Which Nations should buy Cruisers?



  • They are the poor man’s Battleship. I agree that they are kind of an expensive unit for what they do, but because they get a shore shot it makes them better than Destroyers - as a unit I mean, obviously not economically.

    I think they are a good buy for Italy because she needs a few substantial warships to protect the Transports she will need to conquer Egypt. I think Italy needs at least one in her fleet to stay alive. And if Italy gets free reign in the Med Cruisers will pay for themselves in multiple shore bombardments.

    If Japan had landed Infantry on the DEI I might recommend a Cruiser for ANZAC to soften them up to save men in a likely small fleet, but otherwise I would probably buy Subs.

    If Destroyers are the Infantry of the sea, then Cruisers are the Tanks.

    What are your theories on buying Cruisers?


  • '12

    Cruisers generally only make my shopping list if I have a need to round out my IPC (sorry, PU) spending to some exact total or I’m very limited in what I can place.  I don’t deny the unit is useful but just like BBs, it is too expensive.  Generally if I have the cash to spend on Cruisers or Battleships, then I can afford Air units and/or Carriers to support operations at sea, which offers far more flexibility.



  • I agree that Carriers are much more flexible and are an excellent defensive unit, but I think in Italy’s case she might not be able to afford a Carrier, let alone the planes to stock one should the RIA have been sacrificed in Taranto for example.



  • well if italy can’t afford a carrier to put it’s 2 starting planes on, it really has no business buying anything naval besides subs, dds, and trannies.



  • UK might buy some cruisers to beef up the Atlantic fleet (combo w/US) for def. If US/UK try a slingshot (Denmark, then Berlin), a couple cruisers can come in handy for bombardment on the German capital.

    Might even have them buy a cruiser for S Africa so they can enter the Med w/more confidence with the intention of using bombardment on Italian coastal territories. The Brits are normally strapped for IPCs, because they are needed everywhere.

    If UK is able to keep a couple of their starting cruisers, then add one (or two), combined they can be quite devastating to coastal territories (like Rome, or any Italian held territory in the Med).



  • @ghr2:

    well if italy can’t afford a carrier to put it’s 2 starting planes on, it really has no business buying anything naval besides subs, dds, and trannies.

    Agreed, however if Italy has no air force to speak of then I think a Cruiser purchase makes more sense as a good offensive unit (shore bombardment) and will help keep Transports alive as a defensive unit. A Cruiser mixed in with a few Destroyers might make a country like USA think twice about sending only air against Italy’s fleet to sink the valuable Transports.

    The main reason I advocate Cruisers for Italy is because she is usually poor in the early rounds and probably won’t have to worry about enemy Subs (right away at least), plus she needs to land men in Africa to win all the while protecting precious Transports.

    @WILD:

    If UK is able to keep a couple of their starting cruisers, then add one (or two), combined they can be quite devastating to coastal territories (like Rome, or any Italian held territory in the Med).

    Shore bombardments can sometimes make all the difference in an amphibious assault where the land odds are fairly even or where air support isn’t an option. I like to have Cruisers as the US in the Pacific to help out because the US usually doesn’t have many Transports in the theater and getting men to the front line takes time, so conserving the men you have by softening up islands makes sense to me.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Answer:  None.

    4 bucks for a bump to 3 over a destroyer, not worth it.



  • Agreed that DD is generally a better buy. 24 IPC either gets you :

    2 cruisers - 6 attack, 6 defend (3,3 after 1 is a casualty and 0,0 after 2 are casualties) after 2 casualties, it costs 24IPC to get back to original strength.

    3 destroyers - 6 attack, 6 defend (4,4 after 1 is a casualty and 2,2 after 2 are casualties) after 2 casualties, it costs 16IPC to get back to original strength.

    The only time you should buy cruisers is:
    -You have a specific bombardment need, or
    -You are limited in the amount of units you may place at your IC, or
    -You have no cruisers in the seazone and you want your navy to look bigger than it really is.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '12

    Fortress, I was just going to post something like you just posted… well done on reading my mind.

    A long standing complaint I have with A&A even from the first old edition is the pricing of the units. I remember the day when battleships were 24 IPCS… 24!  Fighters were 12, 12!  Can you believe that?

    I was reading somewhere that fighter aircraft were significantly cheaper to build than tanks, which goes to explain why so many more aircraft were built than tanks by all WWII belligerents.  They should switch the costs to say 6 for fighters and 8 for tanks or something like that.  Make cruisers 10 instead of 12.  Make infantry 2.


  • TripleA

    I almost never buy cruisers. Worst unit ever.



  • 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.



  • @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.



  • 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.



  • 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.



  • 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.



  • 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



  • 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.


  • TripleA

    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.



  • The United States.

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


  • TripleA

    What you mean destroyer 2 subs?

    2 subs or a cruiser. HARD CHOICE HMMM.



  • 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.


  • TripleA

    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.



  • 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.


  • TripleA

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



  • 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?.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

65
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts