Our club has added technology rules that really speed up the game and offer much more variety. One of the most significant is that each country has rail movement. If you want to discuss, best way to reach me is by email at jonkrost@comcast.net
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
-
@Baron:
Cruisers and Battleships only have bombardment and I find bombardment really weak. It’s far, far superior to just build carriers+planes, if you want your amphibious assaults to have more power.
So to make both ships more viable, it could help to buff bombardment to fire every round except only the first one. It’s also possible to buff bombardment to work the same way as Kamikaze and AAA hits, removing the defenders immediately, that are hit.But still - as long as cruisers and battleships share the same ability (Bombardment), there will ALWAYS remain this problem:
One of them will be mathematically better IPC-wise. (If they are exactly equally strong, battleships will never be built).So my suggestion to solve the current sea imbalances:
Give bombardment to only one of these ships and buff it. Give the other ship an entirely new skill, so that every ship has its own role. A possibility would be to give battleships the skill to bombard facilities. It could work like rockets (the technology). Every BB can shoot at one harbor/airfield/factory within a range of 2 (or coastal only maybe) for 1d6.
Interesting and never discuss options.
You should post it in the House rules on Light Cruiser thread I have just started.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202619#msg1202619Maybe, we should give to BB a regular coastal bombardment @4 every round. But still let’s the defender casualty units roll for defense.
And give to CL 1 single coastal bombardment @3 in the first round as OOB rules.
It would probably be more historically accurate, I suppose because BB guns have a much greater range. -
Adding some stats to think about all this for a BB A4D4C18 2 hits against other OOB units
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%1 BB vs 3 Subs on offense = 19% vs 80%
instead of : 3 BBs (20 IPCs) vs 10 Subs on off= 2% vs 98%4 BBs vs 9 DDs = 53% vs 44% /
instead : 4 BBs (20 IPCs) vs 10 DDs = 32% vs 66%5 BBs vs 9 CLs (10 IPCs)= 56% vs 40%
instead: 3BBs (20 IPCs) vs 5 CLs (12 IPCs)= 66% vs 28%
On a same IPCs cost basis,
reducing the cost for BB makes them prevail now against destroyers and against defending subs.
However, subs on offense still prevail on battleships.The 2 IPCs reduced cost for both BB and CL is helping a little the Cruiser not to be too outmatch by the Battleship.
Effectively,
2BBs (18 IPCs) vs OOB 3 CLs (12 IPCs)= 73% vs 18% for the BBs of course.11BBs (18 IPCs) vs 18 CLs (11 IPCs)= 88% vs 11% for the BBs .
Here we see that the too great number of units improve odds toward BBs.
5BBs + Damaged BB vs 9 CLs (11 IPCs) = 83% vs 15% for the BBs. -
Okay I will give a complete view on the current Sea balance.
Current roles of ships:
Submarine: By far the strongest in Attack. Even the strongest in Defense, when paired with full carriers (5 subs for each full carrier) due to being cheap cannon fodder. Strong convoy. Requires opponent to have enough destroyers to kill all subs if you decide to spread them for maximum convoy. At the moment the strongest ship and actually too powerful.
Destroyers: Counter submarine abilities. Cannon-fodder for air-only attacks. Blocker unit.
Carrier (with planes): Provides a longer attack range, giving you high versatility. Planes are not prone to being blocked. Supports Amphibious Assaults. Planes can be used on land, when they are not needed on the sea anymore. Soaks a hit per carrier.
Cruisers: Bombardment.
Battleships: Bombardment. Soak a hit per BB
Now with a little math, that don’t need to be shown here once more, it is obvious that Battleships are inferior to destroyers if you only look at damage in offense and defense and hp. Since the destroyers additionally have other uses (blocking, countering subs, cannon fodder for your carriers), battleships are simply too weak, period.
Cruisers are even far weaker than battleships and don’t provide more abilities than battleships. If the battleship is already too weak so that it’s rarely purchased, that means cruisers are just a joke.
Now first of all bombardment needs some work. Carriers give you far more power in amphibious assaults alone, and that’s not even counting the numerous other advantages carriers have compared to bombardment.
No matter how bombardment is changed: I am convinced that the cruiser < - > battleship balance will never be solved, if they share the same ability (even if the bombardment differs slightly).
As in every balanced strategy game (doesn’t matter if it is something like chess, or something like StarCraft), every unit needs its specific niche role.
Whenever, in ANY strategy game, two units share the same abilities, math will always find the better one. If they are both equally good, the more expensive one is obsolete.
Therefore I’m not in favor of cruisers and battleships sharing bombardment (and additionally bombardment in its current state is too weak to justify buying either of those two ships).
A possible solution
Reduce the cruiser cost to 10 and let them bombard every round. This would lead to cruisers being equally good to destroyers. While destroyers have their uses described above, cruisers would be the best unit for amphibious assaults. They can’t be shot down by AAA like planes, so cruisers would finally become viable.
Reduce the battleship cost to 18 and remove the bombardment ability. Instead give them something different. A possibility would be a rocket-like attack (like the technology rockets). It kinda makes sense, that huge battleships have the skill to damage facilities. One non-blockable 1d6 attack on a coastal harbor, airfield or factory per bb and territory.
This would bring the battleship in line with the 10IPC cruisers IPC-wise. They are slightly stronger than destroyers. I don’t think that’s a big problem, since at the moment destroyers are having a lot of uses already. You’d still buy destroyers and they fill in the role of cannon fodder even more (besides, you can’t always spend 18 IPC for one ship anyway). Battleships on the other hand would be the go-to unit for besieging, in addition to convoying subs.Increase the cost of submarines to 8 and increase attack from 2 to 3. This will lead to submarines no longer being used as cannon fodder. Submarines would be more like bombers - attack-units only. And it makes way more sense historically.
-
Very good and complete post. :-)
I am more of an historical influence basis for modifying rules.
That’s why I would keep shore bombardment for cruisers and let them have some AAA capacity, and moving at 3 without a naval base.I have no problem giving Battleship something similar to TacBomber and StratBomber against IC, AB and NB. And it is a very original option indeed. :-)
But only 1 territory away: 1D6 damage against industrial complex (not 1D6+2 as OOB for STrB), airbase and navalbase.
-
@Baron:
Very good and complete post. :-)
Thanks :-)
@Baron:
That’s why I would keep shore bombardment for cruisers and let them have some AAA capacity, and moving at 3 without a naval base.
I don’t think increasing the movement of only one ship is very useful. In most cases, you don’t want to spread out your fleet. And if you do, it’s because you either want to maximize convoy or you want to block. You won’t be able to use the longer cruiser range very often.
Of course giving cruisers a secondary skill (like some kind of AAA gun) without improving the current bombardment is a solution too. I’m not sure, if AAA wouldn’t make them too strong, though. At the very least, it’s easier to balance cruisers if they only have bombardment (every round).@Baron:
I have no problem giving Battleship something similar to TacBomber and StratBomber against IC, AB and NB. And it is a very original option indeed. :-)
But only 1 territory away: 1D6 damage against industrial complex (not 1D6+2 as OOB for STrB), airbase and navalbase.That’s why I compared it with rockets from the technology, not with SBR. And yes, of course only coastal.
-
Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
There is more room for other historical units for those who use more miniatures like HBG.Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C14, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
Armored Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C15, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3Battleship, BB A4D4M2C18, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4
To get more differences between cruiser vs BB:
A) Give all types of cruiser M3
B1) Give them 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB or 1CV
(I thought I was the first to think about it but… Imperious Leader got this idea first:)
http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=24
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give to 1 cruiser 1 to 3 preemptives AA@1 on defense.
C) Give them both offence and defense on a roll of “1”, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB).
D1) Give to CL a coastal bombardment @4 instead of only @3.D2) Give to the BB 2 rounds of coastal bombardment @4 when there is at least 1 ground unit remaining from TT making the amphibious assault after first round.
E) Give to the BB 1D3 damage to either IC, Naval Base or Air Base as a coastal rocket attack.
F) Give to BB Plundging Fire on first rnd: 1@1 preemptive strike against surface vessels
G) Forbid BB to attack subs: A0 vs Subs. But play them on defense vs subs D4 as OOB rules.With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function. And I don’t think it will unbalance anything toward other naval units.
-
For historical accuracy, I prefer to give much more coastal bombardment punch to BB rather than cruiser.
-
With cruiser moving at 3, you get a fast reinforcement from newly built ones to replace lost ships in a crippled fleet.
-
I haven’t read this discussion thread in detail, so perhaps I’m missing some points that have been covered somewhere, but I’m a bit confused about a couple of things.
-
Why are the A&A cruiser sculpts being refered to as light cruisers? All the sculpts provided in the A&A game depict heavy cruisers (as is noted in my cruiser identification chart in this thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31982.0). With the exception of the Kirov class, all the sculpts are for 8-inch gun cruisers…and even the 7.1-inch gun Kirov class counts as a heavy cruiser, which the Washington Treaty defined as any cruiser with guns larger than 6-inch caliber.
-
I’m also perplexed at the division of cruiser types into light cruisers, battle cruisers and armoured cruisers – and especially at the “armoured cruisers” part. Technically, an armoured cruiser is any cruiser which has a belt of vertical armour…and by WWII, all cruisers (as far as I know) had vertical armour (albeit of varying thichknesses and heights). The term “armoured cruiser” only had relevance back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it distinguished cruisers with vertical armour from: a) cruisers which only had horizontal deck armour, a.k.a. “protected cruisers”, and b) cruisers with no armour at all.
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.
-
-
Thank you for you accurate historical post.
If their is 3 types of cruiser during WWII named:
Light Cruiser (CL), Battlecruiser (CB) and Heavy Cruiser (CH or CA?)
It means you just have to change the sculpt on the board to adjust for the 3 caracterization of units:Light Cruiser, CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@3
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
Armored becomes Heavy Cruiser, CA/CH A3D3M2C15, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3Another precision, from a different thread:
@CWO:@Baron:
CA= Heavy Cruiser
CV= Aircraft carrier (v-shaped aircraft)The “V” in CV has no relationship to V-shaped aircraft. Aircraft with swept wings didn’t exist when carriers were first developed. The “V” comes from the second letter of “aviation”. Carriers were originally considered to be an extension of the cruiser reconnaissance role, (which is where the “C” comes from), but “CA” (for “cruiser aviation”) couldn’t be used as a hull designation code for them because it was already used to designate heavy cruisers, so “CV” was chosen instead.
-
The main reason I input Light Cruiser for the main cruiser unit is that at a 10 IPCs cost their is much more room upward (11 to 17 IPCs) than downward (9 IPCs).
Who wants a cruiser A2 or D2 much like a destroyer if the standard cruiser is a heavy A3D3C10.I didn’t cross-reference with the actual sculpt on the board.
That’s why your detail historical post add much value to this thread on cruiser. :-) -
Regarding the alphabetic abbreviations you mention: technically they’re hull identification codes which are specific to the US Navy, though of course they’re useful as abbreviations for use in dice-roll tables.
As I recall, the USN used CA to designate heavy cruisers, CL to designate surface-combat light cruisers and CLAA to designate anti-aircraft light cruisers. Some projected post-WWI battlecruisers were supposed to be designated as CCs, but they were scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers. The CB designation was used to designate the Alaska class 12-inch gunned “large heavy cruisers”; these were essentially battlecruisers, but the USN never called them battlecruisers and the “CB” designation was a bit controversial at the time for that reason.
So, trying to balance completeness and historical accuracy with some simplifying assumptions, I’d recommend grouping cruisers into four basic types:
Battlecruisers (dice table abbreviation CB): with a few arguable exceptions, any cruiser with 11-inch (or larger) guns
Heavy cruisers (dice table abbreviation CA): mostly cruisers with 8-inch guns
Light cruisers (dice table abbreviation CL): mostly cruisers with 6-inch guns
Anti-aircraft cruisers (dice table abbreviation CLAA): cruisers with guns in (or around) the 5-inch category
-
@CWO:
Regarding the alphabetic abbreviations you mention: technically they’re hull identification codes which are specific to the US Navy, though of course they’re useful as abbreviations for use in dice-roll tables.
As I recall, the USN used CA to designate heavy cruisers, CL to designate surface-combat light cruisers and CLAA to designate anti-aircraft light cruisers.� Some projected post-WWI battlecruisers were supposed to be designated as CCs, but they were scrapped or converted into aircraft carriers.� The CB designation was used to designate the Alaska class 12-inch gunned “large heavy cruisers”; these were essentially battlecruisers, but the USN never called them battlecruisers and the “CB” designation was a bit controversial at the time for that reason.
So, trying to balance completeness and historical accuracy with some simplifying assumptions, I’d recommend grouping cruisers into four basic types:
Battlecruisers (dice table abbreviation CB): with a few arguable exceptions, any cruiser with 11-inch (or larger) guns
Heavy cruisers (dice table abbreviation CA): mostly cruisers with 8-inch guns
Light cruisers (dice table abbreviation CL): mostly cruisers with 6-inch guns
Anti-aircraft cruisers (dice table abbreviation CLAA): cruisers with guns in (or around) the 5-inch category
So it seems to me we can agree about the code name and stats given to them (there is still room for discussion about little adjusment though.)
Light cruisers (dice table abbreviation CL): mostly cruisers with 6-inch guns
Anti-aircraft cruisers (dice table abbreviation CLAA): cruisers with guns in (or around) the 5-inch category
CL A3D3M2C10, 1 hit bombard 1@3
- 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.
All this makes sense to give on a roll “1” to hit a plane since this group of cruiser is an antiaircraft Platform.
Heavy cruisers (dice table abbreviation CA): mostly cruisers with 8-inch guns
CA A3D3M2C15, 2 hits bombard 1@3
I thought Heavy cruiser have much better armour than light cruiser. Is it ?
If not, at least we can be sure that a 2 hits cruiser can still make damage after receiving a hit instead of being sunk like a light cruiser.
Maybe you have a better stat adjustment to get more realism?Battlecruisers (dice table abbreviation CB): with a few arguable exceptions, any cruiser with 11-inch (or larger) guns
CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit bombard 1@4
- 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.
This one fit the description I think.
-
@Baron:
I thought Heavy cruiser have much better armour than light cruiser. Is it ?
If not, at least we can be sure that a 2 hits cruiser can still make damage after receiving a hit instead of being sunk like a light cruiser.
Maybe you have a better stat adjustment to get more realism?I don’t have any experience at converting real-world warship features into wargaming combat point values, so I won’t be able to be of any direct help on those kinds of issues. As regards actual cruiser armour, there was a lot of variation from ship to ship and country to country, but speaking very generally: yes, heavy cruisers tended to be more heavily armoured than light cruisers. I don’t know enough about cruiser designs to be sure whether they applied the concept of proportional protection which was commonly used for battleships, but it’s probably safe to assume that this was the case. Proportional protection means giving a ship enough armour to protect it against an enemy ship armed with guns of the same caliber as the ship you’re designing. So as a very rough rule of thumb, an 8-inch heavy cruiser with a balanced design would be armoured on a scale to give it reasonable protection against 8-inch shellfire. A 6-inch light cruiser would have armour protection effective against 6-inch shellfire. Anti-aircraft cruisers may possibly (I haven’t checked) have been very lightly armoured relative to their 5-inch guns, since they would normally have been expected to fight airplanes rather that other cruisers. At the opposite end of the scale, most battlecruisers were notoriously under-armoured relative to the large scale of their guns. The classic battlecruiser design philosophy traded protection for speed, and as a result battlecruisers were regarded as “eggshells armed with hammers.”
-
To balance Cruiser you don’t change all the other naval units…
keep cost and add ability.
Move 3 ( or 4 from port)
and or add one free AA roll against any planes @1
-
@Imperious:
To balance Cruiser you don’t change all the other naval units…
keep cost and add ability.
Move 3 ( or 4 from port)
and or add one free AA roll against any planes @1
Hi IL, I’m happy you show a little interest on this one.
The solution is exactly the opposite.
Just this simple and easy change on the cost (-2 IPCs) for both CL and BB, nothing more.
Of course, if you want more historical feeling and similarities, you can add the other option you just mentioned (and much others I posted in the first posts of this thread), in addition.
Said otherwise, why this reduced cost will not give a better balance between all naval units and even aircrafts?
Is there any reason to stick on the 12 IPCs cruisers and the 20 IPCs battleship?
The earlier reasons developed on other threads take about the lack of interest in a 20 IPCs BB when you get a Cruiser at 10 IPCs. Cruiser became too strong. To keep their relative strength, lower the price of BB to 18 IPCs.
So with 18 IPCs you can still buy 1 BB (of course) or 1DD and 1CL, keeping the same balance.
BB A4D4M2C18 vs 1DD A2D2M2C8 + 1CL A3D3M2C10= 39% vs 43% chance of survival
(which is the same as actual OOB rules) little advantage toward Cruiser and Destroyer.Do you have any doubt about some unbalancing consequences (on buying? on the first few turns in any given game)?
Is this modifier a too great game changer that Germany fighters (10 IPCs) will fall under too much British and US cruisers (10 IPCs) protecting transports?
For now I need the community to help me foresee the disaster that will fall on a OOB global or 1942 game making this sole modifier on the cost.
-
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.
-
@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.
Your argument is mainly an appeal to traditions.
Let’s suppose that when Spring 1942, and Global 1940 were edited, Larry Harris and Wizard of the Coast has made Cruiser a 10 IPCs unit and BB a 18 IPCs unit.
I don’t think anybody will have complained.However creating an OOB 3 Moves cruiser would have sound strange since all ships have a move of 2 spaces. (As allowing AA gunnery to a cruiser, etc.) And would have need more rules for explanations.
The idea I propose need a double change because this two units have the same function in a fleet. Lowering cost for one and not the other make one more appealing than the other when you have to purchase a surface warship, it is a balance issue.
-
However creating an OOB 3 Moves cruiser would have sound strange since all ships have a move of 2 spaces. (As allowing AA gunnery to a cruiser, etc.) And would have need more rules for explanations.
It does not sound strange it is the same rule in 1914. Cruisers are called Cruisers because they have the greatest range before refueling. The rule is nothing but a sentence. From port they move 4, or 3 otherwise…that’s it.
As far as the AA roll. one roll at 1 against any enemy planes is just another sentence. Neither of these invalidates any printed materials.
90% of the people just would accept the most minimal rule vs. whole scale changes to a balanced game.
That is why your rule will mostly only be played at your house IMO.
-
Glad you still want to discuss it.
About the 3 moves cruiser, I like it indeed.
I’m glad that they introduced it in 1914.
But other players, and some of my friends, will find disturbing to give this special move to cruiser.
For others, it is the AA capacity which is great.
In any case, both of this change will affect the starting board scenario. Some units will be in range of a M3 CL that wouldn’t for a M2.
Some fighters will have to pass an AA fire.
These situations were not anticipated by OOB set up.The changing cost will certainly affects the rounds to come.
But who will change his strategy and buy 3 BBs now because they are cheaper (saving 6 IPCs on a 60 IPCs purchase) ? Maybe sometimes, 1 more BB will be bought on and off.Or buying only cruisers
because 3 cruisers (30 IPCs) (and a 6 IPCs bonus sub, for example) versus a carrier (16 IPCs) and 2 planes (20 IPCs)
CL 3A3D3 + SS 1A2D1 vs 1CV A0D2 + 2FgA3D4 are better on offense and equal on defense?
Def: 10 (4 hits) vs def: 10 (4 hits).
Att: 11 (4 hits) vs att: 6 (4 hits).3 CL+1 Sub attacking vs 1CV+2Fg defending 45% vs 46% chance of survival
1CV+2Fg attacking vs 3 CL+1 Sub defending 20% vs 77 % chance of survival
It is forgeting that with 3 cruisers, you will only bombard once and fighters can combat many other rounds of any amphibious assault.
Bringing this example with 36 IPCs in the OOB:
you get only 3 CL A3D3 vs 1CV A0D2 + 2FgA3D4 .
Def: 9 (3 hits) vs def: 10 (4 hits). 52% vs 45%
Att: 9 (3 hits) vs att: 6 (4 hits) Â3 CL attacking vs 1CV+2Fg = 10% vs 83%
CV+2Fg attacking 3 CL = 52% vs 45%
I found this later OOB 36 IPCs cost very unbalanced toward fighters and carrier.
Don’t you?
1 simple cost adjusment and it will be better balance based on this same 36 IPCs purchase comparison.
Suggested Topics
