@sniffemonster The First edition of the Classic version had the Commander in Chief Rules, any Allied nation could combine together with another Nation to Attack together- that Rule was done away with in the 2nd edition Classic version!!!
Cruisers - Combined Arms
-
@Young:
I think giving the Cruiser a damage capability (2 hits to sink) automatically balances, and justifies their 12 IPC price, however, Battleships now become obsolete under this rule and need a boost to balance and justify their 20 IPC cost. Giving Battleships 3 hits to sink is unnecessarily complicated making naval battles long and frustrating, but there are abilities that can be given to Battleships that make more sense than making Cruisers too powerful. So if Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, an ability or two has to be given to Battleships which I believe is a better discussion than what to give Cruisers. Here are some Battleship ability ideas…
My point is, it’s much easier to give the Cruiser the 2 hits to sink bonus, and discuss more palatable improvements to the top unit in the naval arm, rather than make the Cruiser to powerful as a middle unit.
Giving Cruiser 2 hits for 12 IPCs is exactly making them the most powerful unit on the sea and against planes.
Makes some simulations, you will see, it is a big booster.
At 6 IPCs/hit, it is the same rate as Subs and cruiser have the ability to hit planes.
And making BB as powerful as them is escalating the combat value higher against other sea-able units.
If you want to go this way, I think you need to show us that is not a major change in balance roster, even if 2 hits is very easy to implement, as such.
The 2 hits bottom price should be put at 16 IPCs, for 8 IPCs/hit, the same as cost as a Destroyer.
And at 16 IPCs, it is not as affordable as a mid-ship should be.
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12Probably it is much better balance this way.
And no need to make tremendous change to Battleship. -
@Young:
I think giving the Cruiser a damage capability (2 hits to sink) automatically balances, and justifies their 12 IPC price, however, Battleships now become obsolete under this rule and need a boost to balance and justify their 20 IPC cost. Giving Battleships 3 hits to sink is unnecessarily complicated making naval battles long and frustrating, but there are abilities that can be given to Battleships that make more sense than making Cruisers too powerful. So if Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, an ability or two has to be given to Battleships which I believe is a better discussion than what to give Cruisers.
This is a tough one to decide because, if Global 1940 were more realistic, a carrier itself would actually require only 1 hit to be sunk, not 2. WWII carriers with heavily armoured flight decks (like the British Illustrious class) were the exception, not the norm. Most carriers of the time were quite vulnerable to dive-bombing attacks because of this lack of armour, and for other reasons: their flight deck elevators, if open, allowed a bomb to drop right into the ship’s interior, and their flight decks (if you caught them at a bad moment, as happened to the Japanese at Midway) and their internal hangars (most of the time) often housed large quantities of explosive ordnance and of aviation fuel. The Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi both absorbed great numbers of torpedo and bomb hits before sinking, whereas the four Japanese carriers at Midway were fatally damaged by just a few bombs each.
I can nevertheless understand why, for game reasons, the OOB rules give carriers the same two-hits-to-destroy capacity as battleships. Both units are expensive (battleship = 20, carrier = 16), so the sinking of either unit is a big loss. For the battleship, this risk of sinking is partially offset by its defensive rating of 4 (which I’d say is valid historically). The carrier, on the other hand, only has a defensive rating of 2. This too is valid historically, but it means that the carrier is more vulnerable than the battleship. If carriers didn’t have a two-hits-to-destroy capacity, this would make them even juicier targets than they are now, and would serve as a disincentive to their purchase.
Should cruisers likewise be granted a a two-hits-to-destroy capacity, for the same reason that carriers have this capacity? As I said, that’s a tough one to decide…but my inclination would be to say no. Cruisers cost less than carriers (12 versus 16) and have a higher defensive rating (3 versus 2), so in my opinion they have less need than carriers for the 2-hit capacity because cruisers are less likely to be sunk and less of a financial loss if they do get sunk. And in terms of historical accuracy, their defensive rating of 3 (more than a carrier, less than a battleship) accurately reflects the fact that cruisers tended to be more heavily armoured than carriers and less heavily armoured than battleships.
-
@CWO:
This is a tough one to decide because, if Global 1940 were more realistic, a carrier itself would actually require only 1 hit to be sunk, not 2. WWII carriers with heavily armoured flight decks (like the British Illustrious class) were the exception, not the norm. Most carriers of the time were quite vulnerable to dive-bombing attacks because of this lack of armour, and for other reasons: their flight deck elevators, if open, allowed a bomb to drop right into the ship’s interior, and their flight decks (if you caught them at a bad moment, as happened to the Japanese at Midway) and their internal hangars (most of the time) often housed large quantities of explosive ordnance and of aviation fuel. The Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi both absorbed great numbers of torpedo and bomb hits before sinking, whereas the four Japanese carriers at Midway were fatally damaged by just a few bombs each.
I can nevertheless understand why, for game reasons, the OOB rules give carriers the same two-hits-to-destroy capacity as battleships. Both units are expensive (battleship = 20, carrier = 16), so the sinking of either unit is a big loss. For the battleship, this risk of sinking is partially offset by its defensive rating of 4 (which I’d say is valid historically). The carrier, on the other hand, only has a defensive rating of 2. This too is valid historically, but it means that the carrier is more vulnerable than the battleship. If carriers didn’t have a two-hits-to-destroy capacity, this would make them even juicier targets than they are now, and would serve as a disincentive to their purchase.
The 1942.2 1 hit and 14 IPCs Aircraft Carrier is much more vulnerable and precious.
It is the most costlier on a IPC/hit ratio. In itself, it is weaker than the 12 IPCs Cruiser.
In G40, at 8 IPCs/hit, the Carrier is much sturdier than the Cruiser unit. But it has no attack value to counterweight this change compared to 1942.2.In addition, this provides another unit with an increase interaction to justify Naval Base repair capacity.
By suspending Air Operation for damaged Carrier, it makes them less effective than her damaged Battleship counterpart which can still work as an undamaged one.
-
@Young:
Here are some Battleship ability ideas…
Battleships get 2 dice when attacking and/or defending
Battleships get 2 dice when attacking and/or defending and may apply the best result
Battleships that hit may choose which enemy unit is to be a casualty
Hits from Battleships must be applied to enemy capital ships first
Hits from Battleships must immediately be removed from the battle board
Hits from bombarding Battleships must immediately be removed from the board
Battleships may bombard every combat round during Amphibious assaults
Naval units may move 3 spaces from sea zones that contain a friendly BattleshipMy point is, it’s much easier to give the Cruiser the 2 hits to sink bonus, and discuss more palatable improvements to the top unit in the naval arm, rather than make the Cruiser to powerful as a middle unit.
Nice creative thinking on this.
I was just thinking how it would have been a loss if Larry had put Cruiser and Battleship at their right cost and combat value balance:
Battleship at 18 IPCs and Cruiser at 10 IPCs.
This would have give a lot less intense debates and thinking outside the box. -
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12Probably it is much better balance this way.
And no need to make tremendous changes to Battleship.For 60 IPCs:
5 2 hits Cruisers against 3 Battleships:
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.3% D. survives: 19.5% No one survives: 2.3%Battleship still need a little boost against such a Cruiser, but it can works.
2 2-hits Cruisers against 3 Destroyers, is just slightly above.
Overall %*: A. survives: 58.7% D. survives: 37.2% No one survives: 4.2%
So you pay for a cheaper unit, you get a less powerful ones.
You pay for a costlier, you get a better one. -
@Young:
Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers, and Battleships all require 2 hits to sink, and Battleships may carry 1 tactical bomber each (all Aircraft Carrier rules would apply except the ability to carry fighters).
I hadn’t noticed this one until now. With the exception of a couple of bizarre hybrids, WWII battleships did not carry tactical bombers nor even fighter planes. The only aircraft normally carried on battleships (and on some heavy cruisers) were small, light floatplanes that were launched from a catapult, and which were recovered by landing on the water (it only worked in calm seas) and being picked up by the ship’s crane. They were used for reconnaissance and, to some extent, for spotting the fall of shells when the ship was firing at distant targets; the plane would radio the information back to the gunners to help them correct their range.
-
@Baron:
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12Probably it is much better balance this way.
And no need to make tremendous changes to Battleship.This is very interesting.
-
@Young:
@Baron:
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12Probably it is much better balance this way.
And no need to make tremendous changes to Battleship.For 60 IPCs:
5 2 hits Cruisers against 3 Battleships:
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.3% D. survives: 19.5% No one survives: 2.3%Battleship still need a little boost against such a Cruiser, but it can works.
2 2-hits Cruisers against 3 Destroyers, is just slightly above.Overall %*: A. survives: 58.7% D. survives: 37.2% No one survives: 4.2%
So you pay for a cheaper unit, you get a less powerful ones.
You pay for a costlier, you get a better one.This is very interesting.
You still need to find a combat booster for Battleship, but I think it can really work.
In addition, Naval Base will be more useful because 3 units can now need a repair: Cruiser, Carrier, Battleship.
5 Shore bombardment @2 = A10 vs 3 Shore bombardment @4 = A12.
Now Battleship has a better coastal bombardment capabilities than Cruiser as historical accuracy seems to require.
Any ideas which kind of combat capacities should be provided to Battleship to balance the odds against Cruiser?Anti-aircraft against 1 plane?
2 rolls @4 per Battleship?
Giving an extended +1 NCM to all own’s Power surface ships in the SZ? -
I would make shore bombardments every combat round during an amphibious assault.
-
Do you also think about letting BB rolls Shore bombardment after a Naval combat in the surrounding SZ during an amphibious assault?
@Young:
I would make shore bombardments every combat round during an amphibious assault.
Just this will not totally work because Cruiser will be far better against BB on the same IPC basis (4 times better):
Overall %*: A. survives: 78.3% D. survives: 19.5% No one survives: 2.3%Everybody will buy 2-hits Cruisers and count on Planes (with Carrier) for an increase Amphibious support attack.
-
What about a first round plunging fire @4?
Can be First Strike, if you wish.
It gives 2 rolls @4 in the opening combat round.
And only one after this first round.That way, it can slightly counterweight the combat advantage of Cruisers, since the opening round is the most important.
And, most often, after this first round, Battleships all have taken 1 hit and are damaged.
They wouldn’t operate at their full combat capacities, anyway.In addition, a 2 shot@4 in the first round imply that a Cruiser unit could be destroyed in a single round in a 1 on 1 Naval battle.
This would make Battleship more impressive in small naval skirmishes. -
@Baron:
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12I like this because it leaves also room for either Light Cruiser or BattleCruiser, custom pieces.
-
@Baron:
@Baron:
I’ve just got this idea:
CRUISER
Attack 2
Defend 2
Shore Bombard 2
Move 2
Hits 2
Cost 12I like this because it leaves also room for either Light Cruiser or BattleCruiser, custom pieces.
What was it CWO Marc was saying about the fire power on Cruisers essentially the same on destroyers? this would help validate the att @2 def @2 similarities between the two units.
-
@Young:
What was it CWO Marc was saying about the fire power on Cruisers essentially the same on destroyers? this would help validate the att @2 def @2 similarities between the two units.
@CWO:
Cruiser + Destroyer?
This has potential, and I’ll need to think about it in more detail later today. Here are some preliminary thoughts for now. First, these two ship types did have somewhat diffferent fundamental abilities, with some overlap. US destroyers and cruisers (the ones I know best) both tended to have 5-inch dual-purpose guns (usable in AAA and surface-attack roles), and both typically had torpedoes, but many cruisers also had 6-inch or 8-inch guns for heavy bombardment, whereas destroyers had anti-sub depth charges.A wartime bonus of having cruisers and destroyers working together was that the cruisers would sometimes top up the fuel tanks of the destroyers, since destroyers were often looking for refills. (They often mooched from battleships too. The Iowas class battleships, whose armour allowed them to venture into seas too dangerous for tankers, were nicknamed “armoured oilers” by US destroyer crews.) Second, the “destroyer leader” concept is interesting, since it did actually exist in WWII. I’ll need to read up on how it actually worked, but as I recall it was used (at least in part) to justify the construction of certain ship designs that were, arguably, either very big destroyers or very small cruisers. I think the Tribal class sort of falls into this category, as did certain Italian cruisers. Also, if memory serves, destroyers sometimes operated in formations called flotillas, with a light cruiser serving as the flotilla’s flagship (though not always under the command of a genuine flag officer, i.e. an admiral). Anyway, more to come later.
Maybe this A2 D2 unit combat values similarities could give an orientation for CWO Marc comments on historical Cruisers and Destroyers?
That would be fun if somehow history could provides some back up on this 2 hits Cruiser. :-)
-
@Young:
What was it CWO Marc was saying about the fire power on Cruisers essentially the same on destroyers?
I was saying that there was some overlap between cruiser and destroyer armament (in terms of type), but I also noted that there were major differences too. I should have been clearer about the overlaps because even in cases where cruisers and destroyers carried the same type of weapons, they didn’t carry the same quantities. To illustrate this with concrete figures, here are some numbers drawn from (as examples) the WWII-era Fletcher class destroyers and the Baltimore class heavy cruisers.
8 inch/55 caliber guns (surface-attack)
Fletcher class destroyer: No
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 9 (in 3 triple turrets)5 inch/38 caliber dual-purpose guns (AAA / surface-attack)
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 5 (in 5 single mounts)
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 12 (in 6 double mounts)40 mm Bofors heavy AAA guns
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 6 to 10
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 4820 mm Oerlikon AAA autocannons
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 7 to 10
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: Yes, 2421-inch torpedo tubes
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 10
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: NoK-gun depth-charge launchers
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes, 6
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: NoDepth charge racks
Fletcher class destroyer: Yes
Baltimore class heavy cruiser: No -
Thanks for the last post, it helps get a real sense of perspective behind A&A units.
So, Cruisers should be better in Naval Combat against Destroyer.
How Cruiser such Baltimore Class can be a match against Battleship?
Do you think a bunch of Heavy cruisers can outmatched a lesser number of Battleships?
-
@Baron:
Maybe this A2 D2 unit combat values similarities could give an orientation for CWO Marc comments on historical Cruisers and Destroyers?
That would be fun if somehow history could provides some back up on this 2 hits Cruiser. :-)Regarding a unit’s hit rating, which in my mind reflects (in the case of a ship) resistance to battle damage offered by armour protection, torpedo bulkheads (if any), watertight compartmentalization, damage control abilities and so forth, a useful rule of thumb is that, in very general terms, a balanced battleship or cruiser design was considered to be a design in which a ship’s armour protection was proportional to its own main armament. In other words: a 16-inch-gun battleship ought to have adequate armour protection to allow it to stand up in a fight against another 16-inch-gun battleship. “Stand up in a fight” does not mean immunity from damage; it means being well enough protected to fight the enemy on reasonably equal terms. Likewise, an 8-inch cruiser ought to be adequately protected by its armour against 8-inch shellfire, and a 6-inch cruiser ought to be adequately protected by its armour against 6-inch shellfire.
This rule of thumb only applies to battleships and cruisers (and arguably only to battleships and cruisers of fairly orthodox design). It doesn’t apply to carriers, most of which had little or no armour, and which in any case didn’t have heavy guns as their main armament. It doesn’t apply to destroyers, which had no armour at all (hence heir “tin can” nickname). And it doesn’t apply to battlecruisers, most of which had big guns but traded weak armour protection for increased speed (“eggshells armed with hammers”). Some oddball battlecruisers even reversed the equation: the Scharnhorst class has 11-inch guns but were intended to be up-gunned to 15-inchers; their armour was under-strength relative to their never-fitted 15-inch guns, but over-strength relative to their 11-inch guns.
-
I think your old post should be added here for more historical details on Cruiser:
@CWO:WWII cruisers can more accurately be divided into the following types:
-
Battlecruisers. These were basically cruisers that were the size of battleships, which carried heavy guns of the same caliber as battleships (though typically in smaller numbers), which were more lightly armoured than battleships, but which generally had higher speeds. Hood (for which A&A 1941 provides a sculpt) is a clear-cut example of a battlecruiser; her 15-inch guns were actually larger than those of the more modern KGV class battleships, which carried 14-inchers. Kongo (for which A&A 1941 provides a sculpt) was also a battlecruiser, though she was rebuilt and (arguably) reclassified as a battleship prior to WWII. The Scharnhorst class ships were also battlecruisers, but with the interesting twist that they were over-armoured relative to their 11-inch guns (rather than under-armoured, which is usually the case with battlecruisers).
-
Heavy cruisers. As I mentioned, heavy cruisers were defined by the Washington Naval Treaty as any cruiser with guns larger than 6-inch caliber. In practice, however, cruisers “with guns larger than 6-inch caliber” fell into two types (or three, if you count the above-mentioned battlecruiser type). One type was the 8-inch gun cruiser, which was the most predominant type (to the point where “heavy cruiser” and “8-inch gun cruiser” were roughly synonymous). The other – and much rarer – type involved cruisers which had guns larger than 8 inches but which were too small to be considered fully-fledged battlecruisers. (I sometimes refer to such vessels as “ultra-heavy cruisers”, but this term wasn’t actually used during WWII.) The Deutschland class Panzerschiffe fell into this category. The Deutschlands were essentially ships which were the size of a heavy cruiser, which had the armour of a light cruiser, and which had the 11-inch guns of a low-end battleship.
-
Light cruisers. These were defined by the Washington Naval Treaty as any cruiser with guns of 6-inch caliber or less. The term “light cruiser” was roughly synonymous with “6-inch cruiser”, which was the most common type. A significant number of cruisers, however, were what I call “ultra-light cruisers” (a term which, like ultra-heavy cruisers, wasn’t actually used during WWII). In many cases they were designed as 5-inch gun anti-aircraft platforms, like the British Dido class and the American Atlanta class.
From what you said, in this specific point:
It doesn’t apply to destroyers, which had no armour at all (hence heir “tin can” nickname).
It is clear that Cruiser can be able to endure much more damage than Destroyer.
For now, IMO the 2-hits Cruiser A2 D2 ShB2 C12 vs Destroyer A2 D2 C8 is acceptable from the historical perspective.
Not because of the same A/D value, but base on the Shore Bombardment capacity and heavier armour figured by the 2 hits.
Submarines get only 1 hit and are probably in the same category as the Destroyer when taking damage, because a hole in the hull make it useless for submersible operation.In addition, the 2-Hits Cruiser gets the better hand in a face-to-face on the same IPCs basis against Destroyers.
2 2-hits Cruisers against 3 Destroyers:
Overall %*: A. survives: 58.7% D. survives: 37.2% No one survives: 4.2%About Subs, the game is still the same because Subs have First Strike against Cruiser. And, on offense, Subs are still better against them.
24 IPCs,
4 Subs against 2 2-hits Cruisers
Overall %*: A. survives: 79.2% D. survives: 20.8% No one survives: 0%But, when Cruiser on offense against Subs, they will probably be as good as Destroyers.
-
-
Based on everything I have read, I would take away the 2 hit advantage on Aircraft Carriers, but allow them to carry 3 air units to justify their 16 IPC cost, or if that’s to strong… give them a defense @1.
-
@Young:
Based on everything I have read, I would take away the 2 hit advantage on Aircraft Carriers, but allow them to carry 3 air units to justify their 16 IPC cost, or if that’s to strong… give them a defense @1.
That will unbalance things.
If you want a more balance Carrier, just input 14 IPCs 1942.2 Carrier A1 D2 M2, 1 hit, 2 planes.
But Naval Base won’t be as useful for repair, since Carrier will be highest rate of IPCs/hit.
People will rather loose a Cruiser than Carrier.Keep it OOB, it is fine.
The real issue with 2-hits Cruiser is the 4 times weaker Battleship in Naval Combat.
No one will pay such as 20 IPCs if you can get much combat value with a lesser investment.Shore bombardment is not a decisive ability.
It is still less the case if you play OOB that: any Naval blocker forfeit the Shore bombardment in an Amphibious assault.
Suggested Topics
