How useful are cruisers??

I hope you don’t take this wrong as I am not trying to slag on you.

OK MrMC, I see where some of your “confusion” (not the best term) is coming from:
1. Not having played AA50.
2. Limited opponent pool.

AA50-41 and AA50-42 are vastly different animals from the original editions, Revised, or Spring '42 (Which is Revised warmed over with the AA50 rules minus techs.) It is not uncommon for the Allies to be able to continue the fight after Russia has fallen. It is also not uncommon to see France and Germany very heavily stacked with AA guns in both territories. At this point adding CAs for the UK and “whittling” down the massive stacks of infantry in France or Germany is not a bad option for the UK. Germany will have a serious air force at this point (actually in many AA50 games Germany has a serious air force at all times). Since Germany is threatening air attacks against the fleet and something must be done about increasing German Infantry  numbers piling up in these territories, again the “whittling” attacks are not as bad an option as they sound. You gave the example of  your 4-6 units with air against the opponents 4-6 units, this is not the case. It is more of your 6-8 units with or without air against their 12 or so, this is where those added bombardment shots come into play. Most of those will be infantry but as I said earlier Germany must make good these units or stand loosing a critical territory. This is especially important as far as France; because if the UK can take it, the US can push enough fighters in to stop liberation and then Germany is behind the 8-ball.

As far as the limited opponent pool, I think I can safely say that 90% of us here match what you posted. We were all big fish in small ponds. We played some local players, and could handle them easily. I think this point is also exacerbated, in that most people tend to play a certain way and counters for their play become routine. I think you have already started playing here so you are well on the way to overcoming this deficiency.  There are many great players here and many different approaches and strategies. If nothing else it will make you a bigger fish in the small pond.  :evil:

I posted about having 6 or 7 BBs and taking down Japan. Actually they took down Japan and Italy. This was also in game where Germany held Russia! Again this is not that out of line for AA50, while for other version of A&A if Russia went it was game over 95% of the time. This is a link to that game. http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15677.0 While the Axis did suffer some setbacks dice wise early, this approach has worked at other times as well. I think you can see that Japan did not just stand by and “let” this happen but was more unable to do much about it. I think this is the most BBs I have had in an online game and some of the biggest navies I have seen in online play. My opponent was a very competent A&A player as well.

As far as strafing attacks, I think they are more common than you are envisioning. Sure you can push out a DD to stop my fleet, but I will take that out and at that point you have to be able to take out my fleet and survive or there will be follow on units attacking the next round. Against a heavily battleship anchored fleet (3 or more) this is not always that easy.

My example of 4-6 units on 4-6 units would be on the territories that russia would normally be trading back and forth with the axis and in that case it’s usually 1-3 infantry per territory.  Even in games I have never played,  I would imagine there are still soviet territories that get occupied with just a few infantry each turn no?  Normally in the games I play, the russians have 2-4 territories that the axis just took but could no occupy in force for fear of all out assult by by the russians.  That being said, 4 soviet territories with 2 enemy infantry each is usually too much for the soviets alone to ‘clear off’ with infantry and air support, but if you don’t take them, then next turn the axis could land air and might be able to defend the spot with force.  The choice of whittling is now made easy I would think, choose a stack or choose a territory with 2 INF on the russian frontier.

Now for russia falling and playing on.  Fair enough, I have never had to play that scenario so really can’t compare notes on an even footing.  In my revised and 42 experience, when russia falls its game over unless you made a huge mistake in letting the axis walk in via back door and even then it has been too hard for the allies to recover.  I will obviously have to get some experience in your world.

I am a fan of power projection, its often not the attack that changes the board but threat.  If there is a standoff between the germans and russian stacks, then 4 extrabrit infantry means 4 less russians to balance.  Those 4 russians might be enough to allow them to occupy a territory and hold it thus denying the axis a bit of income.  Ahhhh I really am going to have to get up with aa50.

I just used some bombardment last night as the Allies.  I bombarded Germany back to back with the UK and USA with 1 cruiser, 1 battleship, 1 infantry and 1 artillery each.  The UK attack took out 3 German infantry and the US attack took out 1.  It is nearly impossible to trade 1 for 1 like I did (4 for 4) against a large stack, without bombardment.  Cruisers bombard more economically than battleships, so cruisers are THE most efficient bombarding unit in the game.

Production capacity has a lot to do with effectiveness of strategies.  If Germany can only produce 10 units a turn, and is fighting all 3 allies, the UK and US taking out 4 units a turn via bombardment is HUGE.  After taking out bombardment losses, Germany is only able to gain a maximum of 6 units per turn.  She can’t keep up with the Allies for long at that pace.

My conclusion:  Cruisers can be extremely useful.

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• A unit that does NOT need 1 infantry to enter land combat.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

@Corbeau:

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

CA’s can’t be hit with AA.

The fact that you can’t sacrifice the CA can be a good thing: if you strafe a TT with a ftr and some inf, the ftr will die. The CA will not

@calvinhobbesliker:

@Corbeau:

Guess I’ll have to repeat myself like an old broken record….

Why but oh why would I choose a CA over a fighter?

For 10 IPC I get:

• More range
• More defense
• Same attack
• Can be used on both land and sea.
• A unit that safely withdraw after combat which translates to not exposing itself to any counter attack.
• Lastly, and not the least: A unit that can support ANY assault ( including amphibious ones ) for the whole battle which is more than 1 round pot shots. It can also be sacrified unlike the CA so you actually can spare an infantry to grab the land in worst case scenarios.

Did I mention it was 2 ipc less than a CA?

Want to know more about the fighter?

• It is also a unit that can do kamikaze attack 4 squares away as long it MAY land, by any ricidulous margin including landing on ACs that MIGHT get trough 100 BBS because it’s friendly submarine kamikazed itself upon them. Because you know, the sub MAY win… If that’s not enough, the AC is not forced afterward to conduct it’s move if the sub fail the battle or if no kamikaze planes actually survived… ( worst stupid rule of the whole game )

CAs are useless unless it’s a starting one, then at least you did not pay for it so might as well use it. So guys, please stop beating on that dead horse, it’s not gonna resurect.  :x

CA’s can’t be hit with AA.

The fact that you can’t sacrifice the CA can be a good thing: if you strafe a TT with a ftr and some inf, the ftr will die. The CA will not

Fighters don’t need an infantry feeding each of them to enter land combat… It does not mean you have to be stupid about it and strafe a TT without at least the minimal infantry meat shield, infantry you would sacrifice anyways to feed every single of your 1 pot shot CAs…

If France is too heavily stacked with infantry and AA gun for you to take it, instead of hoping to whitle it away, you might want to do something more useful like a double drop in NWE and use your fighters to actually hold it… Poland, Bulgaria and Balkans comes to mind too for the 10 NO.

And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs, I will risk AA hits anytime over being stuck with a useless bunch of rotting CAs.

@Corbeau:

And if it really comes to it, I have yet to see Europe covered with AAs

I’ve had Europe nearly covered with radar, when Italy got it once.

We’re not trying to talk you into buying a cruiser.  If you’re a fighter lover, then buy them.

I rarely buy cruisers, but they are a unique unit and are better per IPC at bombarding than anything else, so there will be times when they are desirable.

Also, I don’t think this has been covered - cruisers can always hit subs (thinking of defense, not attack), but fighters can’t always.  Sometimes that is significant.  Could save you all your transports.

In the case of the UK (I don’t see a case for a cruiser buy for any other power), even if Germany decided to place an aa gun on NWE (which isn’t a bad thing, because Germany would have to risk its own air in trades), fighter/acs remain superior because they increase your attack punch/count and allow the Allies to project power to more locations, forcing Germany to expend more resources to defend each coastal territory.  Not to mention that fighters can be deployed on the mainland as needed.  A cruiser is only a 1/2 count because I know it will just roll one 3, while a fighter means an extra 3 for each round of the battle.  When thinking about defense for Germany, this is a key consideration.

Bottom line is the many advantages of fighter/acs (mobility, superior defense, cost-effectiveness, power projection, control of space, flexibility) outweigh the one defect (exposure to aa guns) by such a margin that I can’t justify buying either battleships or cruisers.

@Zhukov44:

Corbeau Blanc has it right.  8 pages in and we have no good reason to buy a cruiser.

Read into it what you want, but I saw several reasons to buy throughout this thread.  Just a difference in perspective, I guess.

Everyone knows carriers and fighters are awesome.  Especially now that carriers only cost 14 (or 11) and fighters only 10, compared to 16 and 12 in the original.  (Anyone else feel like fighters are a bit too cheap?)  But a carrier and fighters would not allow me to kill 4 German infantry in Berlin with a guarantee of not losing more than 2 infantry and 2 artillery.  (Not to mention, a potential of slaughtering 8! Germans)

As bigdog has already said very well, bombardment is the only way to take out units from a huge stack with limited loss/risk.  Cruisers are the most cost-effective bombardment unit.  It is impossible to lose anything to AA fire with a cruiser strike.  They continue to be useful after the enemy’s fleet is destroyed, whereas destroyers are not as useful (both still defend your transports)

I can see dissing a unit that costs more and does absolutely nothing that other units don’t do.  But destroyers can’t bombard.  Fighters get shot down by AA fire and are completely helpless to attacking a stack much larger than yours.  And fighters don’t defend in the water without carriers.  And fighters can’t hit subs without a destroyer.  So there you have several reasons and I forgot some, to having a cruiser, and once in a while, even buying  :-o one.

Also, cruisers are useful for showing your opponent how confident you are that you can whip him.  Just buy 1 on R1 and drop it in the Black Sea (especially with Dard closed) and he’ll get the message.

I don’t really like to cite specific battles to show probability outcomes for a particular battle scenario.  I had a recent battle whereby the german navy with 10 units scored 8 hits on the first round of combat.  Since 2 out of my 3 subs hit on 1s and 2 out of 2 cvs hit on 2 I could cite that as a reason to purchase subs and cvs for defense because those units did just as well as my 4 ftrs and 1 BB who also got 4 out of 5 hits.  Sure, a bit silly and over-the-top for an example but it only differs in magnitude of the silliness.

You drop an inf and art with 2 cc shots and its a 10 punch.  If you get 3 great, count yourself lucky because you could have also got zero.  With a 10 punch you count on 1 2/3 hits.  More likely to get 2 than 1 but much more likely to get 1 than 3.  You spend 7 to kill 5 on average,  period.

You are also tying up 2 CCs and a transport.  Yeah CCs might not have anything else to do, right, should have purchased fighters to help clear off some territories with a few enemy infantry.  You are also not building up a Brit land force of sufficient force to push around other units on the map.  There is NO brit centre of gravity landforcewise.  Once you get a critical number of tanks (and I go 3 IN to each tank in general) all kinds of options open up the opponent must defend against.  The old 1 ally cracks the door open to let allied tanks blits hapless fighters.  It means there are fewer safe places for planes to land.  The case that this is the only way to wittle the enemy?  Really?  How about if you just lock them in place into a disadvantaged IPC income level comapred to yourself.  Then ensure your battles of attrition favour you, then play a long long game and slowly smother the enemy.  The obvious flaw in that is it lacks a vicious knockout punch and technologoies can tilt the balance of power away from you.

IWhy does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?

Limited number of production slots and spending what you have ie, if you have 12 and need a ship……I would still myself get two SSs or if you need air cover would really think about a multi-turn purchase and get a CV, even if it meant moving the fleet out of harms way for the turn.  But maybe you have to stay put to protect new navy pieces and need to augment your fleet and can only afford a CC.  I would suggest this is a failure in long term planning and threat assessement and is basically a purchase to mitigate the damage of the failure to plan correctly.

CCs are useful however only in a number of limited scenarios.  Spending a ratio of 7 IPC to destroy 5 IPC while requiring over 30 IPC of navy in that ratio to deliver the 5 IPC blow I think is not the most efficient utilization of resources and suffers several drawbacks including:  Limited power projection, less flexibility, slows down the buildup of brit land forces to the point where they become a centre of gravity and limits ability of your side to trade territories in a more favourable attrition ratio

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Why does the screen always jump around when your post gets to a certain length?

Sucks, doesn’t it?  At least we don’t get 50x or 404 errors all the time.  That was worse.

No one is saying that anyone should purchase cruisers on a regular basis.

Everyone knows that destroyers/subs/fighters/carriers are almost always a better buy.

I’ve only been pointing out that cruisers are a unique unit - no other unit like it - and have their place.  I probably buy one about 1 out of 40 turns.

Consider this - maybe you have a complex on a 1 IPC territory.  Need something to protect a transport you’re going to build next turn.  Don’t want to spend 20, need a bit more protection than a destroyer offers, and need bombardment.  Cruiser.

I don’t understand your point about center of gravity and slowing down buildup of ground units. Malachi.  And to be honest, your run-on sentences make your posts hard to read.  Can’t you build MORE ground units in the UK if you’re building cruisers instead of destroyers or fighters and carriers?

And I attacked Germany with 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 cruiser, and 1 BATTLESHIP.  I wasn’t intending to imply that a 1-time example was average odds.  However, since you have gone there - My forces had 11 punch, so doing it twice was 22 punch, so 4 hits was actually average.  4 hits is more likely than 3 hits.  There is no other way to reduce Germany 1 for 1 (nearly) in the situation I was in.  I couldn’t land enough in NWE or France to avoid complete obliteration, so fighters were useless in this situation.  My cruisers (which I didn’t buy) were perfect for the task.  One of them even hit!  :roll:

Here’s a new example of where a cruiser is ideal.

You want to take a territory that is 2 spaces from your current fleet.  The enemy has a strong counterattack force that will annihilate any boats you send.  You can’t get any of your air to the territory and to a safe landing place.  To land on a carrier would mean certain death of the fighter and carrier in the sea zone.  You need more attacking power than your ground units can provide, to up your chances from about 40-50% to 80%.  The cruiser is the only unit for this task.  Nothing else even comes close.

I’ve enjoyed this discussion, because it’s made me think about the utilities of cruisers.  As BadSpeller said, there are quite a few - more than you would see at first glance.

OK, you did it twice with a BB so your punch was 22 rather than 11.  Doesn’t that mean you dropped troops off twice as well?  So wouldn’t that cost you 2 INF + 2 ART to kill 4 INF and a slight bit of luck to get 4 hits from a power punch of 22?  OK, its not a bad ratio when a BB is used, it ups the average to 5.5 inflicted for the cost of 7 IPC.  It’s an interesting point about Germany feeling the restrictions on ability to build large numbers of Inf and having amphibious assult attrition cut into Germanys ability to produce large walls of infantry?  In spring 42 its pretty easy for germany to build 16 INF per turn so I would guess in over versions its not as easy for germany to produce lots of infantry?

As for centre of gravity.  The way I play Britain is to shuck troops into russian territories to:
A) Clear german (or japanese) troops of territories that get traded back and forth.  Attrition on favourable terms with air support.  This only requires only a few infantry per turn with some air units.
B) Establish a land force sufficiently strong to take a territory and hold it and perhaps force the retreat of  forward enemy forces to a more favourable defensive positions.  Power projection from a centre of gravity.  This requires some tanks to threaten blitz operations and protection by infantry with supporting air units.  With sufficient mass, the british become more than a force of attrition but a force that can effect larger changes in the battlespace.  With constant attrition against the germans it can take some time to grow the brit force to a sufficient size.

I’m not sure how many units generally flow across in other games for the Brits.  Does 2-4 units per turn represent a large percentage?  In my situations, I am lucky to get 8 units per turn across, 4-5 on average are consumed each turn trading soviet territories back and forth on generally more favourable terms then losing 7 for 5 and I actually liberate territories and earn the soviets IPCs over and above the attrition ration I achieve.  This leaves me with about 3 units per turn I can conserve to establish a force large enough for the brits they can do more than exchange territories but ‘project power’ from a ‘centre of gravity’.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

It’s an interesting point about Germany feeling the restrictions on ability to build large numbers of Inf and having amphibious assult attrition cut into Germanys ability to produce large walls of infantry?  In spring 42 its pretty easy for germany to build 16 INF per turn so I would guess in over versions its not as easy for germany to produce lots of infantry?

Buying them will be easy, but placing them won’t be, unless they have extra IC’s, of course.
Then again even 10 unites per turn is quite a lot.

Edit: about cruisers: sometimes i buy one for USA to help out in the Pacific when i want to take back islands. Every extra hit (coastal) there is valuable, since those japanese soldiers often manage to defend pretty good, taking away a unit each time. Far away from home a shrinking ground force is a problem.

I know a bomber can do that work too, but, depending on the fleet, that cruiser can help in defense.

Another situation can be when i start building a fleet at a 3 IPC factory (for ex. Brazil or India) i choose for a cruiser + some other units (for abit extra initial defence)… but if i can easily afford a BB i would buy that instead.

In what versions of the game is it that casualities from amphibious assults do not get to fire back?  In those versions I would think amphibious assults would be or should be supported with as many naval units as the rules would allow.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

In what versions of the game is it that casualities from amphibious assults do not get to fire back?   In those versions I would think amphibious assults would be or should be supported with as many naval units as the rules would allow.

Revised.

Yeah, you could land 1 inf and bombard with 10 battleships and come out on top

@MrMalachiCrunch:

In what versions of the game is it that casualities from amphibious assults do not get to fire back?   In those versions I would think amphibious assults would be or should be supported with as many naval units as the rules would allow.

I don’t know about older versions but in AA50, casualties from an amphibious assault can fire back … but those who are hit by bombardment can NOT.

Of course, you need one landing ground unit for every bombardment unit, but that is fairly managable for the attacker in most cases.

Having added cruisers in the pacific for the US taking islands is an advantage when playing both theaters and your IPC’s are stretched thin as it is.

Ah right, my choice of wording was poor.  Casualities from bombardment……  I have heard some versions of the games do not have these casualities able to return fire?  In that case one could make a serious argument for CCs and have some ammunition to insist on BBs over CCs for the most part.