Cruiser add on

a cost of 10 would render the BB obsolete so you can strike that option

I like the carry-1 option, the New World Order map does that and it works pretty well.

First I said AA ability, but rolling at 3 every turn would prob be to much against planes. Wouldn’t want to reduce it though.

one AA shot @1 if a cruiser is present (just like an AA gun) might work

We made a house rule for cruisers to have AA ability.
They work just like land AA guns:
At the beginning of combat, each cruiser rolls up to 3 dice (or 1 die per attacking plane if less than 3) @ 1. This happens before the first round of combat only. After that combat proceeds normally.

I’m not a fan of AA guns on cruisers if battleships can’t do it… that’s just me.

In terms of what I’d find realistic, here are my thoughts.

The problem with making cruisers more attractive by giving them cruiser-specific abilities is that, in many cases, battleships would logically have to be given the same abilities too…in which case you end up right back where you started, with battleships being a better purchase than cruisers. WWII cruisers and battleships were both surface-combat warships whose primary weapons were heavy guns (though not of the same caliber) and which were both armoured (though not to the same degree).

The concept of giving cruisers AAA ability has some potential, since cruisers typically did have some appreciable AAA firepower, but the problem is that battleships had a lot of AAA firepower too.  So giving AAA abilities to cruisers but not to battleships makes little sense.

As for the concept of cruisers carrying troops, the problem is that neither cruisers nor battleships were used in that capacity very much (if at all).  The Japanese did use destroyers as improvised fast troop carriers during the Guadalcanal campaign, but that was a peculiar situation and the number of troops transported this way was limited.  At any rate, those were destroyers, not cruisers or battleships.  And a fundamental problem with the concept of using battleships or cruisers as troops transports is that both ship types draw a lot more water (in terms of keel depth) than a destroyer, so it’s essentially impossible for them to get close enough to shore to unload troops unless they’re using a proper port (with dredged channels and adequate docks or piers), something which isn’t typically available when an amphibious landing is being made on a hostile beach.  Even destroyers can’t really do the job properly in many cases, because they too have keels; the land on a beach properly, you need large numbers of flat-bottomed assault craft…something which isn’t carried by battleships or cruisers or destroyers.

As for dropping the cost of a cruiser from 12 to 10, the problem here is that it makes cruisers almost as cheap as destroyers (which cost eight), which is wildly unrealistic for a heavy cruiser and debatable for a typical light cruiser.  There were, I believe, some unusually light cruisers built by a couple of nations (Italy being one) as “destroyer leaders”, but I don’t think they were very capable vessels.

I think that the modification which makes the most sense from a realism perspective would be to boost cruiser movement from 2 to 3, thus making the cruiser the only sea unit with a movement figure higher than 2.  The word “cruiser” reflects the fact that cruisers were typically seen as surface-combat ships having the ability to carry out “cruises”, meaning extended operations at sea (autonomously, if need be).  Cruisers had bigger fuel tanks than destroyers (because the ships themselves were bigger), and they weren’t as heavy as battleships (because they were smaller and less heavily armoured), so they were long-ranged and, I would guess, they were probably the most fuel-efficient vessels overall out of the three types.  They could reach high speeds when you operated them at full steam, though of course this burned up fuel much faster than at cruising speed.  So all in all, I’d say a movement boost is the least problematic option in terms of accuracy.  Whether that’s enough to make it a popular purchase is another story, but at least it’s an improvement over what we get under the OOB rules.

Agree with CWO and Grasshopper that any ‘special abilities’ given to cruisers should also  be extended to battleships, since cruisers were basically the poor man’s battleship. I also don’t think reducing cost is the right option.

Of the three options, I think allowing cruisers (and battleships) to load one unit is the best. Although, as CWO points out, capital ships were not typically used to transport ground forces en masse, they absolutely did carry marines into engagements, particularly in the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

I wasn’t aware cruisers had more range and were faster than battleships. The fast battleships could do over 30 knots and they also fueled the destroyers at sea so they packed a lot of oil. I guess I don’t really see how a movement of 3 is advantageous. So they’d get 4 from a NB ? I guess they could bounce between two or more fleets to multiply their support. At 12 bucks you probably wouldn’t want to sail them solo too much.

1 destroyer blocks unlimited subs which weren’t the only ships to kill subs yet they’re specialized for game purposes. You have strategic bombers wacking fleets which didn’t really happen. So allowing a cruiser AA fire and not BBs doesn’t seem like too big of a stretch. I’d look at the cruiser being part of a bigger fleet and that it represents the AA capability of the fleet.

If I could only pick 1 I’d use the AA but I think you could give them a couple AA shots and let them pack a dude around. That’s what I’ve been doing although I use a special naval infantry unit. It seems to work ok. Maybe ncm only for the infantry? The 12 price keeps them from being overproduced but at the same time you’ll actually want 1 or 2 per fleet.

I guess the question is, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities “for game purposes,” why not also give that capability to battleships “for game purposes.” At least then you don’t have an arbitrary distinction that has no basis in historical fact. The battleship is another unit that receives little love in most OOB games, so really there would be no reason (gameplay or otherwise) not to give it the same capabilities.

The idea was to promote cruiser buys. Why not just buy Battleships ?

@regularkid:

I guess the question is, if you’re giving cruisers AA capabilities “for game purposes,” why not also give that capability to battleships “for game purposes.” At least then you don’t have an arbitrary distinction that has no basis in historical fact. The battleship is another unit that receives little love in most OOB games, so really there would be no reason (gameplay or otherwise) not to give it the same capabilities.

In our group battleship buys are just as rare as cruiser buys, I’m ok with giving both 1 AA shot each on top of their regular attack or defence, some say it should be max 3 shots @1 each for 3 or more planes like AAA, but this seems steep and would rather give just 1 shot @2 per ship… either way, the attack on the royal navy G1 will be much much different, and the Japanese navy will increase their already huge advantage over the US fleet J1.

I would have the AA capability kick in on rd 2. Call it an upgrade or refit or w/e. I tried it with just the CAs on rd1 and it can screw things up.

@barney:

I wasn’t aware cruisers had more range and were faster than battleships. The fast battleships could do over 30 knots and they also fueled the destroyers at sea so they packed a lot of oil. I guess I don’t really see how a movement of 3 is advantageous. So they’d get 4 from a NB ? I guess they could bounce between two or more fleets to multiply their support. At 12 bucks you probably wouldn’t want to sail them solo too much.

Yes, modern fast battleships in WWII did have high speed and big fuel tanks and long range, and I wasn’t implying that this wasn’t the case.  The point I was making was that cruisers devoted a smaller percentage of their total weight to armour than battleships did; if I recall correctly, armour could account for a third of a battleship’s displacement.  Armour is useful, but it’s basically just inert metal whose mass never changes, and lugging vast quantities of it around an ocean takes energy.  Because cruisers didn’t carry as large a proportion of armour relative to their size than battleships did, my guess – and it’s only a guess – is that cruisers were more fuel-efficient than battleships, meaning that they could probably get more mileage per ton of fuel at a given speed than a battleship travelling at the same speed.  Which was my reason for arguing for a movement boost from two to three to reflect this.  Also note that WWII battleships tended to operate as part of fleets; operations on their own (like the Bismarck cruise) were the exception rather than the rule.  Cruisers were more likely than battleships to operate on their own or as the lead ship of a small task force, though of course they also often operated in fleets.

@CWO:

@barney:

I wasn’t aware cruisers had more range and were faster than battleships. The fast battleships could do over 30 knots and they also fueled the destroyers at sea so they packed a lot of oil. I guess I don’t really see how a movement of 3 is advantageous. So they’d get 4 from a NB ? I guess they could bounce between two or more fleets to multiply their support. At 12 bucks you probably wouldn’t want to sail them solo too much.

Yes, modern fast battleships in WWII did have high speed and big fuel tanks and long range, and I wasn’t implying that this wasn’t the case.  The point I was making was that cruisers devoted a smaller percentage of their total weight to armour than battleships did; if I recall correctly, armour could account for a third of a battleship’s displacement.  Armour is useful, but it’s basically just inert metal whose mass never changes, and lugging vast quantities of it around an ocean takes energy.  **Because cruisers didn’t carry as large a proportion of armour relative to their size than battleships did, my guess – and it’s only a guess – is that cruisers were more fuel-efficient than battleships, meaning that they could probably get more mileage per ton of fuel at a given speed than a battleship travelling at the same speed.  **Which was my reason for arguing for a movement boost from two to three to reflect this.  Also note that WWII battleships tended to operate as part of fleets; operations on their own (like the Bismarck cruise) were the exception rather than the rule.  Cruisers were more likely than battleships to operate on their own or as the lead ship of a small task force, though of course they also often operated in fleets.

For my part, I rather prefer this kind of Cruiser which have a more limited impact on opening moves than AA preemptive defense.

CRUISER
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3 (no NB boost)
Cost 12
Shore bombardment @3
Gives +1 Move to any surface vessel (TP, DD, CVE, CV, BB) paired 1:1 with

The small task force leader purpose seems better reflected by this bonus on movement.
It provides an incentive to dispatch Cruiser along Transports in SZs not deserved by Naval Base.

Also, increasing range and movement provides an explanation on why on same IPCs basis cost ratio, Cruiser is the worst investment in combat values. Armor and firepower has been trade off for maneuverability and increased range.

I agree with BM, his is a much more productive boost because a cruiser moving 3 by it self is not much of a boost in gameplay, but if they can escort one ship… that’s more intresting.

Thanks for the clarification CWO. I would a gree with your assesment that cruisers were more fuel effecient. Also with the fact their were a lot of engaements that just had destroyers and cruisers or DEs. The guadalcanal campaign comes to mind along with a early war engagement with the US, Dutch and Brits in the DEIs. I don’t recall the name. When BBs did fight alone, idk for sure, but it seems like they didn’t fare well. At least Prince of Wales and Bismark didn’t.

That’s an interesting idea Baron. I’m trying to think of situations where you would use it. Maybe allow it to boost 2 ships out of subs, DDs and trprts.

@Baron:

Gives +1 Move to any surface vessel (TP, DD, CVE, CV, BB) paired 1:1 with

This is an interesting idea.  One adjustment I’d make, however, is to limit the accompanying surface ship +1 movement boost to just destroyers.  A cruiser shouldn’t be able be able to boost the movement of a ship that’s bigger than a cruiser, so that leaves out carriers and battleships.  Cruisers don’t need to boost cruisers because cruisers have the boost already built into them.  A cruiser boosting a destroyer sounds fine: destroyers are smaller, and the “boost” could represent the cruiser and the accompanying destroyer operating as a small task force or task group, with the cruiser as the lead ship and with the cruiser topping up the fuel tanks of the destroyer from time to time (as was indeed done during the war).  A cruiser shouldn’t be able to boost a transport ship’s movement: many transport ships are quite large – some larger than a cruiser – and most transport ships are relatively slow, so they have no speed to gain from operating alongside a cruiser.  (It’s actually the cruiser that would be slowed by the transport ship.)  And transport ships would typically have a long range already, in part because in WWII they tended to use old-fashioned, low-powered triple-expansion steam engines rather than turbines.

Except for the destroyer, the only ship that could realistically gain a movement boost from operating in tandem with a cruiser would be a submarine, owing to its small size.  In practice, though, I don’t think that subs in WWII operated in tandem with cruisers very much, if at all.