@Telamon:
I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships. At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships. I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market. Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.
I disagree. Yes it does.
@gamerman01:
Also, if you “buff your fleet” with a bunch of destroyers, you’re right that they’re more efficient than cruisers - against other fleets only. But my land and air units on land are not afraid of your destroyers coming closer, but your cruisers are menacing. Also, Larry had a great point about the cost. Battleships “only” cost 1.67 times more than a cruiser, but many times I do not want to commit 20 IPC’s to one unit. Or what if I have 12 IPC’s I want to spend on my fleet? Which is better, a destroyer or a cruiser? I can’t buy 2 destroyers with 12 IPC’s. I don’t think 12 IPC cruisers should be in the top 20 of our suggestions for improvements to AA50. We’ve come a long way from 24 IPC one-hit battleships and 18 IPC carriers, though, haven’t we?
All good points.
@gamerman01:
Put it this way, if I had 5 cruisers I wouldn’t want to attack 3 battleships with them
You wouldn’t want to do that in real warfare either so no problems there in my opinion.
@oztea:
Hold on a second….why are ships always getting AA guns?
The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII!
Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, etc.
No AA guns on boats, it doesnt solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.
Agreed.
@oztea:
Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
Small discrepency, but its all realitive. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost alot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and thats pretty ahistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargan.
Again, I agree.
@Cmdr:
Move the Chinese fighter to Sikang. As it stands now, and feel free to pass this on to Larry, I kill every last Chinese unit in Japan 1. From there, it’s pretty easy walking to Moscow.
There is a counter to that strategy. If you go after the Chinese fighter on Turn 1 that opens the door for an India industrial complex.
If you do not send any fighters to sink the UK destroyer and transport in SZ 35 the UK player can use the transport to pick up the 2 infantry from Trans-Jordan to fortify India. That coupled with 4 or more Russian infantry from Caucasus and/or Kazakh S.S.R. as well as a russian tank or fighter can make India invulnerable to a Japanese attack on turn 2. Once there is a complex in India your quick train to moscow gets derailed.
If you send 1 fighter to SZ 35 and manage to sink the boats there is a 50% chance your fighter is going to be destroyed as well giving you less firepower in India (fortified by Russian forces again) on turn 2. The result is an India complex again slowing down your march.
@Cmdr:
Up bombers to 20 IPC in cost, but give them AA Gun protection.
Bombers are about the only thing that needs some tweaking in my opinion. Change the cost or make the optional fighter intercept rules (from the Anniversary FAQ) standard perhaps?