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

Do you have any pictures of your board with all the different units?

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!”)

Until recently, it was only bided for the Axis. But now, in more and more games the Allies get a bid. Let`s see what the best bid option/s for them would be…

I) UK & UK Pacific

Definitely the best Allied nation to give bid to. The ideas are planty, but let`s focus on the best:

1) A sub to Atlantic and/or the Mediterranean

A submarine in the Mediterranean can help strike Italy in sz 97 stronger than usual, but a submarine in the Atlantic can help strike both Italy (sz 95 and sz 96) and Germany.

2) Land unit/s to Alexandria and Egypt

An infantry or artillery to Alexandria and mechanised infantry or tank to Egypt can help strike Tobruk more heavily.
An aa gun in Alexandria or Egypt could be of use too.

3) A fighter or tactical bomber

The ideas are Scotland or Malta. One more fighter at Scotland helps in the defense of sz 109 and sz 111 on G1, and helps in the defense of UK against bombing on later German turns. Also it gives it`s share to the defense against Sea Lion.
The Mediterranean fighter gives UK more options either attacking sea or land Axis units, either defending from them.

4) A transport to Union of South Africa

It helps to move to action the two infantry from Union of South Africa on UK1.

5) An infantry to France

If France bids an infantry there, together with it, it can mean a lot in the defense of Paris.

6) A transport to India

To take Sumatra and/or Celebes, then Iraq, Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland more heavily.

7) A marine to India

The same as in the bid above, just lighter.

II) China

1) An infantry for defense

Best to put to Yunnan, then Hunan, then Chahar, and the least to Anhwe.

2) An infantry and/or artillery for offense

Best to put to Kweichow, Szechwan, Hopei and the least to Suiyuyan.

3) A fighter
Good to have one more for striking Japan more easily. Best to put is to Kweichow.

III) France

1) An infantry to France and/or Normandy Bordeaux

It can help to aid in the defense against eminent G1 attack.

2) A fighter to UK

It can help UK early on on defense, and puts more options for some French attack against lonely Axis land or sea units.

3) A sub to Madagascar

A good escort to the destroyer, can soon be moved to the Shores of Indochina/Indonesia or Mediterranean.

IV) Russia

1) Land units to Eastern Europe border territories

An infantry (or AA gun) to Baltic States/Eastern Poland/Bessarabia to prevent (or back off) an early G1 attack on the Eastern Front.

2) Land units to Eastern Europe offside terittories

An artillery to Novgorod/Belarus/Western Ukraine/Ukraine to counter an early G1 attack.
An option is also a tank to Novgorod/Belarus/Western Ukraine/Ukraine/Archangel to aid in the counter attack.

3) Land units for striking Japan

A mechanised infantry and/or tank to Caucasus and Volgograd.
An artillery or tank to Amur.

IV) ANZAC

1) A marine

If put to Queensland or New Zealand it helps ANZAC to take both Java and Dutch New Guinea on rd 1, and to take both Sumatra and Celebes on rd 2.

2) A transport

The same as in the bid above, just taking those territories more heavily.

3) A land unit to Egypt

An ANZAC artillery or AA gun would be good to have there.

VI) USA

U do not bid with USA. It goes to war late, and does not need anything. If U must, bid a small IC to Alaska  8-)

I think you could just announce that it’s a recon force and which ships would be passing through if it succeeds… maybe put the recon force into the territory for combat and the rest of the fleet could be put on the line between the territories until combat is resolved.  If the recon force takes out the blockers in the first round of combat, the ships on the line could then pass through the territory or use their shore bombardment in the territory: but the recon force could not pass through with them and could not bombard with them (they would be out of position, expended munitions, etc.).  If the recon force fails to take out the blockers, then the remaining ships may join the combat or they could stay in the previous zone and either way can’t pass through or bombard the shore.  The recon force would then have to continue to engage in regular combat or retreat.

I’m still thinking the 2 dollar Russians are unbeatable.  unless they are 1-1 or 0-2 or something.

Bring in all the mec/arm combinations and double supporting artillery you want.  at 37 IPC’s a turn, I’m putting 18 men on the board each round.  Germany is not going to be able to do anything about that.

Oh and lets not forget, once I have a fat stack, if things don’t look good, I can call in the Russian winter, and defend with a $2 unit at 3 or less.

@Trusty-Sapper
Wow, you’ve responded to my reply from a year ago, on a very old thread. I checked my PM’s and I was able to send Bass my most recent version of AARe.

I do agree with you Trusty, that “National Advantages plus bid makes every game a strategic puzzle”
Don’t forget the targeted tech rolls too. No chance to develop super subs when my scientist were working on long range!

I was a bit upset when it was only a short 5 years after Revised was released (and we fine-tuned Enhanced) that AA50 (Anniversary came out). Everyone ran for the new release and Revised was left to rot.

yeah not much to be said here
nothing “new”