Which Nations should buy Cruisers?



  • 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.



  • 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.



  • 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.



  • @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.


  • '12

    @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.



  • @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.

    My guess would be because you can only bombard once for every ground unit you are attacking with.



  • For me the silliest part about Cruisers is you shouldn’t even buy them for bombardment. If you aren’t strapped for unit cap, just buy a transport and an artillery for less than a single cruiser. Now you are rolling an extra die on the ground battle every round (that the unit lives) and not just the first round.



  • @cenator01:

    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.

    you should not attack a stack you are likely to lose against WITH cr bomb.

    simple calc;
    1 inf + 1 cr, attacking 5 inf;
    you will then kill 1.5 IPC with the CR, and 0.5 IPC with the inf.

    so you are wasting 3 ipc to kill 2.

    what is worse is that you are wasting a turn with your fleet, (you gotta protect the fleet landing), and you are not building up for your main landing in europe. You are rarely operating outside fighterrange, so you can always add fighters to your small attacks.

    against good german play, the shorebombardment is next to useless. saving those 4 ipc, and building 4 inf + plane , instead of 6 inf is in most cases a much better use of your resourses.

    @cenator01:

    @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.

    you can never look at the resourses you are using isolated, every ipc counts. Winning the game is about not overspending (or underspending) on your supportunits (fleet, planes), while using the rest of your money to maximize your ability to hold the terretories you take.



  • This discussion is about what power might buy a cruiser. Not a number crunching which is the better buy dd vs cruiser debate. Anyone that has played the game would tell you that having a destroyer screen for any fleet is a top priority to allow your big guns (bb’s & ftrs) to continue to roll in battles. Most would also include cruisers as a big gun (does roll at 3), and take a dd as a casualty before a cruiser depending on if the enemy has subs on the board. There is no doubt that you will buy many more dd’s in a game then cruisers, but to say that cruisers should never be bought is very short sighted, because they have a role in the game. It might be limited, and situational, but can be very successful, and all the axis capitals are coastal. There is also the old “I don’t roll deuces very well” LOL.

    Just looking at the western powers in the Atlantic (you are normally building a combined fleet), as the UK early in games your trying to rid the Atlantic of subs and get a fleet going at the same time, so many dd’s will be bought to chase down subs. Once the US starts coming over, and the sub threat in the Atlantic diminishes you are looking to build a surface fleet that will withstand a hit by the Luftwaffe combined w/German subs generally hiding in the Baltic at this point (could also be a double hit w/Italy). The western powers need to make a landing, but can’t afford to lose the transport fleet, so your likely to buy more dd’s to screen and a couple carriers to get air support if/when you leave the safety of the UK airbase. A cruiser added to the mix might be more the fact that you can’t afford two carriers, so you buy 1 carrier and a cruiser to get higher def rolls (because you already have a good dd screen). As the UK you are spread pretty thin and just might have to spend some IPCs in S Africa to keep the fight going. Keep in mind that you generally also have some US ships to beef up the Royal Navy.

    Besides fleet protection, cruisers also offer cheap bombardment. Having 2-3 cruisers and a BB in the US Atlantic fleet (keep turn order in mind, and the US starts with a cruiser in the Atlantic) can also be very helpful in two ways. 1) If the Euro axis stack the coastline, you can bombard them to soften up the landing. 2) Because of potential bombardment, and the vast coastline they may pull back for a counter attack, leaving the shores weak or empty. In either case the cruisers will have an effect on the enemies decisions (and that isn’t measured in the best buy debates). If you can easily land a large US ground force, and have the UK reinforce your position with more ground, an AA gun, and the entire RAF the axis could be in trouble. Lets see 3-4 destroyers clear a coastline.

    Cruiser(s) can also be helpful to the Anz. The US kills off Japanese blocker ships, NCM the US fleet next to one of the DEI Isles, and the Anz follow them in to kill off any Japanese inf to capture it. Bombardment could make this easier if they only have one transport and no air power available.

    All I’m saying is that bombardment (or even the threat of bombardment) can be part of an effective strat. It’s like SBR, some will say it is the worst bang for your buck (to much risk), but some use it as part of the big picture and it works well for them.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Don’t see my post. Sorry if it did twice. What about replacing a destroyer or 2 with cruisers at start of game for each country. Then maybe give UK,US a extra cruiser for balance if game does favor axis. Has it been play tested already and just a thought to get more cruisers in game.



  • Early in the Game is when the allies need the dd’s, so swapping them out may not be in their best interest especially on the Euro side (German subs can be deadly). Don’t get me wrong, I don’t go overboard on building cruises. As allies, I value the cruisers that I start with, and will add one or two as the game goes on as it benefits me.

    I do think that cruisers are under valued (and maybe over priced). It would be cool if cruisers had some sort of air defense in the game (as they did historically). Not necessarily a high rolling AA shot, but something like if it rolled a 1, that hit targets an air unit (but that’s more of a house rule discussion).


  • TripleA

    cruisers suck.
    they are too expensive. i think at 11ipc they would still be purchased infrequently. even at 10ipc they would probably be bought at a 1:1:1 ratio with destroyers and subs.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

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

60
Online

14.2k
Users

34.6k
Topics

1.4m
Posts