Again, I’d like to say that a Cruiser with an AA gun value (same as the ground unit) would make the Cruiser a little more interesting to buy because of the additionnal defensive protection for a fleet.
The point was that you cannot really compare destroyers and cruisers because they are not similar enough to make any comparison worth much, just like you cannot compare the aircraft carrier and submarine, even though they both have to stay in the water.
In my mind the cruiser is a lightweight, cheap, disposable battleship. One would purchase cruisers to add high value pieces to an already created fleet (a fleet of destroyers and submarines is no fleet at all, just as a defense force consisting of infantry and artillery alone is no defense force.)
In my mind destroyers are the infantry of the sea. They can block movement and they make good fodder. Just as you would never want to leave a stack of tanks out to be attacked by someone without infantry, likewise you would not want to leave a stack of warships out to be attacked without destroyers to soak hits. To me, the destroyer is throw away trash except on occasion when you must seek and destroy submarines.
Battleships I almost never purchase. You only get 1 shot with them which can make the battle longer and allow units that should have died on round 1 last to round 3 or 4 of a battle giving them more opportunities to hurt you. IMHO, it’s the battleship that needs an AA Gun (and increase in price to 24 IPC then) OR price reduction to 18 IPC. 3 Battleships may beat 5 cruisers, but if you look at it as a fleet battle (naval slugfest) I would say the cruisers are a better addition IPC for IPC. There is also the restatement that a transport, infantry, artillery and cruiser makes picking off islands simple and adds significant threat to that lone attacking plane should the enemy send one out. (though I generally add a destroyer or two as well, to force a real naval battle.)
These are just my opinions, not saying you have to agree or it’s the only way to see it.
@Sire:
Again, I’d like to say that a Cruiser with an AA gun value (same as the ground unit) would make the Cruiser a little more interesting to buy because of the additionnal defensive protection for a fleet.
I have lobbied for giving Cruisers an AA capability. Each cruiser in a fleet that is attacked by planes works like a land based AA gun. You roll up to 3 dice, OR the number of attacking planes, whichever is smaller, and any roll of 1 removes an attacking plane. That would certainly validate it’s 12 IPC cost and each ship in your fleet would have it’s own special abilities.
Submarine = surprise strike, stealth, convoy raiding
Destroyer = ASW–prevents surprise strikes of subs
Cruiser = bombard, AA gun
Battleship = bombard, hit soak
Carrier = hit soak, carries planes
I also think Destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In a lot of the amphibious invasions, Destroyers fired at coastal positions right along side Battleships and Cruisers. In some of the earlier US assaults, Destroyers were the primary bombardment ships because we didn’t have any Battleships ready yet.
Destroyer bombard was a rule in AARe given you had improved ships or whatever that tech was called then.
We incorporated it in our condensed 6 technology chart for home play. Which, I might actually find one day, if I can figure out what box it’s in.
@Cmdr:
See, in my mind they are incomparable units.
Cruisers hit more often than destroyers. So if you have the money for two cruisers or three destroyers, and you already have 100 submarines and 200 destroyers in your fleet, why not get the cruisers for the increased punch? It’s like buying tanks. Sure, 3 artillery is better than 2 armor, does not mean you don’t buy armor!
Hey Jen,
3 Destroyer still increase the punch more or at least the same like 2 Cruisers:) In an infinite large navy it would be equal (1 hit in average per round) but in realistic scenarios 1 additional hitpoint is always better. Once fleets getting small, suddenly 2 DDs fight 1 CC and will win.
regarding tanks you would be right if there wouldn’t be the extra features tanks have:
re: Shore bombardment. I would say I am not in the position to dictate you in any way what you should like, but according to all games I have seen, shore bombardment is almost neglectable. Of course nice to utilize with the given resources on the starting map but this one time shot is almost never game relevant for any battles. In Normandy/Holland usually there are no big battles allowing shore bombardment anyway and the Allies get them often for free while Axis rather counts on counter attacks from France.
Cheers,
Tobias
An army or navy with nothing but infantry/artillery or destroyers is easy prey for a well defined army, which is why we purchase air cover, armor, cruisers and battleships and leave the destroyers for fodder and picket screens.
re: Shore bombardment. I would say I am not in the position to dictate you in any way what you should like, but according to all games I have seen, shore bombardment is almost neglectable. Of course nice to utilize with the given resources on the starting map but this one time shot is almost never game relevant for any battles. In Normandy/Holland usually there are no big battles allowing shore bombardment anyway and the Allies get them often for free while Axis rather counts on counter attacks from France.
I can’t quite agree with that. In fairly large battles, you are right. Unless the invader has a large number of cruisers/battleships with the invasion fleet, one or two extra hits won’t mean that much, especially when you consider cruisers have a 50% chance of not getting a hit.
However, in the smaller battles, the shore bombardment can be the key to victory. A lot of times, mainly in the Pacific, I have seen either USA or Japan go after the little islands defended by a single infantry with 1 transport carrying 2 infantry and escorted by a battleship or cruiser. Since the 2 infantry only attack @ 1, you kind of rely on that bombardment shot. Of course, that’s why I would prefer a battleship escort but sometimes just have to go with a cruiser.
Of course, that’s not fool-proof. I have had times where the dang battleship rolled a 5 or 6 and both invading infantry ended up getting killed because I could never roll a 1. Most times it works though.
3 Destroyers have about a 45% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle. I know, the punch says 100% chance of getting a hit since there is a combined 6 punch, but we both know from empirical evidence that such a statement is hogwash. Further, the calculators that run using statistics and have multiple years of good track records in predicting battles back up the statement of 45% odds of getting a hit in one round of battle.
A cruiser by itself has a 50% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle, but by punch and by calculator.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if you have 30 destroyers you are far better off purchasing a few cruisers to add a hammer to your fleet than buying yet more destroyers. I have found this to be true in empirical results myself. 3 Cruisers added to a large fleet has provided a much better return (for me) than just buying more cruddy destroyers.
Just like when you have 90 infantry it helps to buy tanks instead of yet more infantry.
Of course this is all moot in LL. LL is a completely different game using the same map and pieces, but with different strategy and rules. Of course in LL you’d rather have 9 destroyers than 6 cruisers. There’s very little luck involved then and you can look at the entire battle, not just each piece.
I just think the Cruiser needs something altered on it so it is bought a little more often. If it had a move of 3 sea zones and ignored naval bases I think that would make it more likely to be bought.
I don’t mind giving it something, I am just saying it’s not as useless as some are making it out to be.
Personally, I’d like to see it reduced in price to 10 IPC (same cost as a fighter wing, with similar states only instead of range = 4 it has range = 2 + shore bombardment) but that doesn’t mean it does not have a significant role to play as the anchor point of a naval fleet. Italy, Australia, India and Japan should all be purchasing this unit. I can see Germany using it as well later on, though tbh, they are close enough to the coast that carriers are way better for them. USA of course, being ridiculously over paid, can bloody well just throw half a dozen battleships in the water every round and not even feel a minor impact on their economy, so who cares what they buy!
This is just my opinion. I back this up with the unqualified claim that no one has ever beaten me on attack or defense in a naval engagement in any version of Axis and Allies - despite what the calculators say. Of course, I don’t play Low Luck very often and when I do, I cannot remember anyone getting into a large naval battle with me (since you can see 100% of the time you win, or 100% of the time you lose in naval combat.) I’d also point out that calculators in general are notoriously bad at accurately predicting naval warfare results. My opinion is that it is the 2 hit principle that does them in, not sure. But I’ve yet to see a calculator give me the results that actually happen, generally, my gut is more accurate. I’ve seen many an opponent’s fleet sink to the bottom of the ocean with ALL my capitol ships floating around afterwards (that includes cruisers) when the calculators returned 50/50 odds or even 40/60 odds for my side. Just my opinion, however.
Then again, I also never see anyone sit there with a stack of nothing but infantry on a capitol. Almost always there are aircraft (lots and from every nation possible that can get some there!) and armor present. If cruisers are such a bad purchase, and they have the same stats as armor, then why are the same people purchasing armor units? Okay, fine, a tank is half the cost of a cruiser, but a destroyer is more than twice the cost (almost three times!) of an infantry!
i can’t wait to sink your fleet in our league game Jenn. :-P :evil:
@Cmdr:
3 Destroyers have about a 45% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle. I know, the punch says 100% chance of getting a hit since there is a combined 6 punch, but we both know from empirical evidence that such a statement is hogwash. Further, the calculators that run using statistics and have multiple years of good track records in predicting battles back up the statement of 45% odds of getting a hit in one round of battle.
A cruiser by itself has a 50% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle, but by punch and by calculator.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if you have 30 destroyers you are far better off purchasing a few cruisers to add a hammer to your fleet than buying yet more destroyers. I have found this to be true in empirical results myself. 3 Cruisers added to a large fleet has provided a much better return (for me) than just buying more cruddy destroyers.Â
Just like when you have 90 infantry it helps to buy tanks instead of yet more infantry.
Of course this is all moot in LL. LL is a completely different game using the same map and pieces, but with different strategy and rules. Of course in LL you’d rather have 9 destroyers than 6 cruisers. There’s very little luck involved then and you can look at the entire battle, not just each piece.
Wow… if empirical evidence says 3 destroyers have a 45% chance to score 1 hit that’s bad… I mean the punch of 3 defending SUBS is even better. Should be 50% but now I am really curious about the empiric chance for subs as well.
Makes me wonder if something was odd about the ‘empire’ where those results came from :-P. Maybe its population was extremely unlucky :wink:.
I wonder how a cruiser has 50% chance of getting a hit in one round BOTH by punch and calculator but a destroyer does NOT have the same chance (33%) both by punch and calculator. In other words: why would a CA follow different rules than a dd?
Don’t get me wrong but the day I accept a dd even has less chance than a defending sub, I 'll only ever buy a minimum number of dd for sub hunting purposes.
Anyway, BB and CA were heavily outclassed by aircraft from CV in the real war, so why would we want these units gain in importance in game? They already have much more importance than normal and aircraft at sea is by far not as lethal as was/is the case in reality so why would we want to make the BB and/or CA more useful?
If anything I would argue to make the CV even more dominant in sea battles to at least create a slight historic feel, but currently I like it exactly the way it is!
It’s the chance of 3 destroyers getting 1 hit in 1 round.
3 defending submarines = 33.7% chance to get 1 hit in 1 round of battle.
8-) I see.
Just curious how this is calculated because if I do the best math I can come up myself with, I end up with 38,6% for 3 defending submarines to get 1 hit in 1 round and, indeed, 44,4% for those now famous 3dd ;-)
I had to take a look into my old dusty schoolbooks for this, because I am in no way using maths like this on a regularly basis but I used this method (don’t even know how it is called anymore):
Chance for 3dd to hit 1nce: (3/1)(1/3)1(2/3)2 = 3!/(1!*(3-1)!)*4/27 = 44,4%
But isnt the right way to compare units if not using LL, calculating the chance to hit at least 1 target?
My math may be a little faulty and dusty but for 3dd the above method returns the following results:
Chance 3dd will hit 1 or more targets = 70,4% (51,8% for 4 defending submarines -same IPC value- and 80,2% when they are attacking)
And also interesting:
Chance 3dd will NOT hit 0 times or ALL = 66,6% (1 or 2 times for 3 units).
Anyway, I always realise the math is only a 3rd the story. The other 2 rds are ofc the economic and the strategic comparison.
For example: using only aircraft to remove key reinforcements (RAF in Moscow removing German reinforcements) may seem too expensive because the RAF might loose 10, 20 or even 30 IPCs (2 to 3 FTR) to remove 6 reinforcing German MECH, but from strategic perspective this might be the way to defeat Germany because it opens the can for the Russians to switch to the offensive -particularly after the Siberians have just returned.
10,000 battles on a simulator that is pretty close to actual dice results. Something reliable that is not always perfect compared to actual results, but at least comes close 99.99999999999999999999999999999999998% of the time (or so it seems.)
Keep in mind, it’s 1 round - not a whole battle.
@Cmdr:
10,000 battles on a simulator that is pretty close to actual dice results. Something reliable that is not always perfect compared to actual results, but at least comes close 99.99999999999999999999999999999999998% of the time (or so it seems.)
Keep in mind, it’s 1 round - not a whole battle.Â
Hehheh, you sure you havent forgotten a nine ^.^
Ofc I realize it is just 1 round. Kinda sad if, for example, 3dd would only produce 1 hit in a whole battle :evil:.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#Independent_probability
Thanks Variance, just what I needed :)
3 Destroyers have about a 45% chance of getting a hit in one round of battle
3 Destroyers has:
30% chance to miss
70% chance to hit AT LEAST one unit.
2 Cruisers has:
25% chance to miss
75% chance to hit AT LEAST one unit.
Now dd’s always outpreform cruisers in naval battle due to the extra casualies. Cruiser is for bombard ability.
Id say cruiser is very little bought due to the fact that everyone start with enough cruisers to bombard and dont need to buy more of them.
@Sire:
Again, I’d like to say that a Cruiser with an AA gun value (same as the ground unit) would make the Cruiser a little more interesting to buy because of the additionnal defensive protection for a fleet.
I have lobbied for giving Cruisers an AA capability. Each cruiser in a fleet that is attacked by planes works like a land based AA gun. You roll up to 3 dice, OR the number of attacking planes, whichever is smaller, and any roll of 1 removes an attacking plane. That would certainly validate it’s 12 IPC cost and each ship in your fleet would have it’s own special abilities.
Submarine = surprise strike, stealth, convoy raiding
Destroyer = ASW–prevents surprise strikes of subs
Cruiser = bombard, AA gun
Battleship = bombard, hit soak
Carrier = hit soak, carries planesI also think Destroyers should be able to bombard @ 2. In a lot of the amphibious invasions, Destroyers fired at coastal positions right along side Battleships and Cruisers. In some of the earlier US assaults, Destroyers were the primary bombardment ships because we didn’t have any Battleships ready yet.
I’m backing you up on this.
Have you read this House rule thread about AAA and cruiser vs battleship?
Re: Cont From the AAA Thread, but about warships not AA Guns
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31177.msg1142536#msg1142536
There is many discussion about cruiser. Reply #80 and #81 have many references on it.
This discussion help me find this way of thinking about cruisers a little less agressive on AA, but still promoting cruiser’s buying:
I would prefer a third addition (since carrier was the real historical AA platform):
when BB+CA are present and a CV is added, then you get a third AA@1.So, a complete AA preemptive strike (vs 3 planes as OOB AAA) will be obtain with BB+CA+CV.
The order is important to have the most incentive to buy BB and CA: cruiser and BB, then CV.
You buy a CV and BB? Nothing happen until the cruiser is bought.(This last AA@1, adds another advantage of a fleet carrier vs CVL/CVE.)
This 3@1 AA can be considered historical, since:
Around 3min. 25 s.: they explain how a fleet defensive formation was organized.
From outer circles, to the most inner circles: DDs, cruisers, BBs, fleet carriers.
I treat cruisers like AA platform when they roll “1”, they hit an aircraft.
But to act like a naval AA gun with preemptive strike against 2 aircrafts, they must be paired with BB. And against 3 aircrafts, it will need a third warship: 1 fleet carrier.
CA A3D3M3C12 1 hit, can bombard 1@3, AA platform, combined AA fire with BB.
AA platform: any “1” hit must be allocated to 1 aircraft (owner’s choice) if present.
Combined AA fire with BB: when paired with BB 1 cruiser get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.
BB A4D4M2C20 2 hits, can bombard 1@4, combined AA fire with cruiser.
Combined AA fire with cruiser (CA): when paired with CA 1 BB get 1AA@1 preemptive defensive fire.
So if I get it correctly,
A tier of {2bb + 2ca + 2cv} in your fleet will give you 6 first strikes@1 if aircraft are present in a naval battle (limited to the number of aircraft)? For only the first round or every round?
Personally I like it. I adds to the value of CA whilst also adding to the value of CV so that their relative value stays the same.
I only wonder if it would be too strong perhaps, upsetting the balance of the game but that would be a matter of playtesting ;-)
First anticipation: Germany will have a little more problems hitting the RN hard in G1 (UK BB+CA in 2 areas), same for UK performing “Taranto” (Italian BB+CA), Japanese fleet will be a bit stronger in defense (2BB+2CA+2CV tier) but weaker in offense since the USA also has at least 1 tier for 3@1.
Wonderful idea at first glance! Sincerely hope this would not upset game balance so could be incorporated into the main rules set!
