Probably because its based on a time frame. If you have inf with these landings then they have established a landing. Maybe both sides suck at hitting.
I like where attacking art and tanks get no 1st round attacks and attacking ships bombardment hit art and or a motorized unit first. If non then a inf.
Also when there is a landing most Inf won’t be on the beachhead. They’ll be dug in further back.
Marines
-
Baron why would you buy a marine unit if it costs as much as a gun? You can already bombard with your cruisers and battleships. The whole point is that a marine uses a “fire mission” ability that no other unit has making it worth it when your taking islands and hopping off and on in defenseless transports.
If a marine costs as much as artillery or armor or mech infantry they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach. Even if they are +1 every round they would be if they were army units with artillery support plus they would have a shore bombardment!
Hi toblerone77,
Do you imply that Marines don’t get the shore bombardment of the first round?
Instead, they get only the +1 for each paired Marines with a support ship for all the rounds of battle?You said:
they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach.
But it seems that historically as well as physically, the beach is where any men even marines are the more vulnerable.
That’s why I suggested the “Marines” or “Elite units” get their main bonus after the first round. -
Another problem as I learned about Iwo Jima is that after the Marines reach the beach and the island, the support ships has to cease fire because they will hit their own troops instead of the enemy entrenched inside caves.
That why I see a reason to limit the bombardment to the first round only.
No more support from ships after first round (wether troops are too far inland, or wether they can be hit by friendly fire.) -
Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical. A cost of four is too high inthe mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.
So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO
-
Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical. A cost of four is too high in the mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.
So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO
I agree with you.
The goal of this tread, I believe, is to think a variety of possibilities.
Probably maximise every option that appear in the process. -
Another way to reduce the cost to 3.5 IPCs each: must always buy 2 Marines for 7 IPCs.
Marines: A2 D2 M1 C7 for 2 units.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with support ships to attack @3 on first round.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to attack @3 after first round.Now I have the impression that it is too cheap…
For the cost maybe you better get:
Marines: A1 D2 M1 C7 for 2 units.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with 1 Marines so both get A2.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with support ships to get +1 attack on first round.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to get +1 attack after the first round.So, even if you loose 1 unit during amphibious assault it can still get A1+1 (for 1@2) with support ships/ or with Fgt or TBom.
Is it more of your taste?
-
Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.
-
Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.
That’s seems very true.
I never play 1942.2 KJF with the Victory cities so I don’t know if it changes a bit vs Milton Bradley version.
However I played the Gamers Paradise version in which every Islands lost or win changes 2 IPCs from both Japan or USA.
The number of starting IPCs product stay the same, but every island lost brought 4 IPCs difference between the winner and the loser.
Japan territories got 17 IPCs from Asias and Japan+ 16 IPCs from Pacific Islands but only get 25 IPCs from their initial territories.That was a real way to cut down money for Japan. But Alaska was more interesting at 4 IPCs, Midway at 2, Hawaii at 3 and adding 4 IPCs from China and the 36 IPCs of USA were cut down fastly to only 23 IPCs. Meanwhile, Japan takes a jump from 25 to 38 IPCs, the economy was upside down if USA didn’t care about PTO because of a KGF all-out strategy.
Maybe it wasn’t realistic to give 2 IPCs to Solomon’s but it created a more active Pacific.Maybe it worth trying adding 1 IPCs value for every of seven japanese Islands captured in Pacific to promotes more activities:
In 1942.2 this 7 japanese islands at 0 IPC can become at 1 IPCs when captured by UK or USA. On the other hands: Australia can worth 2x2 IPCs, New-Z 2 IPCs, Alaska can be at 4 IPCs, Midway at 1 IPCs, Hawaii at 3 IPCs and Mexico at 4 IPCs. However, even with this addition USA and Japan incomes stay at their starting level. (42 IPCs vs 30 IPCs.)It can be rationalize as access to natural ressources, interruption of vital merchants convoy, etc., to explains why USA or Japan lose IPCs while one of their territory has been captured.
-
This is a synthesis of some units developped here on this tread and other extrapolations.
Which one do you prefer?A) U .S. Marines (USA only) A1 D2 M1 C4 from A&A Pacific
1-During Amph. Ass. (any one unit being part of Amph. Ass.) give A2
2-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give A2, in regular combat
3-Paired (1 on 1) with Art during Amph. Ass. A3
Units to be produced by any naval Power
B1) Marines (strong & combine forces): A2 D2 M1 C5.
1-During Amph. Assault (any one unit being part of) give A3 on OR after 1st round.
2-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give Art A@3 on 1st round.B2) Marines (strong & combined forces): A2 D2 M1 C4.
1-Paired (1 on 1) with support ships A3 on 1st round.
2-Paired (1 on 1) with Art/Arm/Fgt/TBom A3 after 1st round.B3) Marines (weak & strong combined forces on 1st rnd):A1D2M1C4 or C7/2 units.
1-Paired (1 on 1) with 1 Marines, both get A2 on 1st round.
2-Paired (1 on 1) with support ships to get +1 attack on 1st round (A2 or A3). OR all the battle.
3-Paired (1 on 1) with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to get +1 attack on 1st round (A2 or A3 even A4). ****To determine: which type of marines can be mobilize in a Naval Port?
Wich type of marines can be 3 in a troop transport instead of 2?
Units to be produced by any Power (Elite unit: commandos, marines, SS, Gard�)
C1) Elite unit (strong & combine forces): A2 D2 M1 C5
1-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give A3 on 1st round.
2-Paired (1 on 1) with Arm give A3 on 1st round.
3-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give Art A@3 after 1st round.C2) Elite unit (medium): A2 D2 M1 C4
1-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give A3.C3) Elite unit (medium & strong combined forces after 1st rnd): A2 D2 M1 C4
1-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give Art A@3 after 1st round.
2-Paired (1 on 1) with Arm give Arm A@4 after 1st round.C4) Elite unit (weak 1st rnd/medium combined forces after): A1 D2 M1 C7/2 units
1-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give A2 on 1st round.
2-Paired (1 on 1) with Arm give A2 on 1st round.
3-Paired (1 on 1) with Elite unit, both A2 on 1st round.
4-Paired (1 on 1) with Art give Art A@3 after 1st round. -
Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.
If it is the case, like a preemptive strike (with no retaliation for the killed attacker) from defenders in islands, I think it will hinders a PTO strategy and create stalemate of not enough ground units to capture those islands (for no IPCs). USA will even more turn is war effort against Germany in Atlantic (10 IPCs in Western Europe).
Even with an offensive armada, with many Fgt, CA, BB it is still the Inf that capture territory. For each two Inf killed, it means a useless transport wich need to turn back toward USA/Hawaii. It’s a long chain of communication when USA wants to make “Islands hopping”.
I tought about an other way to simulate the difficult beach assault:
“When an invasion was amphibious only, the defender can “soak” 1 hit from any attacking units including bombardment, aircraft or ground attack, without loosing any defending unit.”
I tought about this rule with PTO in background, but it should be used also in ETO. Africa, Western Europe, etc. And there I think it will be too much in favor of the Germany. I never test this “house rule” on amphibious only assault.So, this means that the attacker need more punch on offensive to killed fastly all the defending units, because the more cycles of attack and defense the more chance the attacking ground units can be crippled and whole invasion strategy compromise because of lack of Infantry.
An other interesting house rule that can be introduce in conjunction with marines unit:
@Koningstiger:Amphibious assaults: Each defending unit defends at +1 during the first cycle of combat (each time it is attacked). Simple, effective and makes amphibious assaults a lot riskier!
Worth also thinking about it when introducing Marines units:
Re: Revised Amphibious Assaults
This rule makes for a more realistic take on assaulting beaches or Islands.During an Amphib Assault, on the first round of combat, attacking infantry cannot be supported by artillery. Also defending artillery is defends on 3 during the first round. Every round afterwards combat continues as normal.
This rule has solved the “easy sea-lion” problem in some of our Europe games, and it encourages the Germans to actually defend Normandy rather than stack up in France. It doesn’t really affect small Amphib Assaults, because only the first round changes.
@skinny1:
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.
-
I put here some posts that surely had influence on the preceding ideas:
@Imperious:Elite infantry:
1-3-2-3
These defend at 3 and move 2 spaces
If matched with any other land unit they can get a +1 bonus attack.
They only cost 3 IPC, but can be built at the rate of one per turn and never more than 6 at one time.
@Imperious:
OK… so this 1-3 two move unit has a new special mission ability.
In conjunction with air transport units, these are the only types of units that can be dropped in combat. normal infantry can be dropped by air transport in NCM.
AS airborne troops they attack at +2, and with a matching armor unit they can attack at 2. ( artillery, mech, or tanks)
only 6 possible at one time and can only build one per turn/ replace one per turn.
cost is now at 4 for these.
@Imperious:
I do not quite understand the elite unit that you propose. Is it a 1-3-1-4 unit that attacks when air dropped at 2 or attacks at 2 on ground attacks when matched with armor or artillery?
Yes, and you can only build 6 and one at a time, plus you can only use them as airborne units. They are at 2 when matched with any non-infantry land unit.
Alternately, this elite infantry could be a 2-3-2-4 unit as well. Waffen SS units had their own logistical supply ( hence the 2 move). Limit must be at 6. With tanks they could get a +1 combat boost either attack or defense, so these are prized units.
I think the key idea is the boost +1 on either attack or defense with another unit and exclusivity on airborne capability. I prefer a 2-3-2-4 unit. Don’t really buy into this idea that infantry defend at double the capability as they attack.
Another idea is the boost only applies when they are in originally controlled areas that you start with. The Waffen and Shock Armies fought better in home areas.
I like the idea of a 1-3 unit making them as ideal garrison duty with the same characteristic as the above idea ( defend at 3 only in home areas), but what would you call these?
Perhaps thats what the fortification unit can become…. a 1-3 unit?
@Imperious:
Call them ‘elite Infantry’ if Waffen bothers you.
These would be 2-2-2-4 units and limit of 6, with one build per turn. ( If you lose all six, it takes six more turns to get the build maxed)
In combat, they can be boosted by artillery 3-2 unit.
The faster speed is because the SS had their own train transport services.
I would rather the Waffen be represented by the tiger tank mold from 1941.
That would be a 4-4-2-8 unit ( limit six and one build per turn) you also can choose between building from scratch or convert one tank by paying 2 IPC.
The Stalin tanks could form “shock armies” ( same stats and rules as above).
@Imperious:
They should not, thats why i posted that they should not have all these roles.
Elite Infantry are basically crack, veteran units of each army.
Waffen SS
Shock Troops
Rangers
Guard troops
Kwangtung Army
Celere motorized infantryBut +1 in combat ( both attack and defense)
Airborne and Marines should just be regular infantry with special bonus on first round, where you pay 1 IPC ( considered training for drop and supplies)
Airborne can be considered “elite” troops however, but to mix them like this is not realistic.
Marines are special troops trained for sea invasions and are also “elite” but not in the same task as above.When acting as airborne, perhaps allow them to keep an enemy unit from joining combat for x rounds.
Interesting idea here. So when they get dropped in an area with 1 enemy infantry, how do they fight anybody?
Mot. Infantry 1, 2, 2, 4, -
Mech. Infantry 1, 2, 2, 4, BLITZ with Tank
Artillery 2, 2, 1, 4, BOOST Inf ATT
Mech. Artillery 2, 2, 2, 5, BOOST Mech. Inf ATT?
Tank 3, 3, 2, 6, BLITZ
H. Tank 3, 4, 2, 7, BLITZ
I think that the Infantry and Mot. Infantry are about right: Mot. Inf gets no Abilities but it gets 1 extra movement for that you pay 1 extra IPC cost. That seems sensible to me.
They both cost the same (4 IPCs) - one suggestion would be to increase the mech attack to 2 and the cost to 5. But then the mech would essentially be a light armor.
Mechs attack at a 1 but get a boost from mob aartillery and can blitz with tanks.
@Gen.:
I would like to see a combined arms rule for Mech. Inf. and Art. units that goes something like this. This rule is for use in Global 1940 games.
Raise the cost of Mech. Inf. to 5 IPC’S
Defense values/rules remain the same for both units.
Mech and Art units when combined 1 for 1 attack as 2’s.
Mech and Art units when combined 1 for 1 can move 2.
A combined Mech and Art can only blitz with a Tank. 1 for 1 for 1.This rule will take up all the middle ground in the attack and defence abilities in this game. I suggest the increase in the cost of the Mech unit to offset the new power this combo represents. Artilery should most definately boost both Infantry types. If a Mech unit can move 2 spaces then an Artilery unit in tow should move 2 spaces right along with it. The high price of a Tank unit now comes more in line as it will now allow for both of these units to blitz with it.
Picture if you will a truck loaded with a platoon of men with a Howitzer in tow.
-
Maybe some countries could have special powers instead of special units:
Russia: Lend Lease-US can give some of its IPCs to russia (max 10/turn?)
Anzac: When Guadalcanal Canal is in allied hands anzac gets an infantry unit/turn to represent US supplies flowing
Japan: Already has kamikaze attacks.
Germany: Blitzkrieg-tanks increase mech inf attack value to 2?Other countries maybe have special units:
US: Marines-Amphimbious attack on 2 even without artillery? or allow BB to fire every round until the Marine unit is killed? or….?
UK: Spitfire-1st round bonus when attacking an air unit
China: Maybe the flying tigers unit already counts?Italy is a tough one. I have no ideas.
-
Baron I’ve mostly played Classic and AAR and AA42SE more recently. Basically we have stuck to the Classic rules format adopting some the new SBR rules and unit stats. I’m old school and don’t sweat a lot of what others sweat here at the forums. I don’t like overly complicated rules with National Advantages, bids etc. You have seem to have put a lot of thought into this so by no means am I critiquing you’re work or thoughts.
Marines have to be cheap, as cheap as infantry. I think what I’m looking to do is to make one special ability for Marines. A simple advantage that fits the uniqueness of the branch. This is what needs to be worked on at least in my games and if others like them, thiers.
I think a deployment advantage is where I’m going with this. No build penalty for marines deployed on a territory with a naval base and IC not to exceed twice the IPC value of that territory. Â
-
Some guidelines to evaluate the cost of Marines and Elite units:
@knp7765:The second unit is Heavy Tank. A:3 D:3 M:2 cost: 9.
This unit will represent the heavy late-war tanks. Examples are the Soviet Josef Stalin tanks, British Churchill and German Tiger tank. Aside that it function as a normal tank it will rise it’s attack value to 4 if it’s combined with a mechanized infantry OR tactical bomber.Tanks already Attack @3, Defend @3 and Move 2 for a cost of 6 IPCs. “Heavy” tanks should attack and defend @ 4 if they will cost 9 IPCs.
Also, there has been discussion in other threads that “Heavy” tanks should only move 1, or at least can not Blitz. This is due to the fact that they are so big and heavy. For example: The King Tiger tank was a very tough tank but was also kind of big and cumbersome. Part of that problem was that the engine was underpowered so they just couldn’t go very fast at all. However, if the movement is cut down to 1, perhaps the cost should also drop to 8.One member came up with a pretty good formula to figure out the cost for land units: Attack + Defense + Movement - 1 = Cost.
For an example, say Heavy Tanks at 4-4-2-9. This works out perfectly. Attack 4(4) + Defense 4 (8) + Movement 2 (10) - 1 = Cost 9.
Now try Artillery: Attack 2 (2) + Defense 2 (4) + Movement 1 (5) -1 = Cost 4.
It actually doesn’t work for tanks since they changed the values to 3-3-2-6. By the formula, tanks should cost 7. Some have argued that OOB tanks should be considered “Medium” and should only defend at 2, which would fit the formula 3+2+2-1=6. Unfortunately, others say if you lower the defense to 2, then cost should go down to 5, which screws up the formula again.
Personally, I would be fine with Medium tanks at 3-2-2-6 because it also allows for Tank Destroyer units (currently being put out by HBG) that would switch Attack/Defense values (2-3-2-6).By the way, this formula does NOT work for aircraft or naval vessels. I don’t know if anyone has figured out a formula for them yet.
-
Hi Toblerone!
@toblerone77:Baron I’ve mostly played Classic and AAR and AA42SE more recently. Basically we have stuck to the Classic rules format adopting some the new SBR rules and unit stats. I’m old school and don’t sweat a lot of what others sweat here at the forums. I don’t like overly complicated rules with National Advantages, bids etc. You have seem to have put a lot of thought into this so by no means am I critiquing you’re work or thoughts.
Marines have to be cheap, as cheap as infantry. I think what I’m looking to do is to make one special ability for Marines. A simple advantage that fits the uniqueness of the branch. This is what needs to be worked on at least in my games and if others like them, thiers.
I think a deployment advantage is where I’m going with this. No build penalty for marines deployed on a territory with a naval base and IC not to exceed twice the IPC value of that territory. �
What do you mean by “No build penalty for marines deployed” and “IC not to exceed twice the IPC value of that territory”?
Can you give an example?
It will help better understand your idea. -
A territory at 3 IPCs may deploy six maries as long as it has a naval base and an industrial complex. They may also build 3 of any other unit as they please hence no penalty. I have but haven’t played any AA40 games keep this in mind. I know of but am not familiar with the new minor and major ICs.
-
Some very simple way to think about Marines:
@Vance:
If you amphibiously invade an island with 1 infantry/1 artillery per transport you can call them “Army”; if you use 1 infantry/1 armor you can call them “Marines”. Problem solved.
Historical explanations:
Every nation had their elite or specialized troops. I’m totally against adding Marines. My experiences as a soldier in the Army also bias me since Marines are nothing special.
Do you want US Marines ?
I wish I could smite you, but that option was taken away by the mods one year ago. Fortunately you are allowed to change your opinion one time, and do the right thing, before I close this poll.On topic:
You are correct, every nation had elite forces.US Marines was not some lame elite force, it was a million man army inside the army. And they had Landing Craft’s. As you propably should have figured, amphibious assaults do favor men that come with Landing Crafts. So basically the Marines unit is not superhumans, but plain infantry that happen to use Landing Crafts. Lets imagine you pay 3 IPC for the inf and the extra 1 IPC is for the Landing Craft. Happy now ? Only USA had this advantage during WWII. The other nations had to use canoes when they invaded some crap island.
@Col.:
The amtrac actually saw more and more use in the Pacific as the war went on. The Higgins had trouble getting stuck in the coral, and the amtrac offered exit in the rear of the vehicle instead of the door lowering in the front.
I never liked the idea of armor or artillery being good at amphibious assaults. I think only marine units should get to attack on a 2 during amphibious assaults and everything else is a 1. Since this would make it very hard to land troops maybe BBs and CAs could fire every round during an amphibious assault to return the balance, but make the amphibious assaults rely more on naval/marine units instead of land units.
-
I must add this suggestion just to have a more complete idea about the wide range of Marines abilities:
Suggestion made on dec 02, 2010 by Larry Harris
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062Marines…(and not just US Marines but the Marines of all the powers)
These units could look something like this:
Cost: 4
Attack: Normal attacks 1, Amphibious Assaults 2. In both cases they are, like infantry, promoted up one number when supported by artillery … That’s right … Marines conducting an amphibious assault and receiving Artillery support, can attack at 3.
Defense 2
Movement 1.Special note: Marines, on one transport, can attack two different objectives at the same time.
LH-iThe question is: is there many sea-zone which boarded 2 territories in 1940, 1942.1 and 1942.2?
-
@Baron:
Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.
If it is the case, like a preemptive strike (with no retaliation for the killed attacker) from defenders in islands, I think it will hinders a PTO strategy and create stalemate of not enough ground units to capture those islands (for no IPCs). USA will even more turn is war effort against Germany in Atlantic (10 IPCs in Western Europe).
Even with an offensive armada, with many Fgt, CA, BB it is still the Inf that capture territory. For each two Inf killed, it means a useless transport wich need to turn back toward USA/Hawaii. It’s a long chain of communication when USA wants to make “Islands hopping”.
I tought about an other way to simulate the difficult beach assault:
“When an invasion was amphibious only, the defender can “soak” 1 hit from any attacking units including bombardment, aircraft or ground attack, without loosing any defending unit.”
I tought about this rule with PTO in background, but it should be used also in ETO. Africa, Western Europe, etc. And there I think it will be too much in favor of the Germany. I never test this “house rule” on amphibious only assault.So, this means that the attacker need more punch on offensive to killed fastly all the defending units, because the more cycles of attack and defense the more chance the attacking ground units can be crippled and whole invasion strategy compromise because of lack of Infantry.
An other interesting house rule that can be introduce in conjunction with marines unit:
@Koningstiger:Amphibious assaults: Each defending unit defends at +1 during the first cycle of combat (each time it is attacked). Simple, effective and makes amphibious assaults a lot riskier!
Worth also thinking about it when introducing Marines units:
Re: Revised Amphibious Assaults
This rule makes for a more realistic take on assaulting beaches or Islands.During an Amphib Assault, on the first round of combat, attacking infantry cannot be supported by artillery. Also defending artillery is defends on 3 during the first round. Every round afterwards combat continues as normal.
This rule has solved the “easy sea-lion” problem in some of our Europe games, and it encourages the Germans to actually defend Normandy rather than stack up in France. It doesn’t really affect small Amphib Assaults, because only the first round changes.
@skinny1:
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 tactic 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.
I found other interesting suggestions here, with Larry Harris comments:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062&start=40I REALLY like the suggestion of giving the defender a +1 to all units on the first round of amphibious assaults. I share your concerns about anything that makes the game more defensive, but I will argue below that this is OK.
First off, if you are interested in pursuing this, I recommend the following variant:
“Units which are amphibiously assaulting suffer a -1 penalty on the first round of combat.”
This has four advantages over the +1 to defenders.
- First, it is more flavorful. Put the penalty on the attackers.
- Second it is more realistic. Let unsupported infantry attack at a 0. The first stages of a landing are more about getting boots on the ground than getting anything effective out of them (Just watched “Saving Private Ryan” last night).
- Third, since it doesn’t affect planes, it will be less impactful than boosting defense, if you’re worried about it shifting game balance.
- Fourth, it makes it very simple rules-wise when you have attacks which combine a land attack with an amphibious attack (just give a -1 to the units actually coming from the sea). Also, if you do implement a Marines rule (which I think you should NOT do, BTW) you can just exempt the marines from the penalty.
Now, whichever of these you might choose to use, these are the reasons I think it’s a good plan from a gameplay point of view.
- It would make Sea Lion a little harder. From what I’m seeing here, right now it’s a mainstream strategy where I think it should be a bit more of a fringe strategy or gambit of opportunity.
- It gives us more of a Fortress Europe feel. If Germany wants to build an Atlantic Wall, they need to garrison Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, and Denmark, making their expenditures 4 to 1 against Allied expenditures (not really, with transport costs, but still…) This just throws a little bone to Germany.
- Germany might actually be able to hold onto Norway for a decent time.
- I haven’t playtested the new Med setup, but Egypt always felt vulnerable to a combined land and naval assault. This would help the Brits a smidge.
- It has always been a disappointment to me that we don’t see a bitter defense of the Japanese Pacific islands (in most of my games, they get stripped for extra infantry). Maybe with this rule and airbases, it might finally become a viable strategy to garrison them.
As for making the game more defensive, I have several mitigating arguments.
- For a decent sized attack, this rule amounts to a reduction of 1-2 expected hits. Enough to make the attack slightly more expensive, but not game-breakingly so
- It scales with attack size. With small attacks, it’s almost irrelevant.
- In many cases you’re defending multiple territories, which already gives an attacker with naval mobility a huge force advantage.
I think I totally agree with your approach.
-1 assigned to the attacker. I must let you know that this is rather radical new rule and it will be an up hill round to ever incorporate the concept into the game, but who knows. Thanks…
LH-aIL amends the rule about giving +1 to all defending unit of an amphibious assault:
The bonus is only for +1 for each landing unit, if you got less units then thats fine… they are +1
For my part, I will add: giving for 1st round of an amphibious assault Def+1 to all ground units defending (Inf/Art/MecInf/Arm) and only up to the number of attacking landing units.
-
About this new rule:
“Units which are amphibiously assaulting suffer a -1 penalty on the first round of combat.”Maybe we can just halfed the penalty:
So we get 1@1 for every 2 Inf on 1 first round of an amphibious assault.
So on solo Inf beach invasion, this Inf get 0@1.
If their is 2 Inf, they get 1@1.
If their is 4 inf, they get 2@1 on the first round.
If their is 6 inf, 3@1 and so forth…Every units wich Att2 or more must still suffer -1att in the first round.
Thus 1Inf and 1Art get only 2@1 on the first round.Marines unit: negate -1att first round of amphibious penalty for this unit and another paired with.
Cost: You can upgrade (train) any 2 regular units (Inf/MecInf/Art/Arm) marines units for 1 IPC.
In this manner, with 2 marines you can prevent 2 other units from suffering first round penalty.
For example, on the first round of amphibious assault, a regular Inf+Art will get 2@1 (7 IPCs).
One marines Inf unit + same Art will fight 2@2 (3.5+4= 7.5 IPCs).1 Inf+1 Arm: 0@1+1@2 (9 IPCs) vs 1 Marines Inf+1 Arm: 1@1+1@3 (3.5+6= 9.5 IPCs).
Thus, for 1 IPC, this give back 4 attack points for the first round of an amphibious assault.
You just have to put some “marines token” under regular unit or exchange regular for specific miniature.
What do you think of this totally different way to add marines and amphibious rules in A&A?
-
It worths the attention:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062&start=56kcdzim wrote:
Gotta say I like this more than marines or defense +1.The only problem with this system is that it doesn’t in any way solve the problem if the Land Units have any support.
Let us have a quick example: 1 American Aircraft Carrier with 1 Ftrt & 1 TacBmr, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport with 1 Inf and 1 Art attack an island with 1 Japanese Infantry on it. Inf attack on 1 (assuming Art is still allowed to support whilst disembarking…)and Art on a 1.
Result: ��� Inf killed; 33.3% chance of an Inf loss to the Americans.
With the alternative system (+1 Def), the same death occurs for the defenders (100%), but the chance of an American casualty becomes 50%,
Even with a second defending Inf, the problem is essentially the same with the decreased Attack system:
Cruiser: Att 3
Fighter: Att 3
TacBmr: Att4
Infantry: Att 1
Artillery: Att 1vs
Infantry: Att 2
Infantry: Att 2Result? Almost certain loss of both Japanese Inf and probable (approx 66%) loss of 1 US Inf (chance of losing both is just 11.1%).
With an increase Def instead:
Cruiser: Att 3
Fighter: Att 3
TacBmr: Att4
Infantry: Att 2
Artillery: Att 2vs
Infantry: Att 3
Infantry: Att 3Now there is a better chance (25%) that both the American Land Units will be hit even though both Japanese units still go down.
The point:
It’s the CASUALTIES that matter, and with even a modicum of support, these American forces of 1 Inf and 1 Art can take three or so islands under the current system before running out of troops. With a defender bonus (even for one round), there would be sufficient casualties to stop them after just one or two islands.
In point of fact, we also use the reduced Attack system as well as the bonus to defenders in our heavily-house-ruled game. This makes using one’s navy to hammer (for example) French-based German armies less of a cheap victory. The point being here that in the real world, one can retreat from the coast to avoid naval shelling, but in the game, one can’t and one can lose ALL one’s units if the enemy navy is big enough.
But anyway…back to the Cruiser/Destroyer/Submarine issues! :wink:
Caractacus.
Suggested Topics
