[House Rules] The Cruiser

  • @barnee

    That’s a good idea. 2 DD for 1 CA.

  • 2020 2019 2018

    @Mursilis said in [House Rules] The Cruiser:


    That’s a good idea. 2 DD for 1 CA.

    heh heh well…idk but it sounds like fun to try. Guess I need to add another triplea option : )

  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @Mursilis said in [House Rules] The Cruiser:

    How do you feel about making the destroyer attack on a 1 and is buffed up to a 2 when paired with a cruiser?

    I’m not a fan because I think DDs are already too weak relative to subs – you pay an extra 2 IPCs for the DD, but it’s not obvious that 1 DD is stronger than 1 SS. Sure the DDs can defend against airstrikes and they have one extra point of defense, but the sub can hide from airstrikes and does convoy damage.

    Still, I see what you’re getting at, and it’s a clever idea.

  • 2020 2019 2018

    @Argothair yea I was thinking that too. Maybe drop them to 7 bucks ? It’s hard to say but would help the Cruiser. : )

  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    I think the CR is fine as it is.
    There are enough pieces at T1 to start with. Just bc it has a cost value doesn’t mean you have to buy alot or one at all, during your whole game.
    BM3 managed to get more juice out of a CR without changing too much on a CR attributes.
    You can Transport a Marine if you want to.

    What makes that game great is YOU playing it with your style and the benefit to HR it in your groupe if you want to.

    The CR might be the “Hotels” for Monopoly.
    They are in the box but you don’t have to bring 'em into Play if you want to win 😉.

    The CR is likely made as some sort of a middle unit as a A3 D3 but has no special effect (s).

    Shorebomb is nice but this happens every once in a While…

    My 2 Cents

  • 2020 2019 2018

    @aequitas-et-veritas said in [House Rules] The Cruiser:

    The CR might be the “Hotels” for Monopoly.
    They are in the box but you don’t have to bring 'em into Play if you want to win 😉.

    Heh heh yea houses are the way to go. Sis always kicked our ass : )

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    For whats its worth if you want to try this. Didn’t know subs cost only 6. That is to low as Arg has stated in previous post.
    Batt. C20 A4 D4 AD 1.26
    Crus C12 A4 D3 AA@1 at Plane only first round only. A.67 D.50
    Dest C8 A2 D2 AD .75
    Sub C8 A2 D1 A.75 D.38

    Still not right. Destroyer still stronger. Most will disagree. For the cost it would only take 2 Destroyers to kill a Battleship and 1 Destroyer to kill a Cruiser. Sub should always have more punch on A. Comes down to Cruiser Destroyer costs. Thats where you need to lower cost for Battleships and Cruisers to be in line with the Destroyers Cost and Punch. Most will disagree with my ideas but I base every thing on cost and Punch so
    pieces are fair to each other as far as cost but IMO.

    Well I’m going to bow out of this discussion now because its going in the direction most of these G40 discussion go. Just a ball bouncing around in a 4 corner room and not stopping for play testing. LOL It was another good topic to talk about. Thanks.

  • Well the other option that was rattling around in my head was slightly adjusting costs for not only the cruiser but the BB. The cruiser would drop to 10 IPC’s and the BB would drop to 18 IPC’s. Every other attribute would stay the same. The destroyer is the infantry of the sea so the cruiser would be the fighter of the sea. Except fighters would still defend on 4s and can be used anywhere. And 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer would still be equal in price to a BB. The BB and cruiser would get a little more play due to cost reduction but would still not remove the value of the carrier and fighters.

    And SS GEN I’m coming up with these ideas because I’m already playtesting the 11 IPC cruiser. And since it takes a while to play one game I want to start with the best suggestion.

    I like 10 cruiser 18 BB.
    Also cruiser normal price and can carry 1 infantry.
    Last would be the destroyer at 1 A 2 D and 2 can pair up with a cruiser. Maybe drop destroyer price to 7 and cruiser to 11.

    But the first two are simple. Usually keeping things simple is the best solution to a problem.

    After much consideration I think these three are probably the most realistic and easiest fixes. So the question is which one do you guys like best? I’m going to play test whichever one you guys think would best balance out the cruiser in my next game.

    And thanks again for all your time and deliberation guys!

  • 2018 2017

    The balance of sea combat isn’t the problem with the game.

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I know that. Have said that for years now and in above posts. Fix the other issues first. Naval values just disregard.
    W. E.

  • @taamvan

    I’m thinking BM3 in combination with your modification of Caucasus and stalingrad 5 ipcs to 3, starting tank in urals and fighter in moscow and leningrad worth 5 still might completely fix game balance. I’m also considering if having cruisers able to transport 1 infantry will change japan power in pacific because everyone can take those money islands that much faster slowing down japan.

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Yo Barney I’m still here today anyway.
    I’m going to try this in are next game. This will be the Cruiser being represented by the Light and Heavy Cruiser being a combo ship. So you don’t need to add another piece to game as the Heavy Cruiser. L Cruisers really only had Anti AA guns for planes and Shore bombardments.
    Cruiser D12 die system
    A3 D3 ? AD 25% AD .44 Have to see yet in play test.
    A4 D4 AD 33% AD .59 at a plane or ship for every round of combat.
    SHS @3

  • 2018 2017

    @Mursilis I think you’re changing a bunch of stuff at once and that makes it difficult to judge the effect of any given change. I created my mod after having played global about 120 times (the other 70 or so games are 42.2, AAZ in my grand count) We used to have a bunch more changes we were trying to implement. However most of those changes were kind of “neither here nor there” as far as making the game better, more balanced or more fun, so in the third iteration of that effort, reduced the changes to just what I think is need to balance my games.

    Lots of people play with thick layers of modification for their home group starting very early and accumulating over time. After this process, the game might be better (see Siredblood’s Mods) but also going to be a totally different game than the base game as far as decisions go because so many small modifications taken together amount to a massive change in moves, strategy, buys, balance etc.

  • @taamvan

    I’m not changing a bunch of at once I’m coming up with as many ideas that I like at once and testing them one at a time. I just want to do the best ones first. For example my next game I’m going to test the 12 IPC cruiser with the ability to carry 1 infantry but that ability won’t take effect until the second round of the game. This way it won’t change the initial set up drastically but can still play a pivotal roll in the game.

    I also love how the BM mod makes minor island strands an important national objective to claim and fight over. However I find the vichy france rules to be unnecessary as it hurts the allies and the axis at the same time for no real reason and kills all point of having france in the game.

    Anyway I just like to have as many options on the table for me to ponder over.

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I’ve been using the 3 island group NO now for a year. So I don’t know if BM designer got that idea from me? Probably not. It does make Pacific and Med way more interesting. My island groups mostly have at least 1 island in 2 different groups to grab more or to block more. I also make that 1 island worth 3 icps.
    Midway 3 Carolinas 3 Solomon 3

    Anyway why is there changes going on to this BM when it’s suppose to be balanced ?

    If Moscow falls every time beef Russia.
    Japan to strong slow them down.
    I like to see some results with Russia Inf D+1 on first 2 turns Germany attacks Russia.
    Or let Rusdia go first before Germany and Italy neutral on UK turn 1.
    Give Russia an Inf at every factory per turn once at war and put in a LL.
    Those would be the 3 main changes I would try
    With slowing down Japan.

    The Cruiser should not be able to tranport an Inf. There’s other changes you can make.

  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    That isn’t quite what i meant by island groups – maybe I should have said “island chains.” The point is that you can drop an infantry off onto the island chain, and then it can keep walking for a while and slowly keep picking up cash, or at least you can sit in the same sea zone and hop from island to island without having to get any closer to enemy planes. The chains are valuable enough to deserve a drop-off in the first place, and maybe valuable enough to have one combat ship around to fight off opponents, but not so valuable that you want to sit there and guard your land units with a whole fleet. The national objectives for BM3 get close to this ideal, but in my opinion they still don’t really get you there, which is why, in my opinion, BM3 still doesn’t really need cruisers. Pics of some World at War island chains are below.



    I do encourage everyone’s playtests; by all means, try reducing the price, try the AA ability, try the carry-1-inf ability. You might find something that makes the game more fun for you. I’m not personally that interested in cruiser playtests because I think the whole concept of the cruiser is a mismatch for the 1942.2/Anniversary/Global maps and that the money Avalon Hill spent on the cruiser sculpt (which is kind of hard to distinguish anyway) would have been better spent on a landing craft, or an escort carrier, or a commando, or a transport plane. If we have to play with cruisers, I’d rather see a much sharper divide between DDs, CAs, and BBs that requires a total rework of the naval cost structure…something like this:

    Transports __ C5 A0 D1 M2 ___ carries 2 ground units
    Subs _________C6 A2 D1 M2 ___ convoy 1 IPC
    Destroyers __C7 A2 D3 M2 ___
    Cruisers ____ C10 A3 D4 M3 ___ bombards
    Carriers _____C14 A1 D2 M2 ___ carries 3 planes, 2-hit
    Battleships _ C18 A5 D5 M2 ___ bombards, 2-hit

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    @Argothair ya I have the revamped piece costs and such as I stated before. It be nice to see your piece values tested and results showed. But as usual no playtest results.
    D12 I have in game
    Batt A9 D9 C15 M2 SHS 4. 2 hits
    Crus. A5 D5 C9 M3 SHS 3 plane or ship
    Carr A2 D4 C14 M2 hit plane only 2 hit
    Dest A3 D3 C6 M2 SHS 2 FSBL Depth charge @3
    Sub A5 D3 C7 M2 FS can dive with dest present Tacs can hit surfaced subs @3
    Tran A0 D1 C7 M2 Esc @3
    Can take as casualty but then you lose your D1 plane shot. Transports alone can escape if survive after each round of combat.
    Naval ship block. 1 ship blocks 3. 2 ships block 6

    Barney I am raising the cruiser to A@5 D@5 against planes AA and ships for every round of combat. Will test it in game in 2 weeks.

    5000 planes were shot down to kill only 39 ships so got to boost it for AA

  • @Argothair

    My cost restructuring was only going to lower cruisers to 10 and BB’s to 18. Keeping everything else the same. Why do you want to give transports a defense of 1 again? And why reprice everything?

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    If you want to just discount the price of CAs and BBs and leave everything else the same, go ahead! I still won’t buy any CAs, and I’ll still rarely buy BBs, but I don’t think your changes will hurt anything.

    The point of giving transports a defense of 1 is to eliminate the concept of the “defenseless” unit, because that adds more rules to the game for insufficient benefit in fun and strategy, and to make it easier for players to build very small navies (potentially just a single transport and nothing more) in minor theaters. I think the cost structure I’m suggesting works without it, though – if you like defenseless units, just drop transports back to D0.

    The reason for repricing everything is to try to set up a more interesting thematic difference between SSs, DDs, CAs, and BBs. SSs are small and cheap and good at offense. DDs are small and cheap and good at defense. CAs are medium-sized ships that add good punch to a fleet but are over-priced to use on their own. BBs are big, expensive ships with a much higher offensive value than other ships, but are likewise over-priced unless you can support them with lots of escorts.

    As SS Gen so kindly and gently points out, though, we’re all wasting our time – nobody is going to playtest this stuff.

  • '16


    Just read through the thread, and lowering the BB and CA costs to 18 and 10 seems like the best start to me. The other ideas have some fun and interesting elements to them, but they are complicated, while a simple price change is literally the easiest option possible.

  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Getting back to topic, what about forget light cruiser. Instead a 3-3 unit that takes 2 hits…the Battlecruiser. And Perhaps each nation can pick one attribute either a shore Bombard at 3, or always move 3 ( 4 with naval base… AKA “Fast Battleship”), or AA gun platform…AKA Alaska Class Battleship… getting any hit goes against planes.

    The cost of such a unit would presumably be around 15-17 IPC

    Since 6 sided dice only allow a small window of differentiation you need to give these extra units something outside the box, but within the system.

    Battlecruisers can model old battleships, Proper Battlecruisers, Pocket Battleships, Heavy Cruisers, etc

    The Cruiser can stick with Light and some Heavy Cruisers. I would substitute…or downgrade at least one BB for each: Japan, UK, Italy, USA ( only choosing in pairs- One allied one Axis in order to preserve pay balance

  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    I know where your coming from IL but I think there looking for the best simplicity option.
    No ?

  • 2019 2018 2017 '16

    @Imperious-Leader If a battlecruiser means anything, though, it means a fast, powerful, lightly armored ship. Right, like in the old speed/power/armor trade-off, the battlecruiser was designed to get #1 and #2 by trading off #3.

    I always thought the “2-hit” idea was supposed to represent having extremely thick armor and durable hulls. I would think a battlecruiser would be more like C12 / A5 / D4 / M3 / 1-hit / bombard.

  • @barnee what you need to do is give cruisers a specific niche in naval combat. Let’s think this through BBs are tough they attack at 4 and can take an extra hit, DDs nullify sub sneak attacks and are generally cheaper to replace. What naval combat has that there is no unit to counter is air. Sure you can bring your own with CVs and that’s good but cruisers, especially in the later war boasted very powerful anti air suites. So give cruisers a niche - anti air abilities. They get a first roll strike at any air units attacking them similar to the AAA ground unit. Then they can participate in regular naval combat as well. Now you have a reason to buy them. They perform a defensive and offensive function, giving a fleet greater flexibility and combat power. I’d buy them if they could counter air power, cause they have a niche, not just a po man’s BB.

Log in to reply

Suggested Topics

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