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

After a more extend study of stats and maths on Battlecalc, I found something to answer about this critics on the 50% vs 50% survival as a base of comparison between units. See the last quotation in the above post:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32255.msg1224759#msg1224759

This quoted post was advocating an higher cost for cruiser than 10 IPCs, at least 11 and even a 12 IPCs OOB could even be correct according to Red Harvest.

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.

Amongst many topics, the interesting point of Red Harvest critic was that comparing a whole fleet of Cruisers (A3D3M2C12) against a whole fleet of Destroyers (A2D2M2C8) on a same IPCs basis was broken on a mathematical POV because one side was keeping better and costlier units than the other side.

If both sides have a 50% of survival then the outcome will probably be a few units survival of one side.

So in 12 IPCs units vs 8 IPCs units, a 50% survival means an average of 6 IPCs save on 1 side vs 4 IPCs save on the other.
It is not even and fair. Or said otherwise, cruiser side wins, it still have a 12 IPCs unit while the destroyers side wins, it is only a 8 IPCs unit.

That’s could have explain that a costlier unit would have lesser chance of survival over a cheaper ones.
The balance point should be put on the IPCs gains and loss instead of units survivability.

Now using a real example, taking a 24 IPCs fleet basis, you get 2 Cruisers vs 3 Destroyers/ or, for 48 IPCs 4 cruisers vs 6 Destroyers.

The Battlecalc on a 10 000 battles give you this for 2 Cruisers vs 3 Destroyers :
Overall %*: A. survives: 27.1% D. survives: 66.3% No one survives: 6.6%

The main average survival results is:
17.99% 1 Cru. survived and 1 Cru. lost : 12 IPCs total loss but 12 saved: 18% * 12 = 2.16 IPCs net gains
24.18% 1 Des. survived 2 Des. lost: for 16 IPCs total loss but 8 saved: 24.2%* 8 = 1.936 IPCs net gains

So, on average, when there is only 1 unit which survived then Cruiser is slighlty above Destroyers in IPCs gains.

Now, just imagine that instead the Cruiser unit was cheaper at 10 IPCs (according to a 50% survival battle calc eval).
The IPCs gains will be better because of a real increase in survivability.

For instance, a 40 IPCs basis fleet (4 Cruisers 10 IPCs vs 5 Destroyers 8 IPCs)
Cruiser survives: 46.1% Destroyers survives: 49.8% No one survives: 4.1%

Average (in yellow):
15.15% 1: 1 Cru. 3 Cru. : lost 30 IPCs : 15.15%*10 IPCs= 1.515 IPCs
12.51% 1: 1 Des. 4 Des. : lost 32 IPCs : 12.51%*8 IPCs = 1.00 IPCs

Now, on the average situation, the IPCs balance between CA and DD is 1.5 time better for cruiser side.

Do you think it could be a new way to defend the Cruiser OOB price?

An interesting post on Cruiser price and cost calculation from Larry Harris buried in Anniversary threads.
@Krieghund:

Larry’s response (posted on his site):

Hello Telamon. Thanks for your most kind posting. “Remained true to the original”!
Cruiser. Hey I’m not a great player but not all that bad either. In fact there were times when I was the best player in the world for each of my games. It is when that world population exceeded 3 people that I noticed a decline in my standings.

Cruiser. They have their purpose, heck at 12 IPCs they can come in handy in mid game when I’m usually fighting for my life. And with battleships costing 20 I usually can’t afford that kind of money.

Buying a cruiser at 12 gives me 8 more IPCs to play with when compared to a BB purchase. For 19 IPCs I can buy something that the navy is really all about: a transport. I can’t really argue with a bunch of “good player” however. If they say cruisers are a good purchase at 11 and I say they are “an ok purchase” at 12$ ok I hear ya. I don’t always agree with this assumption, however. I’d like to give you some insights on how I see it. I look at the over all cost in IPCs for each unit’s ability to score a hit on the enemy.

A sub costing 6 and having a combined attack and defense total of 3 (2 on attack plus 1 on defense) cost me 2 IPCs for each opportunity to hit my opponent. That’s funny, that’s the same price-per-opportunity to kill something as a destroyer has. They cost 8 and have a combat value of 4. (8/by 4 =2).

Cruisers at 12 and divided by 6 (3/3) is also 2.

A battleships with its price tag of 20 has a cost per potential hit at 2.5. Of course a battleship has two lives so its cost really is 1.25 IPCs per hit opportunity. Good deal! But it cost so damned many IPCs. In defense of the lover priced cruiser, I’d like to point out that it has the same cost/kill ability as a destroyer or a sub. So why pick on the cruiser.

Yeah, I know DDs have a that special anti-sub thing and subs have their own special points of (I want to say: confusion) value. But a cruiser has a 50% chance of scoring a hit during a bombardment (its special ability). In any case, I assigned a value of 12 to the cruiser perhaps it should have been an 11. I could not always use this simple formula when assigning values to these various units.

I also had to take into consideration my perception of what was fun but yet made the most sense. Kind of subjective don’t you think. Look at the bomber or the carrier for example. They have a cost of 2.4 and 2.33 per kill ability. Is that long range of a bomber worth that extra .4 and is the carrier worth that extra .33 because it can carry aircraft. I guess so, I mean I think so. Who knows for sure? You got to admit, however, that all the units are certainly in the ball park when it comes to cost.

@HolKann:

Hmm, nice reasoning. BUT dear Larry Harris, you’re forgetting the most important value of a unit! In your view, a unit’s price is determined by “kill ability” and “special ability”. These are indeed 2 major factors, but you’re forgetting the most important one: “hit taking ability”. Let’s calculate that for each naval unit shall we? sub: 1 hit for 6 IPC’s = ~0.15 DD’s: 1/8= ~0.13 Cru: 1/12= ~0.8 BB: 2/20= ~0.1 (excluding the autorepair after each battle) Loaded carrier: 3/34= ~0.9. Well now, guess who’s coming out at the bottom, also having (imho) the worst “special ability” of all. It’s big plus should be the “kill ability”, so 11 for a Cru would still make it not so good a deal. Imho, 10 would be very defendable, subs would still be bought, DD’s would still be bought to counter subs and for cheap hits, and the cru would simply be good value for the money; yer basic sea unit taking over the role of core fleet unit, from the DD who isn’t made for this role in the first place! Sorry mr. Harris, but the logic you’re using to refute cheaper cruisers is wrong/incomplete, please consider to rethink this…

So summarized: 1 inf extra in Egy, 2 in Yun, and a Cru of 11 (or 10?!). Please mr. Harris, make this the official LHTR for AA50, so I can convince my friends to play with these more balanced rules. Otherwise those shiny new Cruisers in AA 1942 will stay in the box too much  :|

@Telamon:

You’re spot on Holkann - hit taking ability is as important as hit giving ability.  That’s why 5 cruisers (attack points 15, cost 60) will consistently lose to 3 battleships (attack points 12, cost 60).  Extra hits.  It’s what makes destroyers the best value for buffing a fleet.  I agree that 10 is a realistic option for cruisers - it would make them a fraction weaker than destroyers, but a definite step ahead of battleships.  At 11, they are a fraction weaker than battleships.  I don’t mind where they are placed 10-11, but at 12 IPC they are pricing themselves out of the market. Bombarding doesn’t make up for a weak, expensive unit.

@oztea:

Hold on a second….why are ships always getting AA guns?
The vulnerability of the big ships was one of the top 5 lessons of WWII!
Battle of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Midway, etc.

No AA guns on boats, it doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the UK fleet stronger if germany can only attack it by air late game.

Cruisers are fine, a 3/3 for 10 is a fighter. A 3/3 for 5 Is a tank A 3/3 for 12 is a Cruiser.
Small discrepancy, but its all relative. In the water a 3/3 for 12 is fine, considering the 2/2 is 8 (66% of cost) and the 2/2 on land is 80% of the cost of its 3/3 counterpart. Boats cost a lot of money folks, remember if you drop it low enough Russia might buy one and that’s pretty unhistorical. 12 makes it an investment, not a bargain.

@vodot:

All, if there’s anything we’ve done a few times, it’s mess with Cruisers and Battleships, but I couldn’t find this exact combination or discussion elsewhere.

Here’s a chart I can’t post links with some initial data that I will clarify via edit below when I have time. My initial analysis seems to show that a CA @ 4-4-2-11 and a 2-hit BB @ 5-5-2-18 [A-D-M-C] compare well, efficiency-wise, with DDs.

A less aggressive tweak would be 4-4-2-12 and 5-5-2-19; but then you lose the very near 1-1 efficiency ratio with DDs. Anyone have a customizable (as in, tweak the A/D/C/hit values) battle calculator they want to lend me to test out some equal-TUV scenarios?

You are probably right: Cruiser A4 D4 M2 C12 gives similar combat results against an A2 D2 M2 C8 Destroyer based on the same IPC basis.
Here is how I made the calculations with AACalc.
it takes 44 Destroyers A2 D2 M2 Cx vs 31 Cruiser A4 D4 M2 Cy to get near 50%-50% survival:

http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=44&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=31&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 50.7% D. survives: 48.6% No one survives: 0.7%

If x (cost of DD)= 8 IPCs
y (cost of Cruiser) 44*8 /31= 11,35 IPCs

If y (cost of Cruiser)= 12 IPCs
x (cost of DD) 31*12/44 = 8.45 IPCs

Unfortunately, it is not possible to do it with A5 D5 units.

It can also work with a Cruiser A3 D3 C10 and a 2 hits BB A4 D4 C18:
98 DDs vs 80 Cruiser:
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=98&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=80&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 50.6% D. survives: 49.3% No one survives: 0.1%

Meanings if DD worth 8 IPCs, then Cruiser worth 9.8 IPCs to be even in pure combat situation.

184 DDs vs 80 Battleship:
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=184&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=80&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 48.9% D. survives: 51.0% No one survives: 0.1%

Meanings if DD worth 8 IPCs, then Battleship worth 18.4 IPCs to be near even in pure combat situation.

So, if you want to keep 50% (1 DD C8+ 1 Cruiser C12) vs 50% 1 BB 2 hits, C20
It can be 1 DD A2 D2 C8 + 1 Cruiser A3 D3 C10 vs 1 BB A4 D4 C18

If 10 DD + 10 CA vs 10 BBs:
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&aInf=&aArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aDes=10&aCru=10&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dBom=&dTra=&dSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=10&ddBat=&ool_att=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Sub-SSub-Des-Fig-JFig-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Tra&ool_def=Bat-Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Sub-SSub-Des-Car-Cru-Fig-JFig-dBat-Tra&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=AA1942&territory=&round=1&pbem=
A. survives: 51.1% D. survives: 47.1% No one survives: 1.9%

But the OOB cost structure and combat values is built in a way that fodder are more powerful than higher values unit.

It is possible to tweak a lot of combat possibilities with the actual AACalc, as you can see.

If you want to play with a Cruiser A4 D4 C12, you can make 2 hits Battleship A5 D5 C20 to keep the 50%-50% when 1 Cruiser and 1 DD against 1 BB.

That way, you will keep OOB cost (simpler for memory) and makes all your warships more cost efficient in Naval Combat.

Thanks for that idea. I will add it as another way to balance both Cruiser C12 and Battleship C20.

@bptastic:

I really like the idea of giving cruisers an AAA roll before combat begins. Same rules as land based AAA. Leave the bombardment ability as well, Historically cruisers have been the “jack of all trades, master of none” ships. Able to have the flexibility to deal with a wide variety of tactical situations and what they couldn’t deal with they ran away from. In the games I’ve played cruisers never get purchased, the cost is too high and the utility to low, give them a special ability like DDs against subs and they get considered again as viable.  Any good strategy game needs to have a certain rock paper scissors aspect, in my opinion. Currently aircraft have no counter at sea only on land, give cruisers this ability and you give them the perk they need to to be viable.

Welcome bptastic,

Giving Cruiser (and BB) an AAA roll seems very popular indeed.
One issue people have with it is about opening strategy. In G40 and 1942.2, there is a few Cruisers (and BBs) which are supposed to be sitting ducks but, then AAA fire from warships make it no piece of cake and increase TUV swing. Sometimes, Luftwaffe lose more planes than usual OOB.

Some people pretends they get refitted after round 1 with more AA guns and apply this HR on round 2 of the game.

If you play Triple A G40, let me know, some of my friend has created a map which include such option as AAA for Cruiser and BB.

Another was also to give 3 movement to Cruiser.

Too bad Mr. Harris did not made that call when you suggested this in Alpha process.
(But there would not have been so many threads and idea about Cruiser however… FWIW)

But, he clearly make the change in 1914, A3 D3 M3 C9 Cruiser is at a nice place compared to C6 Submarines.

Did you suggested both M3 and AA at that time?

Do you mean that BB 6/6 get automatic success?

@Dauvio:

I see where you guys are coming from, and I owe the A&A community a apology. I didn’t really show any respect to any of you, and I’m sorry for that.

I will give you the G40 unit strengths based on their cost. These numbers are derived from the VANN FORMULAS.

Attack/defense=A/D
INFANTRY        1.85/3.7
MECH              1.04/2.08
ARTILLERY       2.08/2.08
TANK              1.39/1.39
FIGHTER          .5/.667
TAC BOMB       (.413/.551)/.413
BOMBER          .463/.116
SUB                1.39/.463
DESTROYER      .521/.521
CRUISER          .347/.347
CARRIER          0/.139
BATTLESHIP    .267/.267

These other stats is one to one ratio.

INF/ART          2.72/2.72
MECH/ART       2.08/2.08
MECH/TANK     1.33/1.67

Now the one to one stats could be a little off because I don’t know the G40 rules. However I know the MECH/TANK numbers should be higher, but I didn’t have time to run the numbers through.

Hi Mr Vann,
I may be interested in your formula for talking about Sub, DDs, Cruisers and BBs, but it seems that according to your number 1 hit Cruiser A3 D3 C12 is better than 2 hits BB A4 D4 C20.
CA .347 > BB .267

This is not corresponding to any Calc. Cruiser combat value vs cost is the worse warship in pure combat.
Sub and DDs seems OK.
Can you explain this discrepancy?

IMO, BB should be around .440/.440, right?
Is your formula right or did you make a mistake while calculating, you probably forget the 2 hits factor ?

Same thing for Carrier compared to Cruiser.
0/.139 is much too low, it should be around 0/.380.
You probably forgot the 2 hits factor for Carrier, too.

Do you think 1 CV 2 Fgs should be  .400 /.570 ?

To back up my assertion :
@taamvan:

TL;DR;  Buy a carrier, or three, then buy a heap destroyers to flesh the thing out, and as time goes on, focus on bombers.

You will need about 1 hit point per hit point that the enemy can bring, to deter an attack.   The problem is, that in a 50/50 (or worse) battle, the enemy may still attack you because he knows that losing all your TTs is devastating and can cripple the USA/UK/Japan especially.  Even if the enemy suffers massive losses, he killed your only fleet that it took multiple turns to develop, so he only needs to kill your last defender to “win”, no matter the cost to his forces.

Carriers: Best Choice.   Flexible on fleet defense and on the attack.   Downside is that these take the highest investment of IPCs for the lowest attack/defense power, because you get both.  A fleet of primarily high cost units  (carriers+planes) is surprisingly weak (since carriers add nothing to attack power)  You also get a bunch of free air to start that can just land on new carriers, so that makes the expense a bit lower in the Global game especially.

DDs:   Too costly, but indispensable.   Once you have a BB and a CV in a certain fleet, adding 3-6 destroyers (and then more, ad nausea) gives you the most extra hit points for the lowest cost, which keeps your high attack power units (bombers and fighters) alive longer, which is the key to winning a stack battle.

Cruisers;  Not worth it.   Don’t buy these.
BB;  too expensive, but the soak hits make these the depth of your fleet.   1 is probably enough, per fleet, more is gravy.
Subs;  Most efficient attack, but totally inadequate on defense (even as cannon fodder–all your opponent needs to is attack with air without a DD and these do nothing).   Buying a few is a great power booster and deterrent, but these cannot be relied upon.
Transports;  since these do nothing in battle, overbuying these is your most common undoing.   If you cannot maintain the 1:1 hit point parity, favor warships over TTs.
Tactical;   Because they are dependent on another unit, and you have a bunch of these to start, fighters and strat bombers remain more focused choices.   Don’t buy these so much as preserve the ratio 1:1 of fighters to bombers that you start with.
Strat bombers;  fastest way to get into the action, most flexible overall unit in the game.   Downside is that these add nothing to the defense of your fleets, and create new liabilities if they all land together.

buy surface units in earlier turns, and bombers in later ones, they can all attack together.
If you are uncertain you will win on the defense, don’t bring all your transports to 1 place (don’t put all eggs in 1 basket)

First; get a grand fleet together (DD CV BB TT).  Cruisers are fine, just extra.
Then, buy more carriers up to how many planes you have at your disposal (with the US, its 3, Japan 2-4, Germany, 1)
Then, buy more DDs as cannon fodder (4-8 is plenty)
Then, buy Stratbombers as a follow-on force (USA) (4-8 is your lightsaber)
Buy the other stuff sparingly, and in deference to the above priority
then, cross and blow up your opponent

Strat bombers with airbases can fly vast distances, and the enemy can build bases as a surprise.    If you sense that you are too weak to sally/cross, it is often because you are building too many nonwarships too early and units that crowd up at your capital and wait aren’t accomplishing anything.

EDIT; If your team can buy Borg Cubes, do that instead, they’re virtually indestructible.

@Genghis:

I have made a change to the destroyers in my proposal above, check it out!

Subs now cost 5 IPC. Reason: with one destroyer’s ability to completely cancel ALL subs’ abilities, I have given the subs a little help so we see them on the board more often as cannon fodder. It also makes the destroyers even more important to puchase because destroyers are the hard counter to subs. Makes the game more interesting because convoying is now a more viable strategy.

Destroyer stats are unchanged. The reson for this is that they have many uses like blocking, soaking up hits for Air only attacks and sub hunting. Because subs will now be more important, so will destroyers. In addition I have changed the anti-sub ability of destroyers to work only on a 1:1 basis. No longer will one single destroyer cancel out 20 subs. This change is inspired by DK’s house rules. I think it is quite flavourful and makes more sense, plus it makes the game more interesting by making subs more viable instead of being rendered useless after someone spends 8 ipcs on ONE destroyer.

Using Subs as fodder is a totally different intent than of designer AFAIK.
Here, I’m just talking because it doesn’t mean your rule frame does not work, only it get some issues for purist and historically oriented player.
DD was meant to be the main blocker and fodder. Lowering to 5/8 Sub/DD ratio instead of 6/8 will increase Sub padding fleet and 1 DD blocking a single cheaper Sub will  make Sub OP.
If 1:1 ratio is applied, you no more need to lower Sub cost to 5 IPCs. You will need 24 IPCs in 3 DDs to block 18 IPCs of 3 Subs worth. Meaning for same cost 1 Sub will make it through blocker.