Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.
Cruisers
-
@mantlefan:
The problem is that you state without any real justification or consideration that the 12 IPC must be spent on fleet. 4 IPC can be used for some good things elsewhere, no?
Oh, please. Yes, he wanted to protect his fleet and 4 IPC spent on an artillery unit doesn’t do that! Duh! No transports, no getting units off the island!
Creating situations that ignore relevant facts (such as the fact that IPC can be used elsewhere and the point in the game when cruisers would actualy really start ot pay off). to make cruisers seem more useful really doesn’t address any potentially helpful issue.
Oh, and you’re helpful. You just like to argue.
Using cruisers one already has effectively and BUYING cruisers are separate issues. Obviously if one already has it they should maximize its utility. In terms of it being too late for the opponent to attack your navy it’s true that it destroyers do no good, but at that point even though cruisers do marginally more good,it doesn’t MATTER.
Yes, you’re right until the last statement. It does matter, because in Global you could be losing in one theater and winning in the other, and you need to win in that theater fast. Cruisers will help you win the game there. Destroyers will not.
It’s also annoying how your case that seems like cruisers are a better buy 1% of the time is somehow totally dismissive of them being a bad buy 99% of the time.
I disagree with the premise that cruisers are a bad buy 99% of the time.
That % where it is a bad buy pretty much means we have a unit which is effectifely useless to buy, which I guess is similar to AA guns, so it’s not inherently bad, but, if you look at how often crusiers are bought, and think there is value in having more types of units, then it might be helpful to at least admit that it might be a good thing that cruisers might be more useful.
Why are you talking here? We don’t make the rules. Go talk to Larry. Meanwhile, I will enjoy the opportunity to buy cruisers occasionally and you will continue to “suffer”, I guess. Jeez, man. Get over it.
Just because they are not TOTALLY useless buys doesn’t mean they are not EFFECTIVELY useless buys. I don’t want to sandbag the game with too many more changes, but getting cruisers more useful is a valid wish because they are effectively useless buys, and the more options the player has, the better.
<sigh> Look, do you realize I don’t care if I convince anyone? I don’t care if you don’t listen to me. I understand you just badly want to feel good about buying cruisers. Sorry, don’t feel like reiterating all the points I’ve made on other threads. But basically, there is more to think about than 8 vs. 12, as I already stated and you apparently ignored. Talk about not helpful, you don’t address any of the issues I raise, you just come out and state like it’s a proven fact that “one percent of the time” cruisers are a good buy.
There are situations. Limited production situations are one example. When your factory is damaged, cruisers cost 13 and destroyers cost 9. Some people play with tech. You get 2 IPC’s off a cruiser and 1 off a destroyer. So if you have imp shipyards and your factory is damaged, you’re looking at 8 for a destroyer, and 11 for a cruiser. There are different situations. How about the limited production situations? You have a factory that can only produce 3 units and you want fleet power. You don’t have fighters in the area, and you just need enough to protect a transport against a bomber. Do you want to buy a destroyer? A cruiser? A battleship? Nice to have the cruiser option.
Did you not read anything I wrote about the subs and aircraft issues? No, you just come out and say 99% of the time cruisers are a bad buy. How helpful. I’ll tell you what’s annoying, is people like you who just like to argue online. You just enjoy bashing people’s opinions, and it’s ironic that you say I’m not being helpful when that’s all I’m trying to do, and I’m providing discussion about various game situations, and you just come in and lob criticisms.
Easier to throw rocks at sand castles then to build them, I guess. And for many, it’s more fun. :roll:
I’m not putting my thoughts out there for the purpose of argument. I’m putting them out there for people to consider and talk about.</sigh>
-
Some units are useless to some people. I’ve seen people claiming tanks were useless as well.
I don’t care when they’re useful to me and Crusiers have plenty of usage for me. I have no issue with them costing 12. The 3/3 factor and bombard ability alone makes them useful and are always a part of my fleets whether I play Allied or Axis. -
Meh, I guess I’ll House Rule em to 11.
-
I’m on top of the AA50 league standings. I play to have fun and to win, and I do both all the time.
Guess that league isn’t that competitive then.
Funny, I figured there would be a discussion as to how to best adjust cruisers to make them more useful. You could reduce the cost, improve their ability, etc. Never really though anyone would argue that they are fine since ITS SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
But then again, all I have to do is watch C-SPAN to see people arguing against the obvious. Then a whole bunch of people vote for these idiots.
-
@Zallomallo:
Meh, I guess I’ll House Rule em to 11.
yeah, in my house we turn them up to 11 too, cause 11 is louder than 10.
-
@Zallomallo:
Meh, I guess I’ll House Rule em to 11.
yeah, in my house we turn them up to 11 too, cause 11 is louder than 10.
I don get it
-
I’m not so sure lowering the cost of cruisers to 11 or 10 is a good idea. Basically, right now we just have the cruiser and I think most people kind of consider it the heavy cruiser. What happens if we put light cruisers in the game? Then they will more than likely cost 10 or 11 and regular, or heavy, cruisers will have to cost 12. As for doing something to increase their abilities, perhaps make cruisers like a naval AA gun; during first round of combat, they get a shot of 1 at attacking enemy planes and any hits are immediately removed.
I’m glad we got cruisers. It’s nice to have something in between destroyers and battleships and I think it makes our fleets more complete. I don’t believe that cruisers are a “bad buy” 95% or 99% of the time. I think it depends totally on the situation and what you are trying to do at that time. In some cases, yeah it would be horrible to throw a cruiser in there. In others, you specifically want them. I really don’t think you can just label them with a certain percentage.
-
@Zallomallo:
@Zallomallo:
Meh, I guess I’ll House Rule em to 11.
yeah, in my house we turn them up to 11 too, cause 11 is louder than 10.
I don get it
I was trying to quote Spinal Tap
-
I’m not so sure lowering the cost of cruisers to 11 or 10 is a good idea. Basically, right now we just have the cruiser and I think most people kind of consider it the heavy cruiser. What happens if we put light cruisers in the game? Then they will more than likely cost 10 or 11 and regular, or heavy, cruisers will have to cost 12. As for doing something to increase their abilities, perhaps make cruisers like a naval AA gun; during first round of combat, they get a shot of 1 at attacking enemy planes and any hits are immediately removed.
I’m glad we got cruisers. It’s nice to have something in between destroyers and battleships and I think it makes our fleets more complete. I don’t believe that cruisers are a “bad buy” 95% or 99% of the time. I think it depends totally on the situation and what you are trying to do at that time. In some cases, yeah it would be horrible to throw a cruiser in there. In others, you specifically want them. I really don’t think you can just label them with a certain percentage.
i agree, the “bad buy percentage” is just a bunch of bollocks.
Even if there is a 5% “Best buy”, that doesn’t imply 95% is “bad/worst buy” (or whatever%). Stop thinking black or white, people. That whole discussion is nonsense.
As Gamerman pointed out with several examples, a cruiser can be useful.
Will it be bought often? No. Does that make it an obsolete unit? No!There could be house ruling to make it more spicy, such as for example (like a TB) to give it a 4/3 when pairing it with a fighter (or another unit). Or to make it 11 IPC (does 1 IPC really make that much difference?).
-
LOL I love how people go on and whine about how cruisers aren’t the most effective buy.
What about some countries, like RUSSIA, who never get to buy navy in any serious fashion?
Or the Chinese, who are limited to men / arty, and lastly the French, who NEVER get to even do a buy!?
There is a time and place for everything. Infact, when’s the last time someone bought a battleship? I’m guessing almost never.Germany/Italy certainly can’t, UK I doubt it… Japan maybe… USA most likely. Everyone else can forget it.
And why would I EVER build a destroyer? if my opponent is never building subs? It can’t be used to bombard - and it’s less effective on defense… in come the cruiser.
-
LOL I love how people go on and whine about how cruisers aren’t the most effective buy.
What about some countries, like RUSSIA, who never get to buy navy in any serious fashion?
Or the Chinese, who are limited to men / arty, and lastly the French, who NEVER get to even do a buy!?
There is a time and place for everything. Infact, when’s the last time someone bought a battleship? I’m guessing almost never.Germany/Italy certainly can’t, UK I doubt it… Japan maybe… USA most likely. Everyone else can forget it.
And why would I EVER build a destroyer? if my opponent is never building subs? It can’t be used to bombard - and it’s less effective on defense… in come the cruiser.
lol my usa bought like 47 battleships(not really, more like 3)
-
And why would I EVER build a destroyer? if my opponent is never building subs? It can’t be used to bombard - and it’s less effective on defense… in come the cruiser.
Actually destroyers are, cost-wise, superior to cruisers on defense. Not saying that cruisers are useless. I like them.
-
What about giving it a movement of 3?
Most cruisers were designed for speed and range. The naval bases might eliminate a lot of need for the extra space, but could still be useful and a little more historically accurate at the same time.
-
LOL I love how people go on and whine about how cruisers aren’t the most effective buy.
What about some countries, like RUSSIA, who never get to buy navy in any serious fashion?
Or the Chinese, who are limited to men / arty, and lastly the French, who NEVER get to even do a buy!?
There is a time and place for everything. Infact, when’s the last time someone bought a battleship? I’m guessing almost never.Germany/Italy certainly can’t, UK I doubt it… Japan maybe… USA most likely. Everyone else can forget it.
And why would I EVER build a destroyer? if my opponent is never building subs? It can’t be used to bombard - and it’s less effective on defense… in come the cruiser.
Who are you playing with? In my games Germany, Italy, UK and Japan often build Battleships…As subs are highly effective and always on the board, you’re Carriers have to be protected with Destroyers…
Nevertheless point taken on
It can’t be used to bombard - and it’s less effective on defense… in come the cruiser
-
we use cruisers all the time in our games. especially in the naval battles of the pacific war. and in the atlantic the brits buy em along with a few dds. if you want to overwhelm your opponent naval wise then go with the Cruiser destroyer combo, its good against subs and has 2 rolls of attack/defense unlike the battleship who has one. yes they take 2 to destroy but it cant do everything the CA/DD combo can do
-
There’s only one thing that’s TRUE in Axis and Allies.
You need a little bit of everything to win.
-
I think that the designers and developers knew what they were doing when they put them in the line-up, give them some credit. They work well for me when I’m the UK. they can make my dd’s less prone to aircraft attacks. Compare adv. to disad. not good against the sub sneak attack VS att & def at 3
I think that when they put them in it, it brought the cost of subs and trans down……here is a challenge land in the USA with Ger somewhere between G3 and G7.Keep up the posts its good to see all the diff points of views
-
This argument is silly… It seems that both sides agree that cruisers are not as effective as destroyers for the majority of the situations that arise in the game. The statistics that are being thrown around (95%-5%) are completely arbitrary, and not really based on any facts. I’ve played about 20 games of alpha 2 and I’ve found cruisers to be useful in quite a few situations every game. My anzac builds 3 or 4 cruisers every game unless Japan targets their bonuses. I feel cruisers are a great buy for London once you’ve secured the Atlantic and begin landing in Germany. The Americans and Japanese certainly get more use out of destroyers in the pacific, as does Italy and England in the Mediterranean. If the game didn’t have and sea zones and you just bought as many boats as you could afford every turn and rolled out battles than yes destroyers are better than cruisers every time. But the game doesn’t work that way…
-
So lets see, because some people buy them that means they must be useful. So, if you see people jumping off a bridge, you follow? Must be a good idea.
How about this? We have a unit called a Battlecruiser. It will cost 12 points, hits on a 3, takes one hit, and can bombard. I bet you guys will think this is better than a cruiser.
This stuff just isn’t that difficult. I’d hate to see you guys try to analyze something complicated.
So hey, leave the cruiser as is. Feel free to buy as many as you want. Just makes it easier for the rest of us to win.
-
So lets see, because some people buy them that means they must be useful. So, if you see people jumping off a bridge, you follow? Must be a good idea.
How about this? We have a unit called a Battlecruiser. It will cost 12 points, hits on a 3, takes one hit, and can bombard. I bet you guys will think this is better than a cruiser.
This stuff just isn’t that difficult. I’d hate to see you guys try to analyze something complicated.
So hey, leave the cruiser as is. Feel free to buy as many as you want. Just makes it easier for the rest of us to win.
How is that argument any different that what you’re trying to say. So because some people don’t buy them, they must be pointless.
Perhaps the people jumping off the bridge are bungy jumping and can see the fun in it, but to others it seems pointless.Could be the people using them have seen their usefulness and use them to win.
Suggested Topics
