@crockett36
This seems interesting. I’ll try it out.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
I’m with CWO on this. Marines should be their own unit. I don’t really have a position on paratroopers, one way or another. But I don’t think having a ninja-like “elite” unit that does everything special-oppy is really in keeping with time period or the general scheme of the game.
I rather see it like a game possibility to enhanced strategic decision without blocking 1 strategy over an other because the player invest in a too specialized infantry unit.
The nature of the special Infantry unit becomes clear once used in combat move.
Example, UK have 2 Elites. If one is moved on BB for an amphibious assault, it is a Marines. If the other is moved via AB it is a paratrooper.
Once the battle is done, if these units survive they will probably be involved in a counterstrike which destroy them. And if they survived, they will be on the ground acting like ordinary Infantry on the next attack. -
I would vote for letting BBs pack them around, but if you add CAs and CVs I think you’d end up with fleets of elites and no transports. Maybe a transport shuck to feed the fleet but IDK like anything you’d just have to try it.
It is precisely for this reason that 5 is the correct cost for these units. And there’s no reason not to allow cruisers to transport them as well. Have play tested this scores of times with many different players. The cost of 5, with transport ability by cruisers and battleships results in exactly the type gameplay one would hope to see with these units–for island hopping and as a compliment to larger landing forces comprised of conventional units. If you’re going to lump all of the “elite” abilities into a single unit, then arguably the price should be even higher.
I still believe that giving Cruiser Marines (A1 D2 C4) carrying capacity is on the verge of OP.
Maths says it is a limit case compared to escorted TP.
So, only play-test can reveal if Cruiser should get it or not.To figure how it is OP, a comparison on 32 IPCs basis can still be made:
2 (Cruiser+ Elite/Marines A1 D2 C4 combo) = C32, CA A6 D6 + 2 Elites A2 D4A) 2 DDs + 1 TP /1 Tk + 1 Inf = C32, DD A4 D4 + Ground A4 D5
B) 1 CA + 1 Sub + 1 TP/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C32, Warships A5 D4 + Ground A4 D4It seems better to use Cruisers and Marines.
You get 2 Offshore bombardment @3 and higher off/def in SZ.
Is it still too much? Probably.
A) 2 DDs are outmatched by 2 Cruisers.
On land, you bring 1 Tank A3 each combat round but no Offshore bombardment.
But 2 Marines A1 D2 is weaker than Inf and Tank combos.
Though, Cruisers are much vulnerable to Subs attack.B) On land, you get 1 Cruiser @3 1 shot support and A4 D4 best combo, better than A2 D4 Marines.
And at sea, it is a more even battle if TP worth 1 hit. Actually, CA, Sub and 1 hit TP are slightly better on defense than 2 Cruisers (60% vs 30%).
I don’t know how much Cruiser with 1 Marines can change Naval dynamic and being detrimental to regular TP ferrys.
Being cautious, BB would be the only warship with this carrying feature, but this can affect minor powers and reduced too much the interest to use Marines. Only playtest will tell if fast Marines deployement by Cruiser improve the game.Until new facts, I still believe what I said earlier:
@Baron:
When it comes to Marines, I think all surface warships can carry one Marines unit. Both Germany and Japan used Destroyers to let infantry cross short seazones, because they were short on Trannies, and Destroyers were more suitable to carry infantry than Battleships. On the Amphibious Assault on Norway, thousands of German infantry would ride on the deck of Destroyers. But important to remember, they can only do this for a short distance. No warships can cross the Atlantic or the Pacific with infantry on the upper deck, they would freeze to death. That’s why they build Trannies.
On carrying capacity, I rather prefer units with clearly distinctive features giving each of warships a more singular identity.
Cruiser is a gunboat which have more range and AA capacity.
Battleship is a gunboat with heavier armor and Marines carrying capacity.
Destroyer is a cheap warship meant for escort duty and for Anti-Sub Warfare.Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines InfantryGiving cruiser a carrying capacity open a balancing cunundrum with Marines vs Infantry and TPs.
A real can of worms. -
My first thought would be that if we were to include a nation specific unit (Marines only for the Americans) that this would probably be alright.
Though this kind of defeats the main reason to have a marine unit in the first place. The basic attraction/motivation for having a marine unit in my view would be to make the battleship a worthwhile purchase (via the the ability to carry a marine), but if it only works for the US that doesn’t really achieve much for the BB as a uniteam buy for everyone else. America is already the only nation that can really afford this unit anyway.
Of the two proposals Baron suggested I think I still prefer the later, though I admit I’m still not sure these units are even necessary.
At least it’s only one unit for everyone to memorize (American Marines), I suppose it’s doable. Part of me would say that if we do that for the Americans, then it might be cool to do one special unit type for each nation, but which units? Also this probably creates a dilemma where players might be confused about their enemy’s units, when they are trying to calculate for their defenses etc.
There are certain tripleA games where each player nation has a different unit roster, visually similar pieces/unit types but with different combat abilities or costs nation to nation and these games can be particularly frustrating for new players. The reason is that, most players will parse the enemy’s unit roster/abilities with reference to their own unit roster. Even if its all spelled out in the notes, with unit lists for each nation, I think it’s problematic in game flow terms when you have basic unit types that behave in different ways depending on which nation you’re playing.
How did it work in the original Pacific game? Was it simply an aesthetic difference with color or did marines have a different combat value?
-
How did it work in the original Pacific game? Was it simply an aesthetic difference with color or did marines have a different combat value?
http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axispacific.pdf
INFANTRY
Movement: 1
Attack Factor: 1
Defense Factor:2
Cost: 3 IPCs
Description
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. -
Well it would be fairly easy to just adopt the rules of the previous Pacific game verbetum, but you still have an issue in G40 that you didn’t have in the original Pacific game, namely that the new Pacific 1940 map is designed to be integrated with the Europe 1940 map. So I can easily imagine a situation where you have all the Marines crossing the Altantic for a USMC lead D-Day invasion. The unit abilities described above would be much more valuable (in game play terms) if used to invade France or Berlin etc. Because they get a boost on Amphibious and the first round of combat is so key to those battles.
Part of the reason I wanted a generic elite was in anticipation of this, so that when the US “marine” unit is invariably purchased for use in Europe, then the player could just imagine that they were rangers or paratroopers, and not have to break with the history.
Given the size/scope of the territories involved, a “marine” unit that is unloaded into Normandy as part of a D-Day drop, could be imagined instead as a paratrooper (even if it’s technically being delivered by a warship or transport for the gameplay mechanic, you could just pretend it was an air drop in advance of the larger amphibious landing.) If its not explicitly named “Marine” but rather something like Marine/Elite Infantry. It’s just one of those situations where some freedom of imagination would be nice, instead of pretending an alternate history (that has USMC storming fortress Europa) you just pretend that in this case the unit is not a Marine, but rather a Paratrooper or a Ranger.
Does something like that make sense?
Perhaps instead of a generic +1 to attack at all times, you just give them a +1 to attack in the first round of the combat phase. Then the unit type could be used for all Nations, but you could give a nod to the Corps by just having a lot of these units staged and ready for deployment at Pearl and W. US when you do the set up chart for the Americans.
-
I agree that faction specific unit-rosters are a recipe for confusion, steep-learning curves, and low-adoption. But if you were going to add a unique unit for each faction, u really would not want to add any other units to the roster (even non-faction specific ones), because the new units would already be such a huge change/barrier to new players.
Really, I think it would be preferable to avoid faction-specific units for the reasons others have stated. So adding the ‘marines’ to all nations’s unit rosters (except China, of course) would be the better approach.
To CWO’s point, the fact that some countries historically did not use “marines” by that name, or did not use them as extensively or effectively as the US should not prevent their inclusion (even if u name them differently for each nation). It would be no different than allowing Russia to build an aircraft carrier (even though Russia didn’t build or deploy any during the war), or giving all nations armor with the same exact combat stats (even though there were substantial qualitative differences in the armor used by each nation during the war). As a practical matter, marines are going to be used most heavily by countries engaged in amphibious warfare–i.e., you’re not going to see russia building them in most games. And the fact that Germany did not utilize marines (or their functional equivalent) during the war does it mean it could not have, if it chose to emphasize strategic objectives that warranted them.
.
-
I’ve been playtesting a couple elite units. They both seem to work well. The first one is A1, +1 for amphib attack, +1 when paired with armor, D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech, may blitz when paired with mech and tank, BB may transport 1, 3 elites may M3 from AB as long as other ground troops attack, C4. Armor are -1 on all amphib attacks.
The other one is A1, +1 for amphib attack, +1 when paired with armor, +1 when paired with mech , D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech, may blitz when paired with mech and tank, BB and cruisers may transport 1, 3 elites may M3 from AB as long as other ground troops attack, C5. Armor are -1 on all amphib attacks.
Of the two I prefer the 4 dollar version. It gives some minor encouragement for BB buys. Depending on how things go the first rd Germany, UK and Italy could all have BBs along with US and JPN so there would be some usage but not excessive. It has mech boosting movement and armor the attack which seems like it should be easy enough to follow. It makes for a nice minor factory buy with elite, mech, armor for A1 A2 A3 combo. You probably want to use the primitive terrain though or those things will be hauling ass all over China and soviet asia :). A simple +1 A would be the easiest way to go but triplea can’t do that.
The five dollar one is fun too though. The mech boost on attack makes for some different combinations. You can have a 9 PU combo that has A1 A2 vs a 10 PU one that has A1 A3. When in amphib mode you can have a A1 A3 for 9PUs (which is what armor/inf do currently) as opposed to the 10 PU A2 A3. It’s also easier to boost the airborne units. The 5 PU cost prevents spamming on CAs and mech/elite combos.
One of the earlier A&A games had armor -2 for 1st rd of amphib combat so the -1 isn’t completely foreign. I think of the elite units as just being superior to normal infantry. Whether it be because of training, equipment, motivation or whatever. If they go into battle by sea, air or land, they will be more effective than regulars. As kid mentioned Russia probaly won’t use them in a marine role and if Germany and Italy do it just means the furher and el duce decided to invest more in a naval infantry unit. Same as if you go big with u-boats, it would be like Hitler being influenced by Donitz.
I like the what if aspect of the game. If Marshall wanted to send the marines to France, well that’s where’d they go. :) Anyway it doesn’t bother me if things stray a little from history. You’re the Leader now and get to decide what to spend your money on. :) One can always scale back and not use elites when introducing new players to the game. I think experienced players will like them. It could just be a completely optional unit or as Elk stated earlier part of an expansion set.
-
I’ve been playtesting a couple elite units. They both seem to work well. The first one is A1, +1 for amphib attack, +1 when paired with armor, D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech, may blitz when paired with mech and tank, BB may transport 1, 3 elites may M3 from AB as long as other ground troops attack, C4. Armor are -1 on all amphib attacks.
The other one is A1, +1 for amphib attack, +1 when paired with armor, +1 when paired with mech , D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech, may blitz when paired with mech and tank, BB and cruisers may transport 1, 3 elites may M3 from AB as long as other ground troops attack, C5. Armor are -1 on all amphib attacks.
Of the two I prefer the 4 dollar version. It gives some minor encouragement for BB buys. Depending on how things go the first rd Germany, UK and Italy could all have BBs along with US and JPN so there would be some usage but not excessive.
It has mech boosting movement and armor the attack which seems like it should be easy enough to follow. It makes for a nice minor factory buy with elite, mech, armor for A1 A2 A3 combo. You probably want to use the primitive terrain though or those things will be hauling ass all over China and soviet asia :). A simple +1 A would be the easiest way to go but triplea can’t do that.The five dollar one is fun too though. The mech boost on attack makes for some different combinations. You can have a 9 PU combo that has A1 A2 vs a 10 PU one that has A1 A3. When in amphib mode you can have a A1 A3 for 9PUs (which is what armor/inf do currently) as opposed to the 10 PU A2 A3. It’s also easier to boost the airborne units. The 5 PU cost prevents spamming on CAs and mech/elite combos.
I think a playtest with a more OOB Cruiser (no AA defense, no M3) carrying 1 Marines in its weak version A1-2 D2 C4 can provides an interesting increase of naval action and amphibious landing.
Restricting to BB seems to be an indirect way to favor US, but with Cruiser the warships could be more scattered to invade more islands. Also, this can be an incentive to throw more Submarines at them.For now, TP is still defenseless in TripleA file, so if giving such carrying capacity appears to be a little off balance, you can make TP cost at 5 IPCs. That way the 32 IPCs fleet is much more balanced:
2 (Cruiser+ Elite/Marines A1 D2 C4 combo) = C32, CA A6 D6 + 2 Elites A2 D4
A) 2 DDs + 1 TP c5 /1 Tk + 1 Inf = C30, DD A4 D4 + Ground A4 D5
B) 1 CA + 1 DD + 1 TP c5/ 1 Art + 1 Inf = C32, Warships A5 D5 + Ground A4 D4
C) 1 CA + 1 Sub + 1TP c5/ 1 Tk + 1 Ind = C32 Warships A5 D4 + Ground A4 D5It seems better to use Cruisers and Marines.
You get 2 Offshore bombardment @3 and higher off/def in SZ.A) 2 DDs are outmatched by 2 Cruisers but there is 2 IPCs left.
On land, you bring 1 Tank A3 each combat round but no Offshore bombardment.
But 2 Marines A1 D2 is weaker than Inf and Tank combos.
Though, Cruisers are much vulnerable to Subs attack.B) On land, you get 1 Cruiser @3 1 shot support, DD protection against Sub and A4 D4 best combo, better than A2 D4 Marines.
C) You get 1 fire support @3, and a high attack factor and 1 Sub fodder against Sub, on defense.
Landing units have more punch A1 + A3 vs 2 Marines A1 + A1.
Seems a better balanced equilibrium point with TP5 vs CA12 carrying 1 Marines.After all, no cost has been determined irrevocably for now.
Even if Marines A1-2 D2 C4 have no outstanding combat values compared to Infantry, carrying them on BB and Cruiser is still a very useful capacity since you don’t need to invest as much on escorting warships since BB and Cruiser have high defense values and provide a useful 1 shot bombardment.
By weak Marines/ or special Infantry, I’m still thinking, and still assuming no special bonus (Marines) or penalty (Tk) during amphibious assault :
@Baron:@Baron:
The other way, still impressionistic, try to be more accurate at strategic and unit level to figure how 1 army group/division is different from a Marines group/division in combat value.
First, the army group is equipped with heavy infantry weapons like field artillery, grenade launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns etc etc that delivers a heavy punch, while the Marines and Paratroopers only have their rifles and must gamble on surprise and tactics.
Second, the army group got trucks and horses to supply them with ammo and stuff so they keep a good combat perseverance over long time, while the Marines and Paras only have food and ammo for 2 days of fighting.
To not ruin this very abstract game, I figure that Marines and Paras can only have special abilities in the combat move and first round of combat. After that they act like regular infantry.
About the Marines, I think they should roll 2 or less as standard during amphibious assaults, but shore bombardment from a Battleship or Cruiser can boost a matching Marine to a 3 or less as hit. Field artillery should of course not be allowed to boost any unit during amphibious assaults, since it takes a lot of time to move them ashore and get them working. Its not like a tank that just drive ashore and start shooting. Anyway I strongly believe in the A&A 1914 rules that let defending artillery fire one pre-emptive round at the landing party when they are swimming defenseless to the beach. Amphibious assaults against defended shores are actually very weak attacks, and it strongly favors the dug-in defenders in the bunker line. Its the Panzer blitzkrieg attack against surprised defenders in plain fields that are true strong attacks.
IMO, based on points bolded, it is clear that at army/division level Marines are weaker offense and defense.
I believe that we put high offense such as Attack 2 or even @3 in amphibious assault with Artillery or Battleship fire support based mostly on an individual comparison between soldier training and Marines training and some epic battle in Pacific islands invasion.But using the principle that Marines unit is first carried on board warships (Cruiser and Battleship) and have smaller weapons due to this restriction space on board warships.
Such A&A unit at a strategic theatre of operation level, we give Marines, at most, the same combat values than regular Infantry.In addition, since their training seems more complex and intensive and imply special movement with warships we can make it 1 IPC higher than regular Infantry.
On Paratroopers, assuming the Tech parameter linked to Air Base, dropping up to 3 TTs away in a TT already attacked by land units, carrying smaller weapons too and few ammunitions and supplys, it is already a stretch to give Paras the same combat values than regular Infantry. At least, we can say that surprise is a factor which make Paratrooper unit even to regular Infantry unit.
Again, we agree that their training is more intensive and complex compared to ordinary soldier, hence an additional 1 IPC higher than regular Infantry.
So, a solution can be, at least for a single type of unit for both Marines and Paratroopers:
Specially Trained Infantry (STI) /Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1Sea movement bonus:
1 STI unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 STIs or 1 STI plus any other 1 ground unit.
No combat bonus when making an amphibious assault.Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 ST Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
No combat bonus when airdropped.Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
No limit number on Specially Trained Infantry units.
OR, if we want an all purpose unit:
Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Ranger/Shock troop:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1-2Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.
No combat bonus when making an amphibious assault.Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 Elite Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
No combat bonus when airdropped.Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank, too).Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry.Maximum attack value remains 2.
No limit number on Elite units.
-
I agree that faction specific unit-rosters are a recipe for confusion, steep-learning curves, and low-adoption. But if you were going to add a unique unit for each faction, Â u really would not want to add any other units to the roster (even non-faction specific ones), because the new units would already be such a huge change/barrier to new players.
Really, I think it would be preferable to avoid faction-specific units for the reasons others have stated. So adding the ‘marines’ to all nations’s unit rosters (except China, of course) would be the better approach.
To CWO’s point, the fact that some countries historically did not use “marines” by that name, or did not use them as extensively or effectively as the US should not prevent their inclusion (even if u name them differently for each nation). It would be no different than allowing Russia to build an aircraft carrier (even though Russia didn’t build or deploy any during the war), or giving all nations armor with the same exact combat stats (even though there were substantial qualitative differences in the armor used by each nation during the war). As a practical matter, marines are going to be used most heavily by countries engaged in amphibious warfare–i.e., you’re not going to see russia building them in most games. And the fact that Germany did not utilize marines (or their functional equivalent) during the war does it mean it could not have, if it chose to emphasize strategic objectives that warranted them.
This sounds like a very sensible approach. One of few historical inaccuracies about A&A that’s never really bothered me is the fact that all the countries (except for China) in Global 1940 have access to the full roster of unit types, even if in real life they did not actually operate such units during WWII, or only had inferior-quality models. The USSR is a good example: in WWII, it didn’t have (as far as I know) any operational fleet carriers, and its battleships were all old and slow and under-gunned. So it would be in keeping with A&A OOB practice to allow everyone access to a dedicated Marine unit (with identical characteristics for all nations), even if in real life some of these Marine-type or quasi-Marine-type forces were not all of the same size or quality. And another argument in favour of using Marines as a special infantry unit with an amphibious-landing bonus, as opposed to adding generic elite forces, is that such a Marine unit was actually included (though just for the US) in the original Pacific game, with its own distinctively-coloured (though not distinctively shaped) sculpt…so it’s a concept that’s been officially used in the actual A&A game line.
Out of curiosity, I’ve done some looking around to see which of the Global 1940 player countries had either actual Marines or troops that could be construed as being similar to Marines during WWII. It looks as if they all did (to one degree or another), so I’ve posted below the list of names that I’ve found. I’ve left out China because Chinese forces aren’t allowed to leave their home soil under the OOB rules, and thus can’t carry out amphibious landings.
United States / US Marines
United Kingdom / Royal Marines
Soviet Union / Soviet Naval Infantry
ANZAC / Naval Beach Commandos
France / Fusiliers Marins
China / [Not applicable]
Germany / Marine Stossrupp Abteilung
Japan / Special Naval Landing Forces
Italy / San Marco Regiment -
Regularkid made good points.
I have always thought that including nation-specific units were problematic in a couple ways. One of which being they tend to be pretty American-centric. At least with people who like to include special units in house rules, most of them seem to involve US special use forces while ignoring other nations’ equivalent or similar forces.
I think everyone should be given the options to buy/develop the same spread of special units or tech. Puts everyone on an even footing and each nation should end up tailoring its special units/tech upgrades to what it needs in the game.
-
Perhaps instead of a generic +1 to attack at all times, you just give them a +1 to attack in the first round of the combat phase. Then the unit type could be used for all Nations, but you could give a nod to the Corps by just having a lot of these units staged and ready for deployment at Pearl and W. US when you do the set up chart for the Americans.
Does TripleA coding allows this kind of bonus: +1A for first combat round and only this combat round?
…
Paras should be like this, up to 3 Paras can combat move up to 3 spaces away from a working AirBase**. I know the OOB rules says 2 units, but it can scramble 3 fighters, so lets keep numbers that everybody can remember.**Yes, Marc is correct, Paras are light armed, but sometimes surprise is stronger than heavy guns. I figure the surprise factor justifies a first roll of 2 or less as hits.
Of course you can drop Paras only in any territory within range of your AB. They don’t need a back up force coming from adjacent territory. In the Battle of Crete, the Italian amphibious assault failed, because the Brits had a lot of battleships in the seazone. Then the Germans dropped Paras from planes. The first men in chutes would usually capture an airfield, and the following up forces would land on that airfield, so 3 Paras from an AB don’t just represent 100 000 men with chutes, it represent men landing in gliders or air transports landing on newly captured airfields too.
…As Narvik pointed out, the first combat round can figure for the first days of paratroopers airdrop surprise effect or beachheads battle (which took no more than 1 or 2 days, besides shorebombardment).
I think everyone agree that a whole player’s turn figures for many months of war.This bonus seems accurate and add some flavour to a unit which is similar to Infantry otherwise.
It could work for a single Marines/Paratrooper unit.
Specially Trained Infantry (STI) /Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1Sea movement bonus:
1 STI unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 STIs or 1 STI plus any other 1 ground unit.
+1A first combat round bonus when making an amphibious assault.Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 ST Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
+1A first combat round bonus when airdropped.Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
-
@CWO:
Out of curiosity, I’ve done some looking around to see which of the Global 1940 player countries had either actual Marines or troops that could be construed as being similar to Marines during WWII. It looks as if they all did (to one degree or another), so I’ve posted below the list of names that I’ve found. I’ve left out China because Chinese forces aren’t allowed to leave their home soil under the OOB rules, and thus can’t carry out amphibious landings.
United States / US Marines
United Kingdom / Royal Marines
Soviet Union / Soviet Naval Infantry
ANZAC / Naval Beach Commandos
France / Fusiliers Marins
China / [Not applicable]
Germany / Marine Stossrupp Abteilung
Japan / Special Naval Landing Forces
Italy / San Marco RegimentThis was an awesome post. I learned something! The wiki article on the San Marco Regiment was particularly instructive, excerpted below:
With the beginning of the Italian campaign during World War I, the unit was named the Brigata Marina (Naval Brigade), and included two regiments, one infantry and one artillery.[1] The brigade’s infantry battalions were drawn from various Army and customs units, in addition to sailors from the torpedoed Italian navy cruiser Amalfi who were hastily equipped as infantry.[2] Following the Battle of Caporetto in October–November 1917, the Italian front had almost collapsed and the Marina Brigade fought in the defence of Venice during the Battle of the Piave River. After the war, the grateful city presented a flag with the Lion of Saint Mark, from Venice’s coat of arms, to the marines of the Naval Brigade. The Naval Brigade was renamed the San Marco Brigade because of the connection with Venice, and the Italian Ship of the same name that was sunk in World War I [2][3]
Between the two world wars only a “San Marco Battalion” existed. A special unit of the battalion was sent to garrison the Italian concession in Tianjin, China in 1924 and stayed there until it was interned by the Japanese in 1943, when Italy declared war on the Axis. In the confusion, one post resisted, holding out against Japanese attacks for 24 hours before surrendering. The interned Italians were then given the choice to represent the collaborationist fascist government, or become prisoners of war. The San Marco Battalion also served during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.
At the beginning of the Second World War it became a two battalion regiment and later increased in size, and prepared for amphibious landings at Cape Martin in France which never happened.[2]When Italy attacked Yugoslavia in April 1941, the San Marco Marines carried out successful landings on several islands in the Adriatic and seized ports against minimal resistance.[2]The regiment expanded to seven battalions before the final desert battles in 1943, including the Battaglione Nuotatori who were trained as parachutists in 1941. The 3rd Battalion of the ‘San Marco’ Regiment, which became known as the Tobruk battalion,[4] repelled landings by British Commandos at Tobruk during the night of 13/14 September in 1942, in the course of the botched Operation Agreement. As a result, 200 British Commandos were taken prisoner.
The regiment fought at Tobruk and Tunisia, where it defended the Mareth line during April and May 1943. The Tobruk Battalion was later destroyed on the night of 5 April 1943 while defending the Oidane-el-Hachana line against an attack on Wadi Akarit by the British 69th Infantry Brigade and Gurkha units from the Indian Army 4th Infantry Division.[2][5]
“When we were about ten yards away we had reached the top of the slit trench and we killed any of the survivors,” recalled British infantryman Bill Cheall, who had just seen his section leader shot down by a San Marco Marine. “It was no time for pussy footing, we were intoxicated with rage and had to kill them to pay for our fallen pal.” [6]
The Italian Marines, well dug and plentifully supplied with automatic weapons and grenades, fought well, and casualties among the 6th Green Howards had been severe; two senior officers, six senior NCO’s and junior officers and one hundred and eighteen other ranks killed.[7]
German General Hans-Jürgen von Arnim later said of the San Marco Marines fighting abilities in Tunisia in 1943, that they were “the best soldiers I ever commanded”.[8][9]Following the Italian surrender in 1943, many San Marco marines fought for the Allies against the Germans, however the 4th (Caorle) Battalion fought for the Axis until the end of the war.
-
Given the size/scope of the territories involved, a “marine” unit that is unloaded into Normandy as part of a D-Day drop, could be imagined instead as a paratrooper (even if it’s technically being delivered by a warship or transport for the gameplay mechanic, you could just pretend it was an air drop in advance of the larger amphibious landing.) If its not explicitly named “Marine” but rather something like Marine/Elite Infantry. It’s just one of those situations where some freedom of imagination would be nice, instead of pretending an alternate history (that has USMC storming fortress Europa) you just pretend that in this case the unit is not a Marine, but rather a Paratrooper or a Ranger.
Does something like that make sense?
I’m not sure how to answer your “Does something like that make sense?” question because I’m not sure I understand the concept you’re describing.
If we define a Marine unit as an infantry-type unit which gets a bonus on amphibious landings, I don’t see any problem with their being used to make amphibious landings in Europe. The USMC didn’t, as far as I know, make any such landings in Europe during WWII, but they could certainly have done so if they had been sent there. There’s no reason to have a rule (if I’m understanding your proposal correctly) which says that in order for US infantry-type units to get an amphibious landing bonus in Europe they have to be called Rangers instead of Marines, because a US Marine making an amphibious assault on a beach in Normany is conceptually just as valid as a US Marine making an amphibious assault on a beach on Iwo Jima.
What isn’t conceptually valid is to consider terms like “Marine” and “paratrooper” and “commando” (and so forth) as interchangeable or arbitrary. That would be like saying that “battleship” and “cruiser” and “destroyer” are interchangeable terms because they all refer to surface-combat warships and, therefore, to vessels which have few or no significant differences between them. That’s not the case for warships, and it’s not the case for elite forces like Marines and paras and commandos and whatnot. These infantry-type units have different names for a very good reason, and it has nothing to do with what service branches they belong to (because in fact some of them – like paratroopers and Rangers, which are both Army personnel – actually belong to the same service branch). The reason they have different names is that they serve in very different roles, and have very different training and equipment to carry out those roles. Paratroopers have no special skills in making assaults against defended beaches, Marines have no special skills in making parachute jumps, and commandos have no special skills in either of those capacities.
-
@CWO:
Given the size/scope of the territories involved, a “marine” unit that is unloaded into Normandy as part of a D-Day drop, could be imagined instead as a paratrooper (even if it’s technically being delivered by a warship or transport for the gameplay mechanic, you could just pretend it was an air drop in advance of the larger amphibious landing.) If its not explicitly named “Marine” but rather something like Marine/Elite Infantry. It’s just one of those situations where some freedom of imagination would be nice, instead of pretending an alternate history (that has USMC storming fortress Europa) you just pretend that in this case the unit is not a Marine, but rather a Paratrooper or a Ranger.
Does something like that make sense?
I’m not sure how to answer your “Does something like that make sense?” question because I’m not sure I understand the concept you’re describing.
I think I get this and was considering proposing something similar.
Correct me if I am wrong Balck_Elk, but it appears you mean simply having one Elite infantry unit type which counts for any non-standard infantry. Meaning the Elite Infantry stand for Marines, Paratroopers, Commandos, etc… as the situation on the board warrants.
While not entirely accurate, I think the scale of the game suits this simplification. It is possible that even the addition of a single Elite infantry unit could be superfluous or under-utilized. Compare that to introducing 3 separate elite or special use unit types (Airborne - Paratroopers, Marines - Navy, Commandos/Rangers - Army). I don’t think you would ever have the time to buy enough of the ones that you need. Better to just have one unit that can serve in multiple roles. Makes the piece much more useful overall.
Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.
-
Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.
And I’m not opposed to this concept. As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance. A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so. The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)
-
@CWO:
Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.
And I’m not opposed to this concept. As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance. A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so. The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)
So, if I understand, it would not be possible to use 1 unit as qualified for the two situations, amphibious assault aboard cruiser or airborne attack with AB. Right?
-
@Baron:
@CWO:
Personally I think a simplification of one Elite unit type is plenty and would agree with melding all types into one.
And I’m not opposed to this concept. As I indicated earlier, such a generic elite infantry unit could be perfectly realistic as long as it has a single, modest ability boost that never changes in any circumstance. A bonus of +1 on all attacks would be one option for doing so. The unit would not make sense, however, if its characteristics change from situation to situation (e.g. a +1 bonus on attack in Situation A, a + 1 bonus on defense in Situation B, etc.), or if it’s allowed to have multiple special abilities representing multiple specialized capabilities (a bonus on amphibious landings, a special transport-by-cruiser ability, a special airborne/parachute landing capability. etc.)
So, if I understand, it would not be possible to use 1 unit as qualified for the two situations, amphibious assault aboard cruiser or airborne attack with AB. Right?
No. They’d have a +1 bonus on attack and nothing else. No special transport abilities. No riding aboard cruisers or battleships, no parachuting from planes. Transportation of elite troops would be exactly the same as transportation of normal infantry. Their “elite” status would simply be an expression of higher morale and motivation, translating into a small attack bonus. It would not give them any special abilities that, in real life, would only apply to Marines or would only apply to paratroopers or would only apply to any other specialized troop type. If these “elite” forces are supposed to be generic, then they have to be realistically generic. They can’t be a combination of half-a-dozen different troop types that all have specialized skills. To put it another way: if a regular infantryman is a standard knife, then an elite infantryman would be a dagger, not a Swiss Army knife.
-
Quick edit: Sorry, I should have said, “Yes, it would not be possible” rather than “No” in answer to your question “Right?” I was typing too fast. Yes, you’re right that it would not be possible to use 1 unit as two different types of units.
-
Well it would be fairly easy to just adopt the rules of the previous Pacific game verbetum, but you still have an issue in G40 that you didn’t have in the original Pacific game, namely that the new Pacific 1940 map is designed to be integrated with the Europe 1940 map. So I can easily imagine a situation where you have all the Marines crossing the Altantic for a USMC lead D-Day invasion. The unit abilities described above would be much more valuable (in game play terms) if used to invade France or Berlin etc. Because they get a boost on Amphibious and the first round of combat is so key to those battles.
Hey Folks,
in our G40 games we use the ‘Marine-Rules’ from the old A&A-Pacific along with the dark-green minitaures. And as Black Elk suggested, if US-Marines were deployed to the Atlantic, we treat them as rangers.
In addition, since the Japanese miniatures of the old Pacific are red, we use them as SNLF units. (And 6 old red Japanese figthers are used as Kamikaze Planes)
This workes very well for us.Greetings,
Lars -
@CWO:
No.� They’d have a +1 bonus on attack and nothing else.� No special transport abilities.� No riding aboard cruisers or battleships, no parachuting from planes.� Transportation of elite troops would be exactly the same as transportation of normal infantry.� Their “elite” status would simply be an expression of higher morale and motivation, translating into a small attack bonus.� It would not give them any special abilities that, in real life, would only apply to Marines or would only apply to paratroopers or would only apply to any other specialized troop type.� If these “elite” forces are supposed to be generic, then they have to be realistically generic.� They can’t be a combination of half-a-dozen different troop types that all have specialized skills.� To put it another way: if a regular infantryman is a standard knife, then an elite infantryman would be a dagger, not a Swiss Army knife.
Well, my intention was the opposite. Why couldn’t they be a single unit which has different specialized abilities in different situations? This is what would make them a very useful and valuable piece. If you just have an infantry unit that has a better attack value than normal infantry, then what is the big deal? Why buy them?
Normal infantry pieces in AA actually comprise (theoretically) a number of specialized functions that are contained withing a single Corps or Army level formation. There are engineers, medical support, combat infantry, reconnaissance teams, logistics/mobility units, intelligence units and limited bombardment units such as mortar and artillery. All of these are combined in a single unit type for game purposes.
Special forces or elite units, by comparison have some of these elements but in far fewer numbers. Additionally, combining the very tactical abilities of parachute jumps or amphibious assaults under one unit is not so far fetched. It was less common in WWII, but special forces today employ many, if not all, of those abilities. For example, the US Marine Corps has both amphibious and parachute detachments. The SEALs do pretty much everything these days, but even their origins in WWII in Scout and Raiders/UDT combined amphib assault and commando tactics. US Ranger battalions famously conducted amphib assaults at Omaha beach, even though they were not “Marines” - as I believe you pointed out Marc.
More than anything else, this would greatly simplify infantry unit types and greatly improve their overall usefulness. If in an amphibious assault, the Elite is treated as a Marine. Elites can also be used as paratroopers, however anyone’s personal rules allow for them. And Elites also act as a generalized commando/upper echelon infantry formation, with roll values to match.
No, it isn’t perfectly accurate, but I think it is a very reasonable and pretty good solution for this scale of game without providing for 3 separate additional infantry types. (Which would push us up to 6 or 7 infantry types depending on what game you play.)
Suggested Topics
