The one thing I hate the most!

[Bismarck]

Is how cruisers are auto-hit by battleships at any range.
You have Iowa or Richelieu shooting at any cruiser in the game at range 5 (supposedly 25 km or so) and they will get a hit every time.

I know most things in the game are not realistic but battleships should not be able to get an automatic hit against cruisers at extreme range.

[TheJudge]

Simply house rule Extended Range 5 to not exist. Er 4 is the longest and that is a big enough problem already! :)

[Vornargith]

Evasive Maneuvers: Declare this at the end of your movement phase for a specific ship. Main gunnery attacks against it are -1 per die roll (Cumulative with other Modifiers). However, the evasive ship also imposes -1 to main gunnery roll to itself that turn.

Battleships, Carriers and Auxilliaries cannot perform evasive maneuvers.

[Bismarck]

Simply house rule Extended Range 5 to not exist. Er 4 is the longest and that is a big enough problem already! :)

I just mentioned the Iowa and Richelieu because extended range 5 is the most absurd in this context. You shouldn´t be able to auto-hit cruisers at range 4 either in my opinion.

[Snippersly]

Just extend the updated rules to Cruisers. Main guns can't be used against Destroyers or Cruiser. To fast and small to hit?

Snip

["Sink the Bismark"]

Just extend the updated rules to Cruisers. Main guns can't be used against Destroyers or Cruiser. To fast and small to hit?

Snip

But a BB would be able to hit a heavy cruiser at close range.

[ericjohn]

Is it really that unrealistic? My naval history isn't as deep as a lot of folks on this board, but I do know cruisers were not expected to stand up to battleships period. I think they would be expected to be demolished in short order if nothing else is around to draw the BBs fire.

Given that each turn is 10 minutes and represents many shots, it seems reasonable to think a cruiser is going to suffer some pain if it gets in BB range; especially against a late war BB like Iowa under radar control etc... Yes you could imagine a situation where the cruiser "flits around the edges" of the BB's extreme range, or else just gets lucky on where the shells fall, and maybe gets away with it, but then that could be simulated if the BB rolls a *whole* lot of ones...

I do like the idea floated on the board of taking away dice at ER4 & 5, which would make it slightly less automatic

[doganpc]

I wouldn't mind trying hit only on 6's at ER:5 (still counts two) and hit only on 5 or 6 at ER:4. That may stem from my constant vitaling of Battleships at ER4 though.

Doganpc
Oh no you sunk my Battleship!

[Rebel_Commander]

The best thing to do is stay out of range. Cruisers are decent sized ships and would be subject to long range bombardment by BBs. I like the idea about the dice or maybe at extended range only give them the evasize manuever like destroyers get.

[Vornargith]

Is it really that unrealistic? My naval history isn't as deep as a lot of folks on this board, but I do know cruisers were not expected to stand up to battleships period. I think they would be expected to be demolished in short order if nothing else is around to draw the BBs fire.

Given that each turn is 10 minutes and represents many shots, it seems reasonable to think a cruiser is going to suffer some pain if it gets in BB range; especially against a late war BB like Iowa under radar control etc... Yes you could imagine a situation where the cruiser "flits around the edges" of the BB's extreme range, or else just gets lucky on where the shells fall, and maybe gets away with it, but then that could be simulated if the BB rolls a *whole* lot of ones...

I do like the idea floated on the board of taking away dice at ER4 & 5, which would make it slightly less automatic

Absolutely correct ... It was totally realistic ... cruisers were designed to ran away from Battleships ... not engage them. The bigger cruisers often had less armor and bigger guns ... to deal with other cruisers ... and run away from bigger guys. When it came to dealing with battleships... aircraft were best suited for the job... one reason why the battleship became obsolete.

[brimax]

I like the Evasive manouvers rule, sounds just like Victory at Sea.

Brimax

[PaulG]

Just extend the updated rules to Cruisers. Main guns can't be used against Destroyers or Cruiser. To fast and small to hit?

Snip


I kind of like this. Off hand the only hits at what would be ER in game terms that i can recall happening during the war was BB on BB actions.

Perhaps Warspite or someone with a better grasp of history than I could chime in on this point.

[aquarius]

Nah, it should just be you can hit on 5 and 6 at ER4, and 6 at ER5. Otherwise, your BBs can't do anything to fend off the torpedoes of cruisers (especially Japanese ones :D)

[Poseidon]

Not crying about it works just as good as all the above mentioned.

Run away from the Iowa, or Yamato, or Richelieu or whatever like you're supposed to and down it with subs or aircraft, again like you're supposed to.

[aquarius]

I meant if anything had to be done about it, we should do what I said. However, yes, it does work fine right now.

[Poseidon]

I meant if anything had to be done about it, we should do what I said. However, yes, it does work fine right now.

Sorry wasn't meant at you. Meant at Bismark. (Thread owner.)

[Conjurer]

BBs should be able to get hits against cruisers, every time. It's historical and it makes good gameplay sense. Use cruisers to fight other cruisers and to kill destroyers and carriers.

You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you don't set cruisers against BBs. :p

[Sean-Khan]

Maybe it is realistic, but still makes wonder if cruisers are worth their points even after making destroyers worth something. Especially Japanese cruisers that pay a LOT for their torpedoes. If a cruiser doesn't even have a chance to launch it's expensive torpedoes against enemy battleship, they feel like total waste of points...

[Conjurer]

Cruisers are useful in that you can use them against carriers, destroyers, enemy cruisers and small craft while your battleship engages the enemy battleship. This can be an important capability, especially when using the revised ruleset, where destroyers etc. have significantly increased survivability vs. BBs, but not against cruisers.

The key in doing this is to make sure your opponent's BB always has a more attractive target to shoot at: namely, a battleship of your own. :cool:

[Vornargith]

In the end, if I'm gonna pay 50+ points for a juggernaut -- I want something that will run through a cruiser like a hot knife through butter. In a 500 pt. hack-n-slash without objectives, I can see where a BB can pose a big threat when all the ships engage head-on. But in a balanced game with a map large enough to move around in, the cruisers have the space they need to tuck-tail and run and aircraft/subs should be used to take on the BBs.

[TheJudge]

Simply stated, cruisers are typically less than half the points of a battleship right?

Washington is 56 points, 2 Myokos are 48 points. The key is speed. A Washington was a 33 knot ship and about 45,000 tons. A Myoko was at least a 33 knot cruiser at about 13,000 tons so should be able to easily outmaneuver a battleship. It doesn't work this way in the game though. A Myoko can try to move in to attack the BB with topredoes, it's best asset, but the Washington can simply move away at the same speed while still being able to fire at the cruiser at range 4. This is what is so frustrating.

2 Myoko's against a Washington on standard map? One Myoko should be sunk before the other Myoko gets close enough to fire it's torpedoes and chances are, if it gets to range 1 and shoots 3 torpedo dice, it has a very slight chance of crippling the BB while the BB should blow the cruiser out of the water.

Advantage- Long range and extended range gunnery.

In another scenario, say a 200 point game where you have 4 Myoko's against 2 Iowa's, again, they cannot outmaneuver the Iowa's, they can only try to rush in and pin them against the back of the map or a corner and the Iowa is going to blast them before they can do much damage. A cruisers guns, typically 8 inch will almost never hit a battleship.

Long Lance is the big wild card. If you can get close enoughto shoot 3 of them and get a hit, it's 2 damage, 3 on a ship with no belt but normally 2 damage. This is the big reason why IJN cruisers are so scary but a good commander rolling average dice should have no worries against 4 Myoko's vs 2 Iowa's.

[TheJudge]

On a point for point basis, do some homework. Take an Iowa, which is 68 points and use a 2 Myoko's and a Yukikaze and try to swarm the Iowa. Try it 3-4 times and record the results. You SHOULD find that each time, the Iowa cripples or sinks one cruiser at ER 5, the other cruiser gets crippled or sunk at ER4, and the 3rd Myoko gets to shoot 3 torpedoes, lucky to hit with one of them doing 2 damage or 1/3 of the Iowa's hull. Guess what happens on turn 3? The last Myoko is blown away and the destroyer sunk with secondaries but each gets off 2 torpedoes and 1 torpedo so again, being lucky to get 1 6 on 3 dice, the Iowa is at 4 damage and not even crippled yet but just sank about 30,000 tons of warships in 3 turns. Simply not a good matchup.

The answer? Evasion is reasonable, roll a 5 or 6 and the main guns were evaded but either banning ER5 all together or making it hit on 6's only is another answer but the Iowa rolls 15 dice I believe at range 5! Myoko is vital armor 10 so with 6's counting as 2 hits, it is almost impossible to miss the Myoko at range 5, it would have to be an awful roll. all you need is 2 sixes out of 15 dice! Not hard to do.

A better answer is to deal with battleships in the traditional manner, attack them with lots of planes and other battleships. In a 200 point game, if Iowa and Richilieu are your worries and you are playing the IJN, use:

Yamato-70, Shokaku x2- 40, Val x4-40, 2 Zekes-12, and if my memory serves, 3 I-19 is 36 I think. If they are 13, use 2 I-19 and some other planes, another landbased Val as you are certain to get some shot down by the sick AA of Iowa(9). Reserves are important.

Yamato can go head to head with one Iowa while the Val's attack the Richilieu with 12 bomb dice, take out the ER 5 and it becomes a more level field. It's all speculation of course. You might show up to a gun fight and the opponent is using silly string(submarines). :D

[Poseidon]

On a point for point basis, do some homework. Take an Iowa, which is 68 points and use a 2 Myoko's and a Yukikaze and try to swarm the Iowa. Try it 3-4 times and record the results. You SHOULD find that each time, the Iowa cripples or sinks one cruiser at ER 5, the other cruiser gets crippled or sunk at ER4, and the 3rd Myoko gets to shoot 3 torpedoes, lucky to hit with one of them doing 2 damage or 1/3 of the Iowa's hull. Guess what happens on turn 3? The last Myoko is blown away and the destroyer sunk with secondaries but each gets off 2 torpedoes and 1 torpedo so again, being lucky to get 1 6 on 3 dice, the Iowa is at 4 damage and not even crippled yet but just sank about 30,000 tons of warships in 3 turns. Simply not a good matchup.


Simply, why the double you tee eff would you do this regardless? All this QQ because people can't get near a BB with their normal ships without taking some serious damage.

Well duh'.

Answer is simple, swarm it with aircraft and submarines. If you don't do this, then sorry, you deserve to loose. I've never had a problem with BB's because I'm smart enough to not charge my mighty destroyers at them.:rolleyes:

[Vornargith]

If you use the optional facing rules, the Cruisers will be able to outmaneuver the BBs.

[TheJudge]

Simply, why the double you tee eff would you do this regardless? All this QQ because people can't get near a BB with their normal ships without taking some serious damage.

Well duh'.

Answer is simple, swarm it with aircraft and submarines. If you don't do this, then sorry, you deserve to loose. I've never had a problem with BB's because I'm smart enough to not charge my mighty destroyers at them.:rolleyes:


As easy as this sounds, since people were asking, I thought I would explain it in detail and not just a "no sh*t sherlock" answer. We have so many new players to the boards that a question deserves a respectful answer.

[dracos42]

Equal points of cruisers versus equal points of battleships, the battleships should win the fight. The battleships should expect to take damage, but they were designed to outmatch the cruisers. The typical design standard for armored ships was to armor the ship against its own main guns. So cruisers, at most, are armored to withstand 8"/203mm shells. Battleships, you're looking at 13" to 18" shells. Even the battlecruisers were armored to easily withstand 8" shellfire.

If the cruisers can get in close, like a night action, the cruisers can come out even, maybe even win a fight. First Guadacanal is an example of that. 8" shells can batter through a battlewagon's sides at close range.

Once I tried a Battlewagon scenario with 3 later US treaty CAs vs. one of the Italian older BBs. The Italian ship won with ease and only minor damage. The cruisers couldn't get close enough to do real damage.

Mike L.

[Joey]

As easy as this sounds, since people were asking, I thought I would explain it in detail and not just a "no sh*t sherlock" answer. We have so many new players to the boards that a question deserves a respectful answer.

Amen to that... But then again, some people need to feel smarter than the others...;)

[Bismarck]

The thread was not about whether x points of cruisers should beat x points of battleships.

It was about the fact that battleships are guaranteed a hit whenever they fire at cruisers no matter the range.

A battleship firing at a cruiser for 10 minutes (1 game turn) should not be guaranteed a hit from a distance of 20 or 25 km (ER 4 or 5).

It´s probably one of the three most unrealistic things in the game.

[aquarius]

What are the other two?

[Vornargith]

I think a cruiser going head-to-head with a Battleship is guaranteed complete destruction with 5 minutes.

[LoneWolf]

ER4 -1, ER5 -2.

Been said, but yeh that would help a little.

If that isn't enough, the other sujestion can be used as well.

Ships smaller then a BB get something simular to chasing the salvos at extended range.

5-6 ignore the damage.

[dracos42]

The thread was not about whether x points of cruisers should beat x points of battleships.

It was about the fact that battleships are guaranteed a hit whenever they fire at cruisers no matter the range.

A battleship firing at a cruiser for 10 minutes (1 game turn) should not be guaranteed a hit from a distance of 20 or 25 km (ER 4 or 5).

It´s probably one of the three most unrealistic things in the game.

Battleships aren't guaranteed a hit at cruisers. The dice can still roll bad. I may not understand your arguement though.

One way to reduce the effectiveness of ER 4 and 5 gunfire is to continue the reduction of gunnery dice at those range brackets.

Mike L.

[Joey]

This game is meant to be fast, thats why, in my opinion, one-shot-one-kill is more common than it should be. With the current rules, the Hood was not that unlucky, this kind of **** happens everyday... So, I have two suggestion for you that could help you with this problem. First one is, each sixes count as one success instead of two, this way BB and others will have a harder time to vital the cruisers and carriers, but on the downside, ships with 9 or 10 of armor will be nearly unsinkable, except with torpedoes, wich will bring back the subs fleet. An other solution that I use with my friends when we want a little more tactical feel; I use all the dice for damage and one little dice roll modified depending on range for attack. This way, the bigger the ship, the easier to hit.

When attacking an other BB or a CV with the BB main gunnery, it takes 2+ to hit at range 0-1, 3+ at range 2, 4+ at range 3, 5+ at 4 and, if played with, 6+ at range 5. add one to the difficulty for cruisers and CVL and 2 for destroyers. If the score needed is over 6, it can't attack the target. reduce the difficulty by one when attacking with secondary, cruiser or destroyer gunnery. Other modifiers is introduce when playing at night or in bad weather, or depending on the crew of the ship.

Anyway, what I mean is, I don't think the problem you mention will be officially solved since a lot of people likes it the way it is, so your better option is to find a house rule that pleases you and your friends, or better yet, make your own. This game is basically arcade style: fast, bloody and costly.;)

[TheJudge]

Battleships are pretty much guaranteed to hit cruisers at almost any range because the best armor on a cruiser is 5(Baltimore), most are 4 or even 3 armor so throwing say, 12 dice, you should hit every time, only a bad roll saves you and yes, this does happen but rarely.

Let's look at history though.

The Admiral Graf Spee took on 2 light and 1 heavy cruiser at River Plate. From fairly long range, probably 12,000 yards +, Graf Spee heavily damaged Exeter and did some damage to the other 2 ships while taking moderate damage herself. No ships were sunk as a result of the run and gun battle. The cruisers never got close enough for torpedo shots that I know of.

In the Bismarck battle, Prinz Eugen was very involved but Prince of Wales and Hood were not shooting at Prinz Eugen since the biggest threat was from Bismarck. Understandably so.

In Surigao Strait, Mogami and Yamashiro were sitting ducks against 6 battleships and like 8 heavy cruisers and it's amazing that Mogami didn't sink outright.

Last but not least, Cape Matapan had 3 Italian cruisers, at night against all manner of British ships and they were basically blown out of the water with nary a shot fired in return. This might be the best example of thinly armored cruisers getting shot at by 15 inch guns.

In all honesty, a cruiser should not last more than a few minutes against a battleship, at least a modern one anyway. Cruisers typically have 3"-8" armor and are built for speed, not the battle line. The exception in this game are the IJN cruisers and the Long Lance torpedoes which you want to sacrifice your cruisers to score hits with the torpedoes. If you fire your torpedoes at destroyers and other cruisers and not the battleship(s), well, you deserve to lose the game I guess.

Cruisers were made to attack other cruisers and smaller ships as well as provide scouting and AA protection, not to form a battle line and go head to head with larger ships like the old days of sail. Speed doesn't mean squat against radar fired gunnery.

My advice is to not let the cruisers get in range of an enemy battleship. Easier said than done but that should be the strategy. If you have 4 cruisers in your fleet and the opponent has a battleship, try to swarm it or die fighting.Otherwise, next time, bring a battleship. :)

[Poseidon]

My advice is to not let the cruisers get in range of an enemy battleship. Easier said than done but that should be the strategy. If you have 4 cruisers in your fleet and the opponent has a battleship, try to swarm it or die fighting.Otherwise, next time, bring a battleship. :)

Best advice yet.

[swarbs]

The overwhelmingly likely historical outcome of a cruiser or two taking on a battleship was death, just because in the game this is abstracted by battleships easily killed cruisers, often at extended range, this doesn't seem bad. Games have to abstract things somehow and this games system, in this case, upholds history, why is that bad? I'd be more worried that a squadron of dive-bombers stands little chance of even damaging, especially without expert bomber, the Iowa or Yamato, before the battleship runs down the enemy carrier (which it was probably slower than) and destroys it. Especially when Yamato was overcome by massed aerial attack. Let's not complain about the stuff the game simulates well.

[Richter von Manthofen]

One question in the example 3 myokos + a Yuki you had 3 torpedo hits - with Long Lances that are 6 points damage - enough to kill a IOWA...

(Torpedo does 2 damage +1 for long lance -1 for Torpedo defense)

But I also play it 6 to hit at range 5 5+ at range 4

After all long range hits were rare occurances (more so on smaller ships like cruisers)

[MarcusAurelius]

Joey, Judge and Swarbs, well-stated.

The basic principle behind cruisers is simple. They're designed to be strong enough to destroy other cruisers or smaller vessels. But they're also fast enough to outrun battleships. And they should run.

Consider this: the USS Baltimore — a state-of-the-art cruiser in 1943 — had a total broadside weight of 3,000 pounds (9 x 8" 55 cal rounds). Yamato, on the other hand, could unleash almost 30,000 pounds of shells in a single salvo (9 x 18.1" 45 cal) — 10 times as much destructive power. That doesn't even include secondaries. Yamato also enjoyed the additional advantage of greater range and armor protection. It's just not a fair fight.

If you only look at how cruisers stack up against battleships in War at Sea, they're not worth the points. (Battleships don't exactly fare too well against submarines, either). But cruisers can be highly effective against a wide range of other units — including enemy cruisers, destroyers and aircraft.

[Vornargith]

Even a "near-miss" from a BBs big gun could damage the hull of a cruiser. Deckhands on board the escort carriers of Taffy 3 were knock senseless by the shockwaves of near-misses.

Perhaps "Chasing Salvos" or "Evasive Action" should be a maneuvering option available to all ships ... with some quid-pro-quo calculated into it of course. If we keep taking away advantages from the BBs, it'll just unbalance the intended game-play..

[doganpc]

Rob came up with this last Tuesday.
Ships with extended range shouldn't be able to target ships at sector 0.

The idea is that a battleship designed to engage at range would not be able to lower the main guns to the point where it can fire effectively at close range. What I don't know off hand is if this is even a viable idea at the scale we are working at (5,000yrd sectors?). Doesn't help getting in range, but it seems like an interesting idea. Encouraging more balanced fleets, since you'll want to protect the big boats at close range.

Doganpc
I hear and see things then I ask the ?

[HMAS Stuie]

Not crying about it works just as good as all the above mentioned.

Run away from the Iowa, or Yamato, or Richelieu or whatever like you're supposed to and down it with subs or aircraft, again like you're supposed to.

I am with you mate, Thats the reason a cruiser is virtually nothing in point in comparrisson. If I took 6 french destroyers to try and destroy the Richelu as a test, I would back the destroyers any day, it is about sacrafice if you dont have the aircraft. let ships do the role they were intended and they will do much better

[Bismarck]

Again, nobody is saying cruisers should beat battleships in a straight up battle. The problem in my mind is that cruisers don´t get any of their historical benefits over the bigger ships in the game. Cruisers generally have the same speed as battleships in the game and they can be targeted from equal distance.
Something tells me that is should be harder for dive bombers to hit a cruiser than a big aircraft carrier, yet it´s easier for them to get a hit against cruisers in the game. To my knowledge a cruiser was never hit from the distance of 20 km or more in WW2, yet it´s an (almost) automatic hit in the game from a battleship or a cruiser that is capable of extended range.
I know the game is not anywhere close to being realistic but I feel the cruiser type is getting the shaft. Battleships are of course more powerful than historically because of the closed arena format and subs considerably more powerful than they were historically because of a number of reasons. Destroyers got some nice adjustments in the rule update so they are more attractive now. Torpedo cruisers did get the "simultanious torpedo" rule but so did destroyers that are now also more effective against sub than before.
I don´t know. Maybe I´m biased, some of my favorite ships are cruisers and they tend to lose games for me...

[Poseidon]

I'm sorry I'd have to disagree with you. And honestly don't think you have any grounds for complaint. I think the game is very balanced if you use everything in it's proper capacity. If you do so you won't be loosing games, and if you do loose, it's cause you rolled poorly. Personally, my BB's have never even done me much good, sunk a few ships, but I wouldn't say they were game altering.

Sorry, but IMO it's not that their to powerful, or the game is unbalanced, you're just not playing smartly.

[PaulG]

Its a scissors papers rock thing.

Assuming points are equal, BBs beat cruisers; Cruisers beat DDs; DDs beat submarines; submarines beat BBs.

[Diamondback]

Simple fix: ER rolls are at -1. All BBs, BC's and fleet carriers (not lights like Princeton, or CVE's) gain Large Target: -1 Extended range penalties do not apply against this ship. Baltimore gets Large Target, too, because it was actually longer than many prewar battleships. (Heck, the Brooklyn CLs were a few feet longer than the Arizona IIRC!)

[HMAS Stuie]

I'm sorry I'd have to disagree with you. And honestly don't think you have any grounds for complaint. I think the game is very balanced if you use everything in it's proper capacity. If you do so you won't be loosing games, and if you do loose, it's cause you rolled poorly. Personally, my BB's have never even done me much good, sunk a few ships, but I wouldn't say they were game altering.

Sorry, but IMO it's not that their to powerful, or the game is unbalanced, you're just not playing smartly.

Absolutley agree. Cruisers didnt get hit from 20ks away because they held their ground and ducked under gun range to engage and then scooted out. They would also attack in numbers with support. You can take 4 cruisers to one battleship and that is more than a match

[PaulG]

(Heck, the Brooklyn CLs were a few feet longer than the Arizona IIRC!)


It's not the length that's important it's the width.

[RichardBaker]

Just to weigh in...

First, the standard battle scenario puts cruisers fighting battleships in the worst possible situation: Broad daylight with not a single squall, fog bank, or bit of haze to hide behind. Play in darkness or dirty up the board with LOS-blocking weather effects, and the cruisers will last longer.

Second, cruisers didn't mix it up with battleships very often in WW2... and I couldn't find many occasions where the cruisers came away on top when they did. *Maybe* in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, where South Dakota got raked by gunfire... but she was taking 14" rounds too. Or possibly the Battle of the North Cape, where a couple of British cruisers gave the Scharnhorst a bad time... but then again, one of the King George V battleships (Anson, I think?) was there too.

Third, the combat engine basically assumes that over the course of the turn *some* rounds will hit. Really, the attack roll is a test of armor penetration at its heart. We round that off at the corners (for example, if you shoot at a destroyer and miss, you probably just missed it clean), but evasion and special abilities account for most of those assumptions. Under that assumption, yeah, cruisers suffer under battleship main batteries.

Finally, you're right: Cruisers generally ought to have a speed edge over battleships so that they can choose to engage or decline engagement. Unfortunately, the game's too grainy to distinguish between a 32-knot cruiser and a 29-knot battleship. In real life that cruiser could haul out of danger pretty quickly, but no so in the game. If this really bugs you, the best patch is probably the use of a "staggered" movement sequence where lighter ships get to move after bigger ships. It would be the easiest fix for you.

[seamus]

Its a scissors papers rock thing.

Assuming points are equal, BBs beat cruisers; Cruisers beat DDs; DDs beat submarines; submarines beat BBs.
BB can also beat DDs with ease with their secondary and tritary guns.
Cruisers are left out:(
Cruisers are indeed underpowered in this game, especially axis ones.

[seamus]

BB can also beat DDs with ease with their secondary and tritary guns.
Cruisers are left out:(
Cruisers are indeed underpowered in this game, especially axis ones.

Sooooooooooooooo............
Just decrease the price of all the cruisers!!!!!!!!!!!;)
Cost/Effectiveness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND some other units as well, like the italian MBT..

That what i play and it's a looooooooooot of fun:)

[PaulG]

Second, cruisers didn't mix it up with battleships very often in WW2... and I couldn't find many occasions where the cruisers came away on top when they did. *Maybe* in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, where South Dakota got raked by gunfire... but she was taking 14" rounds too. Or possibly the Battle of the North Cape, where a couple of British cruisers gave the Scharnhorst a bad time... but then again, one of the King George V battleships (Anson, I think?) was there too.


How about the second Battle of the Sirte?

4 British cruisers and 18 Destroyers prevent the Littorio, 5 Cruisers and 8 escorting destroyers from attacking the convoy they were protecting.

[Muenchausen]

How about the second Battle of the Sirte?

4 British cruisers and 18 Destroyers prevent the Littorio, 5 Cruisers and 8 escorting destroyers from attacking the convoy they were protecting.

Sometimes necessity overrides self presevation. Of such are heros made.

[Conjurer]

Absolutley agree. Cruisers didnt get hit from 20ks away because they held their ground and ducked under gun range to engage and then scooted out. They would also attack in numbers with support. You can take 4 cruisers to one battleship and that is more than a match

Not in WaS... I tested precisely that setup, with four Baltimores going up against one Yamato.

Ten test matches may be too small a sampling for a truly iron-clad conclusion, but in those ten matches the cruisers never put Yamato in serious danger; in fact, they only damaged her one time.

You are not going to kill true battleships with cruisers. Battlecruisers should be vulnerable to cruiser " swarming " tactics, but not the real BBs. You need opposing BBs, subs or sustained air attacks if you want to sink one.

[PaulG]

The only time that BBs should be scared by cruisers is if they're ambushed at night within torpedo range. I think the game as it stands does an excellent job of representing this.

Where I have a gripe is that cruisers getting blown out of the water at ER 4 and 5 isn't supported by my reading of what happened in battle (disclaimer, my focus is the Mediterranean)

[LoneWolf]

Not in WaS... I tested precisely that setup, with four Baltimores going up against one Yamato.


Instantly why it failed....... No torpedos.

Honestly 4x exeter would do better.

4x Canberra would as well

and hell even 3x Jinstu and 1x tone..........

I hate to say it, but I have done it. 100 point game, against the rodney. I lost 2 cruisers before the cruiser/destroyer swarm downed the rodney.

[Conjurer]

Instantly why it failed....... No torpedos.

Honestly 4x exeter would do better.

4x Canberra would as well

and hell even 3x Jinstu and 1x tone..........

I hate to say it, but I have done it. 100 point game, against the rodney. I lost 2 cruisers before the cruiser/destroyer swarm ( my emphasis - Conjurer ) downed the rodney.

Historically ( which is how I always play, with one upcoming exception ), you cannot have more than two Exeters or Canberras.

Also, a cruiser/destroyer swarm is not the same as four cruisers vs. one BB.

Even so, I take your point, and will test Iowa against Myoko, Tone and two Jintsus ( I'd rather have only the heavy IJN cruisers for the test, but those are the only four IJN cruisers I have ). Long Lance is formidable if an IJN cruiser can get close enough, which would happen in such testing. So, we shall see! :cool:

[LoneWolf]

Historically ( which is how I always play, with one upcoming exception ), you cannot have more than two Exeters or Canberras.

Also, a cruiser/destroyer swarm is not the same as four cruisers vs. one BB.

Even so, I take your point, and will test Iowa against Myoko, Tone and two Jintsus ( I'd rather have only the heavy IJN cruisers for the test, but those are the only four IJN cruisers I have ). Long Lance is formidable if an IJN cruiser can get close enough, which would happen in such testing. So, we shall see! :cool:

And I know that with the exeter,

Caberra isn't restricted by historical limits, and it shouldn't be by custom historical limits either.

They weren't the only county-class cruisers, just the only 2 (kent class) of the 3 (county class) the RAN had.

Though you are right cruiser/destroyer swarm isn't 4x cruiser, but the example still shows cruisers can down nasty BB's as the majority was cruisers. Especaily under the new rules.

[Conjurer]

You're correct regarding Canberra - my bad. I guess I was thinking of her as a rare because out of three cases and several boosters and starters, I've only drawn one. :o

I know the value of destroyer swarms and have used the tactic, though I prefer having a BB available whenever possible ( duking it out is more fun, and makes for faster gameplay ).

Anyway, I'll put the IJN cruisers against Iowa, and we'll see how it comes out. :cool:

[LoneWolf]

You're correct regarding Canberra - my bad. I guess I was thinking of her as a rare because out of three cases and several boosters and starters, I've only drawn one. :o


I know exactly how you feel!

I had to trade to get my first :(

RAN/RN

and

IJN are the best cruisers for beating BB's though. It doesn't hold as true from other nation's cruisers as they have comparably weaker torpedos.

[Darnoc]

I have sent 4 Yukikaze's up agenst the Iowa and have won an a Bad senario I have on one Cripled Yukikaze left in most cases I have one or two unharmed It dose come out difent if you ad aircover the divebombers make a big diffence.
When you attack with Yukikaze you must be willing of sacufice several and it will come out ok. You need oly to get whin a range of 3 and only get one hit they do 3 hull so the Iowa would take 2 taking away the ER and then only needing two more 6's that seem about right.

[PaulG]

You can have two Canberras on the map at the same time in the game

The USS Canberra (Baltimore class) and the RAN Canberra.

[Conjurer]

I took a few hours today to test Iowa against two Jintsus, one Tone and one Myoko. Twenty matches were played.

Iowa claimed seventeen victories, suffered two defeats and there was one tie. She would have had a tougher time against four heavy cruisers, so a combination of Tones and Myokos is the way to go if you have the units available.