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

Baron I enjoyed this particular post on this thread.

I’m very happy that you like this post on customizing Cruiser units.
It really means something coming from one like you which had many HBG, (FMG?) units.
Tell me if you ever introduce more than 1 cruiser type in your future game and which stats and cost you give them.

This post summarize numerous ideas from many posts on various threads.
Many of this optional additions to cruiser were in large part created to promote a higher interest in the OOB cruiser at 12 IPCs.
In a sense, this noncompetitive unit was kind of spark to create house rules and different capacities for the cruiser.

@toblerone77:

I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.

There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.

This post provides comparative stats between type of cruiser based on some kind of historical representation.
The cost is balance according to a direct 50% vs 50% odds of survival one type vs another type of unit.

I agree with you, the combat calc from 1 large stack vs another type, is not enough.

But the maths gives a balance cost basis, then you decide to add some capacity (A to H, above).

Additional capacity can rise the cost from 1 or 2 IPCs.
Since every unit as a cost relative to another, it had also an impact toward other pricing.

For example, giving to 1 cruiser unit 1AA@1 and 3M and keeping a 10 IPCs, will give such an advantage that vs an OOB DD, the ASW won’t be that interesting vs the 3M range mobility, AA first strike, etc.
It can imply that such a unit could be at 11 IPCs and even 12.
So a battlecruiser vs this special light cruiser CL A3D3M3C11 cannot stay at 12 to be a balance buying,
you will have to had special capacity and also add +1 / +2 IPCs to cost probably.
CB A4D4M3C13-14 bombard, etc…

All this special addition come with personal evaluation of their impact…

Maths is clearly not an end but give some means to eval and keep balance.

@toblerone77:

I’m not arguing against a 10 IPC CA. In a pure combat situation the battle calculator does show that. My quoting IL is that there are other factors to consider when pricing units (Any unit) besides how they fare in a single battle. Overall strategic movement is one thing the battle calculator does not simulate.

There may be a reason why someone would buy a unit with weaker stats but longer range as well as many other variables.

That’s about this very reason:
Clearly 12 IPCs cruiser has a weaker unit stats.

What was the decisive argument in which, for example, Larry decides to stay at 12 IPCs and not lowering it at 11 (as he said, that it could be a possibility)?

Play-testers and the author got many occasions to do this but never done it even on revised Global (G40 2nd ed.).
12 IPCs cruiser is clearly not a competitive units as OOB, so maybe is it the cost structure which get approval and be the main conservative reason, 1 point cost 2 IPCs for all warships?

@toblerone77:

Baron, as of yet the HBG line-up is not complete for many ships. I liked the breakdown on your cruiser stats. They may come in handy in the future.

I’ve just noted this:
1 hit cruiser    vs 2 hits “cruiser”
CL A3D3C10        CA A3D3C16
BC A4D4C12        BB A4D4C18 C19

There is a +2 IPCs for 1A/1D pts.
The second hit cost + 6 IPCs.
But it doesn’t work anymore  from a statistical point of view.
Here is the basis of my calculation:

@Baron:

Sorry for this long post everybody.

You can only read the first part to know my conclusion and past over the calculation.
Second part is to give proof of my assumptions.

I made it because I was pretty amazed by all the results.
I thought everyone interested in G40e cost calculation/structure should know.

@Baron:

@Uncrustable:

It was also a pretty uniform agreement that 7,8,10,16,18 is best for gameplay purposes.

To prove that the maths balance cost of Battleship unit should be 18 IPCs vs Cruiser at 10 IPCs:

22 Battleships A4 (D4) vs 41 Cruisers D3 (A3) = 50% vs 50% on the battlecalc.

22/41 = 0.537 BB/CA    41/22 = 1.864 CA/BB

**0.537 * 18 IPCs/BB = 9.67 IPCs/CA, rounding up: 10 IPCs

1.864 * 10 IPCs/CA = 18.6 IPCs/BB rounding down: 18 IPCs…**

but surprise!!!, it could be rounding up to 19 IPCS!!!

So if someone want a less efficient but more historically accurate over expensive BB unit:
Battleship should be at 19 IPCs.  :-o  :-P  :roll:

And it doesn’t change the balance cost of Cruiser:
0.537 * 19 IPCs/BB = 10.2 IPCs/CA, rounding down: 10 IPCs

Nor it changes the balance cost of Destroyers:
0.435 * 19 IPCs/BB = 8.265 IPCs/DD, rounding down: 8 IPCs

I have done other calculation of Battleships vs Carrier with 2 Fgs and 1 Fg+ 1 TcB.
At my own surprise, the results give something different than KionAAA maths.
And it shows that my intuition was right when I said, to keep overall balance between warships:
lowering by 2 IPCs cruiser & BB cost imply a -1 IPC to carrier also.

In summary, to get a statistical balance sea combat (assuming TcB is at 10 IPCs):
if BB cost 18, then Carrier must cost 35-20 (2 Fgs) = 15 IPCs,
if BB cost 19, then Carrier must cost 37-20 (2 Fgs) = 17 IPCs.

The maths follow below:

13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB  28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv

2.154x18= 38.77 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x36= 16.7 IPCs/BB on defense

19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv  11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB

0.579x36=20.84 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x18=31.09 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+2Fgs= (38.77+31.09)/2= 34.93 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (16.7+20.84)/2 = 18.77 IPCs

---

Same units different costs:

13 Cvs+26 Fgs vs 28 BBs = 50% vs 50%
13/28= 0.464 Cv/BB  28/13= 2.154 BB/Cv

2.154x19= 40.93 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.464x37= 17.17 IPCs/BB on defense

19 BBs vs 11 Cvs+22 Fgs = 50% vs 50%
19/11= 1.727 BB/Cv  11/19= 0.579 Cv/BB

0.579x37=21.42 IPC/BB on offence
1.727x19=32.81 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+2Fgs= (40.93+32.81)/2= 36.87 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (17.17+21.42)/2 = 19.3 IPCs

---

Vs Cv+ 1 Fg & 1 TcB

14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB  26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv

1.857x18= 33.43 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x36= 19.37 IPCs/BB on defense

39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv  19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB

0.487x36=17.54 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x18=36.95 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (33.43+36.95)/2= 35.2 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (19.37+17.54)/2 = 18.46 IPCs

---

Same units different costs:

14 Cvs+14 Fg&TcBs vs 26 BBs = 50% vs 50%
14/26= 0.538 Cv/BB  26/14= 1.857 BB/Cv

1.857x19= 35.28 IPCs/Cv on offence
0.538x37= 19.91 IPCs/BB on defense

39 BBs vs 19 Cvs+19 Fg&TcBs = 50% vs 50%
39/19= 2.053 BB/Cv  19/39= 0.487 Cv/BB

0.487x37=18.02 IPC/BB on offence
2.053x19=39.01 IPC/Cv on defense

Average cost of Cv+1Fg&TcB= (35.28+39.01)/2= 37.14 IPCs

Average cost of BB= (19.91+18.02)/2 = 18.97 IPCs

I found something as a base to discuss also a higher cost for cruiser than 10 IPCs.

I made a little space inside statements.
@Red:

Third, real combat power is difficult to quantify and is most likely not represented by simple head-to-head equivalent IPC bases.  Afterall, the attacker seeks advantage and net survivability of high value units…NOT equivalence. The potential error in just considering head-to-head, equivalent IPC match ups became apparent when I was looking at cruiser cost.  As others have noted it is hard to beat an inexpensive “meat shield” or “fodder” type unit to protect the heavy hitting pieces.

Therefore, with OOB unit cost there is little reason for a cruiser purchase because they have the same hitting power per IPC as a DD, but the cruiser still can only take one hit so it has 2/3’s the hit point equivalence.

On a head-to-head equivalent basis 10 IPC cruisers might seem the answer…but this could be an artifact of putting high end units up against meat shield, with no shield of their own.

A less aggressive 11 cost for the cruiser might be a better match for consideration of mixed forces.

I’ve done some calcs based on 1CA+ 1DD, vs. 2DD; and incrementing up each side with DD’s each time at ranges of CA cost from 10-12.

What I find is that the return on investment for the extra cost of a single cruiser in these DD fleets is favorable even at 12 IPC and of course increasingly so as the cost declines.

Red Harvest,
do you mind to explain further this specific aspect by giving an example of your calculation and increments with 10 IPCs, 11 IPCs and 12 IPCs cruiser.

I need example to figure it out.
Please,
and thanks for your reply.

@knp7765:

Hey Baron,
Just checking out your ideas for different types of cruisers. Since HBG has plans to come out with the Deutschland class Pocket Battleships in a second Axis Minor set at some point in the future, where would you place them in your lineup?
I’m thinking they would fit in with Battle Cruisers A4D4M2C12 1 hit, shore bombardment 1@4.

I think it is the simplest way to manage Pocket BB.
Base on the nick-name “Pocket Battleship”, we intuitively put them at A4D4 and 1 hit.
As far as I could read about them, their 11 inch guns give them almost the firepower of BB-class ship.
However, the German Navy class them as Heavy cruiser. They were around 10 000 tons.

Certainly, CWO Marc, has an idea where to put them according to speed, tonnage and armor.
You should check first his post to get a general understanding of the various class.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32165.msg1202782#msg1202782
He said this:

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.

Here is what I got from Wikipedia:

The British began referring to the vessels as pocket battleships, in reference to the heavy firepower contained in the relatively small vessels; they were considerably smaller than battleships, though at 28 knots slower than battlecruisers, and although their displacement was that of a heavy cruiser, they were armed with guns larger than the heavy cruisers of other nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser#The_German_pocket_battleships

So according to this specifications (if someone have enough sculpts to split hairs),
Battlecruiser should be put A4D4M3 and
Pocket Battleship A4D4M2 and both at 1 hit.
Since Battlecruiser A4D4M3 is a better unit, the cost should be 1 IPC higher than Pocket Battleship.

Coming to this conclusion:
Pocket Battleship A4D4M2C12, 1 hit
Battlecruiser      A4D4M3C13, 1 hit

Do you also agree?

After further investigation, I discover that HMS Hood and Courageous were just at 31 knots vs the 28 knots for Pocket BB.
But, the range of Battlecruiser is around 5K-6K nautical miles vs 10 000 nautical miles for Pocket BB.

So it must be the reverse:
Battlecruiser      A4D4M2C12, 1 hit
Pocket Battleship A4D4M3C13, 1 hit

@knp7765:

Actually, I could make the cost 2 IPCs higher.
Pocket Battleship A4D4M2 cost 12, 1 hit
Battle Cruiser A4D4M3 cost 14, 1 hit

That extra movement point should cost more than 1 IPC. Otherwise no one would ever buy Pocket Battleships when they could spend 1 more IPC to get the same ship with faster speed.

That being said, I’ve never liked the idea of giving any ship a 3 movement. Some have suggested giving cruisers a 3 movement to balance the cost of 12 IPCs. It just seems like that would be an unfair advantage. Then again, I guess you could make the case that class of ship is what navies would buy to chase down enemy ships yet allow them to escape battleships. Then from a naval base, they could move 4 which just seems like too much to me. Some have suggested that this ship simply does NOT get the naval base bonus, but that doesn’t make sense to me either. All other ships get a bonus movement except for the fastest ship class?

The 3 spaces move, is more a matter of autonomy range than real “pure” speed.
So Naval Base bonus is a kind of re-supplying to go further in the ocean.
Cruiser can go further in open sea without refueling.
I agree, even with NB cruiser shouldn’t get the M4.

2 IPCs more for a single move point is too much.

Also, I revised my post, see the end of it.
Pocket BB get the M3 and Battlecruiser the M2.

Here is some posts discussing about Pocket BB:
@Krieghund:

@Gallo:

Transform German Cruisers into “Pocket Battleships” (Graff Spee class): attack and defend on a 3, but take 2 hits to sunk (they still cost the same than a Cruiser)

Pocket battleships were actually more heavily armed than cruisers, but less heavily armored than battleships.  Based upon that, it seems that a pocket battleship should actually attack and defend on a 4 (like a battleship) and take only one hit to sink (like a cruiser), not the other way around.

@Imperious:

Let’s do the numbers:

Bismarck class battleship armor: belt 145-320 mm, deck 110-120 mm
Deutschland class pocket battleship armor: belt 80 mm, deck 40 mm
Admiral Hipper class heavy cruiser armor: belt 70-80 mm, deck 20-50 mm

From this, it sure looks to me like the Pocket Battleship’s armor is a lot closer to the cruiser’s than the battleship’s.

LMFAO!!

…and although their displacement was that of a heavy cruiser, they were armed with guns larger than the heavy cruisers of other nations.

Yea lets do the numbers, except not compare a super dreadnought in the same navy with its own pocket battleship. Instead we compare the pocket battleship to normal warships that could be opposing it ( from England)

HMS Exeter ( Heavy cruiser)
Main belt: * 3 in
              * 2-1 in enclosing bulkheads
Lower deck: * 1 in over machinery
                * 1 in over stearing gear

County-class Cruiser
Main belt: * 4.5 in with 1 in closing bulkheads
(Berwick, Cumberland, Suffolk, Kent & Cornwall only, from 1935-)
Lower deck: * 1.25 in over machinery
                * 1.5 in over steering gear

Admiral Graf Spee:
Main belt:  about 3.937 inches–- compared to 3 inches for UK
Deck:  1.5 inches-3.5 inches— compared to equal to double UK Cruisers

King George V class BB…basically the top of the line Battleship for UK
Main belt: 14.7 in
Lower belt: 5.4 in
Deck: up to 5.38 in

Kongo Class battleship ( just for example)
Main belt: 8 3 in
Deck: 2.3-1.5 in

OK based on this the German ships should be one hit, but at 4-4 and not 3-3

@SS:

Have fuel tankers available. Any ship or ships that move with a fuel tanker ( 1 per seazone ) gets to move 3 spaces.

The A&A ship types unit will grow out of proportion. :wink:
FMG and HBG would have to create the sculpt too.

Actually, even the idea of having three types of cruiser (light, battle and heavy) on the board is already a bit tedious.

To keep it simple, the German Pocket-BB could be the German Battlecruiser units, as the HMS Hoods sculpt is the English Battlecruiser sculpt, all at A4D4M2C12, 1 hit, bombard @4.

All this said, the fans can create a fuel tanker unit which can give 1 additionnal move to all sea-units. But I would limit its usefullness to 1 use/tanker. And tanker should go to a NB to be reusable another time.

I finally found one of the post I once read about AA Flak efficiency. It is also talking about Pocket Battleship and a longer time of production for BB, as an HR:

@Nexus:

I think multiple AA shots might work if the maximum kills were limited in some way.  A few triple-roll AA cruisers might be too much – say max the kill-rate at one plane/cruiser regardless of the number of AA dice rolled?  But I think there are more issues that need some thought…

Cruisers were only more effective than destroyers for AA kills.  Cruisers certainly had less AA than carriers (CVEs excluded) or battleships but far more than destroyers.  Late-war US Navy stats (non-suicide) show a fairly consistent 17% - 24% of plane attacks were shot down by AA regardless of ship type.  Although one fast-carrier group shot down as many as 33% (but that is a high).  Generally, battleships, carriers and cruisers shot down the same percentage of aircraft while destroyers averaged a little better than half that rate.  These are late-war stats with increased AA mounts, improved directors, radar, mechanical computers and VT fuses against a desperate, poorly trained enemy.  AA rules allowing more than 33% AA kill rate might be pushing the envelope.  Three dice is a lot.

I’d believe it if AA shots were given to carriers and battleships but that doesn’t do much for cruisers.  Cruisers were far easier and faster to build than capital ships.  Battleships were exponentially more powerful (attack and defense) and also exponentially more expensive and difficult to build than cruisers and there-in lies the problem.  Thus the 6 cruisers to 1 battleship production rate mentioned earlier.

2 cruisers will statistically beat 1 battleship in both Global 1940 combat rules and IPC cost BUT tonnage-wise 3 heavy cruisers = one battleship (15,000 CA vs 45000 BB).  And Light cruisers were half the tonnage of heavy cruisers (7000 CL vs 15000 CA) so that makes things even worse when averaging things (I’m using general numbers here, there are extreme examples on either side).

In the real world 3 cruisers would only blind a battleship on a good day, possibly sinking it if they had torpedoes and got lucky.  The Battle of the River Plate shows just how dangerous even one small Battle Cruiser can be versus cruisers at 1 to 3 odds.  I think Battleships need more power but with limited production rules.  Give them double dice rolls to hit with both dice counting but force production over two turns while increasing their cost. That might be more realistic (can I say that in Axis and Allies?   :wink:) AND perhaps give cruisers a proper place.

No ship, no pair of ships could dare equal the mighty Battleship – it took an airplane to beat it.  Well…, excepting a pair of submarines but that’s another story.   :-D

I think there needs to be an adjustment to make the cruiser useful in this game or simply drop it.  Just my thoughts.

Here is some additional historical reasons provide by IL to give AA capacity for cruiser and even some kind of ASW:

Why are you prepared to give a Cruiser squadron (of, what, 6-9 vessels) the chance of knocking out approx 250 planes in addition to its usual Att of 3? Certainly ‘before the plane fires back’ is really very odd indeed…

Cruisers were AA gun platforms and better suited for escort duty due to their faster speeds. They could keep up with carriers and provide AA defense for the fleet. Some nations went far enough to generate an entire class of AA cruisers for this very duty.

Remember its ONE ROLL PER CRUISER @ 1… If you got 1 CA and 10 planes, just one roll…not a big deal.

A worse realism issue is SB’s their is no way a battleship or cruiser will destroy an army 3-5 corps worth of men ( preemptively).

It seems at least one level overpowered: why not either have it fire before the planes or have it fire simultaneously?

Well because planes can not attack ships unless they are FIRST IN FIRING RANGE OF THOSE SHIPS. Planes need to get level and face flak fire before they drop ordinance. This is how its done in like every wargame. If you want realism thats it.

To be clear, I don’t like the idea much at all, but I would certainly weaken it at least one level.

The ASW idea is very interesting though, and as Subs are cheaper than planes it wouldn’t have such a great effect on the statistics if a Cruiser could get an attack on Subs before they fire back… This might well be worth pursuing.

Cruisers did also have ASW capabilities, like the DD.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216

This post from IL needs to be added in this thread to provide a wider perspective on the historical capacities of cruisers and a short comparison with battleship as an escort and anti-air capacity warship for carriers:

Finally, if Cruisers get this AA benefit, what about the Battleships? The late-built (1938+) ones had good armour and believable anti-air - on a larger scale than Cruisers.

That could be true but the battleships used that to defend themselves, they could not keep up with carriers.

The AA roll is the ability to keep up with where the planes are attacking, which are defenseless Carriers.

Battleships had good flak battery’s but mostly suited to defend from torpedo attacks.
The Battleship was designed to carry heavy gun turrets, the cruiser had more space for smaller caliber weapons and became more suited to protect other ships from plane attack because they had speed to keep up with the ships under attack.

Battleships should get my old preemptive shot thing as long as the opposing side does not have a BB. This addresses the clear advantage of longer ranged guns that can blow a ship out before itself could be in range. The rule would be for the first round only, just like the CA AA roll. Perhaps the cost might go up to allow this.

The cruiser concept is to address the high cost issue and support it with something unique to cruisers.

Since the end of WW1 cruisers went into three groups:

Heavy Cruiser which where designed for long range, high speed

Commerce Raiders like the German pocket battleships, which are really cruisers

Anti-Aircraft cruisers: which were suited for protection of fast moving defenseless ships

the first would embody a move of 3 in NCM

the second would probably be a 2 hit ship

the third would be a free AA roll before start of combat if enemy plane is present.

Alternatively: you might just say if the cruiser rolls a 1 in combat, a plane can be targeted as a hit if it is attacking.

SO:
Cruiser costs 11, if it rolls a 1 in combat and the enemy has planes they lose a plane. (otherwise ignore)

Also, Cruisers gain ASW capability like Destroyers.

problem solved.

The development of the anti-aircraft cruiser began in 1935 when the Royal Navy re-armed HMS Coventry and HMS Curlew. Torpedo tubes and 6-inch (15 cm) low-angle guns were removed from these World War I light cruisers and replaced by ten 4-inch (10 cm) high-angle guns with appropriate fire-control equipment to provide larger warships with protection against high-altitude bombers.

A tactical shortcoming was recognized after completing six additional conversions of C-class cruisers. Having sacrificed anti-ship weapons for anti-aircraft armament, the converted anti-aircraft cruisers might need protection themselves against surface units. New construction was undertaken to create cruisers of similar speed and displacement with dual-purpose guns.

Dual-purpose guns offered good anti-aircraft protection with anti-surface capability for the traditional light cruiser role of defending capital ships from destroyers. The first purpose built anti-aircraft cruiser was the British Dido-class, completed shortly before the beginning of World War II. The US Navy Atlanta-class anti-aircraft cruisers (CLAA) were designed to match capabilities of the Royal Navy. Both Dido and Atlanta carried torpedo tubes.

The quick-firing dual-purpose gun anti-aircraft cruiser concept was embraced in several designs completed too late to see combat including USS Worcester (CL-144) and USS Roanoke (CL-145) completed in 1948 and 1949, two De Zeven Provincin-class cruisers completed in 1953, De Grasse and Colbert completed in 1955 and 1959, and HMS Tiger, HMS Lion and HMS Blake completed between 1959 and 1961.

Most post World War II cruisers were tasked with air defense roles. In the early 1950s, advances in aviation technology forced the move from anti-aircraft artillery to anti-aircraft missiles. Therefore most cruisers of today are equipped with surface-to-air missiles as their main armament. The modern equivalent of the anti-aircraft cruiser is the guided missile cruiser (CAG/CLG/CG/CGN).
Russian Navy cruiser of the Kirov-class, Frunze.
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Cape St. George (CG-71), firing a Tomahawk missile.
[edit] Later 20th century

The rise of air power during World War II dramatically changed the nature of naval combat. Even the fastest cruisers could not steer quickly enough to evade aerial attack, and aircraft now had torpedoes, allowing moderate-range standoff capabilities. This change led to the end of independent operations by single ships or very small task groups, and for the second half of the 20th century naval operations were based on very large fleets able to fend off all but the largest air attacks.

This has led most navies to change to fleets designed around ships dedicated to a single role, anti-submarine or anti-aircraft typically, and the large “generalist” ship has disappeared from most forces. The United States Navy, the Russian Navy, and the Peruvian Navy are the only remaining navies which operate cruisers. France operated a single cruiser until May 2010: Jeanne d’Arc, which in the NATO pennant number system was classified as an aircraft carrier, but for training purposes only.

IN this game the BB has no special ability, it is nothing but a LARGER CRUISER but it was nothing of the sort.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=8

A Wild Bill’s post discussing about giving Cruiser various additional capacities such as ASW:

Agreed, I wouldn’t look only at the cost (24 ipc) of DD vs Ca (3 DD vs 2 CA). You need to look more at how each piece fits into your fleet, and the functions you need. If Germany is going sub crazy, then build DD’s. If you already have superiority of the waters, then you start building CA for bombardment, and fleet protection. You wouldn’t send a lone CA to block out the enemy fleet (unless you have no other options), that is the job of the DD. You might send a CA to escort a transport over sending a DD however (more fire power). The CA is a supplement ship for the rich economies, but is the poor mans BB for Anz, Italy, and UK.

I have house ruled in AA for CA in AA 50 in a couple different ways. I haven’t tried it w/G40 because you can get more fleet protection through scrambling. IMO CA AA ends up being an allied advantage especially in Europe in latter rounds. Once axis loose the water battle, it will cost axis more air power. Of course you could argue the axis wouldn’t loose control w/CA AA.

The CA having ASW is interesting (either DD/CA be on a 1:1 bases w/subs). I’m not crazy about 1 DD finding several subs in the sz. When you also factor in CA ASW allowing air to target subs it may be over the top. I will say though unless you are super stacking, subs are normally spread out amongst several sz’s. As Germany I wouldn’t have all my eggs in one basket so you often have 1 DD vs 1 sub anyways. The other point is would CA getting this DD exclusive ability make the DD less attractive. Then would we be talking about DD’s being too expensive? One simple change could upset the food chain.

I would think that CA’s getting either AA, or ASW could end up being an allied advantage in the long run. Face it it’s the allies that go sub searching, and have to protect their fleets from axis air at some point. Plus CA AA could have a profound affect on the opening round when you consider Germany’s opening move on the British fleet, or the UK vs Italians in the Med. There are quite a few CA’s on the board to start.

If the CA truly is over priced (I’m not convinced) maybe lowering it to 11 ipc, or giving it +1 in movement (its own unique action) could be looked at. I don’t think it should be able to move 4 spaces from port, but maybe a 3 space max from anywhere (even if a port is damaged). Even that could end up being mostly a US thing, but Japan would make good use of it too in the Pacific. The CA raider idea of convoy @ 2 ipc is interesting (has merit). Is that just borrowing a unique characteristic from yet another unit. Plus a sub in a convoy would need a DD to hunt it down, a lone CA would be a sitting duck, but at least it can def @ 3. This would come more into play when you move an entire fleet to the convoy zone, but then you probably don’t need the +1 convoy attack because the zone is maxed out (again an allied advantage?).

Last edited by WILD BILL on Sat Jun 04, 2011 1:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=5216&start=16