Nation Specific (special) Units

[Trenacker]

I’ve long felt that naval combat on the AA map is actually too simplistic to allow for the variety of units that I might like.

My first thought was that I could add more sea zones to place a premium on the movement values of naval units. The idea was that this would make it worthwhile to build battlecruisers and cruisers rather than battleships. Unfortunately, it was pointed out to me that this throws the timescale off because it means that naval units take an unreasonably long time to cross oceans. If you’re OK with that, then try adding some new naval zones and see what happens.

Consider adding abilities (some perhaps card-driven). I came up with a concept that I call the “Naval Combat Search.” I’ve described it a few times on this forum. Basically, the players roll every time two naval or air forces meet at sea. Aircraft grant a bonus. Most of the time, the search is successful and a combat results. However, some of the time, fleets will steam past one another in the night or reconnaissance aircraft will miss something. No combat results and the pieces may move normally next turn or stick around to attempt another search.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Trenacker:

Just looking at the key concepts for which certain nations became known, I’d propose the following special units:

Germany: Heavy Tank (the Tiger is fine for this role). Alternatively, you could go with the '88 as a kind of cross between an AA gun and an anti-tank gun
Italy: Frogmen
U.K.: Battlecruiser, a kind of fast, lighter battleship
France: Foreign Legion
United States: Mechanized Infantry
Japan: Sure, the Yamato is fine. You could alternatively do a special submarine or fighter, or else simulate the Tokyo Express by allowing Destroyers to carry 1 infantry.
Russia: Militia is fine.
ANZAC: I’d give them a tougher infantry piece.

For Italian forces, maybe just give them more punch but less sustainability.
Special Italian Forces:
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 3
Cannot combined with Artillery,
One unit maybe carry on Battleship.

I was inspired by this old post:
@Baron:

@Baron:

A similar defense factor than Infantry but higher cost maybe can be enough to simulate the higher casualty rate of Elite, shock troops.
Whether it will be 4 or 5 IPCs, it remains a unit with Defense 2.

To see what I meant in numbers:
12 IPCs basis, on defense
3 Elite D2 C4 vs 4 Infantry D2 C3
19% vs 78 % odds of survival against Elite.

On offense,
3 Elite A2 C4 vs 4 A1 C3 Infantry
57% vs 40% odds for Elite.

---

15 IPCs basis
3 Elite D2 C5 vs 5 Infantry D2 C3
5% vs 94% against Elite.
3 Elite A2 C5 vs 4 A1 C3 Infantry
33% vs 65% against Elite

IDK which 4 or 5 IPCs will be prefered.
But, in both cases, Elite infantry on defense is never the optimized choice.

On offense, 4 IPCs Elite is better than regular Infantry.
But 5 IPCs Elite is 2 times worth for the same IPCs investment.
So, just wanted to note that both cost and combat value must be taken in account.
A similar defense for a single unit doesn’t consider the effect on hit taken due to higher or lower cost.

---

Even Elite vs Inf+ Artilery gives interesting  results.
7 Elite A2 C4 vs 4 (Inf A2 + Art A2) C7
23% vs 70% against Elite units.

7 Elite A2 C5 vs 5 (Inf A2 + Art A2) C7
5% vs 95% against Elite units.

@CWO:

@Baron:

higher cost maybe can be enough to simulate the higher casualty rate of Elite, shock troops.

(That’s the potential problem, by the way, with adjusting the combat value of any unit, regardless of its type, in order to make it a more attractive purchase.  If one or more of its values is boosted, the logical question that follows is: what’s the downside of this boost?  What trade-off was made to give the unit this boost?  If the answer is “The cost went up,” that’s fair enough. If the answer is “One of its other combat values was weakened,” that’s fine too. If the answer, however, is “There is no trade-off;  everything else stays the same,” then that’s a problem because it’s unrealistic to achieve a pure gain at no cost; it lets the player have his cake and eat it too.  WWII tank designs illustrated this principle well: at that time, boosting one or two tank capabilities [like armour protection and firepower] meant weakening another capability [like mobility] because the technology of those days couldn’t produce a tank design that excelled in all three areas.)

Based on what you said Marc,
I’m opened to even reduced defense factor of Elite if 5 IPCs seems to be more balanced to keep such Infantry unit at 4 IPCs.
So, if actual Elite A2 D2 C4 is too OP,
I would rather prefer a more historical units, than costlier one:

Elite Infantry (reduced sustainability)
Attack 2
Defense 1
Cost 4
Move CM1-NCM2
Load 1 on AirTP or 1 on Battleship.
Can load 2 on TP, or 1 with any other ground unit.
No combined arms, such as with Artillery.

To see what I meant in numbers:
12 IPCs basis, on defense
3 Elite D1 C4 vs 4 Infantry D2 C3
4% vs 96% odds of survival against Elite Infantry (reduced sustainability).

On offense,
3 Elite A2 C4 vs 4 A1 C3 Infantry
57% vs 40% odds for Elite Infantry.

[Caesar-Seriona]

The problem with doing a 2 attack and 1 defense at 3 is that you basically give no good reason to use infantry any more if your attacking.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Caesar:

The problem with doing a 2 attack and 1 defense at 3 is that you basically give no good reason to use infantry any more if your attacking.

If you want to hold the conquered ground, you will prefer regular infantry.
Also, you can get the same attack factor if you paired with Artillery.

I know that usually attack value cost more than same defense values.
So, if you want it less attractive, make it 4 IPCs unit A2 D1 M1, but able to travel on Battleship and Cruiser.

In addition, here is an interesting post on San Marco Regiment:
@regularkid:

@CWO:

Out of curiosity, I’ve done some looking around to see which of the Global 1940 player countries had either actual Marines or troops that could be construed as being similar to Marines during WWII.  It looks as if they all did (to one degree or another), so I’ve posted below the list of names that I’ve found.  I’ve left out China because Chinese forces aren’t allowed to leave their home soil under the OOB rules, and thus can’t carry out amphibious landings.

United States / US Marines
United Kingdom / Royal Marines
Soviet Union / Soviet Naval Infantry
ANZAC / Naval Beach Commandos
France / Fusiliers Marins
China / [Not applicable]
Germany / Marine Stossrupp Abteilung
Japan / Special Naval Landing Forces
Italy / San Marco Regiment

This was an awesome post. I learned something! The wiki article on the San Marco Regiment was particularly instructive, excerpted below:

---

With the beginning of the Italian campaign during World War I, the unit was named the Brigata Marina (Naval Brigade), and included two regiments, one infantry and one artillery.[1] The brigade’s infantry battalions were drawn from various Army and customs units, in addition to sailors from the torpedoed Italian navy cruiser Amalfi who were hastily equipped as infantry.[2] Following the Battle of Caporetto in October-November 1917, the Italian front had almost collapsed and the Marina Brigade fought in the defence of Venice during the Battle of the Piave River. After the war, the grateful city presented a flag with the Lion of Saint Mark, from Venice’s coat of arms, to the marines of the Naval Brigade. The Naval Brigade was renamed the San Marco Brigade because of the connection with Venice, and the Italian Ship of the same name that was sunk in World War I [2][3]

Between the two world wars only a San Marco Battalion existed. A special unit of the battalion was sent to garrison the Italian concession in Tianjin, China in 1924 and stayed there until it was interned by the Japanese in 1943, when Italy declared war on the Axis. In the confusion, one post resisted, holding out against Japanese attacks for 24 hours before surrendering. The interned Italians were then given the choice to represent the collaborationist fascist government, or become prisoners of war. The San Marco Battalion also served during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.

At the beginning of the Second World War it became a two battalion regiment and later increased in size, and prepared for amphibious landings at Cape Martin in France which never happened.[2]When Italy attacked Yugoslavia in April 1941, the San Marco Marines carried out successful landings on several islands in the Adriatic and seized ports against minimal resistance.[2]The regiment expanded to seven battalions before the final desert battles in 1943, including the Battaglione Nuotatori who were trained as parachutists in 1941. The 3rd Battalion of the ‘San Marco’ Regiment, which became known as the Tobruk battalion,[4] repelled landings by British Commandos at Tobruk during the night of 13/14 September in 1942, in the course of the botched Operation Agreement. As a result, 200 British Commandos were taken prisoner.

The regiment fought at Tobruk and Tunisia, where it defended the Mareth line during April and May 1943. The Tobruk Battalion was later destroyed on the night of 5 April 1943 while defending the Oidane-el-Hachana line against an attack on Wadi Akarit by the British 69th Infantry Brigade and Gurkha units from the Indian Army 4th Infantry Division.[2][5]

“When we were about ten yards away we had reached the top of the slit trench and we killed any of the survivors,” recalled British infantryman Bill Cheall, who had just seen his section leader shot down by a San Marco Marine. “It was no time for p���� footing, we were intoxicated with rage and had to kill them to pay for our fallen pal.” [6]

The Italian Marines, well dug and plentifully supplied with automatic weapons and grenades, fought well, and casualties among the 6th Green Howards had been severe; two senior officers, six senior NCO’s and junior officers and one hundred and eighteen other ranks killed.[7]

German General Hans-J�rgen von Arnim later said of the San Marco Marines fighting abilities in Tunisia in 1943, that they were “the best soldiers I ever commanded”.[8][9]Following the Italian surrender in 1943, many San Marco marines fought for the Allies against the Germans, however the 4th (Caorle) Battalion fought for the Axis until the end of the war.

[barney]

Used to play global conflict. They had A1 D2 units and A2 D1 units for the same price. It seemed to work pretty good. Too bad they’re not around anymore. They had some cool fog of war stuff that’d be neat in triplea.

It would represent forces more accurately as well. If you’re a more offensive minded army, such as Germany in wwII, this would give you another option in the makeup of your army. Anyway think I’ll give it a try.

[Caesar-Seriona]

4 ICP would be better for a unit that attacks at 2 and defends at 1.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Caesar:

4 ICP would be better for a unit that attacks at 2 and defends at 1.

Need to be balanced compared to Artillery which have 4 combat points +1, (A2 D2 M1, +1 to Inf).
And MI A1-2 D2 M2, blitz with Tank.

[Trenacker]

The best solution I found for including new and unique units was transitioning to a different die base, such as d10, d12, or d20. This entails accepting that infantry fights may go on forever, and so I’ve adopted a rule that, after three rounds of combat, surviving units stay in place. There is also a system for “holding” enemy forces on a 1:1 basis so that armies can hold one another in place.

[Erocco]

I’ve though of different dice. What I don’t want to create here is over powered Nation specific units. I want to create Nation specific units that help those Nations in some situations and also add  a bit more historical flavor to the game. Dice d10, d12 or d20 will add a lot of room for unit attacking and defending variables but also complication with too many different stats.

Another reason I decided to do this is as 1940 global is slightly biased towards the Axis I am trying to balance the game with creating Nation specific units. In my Nation specific unit house rules my goal is to eliminate the “bid” process.

[Trenacker]

I think that greater unit variety is a superior solution to unique units.

You’re correct that adding too many new units and rules changes the game by making it much more involved. One solution to that would be to create combat cards.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Trenacker:

Just looking at the key concepts for which certain nations became known, I’d propose the following special units:

Germany: Heavy Tank (the Tiger is fine for this role). Alternatively, you could go with the '88 as a kind of cross between an AA gun and an anti-tank gun
Italy: Frogmen
U.K.: Battlecruiser, a kind of fast, lighter battleship
France: Foreign Legion
United States: Mechanized Infantry
Japan: Sure, the Yamato is fine. You could alternatively do a special submarine or fighter, or else simulate the Tokyo Express by allowing Destroyers to carry 1 infantry.
Russia: Militia is fine.
ANZAC: I’d give them a tougher infantry piece.

Another idea to slightly increase US MI special unit is to allow 2 MIs on TP or 1 MI plus any other ground unit. (An old Wittmann idea.)
So, that way, US player can put 1 Tank and 1 MI on same TP for maximum mobility on ETO.

France Foreign Legion can be a more fierced and battled hardened unit:
A2 D2 M1 Cost 3 cannot get Artillery bonus.
Can only be built outside Paris IC.
So only built in minor IC such Southern France or Bordeaux.
I believe most comes from North Africa, IDK much.

For Japan, I like the Tokyo express but it needs a few limitation such as one Cruiser or one Battleship must escort Destroyers unit filled with IJ Infantry unit in each.

For Russia, I don’t like militia.
Ketushiya like rocket Artillery seems more iconic:
Maybe Artillery combined 1:1 with MI is able to move 2 TTys on offense?

For ANZAC, I pretty like this one:
@Erocco:

ANZAC infantry cost 4, attack 2, defend 2, move 1, attack 3 or less when paired with artillery

For UK, all Cruiser units are considered Battle Cruiser:
A4 D3 M2-3, 1 hit, shore  bombard @4, Cost 12

San Marco Marines regiment
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 4
Can travel on Cruiser or Battleship.
Cannot combine arms with Artillery.

For Germany, this Heavy Tank works for me:

Germany - Tiger Tank -
A3 D3 M2 C8 takes two hits to destroy, cannot be repaired once hit, rest is same as a tank - Unit used OBO AA 1941 Tiger Tank or HBG Tiget Tank version

[Erocco]

France Foreign Legion can be a more fierced and battled hardened unit:A2 D2 M1 Cost 3 cannot get Artillery bonus. Can only be built outside Paris IC. So only built in minor IC such Southern France or Bordeaux

I like this. I had a tough time creating stats for another infantry so this is very clever.

For Russia, I don’t like militia. Ketushiya like rocket Artillery seems more iconic: Maybe Artillery combined 1:1 with MI is able to move 2 TTys on offense?

My only issue with this I have created the self propelled artillery as another unit for all Nations at A2 D2 M2 C5 increase infantry attack +1 and I am using the Katyusha unit from HBG as the Russian model.

As far as Germany - Tiger Tank - A3 D3 M2 C8 takes two hits to destroy and cannot be repaired I am thinking it’s way too powerful. I am thinking raising the cost to 9. Can’t decide…

[Der Kuenstler]

I always thought it was a little elementary to have every nation have the exact same units with the same stats. For example, Italy’s tanks would realistically be cheaper and weaker than Germany’s tanks. I suppose that came from Larry Harris’ emphasis on keeping the game simple. But I don’t see how it would complicate things too much as long as you had a reference card right in front of you with the stats listed for your country.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Erocco:

France Foreign Legion can be a more fierced and battled hardened unit:A2 D2 M1 Cost 3 cannot get Artillery bonus. Can only be built outside Paris IC. So only built in minor IC such Southern France or Bordeaux

I like this. I had a tough time creating stats for another infantry so this is very clever.
Thanks.  :-)

For Russia, I don’t like militia. Ketushiya like rocket Artillery seems more iconic: Maybe Artillery combined 1:1 with MI is able to move 2 TTys on offense?

My only issue with this I have created the self propelled artillery as another unit for all Nations at A2 D2 M2 C5 increase infantry attack +1 and I am using the Katyusha unit from HBG as the Russian model.
As far as Germany - Tiger Tank - A3 D3 M2 C8 takes two hits to destroy and cannot be repaired I am thinking it’s way too powerful. I am thinking raising the cost to 9. Can’t decide…

You are right. The Battlecalc shows Heavy with 2 hits it is too OP at 8 IPCs vs reg Tank at 6.
9 is the right cost to make Heavy slightly better against Tank only but a bit inferior to 1 reg Tank and 1 Inf on offense (A4 D5 C9, 2 hits)

OK for Katyusha sculpt as Mech Art then.

Another idea, special Soviet Anti-Tank unit:
Can read: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ru_antitank/

Anti-Tank Gun
Attack 1-2
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4
Hit 1
Gets +1 on offense if paired 1:1 with Infantry or Mechanized Infantry.

This unit allows to figure a better defense than pure Infantry and simulate enhanced defensive lines against Germain ground assault. See Battle of Kursk to understand how delaying the attack on july 1943 instead of early spring for Blietzkrig makes Von Meinstein attack an impossible task, even at a 1 German vs 2 russian soldier casualty rate, against an heavily prepared Soviet army.

This one is still better to rise defense factors vs pure Infantry stack:
Anti-Tank Gun, with higher defense
Attack 1
Defense 3
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs
Gives +1 Defense to 1 Infantry or Mechanized Infantry paired 1:1

[Trenacker]

The Marine infantry should get an added bonus when conducting amphibious landings.

The Foreign Legion was headquartered in Sidi Bel Abbes, in French Algeria, until 1962. I would say that there ought to be three Legion infantry on the board at the start of play, without the option to build more. These would be in Algeria, Syria, and Indochina.

The Katyusha is fine as a Russian unit if you think it most iconic.

I’d counsel the Frogmen for Italy because those units made the most iconic contribution to the Italian war effort. The San Marco Marine Regiment, while interesting, is arguably even more obscure than the frogmen.

Der Kuenstler, the problem with that is this: Italy’s tanks, despite being weaker, would presumably not be cheaper, although one presumes that they would have been. The relative weakness of Italian arms vis-à-vis German arms is simulated by Italy’s smaller overall IPC value. An alternative to trying to calibrate costs and strengths for each power is to assign Italy a different type of units. For example, you can use the A&A:1914 aeroplanes to stand in for Italy’s weaker air force.

I think that, generally speaking, the transport plane, airborne infantry, marine infantry, and torpedo boat flotilla deserve to be included in A&A for anybody considering additional units.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Trenacker:

The Marine infantry should get an added bonus when conducting amphibious landings.

The Foreign Legion was headquartered in Sidi Bel Abbes, in French Algeria, until 1962. I would say that there ought to be three Legion infantry on the board at the start of play, without the option to build more. These would be in Algeria, Syria, and Indochina.

I’d counsel the Frogmen for Italy because those units made the most iconic contribution to the Italian war effort. The San Marco Marine Regiment, while interesting, is arguably even more obscure than the frogmen.

I think that, generally speaking, the transport plane, airborne infantry, marine infantry, and torpedo boat flotilla deserve to be included in A&A for anybody considering additional units.

France can have 3 starting Legion Infantry. But, it should be possible to built more under certains circumstances. A&A is a what-if WWII simulation. IDK what can be historically sound TTy to allow building up such unit. Maybe something like: can only be mobilized outside European TTy?

If Frogmen is more iconic, so be it.
After reading on this special unit, a small commando division, I would still keep these abilities, especially cruiser and battleship carrying capacity, and little defense @1 because it has less sustaining capability:

ITALIAN FROGMEN MARINES
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 4
Can travel on Cruiser or Battleship.
Cannot combine arms with Artillery.

About Marines, here is my prefered original idea which can also works for UK Commando units:
@Baron:

From a game perspective, an interesting and very specialized unit would be like this one.
It has low cost but also lower combat values to balance with its carrying capacity on Cruiser and Battleship.
Try to see the game at army group level, Marines combat unit division are certainly smaller than a full fledge army unit. That is why I suggest low offense / defense values except in the one combat situations which gives Marines their reputation: amphibious assault.

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

So, it provides a different kind of tactical combat with 2 Marines on TP and still keeping Inf+Art a competitive combination too.

D1 was to reflect the smaller number of soldiers involved per unit compared to standard Infantry unit.
It is not for lesser morale but for less logistics and support required by this unit.
Lower defense @1, come from the lesser number of individuals being less equiped than regular Infantry unit.
Attack @2 on amphibious assault is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser and Battleship carrying capacity. This unit have a better attacking factor because of abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldiers. They can do a lot with less but not for an extended period.

In addition, their lower defense factor would make them amongst the first casualty during counter-attack which can figure for they high risk mission they undertake.

[Erocco]

You are right. The Battlecalc shows Heavy with 2 hits it is too OP at 8 IPCs vs reg Tank at 6. 9 is the right cost to make Heavy slightly better against Tank only but a bit inferior to 1 reg Tank and 1 Inf on offense (A4 D5 C9, 2 hits)

Just curious Baron which calculator is that? All A&A calculators that I know off only have the default units programmed.

BTW Italian Marine Frogmen I like it! I am leaning towards this: Italy – Frogmen Marines – A2 D2 M1 C4 – Can be carried on a battleship or cruiser (only one unit per ship), cannot be paired with artillery

[baron Münchhausen]

@Erocco:

You are right. The Battlecalc shows Heavy with 2 hits it is too OP at 8 IPCs vs reg Tank at 6. 9 is the right cost to make Heavy slightly better against Tank only but a bit inferior to 1 reg Tank and 1 Inf on offense (A4 D5 C9, 2 hits)

Just curious Baron which calculator is that? All A&A calculators that I know off only have the default units programmed.
BTW Italian Marine Frogmen I like it! I am leaning towards this: Italy � Frogmen Marines � A2 D2 M1 C4 � Can be carried on a battleship or cruiser (only one unit per ship), cannot be paired with artillery

I used AACalc.
To get free hits, you need to put TP casualty first, then other naval unit.
For instance, I put 6 TPs A0 and 6 Cruisers A3 against 8 Cruisers D3.
This simulates 6 Heavy Tank A3 D3 C8, 2 hits vs 8 Med Tank A3 D3 C6, 1 hit
Results:
A. survives: 86.9% D. survives: 11.8% No one survives: 1.3%
Clearly OP vs reg Tank

But 6 TPs A0 and 6 Cruisers A3 against 9 Cruisers D3.
To simulate 6 Heavy Tank A3 D3 C9, 2 hits vs 9 Med Tank A3 D3 C6, 1 hit
Results:
A. survives: 66% D. survives: 31.7% No one survives: 2.4%

While 6 Heavy at 10 IPCs would get:
A. survives: 41.1% D. survives: 56.2% No one survives: 2.6%

That way, you can judge what kind of Combat Points /IPCs ratio you want to give.

So, if you want a better Heavy Tank than regular Tank, you see that at 9 IPCs, Heavy has a better cost ratio and odds of survival while at 10 IPCs it is stronger to use regular Tanks.
So, to have an optimized unit with a specific niche, Heavy needs to be 9 IPCs.

Of course, if you allows to repair damaged Heavy Tank, then it can be 10 IPCs.
A repairable unit can be weaker than a cheaper 1 hit, because it saved money on the long run.

[Erocco]

Very clever Baron. Thank you for this!

The Tiger won’t be allowed to repair. Complicates it too much… So I think cost at 9 work well IMO.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Erocco:

Very clever Baron. Thank you for this!

The Tiger won’t be allowed to repair. Complicates it too much… So I think cost at 9 work well IMO.

One issue with 2 hits units is that a large number such as 6 Heavy 2 hits makes for a very huge buffer before taking casualty, at least in the first combat. Such 54 IPCs investment makes a massive buldozer, before starting to lose unit in the stack.

Another way to apply 2 hits, is to only allows 1 damaged unit at a time. So 2 hits taken on 6 Heavys results in 1 Heavy casualty. That way, in each combat zone with Heavys, there is only 1 damaged Heavy at a time. So, it can be easy to allow a single damaged Tank unit to be repaired per TTy for free.