@general-LD
“When attacking or defending, hits scored by air units cannot be assigned to submarines
unless there is a destroyer friendly to the air units in the battle.” (Rulebook, page 30)
HTH :slightly_smiling_face:
How useful are cruisers??
-
Both destroyers and cruisers have a punch to cost ratio of 0.25 (2/8 & 3/12), so I don’t see how destroyers are better defensively except that you could get more pieces (3 destroyers for 24 IPCs vs. 2 cruisers);
the more pieces is the key. lets say you have transports that need to be defended from your opponents potential attack with 2 fighters, you can defend with either 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers. if you choose to defend your fleet with cruisers the attacker will sink your fleet 42% of the time, if your choose the destroyers the fleet is only sunk 27% of the time. if there are subs in the attack then destroyers are even better.
however, that’s like saying you should ONLY purchase infantry for defense and never purchase tanks or fighters (though the punch/cost ratio correlation is also different).
if you are only looking for defense then infantry is the best purchase and not mixed buys with inferior tanks for fighters. the one exception is if you have more money than the production limit of the industrial complex.
While it’s true that infantry and destroyers are the most efficient defensive pieces because they’re cheaper and you can get more of them, you also want some pieces that will boost your skew and be more likely to score some hits per round of battle.
yes infantry and destroyers are the best defenders. buying other units is an inferior defensive purchase.
however its not all about defending. infantry do not have the range of tanks, attack power of artillery and tanks, or flexibility of fighters. when looking at destroyers vs cruisers destroyers or carriers vs cruisers, cruisers are always a bad purchase.
-
@Emperor:
I’d be most happy with an opponent that never buys cruisers. :-D
Me too.
You guys don’t know what you’re missing, who are dissing cruisers.
You can’t quantify the ability to bombard every turn, and don’t forget the threat of bombardment (or the potential ability to bombard) that the opponent must take into consideration.i do know what i am missing. i am missing inferior purchases.
i can not quantify the ability to bombard every turn, but i can qualify it compared to other purchases. cruisers are a bad purchase compared to others.
i would be happy to play anyone that thinks cruisers are a good purchase. i could show you how never buying a cruiser for any power is a winning strategy. or show how any nation that buys many cruisers as part of thier stategy is a losing one.
if gamerman, emporer molari, or anyone else would like to play, i would be glad to be your opponent. but we must use triplea as i can not stand the tedium of abattlemap.
-
Don’t sweat it Allweneed…… it’s difficult to quantify all these variables without concrete experience playing with and without a certain unit. A large part of winning at AA is efficient buying strategies…if everybody bought efficiently it would make it that much harder to win…so look on the bright side!
The bottom line for me is buying cruisers means buying less fighters and aircraft carriers (not to mention transports and gear)… For my money, I want max defensive punch, max offensive flexibility, and max units available for amphibious assaults.
The scenario where I can imagine buying a cruiser (as UK) is if Germany is investing heavily in both air power and aa guns. I’m not sure how many aa guns Germany would have to buy before I started buying cruisers instead of air power…alot I guess.
It would be interesting to analyze this in more detail…specifically, if Germany had an aa gun on every relevant territory (let’s say on Poland, NWE, and France), would it then become cost efficient to buy cruisers, or would fighters/acs continue to be a better bet?
-
the more pieces is the key. lets say you have transports that need to be defended from your opponents potential attack with 2 fighters, you can defend with either 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers. if you choose to defend your fleet with cruisers the attacker will sink your fleet 42% of the time, if your choose the destroyers the fleet is only sunk 27% of the time. if there are subs in the attack then destroyers are even better.
Darth is correct, here. More pieces is the key to DD’s only as long as the fleet is being threatened. On the other hand, CA’s are ALWAYS useful. As long as you make it unprofitable for your opponent to attack your fleet, then CA’s will simply be a better choice. Unless he or she makes a calculation error or there was a tactical advantage to be gained, no good player would allow their opponent 50/50 odds (2 fig vs. 2 CA) at sinking their fleet, so the above example is really a moot point.
Furthermore, with respect to fighters having better range, in order to maintain the fleet’s defensive integrity, those fighters must return to the CV’s every turn which is a limiting factor to their range. And as stated before, it is further offset by the fact that territories protected by AA do nothing to discourage attacks supported by CA’s.
If you ever have a situation where you, supported by CA’s, and your opponent, supported by aircraft, are trading a territory, but neither one of you has the strength to hold it, try dropping an AA gun on that territory in non-com, after you take it, and you’ll see just how important CA’s can be.
i do know what i am missing. i am missing inferior purchases.
i can not quantify the ability to bombard every turn, but i can qualify it compared to other purchases. cruisers are a bad purchase compared to others.
But you can’t assume that you will always have 20+IPC’s to spend in one turn to buy a bunch of DD’s, CA’s, or a fully loaded CV to make the quantity advantage immediately significant. If you have 15 or less IPC’s to spend on defensive navy in one turn, which one of these units is a better purchase: 1 DD, 1 CV, or 1 CA?
The DD is superior as an offensive and defensive purchase solely in the case of quantity and only in the water. The cruiser is superior individually and, I would argue, overall because of it’s it’s bombardment ability. Eventually, the CA’s pay for themselves. The 2 CA’s that I spent 24 IPC’s to buy cost my opponents an average of 1 dead infantry every turn, while those 3 DD’s you bought for the same price are earning you, what exactly?
i would be happy to play anyone that thinks cruisers are a good purchase. i could show you how never buying a cruiser for any power is a winning strategy. or show how any nation that buys many cruisers as part of thier stategy is a losing one.
if gamerman, emporer molari, or anyone else would like to play, i would be glad to be your opponent. but we must use triplea as i can not stand the tedium of abattlemap.
-
The DD is superior as an offensive and defensive purchase solely in the case of quantity and only in the water. The cruiser is superior individually and, I would argue, overall because of it’s it’s bombardment ability. Eventually, the CA’s pay for themselves. The 2 CA’s that I spent 24 IPC’s to buy cost my opponents an average of 1 dead infantry every turn, while those 3 DD’s you bought for the same price are earning you, what exactly?
Except those Cruisers wont help take moscow either. Or any territory not next to water. So CA are more expensive and less flexible compared to fighters. So the country buying them also must factor into the decision.
Only in the situation where you are using cruisers to bombard with 2 inf into a numerically superior territory (expecting to lose the 2 inf but hoping for lucky bombard hits) are cruisers clearly better. Personally I’d rather have the 2 fighters.
I do think that Cruisers have utility though.
-
The DD is superior as an offensive and defensive purchase solely in the case of quantity and only in the water. The cruiser is superior individually and, I would argue, overall because of it’s it’s bombardment ability. Eventually, the CA’s pay for themselves. The 2 CA’s that I spent 24 IPC’s to buy cost my opponents an average of 1 dead infantry every turn, while those 3 DD’s you bought for the same price are earning you, what exactly?
Except those Cruisers wont help take moscow either. Or any territory not next to water. So CA are more expensive and less flexible compared to fighters. So the country buying them also must factor into the decision.
Only in the situation where you are using cruisers to bombard with 2 inf into a numerically superior territory (expecting to lose the 2 inf but hoping for lucky bombard hits) are cruisers clearly better. Personally I’d rather have the 2 fighters.
I do think that Cruisers have utility though.
Cruiser can help take London though. :wink:
But all of Europe is coastal, From Blk, Rome, Fra, Nwe, Ger, Pol, Bst, Kar, Fin, Nor. I think UK can find a use for a few CAs.But again, with ftrs, you need to make initial investment of 14 for an AC. So for one ftr you need to spend 24. As U-505 pointed out sometimes you don’t have that much and in some cases 24 is all the UK has. You will need ground troops as well. If you need fleet protection and a little offensive punch, why not buy 1 CA, 4 inf?
2 ftrs vs. 2 ca in terms of purchasing is fine if you don’t have to worry about your fleet, but those 2 ftrs can’t defend your navy without you spending 14 on an AC first.
As a side note:
I think all navies that wish to stay above water need at least one loaded AC. I’m more talking about adding ships after that. Do you need a second loaded AC for 34 or will 2 CAs do for 24? Do you even have 34 to spend in one turn? -
the more pieces is the key. lets say you have transports that need to be defended from your opponents potential attack with 2 fighters, you can defend with either 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers. if you choose to defend your fleet with cruisers the attacker will sink your fleet 42% of the time, if your choose the destroyers the fleet is only sunk 27% of the time. if there are subs in the attack then destroyers are even better.
Darth is correct, here. More pieces is the key to DD’s only as long as the fleet is being threatened. On the other hand, CA’s are ALWAYS useful. As long as you make it unprofitable for your opponent to attack your fleet, then CA’s will simply be a better choice. Unless he or she makes a calculation error or there was a tactical advantage to be gained, no good player would allow their opponent 50/50 odds (2 fig vs. 2 CA) at sinking their fleet, so the above example is really a moot point.
the example was only one example, you can make up your own example and do the calcualtions, you will find that destroyers or loaded carriers is a better defensive buy compared to cruisers.
Furthermore, with respect to fighters having better range, in order to maintain the fleet’s defensive integrity, those fighters must return to the CV’s every turn which is a limiting factor to their range. And as stated before, it is further offset by the fact that territories protected by AA do nothing to discourage attacks supported by CA’s.
loaded carriers do have better range, even when landing back on the carrier. they can make a sea attack 3 spaces away, and attack land locked territories. cruisers do not have this type of range or flexibility. the aagun is the one disadvantage the loaded carrier faces, however there are very few aaguns and they are expensive to build and do not totaly negate fighters.
i do know what i am missing. i am missing inferior purchases.
i can not quantify the ability to bombard every turn, but i can qualify it compared to other purchases. cruisers are a bad purchase compared to others.
But you can’t assume that you will always have 20+IPC’s to spend in one turn to buy a bunch of DD’s, CA’s, or a fully loaded CV to make the quantity advantage immediately significant. If you have 15 or less IPC’s to spend on defensive navy in one turn, which one of these units is a better purchase: 1 DD, 1 CV, or 1 CA?
well a carrier with existing fighters is the best defensive purchase, or a dd and an infantry is very cost effective. i am sure there is a way that we could come up with a very rare situation were a cruiser is the best purchase, but it would be very rare and not relevent to most games.
The DD is superior as an offensive and defensive purchase solely in the case of quantity and only in the water. The cruiser is superior individually and, I would argue, overall because of it’s it’s bombardment ability. Eventually, the CA’s pay for themselves. The 2 CA’s that I spent 24 IPC’s to buy cost my opponents an average of 1 dead infantry every turn, while those 3 DD’s you bought for the same price are earning you, what exactly?
when buying a navy to protect transports from an air assault carriers are the better buy. when attacking land forces carriers are a better buy. when buying a navy to protect from an attack by another navy carriers are the best buy, then destroyers, then cruisers. when attacking another navy and you ignore the extra flexibility loaded carriers have, destroyers are the best, then cruisers, then carriers(but only very slightly less than cruisers)
i would be happy to play anyone that thinks cruisers are a good purchase. i could show you how never buying a cruiser for any power is a winning strategy. or show how any nation that buys many cruisers as part of thier stategy is a losing one.
if gamerman, emporer molari, or anyone else would like to play, i would be glad to be your opponent. but we must use triplea as i can not stand the tedium of abattlemap.
Blah, blah, blah. This may come as a shock to you, but we’ve heard this kind of noise before. I even went to the tripleA site a long time ago to school a guy on how to defend against the German mass-armor build that he was touting as the unstoppable strategy.
there is some miscommunication here. in all my posts i am not trying to anger anyone, but it seems i have angered you. i never touted a german mass tank purchase. it is a suboptimal strategy. i was offering gamerman, emperor mollari, or anyone else that wanted to see the theory in practice, not insulting them(check out my made up nickname)
Playing with abattlemap may be tedious to you, but what is even more tedious is when I(we) have to go to your site just to prove that we can take you guys every time one of your representatives shows up on our doorstep proclaiming our inferiority. Do our people go to your site and talk smack? I’m guessing not. But, if they did, then I’m sure you would say the same thing I’m about to say to you:
abattlemap is very tedious for me. i am confused of your creating of teams here. i do not represent triplea, and i do not think you represent axisandallies.org. i did not proclaim your inferiority. i do not have a site for you to come to talk smack.
Bottom line, if you want to talk smack HERE, then you back it up HERE. Otherwise, troll somewhere else. Have a nice day.
i did not come here to talk smack i came here to talk strategy about axis and allies, that is the reason axisandallies.org. i was not trolling i was using the site for its intended purpose.
i know you were not serious about wishing me a nice day. but i am serious, i hope you have a nice day.emporer molari
It’s Emperor Mollari. The least you can do is have enough respect to spell his name correctly. I mean, you can copy and paste it for Christ’s sake.
i doubt he is upset that his made up nickname on a boardgame site was misspelled by a stranger. i think me an mollari are having fun talking strategy.
-
Cruiser can help take London though. :wink:
But all of Europe is coastal, From Blk, Rome, Fra, Nwe, Ger, Pol, Bst, Kar, Fin, Nor. I think UK can find a use for a few CAs.But again, with ftrs, you need to make initial investment of 14 for an AC. So for one ftr you need to spend 24. As U-505 pointed out sometimes you don’t have that much and in some cases 24 is all the UK has. You will need ground troops as well. If you need fleet protection and a little offensive punch, why not buy 1 CA, 4 inf?
2 ftrs vs. 2 ca in terms of purchasing is fine if you don’t have to worry about your fleet, but those 2 ftrs can’t defend your navy without you spending 14 on an AC first.
As a side note:
I think all navies that wish to stay above water need at least one loaded AC. I’m more talking about adding ships after that. Do you need a second loaded AC for 34 or will 2 CAs do for 24? Do you even have 34 to spend in one turn?Yes, a cruiser can help take london. But if you are playing Germany, and you already have excess fighters, then you gain defense by buying carriers without the need for buying the fighters (at least the first 2)
But also (as germany), its more likely that the UK will need to sink my fleet rather then I taking London. In which case, the 2 carriers (because of my excess fighters) do me much more good than the cruisers.
I agree all navies need 1 AC. But therefter you must look to the country-specific advantages to see whether another carrier or cruiser works better.
-
But again, with ftrs, you need to make initial investment of 14 for an AC. So for one ftr you need to spend 24. As U-505 pointed out sometimes you don’t have that much and in some cases 24 is all the UK has. You will need ground troops as well. If you need fleet protection and a little offensive punch, why not buy 1 CA, 4 inf?
2 ftrs vs. 2 ca in terms of purchasing is fine if you don’t have to worry about your fleet, but those 2 ftrs can’t defend your navy without you spending 14 on an AC first.
Let’s assume we are talking about the UK here. As a rule, I’m working to maintain twice as many fighters as carriers at all times. Second, if I buy just a cruiser, and Germany buys a bomber on the following turn, presumably I need to buy another naval unit. However, I could have bought an AC, fly USA figs onto it (or UK’s extra figs), and then spend the extra 10 on gear, transports, and fighters.
Essentially I’m trying to keep Germany’s odds of a Luftwaffe attack low, while pumping the max number of units onto the mainland. So I want to use the most efficient possible units.
-
emporer molari
It’s Emperor Mollari. The least you can do is have enough respect to spell his name correctly. I mean, you can copy and paste it for Christ’s sake.
i doubt he is upset that his made up nickname on a boardgame site was misspelled by a stranger. i think me an mollari are having fun talking strategy.
The Emperor is gracious and has not taken offense.
Private communique from the Imperial Court:
Vir, track down that allweenie outlaw who has disgraced our name and have him executed.:evil: :evil:
-
Wow.
Quite a discussion.
I think we all agree that NO unit can be ruled out as totally useless for any country.
For example, I have heard of a Russian A/C purchase in SZ5 (karelia) to aid in an assault on Germany (landing zone for ftrs)So there are NO ABSOLUTES in this game.
-
Continuing that thought, like in all aspects of life, there ARE trade-offs.
I think a key one that influences me is how much does UK have to spend.
If they were going to buy a naval unit and have less than $12, then a DD is for you.
if you have 12 or 13, you might consider the CA (assuming no subs can attack or you already have a DD)
14 and over brings the A/C into consideration
if you have no available ftrs to land on the a/c, then you might then fall back on the CA to get a “3” defenseYou also have to consider what sort of strategy is Germany employing? Are they really turtled up, strong stacks in France, Germany and perhaps even Poland? If so, then an A/C & ftr strat is probably a bit better because the CA’s won’t really be used. If Germany is trading many territories, then CA’s might be very helpful.
Bottom line: I have won without Cruisers as a part of my allied navy and I have won with them being an intergral part of my navy / allied game plan.
So my bottom line is that Cruisers can be useful in certain situations, but loaded A/C’s are probably more useful in more situations.
-
Pretty well said, axis_roll. :-)
-
I think cruisers are an excellent piece and add flexibility and fun to buying; it is no longer an all or nothing (BB vs DD). It’s a mid range with trade offs.
They are very useful if you find yourself bombarding a lot, or have amphibious assaults as a part of your strategy. Buying crusiers instead of battleships will give you more offshore shots for your IPC. If you had 60 IPCs, the firepower of offshore shots would be 15 to 12 in favor of the cruiser. But it’s still more than just that, you’d have more ships with which to bombard, allowing for multiple targets per turn.
While the piece has its uses, as with most units, it is highly dependent on what your opponents have and buy. Some games cruisers might be worth it, while other strategies would require the battleship.
Throw in personal preferences to the mix and the cruiser won’t be for everyone. There’s no right answer, really. I simply prefer to keep all options open to give myself maximum flexibility when playing an opponent.
-
Very well said, also, Whack.
-
I think it depends upon your definition of “useful” or “very useful”; if by “very useful” you mean that cruisers are a unit you would buy in all situations, then they are not “very useful”, but no unit fits that definition… With the new naval rules transports and subs are out as fodder (with subs not being usable as such against air if your opponent doesn’t have a destroyer), so the new “infantry of the sea” is the destroyer. So yes, if you’re going for pure defensive utility destroyers are your best bet for single units, while the 2 fighter/carrier combo has the better defensive punch to IPC ratio. However, naval units are not all about defense, and the limits of production capability and availability also provide problems.
I think the naval units are much more balanced for usefulness than the land units might be; at least cruisers are useful for more efficient bombardment in comparison to battleships, while artillery really isn’t that useful in comparison to tanks (though tanks at 6 IPC as in AAP40 gives artillery a little more value in comparison to artillery vs. tanks at 5 IPC). Carrier units and destroyers provide the best defensive value, but the fighters are more vulnerable in amphibious assaults than bombarding cruisers or battleships; especially in the European theater where you can usually still get your fighters to the site of battle without carriers anyway, so why not use both planes and bombardment for more offensive power? None of the naval units is an all-powerful, all-purpose unit; they each have their drawbacks, and everyone can argue about which of the drawbacks are worse, but it would seem that would depend upon the situation that presents itself. So maybe all we need is some more love in this thread… :wink:
-
Pretty well said, AngelSurfer.
I still think subs are the infantry of the sea. In most cases they can be taken off as casualties. The only time they can’t is when you are facing significant air with no destroyer, as you said.
I only buy to get more than 1 or 2 destroyers in a fleet if I am in great need of cheap casualties against air, since as you say, subs can’t be used in this situation. Or, of course, if facing a lot of enemy submarines. But if you’re facing an enemy fleet, obviously, subs are the infantry of the sea. They are also the infantry of the sea when hunting enemy subs. If I’m attacking a few subs (maybe that survived after killing stuff) I like to have a sub to go with the destroyer and air, for a cheap casualty. Yes, in many cases subs are the infantry of the sea, just not always.
Great point about production capacity. Those arguing against cruisers failed to take this into account. Maybe you have 24 IPC’s buy only 2 production slots. Or maybe your factory is damaged, so buying more expensive units is no longer so inefficient.
That would actually be a good topic for another thread. Talking about buying more tanks instead of just max infantry when your complex is heavily damaged. You know, when infantry cost 4, arty costs 5, and tanks cost 6.
-
It’s all great but in my experience, nothing beats air power.
-
Air power can pull out anytime in an amphibious battle. If you know what you are doing, they are as safe as that cruiser doing a strafe.
-
A cruisers does 1 bombardment at 3, a fighter does it every round at same.
-
A cruisers have a defense value of 3, a fighter defend at 4 both on land and sea.
-
A cruiser has a range of 2 VS 4 ( which can be complemented by AC ) for fighters when it comes to power projection.
-
A cruiser can move in water vs fighters which can move over land and sea.
-
A cruiser finish it’s move where it attacked. Air power retreat to safe territory.
-
Last, but not the least: Cruiser cost 12, fighters cost 10…
If you only looking for the ‘‘bombard’’ ability, buy a bomber for the same price which is even better than the fighter.
The way I see it from the allies view UK/US, there is 2 boats and a half in this game.
- Transports
- AC for transport defense + fighters ( build only what you need for defense, period)
- 1 DD, and only 1. If there is really a sub threat to your fleet, ajust in consequence, normally the DD should be able to block the path to your fleet in worst case/ ill planning.
- The rest should be all bombers using the best AC there is, an unsinkable UK island.
When I play germany, I buy infantry / fighters, more fighters and then bombers as soon I get the upper hand. Japan can actually go all the way with infantry and bombers as they already got whatever they need for sea defense ( in doubt, an AC and fighters ).
So yea, cruisers are useless. There is no way any boats in this game can compare to fighters for versatility and even less to bombers when it comes to attack value.
I’ve played lots of game and air units are simply the best buy coupled with the best versatility roles ( sea and land ), best range and being the only units that can actually retreat after an attack is completed. All you need is the infantry fodder, which is the same for cruisers bombard and pretty much any serious strats.
-
-
Corbeau Blanc, i agree with your assessment of carriers/fighters compared to cruisers.
do not be fooled by posts of players trying to create a very rare scenario whereby a cruiser is the best purchase.
i am sure there is a very rare scenario in which a opponent has put your navy at risk and you are next to an industrial complex and you only have 12ipc and the cruiser really is the best purchase for this oddball scenario.
so once in a game one power would be best to buy one cruiser. this is not basing a strategy around cruisers as it is a inferior strategy compared to other options.
this does not make a cruiser a very usefull unit.
-
Owkey, I really shouldn’t do this, but… Cruisers suck. And even Larry and his crew turned to “I still think it is balanced” when I presented them the irrationality behind cruisers.
Let’s go for a warship roundup and usability. I’ll start of with the uncontroversial ones:
sub: cheap hit, good for sneaking, can’t attack air => very useful for disrupting enemy waters
DD: counter of sub, cheap hit, can attack air => basic sea unit
Carrier: expensive, but allows excess of fighters to fight sea battles => flexible and certainly useful with fighters already purchasedI think everyone agrees with the above.
Battleship: expensive, has double hit, high attack, and, most importantly, auto-repair. Auto-repair is the reason why a Cru and DD aren’t the equal of a BB. After taking a hit in sea battle, with DD + Cru, you end up with only Cru. With BB, you end up with a fully repaired BB. Net gain: 8 ipc’s. Which one is better now? Shore bombard is a nice extra, but without it, the BB would still be a decent buy. I remember Caspian Sub used to describe a strategy with the USA to kill Japan: Build IC in Alaska, build a fleet of BB’s. Use the BB’s to hit-and-run the Japanese navy, using auto-repair to soak up losses, while Japan keeps sacrificing subs. This was back in the days when a BB was 24 (!) IPC’s, and was an interesting idea. In 1942, the idea gets only more interesting, maybe to the point it is a viable strategy :evil: So in short: BB’s have their use thanks to auto-repair. Think about it ;)Now, why are Cru’s bad?
Cru: expensive, no double hit, only plus is their shore bombardment => overpriced. Shore bombardment isn’t what it used to be (you have to send an inf every time, and the opponent still gets to shoot back!). Compared to other units, a Cru sucks. Which would you like best, a bmr or a Cru? A bmr is the better offensive piece: much greater range, better attack, can strategically bombard (which is at least as good as shore bombard). One can argue that the Cru is better at sea defense than a bmr. Which is true, but a Cru is MUCH worse than a DD at sea defense: at sea defense, the number of hits one can take is essential. A DD takes a hit at 8 IPC’s, a Cru at 12 IPC’s. An increase of 50%! The meager shore bombardment doesn’t equalise, and the damage/IPC count is equal between Cru and DD, which also has sub detection. Not to mention you can buy two sea hits (=two subs) for the price of one Cru. So at defense, Cru is also not a good choice. But is it an “all round” unit then, not particularly good at anything, but decent at everything? Maybe, I say. If they were priced at 10, they would be. Or if they had the sub detection instead of DD. Or an AA to counter those overpowered bombers at sea. But alas, a rational mind is hard to find. So any time my opponent purchases a Cru, I silently smile, because he just flushed 2 IPC’s down the drain. Litteraly 8-)
Suggested Topics
