Cruisers?

They are absolute junk, destroyers are better in every way except shore bombard, and carrier planes are better than shore bombard along with carriers being much better at defending your tranports.

I think cruisers should be changed to a 2/3 unit for 10, still bombarding on a 2 or a 3.  Or, allow them to transport an INF and forgoe the bombard or something.  Maybe in europe if your fleet is safe from enemy air they will be worth it, but I highly doubt it.

Yes cruisers are worthless….
CA 3,3, cost 12 one HP
BB 4,4, cost 20 two HP

Maybe cruisers should get an anti-aircraft roll when defending a fleet.
Allow transports to defend at one again.
Carry infantry.
move three.
Or some other ability to justify why the cost more than 1/2 a battleship while taking half the damage.
They just need SOMETHING.

If you can’t afford a BB - your next choice is a CA.

The CAs are attractive for the Americans and the Japanese to protect a single transport on a raid for an island.

You got the shore-bombardement capacity and your enemy must send min. 2 planes to sink this little task group.

Or a single sub would give 'em a 50% chance to win, 2 subs and its game over for that little cruiser.  I think 2 subs even have odds defending against a cruiser but not 100% on that.

It is better to compare the cruiser to the destroyer, for 24 you could have 2 cruiser or 3 destroyers, the destroyers are better at everything but shore bombard.  And honestly, if shore bombard is so very important to you, buy a carrier.  You’ll be happy you did.

I sometimes purchase the Cruiser in AA50 anniversary edition as either the British or US but not as Japan.  It appears that so far the king of AA PAC40 is the Destroyer, followed by the 2 hit carrier.  Although the Carrier lost it’s combat ability, it was low (1) and being able to take 2 hits far outweighs this.  The problem is that the carriers suffer so much when they are damages, their planes are useless!

I really like some of the Ideas on here about giving the cruisers a bonus.  I think that 3 moves might mess up some of the game mechanics because of the Naval base move bonus in this game.  Same with allowing transports a defense role.

I like the AA roll Idea for a cruiser, that was actually used by the US in the War with the radar equipped Atlanta class Anti Aircraft Cruiser (it is reflected also in Axis and Allies War at Sea and the unit gets a bonus against aircraft)

The real purpose of the cruiser was as a commerce raider, to prey on hapless transports and be able to deal with their lighter escorts like destroyers, frigates, and corvettes.  It was built to be fast enough to outrun the big guns of battleships and not meant for Man of War style slug outs.  They did have some impressive night engagements off of Savo Island (Iron bottom sound) in the Solomans and did plenty of commerce raiding (axis) and shore bombarding (allies) in the Atlantic.

What about making them a 4/2 unit that still costs 12IPC’s but takes only one hit.

Perhaps let them steal 2 from a convoy zone, that would make them a bit more attractive and keeping with there role.

Correction, I do buy them as USA in AA50 when (if) I get improved Shipyards Technology, when they are only $10, and I try to pair one to a transport for amphibious assaults in the Pacific and Atlantic.

His reasoning is the combined att/def value x 2 plus extra if they have abilities.  Half that for land units.

Subs: 2/1 = 3x2 for 6
DDs: 2/2 = 4x2 for 8

and so on, BBs cost more because of the two hit ability, etc.

Inf, Art, and Arm also follow this pattern.

@Vareel:

Or a single sub would give 'em a 50% chance to win, 2 subs and its game over for that little cruiser.  I think 2 subs even have odds defending against a cruiser but not 100% on that.

It is better to compare the cruiser to the destroyer, for 24 you could have 2 cruiser or 3 destroyers, the destroyers are better at everything but shore bombard.  And honestly, if shore bombard is so very important to you, buy a carrier.  You’ll be happy you did.

Subs give no AA capacity to protect ships and I would be happy if I got the money to buy a CV with planes on it.

CAs aren’t my first choice, too.

But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.

The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.

So say we all! :-D

@marechallannes:

CAs aren’t my first choice, too.

But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.

The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.

Many people seem to think all the units should have the same worth!

I agree with Marechallannes.

In 2nd Edition many wished for middleweight naval units, and now we have 2 to choose from.
Sure 1 might be better, but the cruiser has its place.

Some seem to think, “I would rather have 12DD vs. 8Crz.” But how many times does a player buy just 1 type of naval unit and in that volume.
It’s not like all of our naval units are rolling every turn.  Some times there is one epic battle, 1shot that makes all the difference, one roll of a 3 instead of a 2.
In one game of AA50 I only had IPCs left (after my only must have buys) for 1 cruiser and not 2DD.
Did this purchase change the buys, attacks, or plans of the other player?
This type of strategy CANNOT be valued by math.

I think the cruiser @12ipc is fine.  If you think you forced your opponent to buy and cruiser, then sit back and smile. As for myself, I am glad the unit is there when needed.

I have three ideas for improving the value of the cruiser.

As someone already said, give it an AA dice roll at the beginning of the attack.  Just like AA guns though, two cruisers doesn’t give you two rolls.

Second, let cruisers detect submarines.  Now I will buy some cruisers because I don’t have to have a DD all the time to deal with subs.

Third, give cruisers resiliance too so they get two hits.  Now we’re talking!  If you make that rule, you will see a mess of cruisers to soak up hits in the next battle.

Destroyers have a 2/2 strength, do anti-sub warfare, provide a “hit”, and have AA capability.  Cruisers need a little something more than a 3/3 strength, shore bombard, provide a “hit”, and AA capability.

Numerically, Destroyers have a strength of 2/2 and cost $8.  Cruisers are 3/3 and cost $12.  The fact that a unit soaks up a hit has to be factored in to arrive at a real value.  Infantry are 1/2 units and cost $3.  Tanks are 3/3 units and cost $6, but also have a movement value of 2.  The mech infantry is a 1/2 unit with a movement of 2 and a cost of $4.  Clearly the infantry has some value factored in as cannon fodder.  The cost relationship between a cruiser and a destroyer does not take this into account.

Give cruisers resilience and they will be bought to soak up hits.  Destroyers will be bought to do anti-sub and AA dice.  Battleships will not be bought.  Subs will be bought in a small qty to do comerce raiding and soak up some hits from navy attacks.  Carriers will be bought to carry airplanes.  It all sounds right to me.

@dinosaur:

Give cruisers resilience and they will be bought to soak up hits.  Destroyers will be bought to do anti-sub and AA dice. Battleships will not be bought.  Subs will be bought in a small qty to do comerce raiding and soak up some hits from navy attacks.  Carriers will be bought to carry airplanes.  It all sounds right to me.

Would changing the cruiser shift most of the complaints to Battleships then?

Honestly I doubt I will ever buy a battleship in the new games.  They’d have to go down to 16 cost for me to even consider them.  Making my new list of ‘don’t buy’ to cruisers, battleships, armor, and tac bombers, except in the rarest of circumstances.  Kinda sad to me really.

@Vareel:

Honestly I doubt I will ever buy a battleship in the new games.  They’d have to go down to 16 cost for me to even consider them.  Making my new list of ‘don’t buy’ to cruisers, battleships, armor, and tac bombers, except in the rarest of circumstances.  Kinda sad to me really.

Can you explain your don’t buy list? Seriously, I am very interested.

Yes me too. I see a lot of sense in buying battleships and cruisers. And how can you not have tanks? Yes they are not very effective in the Pacific, but you can’t deny their abilities when using them on mainland Asia or Europe where lots of ground needs to be covered.

I start with alota airpower with either side, I need units to take hits, if I need 'em to be fast too i’ll buy mech inf, if not regular inf.  Heck, even art by itself outfights tanks now, let alone if they have inf or mechs with 'em.

Battleships are extremely overpriced, the only time the soak is worth it is when defending near a naval base, and even then its arguable.  I’ve never seen a battle where a bombard was all that critical, esp when I have a ton of planes laying around.  Cruisers we already went over.

The simple fact is if you need help doing a land invasion, carriers are the best.  If you need fleet protection, destroyers, if you need more punch for your navy, buy subs.  Now it might be different if the TUV of airplanes didn’t exceed that of land units for nearly every nation, but not by much.

How exactly do artillery outfight armor? I’m confused, they attack and defend at 3, with a cost of 6.Artillery attack and defend at 2, while costing 4. Yet armor can blitz and allow mech. infantry to blitz with it as well.