Marines

[Praetorian]

I’ve never liked A&A’s version of marines.  The attack on a “2”, but only in amphibious assults, didnt ring true to me.  Yes, marines specialize in amphibious assaults, but why would they be better in combat in one of the most difficult environments than when they fight in a more traditional situation?  If they kick butt in an amphibious attack and warrant a “2” then they should kick similar butt in standard attacks instead of reverting to a “1.”

So, for Pacific40 and Alpha +2 my proposed marine addition is:

Marine
Attack 2
Defend 2
Move 1
Cost: 6
Special 1: For every marine unit involved in an amphibious assault the player may use an onshore bombardment even if the bombardment comes from a ship that participated in a battle previously that turn.  Thus, if an attacking player has 2 Marines in an attack as well as a battleship and 2 cruisers (and the ships helped clear the way for the amphibious landing), the attacking player gets 2 onshore bombardment attacks (one may not be used since there arent enough marines to get all 3 bombardments).   
Special 2: Marines do not benefit from artillery support.

Comments/critiques are welcome.  The goal is to make a marine that is tough, and valuable in a unique way to amphibious assaults.  The cost is the thing I am having trouble with - and keep thinking a cost of 6 isnt unreasonable.  Marines bring a unique ability to the table that is potentially very valuable, so making them cost that much for a aituational benefit seems (possibly) appropriate.  Then again, 6 is pretty expensive – maybe 5 would be better?

[i rock]

i would say six is way to much, id never buy one costing that much you might as well buy a tank they cost the same, but if they were 4 or 5 it would be much better.

[Tigerman77]

Marines should cost 4, but limit production to 2 per turn up to 6 or 8 total on board at any time. I play a D12 system and they attack at a 3 in standard combat and a 4 on amphib assaults.

[Praetorian]

@i:

i would say six is way to much, id never buy one costing that much you might as well buy a tank they cost the same, but if they were 4 or 5 it would be much better.

The idea is that they are about as valuable as armor in an amphibious assault.  getting that onshore bombardment even after a sea battle is a big deal.  So, while they dont have the combat factors of armor – their special ability makes up for their smaller values.  The goal is to make a situational unit (attractive when you have an ambphib assault looming and some battleships/cruisers that can help in the combat), not one that is so great that it replaces armor or the INF/ART combo.

Here’s another question to ask:

In an amphib assault what do you want more?  A 3 on attack or a 2 on attack preceeded by an onshore bombardment?

[i rock]

dependes on what im attacking how much money im making and what kind of boats i got.

[crusaderiv]

Marines should cost 4
I agree but cannot build more than 6.
(same thing for others specials unit as panzergrenadier.

[Jennifer]

Marines cost 3, only USA can purchase them.

Special: Marines attack at a 2 or less when conducting an amphibious assault in the Pacific against an island (to include Japan).

Else: Nothing special.

Move: 1

Marines may be paired with Artillery.  When paired, Marines attack at 3 or less on the first round.

For each subsequent round, Marines act as per normal Infantry rules.

---

---

Japan: Kaiten torpedoes:  Japan may designate any number of submarines in a naval engagement (attack only) as Kaiten torpedoes.  Kaiten torpedoes attack in opening fire, first round ONLY.  They must be aimed at specific targets prior to any throw of the dice.  If the Kaiten Torpedo hits, the defending unit is immediately destroyed and does not participate in battle.  In the case of two hit capitol ships (Battleships and G40 Aircraft Carriers), more than one Kaiten must hit to sink the vessel, else it defends per normal.

Regardless of if the Kaiten hits, the submarine is immediately destroyed after the opening fire round and is not available to be hit by defending return fire.

Japan may choose to designate any number of Kaiten torpedoes against a specific target.  Transports are viable targets.

Example: 5 Japanese submarines attack 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 transport.

Japan decides to use 4 kaiten torpedoes against the battleship and 1 against the transport.

Japan rolls: 4, 1, 1, 5 against the battleship
Japan rolls: 3 against the transport

All 5 submarines are lost, the battleship is removed from play.  The defender remains with a transport and a destroyer.

[Praetorian]

@Cmdr:

Marines cost 3, only USA can purchase them.

Special: Marines attack at a 2 or less when conducting an amphibious assault in the Pacific against an island (to include Japan).

Else: Nothing special.

Move: 1

Marines may be paired with Artillery.  When paired, Marines attack at 3 or less on the first round.

For each subsequent round, Marines act as per normal Infantry rules.

Yup - that is pretty much the type of Marine that I dislike.  Makes little sense and not terribly appropriate for Alpha+2.

[Jennifer]

@Praetorian:

Yup - that is pretty much the type of Marine that I dislike.  Makes little sense and not terribly appropriate for Alpha+2.

How so?

Seems pretty balanced, once you add in the Kaitens to rebuff Japan to match America.

[Gargantua]

Kaiten Torpedo’s is a total WASTE.  You’d have to be an idiot, or in a ridiculous pinch to use them.

Your example is PERFECT of this.

I would rather attack normally with 5 subs at 2, against 1 battleship 1 destroyer.

That’s attack power 10 vs defense power 6,  5 hits over 5 dice vs 3 hits over 2 dice.

If the Japanese score 2 hits, then there is no remaining destroyer. And the battleship won’t last long - Even if it AND the destroyer had 100% defence, they now face 3 subs with no prevention against sneak attack.

Kaiten torpedo’s is also dumb, because you LOSE the sub.  It’s not the SUB that rams the vessel, it’s a torpedo launched from the sub.  No Japanese Sub was ever sunk because it fired it’s kaiten.

The true use of Kaiten torpedo’s should be, that Japan - in the first round of combat selects the allied casualties from the sub hits it rolled.

And yes, no one is ever going to build a 6 dollar Marine.  It’s hard enough to build tanks.  And then what, the BEST trade america is ever going to get, is that when it gets hit by the defender, it can trade a 4 ipc artillery, for a 3 ipc infantry? Lame.

[Jennifer]

There do come times when you have 2 or 3 submarines laying about to attack an Aircraft Carrier with fighters aboard.  Generally, these carriers are protected by other ships and thus, would be very difficult to sink with a mere 2 or 3 submarines.  However, with Kaitens, you would have a 90% chance to sink the carrier and if the carrier is not near friendly land, the fighters are gone.

Done it a few times in AARe games, it is something to look out for and it does slow your opponent down.

It’s also good to snipe battleships out.

I suspect in AA40 we would have to alter the Kaiten to an Attack 3 unit to negate the 2 hit carrier benefit.

[Jennifer]

Kaiten submarines were akin to Kamikazee.  I suppose in Global 1940 one could just give Japan 6 Kaitens that follow their Battleship around (either one) and died on use, but that seems too limited.

Of course, you could just let Japanese infantry defend at a 3 when defending an island (to include Japan) to represent built in defenses. (Pill Boxes).  That would counter the Marines. (Both limited to a first round bonus only.)  Seems to lame to me.

Especially when you could just send in a Kaiten per transport and sink the transports before they land their troops. (6, 7, or 9 IPC for units aboard the transports + 7 IPC for the transport for the cost of 1 or 2 submarines (6 or 12) well worth the cost to me.)

And it wouldn’t matter how many destroyers, carriers, cruisers, fighters, tactical bombers, or battleships around to defend the transport(s) since the Kaiten can choose it’s target.

Essentially, it would mean that America has to clear out every darn submarine on the board.

Doubly so since I just thought, why not let Kaitens move during between CM and Conduct Combat moves for America, so they can intercept.  Kind of like scrambling for submarines.  Perhaps should be limited to 1 sea zone for this move, though Fighters do get 2 moves, out into the sea and back to their landing pad.

[Praetorian]

@Cmdr:

How so?

Seems pretty balanced, once you add in the Kaitens to rebuff Japan to match America.

Did you read my original post?  I state right at the beginning that I dislike an arbitrary increase in attack value for an amphibious assault (and which prompted the post in the first place).  I can go into all the historical and tactical hooplah about it, but it boils down to not making any logical sense.  Its a poor mechanic for my purposes.

Worse, by your reckoning the kaiten is supposed to balance your mechanic - but that simply adds another rule for a part of the game and history I am uninterested in modeling.  I’m very skeptical of the idea that you balance your marine not with cost, but with the introduction of a very fiddly unit.  I’m looking to keep this as simple as possible, and the marine/kaiten balance is a lot more complicated and unbalanced than what I am searching for.

[Praetorian]

@Gargantua:

And yes, no one is ever going to build a 6 dollar Marine.  It’s hard enough to build tanks.  And then what, the BEST trade america is ever going to get, is that when it gets hit by the defender, it can trade a 4 ipc artillery, for a 3 ipc infantry? Lame.

You have trouble building tanks?  Jeez.  Thats kinda sad.

I think the marine as I propose it would be about as valuable as a tank in an amphib assault.  I dont expect anyone to buy a marine just to have a marine, I expect them to use the marine for the specific and for the specific ability it brings to the table.  No one would spam my version of the marine (at least they havent so far in the games we have tried) – its a situational unit not meant to replace any of the existing unis, but augment a certain playstyle.

All that said, I could come around to a 5 cost.  Hmmm.

[Praetorian]

@Cmdr:

Doubly so since I just thought, why not let Kaitens move during between CM and Conduct Combat moves for America, so they can intercept.  Kind of like scrambling for submarines.  Perhaps should be limited to 1 sea zone for this move, though Fighters do get 2 moves, out into the sea and back to their landing pad.

Ohmygosh this sounds nothing like a kaiten.  It sounds like an uber-sub from WWII fanfic.

I’m very skeptical that your version of the marine is really balanced against your kaiten.

[Fishmoto37]

@Cmdr:

Marines cost 3, only USA can purchase them.

Special: Marines attack at a 2 or less when conducting an amphibious assault in the Pacific against an island (to include Japan).

Else: Nothing special.

Move: 1

Marines may be paired with Artillery.  When paired, Marines attack at 3 or less on the first round.

For each subsequent round, Marines act as per normal Infantry rules.

---

---

Japan: Kaiten torpedoes:  Japan may designate any number of submarines in a naval engagement (attack only) as Kaiten torpedoes.  Kaiten torpedoes attack in opening fire, first round ONLY.  They must be aimed at specific targets prior to any throw of the dice.  If the Kaiten Torpedo hits, the defending unit is immediately destroyed and does not participate in battle.  In the case of two hit capitol ships (Battleships and G40 Aircraft Carriers), more than one Kaiten must hit to sink the vessel, else it defends per normal.

Regardless of if the Kaiten hits, the submarine is immediately destroyed after the opening fire round and is not available to be hit by defending return fire.

Japan may choose to designate any number of Kaiten torpedoes against a specific target.  Transports are viable targets.

Example: 5 Japanese submarines attack 1 battleship, 1 destroyer, 1 transport.

Japan decides to use 4 kaiten torpedoes against the battleship and 1 against the transport.

Japan rolls: 4, 1, 1, 5 against the battleship
Japan rolls: 3 against the transport

All 5 submarines are lost, the battleship is removed from play.  The defender remains with a transport and a destroyer.

I have thought of the same thing except I would add a plus1 if attacking with a tank as well.

[baron Münchhausen]

Sorry, I don’t like the idea of a marines infantry attacking at 3.

@Baron:

Re: Do you want US Marines ?

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.

P.S. Sorry for my approximate english (not my native tongue)…

[baron Münchhausen]

Re: Do you want US Marines ?

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?

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 Arm (special ability).
In addition on the second round of an assault give +1 att. to Art. (and even +1 att. TacBomber, max.: @4)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are like any 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.
After the first round of coastal bombardment, if the elit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (Att @3) and TacB (Att. @4).

I’m now reluctant to give a +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, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
I also prefer not to give a permanent Att @2 because I don’t think that an Inf unit, even better trained, is able to do as damage as an Art unit.

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.
What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

[baron Münchhausen]

I revised the precedent post:

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 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 only two Elite units, then both get +1 Att, thus getting 2E units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.
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.

[toblerone77]

You could give improved attacking stats but stipulate that only so many Marines can be on the board at one time. Additionally they can transport three to a transport if only Marines are carried by said transport. On the other hand you could give them a sneak attack.