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

Here is 11 of n for discussion of my Classic House Rules

The following are my thoughts on an optional rules section for my Classic House Rules. These rules, and its associated new initial setup, are far removed from the Classic Axis and Allies you may be familiar with. But with the right group I think that this would be a great time. In the mean time, I strategize and theorize.

In this post, I’ll be discussing what I think Axis & Allies units should cost and why. I think that flying units and naval units are too expensive for a game about a war that involved death from above and death from the sea. Now, I’m not arguing that every unit should have the same price. Different units have different abilities and these abilities should come at different costs. But I believe that flying units should have their prices reduced by 1/3rd and naval units should have their prices cut in half.

First, let’s talk about the way things are now. Currently, the base units in Classic Axis & Allies have these costs and abilities (IC is Industrial Complex):

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry    1    2    1      3    Bomber      4  4    6    15
Tank        3    2    2      5    Sub          2  2    2      8
AA Gun    0    *    1      5    Trans        0  1    2      8
IC            0    0    0    15    Carrier      1  3    2    18
Fighter    3    4    4    12    Battleship  4  4    2    24

To this list, I recommend reducing the price of fighters and ICs to 10, carriers to 16, and battleships to 20. This will help with the extreme range in prices at the top end of things. This will give us the following:

Unit      ATK DEF Move Cost
IC            0  0      0    10
Fighter      3  4      4    10
Carrier      1  3      2    16
Battleship  4  4      2    20

And to the above units I suggest adding the following new units:

Unit            ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Paratrooper  1*    2    1*    4    Special F’s  3*  3*    2*    8
Arm. Cav.    2      1      2    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6    10
Trooper      2      3      1    5    Cruiser        3    3      2    12
Heavy Art’y 2      3      1    6

All of this together gives us the following unit list:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      10
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      10
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      15
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        8
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2      8
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2      12
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      16
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      20
IC              0    0    0      10

What I am suggesting is a unilateral price cut of 1/3rd on flying units and 1/2 on naval units. Ground unit and IC’s would stay the same price. They would then look like this:

Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost  Unit          ATK DEF Move Cost
Infantry        1    2    1      3    Fighter        3    4      4      7
Paratrooper  1*  2    1*    4    Cargo Plane 0    0      6      7
Arm. Cav.      2  1    2      4    Bomber      4    4      6      10
Tank            3  2      2      5    Sub            2    2      2        4
Trooper        2  3    1      5      Trans          0    1      2        4
Heavy Art’y  2  3    1      6      Cruiser      3    3      2        6
Special F’s  3*  3*  2*      8    Carrier        1    3      2      8
AA Gun        0    *    1      5    Battleship  4    4      2      10
IC              0    0    0      10

I find these prices to be more in line with the way I want to play Axis & Allies: lean, mean, and deadly. I want to be able to crash fleet on fleet, to soar into the air and take the fight to the enemy, without destroying the treasury or throwing them all away without replacement. Some of the most exciting fights in Axis & Allies are when that fleet is coming, whether it’s the Japanese fleet coming to take the Pacific, or the US Fleet coming to take the Pacific back, or the British fleet looking to avenge France.

But along with reduced prices come increased problems for the Axis. As it is, the Axis powers are under the gun to expand before the Allies can mount a credible defense of their holdings. When fighters, submarines, and transports are at all time low prices the job of the Allies - to bend but not break and to build up the forces to take the fight to the Axis - becomes all that much easier. This in turn makes the job of the Axis - to take as much territory as possible before the Allies come to take it all back - all the harder.

What to do about this question of balance? My suggestion: give the Axis a proportionally more air and sea power at the start of the game. This will allow the Axis to strike all the harder before the Allies start walking things back. So, half again more flying units and double the fleet for the Axis? How much are we actually talking about?

Standard setup for Germany gives 5 fighters and 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 2 transports, 0 carriers, and 1 battleship.

Standard setup for Japan gives 5 fighters and 1 bombers, 1 submarines, 2 transports, 1 carrier, and 2 battleships.

This gives both powers a total of 5+5=10 fighters and 1+1=2 bombers, 2+1=3 submarines, 2+2=4 transports, 0+1=1 carrier, and 1+2=3 battleships combined for the Axis powers.

Add to that the 4 cruisers (2 to Germany, 2 to Japan) and the 3 additional transports (1 to Germany, 2 to Japan) given out in the setup to account for additional naval forces not currently accounted for. (The Allies get 6 cruisers and 3 additional transports added to their navies at the start.) No extra fighters or bombers handed out yet.

This gives us a total Axis air and sea force of 10 fighters and 2 bombers; 3 submarines, 7 transports, 4 cruisers, 1 carrier, and 3 battleships combined for the Axis powers. Half again more fighters and bombers would yield 15 fighters and 3 bombers. Double the fleet would yield 6 submarines, 14 transports, 8 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 6 battleships. I would divy up this expanded force into Germany: 8 fighters, 2 bombers, 4 submarines, 6 transports, 3 cruisers, 0 carriers, and 2 battleships; and Japan: 7 fighters, 1 bomber, 2 submarines, 8 transports, 5 cruisers, 2 carriers, and 4 battleships

This would be a massive force, dwarfing the Allies in the sky and at sea. But with new battleships and new bombers for 10 IPCs each, new fighters for 7 IPCs, and new submarines and transports for 4 IPCs, would even this massive force be enough? I don’t know, yet.

Both the known unbalancing effects of much cheaper air and sea units and the massive additional forces given to the Axis to balance out those cheaper planes and ships are well outside of normal Axis & Allies play. All of the above is why these rules and setups are optional. But after I get some results with these rules, I’ll update this post with some data.

-Midnight_Reaper

Bienvenue au forum!  There’s been a similar question asked here…

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41247.0

…so as a starting point you could have a look at that discussion thread, which may provide part of the answer to your question.

@Narvik:

@simon33:

If you use the same logic you should get rid of the Japanese NOs for Calcutta, Hawaii and Sydney. Not sure I like that change.

That would actually help Allies a fair bit and also keep peace between Germany and USSR for longer on the average. Would more peace make the game better? I’m not sure that it would. It would increase the number of Sea Lions though - perhaps that would be good.

Yes and no. It would be crazy if Japan can squeeze 5 more IPC out of a rocky island than the original owner can. But, if we change the words in the rule, and say that anyone who control Hawaii island and the adjacent seazone 26 with its convoy zone, will get a 5 IPC bonus, representing international trade with South America or something. Do the same with Sydney and seazone 62, and now I can endorse it, man. Now it makes sense to me.

About your other topic, the possibility of longer time of peace between Germany and its partner in crime, Russia, who knows man ? The current OOB NOs sure reward aggressive play, since Germanys choice between a 5 IPC peace NO dont catch up with the 15 + wartime NOs. But, the OOB NOs also make it a scripted game, but not a historical correct scripted game, since in the real war Germany first had to try a Sea Lion before it would attack Russia. Now, since the designer obviously want a lot of action, and not a sit and wait game, he trough in a lot of NOs to speed up the pace. And that is why we can see everything that happened from 1939 to 1941 in the first Turn of any A&A game. But if you ask me, I think its too many NOs in play, it should be max 3 to each nation, and they should represent something abstract like international trade, shipping, oil etc that is not already printed on the map. Actually there are no need for NOs, you only need Victory Cities to win. If Germany want to win the game, it should attack Russia because of the VCs there, not some derogatory NOs.

IMHO, NOs only have a meaning in this game if they are a part of some bidding system.

Increasing the peace time economy with russia (10 IPCs for both) while giving the wartime Leningrad +5 bonus NO to Russia, can give a better balance toward allies while giving more incentive to attack UK early and Leningrad later, to block the new russian income.

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.

The only way I see to keep the defense against planes manifesto is to provide
the 1 AA roll per cruiser.

Cruiser
Attack 3
Defend 2
Move 2
Shore bombard  3
Special 1 defensive AA first shot @1 against up to 1 plane/per cruiser unit.
Cost 10

In such situation as above,
if Cruiser A3 D2 is added into the mix, 2 units (A6 D4) for example:
Attack 13 Defense 14, 5 units.

A. survives: 22.1% D. survives: 75.6% No one survives: 2.3%

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&AA=on&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=2&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=&aCru=2&aCar=1&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=2&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=2&dCru=&dCar=1&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=

That way, Cruiser is clearly not better than Destroyer against incoming Submarines.
But you still get a better Anti-Aircrafts platform while keeping his single offensive roll of Shore bombardment.

This can be balance with a 17-18 IPCs 2 hits Battleship.

Are you working on a setup for this? I’d be willing to try it out as long as it doesn’t alter the OOB map at all.

In your setup chart, there are only setups for vichy and minor countries. Can you put up setups for the major powers?

maybe Cruiser and Aircraft Carrier shouldn’t take 2-hits after all

I haven’t played games with all optional units select for play (usually only select naval fighter)
but yeah its funny how:
BB 2-hit, 2-turn
CA 2-hit, 1-turn
CV 2-hit, 2-turn

yes but we are working on that now with 4.1 no more 2 turn naval builds.

carriers could go to 1 hit units and of course the latter file for AA50HE will have them just at 1 for both CA and CV.