Escort Killer, Damage Control and Sprint would make a really fine light cruiser IMO. It also gets the cost out of the destroyer range (not counting long lancers) and I think that is good - probably an 11 plus or minus?
M-class Light Cruiser - München? Commissioned: Not completed Decommissioned: Not completed Displacement: 7,800 tons standard Length(OA): 600 ft, 4 in Beam: 55 ft, 9 in Speed: 35.5 kts Armor: belt 1.25 to 2 in (30-50mm), deck 0.75 to 1.25 in (20-35mm) (Same as previous light cruiser classes) Armament: 8 x 5.9 in (4 x 2), 4 x 3.5 in (2 x 2) AA, 8 x 37 mm AA (4 x 2), 4 x 20 mm AA (4 x 1), 8 x 21 in TT (2 x 4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stat proposal
"M"-class Light Cruiser - München? Year: 1941? (Previous light cruisers completed 2 years after keel laid.) Type: Cruiser Cost: ? Speed: 2 MG: 7/7/6/5 (See stat guidelines Ajax/Sydney) AA: 7 TT: 2/1? A/VA/HP: 3/9/3 Escort Killer - This unit can make two Gunnery attacks against separate targets during your Surface Attack phase if at least one of the targets is a Destroyer. Sprint - Once per game, at the beginning of your Sea Movement step, you can declare you're using Sprint. If you do, roll a die. On a 4 or higher, this unit gets +1 speed this turn.
Tough Cruiser 1 - Whenever an enemy Destroyer or Fighter makes a Gunnery attack against this unit, this unit gets +1 armor against that attack.
Except Escort Killer isn’t justified. On Savoia it’s a stand in for 6 4” guns. On Kent it’s a stand in for 4 4” guns. On the M you’re looking at 4 3.5” guns. Same guns as Émile Bertin which gets no gun SA. Same as Voroshilov with 6 3.9” guns, and York and the Leanders don’t get credit for 4 4” guns. Bande Nere gets nothing for 6 3.9” guns. Kinugasa has 4 4.7” guns. Atago has 8 5” guns.
I can see MNs point. Some of the SAs in this game were basically created to represent actual ship specifications that couldn't be reflected in the attack tables. Bristling with Guns was specifically designed for large ships with large secondary batteries of smallish caliber dual-purpose guns (5in/38 USN and 5.25in QF RN guns especially.)
But that brings me back to Raider as the only reasonable alternative I can find in the SA list. At least that still supports its role as a "destroyer brawler." Especially if it gets all three SAs which I think it should.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I think its a shame that the focus is on superseeding the historical units instead of trying to find a distinct role here.
As brawling cruisers go, hippers and deuchlands are excellent. Its not even a pressing need. And what ever point sensitive utility the K-Class, Nurnberg and Leipzig had is being deliberately eroded.
I think its a shame that the focus is on superseeding the historical units instead of trying to find a distinct role here.
As brawling cruisers go, hippers and deuchlands are excellent. Its not even a pressing need. And what ever point sensitive utility the K-Class, Nurnberg and Leipzig had is being deliberately eroded.
What utility does the K-class, Nurnberg and Leipzig have? They are all but useless IMO.
I understand your perspective, but I just can't see the point of making this a total bookmark in order to preserve units that are already near the bottom of the barrel. It would have been a newer design that tried to overcome the shortcomings of its predecessors. As with most Axis 'what-ifs' we give them a little benefit of the doubt to give the Axis some parity with the Allies. It's not like we are making a monster power unit here. This thing will still compare rather poorly to all but the weakest of the RN light cruisers.