Are Cruisers for Losers? (Axis&Allies)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 бер 2020
- Are Cruisers for losers? In this video I try to answer that question.
House Rule Ideas for Cruisers:
1) Cruisers have an "onboard AA Gun" which fires up to one shot per cruiser at the start of the first round of combat (but only ever one shot per enemy air unit). This ability works on both attack and defense. There aren’t any rules in Axis&Allies to account for air vs navy. Maybe cruisers can fill this void giving them a new unique role in naval battles.
2) Cruisers can move 3 spaces during non combat. Cruisers can also treat hostile sea zones as friendly, unless that sea zone contains at least one enemy cruiser. Cruisers were built for speed and could probably evade most other types of sea units, except other cruisers.
3) Cruisers can make surprise strikes similar to submarines except it fires only in the first round of combat. This ability can be negated by the presence of enemy cruisers on a 1:1 basis. Again, this would give cruisers a new role and might encourage players to buy them, if not for the attack bonus then for the defensive one.
4) Cruisers take 2 hits to destroy (only recommend in G40)
5) The attack value of cruisers is boosted to 4 when paired with a fighter or tactical bomber, on a 1:1 basis.
6) Cruisers that roll a 1 can target select any enemy surface ship as a casualty. This accounts for the presence of battle cruisers which were really fast and with big guns. (Thanks to Admiral Sea Bass for this idea)
What house rules do you use for cruisers?
I've house ruled cruisers as being able to move 3 spaces instead of 2. It fits cruiser roles historcally
This is what I've done and it works great. Mechanically sound and historically accurate. I've also considered having them give transports +1 defense on a one-for-one pairing, like Infantry attacking with Artillery. Or doing both and removing the Bombardment ability.
Move at 3, make them defend at destroyers, and have AA. I hate the fact that all sea units attack and defend at the same value.
Why 3 spaces? Are they faster than all other ships? Making a ship move more squares than other units makes the game a bit more complex.
I would give cruisers the AAA ability to fire at up to 3 attacking aircraft.
@@jasonleetaiwan It's not that they were faster, per say, but that they were designed with range in mind. Commerce warfare and all that.
The transport thing might work better for the game, I just don't know. I'm a Pacific war need, not a game designer.
Cruisers with a movement of 3 and an AA in place of bombardment would make it a great screener fleet defender. I don't think another bombardment unit is needed.
I love your house rules. Excellent. May I add one? “Cruisers that roll a 1 can target select any enemy surface ship as a casualty.” This accounts for the presence of battle cruisers which were really fast and with big guns. Good stuff!
Nice idea! I'll add it to the list
Except battle cruisers typically had 14-15” guns as opposed to a standard cruiser of 6-8”
Your analytical series is by far my favourite A&A videos to watch on UA-cam.
Thanks man! I appreciate it. Gimme a call again sometime
A good buff would be to have cruisers be able to give transports a defense roll of 1 since cruisers largest roll was fleet defense
Transports have AA guns on them sometimes but the designer wanted to force us to buy other sea units to guard them so it wouldn’t make sense for a cruiser to suddenly give transports the ability to fire again. I prefer putting the AA gun on the cruiser because it’s a unique ability.
Good stuff. We play with the cruiser able to fire up to three AA rolls in the first round. Best house rule for cruisers in my opinion.
Very informative video! Now I need to rethink my own use of cruisers. So, in essence, cruisers are literally a hot bombshell but destroyers are the safe non sexy option!
Yeah I'd probably agree with that!.. thanks man!
One strategy that I have come up with is buying 1 cruiser and 1 destroyer in place of a battleship. Its 20 IPCs just like a battleship and with a cruiser and destroyer you get two rolls at a two and a three instead of one roll at four. You also get the added bonus of sub detection with your destroyer and you can still bombard with the cruiser. In the end it’s the same cost and a battleship takes 2 hits same as cruiser destroyer.
the math says no tho
That battleship will take more than one hit over its lifespan. It’s an IPC printer.
@@sterlingroberts6240 Only in battles you win, but yeah I agree it's better.
Better off with 2 destroyers
Cruisers would be really cool if they each got one AA shot at the beginning of each battle. This might be another good house rule.
This is what I thought their role would be before I read the rules.
They didn’t put enough thought into the cruiser it seemed. Just threw it in there.
It is a great question. For my money 1 Cruiser + 1 Destroyer provides an efficient anti-submarine punch all alone in their own sea zone, something a battleship does not do. For the same money check out that combo against a battleship. Cruisers may not be for losers after all.
I really like Rule #1, cuz it actually gives them a role in the naval fleet. Every ship has a special ability, Transports can carry units, subs can submerge and surprise attacks, destroyers counter subs, aircraft carriers carry fighters (and sometimes have 2 hits if you're counting G40), and lastly Battleships have 2 hits, becoming a sponge in a way. This allows them to have that unique ability to make them worth buying.
I agree man. They definitely need something extra to spice them up!
I buy large groups of subs and park them at strategic points in the Pacific as a deterrent to opposing fleets. A dozen subs that you can't quite attack but can attack you if you move can be quite scary.
Excellent video! I found your premise intriguing but your results were surprising. I had not purchased many cruisers at this stage of playing (except for ANZAC) because all ships that are not capital ships become fodder, usually, for the rest of the fleet. Again, great video.
Thanks Panzerjay!
Excellent video. You excel at analysis.
Thanks so much!
Although retired, I am only now getting into A&A. Very useful insights. Much appreciated.
Excellent video, definitely provides much food for thought...!
Incredibly informative!
DDs are always a good ship. They fight subs, planes and are cheap (by ship standards). It is good to have few strong units on top of a big fleet though, I see cruisers as the poor mans battleships. They hit more often in a long fight and provide costal bombardment.
Cruisers are just starting units to accompany small fleets when they don’t want you to have something stronger. They are largely irrelevant later in the game.
A mathematical analysis also bears out that cruisers perform the worst in combat, among subs, destroyers, cruisers and battleships.
First, one must realize that an attack or defend value of 6 is on average equal to one hit, which is (usually) of equal value to one hit point (HP). For example: a tank has an attack value of 3, which is (on average) is 0.5 hit per die roll. Two tanks have a combined attack value of 3 + 3 = 6, which is on average 1 hit per roll, lowering the enemy's hit points by 1. So let's say that 1 HP has a combat value (CV) of "6".
So since a tank fights at a 3, and since it has 1 HP, it has a combat value of 3 + 6 = 9. It has a cost of 3, so when you purchase a tank, in effect you convert each spent IPC into 3 CV.
Let's apply this to naval units:
Defending submarine: Rolls at a 1 and has 1 HP, so it has a CV of 6 + 1 = 7. It costs 6 IPC, so that's an IPC-to-CV conversion of 1.17.
When attacking, a sub is even better, but the value of the surprise attack depends on how long the battle lasts, so I can't generalize it.
Destroyer: Rolls at a 2 and has 1 HP. CV = 8. It costs 8 IPC, so that's a conversion of 1.
Cruiser: Rolls at a 3 and has 1 HP. CV = 9. It costs 12, so that's a conversion of only 0.75!
Battleship: Rolls at a 4 and has 2 HP. CV = 16. It costs 20, so that's a conversion of 0.80, slightly better than the cruiser. (Of course, if the repair ability comes into play, this makes battleships better.)
Let's also include the fighter: Rolls at a 3 or 4 (let's say 3.5) and has 1 HP. CV = 9.5. It costs 10, so that's a conversion of 0.95. This seems low, but it is more than compensated by its tactical flexibility.
So there you have it. Disregarding special situations such as coastal bombardments, subs are by far the best naval combat unit. The more expensive units are less efficient in terms of combat value per IPC spent.
Having numerous small units has the added benefit that you can split them up. So unless your fleet is all about coastal bombardments, I would recommend buying subs or destroyers, rather than cruisers. If you have plenty of cash and the production capacity of a local industrial complex is the main limiting factor, it's better to build battleships than cruisers.
Thank you so much for the analysis! Very interesting stuff
@@CorporalClegg You're welcome. And thanks for the videos!
I like the logic, I often use attack + defense + movement points in my unit analysis, bang for buck is certainly a influencing factor. My buddy Larry used to say whoever has the most fun wins...I think he was right. Losing a well fought game often demands a rematch, often switching sides and then the other player showing how you should have done it last game. Submarines are 2 attack+1 defense+2 movement=5 items +(surprise att) for $6, cruiser is 3 attack+3 defense+2 movement+(bombard3)=8+ items for $12, addina 1 more submarine for equal $$/buck comparison shows a definite submarine advance, one could say 2 bonus items and 2 more movement+ 2 units can get 2 hits, but these 2 units have disadvantages like no returns fire at aircraft, no helping take land (make$$), no control of ocean sea zones(can't stop enemy ships)(also a bonus I forget, can move thru enemy ships, opps,opps,convoy raiders,)
I feel like the Atlantic navies would benefit much from cruisers and destroyers against axis submarines and aircraft, allowing fighters to be moved inland and unnecessary for the constant cruiser bombardment/amphibious assault into western Europe, eventually every turn these bombardments into France becoming more and more intense. I'm just saying as long as england also has a battleship or 2 to start with, why not build around that a long term softening up Germany without flying airplanes over AA guns unnecessarily
@@CaptainVasiliArkhipov hey Mike! Thanks so much for the comment and insights!
Subs are such a good buy...cheap and can do a lot of damage convoying....defending @1 is tough so you gotta protect them....rarely do I purchase cruisers
Subs are the “infantry of the sea”. I tend to try and protect my starting cruisers but like AAguns once lost they never get replaced.
I just discovered your channel when searching for the Pink Floyd song Corporal Clegg. You convinced me to get out my dusty collection of A&A games and play a few rounds with my dad.
Awesome!! Hope you guys have a blast
Pink Floyd all the way
@@CorporalClegg Thank you for the quality content that you've uploaded on your channel. I appreciate all the tips. What is your favorite Floyd album?
Difficult to choose one album but I'll always have a soft spot for The Wall. I was obsessed with the film when I was very young. And the images I saw probably sparked my interest in the war.
Thanks Keegan
Very nice. Great series of videos. Definitely makes you think!!
Cheers mate!
I like rule 6. Price adjustment for all sea units is a must.
Whatever the poor game mechanics of A&A, historically, cruisers were the workhorses of navies, especially during the WW2 era. I suggest decreasing the cost to 10 from 12 and giving them a role as carrier defenders. They were fast enough to keep up with the carriers and had the guns to protect them.
Great video sir! I dig your style Corporal...
Thank you Generalfund!
Far from an expert, but I think the best and simplest buff for the Cruiser is to give it 3 speed (along with a discount), making it a sort of poor man's carrier as well as battleship, also able to catch, force to submerge, or run away from any other ship.
We can give cruisers an additional plus 1 on defensive battles against attacking units that include at least one air unit.
So it’s a 3-4 when there’s an air unit present. If there are no air units left or none to begin with, it’s a 3-3 unit.
This makes cruisers an elite defender against air units for 12 IPC’s. Having one in a fleet makes more sense because it defends as well as a fighter but you don’t need a carrier and you don’t have to buy a battleship.
Going to have to watch this a couple of times.
My 1st edition copy doesn't have this unit. Been playing without them since my father taught me this game in 1986. ;>
Good times, I'm sure!
I really like that we have Cruisers in the game, although it's a shame they're a bit lacking
@@CorporalClegg has been. Now I get to bug my wife until she let's me buy a new edition.
Not that we play frequently or anything. But it is nice to have a new version every once in a while, instead of using one you have had for almost 4 decades.
Please do more videos on each piece thanks
Hello Corporal Clegg, have you play tested some or all of the optional rules that you suggest? And what are the results?
I went with option no.1 and even though it doesn't have a mighty impact, it is at least a little something extra for the cruiser. Option no.2 is a house rule for us that applies to every naval unit. Naval bases are not available in the Anniversary Edition, that's why I came up with it as a general rule. I still refrain from reducing the cost to 11. Another house rule of ours allows to build capital ships (fleet and escort carriers, battleships and cruisers) in two turns instead of one. Therefore I prefer an even number for the costs of the units.
Hello Corporal Clegg, this is an excellent video. Thanks for doing the maths. I was thinking of reducing the costs for cruisers to 11 IPC or to apply the two hits to sink rule ever since I bought my Anniversary Edition. Now I know why no one ever buys them. Seems that the gut feeling was always right. Guess it's time to reduce the cost to 11 IPC now. However, we softened up air power: Fighters cost only 8 IPC but their attack value is reduced to 2. On the other hand they may select the target when hitting with 1. Strategic bombers attack in land and sea battles only with 3 - and even that is way too much giving the poor statistics they had in the Battle of Midway as a testimony. I added tactical bombers to my Anniversary Edition as I like the combined arms rules that come with them.
Two hits to destroy would be a very strong game changer in favor of cruisers. AA ability or surface ship target selection on a roll of 1 really sounds interesting. I will give AA ability a shot even before reducing the price. I already have target selection for fighters and tactical bombers on a roll of »1« and want to reserve that ability for air power only. However, it is also an option to change the rules for battleships and aircraft carriers: their ability to absorb one hit before sinking is part of their strength. We softened this up by reducing the combat value of damaged of damaged battleships to 3 and for damaged defending/attacking carriers to 1/0. Their movement is also reduced to 1 as long as they are damaged. And it takes two rounds to build capital ships, but cruisers can be built in one round, so they are faster available. But these changes don't fix the basic problem of bad cost vs. power relations between cruisers and cheaper units such as subs and destroyers or the more expensive battleships, that cost 18 IPC in our house rules. So reducing costs and/or adding special abilities to cruisers is a must-have. Thanks again for your video and the ideas to fix the cruiser problem.
That's why I love Axis & Allies: it gives you so many things to think about.
Hey man thanks for the comment! Interesting house rules. Sounds like you've completely tweaked the game to your liking! I love that about Axis & Allies.
I'm glad you liked the video and it gave you something to think about!
Cruiser balance make it so it can move an extra space
I really believe that it depends where you are at in the game, which power you are playing, and what is on the opposing side. If the other side is only buying subs, then yes, obviously you don't buy cruisers. However if you are later in the game and the other side can't afford to buy a navy and you do need some naval bombardment because your bombers can't make it there and land somewhere with some safety, then it might make sense. Just really, really depends on the situation. It's an option.. Now I'm not suggesting buying them on turn 1 or even turn 2, but to just dismiss them outright seems just as reckless.
I always called the Cruiser the poor man’s battleship.
1 cruiser reducing 1 aircraft roll by one, (1 cruiser reduces 1 fighter, 2 cruisers reduce 2 fighters, etc etc) is a house rule my local runs to help make the pacific naval environment more interesting. Cause its still the same cruiser in most engagements but if your opponent wants to bring in a bomber or carrier with fighters it starts to make things more complicated for your opponent. It also improves their ability at protecting transports from aircraft if only slightly but it still comes into play often enough
It seems like cruisers have a nice place, in theory, as being a sort of generalist, flexible ship. Not the best at anything, but at least it's always useful, whereas transports won't help you win sea fights and destroyers/subs won't do anything to win the land.
The problem is they get their lunch eaten by carriers/fighters, which do the same thing but better. Uh... at least the cruisers are a bit cheaper than a fully loaded carrier...?
Cruisers could cost 10 and they would still fight less well per ipc than a destroyer. They would become more cost-effective than Battleships, but only slightly and still less cost-effective than Destroyers. Being more cost-effective than a battleship isn't really an issue because battleships serve a different purpose, they are kind of a win more mechanic that limit incidental losses.
I don't suspect I'll be seeing you buying any Cruisers for ANZAC then! 😆
Or he's really invested in counter intelligence and buys all cruisers!
I highly doubt it!
Good "Point", don't think I ever produced a cruiser since I've been playing UA-cam games- probably better to house rule it!!!
I love that about this game. Don't like something? House rule it!
I think the Cruiser could have an additional hability in supporting +1 attack a destroyer just like an artillery do to an infantry. Maybe it could allow a destroyer bombard in amphibious landing with attack value 2. It would justify its kind of pricy cost and make the unit more desirable to buy and a more flexible strategy with fleet compositions.
Current House Rules for Cruisers I use:
1. Can move three spaces
2. Cruisers can elect to withdraw from a sea battle to an adjacent sea zone unless the enemy fleet contains a cruiser.
3. AA shot in lieu of bombardment.
Nice! These rules definitely give cruisers a more unique role and more value
Now do you think in the future, there will be a nft A&A game and of working on
Honestly, if UK and USA players are half decent, navy isn't even that big a theater outside the Pacific area.
One of the house rules I play with, is when a cruiser or battleship bombards and gets a hit that hit has to be applied before the defending unit can return fire
Make sense! Although I fear it would make amphibious assaults overpowered for the attacker. For balance I would suggest allowing x number of defending infantry to fire preemptively against the landing forces with any hits eliminating units immediately. Cheers!
@@CorporalClegg it usually isnt a problem in the normal A&A version because ships are so expensive but in the A&A Europe 1940 and Pacific you have to put a limit because like you said it becomes overpowered
When I play we have a house rule that says cruisers and battleships can bombard on turns when you are not naval invading.
I've played with this rule too. I ended up not liking it for a few reasons though
One thing to add:
The cruiser pieces are very easy to confuse with the destroyer pieces, especially for beginners.
Sure, if you have both near each other you'll notice that the cruiser is slightly bigger. But if there is only one ship in place, there is often the question: "Is this a cruiser or destroyer?"
I paint mine to make it easier.
Good video. I think the cruisers and battleships should roll a '2' during all rounds of combat of an amphibious assault, basically acting as artillery. That would beef them up to be worth the IPC cost.
That house rule would certainly increase their utility!
A technology development, I'm always looking for more technology to give away free every turn.
That sounds cool but isn’t realistic because attacking land units have landed and are now mixed with defending units.
I still use cruisers, but that's mainly cuz sometimes it's a good extra sea defence unit to buy as the UK for example without lessening the strength of land troops (and hey, bombardment) or risking the transports
I do like to build battleships but usually they are so expensive that everything else is hampered by a shortage of money. UK uses about 2/3 of their money if they build one in round one, leaving 11, which usually aint enough for the other things the UK likes to do, like airforces, India and transports
As an Allies player most of the time, I generally use a strategy of “preserve your forces, trade space for time, then counterstrike when the enemy is getting overextended. I like to combine my British Indian and pacific fleets on turn 1 and put two fighters on the carrier, as well as picking up two Australian infantry. This gives Japan poor odds on a turn 1 strike, and even if they do it and succeed, their fleet is way out of position with substantial losses. Most axis players ignore that fleet, which gives me two cruisers with two transports. I can use this force to rapidly control all of Africa, and the cruiser bonbardmenr is extremely helpful. I have come to the conclusion that cruisers are best used as bombard support and fleet defense in small force amphibious actions. In my opinion, cruisers would see a lot more use if they had a special ability, and this would be in line with other naval units. I would have liked for cruisers to bombard on a 4. It’s a small thing, but would probably be enough to buy one over a destroyer in some situations. The real problem with cruisers isn’t that they are bad, it’s that submarines and destroyers are just a better value.
Cool video..Have you checked out Pagans naval unit videos?
Yes I have! He's got some really cool videos actually.
Cheers Warpig
what if cruisers move 3? or cost 10?
WHERE DO U GET THE LIL CAPITAL BUILDINGSSSS
Bombardment strategies are like battles you plan one round only, ten cruisers bombarding for 5 infantry and 5 artillery can be a sustainable every turn attack into larger enemy piles, not always as effective as bomber raids.
One battleship wont give the same as two cruisers because two cruisers have two opportunities to hit which increase it the hit opportunity
from 0.5 to (0.5 x 2 opportunities to hit = 1 total hit)
Two cruisers are almost certain to hit once whereas a battleship will only hit 4/6 times.
Two cruisers have the ability to take hits; the battleship also has the ability to take two hits so this doesnt matter
My ideas for making Cruisers useful: Give them AA and two hit point when the enemy has no Battleship (in the Battle). In this way, Battleships are buffed as well and Cruisers on its own are capable of defeating single destroyers.
AA gun is good but not two hits. It’s meant to be a faster mid size ship. Not a big ship that can take 2 hits before sinking.
Agree with the idea of crusiers being useful as an economic choice, if I need maximum firepower RIGHT now and have a limit of IPCs or production capability, then cruisers are a good buy. otherwise, yeah i avoid them.
I read one like you have except the battleships pair up 1-1 with cruisers and then cruisers attack on a 4, possibly both versions could be employed.cruisers taking 2 hits to sink is a nice way to up their value but it makes me want to see battleships talking 3 hits, increasing their value as well, then we must have the 4 hit super battleships and 3 hit super carriers, but I feel like the attackers dice should decide how much the damage affects the next turn combat roll,..ie... different kinds of damage, a lucky destroyer attack is a threat to anything afloat. The game battleship comes to mind with the peg holes in the ship, different color pegs could be used to clairify the damage type, reair costs to some extent, current combat Dice modification ie..minus 1 or more.
Nicely Done Sir ! .. We definitely have a similar style !
The price ranges of Axis & Allies naval ships are Way Off .. Always hedge your bets towards Multi-Units over single-units .. the probability of hits is intensified with multiple units even though they are less likely to hit while also soaking up hits while their twin keeps firing _ ALSO people should consider that you can do more with two ships on the board than you can do with a single ship on the board in basic movements and actions
--Bombardment : another point that weakens the idea of this as a strength for CCs + BBs is that casualties still fire back, so it's "Smarter" to take another transport than another CC __ the action is to attack a land territory, compensate for your own casualties, and then hold or push further on
--You went off the rails at min.10 , and lost your senses ... Never buy a CC when you can buy DDs + Subs .. and you are going against your earlier postulate .. take a TN when you plan on amphibs .. and then include my reason earlier in this very long note
-- Min11.35 .. How did you not burst out laughing with that Swolen Tounge-In-Cheek Comment .. CC .. So Scary .. Oh My! ... (insert Dorothy & Toto)
Thanks for a great in depth reply Pagan.
You don't think 2 cruisers are better than 2 destroyers in the very short term? Sure they're more expensive, but if what you need is hits the cruisers are better. Granted, this scenario is unlikely.
And yes we do have similar styles! Would be cool to collab on a video some time
@@CorporalClegg don't be disingenuous ... You know that it would be 2 CCs vs 3 DDs ..
Not if the factory can only produce 2 units?
@@CorporalClegg ... Still trying (?) .. you know this is funny ... but let's use your video postulate right from your video ... you need hits + you want numbers + you can only build 2 things + you only have enough for 2 CCs ==> therefore you go with your only good option :: and buy 2 BMRs
@@CorporalClegg You KNOW this stuff .. you're just trying to paint a turd.
If you're the U.S., the unit type you buy doesn't really matter lol.
Good job giving credit to Guadalcanal in 2007
The problem with not having Cruisers in the game is that it dramatically weakens the Submarine. Without cruisers, the only "low cost" surface ship is the Destroyer, which means destroyers are everywhere, and anywhere a sub goes, there will be a destroyer waiting to neutralize all of its stealth abilities. The value of Cruisers (from a game design perspective) is that they hypothetically provide a "default" naval unit for players to build, and turns destroyers into a more specialized "anti-sub" unit. If you're enemy has lots of subs, then you counter them with destroyers; otherwise, cruisers should (in principle) be the better bang for the buck. This has always been my suspicious for why the designers added cruisers to begin with.
The problem is that Cruisers *don't* actually get more bang for the buck, so players just build Destroyers anyway. At least they don't have more bang for buck in normal sea battles. IMO, Cruisers in A&A aren't actually meant to be naval warships; they are actually specialized escorts for Transports.
I do think there are ways to fix/improve Cruisers, and I have a few suggestions:
1.) Reduce cost of Cruisers by 1 (from 12 to 11). This would make a big difference in the "bang for buck" calculation, since you could almost afford 2 Cruisers for the cost of a single battleship.
2.) Add a "combined arms" ability for Cruisers in which their attack and/or amphibious bombardment attack power increases from 3 to 4 if paired with a Battleship. This can make them more powerful on the offensive, and makes them even better escorts for Transports, so long as the fleet has Battleship(s).
3.) Add an "anti-air" specialization for Cruisers.
a.) Maybe they act similar to an AA gun, and get 1 free shot at airplanes that fight in the zone. At start of battle, each Cruiser shoots down 1 enemy plane on a roll of 6, then battle proceeds normally.
b.) Cruisers negate the "combined arms" ability of Tactical Bombers, so that tactical bomber attack values do not increase from 3 to 4 when paired with a Fighter, if there are enemy cruisers in the battle.
4.) Nerf the Destroyer so that a destroyer only neutralizes the stealth abilities of *1* submarine. If an attacker has more subs than the defender has destroyers, then the excess subs should still get their first strike, be able to pass through enemy fleets, etc. This makes it so that a single destroyer doesn't completely neutralize every enemy sub on the board.
This decreases the individual value of Destroyers, but this nerf to destroyers might actually have the opposite effect of actually making players build more of them, and neglecting Cruisers even more, since you would need to effectively match every enemy sub with 1 destroyer.
Tangentially, I also think that subs should be able to make an "attack of opportunity" against enemy fleets that pass through a space containing an enemy sub. They should get 1 shot off, and an opportunity to sink or damage 1 ship. The fleet could then have the option of either stopping to fight the sub, or continue moving past it.
Battleships - 3 Hits
Cruisers and Carriers -2 Hits
Destroyers and Subs - 1 Hit
I wonder if that would work, though it may make them too overpowered when facing air strikes. It might work better in the Europe 1940, Pacific 1940 or the combined Global Game since they have are more zones and units.
Interesting, possibly the 2 hit battleships can be repaired but not the 2 hit cruisers. I'd like to see technology change these abilities, I favor a free technology game, using any number of agreed upon technology and 2 dice, each team gets 3 free developments per turn and tech tokens can be purchased, each token a guaranteed breakthrough but only after it's rolled a 6.
Then they would have to make fighters 2 hits and bombers 2 hits to make it fair. 😂
2 hits should be for battleships only I feel.
How about lowering cost for a cruiser to 10 IPC?
I think 12 is good, but they need a defensive ability the other ships don’t have. Destroyers stop subs. Cruisers help transports defend again.
Cruiser's cost should be lowered from $12 to $10, and Battleship's cost should be lowered from $20 to $18. Its how I always play any recent version of Axis and Allies. At $12 and $20, they're simply too expensive against Subs, Destroyers, and air units.
A funny thing about $10 Cruisers is that they still lose pound for pound vs Destroyers. If you had an equal ipc amount fighting each other, like for example 4 Cruisers vs 5 Destroyers, the Destroyers will still win on average. As for Battleships vs Destroyers in naval combat, pound for pound they straight up lose to Destroyers if Battleships cost $20. But if Battleships cost $18, they barely beat an equal ipc amount of Destroyers, which is fine since they're supposed to be the ultimate unit. And you still need Destroyers for enemy Subs anyways. And its still pretty hard to spam Battleships even if their cost is lowered from $20 to $18.
That’s just it, battleships should be a powerful luxury, not an IPC efficient main unit. It should not be possible to make an entire fleet out of battleships that’s more capable overall than a balanced fleet.
@Sterling Roberts considering they were made obselete in the war
3/6 odds is 0.5
Cost of 12
0.5 x 12 = 0.417
On paper they have the best attack and defending per money unit.
>>I do agree the subs first strike is more critical
I think 3 for speed, able to give transport a 1 for defense, and being able to “submerge” would make the cruiser SO much better
I think giving up to 3 transports per cruiser the defensive ability and serve as a casualty is better than making it go 3 spaces. Submerge for a cruiser? They aren’t submarines.😂
The only time I ever buy them is if my opponent has lots of air units threatening my force and I'm limited on funds. Otherwise I save up for a Battle ship or Carrier or just buy some subs.
That situation doesn’t occur often. Cruisers need to have a real special ability so there’s a reason to buy them. I like the AA gun ability.
I'd like to start off saying I love your videos and I'm patiently waiting for more!
I think cruisers have a very important role in any navy, and I believe your analysis might be just shy of communicating their unique purpose on the battlefield.
I'm going to preface with the fact that i mostly play G40, and I try to buy battleships and cruisers as little as possible, primarily focusing on subs and destroyers to thicken out my fleets.
They have a handful of roles they play a decent part in, they have strengths in deterance and counter offense but the secret to where they shine most, in my opinion, lies in their origins in Guadalcanal.
I like to think of them as a sort of flagship for the coastguard lol, decent support for a home fleet, their capable of breaking off with support ships as a task force so your capital ships aren't out of position. They're nice to have patrolling and helping out along your coastline to deter invasion or soften up ground forces. But most of all, I believe they are best used for island hopping.
Get you two subs, a destroyer, a cruiser and a transport you've got yourself a small enough fleet that doesn't necessarily warrant immediate action being taken against it, but large enough that they would have to dedicate a significant force to deal with it, instead of having some cheeky air units, subs, or destroyers setting you back another turn or two.
The more transports you have make it a more compelling target, but so would having more expensive "flagships" in your fleet. so adding battleships or carriers, with a supplement of a few more subs and maybe a destroyer or two, should be relative to how many transports you're escorting.
The absolute bear minimum you might escort a transport with is a single destroyer, and all it would take is a 6 ipc piece to come along and sink 15(+) ipcs. I would be interested in seeing the bear minimum setup to counter two subs, a destroyer, cruiser and transport with odds the attacker would be comfortable with taking.
TLDR the cruisers best roles imo are coastal support and defense of battles and convoys/SZs, and escorting transports with small fleets to take out lightly defended territories/islands
Interested to see what you might have to say about what I've brought up in my comment, Ave!
Hey man!
Good points. I do think they have great utility island hopping as you mentioned. That bombardment is useful although a little unreliable.
I do like the idea of a mini task force with a cruiser in. I ran a few odds against this fleet (2ss, 1dd, 1 cc). 3 dds and a bmr have a good shot at taking it out with over 65% odds to the defenders 25%. 3 dds and 2 ss have ~75%.
Trouble is the attacker only really needs to cover 2 hits since subs can't hit air units, so he could send in 2 subs, a fighter and bomber and have a good 85%+ chances to knock it out for the price of just 2 subs. Any good player would see it coming though and move outta the way but it's a definite weakness.
Aside from that I don't really see a good use for cruisers anymore. If you've got the cash to splash then there always seems to be a better option. For defense - why 2 cruisers if you could get 3 destroyers? For attack why not subs?
End of the day man you play however you wanna play. It's a dice game after all! Having that cruiser does give you some unique options and might seal the deal for you when deciding whether or not to make an attack somewhere
Thanks for the comment mate!
@@CorporalClegg I agree entirely, there's always something I'd rather buy, but I try to make the best use out of them when I can. All I'd have to say about the air problem is that I couldn't see myself, or any good player for that matter, using them in that configuration where you wouldn't have a bit of naval/air dominance in the area. In that respect I think Japan can use them most effectively, mopping up stragglers behind your blockades. And where I think I was getting at with it being a less favourable target probably comes from my experience with Germany. I find if the battleship survives R1 my opponent makes it a mission to wipe my fleet, where the Cruz Trans and Des alone aren't worth taking on those fighters. I could see it working out for Japan or America with Hawaii, the problem there would be with proximity you'd still likely need to beef up your fleet, even with a scramble.
Thanks a lot for the reply!
I'm 2 years late to this conversation, but you are talking about the way I tend to play my Japanese navy. Cruisers are not designed to support a larger fleet, they lead a smaller one. The bombard and attack value make them viable offensively and defensively. The trick is, you don't risk them against overwhelming naval forces. You kite and bring them back to safety. They aren't so weak that an opponent will risk a lot of planes to sink your transport ability, but they won't stand up to a concentrated attack.
After seeing the AA gun video, I think cruisers are similar but with offensive capability. They won't win you many defensive battles, but they will deter some and make it more costly for the enemy to throw everything at them. I find cruisers sufficient to prevent UK from feeling like they can build up in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and too costly to throw planes at. Cruisers are king of the Indian Ocean and they flow back to the main fleet in the Pacific to bolster defenses against America.
It's the jack of all traits
Honestly the problem i have with odd calcutions is the fact that in a board game setting, sometimes have a 3 is better then having two 2s. For example lets say 2 artillery are attacking one tank. They roll 2 dice and miss. Tank rolls a 3. Hit! So what happen was a battle that statically should be a win turns sour because of luck. Thats way tanks are such a good buy in most circumstances compared to most units. The ability to kill more units each round constantly will beat any odds. The problem with crusiers is not their stats or abilities(which as they can be made up for with this factor, ) its that you can buy units that do the same thing but cheaper and better. Fighters, tac bombers and even bombers have the same stats even better in most cases, can move 4 -6 spaces, can participate in land and sea battle, and can stay in the battle untill it is over. There isnt a role for the cruiser to fill that cant be filled by other units and that is why the cruiser sucks.
Totally agree with the bad luck thing. One 50% hit dice still feels better to me than two 33% hit dice. The other day I lost a battle which was 90% in my favour. All down to personal preference but statistically cruisers are losers!
Cheers man
6 cruisers bombarding for 3 infantry and 3 artillery is 5 hits on any enemy coast, the first round of any battle is still a legitimate softening attack trading 6 landing units for 5 defending enemy units. Eventually after a few turns of this a second round of combat will likely occur and even capturing France. Not beatable with anything but battleships.
Giving them AA guns is a very clever solution.
I believe making rules allowing bombardment every round of combat isn't fair or historically accurate. Taking even an island like the Philippines didn't involve constant bombardment, but initial bombardment, followed by a landing, and then months of ground war to take the whole island without any more use of the naval forces except carriers and their aircraft. A turn reflects months, not days of battle.
I love free technology, how's about a cruiser technology that allows the player a 2nd round bombardment for their now more advanced cruisers
No. Offshore ships would constantly provide artillery support, as long as the targets would be in range of the guns.
A lot of factors that go into Naval in this game. I think Cruisers are great. They're like the Tanks of the sea. How many Flagship's can a Navy really have. Battleships inspire confidence, but a long w/ that comes a lot of anxiety once they've taken that one hit. You don't feel that w/ Cruisers so much.
A naval force is truly the sum of it's parts. Battleships lead, Cruisers hit heavy, while Destroyer' escort. I've also made the mistake of undersestimating the value of Destroyers, as well. (Thay single Destroyer escort can make for sketchy situations)
Something to think about, but top of my head - 1 Battleship, 3 Cruisers, and 2 Destroyer's feels like a realistic, and solid example.
This isn't a tactic I've adopted, or one that I'm going to apply as a new Rule of Thumb.
I just have never questioned Cruisers, and among all of my mistakes purchaising Cruisers has never been one. It's an integral Unit to the game that's being looked at through a periscope. Are you going to churn out Battleships at the cost of every other Unit needed per turn, or are you going to build a balanced force overall (including Land, and Air units). Cruiser's are a purchase. Battleships are an investment. The 8 IPC's saved is really being downplayed when you look at the overall scope of the game.
Go Cruisers! :)
Just like I said in reply to your other comment... Anything can happen with the roll of a dice. Though there does seem to be a statistically better option than a cruiser for most situations, I'm not gonna slam anyone for building them. They might be losers but I still think they're cool units and I'm glad we at least have the option to build them
@@CorporalClegg I just discovered, and am binging on your channel. Hence, the other comment. :)
Yeah, they're that mid-tier unit. If you look at my Naval force I imagine you'll see more Cruiser units than others.
Enjoy your vids. I just subbed, dinged the bell and all of that stuff.
@@terrywitzu7874 thanks so much!
@@CorporalClegg Your welcome. Not to go on, but I did realize how much I prioritize Destroyer's over every Naval unit.
You need Destroyer's in contrast to Cruiser's. They're all important, but w/out Destroyer's they're all very vulnerable, I think.
Keep the vids coming, Corporal! :)
@@terrywitzu7874 not at all! 😃
Destroyers are a great all rounder with a decent bang for buck. I'm actually planning a video "Which is the best sea unit". If you have any more insight then I'd love to hear it (you can find my email in the About section of my channel).
I'm probably gonna include a poll in the video, so while I've got you.. which sea unit do you think is the best?
Is this a pc game? Where would I find it?
It s a boardgame ; ca 40 years around. There should be a PC/online version , too.
@@alexzenz760 Yes, I am aware that it is a board game. I have the A&A 1942 version. I was asking where I could find this for PC.
Axis and Allies online is on steam for a price.
There's also TripleA which is free
Cruisers IMO are really good the first 1-3 rounds, but once players begin to start working on you’re navy they seem to have less and less value
cruisers is all about give and take.
in my game against my dad of 1940 i bought 5 cruisers XD
Back in college, I played primarily UK or Japanese and I loved getting to Anniversary with cruisers as the Japanese. I found a real use for them as both bombardment and transport protection. I played against a group that would risk a plane vs a destroyer to sink my transport with only a 33% chance of a casualty. Those same players wouldn't a risk 50% chance of losing a plane. I will gladly trade a 12 IPC cruiser for a 10 IPC fighter from the UK. Every UK plane lost in the Pacific is a win for the Axis. That's UK IPCs diverted from Europe or less the Japanese player has to worry about defending against. Japan also has an easier time replenishing their losses due to being closer to their production.
Cruisers are not great, but they are viable for Japan. I have had great success going 1-1 with transports and cruisers in a 2nd fleet. The bombardments and ability to break that group and land at multiple locations keeps the Allies watching it. Landing 6 units with 3 bombards will take any island that hasn't been fortified. Being able to spread 6 units and 3 bombards over 3 territories is a massive threat the allies have to watch. Attacking with anything but a full fleet into 3 cruises will see some losses.
To me, they are a defensive unit, much like AA guns. The 50/50 nature of their lone defense die means they can run solo and not feel like a free kill. They also deter cheap solo transport or transport + cruiser amphibious attacks. You risk losing the entire attacking force hitting a cruiser if the dice go against you. And if the dice favor the attacker, there's no bombard assistance. Cruisers get their best value in smaller battles so you should spread out and use them to cover more area before kiting when overwhelming forces get close. Subs will always be better at picking off transport fleets that come into range, but they offer no aerial defense for your own transports.
Great comment! Thank you for sharing these insights. Although I have shown them to be significantly less economical than other options, you have made some good arguments for how cruisers can be utilized effectively. Whatever floats your boat!
@@CorporalClegg thanks for responding on such an old video.
I fully agree with your take on the economics, but I do feel that economics are skewed based on the size of the battle and if you're building up for big engagements, cruisers are the worst option available.
But this is why I love A&A. The trade off between economics, ease of reinforcement, and varied incomes make theses decisions more impactful.
Even with all the updates and changes, I don't feel there is a useless piece in the game. Sure AA and Cruisers might be suboptimal most of the time, they still have a use.
CRUISERS ARE THE BEST WHEN THEY ARE COMBINED WITH OTHER SHIP. WHEN THEY STAND ALONE, NOT WORTH IT.
Forgot to mentiom something about 1940. IF you can get Improved shipyards, Cruisers become the biggest discounted ship to buy.