I would almost always take 3 mech inf over 2 armor
The exception being production space. When producing at a minor factory, tanks are the best buy per slot for ground unit (just not per IPC). Ditto for transporting. Mech are just as ‘bulky’ for transporting as armor but deliver far less combat power on the attack.
For those reasons, armor will still have a role (if more limited in the Pacific).
But CAs just dont have even those saving graces. MAYBE if you are trying to maximize combat power in as few units as possible, but even there I’d rather have a CV and planes than a few CAs.
And as noted above, you cant compare aircraft to ground units for cost because for planes you are paying for the versatility of a four range. But you CAN compare CAs directly to the other ship types since they will be competing for the same role. And in that competition, the CA is clearly inferior in 90% of the cases.
Don Rae’s tactics don’t really apply to the newer games.
Nor did I imply that Don Rae’s tactics apply here. Let me spell it out for you. The general reference was to major purchasing mistakes would cost you the game.
Don’t forget the psycological element.
When attacking a small naval task force with planes, I don’t care about a DD.
A CA is another caliber and another threat.
It is the same with infantry/artillery and tanks. You have allways a closer look on the enmy tanks.
Shure, you can’t scare mathematicians with this psycological element, but an A&A player who cares for his planes, running out of resources.
Great point about deterring an air attack on your small task forces. +1
If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.
Maybe they would be built if you couldn’t build Capital ships (acc + bat) out of Minor complexes.
As the USA I almost always buy a tranny, inf + art, DD and CA. Cost: 34. I have 21 left (most of the time) for another tranny and cargo, or the build up of CV-fleet.
This way I will have a steady flow of land units while it isn’t a nice target for a lone bomber or a lone sub. As a bonus my trannies can gop back for more cargo (or be offered to be destroyed to liberate a Chinese province or DEI). Then you still have the DD and CA left, which can be added to your growing US fleet.
For all other nations I hardly ever build CA’s. I go DD and SS all the way.
Cruisers and battle ships are luxury items. Really the only two powers in this game that can afford them are Japan and the US. I agree that it would be stupid as the UK or ANZAC to buy these vessels, they cost too much money. But these ships give you advantages in battle that destroyers or subs can’t, and for powers that can afford them they are logical buys.
Don’t forget the psycological element.
When attacking a small naval task force with planes, I don’t care about a DD.
A CA is another caliber and another threat.
It is the same with infantry/artillery and tanks. You have allways a closer look on the enmy tanks.
Shure, you can’t scare mathematicians with this psycological element, but an A&A player who cares for his planes, running out of resources.
Yeah but the point is that the threat to your air is actually GREATER from an equal investment in DDs than in CAs. So yes, for players who value ‘gut’ or ‘feel’ to statistics or facts, they might be a greater deterrent but that is perception only - not reality.
If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.
Yes, I would very much like to see that. That would REALLY mix things up a bit IMO.
The only thing I would suggest is to have the price dropped to 11, the same as tactical bombers.
Actually, keeping with the spirit of them I think I personally would run them as follows:
In a convoy zone intercept 2 IPC like a sub
Have 3 movement. Do not gain an additional movement from a naval base.
This would give them there convoy raider feel, and would be useful for when you want boats that do not have to rely on naval bases, and for running them away.
Alternatively, give first strike back to shore bombardment and we got an entirely different ballgame.
Cruisers have more offensive power than destroyers, and more per IPC than battleships. Cruisers are actually very effective doing two things
A: Adding a little extra power to a fleet that already has a full carrier. Its cheaper than building another CV or BB.
B: Attacking smaller fleets (perhaps a DD + Trns) when sending a BB or CV would be overkill.
I think after shore bombardment lost its first strike capability, some people might not care as much for cruisers or battleships. However, when destroyers were first introduced, they were more like cruisers, then what they are now. However, destroyers were good for sub hunting, though they were more limited in that regard as well, as they did not stop sub stalling.
I think whenever new units get introduced, some of them will be more respected than others. And as abilities change, so will their relevance.
I haven’t played this edition yet, but I used to build cruisers with UK, and US in the AA50. Didn’t people complain that Italians didn’t come with enough cruisers?
However shore bombardment rules are now weaker than ever. I think everyone has their play style, and what units work the best for them. Hopefully I’ll play this game soon, so I can have my opinion about the new mechanics in this game.
The only thing I would suggest is to have the price dropped to 11, the same as tactical bombers.
This is where I am right now. At 12 IPCs, Destroyers are a better buy at 8 than cruisers. Giving cruisers resillience is probably too strong. Making them act like AA guns upsets some folks. I just don’t think their shore bombardment and 3/3 stack up against the DDs sub hunting and 2/2.
Are others noting the need to Destroyer Stall (D-stall) in AAP40? A cruiser can’t stall a sub from getting behind you and costs more for the “delay.” So in addition to being a 2/2 unit at 8 IPC, & being the anti-sub platform, it is also the only good stalling piece for the oceans. I just don’t see the cruisers stacking up well against that at 12 IPC. I can even imagine a US strike against a heavy Japanese fleet in the Carolines where the US player only sends subs. You gotta have a mess of DDs to counter that.
In our last game, we decided to give the Cruisers a pretty good workout as the Allies. Honestly they worked fairly well. In straight up combat they are not as cost efficient as DDs but they give threat potential to escort a TR for the attack and get bombardment. No, having 1 isnt likely to do much, but having 2-3 in a fleet means that anywhere they can reach can be under pretty serious threat from a TR or two. I’m not sure I would build them on a consistent basis (and certainly not as Japan at this point), but they at least performed SOME role in our game.
That said, I think 11 would probably be a better price point for them if they are intended to be purchased for sea combat.
Great point about deterring an air attack on your small task forces. +1
If each cruiser got one AA shot @1 (not for each plane, but one per cruiser) that would be cool and valuable while keeping with the spirit and cost structures discussed.
That was the AA structure I was thinking about. Something similar was used in Xeno’s World At War (one AA could fire at Either up to 3 aircraft or 3 armor). It seemed to give a nice balance and FORCED you to spend more on AA. To me it would make the cruiser a more viable unit and justify its cost.
i always thought that the use of cruisers could be very useful for amphib operations…so far…in the games we have played…they have worked out well
Cruisers need some type of bonus when attacking SURFACE shipping, perhaps being able to pass through anything but other cruisers, reflecting their speed in that only another cruiser can catch them and not destroyers or BB which are slower.
I still think let them raid 2 IPCs a turn and let them move 3 movement regardless of a naval base presence (meaning they will not move 4 from a naval base, still just 3).
I still think let them raid 2 IPCs a turn and let them move 3 movement regardless of a naval base presence (meaning they will not move 4 from a naval base, still just 3).
Although I agree with most of the reasons cruisers should be left alone the way they are, I could see future rules including something along these lines. As we’ve mentioned, some under utilized units tend to go through minor changes until they are used more. The tank is the best example of this.
