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

@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.

@Genghis:

@Ichabod:

Genghis,

I would ask that battleships be 5/5 so there’s still a chance of a miss. I don’t like the idea of any unit having a guaranteed hit in a dice game. Even at that price, I’d be dropping them on the board more often rather than just aircraft carriers.

However, all other stuff you stated, I do like. Really revolutionary and it all makes sense to me.

The problem with making it 5/5 is that two cruisers would be statistically better than one battleship. Because they have the same role in the game (combat ships that bombard), they need to be exacty equal in terms of stats or math will find the more efficient option. Trust me with 6/6, you would still get aircraft carriers because of the flexibility of airplanes able to attack land, supporting amphibious assaults AND sea, plus extra threat range for your fleet (3 move without naval port) compared to pure combat ships.

According to AACalc simulations, in fact:
2 Cruisers A3 D3 C10, 1 hit are weaker than 1 Battleship A5 D5 C20, 2 hit
38% vs 60%

I made this by using Classic Jetfighter defending @5 with Subs as first hit for BB.
So no need to have auto hit with BB.
http://calc.axisandallies.org/?mustland=0&abortratio=0&saveunits=0&strafeunits=0&techs=on&aInf=&aArt=&aAArt=&aArm=&aFig=&aJFig=20&aBom=&aHBom=&aTra=&aSub=&aSSub=&aDes=&aCru=&aCar=&aBat=&adBat=&dInf=&dArt=&dAArt=&dArm=&dFig=&dJFig=10&dBom=&dHBom=&dTra=&dSub=10&dSSub=&dDes=&dCru=&dCar=&dBat=&ddBat=&ool_att=Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Tra-Sub-SSub-Fig-JFig-Des-Cru-Bom-HBom-Car-dBat-Bat&ool_def=Inf-Art-AArt-Arm-Bom-HBom-Tra-Sub-SSub-Des-Cru-Fig-JFig-Car-dBat-Bat&battle=Run&rounds=&reps=10000&luck=pure&ruleset=Classic&territory=&round=1&pbem=

So, it is another way to balance Cruiser and BB.
Here is a balanced scale (on AACalc) for different variant:
Cruiser A3 D3 C10, SB @3, 1 hit. (Light Cruiser)
Cruiser A4 D4 C12, SB @3, 1 hit (Battle Cruiser)
Cruiser A3 D3 C16, SB @3, 2 hits (Heavy Cruiser or Armored Cruiser)

Battleship mark I A4 D4 C18, SB @4, 2 hits
Battleship mark II A5 D5 C20, SB @5, 2 hits
Battleship mark III A4 D4 C22, SB @4, 3 hits (Flagship style Yamato-class like)

@SS:

@Loose:

Unless you buying 300 infantry……wearing “beanies”

Ha ha ha

Oh no, I see Baron you have met MR. VANN !  :-D

Yes, the enigmatic Mr. Van sent me a PM about his thread, OP quoted above.
:-)
I’m genuinely puzzled about this Cruiser being better according to his formula.
:?

@Genghis:

Yes exactly, there will always going to be a few subs that get through the blockade of destroyers. that was the intent of my rule change, doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with that? It meanse it might be worth buying subs instead of never buying any because they all get blocked by a single destroyer. It means if you buy lots of subs, the opponent must start buying DDs to keep up instead of simply buying a single DD to cancel out ALL your subs.

That is the reason why I think you no more need to lower sub price.
At least, they are no more trapped in defense by few DDs and some get surprise strike in a given combat round when Subs nb > DDs nb.

The only annoying thing is you have to compare numbers on each side and every combat rounds to determine how many surprise strike you get.
For instance: 5 DDs and 3 Subs against 2 DDs and 4 Subs.
According to casualty selection, which subs get surprise strike will greatly vary.
It delay combat resolution compared to OOB.
That maybe an issue for some players.

For your info, in redesign thread, we develop a different POV, in which DD get A1 D1 C5 but cannot block Subs A2 D1 C6 in any way at all. So, they always do Surprise strike and can pass through SZ with enemy DDs in it.
We are actually in play-tests phase and taking summer brake. Barney found that this increase Battle of Atlantic feel to his G40 tested game.
However there is a few changes for TcB and Fg which no more need DD presence to hit Subs.
And get some one  time first strike @1 anti-sub capacity.

@Genghis:

Ok so according to my calculations, the battleship needs to be M2A6D6C20 to be better in combat than current DDs. BB needs to be better in combat than DDs because DD’s abilities are better than BB’s ability.

Now if you make the point that M2A6D6C20 is better than two cruisers M2A3D3C10, than we have to give the cruiser a unique role in the game so that every ship is worth taking.
Do you meant Battleship A5 D5 M2 C20?

Axis and Allies basic assumption is that cheaper fodder unit, Infantry, are always more cost and combat value efficient than costlier unit.

Making Destroyer less combat efficient than Cruiser and Battleship is radical perspective change.

IMO, it is easier to assume that Infantry is better cost efficient in land battle than Tank.
But for warships, it seems sounder that paying for a costlier unit, you get a more powerful and efficient one, or at least of similar efficiency. Otherwise, it is not optimized to buy such bulkier ones if smaller ones get the job done for better price.
This last point should be open up for debate about balancing warships within themselves.

Larry and consorts would say Cruiser and BB get Shore Bombardment.
And Cruiser get the most cost efficient.
2 Cruisers combined with 1 Inf and 1 Art get 10 attack points, avg. 3 hits and only lost 2 units.

Overkill in defense have no impact on BB and Cruiser while air support may be shut down.