Cruiser add on

@Baron:

Adding this element in the issue can maybe help find an acceptable rationalization for Naval Base movement boost.

If I’m not mistaken, the original purpose of this thread was to suggest one or two simple fixes to make the cruiser a more attactive purchase option.  The thread has now veered into the subject of trying to rationalize the movement boost provided to ships by naval bases (which is an entirely different topic) in order to provide a basis for arguing that cruisers should be able to boost naval transports and other ships rather than just boosting destroyers, even though that concept – in my opinion – is completely unrealistic.  Since by now I’ve made pretty much every argument I can think of to explain why that’s my opinion, I’m not going to argue the point any further.  My opinion is only that, an opinion, and you certainly don’t have to take it into consideration if you disagree with it.

You are right it can be seen as a derailing.
But, I rather see it as questioning the assumptions and exploring the idea it reveals.

When I bring the move boost to Cruiser, I saw it as a simple borrowing of one game feature of the naval base with some limitations (1:1 and surface vessels only).

It was an accepted feature of the OOB.

But, your always interesting line of thinking  bring the historical or realistic POV glasses over House rules. I realized that it can provides some basis to question this OOB features of NB and AB.
I was looking for an acceptable narrative to explain move boost by bases on the board.
I have none of your compendium memory and erudition on WWII. It was an open question.
Maybe, in another thread we will find some narrative for bases movement boost.

The impact on HR with Cruiser was a secondary objective.

@CWO:

@Baron:

So, is there other kind of explanation about why Cruiser paired to another ship gain the +1M boost?

No.  At least not if you want to be realistic.  A cruiser boosting a destroyer makes realistic sense (for reasons that I’ve already explained).  A cruiser boosting a carrier, a battleship or a transport ship is unrealistic (for reasons that I’ve already explained).  A cruiser boosting a cruiser is unnecessary.   A cruiser boosting a submarine would arguably be possible, but in practice I don’t think it was done, and the concept is problematic because it would imply a sub operating in tandem with a cruiser.

The fact that the A&A rules provide a naval base movement boost to various ship typess isn’t (in my opinion) a valid reason for arguing that cruisers should be able to boost anything except a destroyer because (in my opinion) the whole concept of movement boosts from naval bases (and air bases) is one of those A&A rules that I find unrealistic and baffling.  I have trouble visualizing what this “base boost” is supposed to represent in real life.  It can’t be a speed increase, because the speed of a ship or a plane is a function of its design, not a function of the facility from which it operates.  And it can’t be a range increase because, regardless of whether a unit travels to Point B from a Point A that contains a base or from a Point A that contains no base, the distance from A to B is still the same.  Bases aren’t hyperspace tunnels that shrink the physical distance between a point of departure and a point of arrival.

CWO, while I have little interest in a cruiser-boosting-movement concept, I’d like to say a word in defense of naval bases. The movement bonus from a naval base is only ‘baffling’ if one conceptualizes fleet movement on the board literally. It can’t possibly be that a fleet’s range represents literal ship speeds. Assuming a single turn constitutes six months, or even four months, none of the ship ranges would make sense, since ships could travel much further in that mount time. Rather, the movement of any unit on the board represents, in my view, something more abstract–a “projection of power.”  A naval base allows its owner to project naval power more effectively/efficiently than without it, and this advantage is represented on the board by giving ships a movement bonus. Make sense?

What can be describe as a projection of power in WWII events?
If you can give us an example, it will help understand this abstract concept.
I thought it was more a game concept than anything else.
It was used to describe the benefits of multiple zones within range (7 move points) which can be attacked by a single stack of Strategic bombers put on Air Base in Darken skies strategy.

I’m leaning toward this…

Cruiser

Cost- 12
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @3 or less

Battleship

Cost- 20
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @4 or less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @4 less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @4 or less

@Young:

I’m leaning toward this…

Cruiser

Cost- 12
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @3 or less

Battleship

Cost- 20
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @4 or less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @4 less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @4 or less

What is a real paradox is that Cruiser and Battleship are better at killing planes than aircraft units.
:-D

Per round AA fire can be pretty devastating. Let us know how it goes YG.

I would just make the simple change of giving Cruisers a base movement of 3 (Naval Bases do not increase movement for Cruisers). Just enough of a boost to make them worth considering, like the Battleship’s 2 hit ability.

@Faramir:

I would just make the simple change of giving Cruisers a base movement of 3 (Naval Bases do not increase movement for Cruisers). Just enough of a boost to make them worth considering, like the Battleship’s 2 hit ability.

I’m not sure the extended movement would be enough for me to buy them unless some crazy good strategy developed from it.

Hello All,

I think cruisers are actually priced right and like them as a unit, though I do sometimes find it hard to justify building them, thinking to myself that I might as well spend the extra 8 IPCs for a battleship or invest in a carrier and air power instead. I suppose I’ve got an unspoken debate going on in my head similar to what may have prompted this thread.

With that being said, one option that might make them more enticing while not throwing off the hierarchy could be derived from their armor. Their position between destroyers and battleships in terms of firepower is already represented by the 3/3 A/D values vs. 2/2 and 4/4. They also have the special ability of supporting amphibious assaults whereas destroyers do not and battleships are slightly more effective. However, what is not already represented is the level of protection between a destroyer and battleship. Cruisers were intended to be able to go toe-to-toe with many other surface warships and take hits better than destroyers, though not to the extent of battleships. With that in mind, what if, upon taking a hit, a die roll of say 4-6 or 5-6 would cause the cruiser to tip like a battleship rather than being destroyed outright? If it survived the hit, it could then proceed like a battleship would to continue the fight and ultimately be repaired at a naval base if it makes it there.

not a bad idea Sam. Maybe make it a 2 hit unit that turns into A0 D1 once it’s tipped.

@UncleSam0330:

Hello All,

Their position between destroyers and battleships in terms of firepower is already represented by the 3/3 A/D values vs. 2/2 and 4/4. They also have the special ability of supporting amphibious assaults whereas destroyers do not and battleships are slightly more effective. However, what is not already represented is the level of protection between a destroyer and battleship. Cruisers were intended to be able to go toe-to-toe with many other surface warships and take hits better than destroyers, though not to the extent of battleships. With that in mind, what if, upon taking a hit, a die roll of say 4-6 or 5-6 would cause the cruiser to tip like a battleship rather than being destroyed outright? If it survived the hit, it could then proceed like a battleship would to continue the fight and ultimately be repaired at a naval base if it makes it there.

I don’t like additional roll to see if it can get an additional hit.
Giving 2 hits and no repair is still making a much better combat unit.
On AACalc, this unit should fight A2 D2 cost 12.
Maybe, A3 D3 undamaged and A2 D2 damaged could be more balanced compared to BB combat values.

It is a double issue because Battleship is no match at 20 IPCs against DD+Cruiser combo.
To be balanced vs BB, 2 hits Cruiser should be A3 D3  at 16 IPCs

CR’s cost 10 Ipc’s now

In fact, the real balance option on cost redux only should have been:
Now, Cruiser cost 10 IPCs AND Battleship cost 18 IPCs, everything else is as OOB.

It solve all combat balance issues.
DD+CA cost the same as 1 Battleship.
1 A2 D2 + 1 A3 D3 is same combat odds of survival as 1 A4 D4, 2 hits
DD+CA has shore bombardment and ASV.
BB has shore bombardment and can repair if only damaged.

All other comparisons with Subs and Fully loaded Carriers are not dramatically affected.

@Baron:

CR’s cost 10 Ipc’s now

In fact, the real balance option on cost redux only should have been:
Now, Cruiser cost 10 IPCs AND Battleship cost 18 IPCs, everything else is as OOB.

I think that’s a good option. I’ve found that the difficulty with house rules is making them reasonable, fun, simple, and as few as possible all while achieving what you set out to do in the first place and integrating them seamlessly into the remaining existing rule structure that has not been altered. And it all has to make sense to the rare breed who actually play the game :wink:. Judicious cost changes and as-simple-as-possible ability changes/wrinkles tend to achieve those ends I think.

Unfortunately, people during G40 second ed revision suggested this modification.
But Larry stick to Naval Cost structure
4 points = 8 IPCs,
6 points= 12 IPCs,
8 points, 16 IPCs + 2 hits, 4 IPCs = 20 IPCs.

But I don’t believe it was so good reasons.

It doesn’t consider the impact of DD’s Anti-Sub capacity.
And adding 4 IPCs for an additional hit is more or less arbitrary.
It could have been put at 2 IPCs, making BB an 18 IPCs unit.
Or A4 D4, 1 hit worth 14 IPCs + 1 hit at 4 IPCs = 18 IPCs Battleship.

Or this hypothetical cost structure would have been balanced too:
Sub A2 D1 C6 Surprise strike
DD A2 D2 C8 ASV
CA A3 D3 C11 shore bombard
CV A0 D2 C16 2 hits, load 2 planes
BB A4 D4 C19 2 hits, shore bombard

But 19 is not a square price.
But 18 IPCs is 6 times 1 Infantry.
And 10 IPCs is a square number.

The only issue I have with a 10 IPC cruiser is that it’s the same price point as a fighter, and cheaper than a Tac bomber. What’s the math on one fighter representing a squadron of ______, in comparison to the cost of building a cruiser if indeed a cruiser in this game represents just 1?

I’m not in favor of lowering the cost of ships (think they got that right), but I wouldn’t mind tinkering with the abilities of the naval units. I’m not fond of war ships caring troops either. Well maybe destroyers carry one inf, but only if their role was reduced in sub warfare. IMO subs are greatly under powered in this game and nearly impossible to keep alive in convoy routes (which are non existent BTW) where they were the most effective. I would like if DD and ftrs roll a detection dice (at 2, 3 with radar) when attacking subs, if you detect it then you can attempt to kill it with the units taken into the battle (one round battle then sub can submerge if it survives).

There is a good argument for cruisers having more range (move 3 spaces with or w/o naval base), but as others have pointed out it may not help because it wouldn’t be too effective w/o other units. It could be useful however depending on position of the other ships, or the use of air power having more range. Not liking pairing up other ships with cruisers to gain more range (arguments against that listed by others make sense).

People have said that cruisers have more speed and larger fuel capacity. Instead of extending range what if you gave cruisers the ability to escape? Maybe allow attacking and defending cruisers to retreat after any round of battle. This would include a cruiser that was used to clear a sz (can NCM 1 space). Could allow your attacking cruisers to get to safety.

I’m not sure that the cruiser (or battleship) is as bad a buy as the carrier is too good a buy. As others have said there aren’t to many battleships being bought either. Basically you have US and maybe UK build a BB for the Atlantic fleet. The US starts with a BB in the pacific, but might build a second BB to match Japan. Japan rarely buys another BB. I realize that cruisers are rarely purchased, maybe allow cruisers to attack at 4 when paired with a BB? That would increase the values of both the cruiser and BB.

I know that this is off the track but would cruisers and battleships be more valuable if carriers weren’t allowed to go into battles just to soak hits? As for AA abilities I’m more prompt to give a defending carrier AA ability (still fire at 2 every round, but planes are hit first). Defending carriers being able to kill planes might make up the difference for the attacker not being able to take carriers into battles when you look at the big picture.

Just my 2 cents

@WILD:

I’m not in favor of lowering the cost of ships (think they got that right), but I wouldn’t mind tinkering with the abilities of the naval units.
I’m not fond of war ships caring troops either.

Well maybe destroyers carry one inf, but only if their role was reduced in sub warfare. IMO subs are greatly under powered in this game and nearly impossible to keep alive in convoy routes (which are non existent BTW) where they were the most effective. I would like if DD and ftrs roll a detection dice (at 2, 3 with radar) when attacking subs, if you detect it then you can attempt to kill it with the units taken into the battle (one round battle then sub can submerge if it survives).

OK. You don’t like CA or BB carrying Infantry, but what do you think of Marines unit instead?
Marines
A1 D1 M1 cost 3
+1A on amphibious assault,
1 unit can be loaded on Cruiser or Battleship
Does such HR unit can be acceptable?

I believe Subs need a revamp, a better survivability mostly.
Many suggested to decrease blocking DD capacity to 1:1.
What is your opinion on this matter?

I would not give DD carrying capacity, this unit is already viable.

@Young:

The only issue I have with a 10 IPC cruiser is that it’s the same price point as a fighter, and cheaper than a Tac bomber. What’s the math on one fighter representing a squadron of ______, in comparison to the cost of building a cruiser if indeed a cruiser in this game represents just 1?

You can have a similar objection with Destroyer cost:
8 IPCs Destroyer is two IPCs lower than a fighter, and still higher for a Tac bomber. What’s the math on one fighter representing a squadron of ______, in comparison to the cost of building a destroyer if indeed a destroyer in this game represents just 1?

A destroyer is costlier than a single squadron of planes and take much more time to built.