Combined arms suggestion

When developing Radar in my R&D rules, Cruisers also get the ability to use radar. I don’t give them AA shots though because that’s not how radar worked backed in the 1940’s. The technology didn’t help you target the enemy it just showed you where they were. So the way it works in my game is if you have developed the tech then the presence of your cruiser (either offence or defence) in a sz means that all enemy aircraft are -1 in the first round of combat. This is to simulate the loss of effectiveness in that they don’t have the element of surprise on their side. It is assumed that they would communicate the location of the planes with the other ships in their group just just a Destroyer would with the presence of a Submarine. All Cruisers have the ability to transport my Special Forces Units as well so the cost at 12 IPC’s is worth it.

@GeneralHandGrenade:

When developing Radar in my R&D rules, Cruisers also get the ability to use radar. I don’t give them AA shots though because that’s not how radar worked backed in the 1940’s. The technology didn’t help you target the enemy it just showed you where they were.

Actually, radar was used for targeting purposes in some WWII-era gun-fire control systems.  An example would be the Iowa class battleships, whose 16-inch guns were controlled by three MK 38 Gun Fire Control Systems, and whose 5-inch dual-purpose (anti-air and anti-surface) batteries were controlled by four MK 37 Gun Fire Control Systems (whose radar technology was upgraded a couple of times during WWII).  The radars of these GFCS didn’t just show where the enemy was; they provided some of the data from which fire-control solutions were computed, solutions which in turn were used to target the guns accurately.

@CWO:

@Ichabod:

PS:�  Ironically, destroyers, carriers, battleships, and cruisers are the ships with the most/best effective AAA in real life in that order (cruisers lest effective AAA).

I’m having trouble grasping the rationale for that description.�

I don’t know exactly myself; but I’m regurgitating information from a retired Navy Sailors I trust who served on the same kind of destroyers from that era. Destroyers, were the main ships for the defense of carriers; hence more AAA guns per the size of the ship. Cruisers were shore bombardment mainly, battleships were designed to slug it against other surface warships and withstand returning punishment. Sorry if you can’t grasp that. All ships have AAA guns.

Focussing mainly on the US Navy for the sake of brevity: battleships, cruisers and destroyers all had multiple functions, and within each of these three types of ships there existed a variety of designs optimized for different functions.  To start with the most relevant example: the USN (as did the Royal Navy) had a number of specialized anti-aircraft cruisers (CLAA) such as the Atlanta class, which carried no 6-inch guns (as did light cruisers) and no 8-inch guns (as did heavy cruisers); instead, the Atlantas carried 16 x 5-inch guns, 16 x 27mm guns and 6 x 20mm guns, which is more AAA firepower than a conventional US light cruiser of the time carried.  So it has to be kept in mind that the word “cruiser” covers at least three different types of ships (light, heavy, and anti-aircraft), and arguably five or more types of ships if you add ultra-light Italian-type “destroyer leader” cruisers at the low end and the various types of battlecruisers and super-heavy cruisers at the high end.

The roles you describe for the three ship types were indeed one part of their respective function, but not their only (or even their defining) function.  Destroyers were “maids of all work”: they were used for anti-aircraft defense, but they were also used for ASW (anti-submarine warfare), as shore-bombardment vessels (example: the USS Corry, DD-463, was sunk on D-Day in a duel with a German shore battery), as convoy escorts and so forth.  At the opposite end: battleships were originally designed and intended for surface slugging matches against other battleships, but by WWII that role was being overtaken by events; in WWII, they spent more time fulfiling other jobs.  Fast battleships, for example, got used a lot in the USN as escort vessels for fast carrier task forces, while slower battleships were used as shore-bombardment vessels to support amphibious landings.

While I do not play any of the global games, and do play a lot of Pacific 2001 version, I do have a comment.  We have added a “cruiser unit” to the game…cost is 14…attacks and defends at 3…the cruiser and the battleship have anti-air capabilities.  We allow them to roll 1 die that hits at 1 for each attacking aircraft ( max 3 die per ship).  This roll occurs first, and any aircraft losses are removed from play immediately with no chance to return fire.  This AA roll occurs in the first round only.  Everyone seems to like it.
Adding the cruiser to the lineup did require us to lower the cost and capabilities of the destroyers however.

We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!

In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.

@Fiera:

We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!

In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=10&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=10&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=7&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=7&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Do your 3 hit battships get reduced in A D values ? Like I’m assuming yr using D6 die in game, so a battleship with 1 hit A3 D3, with 2 hits it A2 D2 ?

I kinda like the 2 hit cruiser. What u think of these values ?

Battleship = C18 A4 D4 M2 takes 2 hits and gets a AA shot at up to 3 planes or 1 plane.
Or just remove the AA shot.

Cruiser = C14 A3 D3 M2 takes 2 hits.

The game does need more cruisers in it.

Now I play with D12 in my games and that gives u more flex abilities towards A D values.
I could make both ships drop 1 or 2 in A D values per damaged hit.

Like Battleship goes to A7 D7 on 1 hit and A5 D5 on 2 hits.

Cruiser goes to A4 D4 on 1 hit.

What if u tried your C12 cruiser went to A2 D2 on 1 hit for D6 ?

May have to agree with Baron on maybe 3 hit battleship is to strong for C20.
We do have in one game where Japan can build only 1 Yama Battleship with 3 hits starting on Turn 3  and A9 D9 and costs 24.

I prefer to always give same combat values, even if damaged. Less complexity.
If I introduced 2 hits Cruiser, it would cost 15 IPCs, to be better than DD in pure combat but not too much. (68% vs 31% odds of survival)

To solve the 3 hits OP BB issue, I would play it that way:
1 hit damaged BB, same as OOB.
2 hits crippled BB, next time a hit is allocated to a BB this unit must be taken as casualty.
Considered this one as a smoking target painted with a red cross, all enemies want to sink her at all cost.
That way, the additional hit get less impact on overall combat.
At 14 IPCs, Cruiser would be even in combat with 3 hits Battleship as above, that’s why it needs also to be put at 15 IPCs.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=20&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=14&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=14&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-dBat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-Bat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

When 20 Cruiser A3 D3 C15 2 hits vs 15 BB A4 D4 C20 3 hits (crippled is first target):
17% vs 82%  for BB,
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=20&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=15&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=15&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-dBat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-Bat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
it is less unbalanced than the OOB usual casualty selection at 9% vs 90%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=20&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=20&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=15&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=15&ddBat=&ool_att=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat&ool_def=Tra-Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

According to these given conditions, padding a fleet with DDs when you can afford BBs as backbone will not be a good choice. It seems to place warships according to their sturdiness, DD is cheap but a tin can, Cruiser is better but if you can pay 5 additional IPCs you get the best out of a Battleship.

And Submarines remain very cost effective against 3 hits BBs and 2 hits Cruiser while DD is still the ASW.

As soon as I get a chance, I will try it.
In addition, there is no need to give AAA to Cruiser and BB because their combat values has radically improved against Fighter at 10 IPCs.

@Baron:

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.

We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.

The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.

Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.

@Fiera:

@Baron:

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.

We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.

The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.

Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.

If keeping 14 IPCs Cruiser and full 3 hits BB, I would suggest to put Destroyer at 7 IPCs and Subs at 5 IPCs.
That way DD vs CA will be 50% odds. And 3 hits BB remains better than DDs.
So, if you need ASW you buy DD, if you want ShoreB and more hits, Cruiser or BB.

Sub A2 D1 C5 may compensate for less useful surprise strike, but 6 IPCs is still good price.
Also, this C5 may increase action in Atlantic for Germany more willingly use Subs as fodders for Air raid against UK and US fleet.

TcB should be lowered to 10 IPCs to slightly compensate for the high increase in strength of CA and BB vs aircrafts.

Might be fun this roster with heavier warships. :-)

SS A2 D1 C5, 1 hit (or C6)
DD A2 D2 C7, 1 hit
TP A0 D0 C7, 1 hit
CA A3 D3 C14, 2 hits, SB @3
CV A0 D2 C16, 2 hits, carry 2 planes
BB A4 D4 C20, 3 hits, SB @4

TP might be lower to 6 IPCs. And this will totally increase action in water without adding too much heavier ships such like Advanced Shipyard Tech would.
You built sturdier but still a high cost.

@Fiera:

@Baron:

Effectively, 12 IPCs Cruiser was too cheap.
At 14 IPCs, it will be optimized compared to 20 IPCs BB with 3 hits.
Cruiser will be slightly weaker than BB but better than cheap DDs.

Did you see some issues about a 3 hits BB?
A core fleet with 3 BBs give 6 hits to spare before loosing fodders.
Seems the way to go building fleet around BB core.

Regarding 12 IPC; this was our impression, too.
Therefore we would try and playtest the 14 IPC version, 15 IPC seams a little too high to me, but we will see.

We were not facing big issues with 3 hits BBs. BTW @SS, we do not reduce the A D values.
Normally USA is the only nation purchasing more than one battleship. That way we regularly have the hugh fleets of US battleships, carriers and cruisers vs. the Japanese fleet which also gets some cruisers and one or two battleships.
For sure, you also see US battleships in the Atlantic, but those are normally ignored or countered with Axis cruiser purchases.

The positive effect of 2 hit cruisers is for UK, but also for smaller nations like Italy and ANZAC.
On the one hand it is not so easy to sink UK Navy in the North Sea, but on the other hand it makes Toranto more difficult.
For ANZAC it is great, because they can build up a small task force of a cruiser, destroyer and transport, that does not have to be affraid of two Japanese subs.

Actually the subs are seldomly bought and the destroyers only if the oponent has subs.
Lets see how the purchases are if the cruiser is at 14 IPC.

Yes for UK, Italy and Anzac it will make the cruiser better. I like it. Now instead of buying a carrier in are game and place on west side of S Africa and send to Anzac for Anzac figs to give them a boost for island take over.
Will have to see how cruiser is now for Anzac.

Italy in our game starts with 2 cruisers and UK with 2 cruisers if they send one from India for the med.

Also in are game US can LL Anzac and UK can buy up to 2 pieces a turn for Anzac. If UK decides to buy some cruisers for Anzac then they better get 1 or 2 victory city’s for sure to make up the less money spent in Europe.
US will have to build more cruisers in Pacific because Japan has more unless US still just buys carriers. Will see.

I crunched the numbers with Baron. He also recommend the cost for cruiser be 15. I’m gonna go with C14 because I lowered the AD value by 1. I use D12 die in my games.
Cruiser C14 A5 D5  SB 4. 2 hits

Let me know in your game how much more cruisers were bought in the Pacific region.

@Fiera:

**We made the cruiser to become a true capital ship!

In our house rule we just increased the hit points of the cruiser to 2 and of the battleship to 3.**
Thereafter we had a lot of cruiser buys and only USA did actually purchase battleships.
Now we realized the cruiser became better then the battleship. Therefore we are thinking to increase the costs for cruisers to 14 IPC, which should minimize the gap again.

Your answer was far outside YG opening post suggestion but, nonetheless help me think further about balance problem and solve some issues I got with side project within G40 Redesign. Thanks man.

G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1682831#msg1682831

@Baron:

Your answer was far outside YG opening post suggestion but, nonetheless help me think further about balance problem and solve some issues I got with side project within G40 Redesign. Thanks man.

You are welcome Baron, good to know that I was helpful to you. And a big sorry to YG!  :oops:

Has anyone explored a CV at C14A0D2 1 hit, like it was in anniversary edition?

I can’t say I’m thrilled with increasing hit points because it decreases the effectiveness of subs and one of our goals is to increase submarine warfare effectiveness (Convoying and sea combat). Right now suprise strike is useless unless you have at least 20 submarines so that they survive until second round.

My proposal CA = C10A3D3 no AA, BB = C18A4D4 no AA
OR: CA = C10A3D3 no AA, BB = C20A5D5 no AA

AND: bombers hit at 3 against sea units.

If I understand, when there is both air and naval on opposite side, Cruiser and BB work like G40 Heavy bomber tech, right? 2 rolls, but only 1 is chosen as result. So, you cannot get 2 hits in a single combat round.

This is not working like classic Heavy bomber tech, 1 bomber get 3 rolls and may does up to 3 hits.
Do  I clearly understand ?

You wrote:
a single cruiser rolls 6+5=0 hits, 4+5=1 hits, 4+6=1 hit, 2+3=1 hit, 1+1=1 hit, 5+5=0 hit… etc

It should have been a battleship, right? Only BB can hit on a 4.

Getting a kind of reroll if you miss (or rolling twice keeping the best result) has marginal effect outside SBR.
As far as a comparison between a regular BB or a kind of heavy BB against DDs, both remains weak and maybe 2% better odds of survival at most for heavy bomber kind of roll.
Probably AACalc is broken on this one.

In fact, you get a strength increase around 22.2%  (2/6*4/6 = 2/9) for a @4 roll (66.7%), this 89% is higher than rising BB to @5 (83.3%)

And for Cruiser basic 50% you get 25% (3/6*3/6 = 1/4), rising to 75% rate of success, also higher than @4 66.7%.

So, instead of two rolls your rule maybe simpler by just adding +1 attack or defense when Cruiser or Battleship are fighting air and naval units.

YG have you also changed the cruiser to 4/4? It seems like it reading your example. Also why do the cruiser and BB get a bonus when fighting air and sea but not only air? Don’t we want to reduce the effectiveness of dark skies against sea units? Seems like this idea would force germany to buy only bombers and not attack with subs as support.

@Baron:

As far as a comparison between a regular BB or a kind of heavy BB against DDs, both remains weak and maybe 2% better odds of survival at most for heavy bomber kind of roll.

I tried a battle of 2 (heavy) cruiser and 2 (heavy) battleships against 8 destroyers (both worth 64 IPC) and it turns out to be either 1 destroyer left (AACalc) or 1 damaged battleship (Excel).

@Baron:

In fact, you get a strength increase around 22.2%  (2/6*4/6 = 2/9) for a @4 roll (66.7%), this 89% is higher than rising BB to @5 (83.3%)

And for Cruiser basic 50% you get 25% (3/6*3/6 = 1/4), rising to 75% rate of success, also higher than @4 66.7%.

So, instead of two rolls your rule maybe simpler by just adding +1 attack or defense when Cruiser or Battleship are fighting air and naval units.

How about the idea to get the increase (which ever) only if you have a combined fleet of cruisers and battleships, but not for single ships?

@Gargantua:

Ultimately we are all playing a game.

And as a game mechanic - combined arms should only reward the side that has combined arms. (So as to encourage its use).

Implementing rules to discourage fundamental activities is generally a poor practice.

Whilst I don’t support this concept as written, I am a strong supporter of cruisers and possibly battleships getting typical AAA capability.
Cruisers and battleships aren’t purchased often enough if ever, and giving them AAA capability, would ENCOURAGE thier purchase.

Aircraft carriers don’t need this ability, as they are already a standard purchase with powerful capabilities.

Still talking combined arms and in a similar direction. Combining many suggestions:
Cruiser get +1 Move.
In addition, when part of Carrier Task Force group, it get combined arms.

Cruiser
A3 D3 M3 C12, 1 hit
+1A, +1D if paired with 1 Carrier and 1 Battleship

Battleship
A4 D4 M2 C20, 2 hits
+1A, +1D if paired with 1 Carrier and 1 Cruiser
+1 AAA@1 vs up to 3 Fgs if paired with 1 Carrier and 1 Cruiser.

So, when these 3 are together, Cruiser attack and defense @4 and BB, @5
and roll AAA @1 against up to 3 planes, 1 roll per plane max.

That way, it will not affect the G40 or 1942.2 opening round set-up balance.

Rationalization: each weaknesses is compensate by other warships and Carrier can more easily find enemy’s fleet. Cruiser and Battleship without air cover were not very efficient.
These bonuses giving an excellent reason to buy and match them to get the best out of them.

Alone each Cruiser or Battleship is sub-optimal vs Destroyer.
With Carrier, they can compete in pure combat situations.

You get a glimpse of such US Carrier Task Force group at 21min. 30 sec.:
Battlefield 360 episode 8.
https://youtu.be/RkxVcqW90a4

@Baron:

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

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

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

Only SZ6 and SZ10 get this initial AAA defense. US SZ10 is out of reach, Japan is the first offender in PTO.

@Young:

The Cruiser balance question has always been interesting to me, here are my thoughts….

One can go in two directions… lower the price, or justify the price with a new special attribute, I personally lean toward the latter. The price dilemma gets tricky if you consider making the cost of building a Cruiser, equal to the cost of building an air unit (understanding the idea of 1 plane equaling a squadron etc…). Also, it compels people to change the whole price index of everything else just to bring a sea unit into a proper comparison price with all other units. Although I like the simplicity of changing the price, I honestly don’t believe that players will buy more if they are $10 instead of $12. If you consider what a battleship can do for $20, or even what half a battleship can do for $10, a single Cruiser just doesn’t measure up. Therefore, I like the idea of adding a special attribute to Cruisers while leaving their cost at $12.

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

About a year ago, I was speaking with a friend at work who happens to be a regular player at my bunker, and he had what I considered at the time to be a flash of genius when he said…

**Cruisers attack @4 when paired with a Battleship.  **

Here’s what I love about this idea…

1. It’s simple
2. It uses a game mechanic that already exists within the game (combined arms).
3. It benefits newly purchased Cruisers much more than those already on the board.
4. It’s battle accurate considering the enemies concentration on destroying the powerful Battleships first.

and finally…

5. It’s simple

Here’s the only question left… is it enough to make a Cruiser worth $12?

@Young:

No… but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns? I believe the defense value of all surface warships already allot for anti aircraft capabilities if we consider the fact that if any surface warship hits while attacking or defending, an air unit may be used as a casualty. By giving Cruisers alone some kind of special AA attribute, it kind of negates the assumption that all surface warships automatically have this ability built in. That’s just my opinion.