@CWO:
@Baron:
So, is there other kind of explanation about why Cruiser paired to another ship gain the +1M boost?
No. At least not if you want to be realistic. A cruiser boosting a destroyer makes realistic sense (for reasons that I’ve already explained). A cruiser boosting a carrier, a battleship or a transport ship is unrealistic (for reasons that I’ve already explained). A cruiser boosting a cruiser is unnecessary. A cruiser boosting a submarine would arguably be possible, but in practice I don’t think it was done, and the concept is problematic because it would imply a sub operating in tandem with a cruiser.
The fact that the A&A rules provide a naval base movement boost to various ship typess isn’t (in my opinion) a valid reason for arguing that cruisers should be able to boost anything except a destroyer because (in my opinion) the whole concept of movement boosts from naval bases (and air bases) is one of those A&A rules that I find unrealistic and baffling. I have trouble visualizing what this “base boost” is supposed to represent in real life. It can’t be a speed increase, because the speed of a ship or a plane is a function of its design, not a function of the facility from which it operates. And it can’t be a range increase because, regardless of whether a unit travels to Point B from a Point A that contains a base or from a Point A that contains no base, the distance from A to B is still the same. Bases aren’t hyperspace tunnels that shrink the physical distance between a point of departure and a point of arrival.
Agree with ya CWO. I don’t understand the base increase too unless you get to strap on an extra fuel tank.
Airbases should just be used for planes landing and taking off, 2 AA shots at attacking planes and 3 figs scramble.
Naval Bases you can only Build, Fix, get 2 AA shots at attacking ships or planes next to that sea zone.
Thats where you could add a tanker ship that can move a certain amount of ships 3 sea zones without naval bases, but still give the Cruiser its 3M even with tanker only.
@SS:
I don’t understand the base increase too unless you get to strap on an extra fuel tank.
Yes, exactly. The difference between a base and a tanker is that a base stays on the ground, whereas a naval tanker (an “oiler” in proper naval parlance) can accompany ships at sea and a tanker aircraft (which didn’t exist in WWII) can accompany planes in the air. Without an accompanying tanker (or other accompanying unit from which they can mooch), ships and planes are limited to the fuel they can carry in their own tanks, and that amount of tank capacity doesn’t change regardless of what type of ground facility they’re operating from.
@CWO:
@Baron:
So, is there other kind of explanation about why Cruiser paired to another ship gain the +1M boost?
No. At least not if you want to be realistic. A cruiser boosting a destroyer makes realistic sense (for reasons that I’ve already explained). A cruiser boosting a carrier, a battleship or a transport ship is unrealistic (for reasons that I’ve already explained). A cruiser boosting a cruiser is unnecessary. A cruiser boosting a submarine would arguably be possible, but in practice I don’t think it was done, and the concept is problematic because it would imply a sub operating in tandem with a cruiser.
**The fact that the A&A rules provide a naval base movement boost to various ship typess isn’t (in my opinion) a valid reason for arguing that cruisers should be able to boost anything except a destroyer because (in my opinion) the whole concept of movement boosts from naval bases (and air bases) is one of those A&A rules that I find unrealistic and baffling. I have trouble visualizing what this “base boost” is supposed to represent in real life. It can’t be a speed increase, because the speed of a ship or a plane is a function of its design, not a function of the facility from which it operates. And it can’t be a range increase because, regardless of whether a unit travels to Point B from a Point A that contains a base or from a Point A that contains no base, the distance from A to B is still the same. **Bases aren’t hyperspace tunnels that shrink the physical distance between a point of departure and a point of arrival.
The only aspect which is not part of the argument is that a game turn is about 3 to 6 months of time lapse. And 3 months travel at sea on free water, is enough to cross Pacific Ocean or Atlantic from east to west or north to south. So realistically, all ships can travel more than 3 SZs in 3 months period.
Adding this element in the issue can maybe help find an acceptable rationalization for Naval Base movement boost.
For instance, maybe it is a matter of packing a lot of ressources in a short notice which allows extended range from Bases.
Probably, units have to go back and forth from the starting point to destination more than once.
The board shows a single movement but it summarize many ones, so having less time to spend on a more organized area (base) to refuel and pack things up allows more time to travel between the two areas, so it can provide an extended operational range.
IDK. I don’t have any ready-made explanation.
@Baron:
Adding this element in the issue can maybe help find an acceptable rationalization for Naval Base movement boost.
If I’m not mistaken, the original purpose of this thread was to suggest one or two simple fixes to make the cruiser a more attactive purchase option. The thread has now veered into the subject of trying to rationalize the movement boost provided to ships by naval bases (which is an entirely different topic) in order to provide a basis for arguing that cruisers should be able to boost naval transports and other ships rather than just boosting destroyers, even though that concept – in my opinion – is completely unrealistic. Since by now I’ve made pretty much every argument I can think of to explain why that’s my opinion, I’m not going to argue the point any further. My opinion is only that, an opinion, and you certainly don’t have to take it into consideration if you disagree with it.
You are right it can be seen as a derailing.
But, I rather see it as questioning the assumptions and exploring the idea it reveals.
When I bring the move boost to Cruiser, I saw it as a simple borrowing of one game feature of the naval base with some limitations (1:1 and surface vessels only).
It was an accepted feature of the OOB.
But, your always interesting line of thinking bring the historical or realistic POV glasses over House rules. I realized that it can provides some basis to question this OOB features of NB and AB.
I was looking for an acceptable narrative to explain move boost by bases on the board.
I have none of your compendium memory and erudition on WWII. It was an open question.
Maybe, in another thread we will find some narrative for bases movement boost.
The impact on HR with Cruiser was a secondary objective.
@CWO:
@Baron:
So, is there other kind of explanation about why Cruiser paired to another ship gain the +1M boost?
No. At least not if you want to be realistic. A cruiser boosting a destroyer makes realistic sense (for reasons that I’ve already explained). A cruiser boosting a carrier, a battleship or a transport ship is unrealistic (for reasons that I’ve already explained). A cruiser boosting a cruiser is unnecessary. A cruiser boosting a submarine would arguably be possible, but in practice I don’t think it was done, and the concept is problematic because it would imply a sub operating in tandem with a cruiser.
The fact that the A&A rules provide a naval base movement boost to various ship typess isn’t (in my opinion) a valid reason for arguing that cruisers should be able to boost anything except a destroyer because (in my opinion) the whole concept of movement boosts from naval bases (and air bases) is one of those A&A rules that I find unrealistic and baffling. I have trouble visualizing what this “base boost” is supposed to represent in real life. It can’t be a speed increase, because the speed of a ship or a plane is a function of its design, not a function of the facility from which it operates. And it can’t be a range increase because, regardless of whether a unit travels to Point B from a Point A that contains a base or from a Point A that contains no base, the distance from A to B is still the same. Bases aren’t hyperspace tunnels that shrink the physical distance between a point of departure and a point of arrival.
CWO, while I have little interest in a cruiser-boosting-movement concept, I’d like to say a word in defense of naval bases. The movement bonus from a naval base is only ‘baffling’ if one conceptualizes fleet movement on the board literally. It can’t possibly be that a fleet’s range represents literal ship speeds. Assuming a single turn constitutes six months, or even four months, none of the ship ranges would make sense, since ships could travel much further in that mount time. Rather, the movement of any unit on the board represents, in my view, something more abstract–a “projection of power.” A naval base allows its owner to project naval power more effectively/efficiently than without it, and this advantage is represented on the board by giving ships a movement bonus. Make sense?
What can be describe as a projection of power in WWII events?
If you can give us an example, it will help understand this abstract concept.
I thought it was more a game concept than anything else.
It was used to describe the benefits of multiple zones within range (7 move points) which can be attacked by a single stack of Strategic bombers put on Air Base in Darken skies strategy.
I’m leaning toward this…
Cruiser
Cost- 12
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @3 or less
Battleship
Cost- 20
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @4 or less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @4 less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @4 or less
@Young:
I’m leaning toward this…
Cruiser
Cost- 12
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @3 or less plus @1 against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @3 or lessBattleship
Cost- 20
Move- 2 (3 from NB)
Att- @4 or less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Def- @4 less plus @2 or less against enemy air units (per round if present)
Special: May conduct 1st round shore bombardment @4 or less
What is a real paradox is that Cruiser and Battleship are better at killing planes than aircraft units.
:-D
Per round AA fire can be pretty devastating. Let us know how it goes YG.
I would just make the simple change of giving Cruisers a base movement of 3 (Naval Bases do not increase movement for Cruisers). Just enough of a boost to make them worth considering, like the Battleship’s 2 hit ability.
I would just make the simple change of giving Cruisers a base movement of 3 (Naval Bases do not increase movement for Cruisers). Just enough of a boost to make them worth considering, like the Battleship’s 2 hit ability.
I’m not sure the extended movement would be enough for me to buy them unless some crazy good strategy developed from it.
Hello All,
I think cruisers are actually priced right and like them as a unit, though I do sometimes find it hard to justify building them, thinking to myself that I might as well spend the extra 8 IPCs for a battleship or invest in a carrier and air power instead. I suppose I’ve got an unspoken debate going on in my head similar to what may have prompted this thread.
With that being said, one option that might make them more enticing while not throwing off the hierarchy could be derived from their armor. Their position between destroyers and battleships in terms of firepower is already represented by the 3/3 A/D values vs. 2/2 and 4/4. They also have the special ability of supporting amphibious assaults whereas destroyers do not and battleships are slightly more effective. However, what is not already represented is the level of protection between a destroyer and battleship. Cruisers were intended to be able to go toe-to-toe with many other surface warships and take hits better than destroyers, though not to the extent of battleships. With that in mind, what if, upon taking a hit, a die roll of say 4-6 or 5-6 would cause the cruiser to tip like a battleship rather than being destroyed outright? If it survived the hit, it could then proceed like a battleship would to continue the fight and ultimately be repaired at a naval base if it makes it there.
not a bad idea Sam. Maybe make it a 2 hit unit that turns into A0 D1 once it’s tipped.
Hello All,
Their position between destroyers and battleships in terms of firepower is already represented by the 3/3 A/D values vs. 2/2 and 4/4. They also have the special ability of supporting amphibious assaults whereas destroyers do not and battleships are slightly more effective. However, what is not already represented is the level of protection between a destroyer and battleship. Cruisers were intended to be able to go toe-to-toe with many other surface warships and take hits better than destroyers, though not to the extent of battleships. With that in mind, what if, upon taking a hit, a die roll of say 4-6 or 5-6 would cause the cruiser to tip like a battleship rather than being destroyed outright? If it survived the hit, it could then proceed like a battleship would to continue the fight and ultimately be repaired at a naval base if it makes it there.
I don’t like additional roll to see if it can get an additional hit.
Giving 2 hits and no repair is still making a much better combat unit.
On AACalc, this unit should fight A2 D2 cost 12.
Maybe, A3 D3 undamaged and A2 D2 damaged could be more balanced compared to BB combat values.
It is a double issue because Battleship is no match at 20 IPCs against DD+Cruiser combo.
To be balanced vs BB, 2 hits Cruiser should be A3 D3 at 16 IPCs
CR’s cost 10 Ipc’s now
In fact, the real balance option on cost redux only should have been:
Now, Cruiser cost 10 IPCs AND Battleship cost 18 IPCs, everything else is as OOB.
It solve all combat balance issues.
DD+CA cost the same as 1 Battleship.
1 A2 D2 + 1 A3 D3 is same combat odds of survival as 1 A4 D4, 2 hits
DD+CA has shore bombardment and ASV.
BB has shore bombardment and can repair if only damaged.
All other comparisons with Subs and Fully loaded Carriers are not dramatically affected.
@Baron:
CR’s cost 10 Ipc’s now
In fact, the real balance option on cost redux only should have been:
Now, Cruiser cost 10 IPCs AND Battleship cost 18 IPCs, everything else is as OOB.
I think that’s a good option. I’ve found that the difficulty with house rules is making them reasonable, fun, simple, and as few as possible all while achieving what you set out to do in the first place and integrating them seamlessly into the remaining existing rule structure that has not been altered. And it all has to make sense to the rare breed who actually play the game :wink:. Judicious cost changes and as-simple-as-possible ability changes/wrinkles tend to achieve those ends I think.
Unfortunately, people during G40 second ed revision suggested this modification.
But Larry stick to Naval Cost structure
4 points = 8 IPCs,
6 points= 12 IPCs,
8 points, 16 IPCs + 2 hits, 4 IPCs = 20 IPCs.
But I don’t believe it was so good reasons.
It doesn’t consider the impact of DD’s Anti-Sub capacity.
And adding 4 IPCs for an additional hit is more or less arbitrary.
It could have been put at 2 IPCs, making BB an 18 IPCs unit.
Or A4 D4, 1 hit worth 14 IPCs + 1 hit at 4 IPCs = 18 IPCs Battleship.
Or this hypothetical cost structure would have been balanced too:
Sub A2 D1 C6 Surprise strike
DD A2 D2 C8 ASV
CA A3 D3 C11 shore bombard
CV A0 D2 C16 2 hits, load 2 planes
BB A4 D4 C19 2 hits, shore bombard
But 19 is not a square price.
But 18 IPCs is 6 times 1 Infantry.
And 10 IPCs is a square number.
Thank you for all the good Post’s so far. Many good ideas of making the Cruiser more valueable.
The only issue I have with a 10 IPC cruiser is that it’s the same price point as a fighter, and cheaper than a Tac bomber. What’s the math on one fighter representing a squadron of ______, in comparison to the cost of building a cruiser if indeed a cruiser in this game represents just 1?
