simply explaining the old rule.
The Destroyer escort was a A1 D2 M2 Cost 8 but was only to protect Transports.
On Anti-Sub Patrol, the Attack rise to 2 against Sub only for a single shot at sub, after the sub is safe.
However, in this WWII The Expansion rule set, Subs have no defense at all.
ASP was a special search required first before being able to roll for attack.

Okay, thanks for the explanation.

The key to adding a new unit is deciding what it does that is different than the units already available.

What about refocusing the Cruiser on AA work?

Commerce Raider - Cuts trans-oceanic lines-of-supply.
Destroyer Escort - Convoy defense. Focus is on hunting subs in Convoy Zones. Bonus to convoy defense.
Destroyer - Focus is on hunting subs and taking hits (“screening”) during fleet actions. Bonus against submarines.
Cruiser -  Utility piece. Strong and fast enough to sink a destroyer 1:1. Can do weak shore bombardment. Improved AA if another friendly ship is in the same space. Bonus against aircraft.
Battlecruiser - Focus is on hunting smaller combatants. Better shore bombardment. Useful on the attack. Weaker defense than a battleship. Only one hit point. Possible benefit: re-roll one die during combat.
Battleship - Focus is on destroying other naval units. Best shore bombardment.
Carrier - Focus is on extending the range of aircraft.
Armored Carrier - Improved defense and 3 hit points. More expensive, but more survivable.
Transport - Carries troops.

This presumes a good number of sea zones, meaning a slightly larger map, such as that offered by HBG.

On a very, very large map (which I one day hope to see), you might add Coastal Battleships – basically, low-cost, slow-moving battlewagons.

@Trenacker:

The key to adding a new unit is deciding what it does that is different than the units already available.

What about refocusing the Cruiser on AA work?

Commerce Raider - Cuts trans-oceanic lines-of-supply.
Destroyer Escort - Convoy defense. Focus is on hunting subs in Convoy Zones. Bonus to convoy defense.
Destroyer - Focus is on hunting subs and taking hits (“screening”) during fleet actions. Bonus against submarines.
Cruiser -  Utility piece. Strong and fast enough to sink a destroyer 1:1. Can do weak shore bombardment. Improved AA if another friendly ship is in the same space. Bonus against aircraft.
Battlecruiser - Focus is on hunting smaller combatants. Better shore bombardment. Useful on the attack. Weaker defense than a battleship. Only one hit point. Possible benefit: re-roll one die during combat.
Battleship - Focus is on destroying other naval units. Best shore bombardment.
Carrier - Focus is on extending the range of aircraft.
Armored Carrier - Improved defense and 3 hit points. More expensive, but more survivable.
Transport - Carries troops.

This presumes a good number of sea zones, meaning a slightly larger map, such as that offered by HBG.

On a very, very large map (which I one day hope to see), you might add Coastal Battleships – basically, low-cost, slow-moving battlewagons.

I have been working on the following for my game. Intent is to have a couple more units, but make each unique in a D6 system. I want to keep it as simple as possible, but incorporate the Light-Medium-Heavy aspect of HBGs larger naval units:

• Transport:   A0   D0   M2   1 hit, OOB transport rules   $7

• Submarine:   A2   D1   M2   1 hit, Surprise strike - countered 1:1 w/destroyer   $6

• Large Submarine:   A3   D1   M2   1 hit, Surprise strike - countered 1:1 w/destroyer, may Target each round if not countered by destroyer   $8

• Destroyer:   A2   D2   M2   1 hit, counter subs 1:1- removes surprise strike and sub targeting   $7

• Cruiser: A3   D3   M2   1 hits, up to 2 AA shots per cruiser in rnd 1, bombards on 3 (maybe 2?)   $10

• Early War BB/Battlecruiser/Heavy Cruiser:   A4   D3   M2   $12   1 hit, Can bombard on 4 (maybe 3?)   (Graf Spee, Alaska, Nagato, Fuso, Nevada, Hood, etc…)

• Battleship:   A4   D4   M2   2 hits, Can bombard on 4   $18   (Iowa, Bismarck, King George V, Dunkerque, Vittorio Veneto, North Carolina, Kongo, etc…)

• Heavy Battleship:   A5   D5   M2   3 hits, Can bombard on 5   $24   (Yamato, Montana, etc…)

• Light Carrier:   A0   D1   M2   1 hit, holds 1 fighter/tac   $8

• Fleet Carrier:   A1   D2   M2   2 hits, holds 2 fighters/tac   $15  (Yorktown, Essex, Ark Royal, Shokaku, Kaga, Soryu, Graf Zeppelin, Illustrious, Aquila, etc…)

• Heavy Carrier: A2   D3   M2   2 hits, holds 3 fighters/tac   $20  (Midway, Shinano, etc…)

It is a work in progress. I may need to refine the battlecruiser concept to make it more appealing (i.e. give it a special separate from just being able to bombard). But this category also includes early war battleships (WWI holdovers), so something may have to give. Costs are subject to change also. I think this is just about the max number of Naval Units a D6 A&A game can handle. Any more and you will just have extra units that are never used or need completely new game mechanics to use.

IMO Looks good so far!

Good Stuff Guys !

As far as your battlecrusier LHoffman maybe it could be more of a starting unit ? Begin the game with some with the option to buy more. You probbaly wouldn’t want to buy them but they were part of the war and would be cool to represent them.

@barney:

Good Stuff Guys !

As far as your battlecrusier LHoffman maybe it could be more of a starting unit ? Begin the game with some with the option to buy more. You probbaly wouldn’t want to buy them but they were part of the war and would be cool to represent them.

Thanks guys. I like to get input and criticism because other people think of stuff that I do not.

As for the Battlecruiser (and Early War BB)… yes, I thought of it in a similar way. Originally, I drew it up as just an Early War Battleship which had similar values except that you couldn’t buy them. There were just a certain number that started on the board, as you said. I think I am going to make them purchasable, but perhaps they aren’t very useful for a reason. Their era is over.

With 1914 I’ve experimented with pursuit in naval combat, that is a naval force retreating may be followed or “pursued” by the other fleet.  This was partly to break the stalemate of ships skulking in mined ports, but perahps it could be applied to cruisers only, i.e.

Allow either side (defender first) to retreat to a non hostile sz after a round of naval battle, but cruisers (and destroyers?) in the opposing force may pursue the retreating ships and engage in another round of firing. They may simply “shadow” by pursuing without combat, but the retreating fleet may than choose to fire upon them.

A shadowed fleet must engage its shadow before moving to attack other units, though it may (in effect) retreat again and/or load/unload units.

For WWII, fighters in a naval battle should be able to join in a pursuit but only if they remain in range of their carriers/landing zones.

The Battlecruiser, built as a hunter-killer, is dramatically less useful if we’re talking about the original map, on which even Cruisers have limited utility due to the relatively short distances between continents. I’m also not sure the Commerce Raider/Auxiliary Cruiser is viable on such a board. Certainly the Torpedo Boat Destroyer and the Torpedo Bomber are not.

Possibly the Armored Carrier might have value, if somebody really wants to operate such a platform either independently, or integrated with a small(er) squadron.

Honestly, I don’t think that even the G1940 map from HBG is large enough to justify adding new units.

By the time we get to talking about a map with oceans that may take two or even three turns to cross, we run into the question of whether land and air combat are even working on the same timescale – they are not, really. However, I do want to see navigable rivers (Mississippi and Yangtze) and larger oceans, along with more “metropolitan” territories (e.g., National Capital Region) on future maps.

I think adding AAA capability to the cruiser appears to be easier to balance than lowering the cost. Value of the unit can be adjusted by varying the number of AAA shots.  Lowering the cost in addition to AAA seems to throw off the value of the DD and BB.  Lowering the Offshore Bombardment of a cruiser to 2 makes sense thematically and might be a good way to go, but I think OOB rules left it at 3 to KISS.

@drummerinheat:

It seems to be agreed on the forums that cruisers aren’t worth purchasing.  Since cruisers were technically the fastest of ships**, what if they had movement of 3 from any space regardless of naval base?  Would that change your mind on purchasing? I think it would for me.**

@drummerinheat:

@CWO:

@drummerinheat:

Since cruisers were technically the fastest of ships

Not really.  Speaking in very general terms (because there was a lot of variation from nany to navy), destroyers tended to be faster than cruisers.  Fleet carriers were usually quite fast too, since their high speed (combined with the technique of steering into the wind) facilitated plane launches.  And America’s 33-knot Iowa-class battleships were exceptionally fast (and agile) by battleship standards.  Cruisers (the main types being 8-inch gun heavy, 6-inch gun light and 5-inch gun anti-aircraft cruisers) we basically intended to be good all-around combat ships: they had a long-range cruising radius (like battleships and carriers; destroyers were notorious fuel hogs when operating at high speed, and their small size meant that they had relatively small fuel tanks); they had decent armour protection (less than battleships, but better than carriers (which had little) and destroyers (which had none)); and they had good firepower (especially the 8-inch ones, though of course this was much less than 14-, 15-, 16- and 18-inch battleships).  They were also considerably cheaper than battleships (especially the 6-inch and 5-inch ones), both in terms of construction costs and operating costs (due to the smaller crew size), though of course much more expensive than destroyers (which in any case served a very different role, primarily as escort vessels, anti-submarine platforms and as oversized torpedo boats).

My mistake.  I had been watching WW2 docs and it had mentioned that Cruisers were generally the fastest ships.  Should have done more research.
Maybe a combo idea could work. Like with land units (Art/Inf, Arm/Mech, Arm/Tac etc).  CWO Mark, what ships would/could cruisers combo with historically speaking?  Maybe it gets AA shot/or hits at a 4 if combined with carrier or battleship?

I believe this could actually change the Pacific theatre in an interesting way.
What about this Cruiser unit?
CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Shore Bombardment 3
Cost 12 IPCs
Move 3 (Naval Base cannot boost its move)
As a Fast Reaction Task Force unit:
Gives +1 Move in Combat and Non-Combat Move to any surface vessel paired 1:1 with (DD, TP, CV or BB)

This way, you can use the Cruiser & Transport combo without regarding Naval Base and maximizing the Shore bombardment. For example, 2  Cruisers, 1 Destroyer and 1 Transport can invade a few 1 Infantry’s islands which doesn’t have Naval Base but still keeping the pace of fleet making yo-yo move between Naval Base, to keep up the 3 moves pace.

On this post there is a similar idea, but only applied to transport & Cruiser combo then.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34985.msg1358278#msg1358278

I just found one of my original post which includes a combination of some previous ideas in this thread.
@Baron:

@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?

I personally think there are enough sea units in a G40 game without adding more, and I would rather increase their capabilities and/or cost than decrease their cost. That said, it is very difficult to modify 1 unit without a ripple effect to the other units, and I always prefer to keep things simple. Here are my unrefined, and untested ideas for new sea unit profiles…

Transport
Attack-0
Defence-0
Movement-2
Cost-7
Abilities
-Same as G40.

Submarine
Attack-2
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-8
Abilities

• Same as G40.

Destroyer
Attack-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Defence-2(<r5) -3(=“”>R5)
Movement-2
Cost-9
Abilities
-Can spot and attack submarines with other sea and air units (same as G40), however, destroyers do not negate submarine capabilities until the beginning of round 5.
-Attack and Defence increases by 1 after round 5.

Cruiser
Attack-4
Defence-4
Movement-2
Cost-15
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@4

Aircraft Carrier
Attack-1
Defence-2
Movement-2
Cost-17
Abilities
-Require 2 hits to be sunk.

Battleship
Attack-5
Defence-5
Movement-2
Cost-23
Abilities
-May make shore bombardments 1@5
-Requires 2 hits to be sunk.

To compensate for more powerful sea units in the initial setup, I would propose adding a German fighter on both Holland and Norway, as well as a German Tactical Bomber on Berlin. I would also add a British fighter on both Gibraltar and Malta, and an American fighter on both Philippines, and Hawaii.    </r5)></r5)>

@Young:

-Can spot and attack submarines with other sea and air units (same as G40), however, destroyers do not negate submarine capabilities until the beginning of round 5.

YG I totally agree with you on this because in the year 1940 DD were not anti sub ships but as the war carried on then they became more anti sub.

I begin by repeating myself: if adding units, add more territories. Given the current map (G40, 2nd edition), I honestly don’t see any room for additional units. More space would need to added to open up additional possibilities for strategic movement on the board. This would create a new problems of its own, which I address below, but it is the fundamental change to which I think one must commit when deciding to add more units.

So, the real question is: How to balance realism/plausibility with a desire on the part of some players to do “new stuff” with new mechanics. Several major challenges arise:

Are we looking at the operational or strategic level of warfare? Axis & Allies splits the difference for the sake of creating a reasonable fun gameplay experience. If each unit is an abstraction of actual forces, then:
Land units (mostly) represent armies or corps of infantry, and divisions of armor and artillery. A few odd units in places like Hong Kong and French Indo-China represent functionally independent divisional commands. I have heard some concern on these forums about artillery moving and attacking at the same time as other units. Some people think that artillery should fire first, as it does during a general advance on the battlefield. There have also been arguments that it should fire in defense. I think that the first argument is most-flawed. Because of the level of abstraction described above (typically at the corps and divisional levels), land combat in Axis & Allies represents strategic, campaign-level movement in a given region. It does not represent operational or tactical activity. Artillery should not be presented separately or be able to conduct discrete “fire missions.” In terms of using artillery on the defensive, I think the choice to do otherwise was dictated by use of the d6 standard. Infantry don’t gain a defense bonus from artillery because they would defend at 3, which would dramatically reduce the value of purchasing armor.

Air units usually represent full wings of fighters or bombers, but the Scramble rule is all about using them tactically. The chief problem with air units has to do with movement. They perform regular movement at one scale, and combat movement at another.

Naval units represent flotillas. Thus, each destroyer represents a group, and each capital ship, a squadron. Together, they form fleets. My only gripe about naval action is that the Cruiser and the Battleship are not sufficiently different. Let’s compare.

So what about the map?
My recommendation would be to increase the number of map spaces at the expense of realism. Each turn still represents about three months’ real time. Crossing the Atlantic would take 2 turns. Crossing the Pacific would take 3-4 turns. This would not be realistic, but it would create more opportunities for movement, blocking, and naval combat searches, which I think should be instituted. (I think that, before any naval combat, a die should be rolled to determine whether the searching fleets even find one another. This creates the possibility that attacks on enemy fleets will be foiled and tempts players into trying to “sneak” forces past the enemy.)

Air units should have different values for attacking other air units and then naval and land forces. Split the current tactical bomber into two units: a naval torpedo bomber that can select which naval units are hit and a dive bomber that is slightly cheaper, but optimized to hit land units.

Does the Cruiser have good value?

The value of a unit can be calculated by adding up its movement, attack, and defense values, expressed relative to its cost. Thus, a cruiser has value 8/12, or 2/3. That is, you get a .66 return on every IPC spent. A battleship has value 10/20, or 1/2, which is a .5 return on every IPC spent. However, it can survive an extra hit, which means that it is technically a 1 return on every IPC spent. The obvious cruiser alternative is more destroyers. A destroyer has value 6/8, or 3/4, meaning that there is a .75 return on every IPC spent before factoring in the benefit of its anti-submarine capabilities. Better, then, to buy destroyers or battleships every time, especially because one can buy 2 destroyers for every 1.5 cruisers. (I’m no math whiz, and I welcome alternative interpretations.)

One approach to improving the cruiser’s value would be, I think, to give it a small area-of-effect bonus against attacking aircraft, representing its role as an escort for the big battlewagons.

In terms of adding other units, I think Commerce Raiders would be useful only if more spaces were added to the game. The inclusion of trade routes in the new HBG 1936 edition may create space for such a unit. I like the idea of adding Destroyer Escorts to safeguard convoy zones and transports, but I think that kind of work can already be performed by the Destroyer. Torpedo boats would be an interesting addition, but their value is really in the Mediterranean, which would need to be expanded in space to enhance the value of maneuver. I’m also concerned that such small craft wouldn’t thrive against A&A air units, which are extraordinarily powerful against other units.

Battlecruisers are interesting but effectively pointless since they will not travel at 3. HBG has experimented with Coastal Battleships and Coastal Submarines for lesser powers, and I suppose these units might be worthwhile, but then only as part of the forces that smaller nations receive at game start and are compelled to use due to anemic budgets.