Cruisers?

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.

12 IPCs gets you 3 art or 2 armor.  both at 6/6 except art has 3 hits it can take.  yes armor has blitz but that is not that big of a deal in my opinion.

@maverick_76:

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.

I would say it depends who is buying armor and for where.

Armor are better for Europe and Asia, but not for Island hopping.

It is pretty well established that WWII itself totally changed the nature of naval warfare.  Battleships and Cruisers (as then understood) were fleet mainstays prior to the war but then largely abandoned for Carriers and Destroyers after the war.  There are cruisers today, but, as I understand it, in many respects the line between a cruiser and destroyer is pretty fuzzy now.  So, the availability of Cruisers and Battleships for purchase and the existance of a number of them at start on the board, on the one hand, and the rarity with which they are actually bought on the other hand is very accurate for a game with a WWII theme.  The point is not that they are a good buy more than on an occasional basis, IMHO.  Rather, the point is that they existed and complete the arsenal of basic ship types for WWII (BB, CV, CA, DD, SS).  They gave a little more oomph to an amphibeous landing, and a little more effectiveness in point defending against aircraft than a destroyer, but at a higher cost without the anti sub features and of course without the heavy armor of a Battleship.  The lighter armor meant they were faster than battleships, but that “benefit” did not seem to pan out real well when put to the test in fleet operations as they could be blown apart before closing range (HMS Hood vs The Bismark comes to mind).  3-3-12 with a shore shot seems about right to me.

Unfortunately we are getting off topic.  We should be talking about Cruisers.

The basic economics of using 2/2 units against 3/3 units that have the same comparative price point (a 2 : 3 ratio) is that the lower cost units soak up hits better than the higher priced units.  In case you have never heard of this before, it works something like this:

Buying units with $24 you have 4 tanks against 6 artillery
The four tanks deliver two hits the first round (4 x 3VC = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits), and the six artillery also deliver two hits (6 x 2CV = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits).
The tanks lost 2 units, and the artillery lose 2 units.
In the second round the tanks deliver one hit (2 x 3CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit), and the four artillery deliver one hit (4 x 2CV = 8 / 6-sided dice = 1.3 hits).
The tanks lose another tank, and the artillery lose one unit too.
In the third round the tanks deliver one hit (1 x 3CV = 3 / 6-sided dice = 0.5 hits), and the three artillery deliver one hit (3 x 2CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit).
The tanks lose their last unit, and the artillery lose one unit.
The artillery win with 2 units remaining because the tanks couldn’t absorb the hits.  This analysis also rounds everything in favor of the tanks, so in practice the results should be slightly worse for the tanks over the long haul.

It all comes down to simple math.

@dinosaur:

Unfortunately we are getting off topic.  We should be talking about Cruisers.

The basic economics of using 2/2 units against 3/3 units that have the same comparative price point (a 2 : 3 ratio) is that the lower cost units soak up hits better than the higher priced units.  In case you have never heard of this before, it works something like this:

Buying units with $24 you have 4 tanks against 6 artillery
The four tanks deliver two hits the first round (4 x 3VC = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits), and the six artillery also deliver two hits (6 x 2CV = 12 / 6-sided dice = 2 hits).
The tanks lost 2 units, and the artillery lose 2 units.
In the second round the tanks deliver one hit (2 x 3CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit), and the four artillery deliver one hit (4 x 2CV = 8 / 6-sided dice = 1.3 hits).
The tanks lose another tank, and the artillery lose one unit too.
In the third round the tanks deliver one hit (1 x 3CV = 3 / 6-sided dice = 0.5 hits), and the three artillery deliver one hit (3 x 2CV = 6 / 6-sided dice = 1 hit).
The tanks lose their last unit, and the artillery lose one unit.
The artillery win with 2 units remaining because the tanks couldn’t absorb the hits.  This analysis also rounds everything in favor of the tanks, so in practice the results should be slightly worse for the tanks over the long haul.

Nice post.