Cruisers

@baron-Münchhausen

Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.

To follow up on this, here’s the interpretation I’d put on the concept of fast versus slow groupings of capital ships (battleships and battlecruisers) with other ships.  The concept did exist in both WWI and WWII, but it took different forms.

In WWI (and the decade leading up to it), naval technology such as turbine engines and face-hardened armour, plus ship design philosophy in general, had progressed to the point where the dreadnought-type capital ship (uniform-caliber main battery in more than two twin turrets, good protection, and fairly high speed) had become feasible, but it had not progressed to the point where all three features (firepower, protection and speed) could be optimized at the same time.  That would have to wait for WWII, when the true “fast battleship” type emerged.  (The same thing happened with tanks, but with a one-war difference: in WWII, tanks could be optimized for two of three features, or have medium performance in all three areas, but it was only during the Cold War that technology allowed a tank to have excellent performance in all three areas.)

During WWI, technological limitations (plus the considerable influence of Admiral John Fisher, who was a visionary in both the good and the bad sense of the concept) led to the emergence of two varieties of dreadnought-type capital ships: the battleship and the battlecruiser.  Basically, dreadnought battleships were reasonably fast (but not as fast as cruisers), and had both heavyweight firepower and heavyweight armour that allowed them to slug it out with anything afloat; the rule of thumb was that a balanced battleship design had “proportional” armour capable of dealing with an enemy ship carrying the same caliber of main guns as it itself carried.  Battlecruisers were similar to dreadnought battleships (the British, in fact, tended to create a parallel class of battlecruiser for its respective battleship classes), but they carried fewer main gun turrets and had less armour so that they could achieve higher speed than a battleship; they were roughly as fast as a normal cruiser, considerably better-armed, and somewhat (but not always by much) better protected.  Battlecruisers, according to British doctrine, were operated as part of what could be called “fast heavy scouting divisions,” in advance of the main formation of the more powerful but slower battleships.  For a classic example of this, have a look at the two main British formations at the Battle of Jutland: Jellicoe’s slower battleship force, and Beatty’s faster battlecruiser force.

In WWII, the picture becomes more complicated.  There were relatively few battlecruisers at that time, and they were a strange mixture of British and Japanese WWI hold-overs, weird German designs reflecting (or intended to cheat) treaty limitations, clear-headed French and Italian modern evolutions of the battlecruiser concept, plus the well-made but rather pointless American Alaska class (which the Americans denied were battlecruisers).  To me, these odd ships muddy the picture more than anything else.  In my opinion, the real fast-versus-slow capital ship distinction in WWII wasn’t between battlships and battlecruisers, it was between the modern 1930s- and 1940s-era “fast battleships” on the one hand and the surviving WWI-era battleships (some of hwich had been modernized between the wars) on the other hand.  The classic example of that distinction can be found at Leyte Gulf, where the Americans assigned their old slow battleships (plus some escort carriers) to support the amphibious invasion directly (I think they were officially under McArthur’s command), and assigned their fast battleships and their fleet carriers (under Halsey) to fight the main Japanese fleet if it showed up.  Halsey’s carrier pilots did take a substantial crack at the IJN during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea (they sank the Musashi, notably), but Halsey later took the bait of a Japanese decoy operation and charged off to the north with his fast battleships and his fleet carriers to engage Japan’s remaining fleet carriers (which actually had few or no planes left aboard, and were simply meant to draw him away from Leyte Gulf).  As a result, the Japanese surface-combat forces (in two groups, operating well away from the decoy force) had a clear shot at Leyte – and the American forces which ended up stopping them were, respectively, the US Navy’s older battleships at the Battle of Surigao Strait and a force of escort carriers and light surface-combat vessels at the Battle off Samar.  In the latter engagement, the hopelessly outclassed (if you go by the raw ship types and numbers) Americans engaged the Japanese battle fleet so aggressively that the Japanese commander, Admiral Kurita, ended up retreating because, in his mind, the tiny American forces couldn’t possibly be attacking him so energetically unless they were expecting massive US Navy reinforcements to arrive at any moment.  In fact, Admiral Sprague, the US commander on the spot, knew perfectly well that Halsey was nowhere near him; he dealt with a hopeless situation by going on the offensive because that was he was a leader in the tradition of WWI’s Ferdinand Foch (who at the Battle of the Marne reputedly signaled to his superiors: “My left flank is driven in; my centre is giving way; the situation is excellent: I attack!”)

@Baron:

Maybe you can call this sculpt escorting vessels for TPs and Carriers.
Cost 10 but attack 2 and defense 3. Anti-Sub with AA defense.

Working as both Cruiser and DDs.

You need them to cover Capital ships with a ring of these cheaper warships.

That’s a thought, and a good one. Escorts A2 D3 M2 C10, Anti sub, anti air. It would also enliven the usual warship stats in A&A - A2 D2, A3 D3, A4 D4… Capital ships and transports need somebody to help protect them at sea - just ask the survivors of Taffy 3.

Something to ponder.

-Midnight_Reaper

Using BBs and CAs as bombers doing an SBR sounds pretty cool. I guess they would be impervious to interceptors though ? Maybe tacs could intercept ships only ?

Think it’s just a matter of finding the right numbers for your fortresses piscolar. You’ll just have to playtest it out. My concern would be that they’re not too powerful so they can’t be cracked. I like the idea of having a ground unit present to activate them.

I have been working on something that may help balance any abilities you give to cruisers . A way to add more of a “capital” ship into the game, so I have bought blue, black, and orange counters (same kind as stock white and red ones) and plan on using them to mark hits on capital ships, orange being fire (dive bomb/ kamikaze) and blue being water (torpedo bomber). I have bought several new units from HBG to depict the different aircraft, but being largely a historian I find the loss of a battleship or carrier during one roll kind of odd. I know you have the option to tilt the piece for a second hit? But what about if you mark the ship with a hit or two and then put a black marker for smoke? Now while you are limping the ship to port for repairs attacking battleships can fire from longer range instead of attacking within the same sea zone. This in effect would make any rules to cruisers balanced because they can be sunk in a round of combat. Whereas if capital ships BB and CV’s are sunk in shallow water areas they can be raised as well. Now your poor man’s BB pales in comparison because it won’t have the capability to take multiple hits and long range engagements. As for balance the very fact that when crippled movement shall be one space and the smoke allowing for long range engagement should even things out. I don’t mind adding miniature elements to the game because it only enhances play.  What do you guys think?

I begin by repeating myself: if adding units, add more territories. Given the current map (G40, 2nd edition), I honestly don’t see any room for additional units. More space would need to added to open up additional possibilities for strategic movement on the board. This would create a new problems of its own, which I address below, but it is the fundamental change to which I think one must commit when deciding to add more units.

So, the real question is: How to balance realism/plausibility with a desire on the part of some players to do “new stuff” with new mechanics. Several major challenges arise:

Are we looking at the operational or strategic level of warfare? Axis & Allies splits the difference for the sake of creating a reasonable fun gameplay experience. If each unit is an abstraction of actual forces, then:
Land units (mostly) represent armies or corps of infantry, and divisions of armor and artillery. A few odd units in places like Hong Kong and French Indo-China represent functionally independent divisional commands. I have heard some concern on these forums about artillery moving and attacking at the same time as other units. Some people think that artillery should fire first, as it does during a general advance on the battlefield. There have also been arguments that it should fire in defense. I think that the first argument is most-flawed. Because of the level of abstraction described above (typically at the corps and divisional levels), land combat in Axis & Allies represents strategic, campaign-level movement in a given region. It does not represent operational or tactical activity. Artillery should not be presented separately or be able to conduct discrete “fire missions.” In terms of using artillery on the defensive, I think the choice to do otherwise was dictated by use of the d6 standard. Infantry don’t gain a defense bonus from artillery because they would defend at 3, which would dramatically reduce the value of purchasing armor.

Air units usually represent full wings of fighters or bombers, but the Scramble rule is all about using them tactically. The chief problem with air units has to do with movement. They perform regular movement at one scale, and combat movement at another.

Naval units represent flotillas. Thus, each destroyer represents a group, and each capital ship, a squadron. Together, they form fleets. My only gripe about naval action is that the Cruiser and the Battleship are not sufficiently different. Let’s compare.

So what about the map?
My recommendation would be to increase the number of map spaces at the expense of realism. Each turn still represents about three months’ real time. Crossing the Atlantic would take 2 turns. Crossing the Pacific would take 3-4 turns. This would not be realistic, but it would create more opportunities for movement, blocking, and naval combat searches, which I think should be instituted. (I think that, before any naval combat, a die should be rolled to determine whether the searching fleets even find one another. This creates the possibility that attacks on enemy fleets will be foiled and tempts players into trying to “sneak” forces past the enemy.)

Air units should have different values for attacking other air units and then naval and land forces. Split the current tactical bomber into two units: a naval torpedo bomber that can select which naval units are hit and a dive bomber that is slightly cheaper, but optimized to hit land units.

Does the Cruiser have good value?

The value of a unit can be calculated by adding up its movement, attack, and defense values, expressed relative to its cost. Thus, a cruiser has value 8/12, or 2/3. That is, you get a .66 return on every IPC spent. A battleship has value 10/20, or 1/2, which is a .5 return on every IPC spent. However, it can survive an extra hit, which means that it is technically a 1 return on every IPC spent. The obvious cruiser alternative is more destroyers. A destroyer has value 6/8, or 3/4, meaning that there is a .75 return on every IPC spent before factoring in the benefit of its anti-submarine capabilities. Better, then, to buy destroyers or battleships every time, especially because one can buy 2 destroyers for every 1.5 cruisers. (I’m no math whiz, and I welcome alternative interpretations.)

One approach to improving the cruiser’s value would be, I think, to give it a small area-of-effect bonus against attacking aircraft, representing its role as an escort for the big battlewagons.

In terms of adding other units, I think Commerce Raiders would be useful only if more spaces were added to the game. The inclusion of trade routes in the new HBG 1936 edition may create space for such a unit. I like the idea of adding Destroyer Escorts to safeguard convoy zones and transports, but I think that kind of work can already be performed by the Destroyer. Torpedo boats would be an interesting addition, but their value is really in the Mediterranean, which would need to be expanded in space to enhance the value of maneuver. I’m also concerned that such small craft wouldn’t thrive against A&A air units, which are extraordinarily powerful against other units.

Battlecruisers are interesting but effectively pointless since they will not travel at 3. HBG has experimented with Coastal Battleships and Coastal Submarines for lesser powers, and I suppose these units might be worthwhile, but then only as part of the forces that smaller nations receive at game start and are compelled to use due to anemic budgets.

@Navalland said in Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units:

I’m interested in playing customized 1942.2 with Italian presence and armours with 5ipc cost.

Better to talk about it on the thread you started, to not derailed this one.
Can you send the link?

@Imperious:

OK.
Cruisers when they shoot and roll a 1 can force the defender to remove a plane
Cruisers move 3 spaces even if they didn’t come out of port.
Now they are worth the extra 2 IPC.

@Young:

@variance:

Another idea has been that each cruiser would only fire an AA shot at 1 attacking plane.

This is better than 3 shots per ship IMO.

So our Cruisers combine those ideas and get:
1-An attack and a defense @3 + 1 bombard @3,
2-A first round AA @1 against 1 attacking aircraft,
3-Cruisers when they shoot, either on attack or defense, and roll a 1 can force the attacker/defender to remove a plane.

In the game I played, the AA has more of a psychological impact than a real effect.
Indeed, it never destroyed any aircraft. And thus, neither by the AA and even by the “1” roll which force the defender to destroy an aircraft.

But UK bought 3 cruisers, instead of any BB, against German Luftwaffe.

Thanks everybody, those suggestions makes cruiser a more interesting unit that worth buying.

However, it can be a real nuisance for Germany but it may also help protect the Baltic fleet against UK aircrafts: at least, it slightly upgrade the Baltic fleet to better defend against attacking UK planes.