@Megatron it is a large drawback, which is why subs are the cheapest naval unit.
Different Approach to Marines. Edit: Elite/Marine units.
-
With all the new and old sculpts for marines available, the topic of marines came to mind yet again. The debate is old and many find the idea of marines unattractive.
One problem has been figuring out how marines should be represented in the game’s stats and mechanics. I think a good idea comes from the historical examples of the USMC during WWII. They frequently were undersupplied and had to make due with less than the army. Logistically they were a much leaner force so… Why not make marines more logistically elite rather than upping A/D stats? In other words let marines be transported as such:
Transports when carrying marines may carry any one marine land unit + any two marine infantry units. Transports may also carry one additional marine infantry unit in addition to it’s regular transport capacity.
-
It’s a good way to add a new element to the game. GW39 has this unit. HBG has the sculpt for it too as we all know.
The thing that one would have to consider when implementing these kinds of units is how it effects the rest of the game. You can compare the game to an engine. One part can make the whole thing run inefficiently, or just the opposite. And just like all other mechanics, you have to consider whether there has to be other things added and modified to make it all work.
Global War 1939 does this in comparison to G40 and serves as a good example. Marines in that version cost 5 and attack on a 3 during normal combat and have a +1 bonus during amphibious assaults using 12 sided dice. That stacks with the artillery bonus as well.
Do the Axis need something in return for this new unit and its abilities? Maybe, it depends on who you ask and how it works out. The Japanese SNLF might be the answer, I’m guessing. Or you can just add the Marines without doing anything else.
The more you add, the more you need to consider and the more of a balancing act you need to do, as you know already.
-
Out of curiosity, I checked the rulebook from the old A&A Pacific game to see how its handled its Marine pieces compared with its regular infantry units. This is what it said:
INFANTRY
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1
Defense Factor:2
Cost: 3 IPCsDescription: These units are a good buy for a defensive position because each costs only 3 IPCs, and they defend with a die roll of 2 or less.
- For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Infantry unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.
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.
-
With all the new and old sculpts for marines available, the topic of marines came to mind yet again. The debate is old and many find the idea of marines unattractive.
One problem has been figuring out how marines should be represented in the game’s stats and mechanics. I think a good idea comes from the historical examples of the USMC during WWII. They frequently were undersupplied and had to make due with less than the army. Logistically they were a much leaner force so… Why not make marines more logistically elite rather than upping A/D stats? In other words let marines be transported as such:
Transports when carrying marines may carry any one marine land unit + any two marine infantry units.
Transports may also carry one additional marine infantry unit in addition to it’s regular transport capacity.Interesting idea to solve the Marines cunundrum.
Marines Inf at 3 IPCs, why buying reg Inf?
Marines Inf at 4 IPCs, why bother to buy Marines since Art A2D2 is better?As you said elsewhere:
@toblerone77: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 artillery 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.
Maybe Marines could worth 3.5 IPCs.
You must always buy them in pairs for 7 IPCs.
So, for 21 IPCs you will load up 2 transports with 6 units, working as a regular infantry.But it is probably too low.
Maybe you have in mind a Marines Inf unit at 4 IPCs ?
Is it too much unbalancing?
If the case, then price must be adjusted accordingly.For an amphibious assault, to be a 50% challenge against 2 Infs Def @2 at 6 IPCs, it requires
1 transport 7 IPCs
1 Inf @2 � 3 IPCs
1 Art @2 � 4 IPCs
14 IPCs/2 = 7 IPCs/ unit
It means on average that you can double the price of a unit to know how it worth giving it sea-faring capacity.
To be accurate, 2 Infs, (13 IPCs/2 = 6.5 IPCs/ unit) / 1 Inf + 1 Tnk (9+7= 16 IPCs/2 = 8 IPCs / unit or 6 IPCs for Inf and 10 IPCs for Tnk)Adding 1 Marines Inf at 4 IPCs (to 1 INf+ 1 Art+ 1 transp), make the whole at 18 IPCs, divided by 3 units, gives a very low 6 IPCs/unit. And even lower 5.66/unit for 2 Inf + 1 Marines Inf.
And, bringing 3 Marines Inf at 4 IPCs (or 2 Marines Inf+Art), cost 12 + 7 = 19 / 3 = 6.33 IPCs. or 2 Marines Inf 8+Tnk 6 =21/3= 7 IPCs/unit
So, inside the limit prescribe by your rules, I think that at 4 IPCs it is just a bit unbalancing.
Maybe you must absolutly required that Marines Inf go along with Marines unit only (to stay around 6.33, 7 IPCs / unit not lower).However, for a more balance game, I would say that Marines transport (able to load 3 units) should cost 1 IPC (min: 6.66/unit) or 2 IPCs (min: 7 IPC/unit) higher.
For the first travel, it will be even (vs 2 units transports) and any additionnal transportation with the same marines boat will be really an advantage.
EDIT:
The 4 IPCs and 7 IPCs Marines unit cost is relatively balance on the long run, when a player can used a second time some transports. After the first travel, where it is better for Marines unit, the transportation ratio is reversing toward regular units.FIRST TRAVEL / SECOND TRAVEL, same transport
Cost ratio for Regular unit transportation:
3 (transport + Inf + Inf) 3 (Inf + Inf)
3 (7+3+3) = 39 IPCs /6 grounds = 6.5 IPCs/unit / 3(3+3)= 18 IPCs +39 = 57 IPCs/12= 4.75 IPCs/unit2 (transport + Inf + Tnk) + 1 (transport + Inf + Inf) (4 Inf + 2 Tnk)
2*(7+3+6) + 1*(7+3+3)= 45 /6 units = 7.5 IPCs/unit / 12 + 12 = 24 IPCs + 45 = 69 IPCs /12 = 5.75 IPCs/unitCost ratio for Marines unit transportation:
2 (transport + Inf + Inf + Inf) 2 (Inf + Inf + Inf)
2*(7+4+4+4)= 38 /6 units = 6.33 IPCs/unit / 2*(4+4+4)= 24 IPCs + 38 = 62 IPCs /12 = 5.167 IPCs/unit2 (transport + Inf + Inf+ Tnk) 2 (Inf + Inf + Tnk)
2*(7+4+4+7)= 44 / 6 units = 7.33 IPcs/unit / 2*(4+4+7)= 30 IPCs + 44 = 74 IPCs /12 = 6.167 IPCs/unitSo, after a second travel, with the same 12 units the transportation ratio is improving for regular units compared to Marines ones:
for 12 Infs vs 12 Marines Infs = 4.75 vs 5.167 IPCs/unit.
for 8 Infs+ 4 Tnks vs 8 Marines Infs + 4 Marines Tnks = 5.75 vs 6.167 IPCs/unit.
-
@CWO:
Out of curiosity, I checked the rulebook from the old A&A Pacific game to see how its handled its Marine pieces compared with its regular infantry units. This is what it said:
INFANTRY
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1
Defense Factor:2
Cost: 3 IPCsDescription: These units are a good buy for a defensive position because each costs only 3 IPCs, and they defend with a die roll of 2 or less.
- For each artillery unit attacking the same territory one Infantry unit may attack with a roll of 2 or less.
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.
That’s a good observation Marc. I was always somewhat fond of the Marines in AAP’01, others haven’t been so fond of them LOL. I just would really like to implement Marines into the game in a way that people might not be so opposed to. now that we have all of those cool new marines sculpts from HBG as well as other nation specific elite infantry. I was hoping for some “meeting of the minds” amongst the forum members in regards to this.
-
It’s a good way to add a new element to the game. GW39 has this unit. HBG has the sculpt for it too as we all know.Â
The thing that one would have to consider when implementing these kinds of units is how it effects the rest of the game. You can compare the game to an engine. One part can make the whole thing run inefficiently, or just the opposite. And just like all other mechanics, you have to consider whether there has to be other things added and modified to make it all work.Â
Global War 1939 does this in comparison to G40 and serves as a good example. Marines in that version cost 5 and attack on a 3 during normal combat and have a +1 bonus during amphibious assaults using 12 sided dice. That stacks with the artillery bonus as well.
Do the Axis need something in return for this new unit and its abilities? Maybe, it depends on who you ask and how it works out. The Japanese SNLF might be the answer, I’m guessing. Or you can just add the Marines without doing anything else.
The more you add, the more you need to consider and the more of a balancing act you need to do, as you know already.
TY for the post Ben. I probably should have clarified That I’m interested in implementing marine/maritime infantry unit for all player nations with the exception of China LOL. Your points are well taken. I don’t really have a big problem with the OOB AAP’01 marine model. I was just trying to figure out a way that marines could be added to the game without the old debate on whether or not marines are over-powered. I figured an advantage other than attack or defense power boost would be more appropriate.
Cheers.
-
Hey toblerone77,
One idea you could employ with all special/elite units is to limit how many each country can have on the board at any one time.This way, even if however you decide to change the attack/defense values or cost makes them a little overpowered, it will be okay since you can only have a limited amount on the board at one time. So you don’t have a situation like the US having their entire army full of Marines. Same with Germany (SS), Russia (Guards), Britain (Commandos), etc.
-
Guys, I think in the Global 39 game, I think the most you can have is 4 Marines, at any given time, so that is not too overpowered. You may have to correct me, if I’m wrong, but I think that is why they limited on how many special forces, you could have.
I think it is that way with the French Foreign Legion, British Commandos, the Russian Guard and etc.
-
I looked on the Global 39 rules, and it says you can produce 2 Marines per turn, but I didn’t see a maximum amount.
I would think you could only have a certain amount. Maximum 4 Marines would be logical to me.
-
I like the idea of having a generalized system that would apply to elite forces for any power rather than specifically just to Marines, since not all countries in WWII had Marines. As for the question of elite forces being overpowered, it would depend in part on their cost-benefit ratio. An elite infantry unit should have some kind of special ability which a regular soldier doesn’t, but it should also come at a higher cost and perhaps operate under certain restrictions that counterbalance its special abilities. In real life, for example, paratroopers have the advantage of being able to land by surprise behind enemy lines, but they have limited staying power compared with regular infantry because they’re lightly equiped. This makes them a good choice for certain types of missions (such as securing critical bridges and road junctions on the flanks of the D-Day invasion beaches), provided that they can be relieved by ground forces fairly quickly, but they’re unsuitable for other types of missions (like ground assaults against fortified lines) and they cost more than standard troops. So in A&A terms, elite forces (like Marines) should always be more expensive than conventional infantry but perhaps not automatically advantageous in all situations.
-
@CWO:
I like the idea of having a generalized system that would apply to elite forces for any power rather than specifically just to Marines, since not all countries in WWII had Marines. As for the question of elite forces being overpowered, it would depend in part on their cost-benefit ratio. An elite infantry unit should have some kind of special ability which a regular soldier doesn’t, but it should also come at a higher cost and perhaps operate under certain restrictions that counterbalance its special abilities. In real life, for example, paratroopers have the advantage of being able to land by surprise behind enemy lines, but they have limited staying power compared with regular infantry because they’re lightly equiped. This makes them a good choice for certain types of missions (such as securing critical bridges and road junctions on the flanks of the D-Day invasion beaches), provided that they can be relieved by ground forces fairly quickly, but they’re unsuitable for other types of missions (like ground assaults against fortified lines) and they cost more than standard troops. So in A&A terms, elite forces (like Marines) should always be more expensive than conventional infantry but perhaps not automatically advantageous in all situations.
In the 39 game. it says you can produce only 2 units per turn for all countries, elite units, not just the Marines. Sorry Marc, I should have clarified that. The problem is I don’t know if there is a maximum number of specialized troops you can have. I haven’t found that, yet. :-D
-
@CWO:
I like the idea of having a generalized system that would apply to elite forces for any power rather than specifically just to Marines, since not all countries in WWII had Marines. As for the question of elite forces being overpowered, it would depend in part on their cost-benefit ratio. An elite infantry unit should have some kind of special ability which a regular soldier doesn’t, but it should also come at a higher cost and perhaps operate under certain restrictions that counterbalance its special abilities. In real life, for example, paratroopers have the advantage of being able to land by surprise behind enemy lines, but they have limited staying power compared with regular infantry because they’re lightly equipped. This makes them a good choice for certain types of missions (such as securing critical bridges and road junctions on the flanks of the D-Day invasion beaches), provided that they can be relieved by ground forces fairly quickly, but they’re unsuitable for other types of missions (like ground assaults against fortified lines) and they cost more than standard troops. So in A&A terms, elite forces (like Marines) should always be more expensive than conventional infantry but perhaps not automatically advantageous in all situations.
-
The basic cost should be +1 IPC over the unit of reference.
-
Any elite infantry unit, for instance, should get at some point A2 (+1A bonus).
-
And receive a special move.
Paratrooper C4 get A2 on the first round only.
But can be airdropped.Marines Infantry should be able to get A2 after the first round of an amphibious assault (and all other following rounds).
In addition to the ability of loading 3 Marines Infs in a transport.(Elite Tank unit) Marines Tank should cost 7, getting a temporary special bonus yet to define according to the specific HBG sculpt chosen.
(Example for Elite Tank: allowing any one paired Inf to get A2, on first round only.)But also being able to be put inside a transport along with 2 Marines Infs.
(Example for Elite Tank:Being able to move 2 spaces (blitz) a paired Elite Inf unit into combat.)
I think the additional 1 IPC could be a relative deterrent against building an all elite army or all marines army.
Outside an initial amphibious attack, using these units as defending fodder will seems a high cost, hence the will to move and replace them with cheaper unit as soon as possible.(Once a beachhead is made, it is needed to reinforced defence with regular unit.) ______________________________________
Was there any Elite Artillery unit during WWII?
About artillery division in the marines corps, were there enough individuals and guns in it to really fit an Artillery unit sculpt in A&A?
Here is what I found about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Marine_Regiment_(United_States)(When comparing Germany and Russia in Eastern Europe with US Marines in the Pacific TO, the number of US Artillery and Tanks seems negligible.)
Should it be better to considered that any Marines unit includes some Artillery division in it?
(That’s could explain the A2 bonus after the first round.)That way, Artillery unit (with the same cost) will not be truly necessary with Marines unit.
So the basic amphibious invasion task force will be BBs and CAs making bombardment during first round. And a lot of fully loaded transport with 3 Marines Inf. in each.
Hellcats Fg (or F4U) providing additional air support to the invasion party.Marc,
I already found (and read) this interesting thread in which you provides a wider historical POV on various Elite Unit.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=31923.msg1186580#msg1186580
I also stumbled upon the first (?) time Toblerone77 introduce this idea of putting 3 Marines unit into 1 transport:
Marines
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22292.msg1100943#msg1100943 -
-
Marines A1-2D2M1C4,
3 units can be carried in an AP, but only 1 Marines Inf with 1 Artillery unit,
can be supported by Artillery unit 1:1 receiving +1A.
Marines Infantry get A2 after the first round of an amphibious assault (and all other rounds).
No combined bonus can make Marines A3, maximum is A2.So, this way, Marines Inf will be better being transported for an amphibious assault than an Artillery unit.
But it cannot provides any combined arms support bonus.This point make Artillery unit a better unit in regular ground combat.
And in a regular combat, Marines (4 IPCs) is not better than Infantry (3 IPCs).
Maybe any Marines Tank A3D3M2C7,
could act as Artillery for Inf or Marines Inf when paired 1:1 during the first round of an amphibious assault, giving 1 Inf or 1 Marines Inf +1A bonus.
Also, it could be carried in AP as a regular Tank with 1 Inf or with 2 Marines Infs.What do you think?
Here is a reference about Amtank (LVT) being used during beachhead landings:
http://www.marineamphibians.com/Our_Machines.phpThe First Armored Amphibian Battalion, U.S Marine Corps’s unit, existed and served in World War II in the years 1943-1945.
The First Armored Amphibian Battalion rode and fought in LTA s, officially "Landing Vehicle Tracked (Armored) but widely called armored amphibians, amphibian tanks or Amtanks. The LVTA had a turret mounted on a LVT hull, and more armor and more firepower than the amtracs (LVTs); the first LVTAs were developed for 1941 experimental swamp buggies with a 37mm gun mounted on them. The First Armored saw action successively, with two models of amtanks, LVTA-1’s for Kwajalein and Guam, LVTA-4 for Okinawa. LVTA-1 carried a 37mm gun and four .30-caliber machine guns. The LVTA-4 was equipped with a 75mm Howitzer, one .50-caliber machine gun and one .30-caliber machine gun.
The primary mission of the LVTA’s was beach assault. They were to lead the first infantry wave across the reefs, firing enemy targets until the infantry hit the beach. Since in that phase of the landing, naval and air bombardment had been lifted, the LVTA’s provided the last firepower against hostile beaches before the troops were actually ashore. Secondary mission, after the initial beach assault, included beach defense and amphibious patrols. With that at advent of the LVTA-4, with its 75mm Howitzer, it became possible for the First Armored to function as artillery, a new mission conceived of and developed by Major Louis Metzger, the Battalion Commander. As artillery, each tank platoon was organized as a 75mm Howitzer battery for indirect fire on enemy targets. The First Armored could thus field three artillery batteries for each line company, a total of twelve from the whole battalion.
This link provides many pictures and other links on Marines Tank:
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/19554-inquiry-us-marine-corps-armour-in-the-pacific-war/
This is a very interesting point on how various Marines arms were working together with Navy Battleships:
The Marines made great strides towards refining supporting arms coordination during the battle for Okinawa. Commanders established Target Information Centers (TICs) at every level from Tenth Army down to battalion. The TICs functioned to provide a centralized target information and weapons assignment system responsive to both assigned targets and targets of opportunity. Finally, all three component liaison officers artillery, air, and naval gunfire were aligned with target intelligence information officers. As described by Colonel Henderson, the TIC at IIIAC consisted of the corps artillery S-2 section “expanded to meet the needs of artillery, NGF, and CAS on a 24-hour basis . . . The Corps Arty Fire Direction Center and the Corps Fire Support Operations Center were one and the same facility with NGF and air added.”
Such a commitment to innovation led to greatly improved support to the foot-slogging infantry. As one rifle battalion commander remarked, "It was not uncommon for a battleship, tanks, artillery, and aircraft to be supporting the efforts of a platoon of infantry during the reduction of the Shuri position."
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/npswapa/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003135-00/sec5.htm
-
Hey toblerone77,
One idea you could employ with all special/elite units is to limit how many each country can have on the board at any one time.This way, even if however you decide to change the attack/defense values or cost makes them a little overpowered, it will be okay since you can only have a limited amount on the board at one time. So you don’t have a situation like the US having their entire army full of Marines. Same with Germany (SS), Russia (Guards), Britain (Commandos), etc.
That’s not a bad idea at all knp. I was considering those factors too. Anything you want to share feel free my man. My original post was pretty much trying to brew up some ideas.
-
Okay guys we have a lot of good ideas going here. As anyone reading this can see there are several of us who are “piece junkies/hounds” LOL, we know who we are. That said I’m all for devising some stats and ideas for marines/elite/etc. Anyone unfamiliar with HBG I suggest looking up or referring to www.historicalboardgaming.com
-
@ Baron and others. Regarding marine vehicles/aircraft it could be possible to allow them to be placed on naval/air bases.
As for costs I personally have not yet made any considerations along that line of thought in regards to the Original Post. I have avoided but welcome A/D modifications for elite or marine units specifically because of many player’s aversion to compounding attack/defense stats however you guys have mentioned limiting numbers which is a good consideration. So far I’m just throwing out the basic idea that movement or logistical advantage can be a “special advantage”.
There’s plenty of good ideas here though gents so keep em’ coming if you got em’.
-
So far I’m just throwing out the basic idea that movement or logistical advantage can be a “special advantage”.
It’s true in the case of the USMC that it sometimes “hitches a hire” on ships that actually belong to the Navy, and that it gets hand-me-down equipment from the US Army when the Army upgrades itself to newer models…but I’m wondering about whether this really ought to translate into giving elite forces a logistical bonus in A&A. I’m wondering about this for two reasons. First: from what I know about them, many of the USMC operations in the Pacific were so large-scale that they required just as much dedicated sea transportation (troop-transport ships, landing craft and supply vessels) as the US Army did in its own equivalent operations. I’m not sure the USMC was significantly leaner than the Army in that respect. (The larger US Navy combat ships traditionally carry a Marine contingent for internal security functions and other purposes, but that’s a different story.) Second: although there are exceptions, I think it’s not unusual for elite forces (in general) to have specialized transportation and equipment requirements, especially if they’re carrying out a mission with customized requirements – so in that respect, they can be logistically intensive rather than logistically economical. It all depends on the situation, of course: for example, the raid on Makin Island conducted by the USMC’s 2nd Raider Battalion had specialized transportation needs (it had to be infiltrated discreetly), but it met those needs by hitching a ride on a couple of USN submarines (so in that respect the operation was economical). But the point is that the USMC’s sometimes peculiar situation with regard to logistics may not be applicable to the other elite forces for which this house rule might be used.
-
In a recent game, we had an elite unit for each of the 6 major nations (USA, USSR, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy). Basically, we added to the attack and cost and gave each one a certain special ability. We also limited each nation to 6 units on the board at any one time.
US Marines A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Attack @ 3 in amphibious assaults.
UK Commandos A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == On attack each commando unit gets 1 pre-emptive strike. Defender casualties from this strike are removed immediately with no counter fire.
USSR Guards A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == On DEFENSE can re-roll misses. One re-roll per unit per combat round.
Germany SS A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == On ATTACK can re-roll misses. One re-roll per unit per combat round.
Japan SNLF A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Defends @3 on islands.
Italy Bersagliari A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Defends @3 in Rome.We also included Paratroopers for all nations
Paratroopers A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Attack @ 3 on 1st round of an Airborne drop.
We were also using transport aircraft for paratroopers. Transport aircraft could take 1 paratroop for combat move or they could move 2 infantry during non-combat move. They have a range of 6. Subject to AA fire if enemy has an AA gun.
It occurs to me if attacking a territory with enemy fighters, perhaps there should be some sort of air combat before the regular combat because the fighters could try to intercept the transports, but we didn’t work any type of rule like that out.I thought these worked pretty well for our game. It would seem like the UK Commandos have the strongest ability. I thought this up because the Commandos usually specialized in sneak attacks where the enemy wasn’t expecting them. Overall, it isn’t overpowering because they still only hit @ 2.
The Italian Bersagliari troops seem kind of limited for their special ability. The truth is that I just don’t know that much about them. I have heard of them but don’t really know what type of actions or abilities they were known for. So I figured strong defense of their capital was as good as anything. -
In a recent game, we had an elite unit for each of the 6 major nations (USA, USSR, UK, Germany, Japan, Italy). Basically, we added to the attack and cost and gave each one a certain special ability. We also limited each nation to 6 units on the board at any one time.
US Marines    A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Attack @ 3 in amphibious assaults.
UK Commandos A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == On attack each commando unit gets 1 pre-emptive strike. Defender casualties from this strike are removed immediately with no counter fire.
USSR Guards   A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == On DEFENSE can re-roll misses. One re-roll per unit per combat round.
Germany SSÂ Â Â A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == On ATTACK can re-roll misses. One re-roll per unit per combat round.
Japan SNLFÂ Â Â Â A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Defends @3 on islands.
Italy Bersagliari A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Defends @3 in Rome.We also included Paratroopers for all nations
Paratroopers  A2 - D2 - M1 - C4 == Attack @ 3 on 1st round of an Airborne drop.
We were also using transport aircraft for paratroopers. Transport aircraft could take 1 paratroop for combat move or they could move 2 infantry during non-combat move. They have a range of 6. Subject to AA fire if enemy has an AA gun.
It occurs to me if attacking a territory with enemy fighters, perhaps there should be some sort of air combat before the regular combat because the fighters could try to intercept the transports, but we didn’t work any type of rule like that out.I thought these worked pretty well for our game. It would seem like the UK Commandos have the strongest ability. I thought this up because the Commandos usually specialized in sneak attacks where the enemy wasn’t expecting them. Overall, it isn’t overpowering because they still only hit @ 2.
The Italian Bersagliari troops seem kind of limited for their special ability. The truth is that I just don’t know that much about them. I have heard of them but don’t really know what type of actions or abilities they were known for. So I figured strong defense of their capital was as good as anything.This is cool and not to overpowering. I love your ideas here. :-D
-
Here, I will try to work in the opposite direction: “generalized system that would apply to elite forces for any power rather than specifically just to Marines”
In the actual cost structure for grounds units, there is already 2 units at 4 IPCs:
Artillery A2 D2 M1 C4, +1A to Inf or Mec Inf
Mec Inf A1 D2 M2 C4, can blitz when paired to a TankAAA is at 5 IPCs, but it is not relevant here,
so there is still a room for Self-Propelled Artillery/Gun unit A2 D3 M2 at 5 IPCs,
(combined with Tnk can get around A5 D6 M2 C11, for example.)
I know tob77 you have a lot of HBG sculpts. :-)Finally, when doing combined arms or putting 2 ground units together, there is a small gap between 10 and 12 IPCs:
Art + Inf = A4 D4 M1 7 IPCs
Art + Mec Inf= A4 D4 M1-2 8 IPCs
Tnk + Inf = A4 D5 M1-2 9 IPCs
Tnk + Mec Inf= A4 D5 M2 10 IPCs
Tnk + Art = A5 D5 M1-2 10 IPCs
Elite Tnk+El Inf= A5 D5 M2 11 IPCs in amphibious assault and A3 + A2 first strike in reg combat
Tnk + Tnk = A6 D6 M2 12 IPCs
This is a perfect niche for 2 Elite units (Elite Inf 4 IPCs + Elite Tnk 7 IPCs) which can also works as Marines.
As showed earlier, these cost stay within acceptable limits for putting on a single transport 3 units Elite Inf or 2 Elite Infs and 1 Elite Tnk compared to 2 regular units on a transport (6.33 vs 6.5 IPCs/unit and 7.33 vs 8 IPCs/unit.)Elite Infantry A1-2 D2 M1-2 C4,
in Regular combat:-
Gets offensive pre-emptive strike each round.
Defender casualties from this strike are removed immediately with no counter fire.
Thanks Knp7765 :wink: -
Get A2 when attacking alone or only with other Elite Infantry.
(This is in addition to the pre-emptive strike: think of it as commando raiders.) -
Get A2 when supported 1:1 by Artillery unit (as any Inf or Mec Inf),
-
Get A2 & M2, but no blitz, when supported 1:1 by Elite Tank
in Amphibious assault:
-
can load 3 Elite Infantry units in a transport or 2 Elite Infs & 1 Elite Tank,
-
Get A2 when supported 1:1 by Artillery unit (as any Inf or Mec Inf),
-
Get A2 when supported 1:1 by Elite Tank
Elite Tank A3 D3 M2 C7 , can blitz as OOB Tnk.
in Regular combat:-
Gives +1A supporting 1:1 Inf, Mec Inf or Elite Inf, same as Artillery unit
-
Gives +1M supporting 1:1 Elite Inf, but Elite Inf cannot blitz.
-
Give blitzing to Mec Inf when paired 1:1. (As OOB Tank.)
in Amphibious assault:
-
can be load on a transport with up to 2 Elite Infantries, or 1 regular Infantry.
-
Gives +1A supporting 1:1 Inf, Mec Inf or Elite Inf, same as Artillery unit
There is various offensive situation in regular combat for Elite Infantry:
Alone or with other Elite Inf, it get A2 first strike.
When supported by Art or Elite Tank, it gets also A2 first strike.
Then, Elite Infantry stay A1 first strike when attacking with other units.On amphibious assault, there is no first strike, and it remains A1 unless there is some support from Artillery or Elite Tank to raise it to A2.
The preemptive strike in regular ground combat was a required incentive.
Something was needed to make Elite Infantry better than cheaper Infantry and having some interest over Artillery unit at the same cost but having a basic A2 and giving +1 bonus. -
Suggested Topics
