• 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.

  • Sponsor

    @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.

  • '17 '16 '15

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

  • '17 '16

    @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

  • '17 '16

    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 😉. Judicious cost changes and as-simple-as-possible ability changes/wrinkles tend to achieve those ends I think.

  • '17 '16

    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.

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Thank you for all the good Post’s so far. Many good ideas of making the Cruiser more valueable.

  • Sponsor

    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

  • '17 '16

    @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.

  • '17 '16

    @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.

  • '17 '16

    @WILD:

    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

    In that case, all Carriers should be vulnerable against warships attacks and unable to fire at them.
    There batteries were not that good against anything other than planes.
    So, when there is no enemy’s plane attacking, CV gets no defense roll.
    TPs were also equipped with AA defense, and yet are OOB defenseless.

  • '17 '16

    @WILD:

    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.

    Does it change things a bit if Cruiser get M3 and +1M from Naval base, sum M4?
    And what would happen if +1M bonus paired 1:1 is restricted to Capital Ships, CV and BB?

    Assuming that DDs are the needy ones for fuel (TPs were too slow and Subs too independent from fleet ) which reduced the most operational range of a Naval Task force.
    Cruisers, BBs or CV don’t need to be refuelled as often.

    Does such extended range (M4), change something radically if given to one capital ship paired to one Cruiser, starting from a NB?


  • A unique ability that I’d like to see cruisers have is to be able to use any remaining movement after combat(like air craft)or an ability to try to take out a blocking dd.

  • '17 '16

    @ampdrive:

    A unique ability that I’d like to see cruisers have is to be able to use any remaining movement after combat(like air craft)or an ability to try to take out a blocking dd.

    It makes me think along this way:

    CRUISER
    Attack 3
    Defense 3
    Move 3 (no NB boost) +1 bonus move in NCM
    Cost 12
    Shore bombardment @3
    Gets 1 preemptive Anti-Aircraft defense @1 against up to 1 plane, whichever the lesser.
    After combat, Cruiser can still perform 1 NCM single bonus move.
    In NCM only with no CM, Cruiser can move 4 SZs.

    And Battleship can also use such 1 or 2 preemptive AA shots @1.

  • 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I think this would be too much for a CR for the cost of twelve ipc’s.
    But I really like your concept Baron!


  • As USA,if I could use cruisers as troop transports in the pacific I might not ever buy tts.

  • '17 '16

    @aequitas:

    I think this would be too much for a CR for the cost of twelve ipc’s.
    But I really like your concept Baron!

    I’m not sure on what part you find OP.
    Do you mean this simpler Cruiser can work for you?

    CRUISER
    Attack 3
    Defense 3
    Move 3 (no NB boost) in CM +1 NCM bonus move, or 4 SZs NCM only
    Cost 12
    Shore bombardment @3

    After combat move and combat, Cruiser can still perform 1 NCM single bonus move.

    Actually, with retreat move, after launching an attack 3 SZs away from NB, all retreating ships have virtually make a 4 SZs move. So this is not that too OP.

  • 2021 2020 '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 Customizer

    Jerold The Great.                                                                                                                              
    Welcome.

    This is the thread that was discussed about cruisers. Start at page 1.


  • Thanks! Sorry I didn’t do more searching before I created my thread!  :roll: I just really like the cruiser sculpts and want to actually use them in game. I really like the capitol ship idea but I wanted to check the historical accuracy and balancing issues first


  • Here is an interesting idea my group had: cruisers attack twice during bombardment but only get a hit on 2 or less.

  • '17 '16

    @CWO:

    In terms of what I’d find realistic, here are my thoughts.

    […]

    As for the concept of cruisers carrying troops, the problem is that neither cruisers nor battleships were used in that capacity very much (if at all).  The Japanese did use destroyers as improvised fast troop carriers during the Guadalcanal campaign, but that was a peculiar situation and the number of troops transported this way was limited.  At any rate, those were destroyers, not cruisers or battleships.  And a fundamental problem with the concept of using battleships or cruisers as troops transports is that both ship types draw a lot more water (in terms of keel depth) than a destroyer, so it’s essentially impossible for them to get close enough to shore to unload troops unless they’re using a proper port (with dredged channels and adequate docks or piers), something which isn’t typically available when an amphibious landing is being made on a hostile beach.  Even destroyers can’t really do the job properly in many cases, because they too have keels; the land on a beach properly, you need large numbers of flat-bottomed assault craft…something which isn’t carried by battleships or cruisers or destroyers.

    @Spendo02:

    If you wanted to make a reasonable compromise, you could only allow AA (Amphibious Assault) from TT, but units carried on ships could NCM to reinforce newly taken territories.

    My proposition would be:
    AA can only be conducted by units carried on TT or from aircraft.
    Units carried on ships with defensive values can only NCM from sea to land.
    TT can carry up to 3 units, but no more than one non-infantry unit.
    CV can carry any 2 ground units.
    BB can carry up to 2 INF.
    CR can carry up to 1 INF.

    In this fashion, the US could load its starting 3 TT with up to 6 INF and 3 ART and can reinforce the units lost from an AA with units from CV, BB and CR which would enable a more… offensive island hopping battle.  Japan would be forced to seriously consider how exposed it wishes to leave its recently conquered islands if the US with no additional investment in ships could start the process of reclaiming islands with effectively strong AA landings.  This, all without changing the actual dynamic of combat values of units.

    This can be a way to boost Cruiser in a limited way: only 1 Infantry can load /unload in NCM only.
    Battleship should be able too if we also give Cruiser 3 move (and no NB bonus).


  • I have been working on something that may help balance any abilities you give to cruisers . A way to add more of a “capital” ship into the game, so I have bought blue, black, and orange counters (same kind as stock white and red ones) and plan on using them to mark hits on capital ships, orange being fire (dive bomb/ kamikaze) and blue being water (torpedo bomber). I have bought several new units from HBG to depict the different aircraft, but being largely a historian I find the loss of a battleship or carrier during one roll kind of odd. I know you have the option to tilt the piece for a second hit? But what about if you mark the ship with a hit or two and then put a black marker for smoke? Now while you are limping the ship to port for repairs attacking battleships can fire from longer range instead of attacking within the same sea zone. This in effect would make any rules to cruisers balanced because they can be sunk in a round of combat. Whereas if capital ships BB and CV’s are sunk in shallow water areas they can be raised as well. Now your poor man’s BB pales in comparison because it won’t have the capability to take multiple hits and long range engagements. As for balance the very fact that when crippled movement shall be one space and the smoke allowing for long range engagement should even things out. I don’t mind adding miniature elements to the game because it only enhances play.  What do you guys think?

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 39
  • 8
  • 25
  • 23
  • 3
  • 106
  • 17
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

30
Online

15.6k
Users

37.0k
Topics

1.6m
Posts