Advice on some house rules

[elgato610]

Here are some ideas for some historically accurate house rules for a few of the countries.  Any feed back is welcome and/or ideas for the countries I am missing.

Russian Conscripts.  Cost 2, defend at 1 and when they attack you reduce the number of dice they represent in half (rounding down if need be)  before you roll.  i.e. 7 attacking conscripts roll 3 dice at 1 or less.

German 88’s-  AA guns that cost 6 move 1, can attack and defend at 3 or support infantry like artillery or be used for anti-air.  You must chose which function at the out set of combat

British RAF - Fighters cost 9 not 10

America-  Marines- Cost 5, attack 1, but 1 can be carried on a destroyer and can be supported by DD’s Cruisers and BBs for the duration of an amphibious landing. This raises the attack to 2

Japan- Can buy a light tank that cost 5 but attacks at 2

Italy- Good Soldiers Bad officers…If German infantry are paired with Italian infantry you can bring up to 2 of either nations infantry on the attack (Germany can use 2 Italian or Italy cab use 2 German)

Chinese Conscripts-  Same as Russian

[baron Münchhausen]

@elgato610:

Here are some ideas for some historically accurate house rules for a few of the countries.  Any feed back is welcome and/or ideas for the countries I am missing.

**German 88’s-  AA guns that cost 6 move 1, can attack and defend at 3 or support infantry like artillery or be used for anti-air.  You must chose which function at the out set of combat

America-  Marines- Cost 5, attack 1, but 1 can be carried on a destroyer and can be supported by DD’s Cruisers and BBs for the duration of an amphibious landing. This raises the attack to 2**

Except in rarely seen very massive air attack, your AA guns will always be used as Tank defending @3, each combat round instead only at the opening fire AA phase.
Need more tuning IMO.
It is difficult to balance AAA unoptimized combat capacity with any of regular combat unit for the same cost. Probably need to be somekind of regular unit in addition to AA gun capacity.

Edit: I’m thinking of a kind of boosted artillery unit:
AAA 88’ Flak gun: A2 D2 M1 C6, acting like an artillery and an AA gun on opening phase.

Marines moving with Destroyers is probably very OP.
Destroyers are already very popular units and much powerful than other warships on a same IPCs basis comparison.
Also, Japan will be totally unable to follow this race for PTO islands this way.
IMO, they need something similar (IJN SNLF).
Tokyo express was a kind of japanese NA in Revised.

Can they be moved on Transport?

You may like to read this post, which summarized pros and cons about Marines a bit more powerful but same cost and able to move with Cruiser and Battleship:

@Baron:

I would like to quote a few critics and answers about Marines unit in an on going discussion in BMode thread:

BMode Marines unit
A1-2 D2 M1 C5,
2 load on 1 TP, 1 can load on either Cruiser or Battleship,
Attack @2 in amphibious assault
No bonus from artillery

New Unit - Marines:
Cost 5; Attack at 1; Attack at 2 when involved with an amphibious assault; Defend at 2; No bonus from artillery; Can be loaded onto cruisers and battleships (1 to a ship).

Note: During amphibious assaults, Battleships and Cruisers may bombard territories other than the one they unload their marines into.  Also during amphibious assaults, Marines attack at 2 even if they arrived over land (to join an amphibious assault by other ground units).  Kamikazes (by themselves) do not prevent and cannot be used against a marine amphibious assault that is from a different power’s cruiser/battleship.  Marines loaded in the combat movement phase must conduct amphibious assault in that same phase.

@regularkid:

@simon33:

There a few things I hate about Balanced Mod, all to do with Amphibious Assaults.

1. Why on earth should you be able to assault from a Cruiser or Battleship? None of those ships would carry the assault boats needed. Indeed, even boarding or alighting as an NCM away from a naval base is dubious
2. Why should Marines get to attack on a 2? The combined arms artillery bonus is pretty silly too in an amphibious assault. It doesn’t really reflect the real world IMO.

Just thought I’d give that feedback. Maybe I’m wrong.

Simon, there is significant historical precedent for warships carrying detachments of marines into combat. For starters, virtually all US battleships, during World War II, carried marine detachments (between 50 and 100 men), who, in addition to manning ship guns, served as ship expeditionary forces. See, e.g., http://seastories.battleshipnc.com/marines/

Smaller warships also carried marines. For example, it was a group of ship-borne Royal Marines that proved decisive in the Battle for Madagascar. From the relevant wikipedia article:

“The French defence was highly effective in the beginning and the main Allied force was brought to a halt by the morning of 6 May. The deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Diego Suarez and landed 50 Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area. The Marines created “disturbance in the town out of all proportion to their numbers” and the Vichy defence was soon broken.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Madagascar

Also noteworthy, the Japanese’ made extensive use of cruisers, destroyers, and even battleships as troop transports throughout the war. A few examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Kitakami
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Kirishima
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Hayanami

So, yah, the idea of cruisers and battleships transporting small land forces is not only fun and good for the game, its historically accurate! HF!

@Cmdr:

The Tokyo Express also really comes in handy in the Pacific.  It’s annoying enough to go out island collecting, if you can send a cruiser with a marine on it instead of a cruiser and a transport it helps speed game play up a bit as well.  (Thinking Marshals, Jonah, Guam, Midway, Formosa, etcetera…islands you may want to collect but don’t want to dedicate a fleet to getting and are probably un, or under, defended)

@simon33:

Interesting points - note a couple of things:

• The Kitakami lost 40% of its torpedo tubes to fit in 2 assault boats
• The first link notes that the Marines transferred to a transport when they were planned to assault a beach
• I’d have thought an infantry represents significantly more than 100 troops.

But if you reckon it’s more fun that way, might give it a go.

@simon33:

@Shin:

Who would buy a marine that attacked at 1?

And it’s all abstracted.  Their boats come with the 5 ipc cost.

Fair enough but I still feel that they’re overpowered. Maybe 1/1/1 and 3IPC cost with no bonuses? They’re supposed to represent a small detachment of troops.

@simon33:

@Shin:

If they are that cheap, there’s no reason to buy Inf unless you’re going to pair them with Art.

That is a valid criticism - so long as you are using them on the attack.

Would it be better to just have 4IPC cost and no amphibious assault bonus? I also don’t like them counting towards the number of ships able to bombard - perhaps the bombardment should be weaker one point weaker and also reduce the Marine’s attack to zero on the first round if a marine is supporting the bombardment?

If you did that, I reckon they’d be about as perfect a unit as I could dream up.

@cyanight:

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

@Adam514:

@cyanight:

Concerning the marines I have always wondered why they were not 4 IPC. An Artillery is a 2/2 with a special ability and it cost 4.  A marine is less powerful yet costs 5 IPC.  For 4 IPC it should be a 2/2 and have the special ability to transport on cruisers.  For 5 IPC it should have the ability to paratroop as well from airbases. Call it an elite unit.

With its stats the marine should cost 4, but when you add the ability to be transported on cruisers and BBs the cost needs to be higher to compensate for that ability. They are not cost-efficient units when only looking at its stats (and that is what we were aiming for), but when you have cruisers and BBs close to a factory buying marines is a good option at the current cost of 5.

@simon33:

They are awesomely cost efficient from the point of view of the purchaser when doing amphibious assaults. You have to consider not needing to buy transports.

Mad if you didn’t use them.

@Adam514:

@Gamerman01:

I am playing my first bal. mod game in months, and I realize that (unless I forgot something) there is a powerful argument for marines that has never been made.

An argument for keeping them as is.

Since marines are treated as infantry on transports (they could have made them like non-infantry and that would have actually been reasonable), marines upgrade transports.

A transport can now take an artillery and a marine, a mech and a marine, or a 3/3 TANK AND A MARINE
Contrast that with transports in classic  :lol: that cost 8 IPC’s and could transport only ONE TANK that was by the way 3/2, and NO INFANTRY with it (not that that’s relevant, just interesting comparison)

So transports can take marines to locations for cruisers or battleships or transports to pick up and take from there, and transports have the option of taking an infantry, AAA, mech, artillery, or tank along with, or 2 marines.
Marines would be overpowered if you lowered the cost or upgraded their capabilities in any way.  They’re already awesome. Plus you have something (besides AAA) to buy for 5 (if you don’t understand the significance of this I’m not going to take the effort to try to explain it to you), so marines are pretty much perfect as is.

A MARINE AND A TANK on a single transport!!  Holy cow
A marine that has the option of being picked up by a cruiser or a battleship, which can also bombard when unloading them.  Jeez.  They might be overpowered already.  Maybe they should cost 6  :-D

Yup there are situations in the Pac where you would buy a tp and marines and load them to send them towards the main fleet of cruisers and bbs, which results in barely any tempo loss (if you have extra units in Hawaii for example). That’s often a better solution than having your US cruisers and bbs stay on the West coast, especially considering you probably have a maximum of 3 units that you can produce there on US1.

However, I doubt you can replace inf with marines and be more cost-efficient that way in Europe for example.

@axis-dominion:

i’m loving marines, i’m finding myself buying them more and more (in my current game vs giallo i now have 5 ca 3 bb and 7 marines  :wink:)….one of the most brilliant innovations to the game in a while i must say, and totally breathes more life into these ships.

@majikforce:

I am also starting to love marines.  They can do alot. But I’m not so sure I’m okay with two of them being able to be loaded on a transport or one of them and an art, tank,mech or AA on a transport.  Call me a traditionalist but Axis and allies has always had the transports have to carry at least one inf.  I’ve always looked at transports like they have a spot for 1 or 2 inf or 1 inf and a “special unit”, art, tank,mech etc.  I would consider marines in the special category.  Might balance out their awesomeness!!  Just my two cents.

@simon33:

I’ve always thought they’re overpowered. Maybe get rid of their amphibious assault bonus and/or support for a bombardment.

@Gamerman01:

Haven’t played a ton of balanced mod yet, but I would think the transporting of 2 marines on a single transport is rarely done
That said, I really enjoyed your post

@Shin:

Well, one nice thing about Marines is that they don’t seem to be overly favored as either Allied or Axis units.  Both sides can potentially get a lot out of them.  In practice, I’ve seen them used more by Allies, but I think that will change as new strategies are developed.

@simon33:

@Baron:

@simon33:

You’re aware of my leaning that Marines are overpowered - although they are arguably expensive. At least disallowing bombardment support from a marine. Only inf/art/mec/tanks should count IMO.

Simon33,
do you still believe what you said about #1 NO on Novgorod?
and why do you think that Marines are overpowered (even at 5 IPCs)?
Thanks,

It’s mainly the bombardment shot that I think is over the top. Put a marine on a BB and attack a fighter on Guam and you’ll easily kill it, more often than not.

[baron Münchhausen]

@elgato610:

America-  Marines- Cost 5, attack 1, but 1 can be carried on a destroyer and can be supported by DD’s Cruisers and BBs for the duration of an amphibious landing. This raises the attack to 2

Considering BBs and Cruisers as artillery support for Marines is interesting.
It makes me think about a way to use on tabletop with no additional pieces.

BBs can transport a regular infantry unit, but have no shorebombardment.
However, it provides a +1A support bonus as Artillery.
Cruiser can load a regular infantry but have no shorebombardment and no artillery support on amphibious landing.

[Imperious Leader]

German 88’s-  AA guns that cost 6 move 1, can attack and defend at 3 or support infantry like artillery or be used for anti-air.  You must chose which function at the out set of combat

This is interesting idea, in The War Game: World War Two the artillery can be used either for land units or the hit can be applied to air units. The problem is if you have say 5 of these units, it chews up air forces at an alarming rate. Did you consider this?

[elgato610]

Good point with the DD and Marines being OP.  Another solution could be to give the transport/support ability to the cruisers.  One marine per cruiser and the cruiser supports at 2.  This would make the cruiser more attractive as a naval vessel.

[elgato610]

If I took out the air defense component and raised the price to 8 ICPS, would the flexibility of supporting an infantry during the attack be worth 8 ICPS

[Trenacker]

Small detachments of Royal Marines were posted to vessels of cruiser size or above, and sometimes to troopers or fleet auxiliaries to round out the gunnery crews. Traditionally, Royal Marines crewed at least one of the gun turrets aboard ship.

For special operations such as at Madagascar, a smaller vessel might be used to convey marines to a landing point.

If an amphibious landing was required, several of the larger ships in a squadron would combine their marine detachments into a battalion for that purpose, subject to command by the senior marine officer present.

In my opinion, the size of marine detachments aboard navy ships during the Second World War were far to small to justify allowing them to be carried by or land from ships other than transports.

[baron Münchhausen]

Battleship and Cruiser are unoptimized for naval combat. Since the game is abstract, you can assume that a few Marines transport ships are part of a task force of this unit. After all, it carries half the number of unit of a TP and nothing else than Infantry.

[Trenacker]

Fair enough.

It does depend on scale.

I’ve always chosen to believe that, in Axis & Allies, each individual land unit corresponds to a small army corps, or approximately 20,000 men, with some exceptions made for independent commands such as colonial garrisons (e.g., the 2 British INF on Hong Kong or the 1 INF on Malta).

Individual naval units seem to correspond to squadrons or flotillas, but on occasions a lone cruiser or destroyer might stand in for a small fleet that included one or two capital ships only, such as the Siamese navy.

Individual air units appear to correspond to wings.

[CWO Marc]

@Trenacker:

In my opinion, the size of marine detachments aboard navy ships during the Second World War were far to small to justify allowing them to be carried by or land from ships other than transports.

I agree.  I’ve written at some length in other threads about the whole Marine detachment concept, so I won’t recapitulate the various points I made.  Suffice to say that there’a vast difference between a full-blown, division-sized Marine amphibious landing force (such as was used at Iwo Jima) and the tiny detachments of Marines that were attached to US and British major vessels during WWII for shipboard security purposes and in some cases to man part of the ship’s armament.  Marine amphibious landing force, in addition to sheer size, were trained for months to make a particular landing, and were equiped (among other things) with dedicated landing craft and amphibious landing vehicles.  Marine shipboard detachments were very small, were not trained to assault a specific enemy shore, were not trained to operate as a team with Marine detachments with other ships (you can’t throw together detachments from different ships and treat them in the same way as a unified force that’s operated as a unit for months), and they didn’t have access to landing craft and amphibious landing vehicles because battleships and cruisers did not carry any such equiment.

[elgato610]

The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

[baron Münchhausen]

@elgato610:

The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

@simon33:

I’ve always thought they’re overpowered. Maybe get rid of their amphibious assault bonus and/or support for a bombardment.

If you want to try a different Marines unit which is not an Infantry, your thread made me think about this:

Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 3
Get +1A on amphibious landing.
Can load 1 on Cruiser or Battleship, or 2 on a Transport
Cruiser or Battleship forfeit their offshore bombardment when unloading Marines.

That way, 2 Marines remains a 1 IPC cheaper option than 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery 7 IPCs to get same attack factor of A2+A2 (but on defense you get a weaker D1+D1 instead of D4 with either 2 Infs or Inf+ Art).
Also, you may consider that 1 Marines unloaded from Cruiser and Battleship is using warship guns as a kind of combined arms to reach A2 combat while on TP you may consider that they carry landing crafts of all kinds to make a better shorelanding.

That way 1 Tank A3 and 1 Marines A2 make the optimal unloading for amphibious assault A5 (9 IPCs). Neither 1 Inf+1Art A4, 7 IPCs or 1 Inf+1Tank A4, 9 IPCs beats this combination.

If you don’t want to add more unit type on the board.

You can also consider this possibility for Cruiser and Battleship:
Cruiser
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 2-3
Cost 12
Shorebombardment 3 OR
Loading/offloading  1 Infantry unit.

Battleship
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2-3
Hits 2
Cost 20
Shorebombardment 4 OR
Loading/offloading  1 Infantry unit,
gives +1A support to Infantry being offloaded if no naval combat done in SZ.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1646806#msg1646806

[baron Münchhausen]

@elgato610:

British RAF - Fighters cost 9 not 10

IDK what you wish to figure about it historically speaking.
If it is higher defense capacity, why not give Defense @2 in SBR?
Or a primitive radar network to IC and bases’ AA guns on UK only: @2.

[elgato610]

I am looking to some how give the British the advantage of the RAF with the Spitfire and Hurricanes during the battle of Britain.  The idea about radar advantage from plane based in Britain is a good idea.

[CWO Marc]

@elgato610:

The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

I’m not opposed to having a Marine unit: I think it would be a lot of fun, and that it would indeed reflect the important role that the USMC played in WWII.  What I’m saying, however, is that there’s no historical basis for major (by which I mean roughly division-sized) US Marine amphibious landings being launched from battleships and cruisers using Marine shipboard detachments.  I think there have been cases of Marine shipboard detachments have gone ashore on various types of limited missions, but these situations would have involved very small numbers of men and they would probably would not have involved storming a defended beach.  As I’ve said, the US Marine amphibious landings made in the Pacific during WWII were major operations conducted with large numbers of purpose-trained, purpose-equiped Marines, assembled into a full-scale invasion fleet.  That’s not at all the same kind of operation as landing a Marine detachment of a few dozen men on short notice on a limited-objective mission.  To put this in terms of an analogy: when the US Marines punched into Kuweit during Operation Desert Storm, they did so with roughly two divisions (about nine regiments, I think), not with the US Marine detachment that was on guard duty at the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia.  So my point is simply: if such a house rule is introduced, it can certainly be done simply on the basis that it’s fun and that it makes battleships and cruisers more useful, but it should not be done on the basis that it reflects historical reality.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@elgato610:

The idea for the marines is simply to allow a historical element into the game and vary the game play a bit.  The ability of the USN to coordinate, execute and support amphibious operations over long distances was a one of the crucial factors in the Pacific war.  No other nation was able to execute this type of planning to the extent the allies did and the role of amphibious landings and the technology employed was perfected by the USN/USMC.  The idea of the marine is to bring some of this advantage into the game play and and the same time make the cruiser and BB more versatile.

I’m not opposed to having a Marine unit: I think it would be a lot of fun, and that it would indeed reflect the important role that the USMC played in WWII.  What I’m saying, however, is that there’s no historical basis for major (by which I mean roughly division-sized) US Marine amphibious landings being launched from battleships and cruisers using Marine shipboard detachments.  I think there have been cases of Marine shipboard detachments have gone ashore on various types of limited missions, but these situations would have involved very small numbers of men and they would probably would not have involved storming a defended beach.  As I’ve said, the US Marine amphibious landings made in the Pacific during WWII were major operations conducted with large numbers of purpose-trained, purpose-equiped Marines, assembled into a full-scale invasion fleet.  That’s not at all the same kind of operation as landing a Marine detachment of a few dozen men on short notice on a limited-objective mission.  To put this in terms of an analogy: when the US Marines punched into Kuweit during Operation Desert Storm, they did so with roughly two divisions (about nine regiments, I think), not with the US Marine detachment that was on guard duty at the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia.  So my point is simply: if such a house rule is introduced, it can certainly be done simply on the basis that it’s fun and that it makes battleships and cruisers more useful, but it should not be done on the basis that it reflects historical reality.

Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 3
Get +1A on amphibious landing.
Can load 2 on a Transport.

Keeping a straightforward unit as above make Marines a competitive unit in specific amphibious landing.

It seems sounder to keep as much as possible a single clearly delineated function per sculpt: TP is  for moving land unit, warships are meant for combat.

[elgato610]

I get the whole argument, but the big picture goes something like this.  American amphibious operations played a key role in WW2.  They involved the combination of many elements which were uniquely employed by the US.  That is a historical fact.  The question is how to/ is it possible to represent this historical advantage in the game and still maintaining playability and a semblance of balance between the powers. So the question was simply how could one represent this historical in AA 1940 and maintain playability.  It may not be possible who knows.

[CWO Marc]

My feeling is that the major role played by the US Marines in amphibious landings in the Pacific during WWII could be represented realistically in A&A by treating them as a slightly upgraded version of the normal infantry unit in the context of making an amphibious landing.  A&A has amphibious landing rules, so nothing needs to be invented in this regard; all that needs to be done is to replace the standard infantry unit used in such landings with a Marine unit that costs more but can do more.  (I don’t have any specific figures to recommend; other folks here are far more skilled at computing such variables.)  This solution side-steps the whole “Marines being transported on surface-combat-vessel” issue, which is a house-rule idea that’s been kicked around for a long while but which, in my opinion, is a case of going down the wrong rabbit hole because its real purpose wasn’t to provide a realistic depiction of Marine landings; it real purpose was to make battleships and cruisers and destroyers a more attractive purchase.

[General Veers]

One way to emphasize the effectiveness of marines and to represent the logistical challenge of amphibious landings could be to penalize the attacker for the first round, which has been brought up by others. Perhaps artillery and armor could attack at -1 during the first round for values of 1 and 2, respectively, and marines could attack at 2 for the first round. Every round thereafter artillery and armor attack at normal values while marines revert to 1 unless supported. by artillery.

[baron Münchhausen]

@elgato610:

I get the whole argument, but the big picture goes something like this.  American amphibious operations played a key role in WW2.  They involved the combination of many elements which were uniquely employed by the US.  That is a historical fact.  The question is how to/ is it possible to represent this historical advantage in the game and still maintaining playability and a semblance of balance between the powers. So the question was simply how could one represent this historical in AA 1940 and maintain playability.  It may not be possible who knows.

US Marines as a National Advantage
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 3
Get +1A on amphibious landing in Pacific only as long as there is at least one Cruiser or Battleship providing support in SZ.
Can load 2 on a Transport.
Can combined arms with Artillery in regular combat, not in amphibious assault.
(It is just a way of saying you cannot stack both bonus.)