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

@SeaYa quick point of reference. I play test games. So no version, certainly not out of box, is completely baked. And this is proven by 2nd editions and tournament rules. That is why I have been advocating for a governing body for years. Gotta go.

You have some thoughts about new rules and new units for the Milton Bradley-era A&A? I am right there with you. I posted some thoughts late last year / early this year. I will link them below so that you can find them. If you want to discuss these rules, I recommend commenting on the relevant post rather than right here. But you do you.

One thing I will mention. I like paratroopers and paratrooper rules. But using bombers to cart around paratroopers is both silly and not historically accurate. So, I wrote rules for another new unit, the Air Transport or Cargo Plane unit. Think of them as Transports in the sky - with less cargo capacity and more movement points. See, when you fold in both the Paratrooper and their trusty steeds, the cargo plane / air transport, then I think you’ve got something…

Midnight_Reaper’s New A&A Classic Rules:
1(Classic) Simple Cruiser Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41100.0
1a(Classic) Cruisers or Destroyers for Classic?: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41552.0
2(Classic) Paratrooper and Air Transport Rules for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41101.0
3(Classic) Armored Cavalry and Troopers - Rules for two ground units for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41157.0
4(Classic) Heavy Artillery - Rules for a new ground unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41158.0
5(Classic) New Research Rules - Outsmart your Enemies: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41479.0
6(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41480.0
6a(Classic) New Research Tech for Classic, at a Lower Dose: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41481.0
7(Classic) National Advantages - A new way to help balance Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41482.0
8(Classic) New Unit Surcharge - New Economics for Classic : https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41483.0
9(Classic) Special Forces - New Optional Unit for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41484.0
9a(Classic) More Special Forces Options for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41485.0
10(Classic) Incendiary Thoughts - Strategic Bombing and Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41486.0
11(Classic) Unit Prices & Balance - New Economics for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41487.0
12(Classic) New Initial Setup - New Setup for Classic: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41551.0

Like I said, I have some thoughts on the subject…  And I’m not even done with this series, just mostly done…  :-D

-Midnight_Reaper

Uh…hello. There is a global zombie war game called Zombie State. I’ve seen it and read some reviews. I’ve actually designed a pretty complicated Axis and Allies Zombies game using the Global 1940 maps. I use Fortress America infantry units for zombies as I don’t have any real specific Z sculpts. I’m afraid I made the rules so complicated that people might compare it to Cones of Dunshire. The Zs are pretty slow and certainly not unkillable. I combined the idea of supernatural undead springing up everywhere thanks to Hitler (he gets munched right off the bat and Admiral Donitz takes over what’s left of Germany) with some pandemic plagues. So some Zs can infect you while others just tear you limb from limb. If the players want to just beat on the Zombies they can unite and do that, or if they want to fight each other the Zs get exponentially tougher and rip into all of them. Like “nightmare” level in some computer games. I’ve been working on it for a few years on and off. Max Brooks World War Z novel and the Harry Turtledove Balance novels were a good inspiration for this kind of thing. Let me know if you’re still interested in this game concept. There is actually someone who started this a few years back with the old A and A Classic map and some fun ideas for introducing Zs into WW2, but I’ve always preferred bigger maps and lots of different unit types.

I am currently working on a mod in TripleA that will do this. Germany owns Germany, Italy, Poland, and Libya. Britian owns, in addition to its regular territories: France, Northwestern Europe, Norway, Morocco, and Algeria. Russia owns Finland. Japan only owns Japan, Manchuria, Kangitsu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Caroline Islands, and Formosa. Britian owns all Japanese territories that weren’t mentioned here, except for Wake Island, Kwantung, and the Phillipines, which are owned by America.

On round 1, Russia and America are out. That means that they will get no money, they can’t move units, and they can’t be attacked, with the exception of China. Americans in China get to move, attack, and be attacked normally. Also, Japan gets to attack the Americans on Wake Island, the Phillipines, and (on J3 or J4) the navy off of Pearl Harbor (which will have at least 2 battleships). On Round 3, Russia gets to join. However, Germany gets to attack Russia in G2. I’m not sure whether to let America join in round 3 or 4. It depends on how much firepower Britain gets to wield in the Pacific and India initially, and how much they can maintain pressure on Japan.

Britain starts out with no cash to spend on B1 simply because they would have a mountain of cash from all the territories. Plus, the Axis need to have a chance to beat Britain back in the first few rounds. Germany and Japan will start out with 50 bucks (to represent their massive military buildup relative to the Allies.

Unit count in all Axis territories will basically double to give them much needed initial firepower. Germany’s navy will be beefed up, mainly in SZ5. There will be some extra navy in the Med just to make sure that they have a shot in Africa. To balance that, the subs off the coast of America will be removed, as well as the British navy off America as well (so Britain can’t storm Africa).

I already have some idea for the initial situation in Japan. They will start out with enough land units, navy, and transports to either gobble up Pacific islands or storm China, but not both. Plus, there is the Indian and Australian navies to deal with, not to mention the threat at Pearl Harbor.

My goal is to be semi-historically accurate, because some accuracy has to be sacrificed in order to make the game playable and fun, and also because the map wasn’t designed for historic realism.

One thing I’d like to do is to give Japan incentive to attack Pearl Harbor the turn that America begins to play, but I don’t know of a way to give Japan good incentive to. I think I might give Japan a reward for destroying the battleships in Pearl by giving them some money or units if they do.

I would appreciate and welcome suggestions for pretty much anything in here. I want to make this work and have it at least as balanced if not more balanced than 1942.2.

@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?

@Yavid:

not revisiting the list nearly as much as I haven’t added in HBG’s UK set and will have to double check because I believe the French got some units since my last update. But yes I find it useful.

I had not entered the 2nd Japan set or the UK set HBG released, those have been added. and the going nuclear set HBG just released.

I slightly redesigned my concept of ATGs:

ATGs should be 1(2)/2(3)/1 units.

1/2/1 vs all units except tanks
2/3/1 vs tanks

It’s more logical to get the + 1 bonus against tanks as an ATG in both, attack and defense.

This makes ATGs more valuable and justifies its costs of 4 IPC.

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