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

@The-Captain

I would love to hear more about your Most Precious Soviet Strategies. I love talking about strategy, especially if it’s about my favorite power when it comes to tactical decision making 😀

@CWO:

Depicting a single regiment would be problematic in terms of game scale.  In general terms, a game on the scale of Global 1940 represents (admittedly in very abstract terms) the actions of units that are mostly the size of army groups and fleets – and, furthermore, of army groups and fleets which have no specific identity other than their nationality.  It would be hard to justify saying that one particular regiment-sized unit, with a specific name, ought to be added to the game; by that rationale, there are hundreds of other regiments that could be added too.

The obvious exception to the above principle is the single fighter which represents the Flying Tiger squadron in China…so it’s not an ironclad rule that units smaller than army groups and fleets are never represented in the game.  It can be argued, however, that the Flying Tigers are a special case because of their high profile, and because in the game China lacks aviation forces of its own.  China doesn’t lack infantry, however, so adding a USMC unit doesn’t bring anything distinctive to China’s forces.

Additionally, Global 1940 has no rules that govern riverine operations – which is understandable, because the game map doesn’t depict any rivers.  Even the Saint Lawrence, which is huge in real life, isn’t depicted: on the map, it looks like a strip of land.  There are a few lakes depicted, plus a few canals and narrow straights, but no rivers.  So a river patrol unit in China would literally have nowhere to go.

If you just using A&A Pacific, 1940 (2nd Edit.) as a “Stand Alone” game only, and using this as a “Special House Rule” scenario it wouldn’t be problematic and would make this interesting for the folllowing reasons - By the rulebook, the U.S. and Japan are not a war yet until Japan attacks first (which would be stupid to do outright) and if this is played in the “House Rules”, Japan may place their all of their units in the Sea and Land zone of Kiangsu Province. HOWEVER, they DO NOT recieve the IPC for it until either ALL American Forces in China (the 4th Marine Regiment and the Yangtze River Patrol at Shanghai) are either evacuated out of China and headed towards either the Philippine Islands (which both actually did do in 1941) or eastward towards Hawaii or one of the outlaying Island outposts before war is declared or Japan decides to “sneak attack” and goes after the American Forces in China and wins, that is when they finally recieve the IPC for the Province. Until then NOTHING, it would be a “Eyeball to Eyeball” scenario in the “Special House Rules” to see who blinks first. And thanks for reminding me about the AVG (the Flying Tigers") in China, i will definitely add them in the “House Rules” as well.

nice piece…

@Trisdin:

@Imperious:

A factory is france is worse for Germany, while the others listed are clearly in favor to benefit those players.

Perhaps Romania is best actually. Then Germany can build ships for Medd. Yes i like this better

Romania is a good idea, it gives Germany a second sea zone to build ships in and it allows germany to build land units closer to Russia, but is it historicaly accurate or viable.

yeah, it’s viable: didn’t antonescu aide the germans allot?

@Nukchebi0:

Out of lack of better location, I put this post here. Anyways,I think I have devised a great way to incorporate the cruiser into the game. A cruiser was, in essense, a battleship without armor. It had the same fire power (or nearly), but required less materials and production to build than a battleship. Since it was thinly armored, it was much more susceptible to torpedoes or dive bombers. Taking all these factors into account, a cruiser should be made a 12 IPC, one shot kill unit. It can bombard, attack on four and defends on a three, but is easily taken down.

Obviously, though, no one is going to buy a destroyer with a much better unit at the same price. Thus, the price of destroyers should be reduced to 10 IPC’s (or 8) to encourage more purchases, and reflect on reality more (I believe the Navy had over 900 destroyers by the end of the war.) Perhaps the values could be changed, but at least the price should be altered.

Since it looks like heavy cruisers will be added in the new Axis & Allies Guadalcanal set, I will weigh in here on the subject.

I am not sure where you get the idea that a cruiser is a battleship without armor.  All of the WW2 cruiser designs were effected to a greater or lesser degree by the between war naval disarmament treaties, restricting cruisers to no more than 10,000 tons standard displacement.  The Italians, the Japanese, and the Germans all cheated on this, but even they could not get too carried away, so even their ships went no more that 15,000 tons.  The smallest true battleship built between the wars had a displacement of 35,000 tons.  That is a huge difference.  Armament carried by a heavy cruiser was limited to 8 inch guns, with a typical shell weight of around 250 pounds, with 8 to 10 guns being carried.  That give you a 2,000 to 2,500 pound broadside per cruiser.  The shell weight of the battleship guns used in the new battleships were as follows:  US-16 inch at 2,700 pounds for AP shell; British-14 inch at 1,590 pounds, 15 inch at 1,938 pounds, and 16 inch at 2,048 pounds; German-15 inch at 1,764 pounds; Italian-15 inch at 1,951 pounds; French-15 inch at 1,949 pounds; and the Japanese -18 inch at 3,320 pounds.  The lighest battleship gun projectile was over 6 times heavier than the 8 inch shell, while the heaviest were about 11 and 13 times the weight.  A battleship could very easily wreck a cruiser with one broadside, as the Italians discovered at Cape Matapan in 1941, while a battleship could take quite a pounding from a cruiser with moderate damage, see the South Dakota at Guadalcanal in November, 1942.  When it came to AA fire, the cruiser was closer to the battleship.

As for torpedo damage, a battleship had sufficient beam for a side torpedo protection system, which enabled it to absorb several torpedo hits before being crippled, depending on where the torpedoes hit of course.  A hit near the rudders, as happened to the  Bismarck, may not sink the ship, but still leave it helpless to further attack.  A cruiser lacked sufficient beam for a side protection system, and depended on good compartmentation to survive.  Normally, after one torpedo hit, a cruiser was no longer fighting the enemy, but fighting to stay afloat.  Two hits had a good chance of sinking a cruiser, and three almost certainly would.

Putting all of this together, what should be the characteristics of a heavy cruiser in Axis & Allies?  If you set a battleship at 4 attack on ships and aircraft, 4 defense on ships and aircraft, and two hits to sink, you can work backwards to the cruiser.  A cruiser should get 3 attack and 3 defense with 1 hit to sink, but only 2 attack on a battleship.  The destroyer should drop to 2 attack and defense on ships and aircraft, with a 3 attack and defense on subs.  Battleships and cruisers have an attack and defense of 1 against subs.  The IPC cost could be based on how long it took to build the different types of ships.  Destroyers typically took a year, cruisers and carriers two years, battleships three years, and subs maybe 9 months, but that implies a lot of prefabrication and a sub has much tighter tolerances than the normal ship, so figure the cost the same as the destroyer.  This would give the destroyer and sub each costing 8 IPC, the cruiser and carrier 16 IPC, and the battleship 24 IPC.  The destroyer gets a 2 attack on a battleship from the torpedoes that it carries.

I will be interested to see how this compares to the ships that will be coming out in the Guadalcanal game.

This is what I have come up with:

Rommel allows all panzer and infantry divisions in the same province to travel +1 and two divisions gain +1 attack.
Zhukov gains one free infantry division each turn in the province he is in.

Montgomery’s troops gain +1 defense and two or less tank divisions gain +1 attack.

Patton’s advantage is that three or less land units a battle gain +1 attack.

Yamamoto’s fleet can move +1 and airplanes on carries in his fleet can go on kamikaze missions with +1 attack. (In a kamikaze mission, the plane can go its full range and is lost after attacking.)

A general is dead if his unit is killed.

It’s very good, except … I think the US scenarios
are a wee bit OVER THE TOP!