How to make battleships a more attractive purchase

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Even at the reduced cost of 20 they are still pretty expensive for what you get. The bombardment and ability to absorb a hit is nice, but new battleships are rarely worth the cost. Has anyone experimented with the house rule allowing battleships to transport 1 ground unit?

    It seems to me that would instantly make it a much more interesting buy. At 1 ground transported it wouldn’t completely usurp the role of the transport unit, but would definitely make them more potent.

    I tried it a few test rounds to see how it would effect the openings and so far it provides an initial benefit to Axis (since they can transport a 3rd unit in the med, and Japan can transport 2 units in the Pacific. The only real advantage Allies can manage is out of USA. So I’m not sure it works in 1942.2, but I am intrigued by the idea for potential future games. I know in the past this rule was sometimes used to make the least valuable naval unit more effective. In Revised I tried it with destroyers. Later the thought was cruisers. But in the new structure it seems like battleships would be the unit that needs a leg up to be worthwhile. Any thoughts?

    I like the way carriers are the backbone now, as it seems fitting for the period, but I always did wish to see a bit more battleship action. A rule like that would make them much more attractive as a purchase option. Or at least, if the idea is that nobody buys new battleships, it seems to me that it would be ideal if each nation had at least 1 safe battleship out of the first round. By safe, I mean one that isn’t exposed to immediate destruction.

    Just musing on it now, if sz16 was closed by default a lone Russian battleship there might be fun.

    Each other nation begins play with 2, one safe and one exposed to first round attack. I wish something like that would be considered for future games at this scale. Since Russia has no navy at all on this board. It would be cool if the Black Sea fleet was represented somehow. Or if the black sea was split into 2 sea zones so it could maybe strike at a German cruiser or destroyer representing Bulgarian/Romanian fleet. I think that would be fun for a scripted attack in the Russian opening, at least it would be a battle instead of just a sub non combat move. Russian battleship! I vote yes  :-D

    A British battleship somewhere on the board that has a chance of surviving.

    A German battleship in the Baltic (at risk), so they have a more equitable set of options. One in the med or maybe one up north.

    A Pair of Japanese battleships, one safe one at risk.

    A pair of American battleships, one at risk and one safe.

    You get the idea


  • Yes the CVs are the back bone japan learned this lesson the hard way they focused on building the biggest battle ships. America countered with fast CVs after a while the imperial army called the CVs (The Hand Of God) that’s shows how superior they where. But to make battle ships more better for game purpose only. The ability to carry  one inf is cool or have them cost 18 or have them defend at a 5 or have them costal bombard at a 5 I think any of these options and you would see more
    Battle ship builds .  Or you could have them cost 22 and let them carry one inf and defend at a 5 like a dreadnought class battle ship that would be sick


  • Something should be done for cruisers as well like move three spaces instead of two or drop the cost 1 or 2 ipc not sure but in my games I almost never buy a cruiser or battleship so something for both my navy buys are almost always carriers subs and destroyers


  • One more thing on the cruisers main reason they need to change is they cost 12 but only can move 2 and attack and defend at a 3 but a fighter cost 10 moves 4 attacks at 3 and def at 4 so why would you ever buy a cruiser ?


  • Battleships have always been an unattractive buy in all versions of the game.

    However, when I first read the rules of this edition, the first thing that struck me was that cruisers should cost 10, not 12 IPCs. As it stands now, for 24 IPCs you can get 2 cruisers or 3 destroyers. They have the same total attack and defense, but the destroyers give you one more unit and also help against subs. The only thing cruisers have going for them is coastal bombardment to help with amphibious assaults, but even that is better accomplished with a carrier and two fighters, since fighters will come into play during every combat round of the amphibious assault, while cruisers can only fire during the initial round.

    The way things stand, the only reason to ever buy a cruiser is when you have precisely 12 IPCs to spend and need all the anti-air defense you can get (for anti-ship defense, two subs will do a better job for the same price). That’s so limited, it makes the mere presence of the option redundant and cruisers might as well just be taken out of the game without much impact (other than the starting ones). At 10 IPCs, they’d be much more common and the question of whether to buy them or go for destroyers would be much more interesting.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yeah, I find the only time I end up buying a cruiser is in the exact situation zombie outlines, when I have exactly 12 and need to max the defense against air. In practical terms this means usually only UK buys 1, just to give their paltry fleet some kind of bombardment edge against G, in situations where a destroyer doesn’t pack enough punch and you can’t afford anything else. At least at 10 they could trade more effectively against air attacks. Otherwise I don’t find myself buying them. I’m glad there are in the roster, but don’t think their value matches their cost


  • Ok that’s where my thoughts as well cruiser at 10ipc. But what about the battle ship . I posted some thoughts so did elk what is the best option .

  • '17 '16

    @General:

    Ok that’s where my thoughts as well cruiser at 10ipc. But what about the battle ship . I posted some thoughts so did elk what is the best option .

    Hi General Kenobi,
    you get the same intuition that I’ve got a few months ago.
    Cruiser’s and battleship’s fate is very linked. Increasing the attractiveness of one unit (whether cruiser or BB) will affect the interest for the other.

    You can get a lot of ideas that I summarized from my numerous readings of different threads on this subject in this thread:

    Topic: Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
    http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619

    I will probably add some new options in it brought on this actual thread also.

    One thing special about the 2 hits Battleship is that 1942.2 version is a more powerful purchase than battleship of Global 40, because once hit a damage BB must wait until the player’s turn to be repaired while in 1942.2 it is repaired immediately after the battle once put on the board again.

    So, a fleet with 3 BBs (think about USA) at his core can be rapidly replenish and recover his strength with new DDs and Subs and stay nearer the battle zone instead of always going backward in some rear naval base to get repaired.


  • Baron thanks for all the work. I took a look and your old thread it’s great . One more thing and this is off the wAll but what if you keep cruisers at 12 and have them take 2 hits as well

  • '17 '16

    @General:

    Baron thanks for all the work. My pleasure.  :wink:I took a look and your old thread it’s great . One more thing and this is off the wAll but what if you keep cruisers at 12 and have them take 2 hits as well

    Here is one of the balance issue:

    22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

    22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

    0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

    1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…

    This means that to get a balance unit at 20 IPCs/BB imply (*.537 BB/CA=) 10.74 IPCs/cruiser, an 11 IPC unit.
    Or that a 12 IPCs/Cruiser imply (*1.864 CA/BB=) 22.368 IPCs/Battleship.
    11 IPCs/Cruiser (*1.864 CA/BB=)  20.504 IPCs/Battleship.

    So a 1 hit cruiser is above his combat balance cost against Battleship.
    Or that OOB BB is clearly a better optimize unit if you have to choose between them.


    I also checked on this point and I come to this results about a 2 hits cruiser:

    Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
    It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.

    This means that having a second hits at 12 IPCs will make all 2 hits Battleships obsolete.

    Just make the calc this way: 20 or 18 IPCs for 2 hits means 10 or 9 IPCs/hit.
    A 2 hits cruiser at 12 IPCs makes  1 hit for 6 IPCs (same cost as subs).
    Even Carrier in G40 having 2 hits is at 16 IPCs, for 8 IPC/hit.


    You can also make a battlecalc test with 1 DD+1 Cruiser (20 IPCs) vs 1 BB (20 IPCs).
    You will find that it is pretty much the same odds of winning for both side.

    42% vs 39% and 19% draw. With 5 of each, you get 50% vs 46% and 4% draw.

    Now, just imagine giving an additional hit to the DD and CA side.
    You will see how they prevail on the poor BB.
    (75% vs 15% and 10% draw. With 5 of each, you get a complete defeat of 5 BBs.)
    As an average, I used AACalc Revised 1Trst A0 1 Subs A2 Destroyer A3.)

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


    (There is the above way to show what is the balance cost for a A3D3, 2 hits unit, but it takes some times to put it in a battle calc to find the 50% vs 50% ratio.)

    Here it is:

    112 Cruisers A3 (D3), 2 hits vs 97 Battleships D4 (A4) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.
    When using G40, 56 carriers for additional hits at A0, to create a simulation of 2 hits cruisers.

    112/97 = 1.15464 CA/BB    97/112 = 0.86607 BB/CA

    1.15464 * 16 IPCs/CA = 18.47 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs.

    0.86607 * 18 IPCs/BB = 15.59 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 16 IPCs.

    These maths means that a 12 IPCs cruiser at 2 hits imply (1.15464*12 IPCs/CA) that a balance 2 hits BB cost: 13.856 rounding up to 14 IPCs!!!

    Since no one will agree to have a 2 hits BB at such a low cost, you must rise the price of your 2 hits cruiser. (As long as you want a combat balance unit, of course.)


    So, the basic rule of thumb is that any 2 hits warship which can be repaired cannot go below 15 IPCs without creating balance issue (by making it too OP and interesting.)

    However, I think someone suggested that cruiser can take 1 hit of damage but couldn’t repair.
    This could create a distinctive bonus vs Battleship 2 hits repairable.

    In this specific case, maybe a 14 IPCs unit can be a balance price.

  • '17 '16

    @General:

    Baron thanks for all the work. I took a look and your old thread it’s great . One more thing and this is off the wAll but what if you keep cruisers at 12 and have them take 2 hits as well

    Here, I decided to check for you the scale of a balanced cost for 2 hits Cruiser A3D3 vs 2 hits Battleship A4D4:

    Cruiser cost:             BB price:
    1.15464 CA/BB *12 IPCs/CA = 13.856 rounding up to 14 IPCs.
    1.15464 CA/BB *13 IPCs/CA = 15.01 IPCs/BB
    Same               *14 IPCs/CA = 16.17 IPCs/BB
    Same               *15 IPCs/CA = 17.32 IPCs/BB
    Same               *16 IPCs/CA = 18.47 IPCs/BB, rounding down to 18 IPCs.
    Same               *17 IPCs/CA = 19.63 IPCs/BB, rounding up to 20 IPCs.


    BB cost:             Cruiser price:
    0.86607 BB/CA * 20 IPCs/BB = 17.32 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 17 IPCs.
    0.86607 BB/CA * 19 IPCs/BB = 16.46 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 16 IPCs.
    0.86607 BB/CA * 18 IPCs/BB = 15.59 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 16 IPCs.
    Same               * 17 IPCs/BB = 14.72 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 15 IPCs.
    Same               * 16 IPCs/BB = 13.86 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 14 IPCs.
    Same               * 15 IPCs/BB = 12.99 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 13 IPCs.
    Same               * 14 IPCs/BB = 12.12 IPCs/CA,                    12 IPCs.

    As you can see, for 2 hits warships, a A4D4 needs most of the time to be put 2 IPCs above the A3D3 to keep a balance combat value (50% vs 50%) on the Battlecalc.
    Only the 16 IPCs A3D3 needs a 2.5 IPCs higher cost for A4D4.

    And for OOB BB, a 2 hits cruiser will be balance at 17 IPCs.

  • '17 '16

    Maybe this post from Blackhat can provide some new idea about the 2 hits BB:

    OK sure they can take a whack of damage BUT is it just me or is there something cheesy about assigning a hit at the end of combat knowing the auto-fix rule will make it go away?

    Thinking after combat 1/2 dead BBs ought to roll d6.
    1-3 auto-fix like the good book says
    4-5 DAMAGED (use SBR token with “Damage” side up)
    6 CRIPPLED (use a SBR token ugly side up)

    Both Damaged and Crippled BBs have only 1 hit left in them and get fixed by taking them to the sea zone adjacent to an Allied IC and expending d6 IPCs.

    Difference is that Crippled BBs fight at 2 and limp along at Move 1.
    So then you have to ask yourself… do I divert assets to pick off the straggling enemy BB? Do I assign a DD to escort it back to dry dock? Or hey do I just let it fight on and repair later….

    just a thought…

    http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1817

  • '17 '16

    Maybe some of you have ideas on this point:

    @Imperious:

    Is there any reason to stick on the 12 IPCs cruisers and the 20 IPCs battleship?

    Yes because nobody wants to change everything, just what is broken. Otherwise it will be a rule for a few people.

    Most people just want the most minimal thing changed. not changes that invalidate all the player aids. The prices of the other units are just fine. If you change everything you make the game worse.

    The original design was to make Carriers the best buy, followed by Battleships. Not equalize every naval unit. Otherwise, just have one naval unit. Differences are what the game is about.

    Just allowing them move +1 is the most simple thing possible.

    Do you feel that it is only battleship which is not right? or also cruiser?

    Does people often buy cruiser and no battleship? or no cruiser but battleship?

    If not the case, making both cheaper will provide an incentive.
    Does such an incentive (10/18 or 11/19 IPCs for cruiser/battleship cost) will create an havoc which can unbalance all shore bombardment and amphibious assault if these two units become so popular?

    Can they become so popular, at the expense of other sea units?

    Does the IPCs left over will change the game for 2 to 4 additional infantries buy?
    (Which suppose at least 3 to 6 cruisers or BBs can be buy during a game (if there is a -2 IPCs redux/unit.)


  • I’m pretty sure that if you made cruisers cost 10 and battleships cost 18, it would just bring them in line with the other ships and it wouldn’t cause any balance issues.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yeah! What I like about the 10 and 18 split, is that it takes into account the magnifying effect of multiple purchases of the same unit type over several rounds.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    ps. So for example…

    In the current price structure, 2 destroyers is almost always better than a single battleship (weird exceptions might occur, like as a result of a production limitation, but on the whole this holds throughout). Likewise 3 destroyers is always about equal to 2 cruisers in firepower, but with the advantage of an extra fodder unit with its own chance to hit on a deuce.) So compared to the main fodder unit (Destroyer), both Cruisers and Battleships are a poor relative value. And in many situations, where air defense is not a factor, subs can trump both those units, just on account of being so cheap.

    By contrast, at 10 ipcs cruisers can go toe to toe and trade against fighters, while providing the additional bombardment damage when they aren’t being attacked from the air. Perhaps a cruiser stack might level a bombardment option that was too deadly, but somehow I see this as less of a problem than having a unit which just takes up space in the box.

    Similarly battleships at the current 20, are almost always trumped by 2 fighters, which have more attack and defense power and have the clear movement advantage. At 18 battleships would be more in line relative to other naval units, but then you’d have to ask yourself… “Why would I ever buy a battleship when I could get a destroyer AND a cruiser for that same cost?” Since a destroyer, cruiser combo would provide a sum attack/defense value of 5, can hunt subs with the dd, bombard with the cruiser, and still has the ability to absorb 1 fodder hit? The same argument might be made for the destroyer+fighter combo, which would also roughly equal the value of the battleship in terms of broader purchasing logistics. All you really get for the battleship, is the power to repair, but what’s better, the chance to absorb a hit, or fire back with a second unit? The option to fire back is always superior on naval defense.

    So even then, with both units reduced in cost, you’d still have the problem of the battleship being a rather poor value relative to other ships. Don’t get me wrong here, I fully agree with you about the cost. 10 and 18 is superior, but even then the battleship is just taking up space. There to die at the outset (and complicate the rules with its unique repair mechanic hehe) but not much else.

    The only way I see out of the situation, and to convince people that the battleship would be worth buying, is to provide it with some sort of extra ability, like to transport a single ground unit, that brings it into competition with the transport rather than the other warships.

    That way it might be worth pausing to consider in some situations.

    I should also make clear, I don’t really see adjustments to movement values as viable. Nothing busts an official board faster than adjusting how far units are allowed to move. (I mean if we learned anything at all from the Long Range Air tech hehe.) Beyond this, allowing any naval unit to move more than 2 spaces on a map at the scale of 1942.2 is probably asking for trouble.

    10 and 18 are a step in the right direction, but there I still can’t imagine the battleship coming into play. I would always buy a destroyer+cruiser over a battleship.

  • '17 '16

    What I like about the 10 and 18 split, is that it takes into account the magnifying effect of multiple purchases of the same unit type over several rounds.

    Similarly battleships at the current 20, are almost always trumped by 2 fighters, which have more attack and defense power and have the clear movement advantage. At 18 battleships would be more in line relative to other naval units, but then you’d have to ask yourself… “Why would I ever buy a battleship when I could get a destroyer AND a cruiser for that same cost?” Since a destroyer, cruiser combo would provide a sum attack/defense value of 5, can hunt subs with the dd, bombard with the cruiser, and still has the ability to absorb 1 fodder hit? The same argument might be made for the destroyer+fighter combo, which would also roughly equal the value of the battleship in terms of broader purchasing logistics. All you really get for the battleship, is the power to repair, but what’s better, the chance to absorb a hit, or fire back with a second unit? The option to fire back is always superior on naval defense.

    I have the impression you undervalued the second hits of 1942 BB (not G40 BB) which is immediately repaired after combat (once put on the board), when you can combined 2 or 3 battleships to form the core of a fleet you can create a really good buffer which can save you many lost IPCs casualty. Instead of loosing 2 or 3 subs or destroyers fodders, you can preserve their rolls in the next round.

    A battleships core provides a consistent deterrent against strafing assault of other navy and in lesser measure of aircrafts.
    Why would you launch some aircrafts and a few subs (thinking of Germany vs UK) knowing that you must loose some precious planes, if you hope that your subs fodders won’t die in vain because of the repair capacity of Battleships?

    (Thinking of  3 StBs 5 Fg and 3 subs against  3BBs, 1 Cruiser and 4 DDs (protecting trannies) + 1 DDs (if BB at 18 IPCs and CA at 10…).
    Of course, the odds are in favour of the attacker but at 18 and 10 IPCs for BB/CC the battle would be more interesting: A. survives: 57.6% D. survives: 38.4% No one survives: 4%

    http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=3&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=5&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

    Than: A. survives: 76.3% D. survives: 20.6% No one survives: 3.2%
    http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=3&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=4&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    Yeah I have seen this work, but rarely will anyone attempt it, except perhaps the USA, maybe Japan if they are trying to be flashy about it, but battleships are generally too expensive to stack when compared to other units. In a unit vs unit comparison, if every round I buy battleships, my opponent buys 2 fighters, (or 2 cruisers at 10 ipcs) or 3 subs, they will eventually outclass my fleet on attack in the first round of the combat phase, such that my absorption doesn’t matter. If I can build a core and then build out a fleet around it, I can maybe make up the difference, but if the opponent is matching you buy for buy, then the advantage will likely go to the player fielding more units overall (more rolls, more chances to hit in the first round of the combat phase) even if these units are at risk as fodder. I would think that in determining value over multiple rounds, the first priority has to be to survive to see those rounds. If I buy battleships I might get sunk before I even have a chance to build out a large enough fleet to protect them. Once a fleet is large enough to have a core of 3 battleships, chances are its not going to get hit over multiple rounds anyway, or by strafes, but instead attacked with overwhelming force, or else not at all. That’s why I think if you did nothing but drop the prices to 10 and 18, it might persuade more people to consider the cruiser, but the battleship would still be outclassed.

  • 2024 '22 '21 '19 '15 '14

    ps. imagine as an example that you have two fleets, one has a core of 3 battleships, and one has a core of 6 cruisers (assuming they are at the cost suggested, you can imagine both core fleets are backed up by an equal number of support ships.)

    By the rules it is an impossibility for 3 battleships to destroy 6 cruisers in the first round of the combat phase. But it is entirely possible (if unlikely) for 6 cruisers to destroy 3 battleships in the first round of the combat phase. Given that the first round is often the most decisive, I would always take the spread that has a better chance of hitting at the outset.

    Now of course say 3 cruisers dud out completely, and the battleships absorb all these hit, and return fire with a perfect 3 hits. As the attacker you’d still have a chance to kill the battleships, even losing half your force in the first round of the combat phase. But who knows, maybe you get 4 hits or more as the attacker? Or one of the defending battleships duds. Then you are already sinking battleships before they have a chance to make up the difference on absorption.

    And this isn’t taking into consideration the bombardment value of two cruisers at a 3, over a single battleship at a 4. If bombardment is the game, then cruisers win hands down, with a higher total bombardment value and a chance to destroy 2 units instead of just 1.

    The battleship needs more than just the benefit of absorbing 1 hit to make up the difference I would think. Otherwise, if you put cruisers at 10 ipcs, then you probably have to lower the cost of the battleship below 18, at which point it falls out of sync with destroyers and subs. On the 2 to 1, 3 to 1 ratio. At which point the battleship would probably also become overpowered for the period relative to carriers.

  • '17 '16

    @Black_Elk:

    ps. imagine as an example that you have two fleets, one has a core of 3 battleships, and one has a core of 6 cruisers (assuming they are at the cost suggested, you can imagine both core fleets are backed up by an equal number of support ships.)

    By the rules it is an impossibility for 3 battleships to destroy 6 cruisers in the first round of the combat phase. But it is entirely possible (if unlikely) for 6 cruisers to destroy 3 battleships in the first round of the combat phase. Given that the first round is often the most decisive, I would always take the spread that has a better chance of hitting at the outset.

    Now of course say 3 cruisers dud out completely, and the battleships absorb all these hit, and return fire with a perfect 3 hits. As the attacker you’d still have a chance to kill the battleships, even losing half your force in the first round of the combat phase. But who knows, maybe you get 4 hits or more as the attacker? Then you are already sinking battleships before they have a chance to make up the difference on absorption.

    And this isn’t taking into consideration the bombardment value of two cruisers at a 3, over a single battleship at a 4. If bombardment is the game, then cruisers win hands down, with a higher total bombardment value and a chance to destroy 2 units instead of just 1.

    The battleship needs more than just the benefit of absorbing 1 hit to make up the difference I would think

    You forget that BB is hypothetically at 18 IPCs…

    1 BB vs 3 Subs on defense= 56% vs 44%  
    instead of OOB 3 BBs (20 IPCs) vs 10 Subs on def= 41% vs 59%

    4 BBs vs 9 DDs = 53% vs 44% /
    instead : 4 BBs (20 IPCs) vs 10 DDs = 32% vs 66%


    On an abstract battle of unit vs unit, battleship keeps the better hand on calc:
    5 BBs (18 IPCs) vs 9 CAs (10 IPCs)= 56% vs 40%

    instead: 3BBs (20 IPCs) vs 5 CAs (12 IPCs)= 66% vs 28%

    And it is almost an even match against DD+CA.

    So the cost can be OK, at least to be mathematically optimized to be in the game with other units.
    However, cruiser get a better offshore bombardment capacity and with DDs, you get an ASW also.

    But do they provides a sufficient strategic or tactical advantage to compete with others units such as planes and carriers?
    In G40, the 2 hits is not such a great advantage (since you must return to a Naval Base to repair), and carrier have the same 2 hits for a lesser cost.

    Sometimes, I’m thinking it is more for historical depiction that Battleship unit are in A&A than anything else. They were almost obsolete at the start of the war. So the game doesn’t create any real incentive toward buying them when compared to submarines, destroyers, carriers and planes.

    However, adding some antiaircraft capabilities makes both cruiser and battleship far more interesting and it is more historical than bringing 1 ground unit with 1 battleship.

    Adding something to battleships, I would looks for something special by:

    • improving gunnery (such as a single additional roll @4 in the first round if their is any enemy’s surface warships, to depict the longer range of their heavier guns),

    • bombard capacity (even in combine arms with cruiser),

    • adding antiaircraft, working as a sea AAA gun (even in a combine arms with carrier and/or cruiser),

    • (2 hits repair better than the carrier, in G40 only).

    It could even be balance with some hindrance against subs, like not being able to attack them…(but it can add too much layer of complexity).

    And putting more on the starting board in an out of armways, could add more flavour also.

Suggested Topics

  • 4
  • 1
  • 6
  • 9
  • 17
  • 13
  • 4
  • 4
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

31

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts