it’s one of those things where you have “12 IPC’s left” and someone is wanting to build ships but dont just want 2 subs
Balancing Cruiser (CL) and Battleship (BB) units with other A&A units
-
@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. -
The fighting attributes of the units having different values is part of the great design. So it may be true that some units are better buy than others FOR COMBAT.
Giving a dynamic movement of +1 gives the unit distinctive flavor and you would have a purpose to buy a faster ship. This also gives new options for players.
Players will build rapid reaction forces of Cruisers.
It is not only about numbers. If it were, Carriers with planes would be the best option for Naval defense. And it is and your not balancing that so why should Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers be any different?
-
@Imperious:
The fighting attributes of the units having different values is part of the great design. So it may be true that some units are better buy than others FOR COMBAT.
Giving a dynamic movement of +1 gives the unit distinctive flavor and you would have a purpose to buy a faster ship. This also gives new options for players.
Players will build rapid reaction forces of Cruisers.
It is not only about numbers. If it were, Carriers with planes would be the best option for Naval defense. And it is and your not balancing that so why should Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers be any different?
I’m the kind of guy which like historical influence present in the game.
And a Cruiser M3 is a way to represent a ship whichhave the greatest range before refueling.
I don’t reject this kind of Option for HR.
Because cruiser and battleship were suppose to be the warships in the surface fleet. And compared to all others air and naval combats units seems less interesting when you compare the cold numbers.
(I have no details but I think it summarizes many posts in various threads.)
Any cruiser buy, virtually becomes a “styled purchase” instead of a maximized investment.How two rarely buy naval units will unbalance everything at a 10 and 18 IPCs cost?
Much more player will at least think about buying one, and it will just create more variety of ships in a fleet because cruiser and BB can become a real optimized option for war between ships, at least.
On the other side, it will not make the end of Subs, DDs, CVs and Fgts buying.
It will be like every naval units will have a balance place in the system.
Maybe, I don’t see enough of the big picture?
Help me see it through, please.
-
I can make the following true statements…
When faced with a problem only fix the problem…not the system.
When making changes always opt for the one that is the most simplest to employ, that ensures most people will try it.
If making changes appeal to increased player options, greater balance, or Historical in that order.
-
To better see the problem, here is another way of comparison:
1 subs = 1 hit/ 6 IPCs
1 Destroyer= 1 hit/ 8 IPCs
1 Carrier = 2 hits/ 16 IPCs= 1 hit / 8 IPCs
1 Battleship= 2 hits/20 IPCs= 1 hit/ 10 IPCs
1 Cruiser= 1 hit/ 12 IPCsWhen a cruiser is sunk, you lost 12 IPCs. It is the ship which cost the most.
Same IPCs cost than loosing 1 Strategic Bomber (A4 M6 which give a very large projection of power.Lowering the cost of both CL and BB will imply:
1 BB = 2hits/18 IPCs = 1 hit/ 9 IPCs
1 CL = 1 hit/10 IPCs
Both will still be the more expensive unit hit/IPCs ratio. -
A BB gets a free hit and can repair. It does not cost 9 IPC to take one hit.
It is not only about numbers. It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC spent.
Cruiser is CA not CL. CL is light cruiser, most nations had more heavy cruisers than light.
-
@Imperious:
I can make the following true statements…
When faced with a problem only fix the problem…not the system.
When making changes always opt for the one that is the most simplest to employ, that ensures most people will try it.
If making changes appeal to increased player options, greater balance, or Historical in that order.
It is not a competition between two HR about cruiser.
My solution was to link 2 major complains in the bigger issue about warships. I grab both in the same because they were linked:
A lower cost CL will make it a better warship than BB. Then no more interest in buying them.
2CL A3D3M2C10 +2@3 bombard splitable vs 1BB A4D4M2C20, 2 hits 1@4 bombard
50% vs 33%, in favor of Cruisers.Maybe just a minus 1 IPCs for both is enough.
BB= 2 hits/19 IPCs = Â 1hit /9.5 IPCs
CL= 1 hit/11 IPCs -
@Imperious:
A BB gets a free hit and can repair. It does not cost 9 IPC to take one hit.
True. Sometimes a fleet is not totally destroy. Then a BB can recover. A country doesn’t lose any IPCs from this hit.It is not only about numbers. It it were the carrier with fighters is always the best option and players buy other units even if they get less return for it per IPC spent.
I agree, even with this IPCs change, all other units will have a specific function, but planes have more versality. I can had that no game is won by navy only. All out navy investment is still recipe for failure.Cruiser is CA not CL. CL is light cruiser, most nations had more heavy cruisers than light.
It is the important thing. On any other thread I will used CA but talking about a 10 IPCs cruiser as the light cruiser is another way to be more specific about it. At 10 IPCs there is much room upward for any CA and CB specifications. -
While discussing on Global development, Larry said:
Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-eAfter all, maybe a Cruiser can be balance this way while adding some historical features (M3, AA):
CL A3D3M3C11, 1 AA@1 on def. vs 1 planeBecause, of course at 10 IPCs with 2 others additions, cruiser will be overboosted.
-
@Baron:
While discussing on Global development, Larry said:
Oh… by the way… I’m ready to reduce the cost of cruisers to 11 IPCs. I also like the idea of adding an AA-gun like power to them. I suspect that would end up not cutting the mustard, however. Just too many steps and additional rules involved.
LH-eWith this last post and the reference to Larry Harris, come this question is their any play-tester on this forum?
Have they swear an oath to not reveal any results about crazy and not so crazy play-testing?
So they never reveal the reasons and discussion made about something like a 11 IPCs Cruiser.
Did anyone hear what disqualified this cost adjustment for cruiser, while they play-tested it? -
You might want to take a look at AARHE, which was created in 2005 and the more you read the rules you find almost exact ideas from Global.
Cruisers had the AA gun thing, plus all the other units exist years before you saw them in Global as well as scrambling rules
-
What is the origins of the AARHE (Axis and Allies Revised Historical Edition) Â ?
Who was on the project?
Is there any rulebook or rules compendium?
What is the link with the discussion on the Forum?
Does it have a real influence on the Global OOB rules?Thanks.
P.S. Does all the answers to my questions are on the threads of AARHE in this forum? -
-
For those who want to discuss further about the price of Cruiser units (even customized ones) and Battleship.
Now, with a lower cost I can also explain why I use CL as an abreviation for cruiser.
And with the stats maths evaluation bringing up by KionAAA, I can put other cruiser in a better place of scaled cost.
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 Definitely balance.
Battle Cruiser, CB A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4
It is the price to have a competitive unit but weaker vs CL or BB.
Armored/Heavy Cruiser, CA A3D3M2C16, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@3
It need to be at 16 IPCs to be balance, lower too OP vs BB or CL.Battleship, BB A4D4M2**
C18**, 2 hits, shore bombardment 1@4
After more cost eval and battle calc, I must say that BB have to be at 19 IPCs to be statistically balance with cruiser at 10 IPCs and Carrier at 16 IPCs.
It will also give more room (3 IPCs) vs heavy cruiser A3D3 with 2 hits.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
B2) Give them 2 preemptives AA@1 on defense when paired with 1BB and 1CV
B3) Give to 1 cruiser 1 preemptive AA@1 on defense.
C) Give 1 cruiser both offence and defense on a roll of “1” on first round only, to hit 1 plane (owner choose the type of casualty Fgt, TB, StB).
D1) Give to CA 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.
H) Having a BB Flagship, with 3 hits (21-22 IPCs vs 18 / 23-24 vs OOB 20).With all this options, Cruisers and BBs will be bought and use for very different function.
Of course, putting all of it can unbalance toward other naval units: but nevertheless DD and Subs have their own proper function.But all this optional addition can add some historical flavor, and a real gameplay difference amongst the bigger warships.
And you can even gives different options to Light, Battle and Heavy cruiser unit to create a more representative difference amongst them.For example:
give M3 and AA to Light Cruiser,
just M3 to Battlecruiser,
M2 and Coastal @4 to heavycruiser but forbid Subs attack like BB option.
Someone can rise the BB cost to 19 IPCs or even 20 but giving them plundging fire and 2 rounds of coastal @4, because of the longer range of their heavier guns.
Suggested Topics
