Baron thanks for all the work. I took a look and your old thread it’s great . One more thing and this is off the wAll but what if you keep cruisers at 12 and have them take 2 hits as well
Here, I decided to check for you the scale of a balanced cost for 2 hits Cruiser A3D3 vs 2 hits Battleship A4D4:
Cruiser cost: BB price:
1.15464 CA/BB *12 IPCs/CA = 13.856 rounding up to 14 IPCs.
1.15464 CA/BB *13 IPCs/CA = 15.01 IPCs/BB
Same *14 IPCs/CA = 16.17 IPCs/BB
Same *15 IPCs/CA = 17.32 IPCs/BB
Same *16 IPCs/CA = 18.47 IPCs/BB, rounding down to 18 IPCs.
Same *17 IPCs/CA = 19.63 IPCs/BB, rounding up to 20 IPCs.
BB cost: Cruiser price:
0.86607 BB/CA * 20 IPCs/BB = 17.32 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 17 IPCs.
0.86607 BB/CA * 19 IPCs/BB = 16.46 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 16 IPCs.
0.86607 BB/CA * 18 IPCs/BB = 15.59 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 16 IPCs.
Same * 17 IPCs/BB = 14.72 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 15 IPCs.
Same * 16 IPCs/BB = 13.86 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 14 IPCs.
Same * 15 IPCs/BB = 12.99 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 13 IPCs.
Same * 14 IPCs/BB = 12.12 IPCs/CA, 12 IPCs.
As you can see, for 2 hits warships, a A4D4 needs most of the time to be put 2 IPCs above the A3D3 to keep a balance combat value (50% vs 50%) on the Battlecalc.
Only the 16 IPCs A3D3 needs a 2.5 IPCs higher cost for A4D4.
And for OOB BB, a 2 hits cruiser will be balance at 17 IPCs.
Maybe this post from Blackhat can provide some new idea about the 2 hits BB:
OK sure they can take a whack of damage BUT is it just me or is there something cheesy about assigning a hit at the end of combat knowing the auto-fix rule will make it go away?
Thinking after combat 1/2 dead BBs ought to roll d6.
1-3 auto-fix like the good book says
4-5 DAMAGED (use SBR token with “Damage” side up)
6 CRIPPLED (use a SBR token ugly side up)Both Damaged and Crippled BBs have only 1 hit left in them and get fixed by taking them to the sea zone adjacent to an Allied IC and expending d6 IPCs.
Difference is that Crippled BBs fight at 2 and limp along at Move 1.
So then you have to ask yourself… do I divert assets to pick off the straggling enemy BB? Do I assign a DD to escort it back to dry dock? Or hey do I just let it fight on and repair later….just a thought…
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1817
Maybe some of you have ideas on this point:
@Imperious:
Is there any reason to stick on the 12 IPCs cruisers and the 20 IPCs battleship?
Yes because nobody wants to change everything, just what is broken. Otherwise it will be a rule for a few people.
Most people just want the most minimal thing changed. not changes that invalidate all the player aids. The prices of the other units are just fine. If you change everything you make the game worse.
The original design was to make Carriers the best buy, followed by Battleships. Not equalize every naval unit. Otherwise, just have one naval unit. Differences are what the game is about.
Just allowing them move +1 is the most simple thing possible.
Do you feel that it is only battleship which is not right? or also cruiser?
Does people often buy cruiser and no battleship? or no cruiser but battleship?
If not the case, making both cheaper will provide an incentive.
Does such an incentive (10/18 or 11/19 IPCs for cruiser/battleship cost) will create an havoc which can unbalance all shore bombardment and amphibious assault if these two units become so popular?
Can they become so popular, at the expense of other sea units?
Does the IPCs left over will change the game for 2 to 4 additional infantries buy?
(Which suppose at least 3 to 6 cruisers or BBs can be buy during a game (if there is a -2 IPCs redux/unit.)
I’m pretty sure that if you made cruisers cost 10 and battleships cost 18, it would just bring them in line with the other ships and it wouldn’t cause any balance issues.
Yeah! What I like about the 10 and 18 split, is that it takes into account the magnifying effect of multiple purchases of the same unit type over several rounds.
ps. So for example…
In the current price structure, 2 destroyers is almost always better than a single battleship (weird exceptions might occur, like as a result of a production limitation, but on the whole this holds throughout). Likewise 3 destroyers is always about equal to 2 cruisers in firepower, but with the advantage of an extra fodder unit with its own chance to hit on a deuce.) So compared to the main fodder unit (Destroyer), both Cruisers and Battleships are a poor relative value. And in many situations, where air defense is not a factor, subs can trump both those units, just on account of being so cheap.
By contrast, at 10 ipcs cruisers can go toe to toe and trade against fighters, while providing the additional bombardment damage when they aren’t being attacked from the air. Perhaps a cruiser stack might level a bombardment option that was too deadly, but somehow I see this as less of a problem than having a unit which just takes up space in the box.
Similarly battleships at the current 20, are almost always trumped by 2 fighters, which have more attack and defense power and have the clear movement advantage. At 18 battleships would be more in line relative to other naval units, but then you’d have to ask yourself… “Why would I ever buy a battleship when I could get a destroyer AND a cruiser for that same cost?” Since a destroyer, cruiser combo would provide a sum attack/defense value of 5, can hunt subs with the dd, bombard with the cruiser, and still has the ability to absorb 1 fodder hit? The same argument might be made for the destroyer+fighter combo, which would also roughly equal the value of the battleship in terms of broader purchasing logistics. All you really get for the battleship, is the power to repair, but what’s better, the chance to absorb a hit, or fire back with a second unit? The option to fire back is always superior on naval defense.
So even then, with both units reduced in cost, you’d still have the problem of the battleship being a rather poor value relative to other ships. Don’t get me wrong here, I fully agree with you about the cost. 10 and 18 is superior, but even then the battleship is just taking up space. There to die at the outset (and complicate the rules with its unique repair mechanic hehe) but not much else.
The only way I see out of the situation, and to convince people that the battleship would be worth buying, is to provide it with some sort of extra ability, like to transport a single ground unit, that brings it into competition with the transport rather than the other warships.
That way it might be worth pausing to consider in some situations.
I should also make clear, I don’t really see adjustments to movement values as viable. Nothing busts an official board faster than adjusting how far units are allowed to move. (I mean if we learned anything at all from the Long Range Air tech hehe.) Beyond this, allowing any naval unit to move more than 2 spaces on a map at the scale of 1942.2 is probably asking for trouble.
10 and 18 are a step in the right direction, but there I still can’t imagine the battleship coming into play. I would always buy a destroyer+cruiser over a battleship.
What I like about the 10 and 18 split, is that it takes into account the magnifying effect of multiple purchases of the same unit type over several rounds.
Similarly battleships at the current 20, are almost always trumped by 2 fighters, which have more attack and defense power and have the clear movement advantage. At 18 battleships would be more in line relative to other naval units, but then you’d have to ask yourself… “Why would I ever buy a battleship when I could get a destroyer AND a cruiser for that same cost?” Since a destroyer, cruiser combo would provide a sum attack/defense value of 5, can hunt subs with the dd, bombard with the cruiser, and still has the ability to absorb 1 fodder hit? The same argument might be made for the destroyer+fighter combo, which would also roughly equal the value of the battleship in terms of broader purchasing logistics. All you really get for the battleship, is the power to repair, but what’s better, the chance to absorb a hit, or fire back with a second unit? The option to fire back is always superior on naval defense.
I have the impression you undervalued the second hits of 1942 BB (not G40 BB) which is immediately repaired after combat (once put on the board), when you can combined 2 or 3 battleships to form the core of a fleet you can create a really good buffer which can save you many lost IPCs casualty. Instead of loosing 2 or 3 subs or destroyers fodders, you can preserve their rolls in the next round.
A battleships core provides a consistent deterrent against strafing assault of other navy and in lesser measure of aircrafts.
Why would you launch some aircrafts and a few subs (thinking of Germany vs UK) knowing that you must loose some precious planes, if you hope that your subs fodders won’t die in vain because of the repair capacity of Battleships?
(Thinking of 3 StBs 5 Fg and 3 subs against 3BBs, 1 Cruiser and 4 DDs (protecting trannies) + 1 DDs (if BB at 18 IPCs and CA at 10…).
Of course, the odds are in favour of the attacker but at 18 and 10 IPCs for BB/CC the battle would be more interesting: A. survives: 57.6% D. survives: 38.4% No one survives: 4%
Than: A. survives: 76.3% D. survives: 20.6% No one survives: 3.2%
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=5&aBom=3&aTra=&aSub=3&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=4&dCru=1&dCar=&dBat=3&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
Yeah I have seen this work, but rarely will anyone attempt it, except perhaps the USA, maybe Japan if they are trying to be flashy about it, but battleships are generally too expensive to stack when compared to other units. In a unit vs unit comparison, if every round I buy battleships, my opponent buys 2 fighters, (or 2 cruisers at 10 ipcs) or 3 subs, they will eventually outclass my fleet on attack in the first round of the combat phase, such that my absorption doesn’t matter. If I can build a core and then build out a fleet around it, I can maybe make up the difference, but if the opponent is matching you buy for buy, then the advantage will likely go to the player fielding more units overall (more rolls, more chances to hit in the first round of the combat phase) even if these units are at risk as fodder. I would think that in determining value over multiple rounds, the first priority has to be to survive to see those rounds. If I buy battleships I might get sunk before I even have a chance to build out a large enough fleet to protect them. Once a fleet is large enough to have a core of 3 battleships, chances are its not going to get hit over multiple rounds anyway, or by strafes, but instead attacked with overwhelming force, or else not at all. That’s why I think if you did nothing but drop the prices to 10 and 18, it might persuade more people to consider the cruiser, but the battleship would still be outclassed.
ps. imagine as an example that you have two fleets, one has a core of 3 battleships, and one has a core of 6 cruisers (assuming they are at the cost suggested, you can imagine both core fleets are backed up by an equal number of support ships.)
By the rules it is an impossibility for 3 battleships to destroy 6 cruisers in the first round of the combat phase. But it is entirely possible (if unlikely) for 6 cruisers to destroy 3 battleships in the first round of the combat phase. Given that the first round is often the most decisive, I would always take the spread that has a better chance of hitting at the outset.
Now of course say 3 cruisers dud out completely, and the battleships absorb all these hit, and return fire with a perfect 3 hits. As the attacker you’d still have a chance to kill the battleships, even losing half your force in the first round of the combat phase. But who knows, maybe you get 4 hits or more as the attacker? Or one of the defending battleships duds. Then you are already sinking battleships before they have a chance to make up the difference on absorption.
And this isn’t taking into consideration the bombardment value of two cruisers at a 3, over a single battleship at a 4. If bombardment is the game, then cruisers win hands down, with a higher total bombardment value and a chance to destroy 2 units instead of just 1.
The battleship needs more than just the benefit of absorbing 1 hit to make up the difference I would think. Otherwise, if you put cruisers at 10 ipcs, then you probably have to lower the cost of the battleship below 18, at which point it falls out of sync with destroyers and subs. On the 2 to 1, 3 to 1 ratio. At which point the battleship would probably also become overpowered for the period relative to carriers.
ps. imagine as an example that you have two fleets, one has a core of 3 battleships, and one has a core of 6 cruisers (assuming they are at the cost suggested, you can imagine both core fleets are backed up by an equal number of support ships.)
By the rules it is an impossibility for 3 battleships to destroy 6 cruisers in the first round of the combat phase. But it is entirely possible (if unlikely) for 6 cruisers to destroy 3 battleships in the first round of the combat phase. Given that the first round is often the most decisive, I would always take the spread that has a better chance of hitting at the outset.
Now of course say 3 cruisers dud out completely, and the battleships absorb all these hit, and return fire with a perfect 3 hits. As the attacker you’d still have a chance to kill the battleships, even losing half your force in the first round of the combat phase. But who knows, maybe you get 4 hits or more as the attacker? Then you are already sinking battleships before they have a chance to make up the difference on absorption.
And this isn’t taking into consideration the bombardment value of two cruisers at a 3, over a single battleship at a 4. If bombardment is the game, then cruisers win hands down, with a higher total bombardment value and a chance to destroy 2 units instead of just 1.
The battleship needs more than just the benefit of absorbing 1 hit to make up the difference I would think
You forget that BB is hypothetically at 18 IPCs…
1 BB vs 3 Subs on defense= 56% vs 44%
instead of OOB 3 BBs (20 IPCs) vs 10 Subs on def= 41% vs 59%
4 BBs vs 9 DDs = 53% vs 44% /
instead : 4 BBs (20 IPCs) vs 10 DDs = 32% vs 66%
On an abstract battle of unit vs unit, battleship keeps the better hand on calc:
5 BBs (18 IPCs) vs 9 CAs (10 IPCs)= 56% vs 40%
instead: 3BBs (20 IPCs) vs 5 CAs (12 IPCs)= 66% vs 28%
And it is almost an even match against DD+CA.
So the cost can be OK, at least to be mathematically optimized to be in the game with other units.
However, cruiser get a better offshore bombardment capacity and with DDs, you get an ASW also.
But do they provides a sufficient strategic or tactical advantage to compete with others units such as planes and carriers?
In G40, the 2 hits is not such a great advantage (since you must return to a Naval Base to repair), and carrier have the same 2 hits for a lesser cost.
Sometimes, I’m thinking it is more for historical depiction that Battleship unit are in A&A than anything else. They were almost obsolete at the start of the war. So the game doesn’t create any real incentive toward buying them when compared to submarines, destroyers, carriers and planes.
However, adding some antiaircraft capabilities makes both cruiser and battleship far more interesting and it is more historical than bringing 1 ground unit with 1 battleship.
Adding something to battleships, I would looks for something special by:
improving gunnery (such as a single additional roll @4 in the first round if their is any enemy’s surface warships, to depict the longer range of their heavier guns),
bombard capacity (even in combine arms with cruiser),
adding antiaircraft, working as a sea AAA gun (even in a combine arms with carrier and/or cruiser),
(2 hits repair better than the carrier, in G40 only).
It could even be balance with some hindrance against subs, like not being able to attack them…(but it can add too much layer of complexity).
And putting more on the starting board in an out of armways, could add more flavour also.
Haha you’re absolutely correct! I did indeed forget to factor them in at 18. Hmmm, well in that case perhaps it would work! :)
In any event the values at 10 and 18, do seem intriguing.
Just as an aside, not sure if anyone is interested, but perhaps we could make a mod to put some the ideas in this section into practice? I started a thread in the “other variants” section, in case anyone wants to explore ideas. I’m pretty open, I like thinking about new potential boards, set ups and unit values. I put together a rough draft of some ideas I had been kicking around. Its a bit rough, and saved for web, so not as pretty as it could be, but anyhow…
Haha you’re absolutely correct! I did indeed forget to factor them in at 18. Hmmm, well in that case perhaps it would work! :)
In any event the values at 10 and 18, do seem intriguing.
Just as an aside, not sure if anyone is interested, but perhaps we could make a mod to put some the ideas in this section into practice? I started a thread in the “other variants” section, in case anyone wants to explore ideas. I’m pretty open, I like thinking about new potential boards, set ups and unit values. I put together a rough draft of some ideas I had been kicking around. Its a bit rough, and saved for web, so not as pretty as it could be, but anyhow…
Do you know if any triple A version can adjust or modify the price of a given unit?
This small price adjustment could be more easily play-tested on a computer game.
Yeah it is fairly simple, you just edit the cost of the unit in the xml game file.
Cruiser at 10 seems about appropriate for me, largely for the reasons other people have explained compared fighters and destroyers.
On the other hand, I would be very wary of reducing the cost of battleships. The 2-hit mechanic has the potential to make naval battles oppressive and not fun. At a cheaper cost, it becomes very viable for US to stack battleships and battle and retreat with little consequence. 6 BB with say a mixed fleet of 1 car, 2 fig, and 1 dest can deliver 5-6 naval hits with no losses then retreat.
For me, a fun naval game involves naval positioning, deadzoning, calculated fighter support from land, and smart blocking (using destroyers). I would hate to see a naval battle devolve into stacks of BB with a winner takes all battle.
Its true, I’d hate to see a cost modification make battleshipbstacking too easy to pull off. To me it makes more sense to use the battleships you start with rather than building new ones. The difficulty is that so many battleships can be targeted in the opening round with scripted attacks, or the second round. Its almost a waste of the scultps. Wouldbe nice if each power had at least 1 survive
I think these historical explanations fit very well here:
@CWO:
There weren’t a lot of battleships produced in WWII they were quickly outmoded by the carrier. Germany, Japan and the US built some new ones and perhaps some other examples exist. Without going into a largely historical debate. How about eliminating new BBs altogether? What I mean is all original BBs would remain but no further BBs could be built.
There were basically three groups of battleships in WWII:
those that already existed when the war started;
those whose planning and construction had started prior to the war and which were completed during the war;
and those which were left uncompleted on the shipyard stocks (or which remained on the drawing boards) when it became clear that the BB had had its day.
Most of WWII’s modern fast BBs fell into the second group. Very few new BBs got started during the war, but quite a few already-started ones got completed during the war. Missouri and Wisconsin, for example, were quite late arrivals; I think they first went on active duty in 1944. Fast battleships which could keep up with carrier task forces, by the way, did get put to good use by the US Navy as anti-aircraft escorts for the carriers, while older BBs did valuable work as shore-bombardment vessels in support of amphibious landings. This still meant that they would have little place in the carrier-dominated postwar navy, but they were nevertheless able to earn their keep during WWII (even while playing second fiddle to the carriers).
@CWO:
@Baron:
Maybe it is better to look into Air-naval battle because there is costlier Cruiser, Carrier and Battleship units which needs protection so a cheaper Fg unit will be taken as casualty instead, from both sides: attacker and defender.
It would be an interesting exercise to go through the official OOB rules and check all of the combined-arms bonuses to see how they hold up to the “which is the supporting unit and which is the supported one?” test which I mentioned in my earlier post today.
For example, when I saw the part of your text that I’ve just quoted, it made me think about the two roles which the US Navy’s battleships played in the Pacific in WWII. One role was to provide shore bombardment to support amphibious landings, but another role (especially for the fast battleships) was to provide anti-aircraft defense for the fleet carriers.
In AA& terms, this would translate into providing carriers with a defense boost against air attack when the carriers are paired with battleships.
Generally this would mean a boost against attacks by tac bombers, but it would also apply to kamikaze attacks (since some of these attacks were carried out by small fighter-type planes).
@CWO:
@Baron:
Between cruiser and battleship is correct to consider that both provide a kind of anti-air cover for carriers? Mainly Cruiser (mostly light cruisers with AA batteries)? Mainly BB? What is your opinion?
US battleships and US cruisers both carried a decent number of 5-inch dual-purpose guns (typically 5-inch/38-caliber models), which had good performance both as surface-attack weapons and as anti-aircraft weapons.
Anti-aircraft light cruisers, I think, carried even more of them than light and heavy cruisers or battleships. In addition to the 5-inchers, battleships and cruisers also carried large numbers of 40mm and 20mm anti-aircraft autocannons and of .50 caliber heavy machine guns, so they could put up quite a wall of AAA fire of assorted calibers when all of that stuff was fired all at once.
(Interestingly, when the kamikaze attacks started, it was found that only the shells from the 5-inch guns had enough kinetic energy and explosive power to have a good chance of stopping an approaching kamizaze plane dead in its tracks, assuming that a hit could be scored. The machine guns, the 20mm Oerlikons and even the 40mm Bofors could kill the pilot and/or set the plane on fire, but wouldn’t necessarily blow it out of the sky, so kamikaze planes would sometimes continue flying in the general direction of the target even though the pilot was dead.)
So yes, I’d say that both battleships and cruisers should confer an anti-aircraft defensive bonus to carriers when paired with them.
American carriers and destroyers carried 5"/38cal guns too, but in much smaller numbers than battleships and cruisers – so those weapons don’t need to be taken into account because of their small numbers.
For the carriers, I’d regard the presence of these guns as already built into their standard defense values. For destroyers I wouldn’t see them as giving any anti-aircraft bonus to carriers.
Cruiser at 10 seems about appropriate for me, largely for the reasons other people have explained compared fighters and destroyers.
On the other hand, I would be very wary of reducing the cost of battleships. The 2-hit mechanic has the potential to make naval battles oppressive and not fun. At a cheaper cost, it becomes very viable for US to stack battleships and battle and retreat with little consequence. 6 BB with say a mixed fleet of 1 car, 2 fig, and 1 dest can deliver 5-6 naval hits with no losses then retreat.
For me, a fun naval game involves naval positioning, deadzoning, calculated fighter support from land, and smart blocking (using destroyers). I would hate to see a naval battle devolve into stacks of BB with a winner takes all battle.
Battleships will be definitely obsolete and un-optimized choice if cruiser goes 10 IPCs:
20 Cruisers against 10 Battleships:
A. survives: 74.2% D. survives: 24.4% No one survives: 1.4%
6 cruisers against 3 BBS:
A. survives: 62.3% D. survives: 32.2% No one survives: 5.5%
Your 2 hits BBs strafing tactics is well anticipated.
Good points.
The main problem is that when you have a lot of BBs together, you can take too many hits making them and the fleet almost invulnerable with a good strafe tactics.
I would suggest keeping 20 IPCs but a different way of playing additional hits and repair.
However, BBs get 3 hits now.
Here the rule:
“Battleship are always main target: you cannot put a hit on another BB until you destroyed a crippled one or put another hit on a damaged one.”
Here, how you could play it:
during combat, a single hit put on BB make it damaged but has no big consequence.
A damaged BB will fully recover once put on the board, according to OOB 1942.2 rule.
A second hit (put on the same, according to the main target rule) make a BB really crippled.
When put on the board, it is only fully repaired at the beginning of player’s turn (and, if playing Global, when on a SZ deserved by NB).
A third hit destroyed a crippled battleship.
This make an average of near 7 IPCs/hit. Just between Subs and Destroyers.
So, for the high cost investment, it will make Battleship a competitive unit against small warships.
And a bunch of BBs fleet cannot create a loophole in which you can do a massive hit and run without too much casualties.
I agree with everyone on bringing the cost of Battleships to 1 IPC each in order to make them more attractive:
42888888888888888878878 x453827969565 x 1/3 32480275057- 45857504
38936892686843-3198468946+4946564+1/3=4280470407=42805740570
@Imperious:
I agree with everyone on bringing the cost of Battleships to 1 IPC each in order to make them more attractive:
42888888888888888878878 x453827969565 x 1/3 32480275057- 45857504
38936892686843-3198468946+4946564+1/3=4280470407=42805740570
:wink:
No kidding, you should be proud IL I bring another solution than cost redux…
Haha I take it Imperious doesn’t see it as such an issue. I will say that to me, the shame is that you have all these nice scultps left over taking up space in the box, plastic that might just as well have gone to other pieces.
I still think the idea to transport 1 ground has merit. Since it doesn’t require changing the cost structure, just the addition of an ability that already exists.
Consider that this might provide some interesting dynamism in the first round and cat and mouse tactics. For example germany has 1 battleship and 1 cruiser (viable sea lion? Egypt? Karelia? Caucasus?). But this is somewhat offset because Uk has 2 cruisers at the start. So they could match Egypt on counter, or bring more force to/from india, or into east indies. Japan would get the biggest early boost. But USA also starts with a battleship and cruiser.
Would work with the current cost structure, the question is, does it break the opening? Probably goes to Axis advantage. But that is more an issue of the set up than the unit itself in the abstract. Might work in other games if balanced.
12 ipc gets you 1 ground, and the cruiser abilities.
20 ipcs gets you 1 ground, and the battleship abilities.
14 ipcs gets you 4 ground on transports, but with no attack/defense.
19 ipcs could get you 3 ground, cruiser transport combo.
21 ipcs gets you 6 ground with 3 transports. Seems flexible, where transports would still be worthwhile, but moving ground would not be as rigid as the current system.
Transports would still be required to mount larger invasions, but supported by the larger capital ships (which could break out for smaller actions without putting defensless transports at risk every time).
I would definitely buy a cruiser at 12, or battleship at 20 if it got another ground unit into amphibious. I think players might be more likely to put these units at risk on the early cat and mouse naval game, than they are when transports have to be escorted. Might lend itself to less naval stacking around major transport fleets and earlier break out moves with the ships that survive the first round.
I’d think that transports, subs, destroyers and carriers would all still be necessary and ultimately the most effective buy, but at least this gets the other two warships into the game a bit more.
Finally this change might accelorate the pace of the game overall such that it doesn’t drag as much in the opening, and would probably conclude in less total rounds/hours.
