Which Nations should buy Cruisers?

[Gekkepop]

I disagree with most people here, cruisers are good if you need to protect your fleet while also making your amphibious assaults stronger, and are more efficient than any other ship if this is the case, especially if your target is already in air range making carriers an inefficient buy. The most common nation to want this flexibility is probably Italy, but I could see the UK, US, Japan and ANZAC buying cruisers in the right circumstances. They are not the most commonly bought unit but certainly not useless.

[Rammstein]

@Cow:

I almost never buy cruisers. Worst unit ever.

Please explain. Is it just the cost? How much should they cost? 10 is definitely too cheap, 11?

@Gekkepop:

I disagree with most people here, cruisers are good if you need to protect your fleet while also making your amphibious assaults stronger, and are more efficient than any other ship if this is the case, especially if your target is already in air range making carriers an inefficient buy. The most common nation to want this flexibility is probably Italy, but I could see the UK, US, Japan and ANZAC buying cruisers in the right circumstances. They are not the most commonly bought unit but certainly not useless.

You helped clarify my point. I am not a Cruiser fanatic by any means, but this post is about which Nations should buy them and I think Italy is best served by Cruisers, if only one. I would probably never buy them as Japan, especially in a naval war of attrition. The UK sure could use them but because of their cost I generally buy Destroyers as UK.

[WILD BILL]

All I know is a battleship, and 2-3 cruisers as part of the Royal Navy servers the UK very well (along with a loaded carrier, and a couple destroyers). I like a diversified fleet that will give me good defense, and can bombard the hell out of the enemy.

[Kreuzfeld]

you could buy 1 cruiser with us in the pacific. To have 2 cruisers and 1 BB for shorebombardment might be useful (instead of having 1 cr and 1 bb).

I NEVER buy battleship, If I want shorebombardment I will buy a cruiser.

but in general, ships one buys is DDs and subs for seafighting, and ACs with planes because the planes can also fight on land, so it is not a pure fleet unit.

[Spendo02]

Cruisers are the units to purchase for bombardment purposes where you have limited units for the landing and wish to preserve them AND you have excess IPC to spend that will be relevant in the upcoming turns for planned landings.

In example, the Philippines for Japan where your aircraft are elsewhere harassing China and you wish to land 4 units.  An additional CR may make it so you have 3 surviving units instead of two to face that last Inf or Ftr.  Those units will be useful in continuing forward into the DEI instead of having to choose between leaving Flip empty or not.  Which makes the use of CR in that attack more valuable than fleet screens elsewhere.

Outside of that purpose, DD are better options for fleet screens, CV for projecting power and BB for a backbone to naval fleets.  Italy is a very good example of a reason to purchase CR to take places like Morocco or similar where you’ll be landing 2 ground units against the French Inf there and you cannot bring more die rolls on the next turn outside of purchasing a CR that turn.  Granted, Italy probably doesn’t have that luxury, but the purpose behind the purchase is valid assuming there is excess IPC available.

[cenator01]

To me, the UK could need some.
Why:

• not so expensive as an Battleship.
• helps defending your fleet
• can make coastal bombardment, when you want to take a terretory
• can make coastal bombardment, when you just want to weaken the enemy, while you don’t want to risk your precious planes in a fight you will loose, or if you need your planes else where (soften up Normandy for example)

You could as well use some with the US, ANZAC, Japan or Italy

[Make_It_Round]

I’ve only ever bought these as ANZAC, and only when my IPCs were flowing, but not quite to the point where I could afford to max out my build AND set up a new factory in the north. Maximum 2 per game.

Costing them at 11 might make them relevant purchases, in so far as tactical bombers are relevant purchases.

[Cow]

If they were 11 ipcs I would buy them. 3 destroyers or 2 cruisers… Usually I am looking for cannon fodder for my fighters/carriers against air and the combination of getting subs is great.

As far as naval bombardments go… how much bombarding am I going to do realistically? USA already starts with 2 cruisers and battleship pacific, cruiser atlantic. Am I really going to drop 4+ units a turn somewhere and bombard?

If I am just going to get one or two bombardments out of it… I will pass. I rather have a more robust fleet.

[AK_Grown]

The United States.

It makes for easy fleet math.  Dst + Crs = 20, BAM! you have a fleet.

[Cow]

What you mean destroyer 2 subs?

2 subs or a cruiser. HARD CHOICE HMMM.

[AK_Grown]

No problem for the US in the first round.  You can go subs from there.  I prefer punching power - it keeps GER & ITL in check.  US is usually landing in occupied territory in the games I have played - the ability to bombard is a plus.

[Cow]

It is one roll per unit you drop at the start of combat, that is it. Budget it tight for USA fighting in two theaters.

[Fortress]

This notion of the cruiser as a powerful unit that adds punch is a fallacy. 3 destroyers costing 24 IPC provide the same amount of “punch” on offense and defense in the first round of combat as do 2 cruisers costing the same amount. And the destroyers are better in subsequent rounds of combat as casualties get taken.

The cruisers you start out with? Yes, they are a more powerful unit than a destroyer. Because they’re free.

If you’ve got 12 IPC in hand, and you’re not defending the water on the IC on that turn, buy the destroyer. Then next turn instead of having 12 IPC in hand again, you’ll have 16. And buy 2 destroyers. As my post above illustrated, 3 destroyers are better than 2 cruisers as efficient naval combat units.

[Cow]

The utility from bombardments is lacking… too many spaces to shuffle effectively.

[Kreuzfeld]

the only reason to buy them is bombardment, or if you are anzak an for some reason can’t buy aircraft carrier.

DDs and subs are better in all cases where if you don’t need shorebombardment.

I disagree with the people buy BBs, in EVERY case.

I hear someone have said they build BBs for holding phillipines, I don’t see how that is doable. Ok, maybe USA will have more defence on hawaii if they build BB on round 1 than DDs, because of the placement limit, but then, why not build CVs + ftrs instead?.

[cenator01]

As I stated before, UK (Europe) is the only nation benefiting from crusiers. They can bombard every turn, need a fleet defense and are not in the position to build Battleships for this duty. You just need to kill 3 German/Italian Infanterie to be “equal” to building Destoyers. (2 Crusier instead of 2 Destroyer). This will be accomplished with approximately 3 amphibious landings in Europe. Afterwards they will effectiveley save you money or Infantery or at least cost germany 3 IPC every landing, succesful or not. A Fighter might be cheaper and even better in attacking a terrretory, but it is possibbly lost to bad dice, a bombarding crusier won’t get sunk while bombarding.

[Kreuzfeld]

actually, you are entirely on the “kill 3 inf”

first off all, you are assuming the axis will defend weakly, on the shores. many axis wont do that, secondly you are assuming that you could not get the same result by adding planes, and the planes would gain something by not helping.

an eksample would be

invading with 2 inf against 1 inf, with 2 Cr,  against 1 inf, your average losses is 1.5 ipc

invading 2 inf against 1 inf with 2 ftr support, you take 1.3 IPC in losses

the inf you have left, will attack defend and kill about 1.5 IPC on defence.

most axis players will deny you the advantage of doing microinvasions agains weak stacks.

[Stalingradski]

Agreed about UK Europe, if anyone, but it is extremely rare that I can ever pull the trigger on one for any nation… same IPCs would be destroyers or subs, or an air unit. Air power is more versatile for the same 12 PUs, unless you need to build up the backbone of a fleet.

[cenator01]

@Kreuzfeld:

actually, you are entirely on the “kill 3 inf”

first off all, you are assuming the axis will defend weakly, on the shores. many axis wont do that, secondly you are assuming that you could not get the same result by adding planes, and the planes would gain something by not helping.

an eksample would be

invading with 2 inf against 1 inf, with 2 Cr,  against 1 inf, your average losses is 1.5 ipc

invading 2 inf against 1 inf with 2 ftr support, you take 1.3 IPC in losses

the inf you have left, will attack defend and kill about 1.5 IPC on defence.

most axis players will deny you the advantage of doing microinvasions agains weak stacks.

I am not assuming the axis is weak defending! Thats the point. You won’t attack a stack you are likely to loose against with air, but you can with crusier bombardment. UK does not really need 2 additional infantry, but needs to distract Germany from solely focusing on the USSR. So attack a Stack of ANY size with 2 Inf and 2 Crusier bombardment. You have a reasonable chance to inflict 2 losses by shore bombardment for the loss of two infantry. Every plane you would have sent would be lost. Thats my point.

To get to your point:
invading with 2 infantry against 10 Infantry would economically be prefareable with crusier bombardment and not by sending in planes. Thats what I wanted to say.

At last: Infantry and fighter are the most valuable pieces in play. Best Bang for the Buck. But if you need to add to your fleet and you are thinking about a destroyer, just keep in mind, if you are planing to start a lot of amphibious assaults it just needs 4 landings until the crusier (1) will give you a benefit.

@Kreuzfeld: As far as I read this discussion, we were discussing by comparing crusier to destroyer or submarines, not to planes. Planes are always the better by than ships.

[Eqqman]

@cenator01:

To get to your point:
invading with 2 infantry against 10 Infantry would economically be prefareable with crusier bombardment and not by sending in planes. Thats what I wanted to say.

If the whole purpose is to merely inflict casualties via bombardment, why even send 2 INF?  One would suffice.