@CWO:
Besides, the US Navy at the very least built Anti-Aircraft Cruisers. These were geared specifically for that purpose and had the armament to match.
Yes, and the British did too – the Dido class. I don’t think any other navies did so during WWII.
All in all, I think the best option would be to fudge things a bit in the following way:
We assume that the cruiser in the game is a kind of hybrid between a 6-inch conventional light cruiser (which allows us to keep the OOB rule that gives cruisers shore-bombardment capabilities) and a 5-inch anti-aircraft light cruiser (which gives the revised unit an AAA capability)
We also assume that the price given in the OOB rules is for an 8-inch heavy cruiser rather than a light one, which would rationalize a slight drop in price for the revised unit (which is being conceived as a hybrid of two light cruiser types)
In principle, this “double improvement” (the gain of an AAA capability and a drop in cost) ought to be offset by something, which logically ought to be a drop in attack value (because we’re trading 8-inch guns for 6-inch guns and some extra 5-inch guns). However, that would give cruisers the same attack value (2) as destroyers, which would be a rather pathetic situation. So perhaps the cost should only be lowered from 12 to 11 rather than from 12 to 10, to keep things more reasonable? Cruisers would still get a net double-gain, at no tradeoff penalty, but the gain wouldn’t be quite so dramatic. Alternately, should we perhaps lower the cost from 12 to 10, but give the revised cruiser a more limited AAA capability that whatever full-blown version is being contemplated?
One issue I have with Cruiser at 10 or 11 IPCs is that 2 of them (20 or 22 IPCs) make a far more powerful shore bombardment 2@3 than a battleship (20 IPCs) 1@4.
Did Cruiser were better shots than Battleship on this matter during WWII?
Or is it that Heavy Cruiser were really more effective than clumsier Battleship?
maybe they should have their bombard lowered to two since there will probably be more of them. I think LHoffman is right that even at 11 not too many would get built.
I would think GeneralVeer’s DD proposal would encourage CA builds as well
C7 and need to be present for planes would be ok for me. I kinda like that aspect of the naval battle. You usually want some air to work with your DDs anyway. They can still block for the extra buck too
@Baron:
One issue I have with Cruiser at 10 or 11 IPCs is that 2 of them (20 or 22 IPCs) make a far more powerful shore bombardment 2@3 than a battleship (20 IPCs) 1@4.
Did Cruiser were better shots than Battleship on this matter during WWII?
Or is it that Heavy Cruiser were really more effective than clumsier Battleship?
Cruisers were more cost effective to build, but their armament was usually significantly inferior to any battleship. Cruisers tended to have between 5" and 8" guns. Heavy cruisers could exceed that a little, but it was rare. Battleships on the other hand had main guns that were usually a minimum of 12", but typically 14-16". That is more than double the size of a cruiser’s largest guns. Battleship secondary battery often consisted of enough 5-6" guns to fill out a cruiser all by themselves. Targeting for shore bombardment purposes was basically the same between the both ship types, but obviously a battleship could hit much harder and much farther.
I have thought about lowering a cruiser’s shore bombardment value before and I think you bring up a good point. Especially since Destroyers have been moved down a notch and no longer fall under the ‘Combined Bombardment’ Tech upgrade. An @3 roll is pretty good. Maybe too good for a cruiser on shore bombardment.
maybe they should have their bombard lowered to two since there will probably be more of them. I think LHoffman is right that even at 11 not too many would get built.
I would think GeneralVeer’s DD proposal would encourage CA builds as well
C7 and need to be present for planes would be ok for me. I kinda like that aspect of the naval battle. You usually want some air to work with your DDs anyway. They can still block for the extra buck too
I wouldn’t be opposed to trying the Destr. A1 D2 C7 Sub A2 D1 C7 spread. They would be good foils for each other. What I am really keen on is lowering destroyer cost from 8 to something more… affordable. Destroyers made up large portions of fleets because they were cheap, fast and effective as screening vessels. I would love to see them more utilized. And lowering their attack value in the process may be a good decision.
After reading all these posts I’m going with these changes.
D6
Cruisers - C10 A2 D3
1 AA shot at each plane. A1
Shore Bombardment A2
This also helps if your game has planes that can scramble from Carriers
1 sea zone away and airbases.
Destroy - C7 A1 D2
Subs - C6 A2 D1
My games all have D12 dice. So I 'm going with these changes.
**D12
Cruisers - C10 A4 D5
1 AA shot at planes A2
Shore Bombardment A3
Also good against scrambles.
Destoy - C7 A3 D4
Subs - C7 A4 D2 or C6 A3 D2 and German subs still C5 Wolk packs A5**
If these are the rules you like then more power to you… I am just going to post thoughts off the top of my head.
@SS:
After reading all these posts I’m going with these changes.
D6
Cruisers - C8 A2 D3 Cost=8 … I like it and I don’t like it. Highly affordable, but purely in terms of tactical capabilities, there is almost no reason to ever buy a destroyer… providing you have one or two on the board. Increasing the sub cost to 7 without any change to its capabilities will, I fear, reduce the people willing to spend money on perhaps the most limited use piece in the game. Fewer subs means fewer destroyer buys to counter them. Cruisers at 8 Cost will be like the combined artillery, tank and anti-aircraft gun of the ocean. Very powerful, multi-purpose and relatively cheap.
1 AA shot at each plane. A1
Shore Bombardment A2
This also helps if your game has planes that can scramble from Carriers
1 sea zone away and airbases.Destroy - C7 A1 D2
Subs - C7 A2 D1 Why the cost increase for a sub? Just to make them even with a destroyer?
Even without a destroyer in your force, fleets can still defend against subs (and will easily kill them). Providing you have a battleship or carrier to absorb a hit from a sub, not having a destroyer is no big deal. The defending fleet will get multiple hits. If I am the attacker and my forces consist of more than just subs, which they would, I am probably going to be taking hits on my subs before most else: they are less-expensive, less useful and their attack is not as good as my planes, and most other ships. I am not going to replace my subs when I buy next time around either. I will buy something more useful for 7 IPCs. That is just my thought process.
I’m sorry. I meant to type Cruisers cost 10 not 8. I changed in my last post.
@SS:
I’m sorry. I meant to type Cruisers cost 10 not 8. I changed in my last post.
Ha, well that changes just about everything I said.
Except the part about subs. I still hold to that. :wink:
@SS:
After reading all these posts I’m going with these changes.
D6
Cruisers - C10 A2 D3
1 AA shot at each plane. A1
Shore Bombardment A2
This also helps if your game has planes that can scramble from Carriers
1 sea zone away and airbases.Destroy - C7 A1 D2
Subs - C6 A2 D1
My games all have D12 dice. So I 'm going with these changes.
**D12
Cruisers - C10 A4 D5
1 AA shot at planes A2
Shore Bombardment A3
Also good against scrambles.Destoy - C7 A3 D4
Subs - C7 A4 D2 or C6 A3 D2 and German subs still C5 Wolk packs A5
@SS:Well in my games subs C8. So I lowered them to 7. They still can first strike and in our games all we ever see are destroyers. Destroyers C8 too so lowered them to C7.
I see what you mean about the increase in subs. If playing G40 then keep subs at C6.I still might have to lower subs to C6 for the D12 games.**
@SS:
Well in my games subs C8. So I lowered them to 7. They still can first strike and in our games all we ever see are destroyers. Destroyers C8 too so lowered them to C7.
I see what you mean about the increase in subs. If playing G40 then keep subs at C6.I still might have to lower subs to C6 for the D12 games.
Ah, well I see your reasoning then. I thought we were talking about OOB costs.
@ Der Kuenstler
So classic AA means you would get one shot at each attacking plane regardless of number of crusiers ? I know this has all been dicussed before. I think it was one of your HR posts where I first saw it. :)
Right - but I’m considering rolling one extra die for every extra cruiser defending beyond the first one. That way if three planes attacked 2 cruisers you would roll 4 (3 + 1) AA dice. (Reasoning being the cruisers would cost 2X more than a classic AA gun, and the planes would be coming in closer than when bombing a factory.)
how often do you see crusiers being built in relation to other units ? Does the bombard seem to powerful at 3 ?
@Der:
@ Der Kuenstler
So classic AA means you would get one shot at each attacking plane regardless of number of crusiers ? I know this has all been dicussed before. I think it was one of your HR posts where I first saw it. :)Right - but I’m considering rolling one extra die for every extra cruiser defending beyond the first one. That way if three planes attacked 2 cruisers you would roll 4 (3 + 1) AA dice. (Reasoning being the cruisers would cost 2X more than a classic AA gun, and the planes would be coming in closer than when bombing a factory.)
Yes that was my concern to with the number of Cruisers. Will have to try that also.
how often do you see crusiers being built in relation to other units ? Does the bombard seem to powerful at 3 ?
Cruiser’s shore bombardement @3 isn’t enough to be a good incentive even if it is better than BB’s bombardment.
My HR Cruiser has a reduced cost and an AAA capabilities.
If I had to specialized Cruiser, I would let go bombardment and keep AAA capacity.
Otherwise, I would give a better shorebombardment capabilities to BB while keeping @3 for Cruiser.
Something like @4 first round and +1A to Infantry, like Artillery, in the other rounds, as long as any Inf remaining.
@Young:
The only problem I have with the AA idea is, wouldn’t battleships and aircraft carriers also have the same ability?
I resolved this issue by requiring that at least 1 Carrier be present to grant AA capacity to either Cruiser or Battleship.
No pairing just a single Carrier is enough. Works like OOB DD presence for planes against Subs.
Even if BB gets AA as my HR Cruiser, Cruiser gives a better cost ratio.
Two 10 IPCs Cruisers get AA against up to 4 planes.
My 18 IPCs BB get AA against up to 2 planes.
@Young:
The only problem I have with the AA idea is, wouldn’t battleships and aircraft carriers also have the same ability?
Well, only transports can carry infantry in the game, but other ships had that ability too. I just read about how the USS Enterprise carrier brought home thousands of troops after WWII. The game specializes for play purposes.
Then there is what Larry Harris said on his site: “Upping the AAA of a cruiser is probably the way I’d modify or up the value of the cruiser. Dedicated shots at aircraft during the first round of combat or something along that line is worth considering. I think this additional special ability would both reflect a cruiser’s historic role and nicely fill in that potential over priced issue we’ve been discussing.” Posted: Wed 05.Aug, 2009
Nice catch DK!
Could you provide the full link please?
I would like to read this particular thread on Harris Game Design.
Thanks.
Sure - here it is:
A nice way to get Larry Harris’ view (perhaps past view) on things on his site is to do a search and type “Larry” in the author space - you will get everything LH said there about your subject.
Here’s my changes for ships and using other people’s ideas and I thank you for them(and I’m basing it off of G40 but you can use it for 42.2 or 41 or anything else if you want).
Battleships- Their new change is that they can carry 1 infantry even if damaged.
Cruisers- Cost 10 and has a built in AA gun that can shoot up to 1 plane but only up to 4 CVs.
Destroyers- Cost 7 and Attack is 1 and Defense is 2.
Submarines- Cost 5 and Attack is 2 and defense is 1 and aircraft may attack subs without a DD but the sub may choose to submerge and the aircraft gets one shot at killing it.
Transports- Cost 5.
Any comments?
@Frederick:
Here’s my changes for ships and using other people’s ideas and I thank you for them(and I’m basing it off of G40 but you can use it for 42.2 or 41 or anything else if you want).
Battleships- Their new change is that they can carry 1 infantry even if damaged.
Cruisers- Cost 10 and has a built in AA gun that can shoot up to 1 plane but only up to 4 CVs.
Destroyers- Cost 7 and Attack is 1 and Defense is 2.
Submarines- Cost 5 and Attack is 2 and defense is 1 and aircraft may attack subs without a DD but the sub may choose to submerge and the aircraft gets one shot at killing it.
Transports- Cost 5.
Any comments?
My thoughts:
Battleships: Battleships already have two special “things” they do - they can take two hits and shore bombard. Infantry carrying seems superfluous and reduces the role of the transport.
Cruisers: I don’t understand what you mean here “only up to 4 CVs”
DDs: Your stats would mean a pack of DDs attacking a pack of subs would be an even battle, with the subs defending at “1” - when clearly the DDs would have an advantage with their speed and depth charge ability.
Subs - pretty good except the price of “5” makes subs too cheap - especially if you combine them with a “navy production” tech, where they would then cost “4” - you could spam the oceans with them.
@Der:
@Frederick:
Destroyers- Cost 7 and Attack is 1 and Defense is 2.
Submarines- Cost 5 and Attack is 2 and defense is 1 and aircraft may attack subs without a DD but the sub may choose to submerge and the aircraft gets one shot at killing it.
Any comments?My thoughts:
DDs: Your stats would mean a pack of DDs attacking a pack of subs would be an even battle, with the subs defending at “1” - when clearly the DDs would have an advantage with their speed and depth charge ability.
Subs - pretty good except the price of “5” makes subs too cheap - especially if you combine them with a “navy production” tech, where they would then cost “4” - you could spam the oceans with them.
About A1 Destroyer, I could rationalize it that it is harder to search and destroy subs in open sea rather than waiting for a torpedo trail against an escorted vessel and react against the attacking Sub with hedgehogs and depth charges. A1 includes the search result. 50% to find and 2/6 to hit = 1/6 on attack.
In an old WWII The Expansion from Philip Schwartzer, DE Destroyer Escort got A1D2.
The search, named Anti-Sub patrol, was 2/6 and the attack roll 2/6 vs Sub only. Sum: 4/36 which is less than the A1 suggested.
Besides, if planes can shoot submerging Sub the issue would become that Sub are going to be sitting duck with no retaliate roll against planes only attack. DD won’t be as necessary as OOB.
My idea to simplify interactions between Subs, planes and DDs still requires that Subs keep their surprise or submerge phase when destroyer is not present. So, a planes only attack have no impact on enemy’s submerge Sub. This imply that at least 1DD must block Subs to let planes a chance to hit unsubmerged Subs.
Also, DD A1D2 increase the need to bring along planes to be more efficient while on offense searching and seeking to sink Subs. Something which is historically correct.
