Marines in AA42

[A Former User]

Would Marines in AA42 with the rules from AA Pacific, not AAP40, be viable if the Japanese had a Fukkaku Defense?
“The Japanese introduced the tactic of endurance engagements intended to inflict maximum casualties. This tacic called Fukkaku included bunkers and pillboxes connected by tunnels.
All your infantry on islands defend on a 3.”

This is taken from here:  http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15052.0

Would Marines work in AAP40 under the same circumstance?

Thanks.

[coorran]

In AA42 setting, marines would be a lot more powerful than the Japanese defensive advantage. I don’t feel like infantry that defends at 3 on islands would make a lot of difference in the game…

[newpaintbrush]

I don’t even know what these Marines rules are.  Would you please elaborate?

But I think I would say “no” to your question anyways.

I think Japanese infantry defending on a “3” on islands should make near to no difference in Spring 1942 unless the Japanese player or American player do something extremely wrong.

So giving the Americans a measurable advantage of any sort while giving Japan lousy compensation is not going to work too well.

[coorran]

Marines attack at 2 on an amphibious assault, right?

[Tigerman77]

Marines attack at a 2 in amphib assault, they attack at a 2 if attacking a territory that is being attacked by amphibious assault by other units, 1 marine can attack at a 3 if attacking with artillery!

[A Former User]

@Bunnies:

I don’t even know what these Marines rules are.  Would you please elaborate?

But I think I would say “no” to your question anyways.

I think Japanese infantry defending on a “3” on islands should make near to no difference in Spring 1942 unless the Japanese player or American player do something extremely wrong.

So giving the Americans a measurable advantage of any sort while giving Japan lousy compensation is not going to work too well.

Rule from AAP:

From Axis and Allies Pacific

U.S. MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)

Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines normally attack just like infantry units (with a roll of 1). However, they are more effective in Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:

• A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A Marine unit that enters combat by moving from one land territory to another land territory may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as long as at least one friendly unit attacks from a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious Assault.

• For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.

• For each artillery unit attacking the same territory in an Amphibious Assault that is not paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 3 or less.

[baron Münchhausen]

I don’t like the idea of marines troopers with Att @3, instead:

@Baron:

How about an elite unit (marine, commando, SS, guard, etc.) the same ability for every country?

Elite unit: Att: 2 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost: 4, give +1 att. to one artillery or one tank, on the second round of an assault (amphibious or terrestrial). Think of it like the time to get used to the environnement and the geography of the terrain, or being able to reach and pass the shore to fight inland.

For example, if a marine unit paired with an artillery survived his first round of landing assault; on the second round, it attacks at 2, but artillery attacks at 3, instead of 2.
It is the same if it was teamed up with a tank. On first round, the tank attacks at 3, and on the second round it attacks at 4.
In summary, it works like artillery but gives better punch on costlier unit.

What do you think?

Should we raised the cost to 5? Because their will be no more inf (cost 3)+art (cost 4)?

It seems that I borrowed some of these ideas from Pjor in Two units threads:

Now to the point, new units and models.
First; Veteran infantry. A:2 D:2 M:1 cost: 5.
This unit is supposed to represent elite soldiers of each power. They are better trained, equipped and have a higher morale then the normal infantry. For example the SS Stormtroopers, British Commando or U.S Rangers. Special rules for the Veteran infantry is that if teamed up with a arty the attack value will rise to 3.

[baron Münchhausen]

I would suggest to read this thread, Re: Lets talk Bunkers/Pillboxes, here is one summary post:
@Baron:

Re: Lets talk Bunkers/Pillboxes

@Imperious:

This type of unit should be like a port.

Takes the same damage/rules as Port or Airbase.

Makes any three units with it defend at 4 ( minus damage)

cost could be 6 or 12 ( not sure, but probably 6)

Only one per territory.

I would rather prefer to downsize the defensive value of pillboxes/bunker to separate them from Port or Airbase (inbuilt  AAA and 6 damage points).

Allows Inf and/or Art (but not Arm), and only 2 units to defend at 3.
Cost 4 and allows to soak 1 additionnal hit during combat _.
Must be built on a territory owned a the start of the power’s turn.
Only one per territory.
Can be SBR (4 damage points) and have no inbuilt AAA (so it’s a free ride unless their is already a AAA in the territory).
First damage point, no effect.
Second damage point, only 1 unit gets @3,
Third damage point, no unit gets bonus,
Fourth damage point and more, destroys the pillboxes/bunker and the “extra hit” protection.
Can be rebuilt on a 1 on 1 IPC basis.
If it is not damage but suffers an attack in which the bunker absorb one hit, it is “repaired” at the end of the attacking power turn (same as a battleship).

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

Is it a too powerful defense?_

[baron Münchhausen]

I try to make both units as equal opposite (measure and counter-measure) to promote a more interesting and define battle for 1942.1 and 1942.2.
Feel free to comment and evaluate the pros and cons of Marines (Elite units) vs Pillboxes (bunkers) for both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operation (ETO vs PTO).
Will it unbalance the game, and to what extent? and for whom?

[baron Münchhausen]

I rethink all of it, so we have 2 ways to counteract a Marines Inf @2 paired with Art @3/ Arm @4: a) pillboxes and b) **reinforced defensive position:

@Baron:

It is a bit more complicated than the two originals separates options: bunker (2 IPC for 1 additional hit) + reinforced position (1 IPC for a +1 def).
But it gives more value for IPCs.
And it allows 2 ways to attack this fortification (not only land, but also air) to increase the tactical options for the players.

A more simple way to deal with it, is to consider them as independant buying (for those extra-bucks “left over” after the main purchase):

For 1 IPC, you give to an Inf or Art +1 on def. Up to 3 units stationned in a given territory.

For 2 IPCs, you built a bunker that gives 1 extra hit to fend off an attack in a territory. Max 1 per territory.
If defenders survive but used the extra hit, it cost 1 IPC to repair the structure.

It can be SBR, but it is done differently: a single roll of 1-4 means it is destroyed, a roll of 5-6 it is undamaged.
If their is a AAA in the territory, it get 1 @1 shot on the bomber.

All these in a single territory will give: 3 units (Inf/Art) defending @3. And an extra spare hit. For the cost of 5 IPCs.

So a reinforced defensive position of 3 Inf and a bunker gives: 12+2= 14 IPCs/ 3@3 / takes 4 hits.
It’s seems superior to 2 Inf+ 2 Art= 14 IPCs  4@2 / 2 Inf+ 1 Arm= 14 IPCs/ 2@2  and 1@3 /takes 3 hits.

And reinforced defensive position of 3 Art and a bunker that gives: 15+2= 17 IPCs / 3@3 takes 4 hits,
seems slighlty inferior to 3 Inf and 2 Art: 9+8= 17 IPCs / 5@2 takes 5 hits.**

[baron Münchhausen]

I was thinking about it in a different way:
Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att when paired with Art (same as Inf) or with an Arm (special ability).
After the first round and the rest of the battle, they  give +1 att to Art or 1 Elite unit.
So after the first round (of amphibious assault and coastal bombardment), if the Elite unit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (att:3). If their is two Elite units together, then both have +1 Att, thus getting 2 E. units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.
Thus, for example, after first round of battle,
1 “marine” unit gets Att:2 and 1 paired Art get Att: 3.
Also this unit paired with an Armor will get this same attacking punch
Marine Att:2 and Armor Att: 3 on the very first turn and keep it after.
(It can be a way to represent the used of some kind of amphibious vehicule to get on the beach and a better coordinate work.)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are almost like ordinary Inf, but with others, it becomes a more deadly and efficient group.

So, when a US Elite unit (the marines) makes an amphibious assault with an Arm, at first they Att: 2 instead of only 1 for regular Inf.

I don’t want to give an additional +1 att. to Arm, because the fantastic “4” seems restricted to bomber and BB in many A&A versions.
Since, this unit already receive a +1 Att when paired with Arm on the first round of a battle, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
And it is possible to put on a transport 1 Elite Unit and 1 Armor, and get the same offensive punch (2+3) than 1 Art and 1 Armor, but you cannot put both units in the same transport.
Another tactical interest over Inf+Arm (1+3) at 9 IPCs!
USA will certainly see what’s in it for them.

I also prefer to give a basic Att:1 because I don’t think that an Inf unit alone, even better trained, was as deadly as an Art unit or the defending troops waiting on an island, not until they get a real foothold. Or, unless they were helped by Art or Arm on the first round (almost like any ordinary Inf).

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.

In game terms, I think it keeps the balance.
You can chose:       Inf+ Art, cost 7 for 4 attack points and 4 on defense.
Or you can prefer Elite + Art, cost 8 for 4 attack points on first round,
                                                         5 attack points after (if they survive the first
                                                          round) and 4 on defense.

This match of Elite+Art (8 IPCs) can be as effective on offense than Art+Arm (10 IPCs) but not on the first round and move only at 1.
Also, on defense, it’s only 4 points instead of 5 for Art+Arm.
Though, Elite+Arm (10 IPCs) can be as effective as Art+Arm (10 IPCs) for the same cost.
And alone, Elite unit is no better than regular Inf but cost 1 more IPCs, thus it keep Art an interesting buying because alone Art: att2/def2 vs E unit: att1/def2.
So nobody will buy only this Elite unit but it will keep interest in buying more Art.

What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

Now I think we can introduce them in 1942.1, 1942.2 and even 1940.

[baron Münchhausen]

I’m also thinking that Russian player’s will like this unit on attack because they are craving for IPCs.

Soviet Guard, after the first round, will get the same punch of Art+Arm on attack, i.e. 2+3=5 at 10$, vs 8$, 2 IPCs less with this combination of 1 Elite Inf unit+ 1 Art.

[baron Münchhausen]

A hints that it is within some limits for playability:

This unit gets almost the same benefits than official marines in A&A Pacific but it is now available to every Powers.
It keeps same cost/ get +1 Art bonus to Inf./ get 1@3 (on 2e round) attributed to the Art instead of the marines.
If two Elite units are paired, they get each +1 Att after the first round.
Thus, it is for 2 E units2@2 but drop 1@1 if one Elite unit is hit.
Same cost as Art, if we compare 2 Art with 2 El unit:
2 Elites can get on board a transport but only 1 for Art.
Offensive points are very near: 2 Art= 2@2= 4 pts / 2 Elu=2@1 = 2 pts first rnd and 2@2= 4 pts on second rnd.
Although 1 Art alone has Att:2/ 1 Elites unit get only Att: 1@1

This way of seeing this new Elite unit has still some historical likelyness with Marines:
i.e. Not unbeatable marines @3 on the first round of an amphibious combat.

Or 1 marine alone able to combat @2 vs 1 Inf@2 on defense.

Actually many US marines were crippled on the beaches against entrenched Japanese Inf. and suffer many loses before taking a solid hold on the battle ground.

Rule from AAP:

From Axis and Allies Pacific

U.S. MARINES
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1 or 2
Defense Factor: 2
Cost: 4 IPCs (USA only)

Description
Only the United States has Marine units, these are the dark green infantry pieces. Marines normally attack just like infantry units (with a roll of 1). However, they are more effective in Amphibious Assaults, as explained below:

� A Marine unit attacking in an Amphibious Assault scores a hit on a roll of 2 or less. A Marine unit that enters combat by moving from one land territory to another land territory may still attack with a roll of 2 or less as long as at least one friendly unit attacks from a sea zone making the battle an Amphibious Assault.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.

� For each artillery unit attacking the same territory in an Amphibious Assault that is not paired with an infantry unit, one Marine unit may attack with a roll of 3 or less.