No thank you, I don’t have the time. So you’re reducing the IPC value of Japan whilst giving fixed bonuses? Hmm, that does limit Japan’s options and would definitely be a slight nerf.
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
-
A Wild Bill’s post discussing about giving Cruiser various additional capacities such as ASW:
Agreed, I wouldn’t look only at the cost (24 ipc) of DD vs Ca (3 DD vs 2 CA). You need to look more at how each piece fits into your fleet, and the functions you need. If Germany is going sub crazy, then build DD’s. If you already have superiority of the waters, then you start building CA for bombardment, and fleet protection. You wouldn’t send a lone CA to block out the enemy fleet (unless you have no other options), that is the job of the DD. You might send a CA to escort a transport over sending a DD however (more fire power). The CA is a supplement ship for the rich economies, but is the poor mans BB for Anz, Italy, and UK.
I have house ruled in AA for CA in AA 50 in a couple different ways. I haven’t tried it w/G40 because you can get more fleet protection through scrambling. IMO CA AA ends up being an allied advantage especially in Europe in latter rounds. Once axis loose the water battle, it will cost axis more air power. Of course you could argue the axis wouldn’t loose control w/CA AA.
The CA having ASW is interesting (either DD/CA be on a 1:1 bases w/subs). I’m not crazy about 1 DD finding several subs in the sz. When you also factor in CA ASW allowing air to target subs it may be over the top. I will say though unless you are super stacking, subs are normally spread out amongst several sz’s. As Germany I wouldn’t have all my eggs in one basket so you often have 1 DD vs 1 sub anyways. The other point is would CA getting this DD exclusive ability make the DD less attractive. Then would we be talking about DD’s being too expensive? One simple change could upset the food chain.
I would think that CA’s getting either AA, or ASW could end up being an allied advantage in the long run. Face it it’s the allies that go sub searching, and have to protect their fleets from axis air at some point. Plus CA AA could have a profound affect on the opening round when you consider Germany’s opening move on the British fleet, or the UK vs Italians in the Med. There are quite a few CA’s on the board to start.
If the CA truly is over priced (I’m not convinced) maybe lowering it to 11 ipc, or giving it +1 in movement (its own unique action) could be looked at. I don’t think it should be able to move 4 spaces from port, but maybe a 3 space max from anywhere (even if a port is damaged). Even that could end up being mostly a US thing, but Japan would make good use of it too in the Pacific. The CA raider idea of convoy @ 2 ipc is interesting (has merit). Is that just borrowing a unique characteristic from yet another unit. Plus a sub in a convoy would need a DD to hunt it down, a lone CA would be a sitting duck, but at least it can def @ 3. This would come more into play when you move an entire fleet to the convoy zone, but then you probably don’t need the +1 convoy attack because the zone is maxed out (again an allied advantage?).
Last edited by WILD BILL on Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=16
-
The 3 move for Cruisers ( or 4 if leaving a port) represents their extended cruising range, which is tremendous compered to other ships.
The AA capability has been noted numerous times. Entire classes of Cruisers have existed in WW2 as platforms for AA guns in an effort to protect and escoprt Carriers. No other ship can match the range of a Carrier or her speed with suitable firepower.
The two hit reasoning is also valid since Battlecruisers or Heavy Cruisers had good armor plating. However, the cost would go up if this attribute was allowed.
Another option could be to make them a 4-3 unit
The best idea is to keep them at 11 IPC and +1 move, and 1 AA roll at start of combat (in addition to their combat roll)
If you take the third option the cost must be 14ipc-16ipc
-
Hi IL,
thanks for your additional contribution.
I am amazed by the number of posts you have made and the wide range of solutions you introduced on this cruiser issue over the time.
I really wonder why none of this ideas could make it through and be part of the OOB G40 2nd Ed.I can just see that Larry finally introduce the M3 cruiser in 1914.
Hope it can, at least, be part of an upgraded version in G40 or 1942.Another question on your post:
Another option could be to make them a 4-3 unit
If you take the third option the cost must be 14ipc-16ipcWere you talking about the regular Cruiser at 12 IPCs, making it A4D3M2C12?
Or the Heavy cruiser at 14-16 IPCs without the 2 hits, making it A4D3M2C14?In addition, I’m not sure about what you mean on the third option, would you be more specific, please.
-
The best idea is to keep them at 11 IPC and +1 move, and 1 AA roll at start of combat (in addition to their combat roll)
What make you so sure about the reduced price at 11 IPCs?
A Cruiser A3D3M3C12, 1 hit, with 1 preemptive AA@1 seems having enough sideway advantage to make it interesting even if the cruiser is still less optimize buying on a combat value vs cost ratio against Subs, DDs, CVs and BBs.
No?
-
Were you talking about the regular Cruiser at 12 IPCs, making it A4D3M2C12?
Or the Heavy cruiser at 14-16 IPCs without the 2 hits, making it A4D3M2C14?Not talking about making a new piece, rather that to justify the OOB price, you may find that increasing the attack value at 4, will balance out this cost.
If you gave it a 2 hit capability ( kept everything else the same) the cost would need to go up to the 14-16 range
In addition, I’m not sure about what you mean on the third option, would you be more specific, please.
Third option is to make it a 2 hit unit
-
@Imperious:
Not talking about making a new piece, rather that to justify the OOB price, you may find that increasing the attack value at 4, will balance out this cost.
If you gave it a 2 hit capability ( kept everything else the same) the cost would need to go up to the 14-16 range
Thanks for the fast reply,
Giving 2 hits for 14 or 15 IPCs will make the Cruiser cheaper and stronger than Battleship (on the same IPCs basis comparison), making it virtually obsolete from a play-balance game POV.
It can still be a personal HR choice, for historical similarity with the building rate of BB during WWII (near zero).
About the increase attack value @4, do you have an opinion on the Shore bombardment?
Keeping it @3 or following the attack value @4? -
The Cruiser balance question has always been interesting to me, here are my thoughts….
One can go in two directions… lower the price, or justify the price with a new special attribute, I personally lean toward the latter. The price dilemma gets tricky if you consider making the cost of building a Cruiser, equal to the cost of building an air unit (understanding the idea of 1 plane equaling a squadron etc…). Also, it compels people to change the whole price index of everything else just to bring a sea unit into a proper comparison price with all other units. Although I like the simplicity of changing the price, I honestly don’t believe that players will buy more if they are $10 instead of $12. If you consider what a battleship can do for $20, or even what half a battleship can do for $10, a single Cruiser just doesn’t measure up. Therefore, I like the idea of adding a special attribute to Cruisers while leaving their cost at $12.
As for the many special attributes that can be given to Cruisers that will enviably result in players purchasing more… there are a lot of variables that could automatically push them into the realm of overpowering. The largest variable to consider is the problem of giving Cruisers something that will completely alter how players view opening strategies. Although we all want Cruisers to be purchased more often, and have them be a vital part of our ultimate war effort, the truth is that there are many already on the board. Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
About a year ago, I was speaking with a friend at work who happens to be a regular player at my bunker, and he had what I considered at the time to be a flash of genius when he said…
**Cruisers attack @4 when paired with a Battleship. **
Here’s what I love about this idea…
1. It’s simple
2. It uses a game mechanic that already exists within the game (combined arms).
3. It benefits newly purchased Cruisers much more than those already on the board.
4. It’s battle accurate considering the enemies concentration on destroying the powerful Battleships first.and finally…
5. It’s simple
Here’s the only question left… is it enough to make a Cruiser worth $12?
-
Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
It is only partially true.
All options which require a combined arms of cruiser with a carrier to get some AAA defensive capacity will affect only 3 SZs:
UK’s SZ 98: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 tactical bomber)
US’s SZ 10: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
IJN’s SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleshipThe AA bonus for cruiser and carrier will increase as soon as a power can put them together in other turn.
Do you think that this 3 SZs are game-changer and can be attacked in the first turn? -
@Baron:
Do you think that this 3 SZs are game-changer and can be attacked in the first turn?
No… but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns? I believe the defense value of all surface warships already allot for anti aircraft capabilities if we consider the fact that if any surface warship hits while attacking or defending, an air unit may be used as a casualty. By giving Cruisers alone some kind of special AA attribute, it kind of negates the assumption that all surface warships automatically have this ability built in. That’s just my opinion.
-
but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns?
All ships did have AA guns, but the Cruiser because of its speed sacrificed the larger guns and thicker armor plating that you find on say a Battleship in order to create a fast moving ship.
The hull however was large enough to become a platform for lots of lighter guns including AA guns. So while the Cruiser has the advantage of speed it was ideal to make them the perfect escort ships and hence the decision was made to equip them with alot more AA guns than you find on other warship classes.
So on average the Cruiser being an escort ship for Carriers and other ships on average has more AA guns because it needs to keep the weight down in order to have a good speed.
Thats why the USN and some other navy’s had entire classes of Cruisers as AA platforms. Now the Japanese made some of their larger battleships with alot of AA guns, but at that stage they had less Carriers and the USN used Carrier based planes to great effect.
So one attribute for the Cruiser would be 1 aa roll per ship at start of naval combat.
Also, i must clarify the +1 Cruiser move is for non-combat, not combat.
-
So one attribute for the Cruiser would be 1 aa roll per ship at start of naval combat.
Were you giving it in both attacking and defending situation?
So, when a bunch of cruisers are attacking a carriers, they get some AA preemptive strike @1 against planes in addition to there regular A3 roll?
-
As for the many special attributes that can be given to Cruisers that will enviably result in players purchasing more… there are a lot of variables that could automatically push them into the realm of overpowering. The largest variable to consider is the problem of giving Cruisers something that will completely alter how players view opening strategies. Although we all want Cruisers to be purchased more often, and have them be a vital part of our ultimate war effort, the truth is that there are many already on the board. Therefore, all idea’s of giving Cruisers AA capabilities will never fly with purists because their entire G1 strategy will be forever altered. The question is… how do we give newly purchased Cruisers a special attribute while neutralizing the ones in the setup?
**Cruisers attack @4 when paired with a Battleship. **The idea of not altering the opening strategies is a sound principles and should be taken into account for balance purpose.
I have this question, are you sure your combined arms bonus for Cruiser doesn’t fall into this trap?
Because, at first glance, there is much more opportunities than with AA flak combined with carriers:Italy:
SZ 97: 1 transport, 1 cruiser, 1 battleshipGermany:
SZ 113: 1 battleship
SZ 114: 1 transport, 1 cruiserUK:
SZ 110: 1 cruiser, 1 battleship
SZ 111: 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 battleshipSZ 37: 1 Battleship
SZ 39: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiserUSA:
SZ 10: 1 transport, 1 destroyer, 1 cruiser, 1 aircraft carrier (carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleshipJAPAN:
SZ 6: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 2 destroyers, 1 cruiser, 2 aircraft carriers (each carrying 1 fighter and 1 tactical bomber), 1 battleship
SZ 19: 1 transport, 1 submarine, 1 destroyer, 1 battleship
SZ 20: 1 transport, 1 cruiserAnother question, besides the game incentive toward cruiser unit, do you see some kind of historical rationalization behind this combined arms bonus?
-
@Imperious:
but how can we give Cruisers AA capabilities when Battleships and Aircraft Carriers also had Anti Aircraft guns?
All ships did have AA guns, but the Cruiser because of its speed sacrificed the larger guns and thicker armor plating that you find on say a Battleship in order to create a fast moving ship.
The hull however was large enough to become a platform for lots of lighter guns including AA guns. So while the Cruiser has the advantage of speed it was ideal to make them the perfect escort ships and hence the decision was made to equip them with alot more AA guns than you find on other warship classes.So on average the Cruiser being an escort ship for Carriers and other ships on average has more AA guns because it needs to keep the weight down in order to have a good speed.
Thats why the USN and some other navy’s had entire classes of Cruisers as AA platforms. Now the Japanese made some of their larger battleships with alot of AA guns, but at that stage they had less Carriers and the USN used Carrier based planes to great effect.
I really like these historical details.
Hope they are really accurate about average AA platforms between cruisers and battleships. -
I was working under the assumption that in your games like ours, #97, #110, #111, will be exterminated before those ships can be used in an attack role. Germany’s Battleship is always used to help eliminate those sea zones making the Cruiser and Battleship pairing obsolete, as the Battleship will get mopped up during UK1. The Pacific ships are more capable of staying paired, however… I don’t see how this rule can interrupt opening strategies considering the positioning of such units. As for historical importance of the rule, it’s just as much of an abstract strategy game as much as a historical one, the rule was meant to balance the unit cost for game play… that’s all. I figure Cruisers would have time for accuracy in battle if the enemy was focused on engaging the threat of a battleship, that’s about the full extent of the historical relevance of the rule I suppose.
-
Were you giving it in both attacking and defending situation?
only on defense, just like the AA gun
-
I see battleships and, to a lesser extent cruisers, as heavy warships that may not have the variety of capabilities as other units, but in a straight out slug match will smash other ships with bigger guns and armor. The best way to represent this would be to add hit points, but this would also make them cost far more.
Perhaps the battleship could be brought down to 18 IPCs, given the preemptive fire ability in naval combat, but also charge 2 IPCs to repair it (maybe the CV too).
The cruiser could cost eleven IPCs, and then I have the idea of a combined arms rule, so that if a CA (or CL :-D) and transport are attacked together, the transport would have one defense. This would encourage the feel of cruisers as flagships for small task groups, but perhaps make cruisers too defensive? The AA and extra move options also had merit, however.
-
I see battleships and, to a lesser extent cruisers, as heavy warships that may not have the variety of capabilities as other units, but in a straight out slug match will smash other ships with bigger guns and armor. The best way to represent this would be to add hit points, but this would also make them cost far more.
Perhaps the battleship could be brought down to 18 IPCs, given the preemptive fire ability in naval combat, but also charge 2 IPCs to repair it (maybe the CV too).
The cruiser could cost eleven IPCs, and then I have the idea of a combined arms rule, so that if a CA (or CL :-D) and transport are attacked together, the transport would have one defense. This would encourage the feel of cruisers as flagships for small task groups, but perhaps make cruisers too defensive? The AA and extra move options also had merit, however.
If a fee is required, I would probably do it to both carriers and battleships.
This point, makes me think about a way to improve battleship and carriers repair capacity.On a Naval Base, it should be free but, on any friendly SZ which is not empty, it could cost 6-8 IPCs to proceed to repair on the spot in any SZ with some friendly island or adjacent friendly land territory.
This additional cost, could be seen as providing materials via merchant marines to complete repair on a sea port which is not a Naval Base.
The combined arms with transport will alter the game play and be very strong, because transport will get 1 hit value in addition to the D@1. Actually, the defenseless transport rule makes them without any hit capacity.
-
Maybe, one day or another this will come in handy:
American Naval Power
The ability America had to produce almost unlimited war supplies was of major significance during the course of World War Two. Whereas many industrial bases within each war zone were open to bombing, America’s main industrial bases were safe from this. The importance of this industrial productivity was huge in the European and Pacific sectors of the war. Once America had moved close enough to bomb Japan’s factories, Japan had nothing to fall back on. This gave America an enormous advantage in the Pacific and this was most clearly seen in the war at sea. Given the amphibious nature of the war in the Pacific, whoever had superiority at sea was almost certainly going to win the war. The following statistics give some idea of Americas capacity to produce ships when compared to Japan.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 7 battleships and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 2 battle cruisers and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 17 aircraft carriers and Japan produced 12.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 42 escort carriers and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 4 heavy cruisers and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 21 light cruisers and Japan produced 6.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 246 destroyers and Japan produced 27.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 315 destroyer escorts and Japan produced 0.
Between 1941 and 1943, America produced 122 submarines and Japan produced 74.
In total during these years America produced 776 vessels for her Pacific fleets while Japan produced 119. While America also needed naval shipping for the European sector of war, the vast bulk of her navy was used in the Pacific conflict. Such an overwhelming superiority enabled America to conduct the sort of strategy that Douglas MacArthur wanted attacking major island targets while letting others wither on the vine.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america_naval_power.htm
-
This a summary post on Cruiser and Battleship options to solve the balance and cost issue.
For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship. The red additional option for Cruiser is brought by Young Grasshopper. I provided links for other topics and source.
Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
And with the stats maths evaluation bringing up by KionAAA, I can put other cruiser in a better place of scaled cost.
There is more room for other historical units for those who use more miniatures like HBG.Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3 Maths and statistically balance on Battlecalc.
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
It is the price to have a competitive unit but weaker vs CL or BB (on the same IPCs basis).
Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1282658#msg1282658Battleship, BB A4D4M2**
C18**, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4
After more cost eval and battle calc, I must say that BB have to be at 19 IPCs to be statistically balance with cruiser at 10 IPCs and Carrier at 16 IPCs when applying a great number of units.
It will also give more room (3 IPCs) vs heavy cruiser A3D3 with 2 hits.
But at the smaller scale of number in a usual sea battle (up to 20 units per sides) :
1 CA + 1 DD = 1 BB is a correct combat value approximation.IL suggested this way to solve the cruiser issue for the generic Cruiser unit:
Cruiser A4D3M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3.To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A1) Give all types of cruiser M3 max move even with Naval Base.
A2) Give all types of cruiser M3, +M1 NB bonus, going up to M4 in NCM only.B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with
1BB or1CV
More historical that way. To be more accurate, BB should get it also when paired to CV.
The next B2, is a double combined arms, both BB and CL with CV required.
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give them 3 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B4) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
B5) Give to 1 cruiser up to 3 preemptive AA@1 on defense (as an AAA).C) Give 1 cruiser both offence and defense on a roll of “1” on first round only, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB) as AA Flak batteries.
D1) Make cruiser unit with 1 additional hit but irreparable.
D2) Make cruiser a 2 hits warships, as BB but at a lower cost and combat value.E1) Give to CA a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.
E2) Give cruiser A4/D4 when paired with an undamaged Carrier or Battleship.
E3) Give cruiser A4 when paired with a Battleship.
E4) Give to BB 2 rounds of coastal bombardment @4 when there is at least 1 ground unit remaining from TT making the amphibious assault after first round.
E5) Give to BB 1 coastal bombardment @5.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1281661#msg1281661F) Give to BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
G1) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G2) Give BB 2 rolls A/D@4 on the first round only, if there is at least 1 enemy’s surface vessels.
G3) Give BB 2 rolls A/D@4 per round. And takes two turn to built in SZ near IC.
G4) Give to BB Defense @5 instead of D4.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1281661#msg1281661H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).
I1) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.
I2) Give to Cruiser some sort of ASW capabilities, such as DDs, but not all ASW capacities.J1) Make BB able to load and unload 1 Infantry only, or 1 ground unit.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=33557.msg1281581#msg1281581J2) Make Cruiser able to transport 1 Infantry only.
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=8With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function.
Of course, putting all of it can unbalance toward other naval units: but nevertheless DD and Subs have their own proper function.But all this optional addition can add some historical flavor, and a real gameplay difference amongst the bigger warships.
And you can even gives different options to Light, Battle and Heavy cruiser unit to create a more representative difference amongst them.For example:
give M3 and AA to Light Cruiser,
just M3 to Battlecruiser,
M2 and Coastal @4 to Heavy Cruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plunging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.
After further investigation, I discover that HMS Hood and Courageous were just at 31 knots vs the 28 knots for Pocket BB.
But, the range of Battlecruiser is around 5K-6K nautical miles vs 10 000 nautical miles for Pocket BB.So it must be for these specific types of cruiser:
Battlecruiser A4D4M2C12, 1 hit
Pocket Battleship A4D4M3C13-14, 1 hitHere is the way to see by battlecalc how a Cruiser at 10 IPCs is balanced against a 8 IPCs Destroyer:
@Baron:To, at least, add another argument to prove that a 10 IPCs cruiser is at the right cost vs DD:
35 cruisers A3 (D3) vs 43 Destroyers D2 (A2) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.
35/43 = 0.814 CA/DD 43/35 = 1.228 DD/CA
0.814 * 10 IPCs/CA = 8.14 IPCs/DDs, rounding down: 8 IPCs
1.228 * 8 IPCs/DD = 9.824 IPCs/CAs rounding up: 10 IPCs
-
After a more extend study of stats and maths on Battlecalc, I found something to answer about this critics on the 50% vs 50% survival as a base of comparison between units. See the last quotation in the above post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.msg1224759#msg1224759This quoted post was advocating an higher cost for cruiser than 10 IPCs, at least 11 and even a 12 IPCs OOB could even be correct according to Red Harvest.
I made a little space inside statements.
@Red:Third, real combat power is difficult to quantify and is most likely not represented by simple head-to-head equivalent IPC bases. Afterall, the attacker seeks advantage and net survivability of high value units…NOT equivalence. The potential error in just considering head-to-head, equivalent IPC match ups became apparent when I was looking at cruiser cost. As others have noted it is hard to beat an inexpensive “meat shield” or “fodder” type unit to protect the heavy hitting pieces.
Therefore, with OOB unit cost there is little reason for a cruiser purchase because they have the same hitting power per IPC as a DD, but the cruiser still can only take one hit so it has 2/3’s the hit point equivalence.
On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own.
A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces.
I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12.
What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.
Amongst many topics, the interesting point of Red Harvest critic was that comparing a whole fleet of Cruisers (A3D3M2C12) against a whole fleet of Destroyers (A2D2M2C8) on a same IPCs basis was broken on a mathematical POV because one side was keeping better and costlier units than the other side.
If both sides have a 50% of survival then the outcome will probably be a few units survival of one side.
So in 12 IPCs units vs 8 IPCs units, a 50% survival means an average of 6 IPCs save on 1 side vs 4 IPCs save on the other.
It is not even and fair. Or said otherwise, cruiser side wins, it still have a 12 IPCs unit while the destroyers side wins, it is only a 8 IPCs unit.That’s could have explain that a costlier unit would have lesser chance of survival over a cheaper ones.
The balance point should be put on the IPCs gains and loss instead of units survivability.Now using a real example, taking a 24 IPCs fleet basis, you get 2 Cruisers vs 3 Destroyers/ or, for 48 IPCs 4 cruisers vs 6 Destroyers.
The Battlecalc on a 10 000 battles give you this for 2 Cruisers vs 3 Destroyers :
Overall %*: A. survives: 27.1% D. survives: 66.3% No one survives: 6.6%The main average survival results is:
17.99% 1 Cru. survived and 1 Cru. lost : 12 IPCs total loss but 12 saved: 18% * 12 = 2.16 IPCs net gains
24.18% 1 Des. survived 2 Des. lost: for 16 IPCs total loss but 8 saved: 24.2%* 8 = 1.936 IPCs net gainsSo, on average, when there is only 1 unit which survived then Cruiser is slighlty above Destroyers in IPCs gains.
Now, just imagine that instead the Cruiser unit was cheaper at 10 IPCs (according to a 50% survival battle calc eval).
The IPCs gains will be better because of a real increase in survivability.For instance, a 40 IPCs basis fleet (4 Cruisers 10 IPCs vs 5 Destroyers 8 IPCs)
Cruiser survives: 46.1% Destroyers survives: 49.8% No one survives: 4.1%Average (in yellow):
15.15% 1: 1 Cru. 3 Cru. : lost 30 IPCs : 15.15%*10 IPCs= 1.515 IPCs
12.51% 1: 1 Des. 4 Des. : lost 32 IPCs : 12.51%*8 IPCs = 1.00 IPCsNow, on the average situation, the IPCs balance between CA and DD is 1.5 time better for cruiser side.
Do you think it could be a new way to defend the Cruiser OOB price?
Suggested Topics
