How much would the game change if…....

Both scenarios would see cruisers built a LOT more. Probably too much.
In the first, it would make BB’s nearly better than carriers for straight sea battles and cruisers nearly as well. Carriers would see less use.
In the second one, I doubt anyone would build subs anymore, and therefore no one would build destroyers. So it would work theoretically, but cruisers again would be OP as the lightest ship around at a reasonable cost. Carriers and BB’s would comprise the rest of the fleets.

So neither works really. I’m probably going to house rule either +1 move or AA capability with 2 rolls.

A. If you made it cruiser 10 / battleship 18, then I would build no subs and few destroyers.

B. If you made it subs 8 / destroyers 10, then I would build no subs and no destroyers.

Scenario A would make cruisers explode in popularity.  It would still be a playable game, though bombardment might get excessive.

Scenario B would result in tiny navies and would spoil the game in my opinion.  Sensible players would build mostly air units for battles at sea.

If you want a more naval type of game, how about a house rule that gives every power the “improved shipyards” tech.  All of the ships are a little cheaper, but air units stay at the normal price so carriers should be built less and other ships built more.

make cruisers cost 11

and/or give them 1 AA shot each before battle with enemy air units

or possible give them 3 movement range from any seazone regardless of starting at naval base or not (naval base does not increase to 4 movement)

interesting ideas

how about cruisers 10$ attack at 3 defend at 2?

everything else the same

And let’s make subs 1 attack no - 1 defense at 4 ipcs?

How about we leave things alone since they are perfect now? :D

yes.

Or that. I guess as long as cruisers stay as non-major buys I’ll always beat my friend.

Still don’t see why people rag the cruiser. It makes an excellent addition to any navy and great pair up with destroyer.

@Admiral:

Still don’t see why people rag the cruiser. It makes an excellent addition to any navy and great pair up with destroyer.

I think what people complain about is cruisers don’t have “special abilities” and for their cost they aren’t efficient at all in combat.

@techroll42:

@Admiral:

Still don’t see why people rag the cruiser. It makes an excellent addition to any navy and great pair up with destroyer.

I think what people complain about is cruisers don’t have “special abilities” and for their cost they aren’t efficient at all in combat.

The special ability is a cheaper version of offshore bombardment, lol. But, I can understand the “complaint”, but do not agree with it. I’ve seen the AA idea floating around, though I can see the obvious follies in it.

@Admiral:

@techroll42:

@Admiral:

Still don’t see why people rag the cruiser. It makes an excellent addition to any navy and great pair up with destroyer.

I think what people complain about is cruisers don’t have “special abilities” and for their cost they aren’t efficient at all in combat.

The special ability is a cheaper version of offshore bombardment, lol. But, I can understand the “complaint”, but do not agree with it. I’ve seen the AA idea floating around, though I can see the obvious follies in it.

Like…?

(What obvious follies?)

think about how the game would change if
Inf cost is 1
Arty and mech cost 2
Tanks cost 4
Fighters 6
Tac 7
Bomber 8
AA gun 3
Mnior IC 8
Major ic 20
Subs 4
dds 6
Cruisers 8
BBs 13
Carriers 10
transport 5
Air base 7
Navy Base 7

We would see MASSIVE armies

Now were talking!!!

@SS:

Now were talking!!!

were talking 100 Infantry is like 20 infantry!!!

Man russia would go crazy!!!

In my game Russia does only pay 2 icp’s but there is a limit of 20 infrantry per buy (turn) and a limit per country so that way it forces you to buy more non inf land units plus also have double the money for each country.