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

@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.

Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.

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!”)

@Young:

@Baron:

@Young:

Cruisers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Aircraft Carriers
receive 1@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Battleships
receive 2@1 before each combat round begins to hit attacking and defending air units

Do you realize that these warships are made better at destroying directly planes than planes themselves?

Sorry… I don’t understand your question.

According to usual casualty order, when planes will roll a hit in naval combat, the owner usually choose a Submarine or a Destroyer before 10 IPCs Fighters.
With your suggested rule, CA, CV and BB will take down aircrafts with more regularity than planes’ hit rolled.  To me it seem paradoxical.

After Vichy France is activated, Germany may occupy Southern France at any time. The only downside is that occupation of Southern France after the Armistice results in the disbandment of all Vichy French units on the board. While you do have to leave Southern France alone on the first turn, the income from that territory is often convoy-blockaded by the 93 sz fleet when it is taken on Germany’s first turn. So really the cost of Vichy France, in that regard, is negligible.

I’m looking for folks interested in collaborating on a project to create an Axis & Allies variant, based on the Hasbro rules, but incorporating a new map and various additions. This would be something in the spirit of HBG’s 1939 Global War product.

Specifically, I am looking for at least two people. One person to help with rules development, and one person to develop the map, for which I presume we will want to use Photoshop.

In terms of how this project might be different from G1940, 2nd ed:

1. The new map will be larger than that published by HBG. The theme will be turning formerly minor powers into functionally playable nations that can add optional depth to the game by bringing more of the map into play (e.g., South America).

2. New minor powers, developed in the context of an alternate history. Portugal is turned into a playable minor by the preservation of her Brazilian colony. The Dutch and Belgians are merged so that the Dutch are more robust. The Greeks have succeeded in achieving the Megali Idea in Anatolia. Argentina and Siam are elevated to playable minors by division into a larger number of territories.

3. A new political system that allows players to attempt to influence neutral nations.

4. A Fall 1938 start date, at which only Japan, China, and Russia are at war. The French move before Germany and can opt to reinforce their defenses or attack in an attempt to enforce the terms of Versailles. The Russians have also delivered an ultimatum to the Finns.

5. A new combat odds system based on a d12.

6. A selection of new unit types, including paratroopers, air transports, and interbellum units. In some cases, players will begin the game with “legacy” assets (e.g., older battleships) that they may not actually build in-game. Minor powers may purchase certain types of naval and air units from major powers, at a premium.

7. Simultaneous turns, to speed gameplay.

8. New National Objectives that reward players for achieving particular goals, apart from occupation of Victory Cities.

9. New rules to address national defeat (e.g., activation of Vichy France).

10. New core concepts, including a “naval combat search” that simulates the difficulty of locating enemy fleets, as well as optional supply rules. Carrier-based fighters may now scramble to support combat in adjacent map spaces.

Please leave me a private message if interested.

Lately I play them as 8 Ipc defenseless units that can transport 2 inf. there range is 5. So typically they have a round trip range of a fighter unless they take off from airbase and then the round trip is that of a bomber.

when you feel happy with the infantry placement rules just tell me and I’ll paste them into the main document

I hope you’ll repost in table format though  :wink: