Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units

@Genghis:

Yes exactly, there will always going to be a few subs that get through the blockade of destroyers. that was the intent of my rule change, doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with that? It meanse it might be worth buying subs instead of never buying any because they all get blocked by a single destroyer. It means if you buy lots of subs, the opponent must start buying DDs to keep up instead of simply buying a single DD to cancel out ALL your subs.

That is the reason why I think you no more need to lower sub price.
At least, they are no more trapped in defense by few DDs and some get surprise strike in a given combat round when Subs nb > DDs nb.

The only annoying thing is you have to compare numbers on each side and every combat rounds to determine how many surprise strike you get.
For instance: 5 DDs and 3 Subs against 2 DDs and 4 Subs.
According to casualty selection, which subs get surprise strike will greatly vary.
It delay combat resolution compared to OOB.
That maybe an issue for some players.

For your info, in redesign thread, we develop a different POV, in which DD get A1 D1 C5 but cannot block Subs A2 D1 C6 in any way at all. So, they always do Surprise strike and can pass through SZ with enemy DDs in it.
We are actually in play-tests phase and taking summer brake. Barney found that this increase Battle of Atlantic feel to his G40 tested game.
However there is a few changes for TcB and Fg which no more need DD presence to hit Subs.
And get some one  time first strike @1 anti-sub capacity.

@Genghis:

Ok so according to my calculations, the battleship needs to be M2A6D6C20 to be better in combat than current DDs. BB needs to be better in combat than DDs because DD’s abilities are better than BB’s ability.

Now if you make the point that M2A6D6C20 is better than two cruisers M2A3D3C10, than we have to give the cruiser a unique role in the game so that every ship is worth taking.
Do you meant Battleship A5 D5 M2 C20?

Axis and Allies basic assumption is that cheaper fodder unit, Infantry, are always more cost and combat value efficient than costlier unit.

Making Destroyer less combat efficient than Cruiser and Battleship is radical perspective change.

IMO, it is easier to assume that Infantry is better cost efficient in land battle than Tank.
But for warships, it seems sounder that paying for a costlier unit, you get a more powerful and efficient one, or at least of similar efficiency. Otherwise, it is not optimized to buy such bulkier ones if smaller ones get the job done for better price.
This last point should be open up for debate about balancing warships within themselves.

Larry and consorts would say Cruiser and BB get Shore Bombardment.
And Cruiser get the most cost efficient.
2 Cruisers combined with 1 Inf and 1 Art get 10 attack points, avg. 3 hits and only lost 2 units.

Overkill in defense have no impact on BB and Cruiser while air support may be shut down.

On Carriers vs BBs, historical purist would say that BBs were becoming obsolete in WW2.
I’m pretty confident you don’t need autokill A6 D6 but only A5 D5 to get interesting results against DDs.
Also, 2 hits should be considered.
Loosing carrying capacity, is not easy decision to make compared to tipping BB.

10 Carriers A0 D2 C16, 2 hits with 20 Fgs A3 D4 C10, against 18 BB A5 D5 C20, 2 hits

Carriers on offense get no chance to survive.

As far as I can try various combinations, even on defense, full Carrier is not better against BB A5 D5, 2 hits.

There is probably a mistake in your simulation, is it  really:
10 Carriers A0 D2 C20, 2 hits with 20 Fgs A3 D4 C10, against 20 BB A5 D5 C20, 2 hits?

A lot depend on what you are aiming for.
IMO, there is no need to modify CV. On offense, it is weaker vs Cruiser C10 and BB A5 D5.
Against a lot of StBs, it is barely manageable to get a working fleet DD+CV+Fgs with a few TPs, on the same IPCs basis. Adding BB or Cruiser can now be part of optimal defensive fleet.

Target selection is a matter of taste and flavor.

@Genghis:

sorry i had made a mistake in my initial simulation. the BBs actually won with 10bbs surviving lol.

I just finished 38 BBs at 5/5 vs 20ACs D2 (with 40 fighters of course) and the battle ended with one BB vs 1 fighter.

What do you use to make this simulation?
AACalc get some limitations.

@Genghis:

I do it by hand, very tedious process but it works :). I add up the attack and defense punch and divide by 6 to calculate hits in each round and keep going from there.

My issue was that carrier at C16 is too strong in terms of defense. And don’t worry, I’m planning on changing the Strategic Bombers because they are quite OP.

Your method is very approximate, it works to get a general idea in f-2-f game but willing statistical accuracy, it is better to rely on AACalc simulations which does 10 000 combats to get results.

4 Cruiser A3 will not get 2 hits 100% of time in a single combat round, for instance.
Rather 6% to get no hit or 4 hits, 25% to get 1 hit or 3 hits and 38% to get 2 hits.

If you want to know the method using AACalc and numbers for Carrier compared to other ships:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.msg1227352#msg1227352
The true balanced scale for pure combat value is SS 7- DD 8- CA 10- CV 16- BB 18

On a 50% vs 50% odds of survival on same IPCs basis, actually Carriers should be lowered to 15 IPCs based on avg between offence and defense.
Either if 2 hits BB is A4 D4 C18 or A5 D5 C20
But since Carrier has a specific role and will stay useful, there is no need to change cost, 16 will make it popular even if Cruiser and BB are stronger or cheaper.

@Genghis:

I do it by hand, very tedious process but it works :). I add up the attack and defense punch and divide by 6 to calculate hits in each round and keep going from there.

My issue was that carrier at C16 is too strong in terms of defense. And don’t worry, I’m planning on changing the Strategic Bombers because they are quite OP.

suggestion 1: bombers may choose to attack at low or high altitude. low altitude attack at 4 but subject to AA fire by cruiser and BB (work just like regular AA, imagine ships are AA guns for that purpose). high altitude, attack at 3 but not subject to any AA fire.

suggestion 2: strategic bomber unchanged but attack at 3 against sea zones.

Making StBs A3 D1 M6 C12 works great.
Adding a +1A Fg combined arms to get A4 works to lower StBs efficiency too.

There is many ways to go and also going against purely AACalc balanced scale cost depending on giving different capacity, for example making Cruiser M3 with AAA vs up to 3 planes is enough to make it interesting at 12 IPCs. (Same as a Tank M2 compared to Artillery M1.)

So balancing per cost ratio is not the only aspect, simplicity and historical depiction can be others.
So what is your main goal by trying to tweak some rules?

Placing DD at 6 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs increase the gap CA cost/DD cost: 1.67 compare to OOB 12/8 = 1.5 and make Cruiser a weaker unit.
The first idea of this thread is to put Cruiser at 10 IPCs for 1.25 ratio and BB at 18 IPCs.

Lowering DD to 6, implied to put Cruiser at 9 and BB at 15 IPCs.
That way, you keep OOB relative strength DD + CA vs 1 BB = 50% odds of survival.

As suggested in Redesign Thread: a SS5, DD6, CA9, CV12, BB15 also make easier all calculations purchase because changing 1 step above or below is 1 Infantry at 3 IPCs and Subs get the iconic 5 spot.

But, how far is too low because placing ships in water is what delay Allies and air cheaper or more cost efficient vs warships is the main way to repel fleet?

Classic TP D1 C8 vs Fg A3 D4 C10 was still efficient ratio but costly for Allies.

Placing  both Cruiser and Fg at 10 is already helping UK fending off Lufftwaffe.

Going with advanced shipyard Tech can be tried too.
SS5, TP6, DD7, CA9, CV13, BB17
Carrier should still cost 14 to help BB compete with Cruiser it should be 16.