@Narvik:
@Tamer:
I really like the idea and have toyed with it myself, but I think it should be limited to capital ships only. Cruisers are already a good unit with a relatively low price, and I think that giving them this new ability with the same price could potentially create a a frenzy of cruisers on the board.
It is a fact that even before WWII the old battleships got obsolete, and the combo of carrier and cruiser became the new standard. Cruisers had just as good AA fire ability as battleships. The only difference between cruisers and battleships is the armor. The main purpose of a battleship is to never sink, but stay afloat no matter how much beating it gets. But a cruiser don’t need that, since the fighters on the carrier will make sure no enemy ships will be in range. This is historical facts, and I wonder why anybody would make game rules that don’t reflect this ? Maybe they would be better of playing a WWI game, because no rational player should purchase battleships in A&A, just use the ones that comes with the set up
Your POV, Tamer of Beasts, on Cruiser at 12 IPCs is marginal.
Cruiser is the worse naval purchase according to all AACalc simulations (compared to Destroyers or Battleships) and a Carrier with planes is far better in amphibious assault, because a Fg can attack @3 each round, not just the opening combat round like a shore bombardment.
However, Narvik, in a game perspective, Cruiser bombard is better than BB for the same cost:
3 BB @4 vs 5 Cruiser @3 (60 IPCs) or 12 attack points vs 15 points.
If 1 AA is given to both warships, you get 3 AA shots @1 vs 5 AA shots @1.
So, for the same cost, Cruiser become better for both shore bombardment and AA while Battleship remains better for her double hits capacity.