Posts made by Derek

My only point is Cruisers are overpriced

There are many possiblities to fix this

+1 movement

some added perk (Convoy raid at 2?)

or lower cost

etc… etc

I do not stand alone in this either i know many have argued with larry in the past about lowering the cost of Cruisers to 10, or atleast 11. Larrys argument was if cruisers cost 10 noone would ever buy battleships. at 11 IPC i dont know why that was shot down. cant find an explanation.

No problem lol

I do agree they should put on the front page of a new thread and sticky it, but it is still very recent and im sure they will sometime soon

Gargantua: You avoided the question like a good ol American politician ;) fine job
and honestly id love to see your transports halfa** defended in the middle of the pacific.

Also noone ever said make cruisers move 4 (it was +1 i believe, which in my calculations 1 + 2 = 3 though i am pretty stupid :P)

Yes fighters are better than destroyers this is completely beside the point however, my only point WAS CRUISERS ARE OVERPRICED

wow it is incredible the reading and comprehension skills of some people.

And im sorry you couldn’t understand my tank hypothetical.

All im saying is making Cruisers move 3 instead of 2 would give you reason to build them PERIOD

That is my firm belief,

you will get much more money from from taking London that convoy raiding (this is a fact)
I you take London you get his cash upfront (~30IPC) + the income, and you can build enough INF on London to hold USA from retaking for a little while.

If you dont take it you only are going to get a maximum of the income of london from convoy raids, And it wont take USA long to run your subs off
And if UK doesn’t need to defend from sealion it is going to crush Italy in africa the med and the middle east.

By the time you take moscow both UK and USA are going to be to big to hold back from retaking france, but taking london first should give you the added cash to hold them off while you push (slowly) to moscow

You never want to trade territories with USSR this i know (any allied power really)

I really would like someone to explain a successful axis victory where Germany does not take london (early Barbarossa instead) in alpha +3 (vs atleast a have decent allied player)

@knp7765:

@Young:

To many variables to predict, and plans for sealion must be made sooner than those variables can reveal themselves. Still, sounds like your worst case senerio is around 50/50, which if true we may need to reevaluate the reward.

I agree. Yes, Germany will get Britain’s treasury and taking UK out will certainly make it much easier for Italy in Africa, but it also brings Russia and America into the war. USA will probably wreck any plans Japan had plus make trouble for Germany and/or Italy. If Russia suspects a Sealion, I would guess they would buy more tanks and mechs (as opposed to Inf and Art) and just come steamrolling over Germany’s weak eastern border territories. Even though Germany will have a lot of money to buy plenty of protection for Berlin, Russia could go hog wild down in the Balkans and up in Scandanavia. It’s possible Germany may lose more territory than they can take back. Personally, I’m not so sure that Sealion is worth it in Alpha+3. Ever since I started using the Alpha+3 setup and rules, I don’t do Sealion anymore.  I just sink the Royal Navy and keep UK busy with convoy raids and SBRs and focus most of my attention on attacking Russia.
@Cow:

germany may have to drop scotland and invade UK the round after. you know instead of G3 do G4.

Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea.  You would have twice as many land units to attack with and the UK would have a max of 10 more infantry to defend with.  Better odds to win plus more surviving units to transport back to fight the Russians. OR, if UK attacks those units in Scotland, it’s that much less he has defending London.

USA will be in the war on turn 4 regardless of whether or not you took london lol

same with USSR

Not taking London in my opinion is a death wish for the axis,

UK will not be able to defend itself on G4 on london no matter what is does (it barely can now on G3)
Only really really bad dice will upset you and that is true in every faucit of the game

Axisplaya: im curious though if you only build 1 or 2 cruisers as USA then what DO you build as your navy ?

Carriers and destroyers is my bet…

@Axisplaya:

@Uncrustable:

I would like to play someone who is adding cruisers in their navy where i am not…

It’s very easy, just download Battlemap, and let’s play by forum.
I won’t buy tons of cruisers though, just one or 2 for USA, and maybe one for Anzac, just as it’s suposed to be.

What do you say ?

Id say you already conceded the point.
If you only build one or two cruisers then you must be massing everything else.

Cruisers should be the mainstay of any naval power (As they were in mid -late WWII)
But in this game they are not because they are overpriced, it makes more sense to build everything but Cruisers. (One or 2 cruisers as USA is not going to hurt enough to notice, thats only 4 to 8 IPCs overpaid total, a small amount relative to USA income post DOW)
And it really doesnt matter what Anzac builds in the sea they will be crushed by Japan in the sea if the need ever arrises and it will not take much,

If you removed Cruisers completely from the game you would not even notice (save aesthetics)
I dont want them removed i want them to have a valid role where the cost is justified

+1 range does both in my opinion.

Techroll, how successful are your games you went early Barbarossa instead of London ?

Im curious and im failing to see how the Axis will win with London never falling and Germany completely tied up in Russian til turn 7 or 8.

@Rammstein:

Creeping-Deth,

I am in a similar situation as you describe. I did the same purchase as you G1, I eliminated UK navy, but I let Italy take France… Hopefully it pays off later. I want a strong Italy to rush Egypt and the Middle East. I’m planning a G2 Barbarossa, but I’m going to go hard for Leningrad, I might even be able to amphibous assault it G2, I think my opponent thinks it could be for Sea Lion.

My concern for Germany is I have no real reenforcements to back up my stack. Did you find this to be a problem? What was your first target in Russia? I think Leningrad is the natural choice, especially for a G2 attack. I want to hit Russia before it gets too big, my opponent R1 bought Tanks when he saw me buy navy.

Anyway, I only played one round today, as my friend was too hung over. Tomorrow we’ll finish it. I’ll post the results.

I would never never do this, let Italy take southern france. UK can move all their fighters to France to defend and you risk losing alot more and possibly not even it getting it till round 2 (this would be very bad) besides Germany needs the money more. and Africa is not hardly worth too much effort anyhow

You still need to take London,

By round 4 at the latest (thats when USA is going to start moving)

First round buys you suggested were my exact thoughts however, i think its a solid purchase.

You people will never see the light of day lol

ALL OPINIONS ASIDE (Yes Cruisers look very cool and I understand what their role is SUPPOSED TO BE)…however…

Cruisers are overpriced

Yes if you are a dirt poor nation such as Italy or Anzac it might make sense to buy one at one point in the game (I highly doubt it)

But for the main players (Germany, Japan, USA) Where they are not cash strapped but rather have 50+ IPCs to spend it makes absolutely no sense at all to build cruisers.

I would like to play someone who is adding cruisers in their navy where i am not…
My odds of dominating the seas are drastically increased with each Cruiser you buy and i dont.

3 range not so much speed but speed + Fuel capacity, Yes a plane is faster ffs but it will run out of fuel in a matter of hours. Ships can go days or weeks. Cruisers were the fastest ships on the sea in WWII and they had at the same time greater Fuel capacity that a destroyer.

And your artillery Speel is pants on head retarded. One artillery and one infantry is far better than one tank and only costs one more IPC. The only downside is Range.
If tanks only moved one space then they would be like cruisers are now…no point they are overpriced.

Artillery and Infantry are far far better in combat (both defense and offense) than are tanks, they are just constricted to less range.

You build tanks because they can get to the front faster than INF and arty and when there their they can blitz, but build too many tanks and you will be crushed. Same with cruisers except they do not move any more than any other ship and therefore are pointless.

They are slightly more cost effecient for shore bombardment but not by much…

USSR cant do anything unprovoked til round 4.

And like i said if you pull back on the USSR front and USSR plays aggressive this can be to your advantage.

There is no point in waiting to take london, you are losing alot of money and increasing the chance of a quick take back by USA if you wait.

If you wait to take london on G5 then USA can take it back that same round, then you are in real trouble.

Need to take it earlier then beef it up a bit with some INF and destroyers to block.

You dont need to rush to moscow, take it slow and never take anything you cant hold. Slowly increase your income while the USSR’s drop, very important dont trade territories with USSR if possible avoid that. At the same time mass INF in France territories and in London and take Iceland/scottland and erie (if it is no longer a nuetral) to keep allies from using them to stage aircraft.
Also good to take gilbratar early.

Italy will be free to take africa with london down, but it makes more economical sense for Italy to help Germany push through USSR.
Can use Italy to take a territory and then Germany can hop thru with tanks and mechs or just fortify it so USSR cant take it back.

make sure either germany or italy gets and holds the middle east though…

You can beat it by taking London on round 3 lol

In 3.5 only bad dice (really bad dice) will stop you
In 3.9 you need to take it on round 4 (again only really bad dice can stop you)

this is if UK is doing everything in its power to beef up defenses on london so dont wait. (turn 4 USA is in no matter what so have london by then or gg)

Dont forget to bomb londons IC and airbase on turn 2 and or 3

pull back in the russian front and after sealion then go after russia.
if russia gets really aggressive after sealion this is to your advantage as long as you have pulled back your forces.

I dont think ive read very many places where it makes sense to not take london. (why not you can do it early and that is alot of cash and it cripples the allies)

I completely see where your at lol

I made that clear i thought in my previous post.

Mixed fleet is good, my point is that cruisers are overpriced and have little reasons to be purchased (other than extremely bombard heavy fleets which is rare)

Pretend that tanks move the same as infantry and artillery (1 space) then there would be no point in building tanks ever.
INF and arty on  1 to 1 would be better in every circumstance

Right now any combination of ships, other than that combination which is cruiser heavy, is better than a cruiser heavy combo
Cruisers are overpriced. Lowering the cost to 11 helps. But another solution is giving them a movement bonus (one space)

When i play 1942 version online almost all the pro players spam INF with a few tanks/arty intermixed and also spam DDs on the sea with carriers intermixed. It has not changed this much to global 1940. (Actually tanks cost more now than then lol so that adds to it)

Yes im glad we have the option to build them but id like it to be a tad more balanced is all

and gargantua your mass infantry thing made no sense at all lol you said defend at 2, but inf attack at 1. infantry are like the submarines of the land only in reverse. artilery is much more comparable to destroyers (minus the support infantry part obviously)

@MacNaughton:

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this handled before, but can’t remember the answer. There are two situations I’m looking to be clarified.

1. There is a Japanese aircraft carrier with 2 fighters and transports off the coast of Japanese controlled Hawaii. USA attacks with submarines and loaded transports to naval invade Hawaii. Once the Japanese aircraft carrier is destroyed, what happens? Do the planes immediately land on Hawaii and then take part in defending the naval invasion? Or do they continue to fly in the air and crash in the water if USA successfully liberates Hawaii? Or does the presence of the fighters keep the USA transports from landing at all since the Allied subs can’t destroy them?

2. There are USA subs and transports off the coast of Allied occupied Hawaii. Japan attacks with subs and loaded transports. If the USA subs submerge, are the USA transports automatically destroyed and can Japan invade Hawaii?

1. USA transports die, Japan fighters land on an adjacent allied controlled territory (or die). in this case they land on hawaii
           You gotta clear the sea zone first for amphibious assault (or lose the transports) and since submarines cant kill air units you need something else to aid in escorting the transports (air units of your own or surface warships)

This also is true if he has fighters on the island and an airbase, he can scramble into the seazone and defend against any invading ships (escorts) and kill your transports if he kills your escorts or if you dont have escorts (or if you only have subs) then his planes kill your transports before they unload

2. Japan attacking USA so yes the USA transports die to Japans submarines, yes Japan can then conduct amphibious assault because Japans transports are escorted and USA submarines have declined to defend. (lets say USA subs dont submerge…then a battle ensues between USA subs and japans. If USA subs win then Japan loses their transports before they unload, if it is a tie or Japan wins then Japans transports can unload)

Hope this helps

Actually in a battlecalc (10000 sims) 15 DDs vs 6 CGs and 6 DDs the DDs win almost 70% of the time.

Much better to match up DDs with BBs and never buy CGs. or carriers or anything really other than CGs

7 CGs and 7 DDs vs 5 DDs and 5 BBs (same cost) the battleship side wins 62 %
increase the number of destroyers to battleships and the odds will go up drastically

My main point is that cruisers are overpriced and its stupid to build them in almost all circumstances.

I’m not saying your wrong i do completely agree that you shouldn’t just spam one ship,

If your wasting money on even one or 2 cruisers your odds are going down if i’m spending roughly equal amounts of money on anything but cruisers

the only place cruisers are good at (better at battleships) is bombard. But you wont notice this until atleast 3 cruisers are bombarding

Making cruisers move at 3 spaces really helps justify the price and adds alot more to the game i believe…

I would love to see the light if i am completely wrong though.

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149 - this is alpha +3.5

below is the few changes recently made for alpha +3.9:
"Krieghund wrote:
Here are the current changes:

Move the French cruiser in 112 to 110.
Move the UK cruiser in 112 to 111.
Move the German cruiser and transport in 113 to 114.
Add 1 UK mechanized infantry and 1 French infantry to United Kingdom.
Add 1 UK infantry and 1 AA gun to Scotland.
Change 1 French tank and 1 French artillery in France to equivalent UK units.

Change the Soviet “Spread of Communism” NO to “3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls.”

I have reviewed the above changes with Larry, and they are now official as written. We’ve also added 1 AA gun to India, bringing the total there to 3.

A&A Developer and Playtester" (Kreighund)

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25530.0 - These are 94Cunuck’s Global Game aids they look great, only thing they do not include those few changes made recently in 3.9 (not really a huge deal)

@techroll42:

And only in Europe (always has been) so Mongolia don’t count.

Mongolia doesnt count because it is not a pro axis nuetral.

Its not a Europe specific NO anymore.

Its just any territory that at the start of the game belonged to either Italy or Germany or if it was a pro axis nuetral

Really simple stuff.

However there are none of these outside of the Europe map but several outside of the continent Europe

9 Destroyers will beat 2 carriers (each with one tac and one fg) ~54% of the time. And the destroyers cost 2 IPCs less than the ACs and air.

But yes obviously carriers are much much more versatile.

But in a naval combat only scenario nothing beats destroyers (Except subs on attack but ONLY ON ATTACK hope you don’t have to defend with those subs)
I’m about to start a G40 game and use house rules: Cruisers move at 3 (4 from naval base), Cruisers disrupt convoys at 2 IPC. Cruisers cost 11 IPC.

Give them a reason to exist.

Right now it is so historically backwards, Battleships were behemoths but they were eventually supplanted by cruisers in every navy across the globe. (Starting early WWII) Cruisers were/are far more efficient to produce and use.
And destroyers should not own cruisers and battleships that is plain silly

You are correct lol

only pro-axis nuetrals

just like it says

I wonder if anyone ever prodded Larry for a +1 movement bonus to cruisers…

thanks Axisplaya, i figured that was the case but finding such posts can be difficult…