Cruisers

Kuciwalker · January 4, 2004, 23:37

I love these things. In a Monarch game as the Byzantines (one of my new favorite civs) in the Industrial era I had a lead of about two techs on the upper branch (no one else had Steel or Refining). The Egyptians declared war the same turn I got Combustion (we're both on our own continents in an 80% water small archipelago game) so I upgrade my ten or so Ironclads to Destroyers (interestingly, Ironclads lasted for quite a while in this game). The RNG sacrifices SIX

of these to Egyptian Ironclads. No problem! I tell about half of my coastal cities (the ones that just finished Stock Markets) to work on Cruisers, and in five or six turns I have about 20 Cruisers. Bye-bye Egyptian fleet (no losses this time). I then proceed to wipe the floor with the Aztecs, Russia, and Japan

, all of whom allied against me. I land an Infantry army outside of each capital and sue for peace, getting some nice gpt.

The thing about Cruisers I like is they often take several fewer turns to build than battleships, and they become available sooner. Given that they eat Ironclads and Frigates for breakfast, there's no real need for a Battleship's extra firepower anyways. And later, the AA is kinda nice

Inverse Icarus · January 4, 2004, 23:38

BBs should be given a "double bombard" ability.

Aqualung71 · January 5, 2004, 03:12

Cruisers rock - the AA is very useful, and as you've pointed out they are cheaper than Battleships and not much less powerful.

The Destroyer is now a much better option than it used to be due to it's significantly greater speed than a Battleship....I now find myself building Destroyers over Battleships - you can build more of them and they get to the battle faster. Almost never built them pre-C3C

CerberusIV · January 5, 2004, 06:12

There is probably some merit in giving battleships lethal sea bombardment to rebalance a bit and make them more worthwhile. I did this in PTW and it certainly wasn't too strong when air units have lethal sea bombardment.

Theseus · January 6, 2004, 21:53

In a way, naval issues are finally getting balanced. I'm very happy now to set task forces of, say, 1 B, 2C, and 4 D at each critical post point or protecting a carrier.

In retrospect, I am actually surprised that the community wasn;t calling out for Cruisers from day one (although admittedly naval balance was such a mess).

Still not sure I like the various movement rates, although I expect that'll be addressed in the AU Mod and then in the June patch.

Kuciwalker · January 6, 2004, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
There is probably some merit in giving battleships lethal sea bombardment to rebalance a bit and make them more worthwhile. I did this in PTW and it certainly wasn't too strong when air units have lethal sea bombardment.

This may do it... though IMO in the situation I was in, Cruisers will ALWAYS be the best option (rather than taking the time to research one more tech and build a somewhat more expensive unit) because Cruisers and Battleships are equally invincible relative to Ironclads and Frigates

as it should be

Risa · January 7, 2004, 04:33

Battleships have an AA value of 2, while cruisers only 1. That makes battleships much better than cruisers.

Kuciwalker · January 7, 2004, 16:46

They do? Or is this something you are proposing?

:) Smiley · January 7, 2004, 17:34

What are Battleships good for now there are Cruisers? Sinking enemy cruisers, of course!