@CWO
Hmm… so maybe 11 bucks with 3 AA shots ? Would keep them from being spammed too much. They’re pretty badass hitting on a 3 as it is, plus the bombard. You could have 2-3 per fleet and give you decent AA cover. Would be worth buying once in a while. Or maybe 10 but only one AA ? That hit at 3 is pretty powerful on it’s own.
The cost part is critical IMO… even 11 may be one too much. I never really assumed that one cruiser could shoot at all aircraft. Rather I figured each each cruiser can make 3 AA shots @1. This incentivizes buying more than just one or two cruisers and limits their power projection. At 10 IPCs I think this is a decent compromise. They may actually become more useful than battleships which could be kinda cool.
I always compare fleet defense on a cost-versatility basis compared with a loaded carrier, which is (IMO) the most cost-effective ship per unit of firepower. A loaded carrier with fighters costs 36 IPCs. Its total defense is 3 dice @2, @4 and @4, respectively and can take a total of 4 hits. Currently, 3 cruisers cost 36 IPCs total and have defense rolls of 3@3 and can take 3 hits. Which would you rather have?
The loaded carrier has a better overall defense, can take an extra hit and is a more diverse platform… it’s aircraft can participate in any land battle (and add to territory defense). Cruiser can bombard, yes, but they only get one shot for the entire battle. Fighters, however, can keep going for all rounds of combat AND they can move farther to attack.
As it stands, cruisers are mostly not worth the purchase of 12 IPCs. Even if lowered to 11, why buy a cruiser when you can buy a Tactical bomber or fighter, which are more versatile units. To account for that intrinsitc lack in verstatility, I think you have to add quite a bit to a cruiser’s capabilities and reduce cost. A A3 D3 C10, plus bombard and AA shot does that for me.
I agree with LHoffman cruisers should cost 10 IPCs, but in order to make them more desirable I’d bump destroyers down to A1 D2 to make them true escort ships for fleet defense. At that point it might make sense to bump them down to 7 IPC.
I agree with LHoffman cruisers should cost 10 IPCs, but in order to make them more desirable I’d bump destroyers down to A1 D2 to make them true escort ships for fleet defense. At that point it might make sense to bump them down to 7 IPC.
Such combination is a very original idea.
Destroyer A1 D2, 7 IPCs would have a bigger part as an all around sea-fodder unit compared to submarine.
In addition, Submarine at 6 IPCs, A2 D1 would be harder to seek and destroy while on defense.
It worths more attention.
Thinking further on this line of thought, what about 6 IPCs for both Submarine and Destroyer?
Destroyer A1 D2 C6 M2, Antisub Vessel.
Submarine A2 D1 C6 M2, Can be hit by plane anytime.
(Destroyer would no more be required to sink a sub with plane. End of any complex rules about DDs, Subs and planes.)
Both DD and Sub would be even either on offense or on defense against each other (Sub A2 vs DD D2 / DD A1 vs Sub D1).
@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.
