• Sooo, does anyone really use Cruisers in this version either? I believe the popular consensus in AA50 was that CAs were a bit overpriced and should probably have been 11 (or maybe even 10). So how about in A&AP40? When I first saw the changes I figured they’d be more popular. After all, there are more IPCs in the game and BB’s suffered a hit due to not being able to auto-heal between fights. Also, since ranges are longer, bombers are often not as available for attacks. That should mean that CAs would be more attractive.

    But I have seen maybe just a handful built in 8 games of A&AP40 so far. They still dont seem to have a real role yet. They are too expensive to use as pickets (so DDs are better there), they dont detect subs (again, a nod to the DD), and Shore Bombardment is weaker than ever (a single ‘scrambling’ plane or DD present can prevent a whole fleet from bombarding). So with all of those against them they just never seem to cut it when it’s time to purchase units. It seems like everything they can do, something else can do more efficiently.

    I like the concept of having the Cruisers but I can’t justify that 12 IPC cost. Maybe if you could ‘hold out’ units from walkover naval attacks for bombardment? If that were the case then they might see more use. What else would make CAs more attractive to use? Just a price drop? I think 10 would probably be fine, personally.

    Thoughts on CAs?

  • '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '13 '10

    They are nice in a naval on naval combat.


  • Mabey cause Tack Bombers to defend on 4!!!

    And possibly cost 11.


  • They are absolute junk, destroyers are better in every way except shore bombard, and carrier planes are better than shore bombard along with carriers being much better at defending your tranports.

    I think cruisers should be changed to a 2/3 unit for 10, still bombarding on a 2 or a 3.  Or, allow them to transport an INF and forgoe the bombard or something.  Maybe in europe if your fleet is safe from enemy air they will be worth it, but I highly doubt it.


  • Yes cruisers are worthless….
    CA 3,3, cost 12 one HP
    BB 4,4, cost 20 two HP

    Maybe cruisers should get an anti-aircraft roll when defending a fleet.
    Allow transports to defend at one again.
    Carry infantry.
    move three.
    Or some other ability to justify why the cost more than 1/2 a battleship while taking half the damage.
    They just need SOMETHING.

  • '10

    If you can’t afford a BB - your next choice is a CA.

    The CAs are attractive for the Americans and the Japanese to protect a single transport on a raid for an island.

    You got the shore-bombardement capacity and your enemy must send min. 2 planes to sink this little task group.


  • Or a single sub would give 'em a 50% chance to win, 2 subs and its game over for that little cruiser.  I think 2 subs even have odds defending against a cruiser but not 100% on that.

    It is better to compare the cruiser to the destroyer, for 24 you could have 2 cruiser or 3 destroyers, the destroyers are better at everything but shore bombard.  And honestly, if shore bombard is so very important to you, buy a carrier.  You’ll be happy you did.


  • I sometimes purchase the Cruiser in AA50 anniversary edition as either the British or US but not as Japan.  It appears that so far the king of AA PAC40 is the Destroyer, followed by the 2 hit carrier.  Although the Carrier lost it’s combat ability, it was low (1) and being able to take 2 hits far outweighs this.  The problem is that the carriers suffer so much when they are damages, their planes are useless!

    I really like some of the Ideas on here about giving the cruisers a bonus.  I think that 3 moves might mess up some of the game mechanics because of the Naval base move bonus in this game.  Same with allowing transports a defense role.

    I like the AA roll Idea for a cruiser, that was actually used by the US in the War with the radar equipped Atlanta class Anti Aircraft Cruiser (it is reflected also in Axis and Allies War at Sea and the unit gets a bonus against aircraft)

    The real purpose of the cruiser was as a commerce raider, to prey on hapless transports and be able to deal with their lighter escorts like destroyers, frigates, and corvettes.  It was built to be fast enough to outrun the big guns of battleships and not meant for Man of War style slug outs.  They did have some impressive night engagements off of Savo Island (Iron bottom sound) in the Solomans and did plenty of commerce raiding (axis) and shore bombarding (allies) in the Atlantic.

    What about making them a 4/2 unit that still costs 12IPC’s but takes only one hit.


  • Perhaps let them steal 2 from a convoy zone, that would make them a bit more attractive and keeping with there role.


  • Perhaps let them steal 2 from a convoy zone, that would make them a bit more attractive and keeping with there role.

    Interesting.

    I still dont think that alone would encourage me to buy them (2 subs would steal 4 or steal 2 from different zones), but I like the concept.

    Probably the easiest thing would be a cost ‘errata’. The only thing would be to determine if Larry Harris sees something with them that kept him from making the change in the first place. I mean tanks were re-costed to 6 so there has to be some reason why he decided to leave them at 12.

    As it is though, I just dont see it.


  • Correction, I do buy them as USA in AA50 when (if) I get improved Shipyards Technology, when they are only $10, and I try to pair one to a transport for amphibious assaults in the Pacific and Atlantic.


  • His reasoning is the combined att/def value x 2 plus extra if they have abilities.  Half that for land units.

    Subs: 2/1 = 3x2 for 6
    DDs: 2/2 = 4x2 for 8

    and so on, BBs cost more because of the two hit ability, etc.

    Inf, Art, and Arm also follow this pattern.


  • That formula doesnt take into account durability. Everything except BBs and CVs take one hit so low-cost units become much better bargains if the formula only takes stats into account.

    By that fomula, a 6/6 unit will cost 24 IPCs and CLEARLY that would not be worth it at all. The CA is just a cut down version of that same inefficient pattern.

    I think in A&AP40, BBs are also a very inefficient buy but I have less problem with that since by WW2, BBs WERE inefficient. They were useful if you had them, but they really weren’t worth building once at war. CAs were far more cost efficient as escorts and raiders. Unfortunately in the game, they are acually just as inefficient as BBs.

    I stand by 10 for a cost. :)

  • '10

    @Vareel:

    Or a single sub would give 'em a 50% chance to win, 2 subs and its game over for that little cruiser.  I think 2 subs even have odds defending against a cruiser but not 100% on that.

    It is better to compare the cruiser to the destroyer, for 24 you could have 2 cruiser or 3 destroyers, the destroyers are better at everything but shore bombard.  And honestly, if shore bombard is so very important to you, buy a carrier.  You’ll be happy you did.

    Subs give no AA capacity to protect ships and I would be happy if I got the money to buy a CV with planes on it.

    CAs aren’t my first choice, too.

    But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.

    The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.

    So say we all! :-D


  • But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.

    If they cost 11, that would be true and I might be tempted to buy one here and there. But unfortunately they cost 12 which is just too much for what they bring to the table.

    The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.

    IMO, that is the CV’s role. The 4’s of a CVs airgroup are better off to be protected than the 3’s of a CA. In either case you are trading cannon fodder DDs/SSs to preserve the higher priced piece and I’d prefer that to be the 4.


  • @marechallannes:

    CAs aren’t my first choice, too.

    But there are situations you will buy them, or cut one infantry from your production to upgrade a DD to a CA.

    The true strength of the CAs lies in the combination with other ships.

    Many people seem to think all the units should have the same worth!

    I agree with Marechallannes.

    In 2nd Edition many wished for middleweight naval units, and now we have 2 to choose from.
    Sure 1 might be better, but the cruiser has its place.

    Some seem to think, “I would rather have 12DD vs. 8Crz.” But how many times does a player buy just 1 type of naval unit and in that volume.
    It’s not like all of our naval units are rolling every turn.  Some times there is one epic battle, 1shot that makes all the difference, one roll of a 3 instead of a 2.
    In one game of AA50 I only had IPCs left (after my only must have buys) for 1 cruiser and not 2DD.
    Did this purchase change the buys, attacks, or plans of the other player?
    This type of strategy CANNOT be valued by math.

    I think the cruiser @12ipc is fine.  If you think you forced your opponent to buy and cruiser, then sit back and smile. As for myself, I am glad the unit is there when needed.


  • I have three ideas for improving the value of the cruiser.

    As someone already said, give it an AA dice roll at the beginning of the attack.  Just like AA guns though, two cruisers doesn’t give you two rolls.

    Second, let cruisers detect submarines.  Now I will buy some cruisers because I don’t have to have a DD all the time to deal with subs.

    Third, give cruisers resiliance too so they get two hits.  Now we’re talking!  If you make that rule, you will see a mess of cruisers to soak up hits in the next battle.

    Destroyers have a 2/2 strength, do anti-sub warfare, provide a “hit”, and have AA capability.  Cruisers need a little something more than a 3/3 strength, shore bombard, provide a “hit”, and AA capability.

    Numerically, Destroyers have a strength of 2/2 and cost $8.  Cruisers are 3/3 and cost $12.  The fact that a unit soaks up a hit has to be factored in to arrive at a real value.  Infantry are 1/2 units and cost $3.  Tanks are 3/3 units and cost $6, but also have a movement value of 2.  The mech infantry is a 1/2 unit with a movement of 2 and a cost of $4.  Clearly the infantry has some value factored in as cannon fodder.  The cost relationship between a cruiser and a destroyer does not take this into account.

    Give cruisers resilience and they will be bought to soak up hits.  Destroyers will be bought to do anti-sub and AA dice.  Battleships will not be bought.  Subs will be bought in a small qty to do comerce raiding and soak up some hits from navy attacks.  Carriers will be bought to carry airplanes.  It all sounds right to me.


  • @dinosaur:

    Give cruisers resilience and they will be bought to soak up hits.  Destroyers will be bought to do anti-sub and AA dice. Battleships will not be bought.  Subs will be bought in a small qty to do comerce raiding and soak up some hits from navy attacks.  Carriers will be bought to carry airplanes.  It all sounds right to me.

    Would changing the cruiser shift most of the complaints to Battleships then?


  • Honestly I doubt I will ever buy a battleship in the new games.  They’d have to go down to 16 cost for me to even consider them.  Making my new list of ‘don’t buy’ to cruisers, battleships, armor, and tac bombers, except in the rarest of circumstances.  Kinda sad to me really.


  • @Vareel:

    Honestly I doubt I will ever buy a battleship in the new games.  They’d have to go down to 16 cost for me to even consider them.  Making my new list of ‘don’t buy’ to cruisers, battleships, armor, and tac bombers, except in the rarest of circumstances.  Kinda sad to me really.

    Can you explain your don’t buy list? Seriously, I am very interested.

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

42

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts