Cruisers were a big factor in the change. We found in playtesting that nearly all of the island battles in the Pacific were being decided by naval gunfire. The defenders never even had a chance. At least this way they have a chance to go down fighting.
I can see the rationale, I just don’t like going back to the way we did it in classic. Especially since, unlike in classic, you have to have a unit conducting an amphibious assault to even fire a shore bombardment. That means you cannot pile up 40 cruisers and land one infantry to wipe out stacks of defenders. Now you’d have to land 40 ground units for all 40 of those cruisers to fire.
I think the change to 1 amphibiously attacking unit per shore bombardment would have been enough. Now things are unbalanced in the opposite direction.
Just my opinion though.
I have to disagree… anyone using an amphibious assault the way they are intended will be fine… making an amphibious assault with more naval units than land units makes no sense. The issue comes up… why even defend pacific islands, when they will be blown apart by cannons, then enemies just walk right in. Right now, amphibious assault support is support, not a battle breaker… the way it should be IMO.