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

Nice ideas. Thanks for posting. You have probably seen that many here do the same thing.

@Baron:

@CWO:

If I understand correctly what YG is seeking, the requirements are for a special cruiser bonus that a) applies only to cruisers and to no other ship type; b) that does not involve a combined-arms pairing between a cruiser and another unit; c) that is historically accurate, both in terms of the technical features of WWII cruisers and their actual use in that war; and d) which does not involve an IPC price adjustment.
Frankly, I can’t think of any historically accurate things about cruisers that would fit all those requirements. At best, there might be things that could be bent or stretched to partially fulfil what’s being looked for. One idea I’ve already mentioned is the concept of giving cruisers some kind of equivalent to the OOB blitzing ability of tanks, to reflect the combination of speed and long range which cruisers offered.

As always, instructive and interesting dive into World War II in depth history.
Thanks for both posts.

The single ability specific to Cruiser and not too unbalancing seems to be linked to his extended range.
1914 opens a window for an A&A M3 Cruiser.
Giving a basic 3 Moves, but what kind of effect does +1M Naval Base bonus, is yet to determine.
No bonus,
NCM bonus only,
both CM and NCM ,
so Cruiser gets M4 in such last two situations when leaving a NB.
I don’t know if any player ever play them that way.

A certain kind of Blitz capacity for one’s own can-opener Cruiser was develop in this thread from Black Elk:
Blitz units, Can Openers, and Turn Order
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34869.msg1350988#msg1350988

This allows Cruisers to attack DDs blockers and once the SZ is conquered, let other Naval units attack another SZ behind the first line blocker or simply NCM into an unoccupied SZ further away.

About Cruiser maneuverability and possible Combined Arms, I also suggested this earlier:

@Baron:

1- Cruiser always moves at 3 CM and NCM.
2- Cruiser gives +1 CM & NCM to boost the moving range of any other surface vessel if paired 1:1 (BB, CV, DD and TP, only).
3- Cruiser with Battleship and Carrier get the Anti-Air capacity (same as AAA: @1 against up to 3 planes, preemptive).

However, to get a 3 move CM or NCM without Naval Base is costly for a Task Force Fleet: 1 BB, 1 CV, 1 DD, 1 TP, needs 4 Cruisers.
The mandatory pairing 1:1 provides a very restrictive limit, since Cruisers are the worst Combat effective units of the Naval roster.
Speed and maneuverability is gained at the cost of optimized Att/Def values.

Can this be within historical accuracy, A&A system and a balance limit?

Coach I would go with the scale you use for tactical bombers. Even though there is no intention to use them with WWII era aircraft, sizing them in the tactical bomber scale provides a more consistent line-up between products. In other words there are many who use HBG pieces for many uses and would like the consistency of scale that HBG provides with your other product’s. IMO it keeps the product line more linear.

I read numerous posts about historical rules like a separate Canada and rules for Vichy (just to name those two)

Since most of you seems to agree that the game is in favor of the axis, how do you (re)balanced the game if you use those two rules(canada and vichy) or any other one that sesns to slow down allies or advantage axis ?

@knp7765:

What game are you talking about? Is it A&A 1941?

If so, then you are right. There is a lot less IPC value yet the units cost the same with the exceptions of carriers and battleships. WOTC designed it this way to help make the game simpler and have a shorter playing time to hopefully get new people into playing Axis and Allies. Since everyone has less money to spend, the Purchase phase goes quicker. With less units on the board, it’s much easier to keep track of what and who’s units are where. Also, it makes the Combat phase go quicker because there are less units in each combat. So, to keep this game short and simple, the unit costs should be left as they are.
You should get this game. It really is fun and a nice change from the bigger, more complex games. Personally, I would get at least 2 copies: one for playing and the second for extra pieces. You only get 2 destroyers per nation and you usually need more, especially for UK battling those pesky German U-boats. Either that, or go to HBG and see if you can get whatever pieces you want individually.

Yeah I was referring to 41’ it got moved to House Rules.

Well, i guess it could represent an inhabited land. I have not really thought about its representation all that much. I just thought that this was a good idea for an addition to the game. In my opinion, i guess the “houses” could represent a land that has been fortified, mechanized, or one that has a barracks? It’s all up to the player i think.

Cruisers have their use for USA or UK (i mostly use them in low-luck, as 2 cruisers is a sure coastal hit)

As for battleships, i agree with Make_it_round. Their price is fair (though not cheap, but they shouldn’t be, as they get too powerful once you have a few of them)

I like the BOTB syle mech infantry with the truck peice. A Truck unit can be bought for 4IPC. It than can carry 2inf or 1inf and 1Art or just 1Art Like a “land” transport. It has know attack or defense value itself. We already have them for U.S. and Germany if you have BOTB. That only leaves USSR and U.K. and Japan. Just paint the U.S. truck U.K. and Russia colors because the U.S. provided many trucks to those countries anyway. Japan never really had much mech inf anyway but you could paint the German one Jap Orange or Jap Red whatever you prefer.