Naval Units: what is worth buying?

[toblerone77]

Yeah I’ve done stuff similar to that. After doing some reading around here I see alot of folks thinking along the same lines. I think the root cause of subs not being so hot is that the added destroyers to other AA games as, I suspect…a gimmick, without thinking it through well enough. Now it looks like DDs will be attack capable cannon fodder and the no defense TRN ? Well I’ll have to see how it all plays out in reality.

I think they should’ve had convoy zones from AAE incorperated into AA50. Let subs defend against air, and kept the 1 DEF for TRNs.

[tin_snips]

i’ve never played any of the off-shoot games (being AAE, AAP, and AAG). what do these ‘convoy zones’ entail?

[Romulus]

I am happy with the no defense TRNs and with the DD as backbone of the fleet.

Gaining the uper hand on the sea is no more a question of how many TRNs one have in a fleet. TRNs where too good as they were: amphibious landing capability, transport to friendly territories, cannon fodder and also defend at 1! Naval battle were fought by the warships not by the transport ships. A single ship doing all the task is too much Risk-like IMHO.

Now, I see the need for a more balanced fleet with each ship aimed to a task. Only the DD is slightly “overpowered” in terms of abilities. Before we toss in house rules, however, we should really test the gameplay.

[toblerone77]

It’s been along time since I played AAE. But there were SZs that you could capture that took away money from the allies, just like a land territory.

[Volkov]

Being a battleship junkie I go all battleships, and usually I play Japan, so with the 41 setup I have 3 CVs to boot. I will build 1 DD for its anti submarine ability but basically only BBs, and I have never been let down in this new edition. My usual opponent loves a good naval battle so he goes all navy with the US. He has tried many combinations of ships against me but my old two hit ironsides have always pulled through

Speaking now, a little more objectively, I don’t see a worth for cruisers. When I am playing I want to build them, they are new and exciting (I don’t have guadalcanal so this is my first exposure to them) But running it in my head, battleships seem so much more worth while when you are already putting that much down for a naval ship.

[toblerone77]

Cruisers seem to be one of those things you buy when you want a battleship and a bomber but can’t afford both and donforget that you can do naval bombardment withthe cruiser. It’s maybe like buying that last infantry or buying a pack of gum in the checkout line :-D

[Black_Elk]

Convoys are easiest and most direct way to make capital ships (and the naval game in general) more relevant. They are straight forward and require only a limited amount of stats tracking, since all the values are written directly on the board.

The second easiest way to give fleets a value outside of defending transports or bombarding, is to have subs doing economic damage. There are number of proposals for how this might be accomplished, but the essential idea is that subs can take IPCs away from the enemy in some fashion.

If we lowered the cost for all naval units that would definitely be fun, but bombardment has to be taken into consideration too. If you make cruisers or battleships too cheap, then the effect of bombardment starts to become heavily magnified. I tested the design concept in a TripleA game the Great War with battleships at 18 ipc, and bombardment ended up breaking the set up (this without cruiser bombardment mind you.) So if we did drop the price of all the ships, then the easiest way to deal with that problem would be to just nerf the bombardment value: down to 2 for the cruiser, and 3 for the battleship. I prefer convoys though for easy of use though. They are the simplest to work with and don’t require much additional overhead with the rules.

In AA50 bombers are my favorite naval unit so far :-D

[Uncle_Joe]

In AA50 bombers are my favorite naval unit so far

Yeah, unfortunately, I think they are a little bit TOO good at sea combat (for the new cheaper, price). They hit harder than anything but a BB and they have a LOT of range. They make it difficult to keep fleets alive and they kind of obviate the need for fleets of your own for the attack.

I really think Bombers should attack at a 3, not 4, at least for naval combat (and in keeping with simplicity, just go with 3 and be done with it).

Maybe in a few more games I’ll start to see some reason not to build bombers, but at the moment they are a VERY strong unit for 12 IPCs.

[TG Moses VI]

I really think Bombers should attack at a 3, not 4, at least for naval combat (and in keeping with simplicity, just go with 3 and be done with it).

What makes them any different from Fighters, except for the longer range then?

Is 2 extra IPCs really worth 2 spaces and at a decrease in defense by 3?

[Uncle_Joe]

Is 2 extra IPCs really worth 2 spaces and at a decrease in defense by 3

I think so, yes. Its 33% more ‘firepower’ and 50% more range for 2 IPCs. Thats really a bargain. Throw in that you can turn enemy econ into mush on occasion and whats not to like? ;)

The big thing is the range for me, though. With Bombers in England, you can threaten anything west of the central Med at sea. In the Pacific, Bombers based in Western US can hit the Japanese homewaters and then land in China/Russia (until those fall). On the island, they have a huge sphere of attack as well. In those situation (and many others), the decreased defense is almost meaningless.

Whether or not they are ‘too good’ remains to be seen, but they are existing in large numbers in most of our games so far.

[TG Moses VI]

Quote
Is 2 extra IPCs really worth 2 spaces and at a decrease in defense by 3

I think so, yes. Its 33% more ‘firepower’ and 50% more range for 2 IPCs. Thats really a bargain. Throw in that you can turn enemy econ into mush on occasion and whats not to like? Wink

I made my that comment assuming we had decreased the bomber’s attack to 3 like you said.  So you wouldn’t have 33% more firepower.

[Silent Observer]

noone would buy bombers with 3 in attack. everyone would buy the more flexible fighter or for naval battles, a cruiser which would also help you in defense. how many bought a bomber i revised? well, with 3 attack, they are a worse deal than that.

[Bardoly]

Bombers are WAY better than Fighters in all aspects other than the following:

1. Defense on land.
   The Bomber is weaker than the Fighter, but with the extra range, it can usually get back to a safer position than the Fighters can, and since neither can land on newly captured territory, as long as your Bombers land behind the front lines, they are rarely in danger of ever having to roll for defense.  Usually the only times that Bombers ever roll Defense is when other Bombers (or sometimes Fighters) are attacking them.  For land defense, 3 Infantry or 2 Tanks are quite better than Fighters, so why ever buy Fighters in a land war?

2. Defense on Carriers.
   Fighters are the “Queen” of Fleet defense, so if you are building fleets, then you will be purchasing some of them, but at 34 IPCs for a fully loaded AC, versus 3 Bombers for 36 IPCs, I would much rather be the attacking player with 3 Bombers.  For an extra 2 IPCs, the odds are that you kill the fully loaded AC at a loss of 2 Bombers.  That’s trading 24 IPCs for 34.  Keep that up and you’ll win the game.

[Silent Observer]

Remember that the fighters on a carrier can also help you in the attacking part of the game. Be it land wars or a naval battle.

[jeffdestroyer]

@Bardoly:

Bombers are WAY better than Fighters in all aspects other than the following:

1. Defense on land.
   The Bomber is weaker than the Fighter, but with the extra range, it can usually get back to a safer position than the Fighters can, and since neither can land on newly captured territory, as long as your Bombers land behind the front lines, they are rarely in danger of ever having to roll for defense.  Usually the only times that Bombers ever roll Defense is when other Bombers (or sometimes Fighters) are attacking them.  For land defense, 3 Infantry or 2 Tanks are quite better than Fighters, so why ever buy Fighters in a land war?

2. Defense on Carriers.
   Fighters are the “Queen” of Fleet defense, so if you are building fleets, then you will be purchasing some of them, but at 34 IPCs for a fully loaded AC, versus 3 Bombers for 36 IPCs, I would much rather be the attacking player with 3 Bombers.  For an extra 2 IPCs, the odds are that you kill the fully loaded AC at a loss of 2 Bombers.  That’s trading 24 IPCs for 34.  Keep that up and you’ll win the game.

Fig are good in land war for mobility (moving 4 spaces vs 2 for tanks to supplement a distant force for a turn that may be destroyerd without help) Reinforcements may be a turn away. Fig can help hold the line.

[toblerone77]

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

[Bardoly]

@toblerone77:

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

Not too much in the games that my group has been playing.  I’ll just send in the Bombers with a few Subs/Destroyers thrown in if I need fodder, and if we are playing with tech, and the Bombers ever go Heavy, then I don’t even need fodder.  This has happened in most of the games which we have played.

I do agree with you though, that for naval purchases if you must make them, that loaded ACs with a few fodder pieces (Destroyers if going against an air force, or Subs/Destroyers if going against a navy) are the best.

[toblerone77]

I think it really depends on what side you’re playing and what stage of the of the game you’re in. My tactic in the early stages as the US I like to use CV task forces to island hop. I haven’t played AA50 even though I just got it. I’m going to try incorporating cruisers more into the game. I think alot of folks are already writing them off whereas I think they may have some value as a ‘poor man’s’ battleship.

I personally think the US/Jap/Ger are ideal for the sub/bomber combo. Ger especially in the early stages. I think it’s essential for Ger to preserve it’s luftwaffe as much as possible in any version of the game.

[TG Moses VI]

I do  agree with you though, that for naval purchases if you must make them, that loaded ACs with a few fodder pieces (Destroyers if going against an air force, or Subs/Destroyers if going against a navy) are the best.

Exactly.  The exacted value for 3 bombers attacking 1 carrier + 2 fighters is positive, making it a worthwhile attack.  However, back that Carrier group with a destroyer or gasp a battleship and the expected return on 3-4 bombers goes way down.

[AxisOfEvil]

@toblerone77:

Carriers and fighters are the best combo as far as I’m concerned on offense or defense.

I’ll guarantee a CV/FIG combo with destroyers will make most think twice about using bombers. :evil:

I would attack 1 AC and 2 fighters with 3 bombers. Would i attack 2 battleships with 3 bombers? Umm hell no! And against the AC + fighters, if i throw in a 6 ipc sub, now I have an 1 in 3 chance in every round of combat that i dont even need to kill the fighters. I just sink the AC, step back and watch them die? Do battelships have that vulnerability? no sir.