Cruisers, whats the point?

[knp7765]

I like the idea of giving Cruisers AA capabilities.  You could treat each cruiser in a fleet like a single land AA gun. Each cruiser can fire up to 3 AA shots @ 1 against attacking enemy planes up to the total number of attacking planes, whichever is less. For example: 2 cruisers COULD fire up to six AA shots. If there are LESS than six planes attacking, then only roll for the number of planes.  If there are MORE than six planes, then the 2 cruisers would only roll 6 for AA.
This would happen at the beginning of the first round of combat only.  Any hits by the cruiser AA would be immediately destroyed. Cruisers defend normally @ 3 after the AA shots, including the first round of combat.
Perhaps this would help legitimize their price.

[Guest]

How about this houserule:

Heavy flotilla - When a cruiser attacks or defends along with a battleship the cruiser’s attack and defence is increased to 4. Each cruiser must be
matched one-for-one with a battleship.

[Gargantua]

I JUST bought 2 more cruisers (in addition to the 2 I purchased earlier) in my current anniversary game against Djensen.  As the UK.

Italy is now an American Factory,  and Germany is reduced to well… GERMANY.  He’s lucky if he can produce 18 IPC’s in a round.  Japan is still a monster :(

The big problem is that Germany has 12 fighters defending it’s capital.  A great defense, and also, a strong enough alternative to threaten nuking my navy.  But he’s exhausted his stacks of man power in counter attacks, so if I can kill about 6 + units a round,  he’ll start losing fighters rapidly, and be unable to defend his capital for too long.  Bombards will help me break the edge off here!

Thus, Cruisers ARE the buy for this scenario, and I am very greatful for them!

[Guest]

That sounds like the shore bombard attrition malachi was talking about earlier.  Not sure about the earlier games, but in the 1940 ones for every infantry/art you land you can bombard with 1 cruiser/BB and you only risk losing the land units.  If you do that turn after turn you eventually wear him down and all those shore bombards were sort of free - Nice!

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Attrition via shore bombardment can work I guess in some situations, it seems the situation Gargantua cited is probably one of the best times to use this.  In particular, you use the equipment you have and is more predictable than AA shots and SBRs, escort fighters can change the dynamics drastically, I rarely use that rule.

Shore bombardment via Inf+Art supported by 2 CC gives a punch of 10, statistically killing 1 2/3 units, assuming infantry about 5 IPC for the consumption of 7 IPC.  That would not make a great strategic goal from the outset in a ‘general’ setting but at Gargantua’s stage of the game and what it is going to force in a few rounds is a great tactical effort in this local theatre.

Using SBRs gives you a ratio of 12 to 17.5 on average against an AA protected target versus 7 to 5.  You do more economic damage with SBRs than shore bombardment.  Of course the defense to SBRs is to just build elsewhere if you can or build every other round which will reduce the per turn average of what your bombers can do.  Having them sit there for a round waiting for an IC to be repaired to bomb is like money not earning interest whereas shore bombardments keep chipping away.  Of course bombers cannot defend fleets either.

[JimmyHat]

bombers just sitting there??  what game are you playing?

Won a game of anniversary Friday because my opponent was dead set on SBRing me.  He sent his Russian bomber against Italy because it didn’t have an aa gun.  I told him he should have sent it against finland, killing 6ipcs of inf and capturing 2 ipcs.  Ground attacks are ALWAYS better than SBR because you can make money /and/ kill units.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I play spring 42 a fair bit as the axis, that is what game I play.  Bombers can always be used as long as your opponent co-operates and leaves lots of targets around to be smoked my your mass of bombers.  I however do my best not to co-operate with the strategy of my opponent.  I will stack some territories so carefully that you would gut your self amphibious assaulting them.  While other territories are left wide open to dead zone and have very few infantry sitting there to be amphibious assaulted supported by battleship/cruiser shots double supported by fleet defense fighters and triple supported with bombers.   When I see 3 infantry in a dead zone I attack with 2 usually and maybe 3 and lots of air power so I leave little behind for the bombers to attrit.

So, the allies have tried SBR ing me to death as Germany and went heavy investment in bombers.  At times I faced both Germany and Southern Europe with close to max damage on the ICs but was in a fine defensive posture otherwise.  So rather than take the damage from Ger from 19 damage to 3 so I could build 7 infantry I build NOTHING that round and don’t leave lots of targets around for the 8-9 allied bombers tasked with SBR’ing the snot out of Germany.  So therefore they sit idle until the next round when I spend 19 to repair Germany and purchase 10 tanks.

I agree, ground attacks that bombers will make a difference on are a better use of the bomber than an SBR.  So, you want to take a deadzone territory from Germany, you have a battleship shot, a cruiser shot, the 4 fighters sitting on the carriers and you are landing 3 Infantry to kill 2.  Do you think those bombers are going to get the battle over that much quicker so it saves you money in the form of fewer casualties?

Sure, if you forgo an attack of 3 infantry on 2 to capture a territory worth 2 because you would rather not use the 3 infantry at all and the bomber only to net you an average of 3.5 on an undefended IC you have made a rather poor choice.  Is this typical of the opponents you play that a single 1 bomber attack on the wrong target won you the game based on the difference of a few IPC?

[The Domator]

Well, Cruisers did support other ships in World War 2, so maybe they can support other ships on offense like this:

Cruiser + transport = Transport attacks @ 1

Cruiser + Destroyer = Destroyer attack @ 3

Cruiser + Aircraft carrier = Aircraft carrier attacks @ 1

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Pairing a cruiser and a destroyer and upgrading the destroyer to an attack of 3 or even on defense of 3 sounds pretty reasonable, but no both.

Don’t carriers already attack on a 1?

I don’t think you want to have transports involved in combat in any way.

[JimmyHat]

For the naval unit paring idea I would suggest just the CV/CA paring.  Basically this would give players incentive to build CV fleets with CA’s in support, or BB/dd fleets for amphib assaults.  There’s a good chance however that this rule change would promote CA purchases on a 1-1 ratio with carriers.

USN abbreviations: DD-destroyer
bb-battleship
CV-carrier
CA-heavy crusier

[Derek]

Just to stop the confusion

DD = destroyer

CG = Cruiser
CC = Cruiser

CV = Aircraft Carrier

AC = Nothing in A&A
CA = Nothing in A&A

lol

[Guest]

LOL

[munchie19]

@Gargantua:

Here’s a question,

How often do people REALLY buy Battleships?  maybe, once or two a game, as Japan or USA?

I certainly don’t think I’ve ever seen a player in a normal game have more than 4.

Perhaps Battleships are overpriced?

And maybe you should also consider, that Cruisers aren’t overpriced, but that subs, destroyers, fighters, and bombers. are _under_priced?

Gargantua,

I play against a lot of players who have less experience, and they like to buy a bunch of battleships as the United States. As Japan, I tend to avoid the American fleets as much as possible. As the Germans and Italians, it is much more difficult to avoid the American fleet. What’s the best defense against BBs?

Another house rule for cruisers is adding torpedoes, allowing them a surprise attack much like subs. During WW2 there were a fair amount of cruisers with torpedo capabilities.

[Guest]

Battleships can be a good buy when you need alot of defence produced at a small industrial complex.

[Gargantua]

a few subs and AIR POWER will make mince meat of a battleship fleet in seconds.  Whilst giving you the maximum effectiveness on both land and sea, and the longer reaching  arm.

The burden of defence will rest on your enemy.  NOT you.  The battleship’s weakness is it’s range.

[GeodrivE]

Battleships are sitting ducks without the proper # of supporting units to take the hits for it so the BB can be around long enough to get those hits you need it to roll.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

The whole reason people buy battleships is to take the hits.  60 IPC to get 3 fours fighting for you is a losing strategy.

[Gargantua]

Battleships are good for STRAFING attacks, an Axis and Allies naval tactic, not used often enough.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

While I agree that Strafing attacks are not used often enough, it does require a willing enemy.  You really only should get one strafing attack.  Your enemy moves to within 3 spaces, can’t strafe yet, next round 2 spaces with a blocking destroyer between or next door.  The enemy fleet should never be there if it can’t take a strafe then attack.  This alone probably delays the attacker 1+ rounds, in of itself perhaps enough to justify a heavy investment in battleships.  However, during the BB buildup, unless that strafe tactic is working for you round after round the CV+Ftr builds might be better.

Gotta love all the scenarios where this works better than that except for this!

[gamerman01]

Less talk
More gaming
:-D