Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.
How to make battleships a more attractive purchase
-
I say “land units” generally meaning Mechs and Inf. I leave it open to debate as people will want to refine it to their own tastes and may have other units (HBG comes to mind) besides OOB. The general idea is however that BBs and CAs will essentially act as artillery and “advanced artillery” meaning BBs can support two units CAs support one. I might suggest that even if there is a naval battle they would still act as seaborne artillery. The idea would make both vessels a more valued purchase but limit is power to amphibious assaults.
-
I say “land units” generally meaning Mechs and Inf. I leave it open to debate as people will want to refine it to their own tastes and may have other units (HBG comes to mind) besides OOB. The general idea is however that BBs and CVs will essentially act as artillery and “advanced artillery” meaning BBs can support two units CVs support one. I might suggest that even if there is a naval battle they would still act as seaborne artillery. The idea would make both vessels a more valued purchase but limit is power to amphibious assaults.
Cool idea, I forgot also about Mech Inf.
So, at least with OOB, Cruisers act as artillery support and Battleships provides an Advanced artillery support for Infantry and Mechanized Infantry during an amphibious assault.
Cruiser (CA) give +1A boost to 1 Infantry or Mech Inf unit, in addition to the first round shore bombardment @3.
Battleship (BB) give +1A, boost to up to 2 Infantry or Mech Inf units, in addition to the first round shore bombardment @4.
In addition, a naval battle in a SZ doesn’t block this kind of Artillery support.Now the question remain: is it enough incentive for a cruiser at 12 IPCs and BB at 20 IPCs?
I found this capacity nearer a historical feel, at least.
-
Without getting too wild, and fitting within game mechanics, you could simply boost firepower to land units + 1 in uncontested amphibious assaults for all rounds just like artillery does making BBs more valuable. this could be modified to include cruisers too. BBs can support 2 INF and cruisers can support 1. Do this for all rounds of combat and not simply a bombardment.
Very good idea! I was thinking making BB’s support cruisers on bombard and attack. This would make a cruiser and BB attacking or bombarding 2 4’s.
-
This is probably the best solution we can get. I like it because it links the two main warships with transports, and enhances their value on amphibious, but without coopting the specific ability of the transport itself.
The only thing to account for is how Battleships and Cruisers interact with transports that are unloading 1 Inf + 1 Artillery, or 1 inf + 1 tank.
For simplicity it is probably best to treat all land units equally. The only concern might be the potency of the existing artillery unit when combined with this new form of battleship and cruiser support.
I might suggest, if it proves overpowered when combined with normal bombardment, that this new land combat role should just supercede and replace normal bombardment. This would simplify things and lead to less confusion overall. Especially since bombardment as it stands is rather complex (the whole casualties firing back aspect, and separate combat phase etc.) The idea suggested above would eliminate that weirdness and streamline everything into regular combat, just with the bonus added. Seems fairly easy
-
We recently tested the following, and we were quite confident with it:
Battleship: 17 IPC (no changes to rules)
Cruiser: 9 IPC (Attack decreased to 2)Battleships now are a real strong weapon, as far as you can afford them. Especially if you already have the superior navy, the hit absorption is useful, as you hopefully don’t lose any units in battles vs smaller navies. A really strong buy for USA and/or Japan.
Cruisers get a completely new job. They are the cheapest way to get a strong defense. Especially useful for defending small groups of transports against enemy air raids. They totally outvalue aircraft carriers in this role, but their ability to support a subsequent land battle is very limited (bombard at only 2. No fighters can participate in defending the land units later on). Therefore Cruisers shine at attacking islands, but carriers are still better for large invasions.
-
Do you mean that Cruiser get this stats:
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 2
Shore bombard 2
Cost 9It is a completely new idea.
I like this concept because it provides a way to understand why many Cruisers were Anti Aircrafts platforms.IMO, I think that a balanced cost compared to BB should be 10 IPCs instead.
Because for 18 IPCs, you would get a 2xD3 on defense compared to a single Defense @4 for Battleship.
The 1 IPC higher is not enough.
With 20 IPCs, it means a 3 IPCs difference for 2 Cruisers.Did you try the reverse?
Attack 3
Defend 2 -
@Baron:
Do you mean that Cruiser get this stats:
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 2
Shore bombard 2
Cost 9It is a completely new idea.
I like this concept because it provides a way to understand why many Cruisers were Anti Aircrafts platforms.Exactly
Edit:
However, one should keep in mind that the Allies do profit a bit more from these changes as the Axis. Therefore the bid should maybe adapted to that. -
@Baron:
Do you mean that Cruiser get this stats:
Attack 2
Defend 3
Move 2
Shore bombard 2
Cost 9It is a completely new idea.
I like this concept because it provides a way to understand why many Cruisers were Anti Aircrafts platforms.IMO, I think that a balanced cost compared to BB should be 10 IPCs instead.
Because for 18 IPCs, you would get a 2xD3 on defense compared to a single Defense @4 for Battleship.
The 1 IPC higher is not enough.
With 20 IPCs, it means a 3 IPCs difference for 2 Cruisers.Did you try the reverse?
Attack 3
Defend 2The issue is that it makes another Sea unit better on defense than attack.
Same as Carrier and planes.I believe that Cruiser should be an offensive weapon inside the ships roster.
Otherwise that makes Fleet on defense too hard to attack by the same warships roster on 1 unit for 1 unit basis. -
@Baron:
I believe that Cruiser should be an offensive weapon inside the ships roster.
Otherwise that makes Fleet on defense too hard to attack by the same warships roster on 1 unit for 1 unit basis.As it is already with carriers? ^^
-
@Baron:
I believe that Cruiser should be an offensive weapon inside the ships roster.
Otherwise that makes Fleet on defense too hard to attack by the same warships roster on 1 unit for 1 unit basis.As it is already with carriers? ^^
Yes.
1 Carrier Att 1 Def 2 + 2 Fgs A3 D4=
Attack 7 Defense 10If Cruiser A2 D3 is added into the mix, 2 units (A4 D6) for example:
Attack 11 Defense 16, 5 units.
The same 5 units on offense vs defense are overwhelmed.A&A Calc:
Overall %*: A. survives: 15% D. survives: 82.8% No one survives: 2.3%
If, instead, Cruiser A3 D2 is added into the mix, 2 units (A6 D4) for example:
Attack 13 Defense 14, 5 units.The same 5 units on offense vs defense are still beaten up, but get almost twice the odds of survival (15% vs 28%):
A. survives: 28.2% D. survives: 68.9% No one survives: 3% -
The only way I see to keep the defense against planes manifesto is to provide
the 1 AA roll per cruiser.Cruiser
Attack 3
Defend 2
Move 2
Shore bombard 3
Special 1 defensive AA first shot @1 against up to 1 plane/per cruiser unit.
Cost 10
In such situation as above,
if Cruiser A3 D2 is added into the mix, 2 units (A6 D4) for example:
Attack 13 Defense 14, 5 units.A. survives: 22.1% D. survives: 75.6% No one survives: 2.3%
That way, Cruiser is clearly not better than Destroyer against incoming Submarines.
But you still get a better Anti-Aircrafts platform while keeping his single offensive roll of Shore bombardment.This can be balance with a 17-18 IPCs 2 hits Battleship.
Suggested Topics
