My idea for Cruisers

Got a question that you'd like me to answer?
I'll be checking in on this thread now and then and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
User avatar
Sergente_nella_neve
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Italia

My idea for Cruisers

Post by Sergente_nella_neve » Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:34 am

Ciao, Signor Larry! :wink:

I'm sorry and I don't know if you already tested this rule but I got an idea for new Cruisers in Anniversary Edition... In our Italian A&A Forum, this days we discussed about the new coming cruisers. I think that real Cruisers are fast naval units that fight a "corsair war" against other slower naval units. So, I think that an interesting rule could be to give the "Opening Fire" option to these Cruisers, to represent "hit and run" attacks, similar to the submarine tactics. I think to the Scharnorst, but more properly I think to the japanese victory at Savo Island (in the Guadalcanal campaign) and other similar incursions led by cruisers specially against enemy transports navy in the Pacific War. Obviously, this heavy capability will influence the IPC cost of Cruisers and/or maybe this special ability could be limited for the first cycle of combat only...

What do you think about it? :D
Creator and Administrator of A&A.IT, the first Italian Community of A&A players on the web

..::Sergente nella neve::..

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2672
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:33 am

I'm not Larry, of course, but I'll throw in my 2 IPCs.

Opening fire is a very powerful ability, especially for a unit that hits 50% of the time, as cruisers presumably would. There would have to be a pretty significant trade-off to balance a unit that could completely suppress its enemies half the time. Even subs, which only hit on a 2, have this ability negated by enemy destroyers.

Giving one unit type an advantage like this generally causes an "arms race" in which both sides build only that unit type in order to attempt to gain superiority. Cruisers would need to have either a high cost relative to other ships or have some other weakness in order for them to not dominate naval combat under these conditions.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:52 pm

Battleships should have this ability to represent long range guns..

Cruisers should move 3 spaces... They were long distance ships that had great range before refueling. I would allow them to move attack and if they have MP left over allocate them to move again during NCM.

The other facet of these vessels was they were made in some cases as Anti- Aircraft gun platforms and were primary to protect and escort surface ships from air combat assaults.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:45 pm

I’m exactly where Krieghund is on cruisers.
As for 3 movement spaces…. I considered it, but dropped the idea. The idea of a an anti-aircraft platform – too specific and detailed for this level. Thanks anyway.

Romulus
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:04 pm

Post by Romulus » Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:09 am

The idea of the opening fire is a speculation made on our italian forum.

The idea is bond to the scale of the game and some historical considerations. A fleet had usually a vanguard or exploring group forward in respect to the main body. Usually the exploring group is composed of Cruisers. Giving them the opening fire abilities should represent the fact that Cruisers enter in battle before the main body fighting against enemy vanguard.

But maybe it is really a too much powerful feature for a units that should hit on 3.

I do not like the idea of cruiser moving 3 spaces nor the AA ability. There were some class of cruisers specifically designed for AA defence of the fleet, but not all the type of cruiser are able to that. Heavy Cruiser (for example Japanese Takao) or Light Cruiser (english Leander) are not so strong AA platforms.
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat

Member of Axis and Allies Italia, the FIRST Italian Forum on the web

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Jun 21, 2008 1:59 pm

The cruiser had by far the longest range of a fleet unit before refueling...and on top of that they generally were the fastest ships...so a movement of 3 makes sence considering they cruise farther than other ships.

But i would also make carriers move 3 spaces as well.


Also, I would give the natural abilities of each ship to make each independently viable purchase and give them some character to the game.

Battleships had long range guns that dominated them over other ships. These should fire preemptively first against surface ships, except when another battleship is defending

Destroyers are ASW dedicated ships, but offer limited escort duty to transports

Cruisers are quick ships that can keep pace with Carriers ( also moving three) and defend them against aerial assault, because they have larger gun platforms to accommodate lots of AA guns on deck.

Go look up these vessels on internet to see how they were used in WW2.

Also, most importantly... Transports were never taken into surface naval attacks and used to absorb hits from REAL warship combat. If that were ever tried 1) transports moved too slow to keep up with fleet units at battle speed and would not even get to "fight" 2) Transports cant jump in front of warships to take hits like some bodyguard 3) transports represent only non- combative warship types...no longer can you bring up the silly argument to me that transports actually represent cruisers or destroyers. they don't.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:16 pm

I am exactly where IL is on naval units

Battleships had long range big guns who sunk enemy surface ships before they were in range to fire back, so battleships should roll all dice, not just shore bombard, in opening fire phase just like subs. Of course this will make them powerful, and to balance that you must let fighters choose naval targets.

Cruisers and carriers should move 3 spaces, actually all ships should move 3 except trannies and subs. After all trannies use time to embark and debark troops, and travel real slow. Also subs travel slow. Now if I was the designer, cruisers and carriers should move 4, battleships and destroyers move 3, and trannies and subs move only 2.

Also I miss the ports from A&A Pacific, since they speeded up the movement, and made territories with ports important strategig objects. Pacific game is about putting your fleets in positions adjacent to ports, that favours specific moves, and you win by moving with faster speed that your opponent, or by stalling him down his speed. Revised game is just trading back and forth, build up a stack and wait, the fastet carrier and the slowest tranny all move 2 spaces, funny to the kids but not to adult wargamers. I wish I was not a piece junkie, then I could buy a real counter or block game.

Romulus
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:04 pm

Post by Romulus » Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:41 pm

Imperious Leader, I would like to disagree. Different categories of Cruisers existed in WWII. And some have more AA capabilities than other. Light Cruisers typically are well suited for escort missions and AA fire.
Heavy Cruisers are well suited for surface combat, but need to be escorted against sub and aircrafts.

If a single cruisers miniature represents a single class of cruisers we should make clear if they are light cruisers and antiaircraft cruisers, with AA capabilities to escort and defend the fleet but limited surface combat abilities,) or heavy cruisers strong in surface combat (but needing escort).
They could even be BattleCruisers!

If they represents a mix of DD, light and heavy Cruisers then they may behave as you said.
But I agree with you when you say:
... no longer can you bring up the silly argument to me that transports actually represent cruisers or destroyers. they don't.
So also Cruisers should not represents different kind of ships.
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat

Member of Axis and Allies Italia, the FIRST Italian Forum on the web

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests