3 submarines = 1 battleship ?%%????

BB’s are over priced, but they do offer some advantages. They can provide bombardment and can defend against air, a major plus. However even at 24 IPCs, you still see most players using 2-hit BB’s to make up for the disadvantage.

yeah, they’re not worth it until one plays with 2 hit or half BBs - when they take a hit they go down to 2/2 instead of 4/4… if one plays them as per a&a:e/p they suddenly become a lot more impressive - particularly if there are two or more together - all those free hits really start to make them pay for themselves… and one can’t just go after them piecemeal…

It seems like there ought to be another naval unit available. It would solve a variety of problems. I don’t usually have a lot of naval activity (compared to how it should be) and having cheaper boats would bring more of them onto the water. Subs don’t have a lot of fire power either, not to mention the aerial vulnerability, so there needs to be a happy medium. (A cruiser perhaps?)

The Destroyers in A&A:P (and A&A:E) are great “in between units” with the sub and battleship.

BTW: Don’t worry A&A: WWI will have Naval units up the wazoo (though no carrier :() so I’m sure you’ll have find something you like. Super-Dreadnoughts Drool :)

Cameron, I like your idea of half BB’s. Mind if I use it?

BB should have 2 hits, AAE/AAP have BBs represented right.

In the Xeno Version of A&A they have a half Battleship unit 12ip with 2/3.

Well, looking at the problems associated with battleships in the game explains a lot as to why WWII saw the beginning of the end of the age of the battleship. That’s not to say that there were no new battleships constructed or used effectively, but their faults were becoming apparent. While they were great for specialized purposes and brute force, it was effectively too much power limited to too few items.

Isn’t it funny that so many people think of battleships as the most powerful piece, yet find themselves ‘protecting it’ instead of using it to ‘protect other things’? You know what I mean? It’s only as powerful as the fleet surrounding it.

It’s been said that if Hitler had channeled the resources used to build just some of those big, prestigious battleships over to the much greater numbers of subs he could have had instead, he really could have won the war by totally paralyzing the North Atlantic. Granted, airpower was a big concern against them, but not every effect of war is perfectly emulated in the game. WWII saw the most obvious lessons learned that the age of the flattops had arrived. Even the game makes that clear in a realistic way.

But, in the game itself, for any country to purchase a battleship is economic suicide. Unless they have money to waste.

@TheJediCharles:

Well, looking at the problems associated with battleships in the game explains a lot as to why WWII saw the beginning of the end of the age of the battleship. That’s not to say that there were no new battleships constructed or used effectively, but their faults were becoming apparent. While they were great for specialized purposes and brute force, it was effectively too much power limited to too few items.

Isn’t it funny that so many people think of battleships as the most powerful piece, yet find themselves ‘protecting it’ instead of using it to ‘protect other things’? You know what I mean? It’s only as powerful as the fleet surrounding it.

It’s been said that if Hitler had channeled the resources used to build just some of those big, prestigious battleships over to the much greater numbers of subs he could have had instead, he really could have won the war by totally paralyzing the North Atlantic. Granted, airpower was a big concern against them, but not every effect of war is perfectly emulated in the game. WWII saw the most obvious lessons learned that the age of the flattops had arrived. Even the game makes that clear in a realistic way.

But, in the game itself, for any country to purchase a battleship is economic suicide. Unless they have money to waste.

From what I know Hitler was very much against Germany’s surface Navy, he was a sub man all the way. He feared U.K.'s surface power.
The bismark was send out to hunt convoys, that about tells you where Hitler’s mind was.

I dont think buying BBs are a waste, not for U.K., U.S or Japan.

It is when compared to an alternative of a loaded flattop. An Aircraft Carrier actually costs less, but after the worthy additional expense of loading it with fighters it is exponantially more worthy of being purchased. The only outside influence a Battleship has is the single shot inland in an aphibious assult. A carrier defends nearly as well alone but has the potential of defending nearly 3 times as good loaded. And the your fighters will be worth so much more with the added mobility and getting them to the battle. While a battleship is condemned to the seas, the truely expensive aspect of a flattop (the fighters) are not, and can then serve wherever best is a thorn in your opponents side, land or sea.

Personally, while I do enjoy the battleships I begin with, I just don’t see the use in ever buying more, unless I have just tons of cash and the game is basicly already won.

Basicly, at any time, ANY time a battleship is being concidered as a purchase it would be better to get a carrier. I cannot fathom an exeption. At all.

@TheJediCharles:

It is when compared to an alternative of a loaded flattop. An Aircraft Carrier actually costs less, but after the worthy additional expense of loading it with fighters it is exponantially more worthy of being purchased. The only outside influence a Battleship has is the single shot inland in an aphibious assult. A carrier defends nearly as well alone but has the potential of defending nearly 3 times as good loaded. And the your fighters will be worth so much more with the added mobility and getting them to the battle. While a battleship is condemned to the seas, the truely expensive aspect of a flattop (the fighters) are not, and can then serve wherever best is a thorn in your opponents side, land or sea.

Personally, while I do enjoy the battleships I begin with, I just don’t see the use in ever buying more, unless I have just tons of cash and the game is basicly already won.

Basicly, at any time, ANY time a battleship is being concidered as a purchase it would be better to get a carrier. I cannot fathom an exeption. At all.

I see what you mean about the AC and fighters, however that is more expensive after all is said and done. You can’t drop a AC with 2 fighters on any one turn.

For offensive purposes, a battleship is a must. An AC attacking 1 is going to cut it.

In saying that, I would have to agree that over all, a fully loaded AC is better that 1-2 BBs.

I see what you mean about the AC and fighters, however that is more expensive after all is said and done. You can’t drop a AC with 2 fighters on any one turn.

You’re right. VERY much more expensive. But, while a loaded carrier is a bit less than twice the price it’s about 10 times as versitle and 3 times as accepting of damage.

Also, sometimes you can load them. Can’t you drop American fighters on a fresh U.K. carrier before Germany’s turn?

For offensive purposes, a battleship is a must. An AC attacking 1 is going to cut it.

A ‘great thing’, yes. I agree. A ‘must’, well, as long as I already have one. You won’t catch me buying one.

In saying that, I would have to agree that over all, a fully loaded AC is better that 1-2 BBs.

Yea. Just remember how useless they become when your opponent sort of gives up on the seas, while you can unload your carriers and use them elsewhere.

I see we mostly agree on the subject, but I’ve made it pretty much a rule to never buy them. And if I see an opponent acting like they want to, I’ll try to save a spoiled game by saying “aawww, man don’t do THAT. I don’t want to win because you screwed up. I wanna win 'cause I’m da besssss!”

he he he

Also, sometimes you can load them. Can’t you drop American fighters on a fresh U.K. carrier before Germany’s turn?

You can do that.

I think we do agree except I still can see a U.S. player or a U.K player buying a BB’s and not losing the game.

@TheJediCharles:

Well, looking at the problems associated with battleships in the game explains a lot as to why WWII saw the beginning of the end of the age of the battleship. That’s not to say that there were no new battleships constructed or used effectively, but their faults were becoming apparent. While they were great for specialized purposes and brute force, it was effectively too much power limited to too few items.

For now, this statement would be correct, but who knows what the future will hold? After WWII, the main assumption was that BBs were outdated and that carriers could easily take their place. And this statement was largely correct. However, what many people fail to realize is that as technology progresses, that doesn’t mean that BBs will become even more outdated. Lets take the development of the cruise missile for instance. Suddenly, this weapon from a “new age of warfare” gave the battleship a new lease at life. Suddenly, the USS Missouri (a WWII era BB mind you) was taken out of mothballs and used in Operation Desert Storm not so many years ago. Other developments helped too. The Phalanx AA guns made BBs much less susceptible to the omnipresent threat of fighter planes. And if for nothing else, BBs are the definitive answer to shore bombardment. So who knows what the future may hold? Heck, with the development of “rail guns,” you might see such “advanced” weapons mounted on the BB’s gun platforms and rekindle the spirit of the awesome presence of the battleship!

but who knows what the future will hold?

Well, it seems that the examples you cited would basicly be just referring to ‘large ships’, little different than ‘launching platforms’ and not the thing that comes to our collective mind’s-eye when hearing the term ‘battleship’. I can see many possibilities, actually PRObibilities, that large ships may be needed in grand numbers again, but never again for the exact applications of the ones that went extict in our recent past. Big ships will need to have reasons to exist far more important than just ‘big guns’… or respectful nostalgia. And the ones that will be built, like you point out, will probably not have big guns on them at all, really.

But, like you say, who knows?

“Well, it seems that the examples you cited would basicly be just referring to ‘large ships’, little different than ‘launching platforms’ and not the thing that comes to our collective mind’s-eye when hearing the term ‘battleship’.”

Well I don’t expect BB’s to be used in the exact same applications from before (ie face to face combat). But with rail guns, it might very well bring back the term “big guns,” with combat occuring hundreds of miles away. Remember, all it takes is one ship (ex. the dreadnought) to change the whole face of naval warfare.

The jedi seems to be very level-headed. :wink: 'Nuff sed.

I side with Sir JediCharles. The era of the battleship has long since faded with dawn of the aircraft. Submarines and Pegasus-Class Boats are the wave of the future. Both are hard to detect, and can be mass produced in greater quantities in the same amount of time to construct one battleship. On the drawing boards, some engineers are looking to combine the abilities of an aircraft carrier with the underwater qualities of a submarine.