Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?


  • @barnee said in Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?:

    If I remember correctly, Bombard casualties weren’t allowed to shoot back and it changed in Anniversary ? I think ?

    You are correct, until and including Revised Offshore Bombardment was part of the “Opening Fire Step”, so casualties don’t fire back in those editions.

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Panther said in Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?:

    You are correct, until and including Revised Offshore Bombardment was part of the “Opening Fire Step”, so casualties don’t fire back in those editions.

    Which is probably why there is a rule that you have to decide your bombard casualties before the main attack roll. I think it’s a bit silly now but it works that way in Triple-A.

    @rulebook_reviewer Yeah few people buy any Cruisers or Battleships. Even in Balanced Mod where there is an additional land unit (marines) which can be carried on these ships. Loaded CVs are what people buy rather than huge numbers of DDs. You know the difference in combat ability is not that great actually - the defender always has the edge, I guess mostly because the 0/2 combat ability of CVs. But carrying planes is also useful for attacking land units, particularly islands. Keeping starting BBs is useful but if you lose them, rebuilding with CVs only is a better option.


  • OK.

    So I understand that investing in BBs is probably not worth it once you lose your starting ones.

    But why in general neglect developing a navy that has the ability to attack land? If it’s no longer preferred to invest in new expensive BBs, does this still apply for CAs? And what if you get improved shipyards you’re only paying 1 more IPC for a BB than for an ‘unimproved shipyard’ CV - still not preferred?

  • '19 '17 '16

    Cruisers are even worse than BBs. At least with BBs you have the potential to clean up stray ships and then repair the damage for free.

    Improved shipyards could indeed change the equation. Most people don’t like to play with tech.


  • @rulebook_reviewer
    basically “air power” is better.


  • Well I am enjoying this discussion but I feel like its destroying my previous strategies, but then again in my previous strategies that’s when I was playing with my cousin and playing the bombardment rule pretty loosely compared to the wording of the rulebook in which our primitive house rule allowed all rounds of combat to have a bombardment.

    But strategies are meant to be revised. So from now on I think I’ll be protecting my transports with CVs, DDs, and SSs while holding on to the starting the CAs and BBs and maybe throwing a new purchase in for one of those very rarely.


  • @barnee I first mastered land and sea combat, an air force is the thing that I’m still eagerly learning. I guess with loaded CVs I can come to develop a great air force and learn its capabilities.


  • @rulebook_reviewer said in Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?:

    Well I am enjoying this discussion but I feel like its destroying my previous strategies, but then again in my previous strategies that’s when I was playing with my cousin and playing the bombardment rule pretty loosely compared to the wording of the rulebook in which our primitive house rule allowed all rounds of combat to have a bombardment.

    But strategies are meant to be revised. So from now on I think I’ll be protecting my transports with CVs, DDs, and SSs while holding on to the starting the CAs and BBs and maybe throwing a new purchase in for one of those very rarely.

    :+1:


  • @rulebook_reviewer
    if you have triplea https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/17147/gargantua-s-k-i-s-s-triplea-instructions/4

    you can review other peoples games. Worth checking out imo


  • I do not have TripleA and I always see it written in the forums. Quite frankly I do not know what it is.


  • @rulebook_reviewer said in Bombardments - no Incentive to invest in BBs and CAs?:

    I do not have TripleA and I always see it written in the forums. Quite frankly I do not know what it is.

    It’s a computer program that allows playing Axis and Allies, along with some other games.

    https://triplea-game.org/

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    I will often buy 1 or 2 battleships as Japan at some point in the middlegame – carriers are always better if you have free planes available to land on them, but sometimes most of my airforce is busy deep inland, e.g., taking India, or Yunnan, or Siberia. Because Japan is often the victim of a one-two punch by US + UK or US + ANZAC, it’s important to develop a fleet that has defensive staying power, and BBs can help with that.

    A typical carrier group might be something like CV, fighter, tac bomber, DD, SS – total cost is 51 IPCs, you get 6 HP and 12 pips of defensive power.

    For similar money, you can buy BB, BB, DD, SS – total cost is 54 IPCs, you get 6 HPs and 11 pips of defensive power.

    As you can see, the stats are less favorable for the battleship group, but the battleship group holds up much better against one-two punches. If the carrier group takes 3 hits, then you have to either lose an expensive plane, or take a hit on the carrier and land both of your planes, assuming you even have a friendly island handy on which to land them. After taking 3 hits with the carrier group, all you have left is probably CV + fighter – which only has 6 pips of defense and can then be eaten alive by the Australians or the British. You’ve lost a total of 25 IPCs worth of material in those 3 hits (SS + DD + tac).

    On the other hand, after the battleship group takes 3 hits, you have damagedBB, damagedBB, DD, with a total of 10 pips of defense, meaning that it might be too risky for UK or ANZAC to do their follow-up attack. Plus, you’ve only lost a cheap sub to the initial attack, for a total loss of 6 IPCs.

    So in the particular case where I plan to be in range of one-two punches and a large part of my air force is busy in Asia, I think buying a couple of BBs can make sense for Japan, although even then, I would still buy more CVs than BBs over the course of the whole game.

    The only reason to buy a cruiser is if you’re constrained by both a minor factory and your budget. E.g., Australia might buy a cruiser and 2 infantry for Queensland; the cruiser isn’t even slightly efficient, but maybe you need a warship right now and that’s the best you can do with your money.

    For what it’s worth, I also miss the old bombardment rules, but we’re already playing with ludicrously easy amphibious invasions. In real life, getting soldiers off of a boat and onto a contested island or beach was incredibly hard and created a huge advantage for the defender. DK solves this neatly by giving the defender free notional hit points that help defend against amphibious assaults – like a bunker that has 2 or 3 HP and rolls nothing on defense. If your group has a high tolerance for house rules, you could try introducing DK’s imaginary bunkers and also re-introducing the pre-emptive bombardment, and capping the bombardment by the number of ground units that actually unload, e.g., if you have 1 infantry unloading with support from 7 battleships, you still only get 1 pre-emptive shot. This is maybe not the highest-priority thing to fix about A&A, though.

  • '20 '19 '18

    Whether intentional or not, I find it very interesting that the OOB G40 rules reflect with some accuracy the waning value of battleships and cruisers in World War II. The rise of aircraft carriers may not have rendered BB and CA obsolete, but they certainly made them vulnerable in ways they hadn’t been in previous wars.

    As for the one-shot bombardment rule…I’m fine with it as is. Considering that the biggest ship-mounted guns of the era had a max range of under 30 miles, it’s not realistic to allow naval bombardment to continue throughout a battle across a territory which might be hundreds of miles wide (many European territories, for example). I’ve always considered the one-shot support attack a bonus, rather than a primary function of BB and CA.

    Parting thought: Buying, moving and fighting CA & DD in pairs gives you a slim attack and defense advantage over a BB, for the same price. Doing so is the best way to get max value out of CA. This is a hill I will die on. :grin:

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Well it’s not the one-shot rule that anyone is complaining about; I think everybody here agrees that BBs and CAs should only get one round of bombardments per battle. The question is whether an infantry that gets hits by that bombardment should be allowed to return fire.

    And as far as CA & DD in pairs, again, that ignores the way that BBs can soak a free hit.

    Let’s say you buy 6 CA & 6 DD to attack me, and I buy 5 BB, 1 DD, 2 SS to defend. You can expect to inflict an average of 5 hits, and I expect to inflict an average of 4 hits. As you say, a slim attack advantage for your fleet – but only on the first round of battle. After the first round, 4 of your DDs are dead, but all of my ships are still in the fight.

    Now you have 6 CA + 2 DD = 22 pips of offense, against my 5 damaged BB + 1 DD + 2 SS = 24 pips of defense. Suppose you roll slightly above-average and score your 4 hits, and I roll average and score my 4 hits. Now you have 4 CA left, against my 4 damaged BB. Clearly at this point my fleet outclasses yours, and you should expect to lose the battle if average luck continues.

    Pairing CAs with DDs might be the way to get max value out of CAs, but that certainly doesn’t mean you should routinely purchase them – the maximum value you can get out of a CA is still noticeably less than the maximum value you can get out of other ships.


  • @Argothair Allowing units hit by the shore bombardment to return fire makes sense; after all, German units at Normandy and Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, et al, certainly did.

    As for CA & DD pairs vs. BB…The two-hit capability of BB is a significant advantage, but that advantage is partially offset by the 16.5% chance of the CA & DD pair scoring two hits. Also, if your opponent has subs lurking about, CA + DD has an advantage over BB. In the end, at the most basic level of one CA/DD pair vs. one BB, through two rounds of combat, it’s quite close - roughly a 42% chance of CA/DD getting 2 hits, versus 45% for the BB.

    That said, CA/DD over BB purchases aren’t for everyone. For powers with smaller economies, such as ANZAC or Italy, or when the UK begins rebuilding the Royal Navy after G1, I think CA/DD is a solid buy.

  • 2023 '22 '21 '20 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Well, I’d agree with you that buying a single naked BB rarely makes sense – BBs are strongest when they can be used as the capstone of a larger, more diverse navy.

    I’ve been known to buy CA + DD for the Brits in Anniversary, where the British fleet can just project monstrous power out of the English Channel – you’re threatening France, Norway, Berlin, Poland, etc. all from the same sea zone, and many of those territories come with large national objectives attached.

    And in a social game of Balanced Mod Global, where I’m aiming to have fun more than I’m aiming to win, I could see buying CA + DD + Marine for Italy or Australia, just because Marines are a cool unit, and sometimes your economy means that you can’t afford a second loaded transport, but you can afford one loaded transport plus one marine, and that extra oomph will get you over the finish line to take Cairo or Singapore or whatever.

    In Classic Global, though, I just don’t see it – if there is enough of an aerial threat that you need the DD+CA at all, then you probably need a massive fleet that includes at least one fully loaded carrier, and if you don’t have the cash to drop that fleet all at once, then it’s better to save up for a turn and buy the fleet next turn.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

44

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts