Naval Units: what is worth buying?

[TG Moses VI]

Quote
Is 2 extra IPCs really worth 2 spaces and at a decrease in defense by 3

I think so, yes. Its 33% more ‘firepower’ and 50% more range for 2 IPCs. Thats really a bargain. Throw in that you can turn enemy econ into mush on occasion and whats not to like? Wink

I made my that comment assuming we had decreased the bomber’s attack to 3 like you said.  So you wouldn’t have 33% more firepower.

[Silent Observer]

noone would buy bombers with 3 in attack. everyone would buy the more flexible fighter or for naval battles, a cruiser which would also help you in defense. how many bought a bomber i revised? well, with 3 attack, they are a worse deal than that.

[Bardoly]

Bombers are WAY better than Fighters in all aspects other than the following:

1. Defense on land.
   The Bomber is weaker than the Fighter, but with the extra range, it can usually get back to a safer position than the Fighters can, and since neither can land on newly captured territory, as long as your Bombers land behind the front lines, they are rarely in danger of ever having to roll for defense.  Usually the only times that Bombers ever roll Defense is when other Bombers (or sometimes Fighters) are attacking them.  For land defense, 3 Infantry or 2 Tanks are quite better than Fighters, so why ever buy Fighters in a land war?

2. Defense on Carriers.
   Fighters are the “Queen” of Fleet defense, so if you are building fleets, then you will be purchasing some of them, but at 34 IPCs for a fully loaded AC, versus 3 Bombers for 36 IPCs, I would much rather be the attacking player with 3 Bombers.  For an extra 2 IPCs, the odds are that you kill the fully loaded AC at a loss of 2 Bombers.  That’s trading 24 IPCs for 34.  Keep that up and you’ll win the game.

[Silent Observer]

Remember that the fighters on a carrier can also help you in the attacking part of the game. Be it land wars or a naval battle.

[jeffdestroyer]

@Bardoly:

Bombers are WAY better than Fighters in all aspects other than the following:

1. Defense on land.
   The Bomber is weaker than the Fighter, but with the extra range, it can usually get back to a safer position than the Fighters can, and since neither can land on newly captured territory, as long as your Bombers land behind the front lines, they are rarely in danger of ever having to roll for defense.  Usually the only times that Bombers ever roll Defense is when other Bombers (or sometimes Fighters) are attacking them.  For land defense, 3 Infantry or 2 Tanks are quite better than Fighters, so why ever buy Fighters in a land war?

2. Defense on Carriers.
   Fighters are the “Queen” of Fleet defense, so if you are building fleets, then you will be purchasing some of them, but at 34 IPCs for a fully loaded AC, versus 3 Bombers for 36 IPCs, I would much rather be the attacking player with 3 Bombers.  For an extra 2 IPCs, the odds are that you kill the fully loaded AC at a loss of 2 Bombers.  That’s trading 24 IPCs for 34.  Keep that up and you’ll win the game.

Fig are good in land war for mobility (moving 4 spaces vs 2 for tanks to supplement a distant force for a turn that may be destroyerd without help) Reinforcements may be a turn away. Fig can help hold the line.

[toblerone77]

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

[Bardoly]

@toblerone77:

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

Not too much in the games that my group has been playing.  I’ll just send in the Bombers with a few Subs/Destroyers thrown in if I need fodder, and if we are playing with tech, and the Bombers ever go Heavy, then I don’t even need fodder.  This has happened in most of the games which we have played.

I do agree with you though, that for naval purchases if you must make them, that loaded ACs with a few fodder pieces (Destroyers if going against an air force, or Subs/Destroyers if going against a navy) are the best.

[toblerone77]

I think it really depends on what side you’re playing and what stage of the of the game you’re in. My tactic in the early stages as the US I like to use CV task forces to island hop. I haven’t played AA50 even though I just got it. I’m going to try incorporating cruisers more into the game. I think alot of folks are already writing them off whereas I think they may have some value as a ‘poor man’s’ battleship.

I personally think the US/Jap/Ger are ideal for the sub/bomber combo. Ger especially in the early stages. I think it’s essential for Ger to preserve it’s luftwaffe as much as possible in any version of the game.

[TG Moses VI]

I do  agree with you though, that for naval purchases if you must make them, that loaded ACs with a few fodder pieces (Destroyers if going against an air force, or Subs/Destroyers if going against a navy) are the best.

Exactly.  The exacted value for 3 bombers attacking 1 carrier + 2 fighters is positive, making it a worthwhile attack.  However, back that Carrier group with a destroyer or gasp a battleship and the expected return on 3-4 bombers goes way down.

[AxisOfEvil]

@toblerone77:

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

I would attack 1 AC and 2 fighters with 3 bombers. Would i attack 2 battleships with 3 bombers? Umm hell no! And against the AC + fighters, if i throw in a 6 ipc sub, now I have an 1 in 3 chance in every round of combat that i dont even need to kill the fighters. I just sink the AC, step back and watch them die? Do battelships have that vulnerability? no sir.

[AxisOfEvil]

@toblerone77:

I’m going to try incorporating cruisers more into the game. I think alot of folks are already writing them off whereas I think they may have some value as a ‘poor man’s’ battleship.

Im not buying the cruiser so far. If you are truly poor, and need a capital ship that can bombard, you are wasting money buying a cruiser. For 8 ipcs more, you get more firepower, save a fodder ship in every future naval battle, increase your chance of hitting in bombardment by 1/6, which increases your chances of saving land units in battles. Battelships quickly pay for the diff in price, and then save you so much more in the long run.

[TG Moses VI]

In your opinions, do you think giving Cruiser’s ASW capability make up for their pitiful status?

[DarthMaximus]

Its still early but I like Cruisers, esp for the UK.  Given the number of Amphib assualts they do throughout the game and never having to worry about AA-fire (ftrs would be the other option).

As for 3 boms vs. 1 ac + 2 ftrs.

Yes bombers are great, but people sailing around an AC/2 ftrs with no fodder deserve to get them sunk.  There is really no reason that person shouldn’t have a 1-2 dd for fodder.  I don’t see this as a particularly likely scenerio.  Maybe you catch someone napping but I wouldn’t count on running across this scenerio a lot.  I guess with the Italian ships but that’s part of the setup.

I like to have the bare minimum of DD, since they only serve as fodder, I want just enough to deter an attack but not so many where I’ve wasted some IPCs.  At least with the CA you can still bombard.

US I’ll go more AC/ftr for flexibility.  Since UK should be doing the bombardment (going before the US), the US can provide the extra defense and mobility.

[AxisOfEvil]

@DarthMaximus:

As for 3 boms vs. 1 ac + 2 ftrs.

Yes bombers are great, but people sailing around an AC/2 ftrs with no fodder deserve to get them sunk.  There is really no reason that person shouldn’t have a 1-2 dd for fodder.  I don’t see this as a particularly likely scenerio.  Maybe you catch someone napping but I wouldn’t count on running across this scenerio a lot.  I guess with the Italian ships but that’s part of the setup.

Yes you can add fodders units to the AC + fighters. But then, to be fair you add them to the battleships as well.

Attack Fleet #1: 2 fighters/AC/3 DDs  or

attack Fleet#2: 2 BBs/3 DDs  with bombers?

Id still be more wary of the Battleship fleet. Lets say our opponent hits us with 6 bombers. Thats an average of 4 hits. Fleet #1 loses 3 destroyers, and 1 fighter (cant take the AC, as that would auto kill remaining fighters). After 1 round, they are left with 1 AC and 1 fighter. -34 ipcs. Defensive punch remaining: 6 –  Fleet #2 takes those 4 hits and loses only two destoyers. left with 2 BBs and 1 DD. -16 ipcs. D-Punch remaining: 10. True, fleet #1 had a 33% better chance of taking out an extra bomber on round 1, but fleet #2 has a 66% better chance to take out an extra bomber on r2.

The greater  Punch left after round 1 of combat, as well as the IPCs saved, make the battelship fleet alot less prone to strafe attacks. And make a better than average first round of dice by the defending battelship fleet much more scary to the attacker.

[AxisOfEvil]

@TG:

In your opinions, do you think giving Cruiser’s ASW capability make up for their pitiful status?

what is ASW?

[JamesG]

@AxisOfEvil:

what is ASW?

Anti Submarine Warfare.  The anti sub abilities that Destroyers have.