G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

[CWO Marc]

@Baron:

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

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.

[CWO Marc]

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.

[The Hessian]

@Black_Elk:

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

[LHoffman]

@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.)

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

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.

@CWO:

@Baron:

@CWO:

@LHoffman:

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?

Yes.  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.

These two posts give a pretty good summary of the aporetic issue on adding a single other non-ordinary Infantry.
Either we create an all purpose unit (3 purposes: Marines/Paras/Rangers,  or 2 purposes: Marines/Rangers or Marines/Paras or Paras/Rangers), or we have to chose which type of special Infantry unit, probably Marines, we want to introduce at the expense of letting aside the others.

Maybe I get a way to sort out the opposition between Marines only, more historically accurate approach, vs Elite (all purposes), more strategic game approach.

I would accept this solution to introduce a useful unit as much as possible (not too specialized).

Paras can stay a Tech, as it is.
Marines or Marines/Rangers (I view Ranger as a kind of Shock troop), according to Hessian seems less opposed in their ability.

Elite Infantry: Marines/Rangers (Shock troop):
(Reduced survivability on defense)
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1-2

Sea 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.

Land movement bonus:
Gets Move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank or Tank+MI).

No combined arms with Artillery.

No production limitation.

[LHoffman]

Paratroopers could remain solely a tech item. If you were to keep them as such, they are simply regular infantry that get the airborne movement. They have no other special attack/def values and you cannot outright buy them. A combined Marine/Elite unit would then cut out the airborne element but still allow the amphib bonus.

Ultimately, a system like that is just as good because you still only introduce one new unit rather than three. It just depends on the system you want to use. Personally, I am of the mind to not have Paratroopers as a tech development and would rather people just be able to buy them and use as desired (albeit as a single, multipurpose elite level infantry).

Oh, and for reference, my system would look something like:

Elite Infantry  A2+  D3  M1   $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units. NO bonus for Artillery support. Possible Cap on total number allowed on board per Nation.

Attack should be reg infantry max and reflect combined arms component with Armor for a +1. To me, a structure like A2 D1 $4 for Elite is essentially a less capable infantry unit at higher cost. In no way should Elite infantry have an inferior defense to normal infantry. If anything it should be higher to reflect their status and resolve.

[CWO Marc]

@LHoffman:

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.

It’s a fair point that some Special Forces today do in fact have multiple talents and skills, but there are two problems with applying this concept to a generic elite A&A unit.  One problem is a minor realism issue, and the other is a major realism issue.  The minor realism issue is that these sorts of multi-skilled Special Forces personnel were less common in WWII than today.  The major realism issue, however, is an issue that exists just as much today as it did in WWII: the fact that the more skills you want to give to a soldier, the more money and time is required to train and equip them, and the fewer men you can find who have the qualifications that make it possible for them to be trained to the required standard – and therefore the fewer such soldiers you can realistically produce.  To give a concrete example:

• It’s perfectly realistic (because it was actually done in WWII) to produce a division-sized group of Marines – say, 10,000 men – who have the specific skills to carry out an amphibious assault on a defended beach, and who’ve trained for months to carry out that specific attack, but who don’t have a whole bunch of Swiss Army knife Special Force skills (parachuting, hand-to-hand-silent combat, sending Morse code, etc.)

• It’s perfectly realistic (because it was actually done in WWII) to produce a regiment-sized group of Special Forces – say, 2,000 men – who have a whole bunch of Swiss Army knife Special Force skills like the ones I mentioned.  The British Army’s SAS, which was founded in WWII, is an example of such a unit.

• It is NOT realistic to produce division-sized groups of soldiers who have the range of skills and abilities of Special Forces units.  Special Forces of this type are tremendously expensive to create and maintain, and take a huge amount of time to train, so they can’t be mass-produced on the scale of regular military formations.  And even if time and money were no objection, there’s another problem that would make such a concept impossible to implement: qualifications.  It’s only a small minority of potential candidates who have the intelligence, the physical toughness and the other qualifications needed to be in Special Forces units.

Case in point: the current British SAS draws its potential recruits from every branch of the British Armed Forces, so its applicants are already fully-trained military personnel.  Of those applicants, the majority are aren’t just regular soldiers; they’re often soldiers who’ve served as commandos or paratroopers – so we’re already talking about soldiers who are above average.  Out of each batch of (typically) 200 of these high-quality recruits, just how many survive the extremely tough selection process and get their SAS beret?  About 30.  That’s a 15% acceptance rate.  The other 85% weren’t rejected because they’re creampuffs, they were rejected because Special Forces units, by definition, have extraordinarily high requirements which are impossible to apply to large-scale military formations.

As has been mentioned, the US Marines did have paratroops units (the Paramarines) in WWII, and they did have a couple of commando-type Raider Batallions – so yes it’s true that some Marines did have multiple specialized abilities.  But that’s precisely the point I’ve been trying to make: these were specialist Marine units, not standard ones, and it took long, expensive, special training for them to gain those abilities (as colourfully depicted in tthe WWII movie Gung Ho).  Just because a small number of specialized Marine units hand multiple abilities doesn’t mean that the far more numerous “standard” Marines had those abilities.  They didn’t.

[LHoffman]

I agree with your analysis Marc and think you are spot on.

The only reason I am suggesting combining all three into one is for the sake of simplicity. I think it would be better for the game as a whole to combine and simplify rather than expand based on the historic legacy of each country or the tactical abilities of certain forces.

As you referenced, Marine-type units could be produced in a similar quantity to regular infantry because they were utilized (by the United States) at a Corps/Division level.

Commando special forces never approach divisional level numbers, let alone a corps which is the more accurate A&A level of representation. Airborne divisions for the US, Germany and the UK may have added up to one or two Corps level units total, but that is it.

My point is that other than for Marines, it is improper to have an entire infantry unit used to represent a commando unit or even an airborne unit in most instances. These two types, more so than Marines, are highly tactical in nature and have little place in Axis&Allies.

The combination of Marines, Commandos and Airborne units into a single Elite infantry seeks to amalgamate the abilities and individual minority of said units into a collective representation. You can still disagree with it and I understand why. But to me this is another case of sacrificing a small amount of historical/physical accuracy to smoothly accommodate a niche unit that people want to play with.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

I agree with your analysis Marc and think you are spot on.

The only reason I am suggesting combining all three into one is for the sake of simplicity. I think it would be better for the game as a whole to combine and simplify rather than expand based on the historic legacy of each country or the tactical abilities of certain forces.

As you referenced, Marine-type units could be produced in a similar quantity to regular infantry because they were utilized (by the United States) at a Corps/Division level.

Commando special forces never approach divisional level numbers, let alone a corps which is the more accurate A&A level of representation. Airborne divisions for the US, Germany and the UK may have added up to one or two Corps level units total, but that is it.

My point is that other than for Marines, it is improper to have an entire infantry unit used to represent a commando unit or even an airborne unit in most instances. These two types, more so than Marines, are highly tactical in nature and have little place in Axis&Allies.

The combination of Marines, Commandos and Airborne units into a single Elite infantry seeks to amalgamate the abilities and individual minority of said units into a collective representation. You can still disagree with it and I understand why. But to me this is another case of sacrificing a small amount of historical/physical accuracy to smoothly accommodate a niche unit that people want to play with.

“The combination of Marines, Commandos and Airborne units into a single Elite infantry seeks to amalgamate the abilities and individual minority of said units into a collective representation.”
Well said.  :-)
It  express the strategic game perspective IMO on this non-standard Infantry unit.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah. I may not have drawn a clear enough distinction there from my earlier posts. What I meant was not a rule about what to call the unit in a given situation, but rather pointing out that its earier to go from generic to specific in the imagination, than it is to go the other way round. If the unit is called marine explicitly and the US player uses them in Europe, then from a gameplay narrative standpoint you’ve got the USMC in Europe, whereas if the name is more generic then you can make up a different story. Though to do that I agree that the combat bonus needs to be equally generic. Basically in the same way that the generic infantry unit in the current OOB can be imagined as a “marine”, since things are left open, infantry is imagined as more of an abstract catch all.

I don’t have any issue borrowing from the previous Pacific game for Marines, or to have marine units for each player as a purchasing option as suggested above. I think you can do a lot with the set up chart to give the US and Britain these units at the start, and just let other players choose if they want them. Also dont really have a major issue with US marines in Europe, since that is something that could have happened if the command wanted, as Barney noted. But I know for some players if it becomes a pronounced thing that occurs every game, it can be kind of annoying when the game encourage ahistorical purchasing patterns. Similar to the way the Japanese tank drive was kind of annoying in Classic and Revised. But again I think we can achieve a lot through starting placement, as a way to give a nod to the history, rather than purchasing restriction.

[baron Münchhausen]

@LHoffman:

Oh, and for reference, my system would look something like: �

Elite Infantry �A2+ �D3 �M1 � $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units. NO bonus for Artillery support. Possible Cap on total number allowed on board per Nation.

Attack should be reg infantry max and reflect combined arms component with Armor for a +1**. To me, a structure like A2 D1 $4 for Elite is essentially a less capable infantry unit at higher cost. In no way should Elite infantry have an inferior defense to normal infantry. If anything it should be higher to reflect their status and resolve.**

D1 was to reflect the smaller number of soldiers involved per unit compared to standard Infantry unit.
It is not for lesser morale but for less logistics and support required by this unit.
Also, the land movement bonus come from the less numbered, less equiped special Infantry unit.
Attack @2 is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser carrying capacity.

This unit have a better attacking factor because of their abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldier. They can do a lot with less but not for an extended period.

In addition, their lower defense factor would make them amongst the first casualty during counter-attack which can figure for they high risk mission they undertake.

I believe I’m more conservative on combat points.
Such A2-3 D3 M1 C5 would be stats for Heavy Artillery unit in my HR not special infantrymen with light weapons.

[LHoffman]

@Black_Elk:

I think you can do a lot with the set up chart to give the US and Britain these units at the start, and just let other players choose if they want them.

This is kind of what I meant about the American-centric aspect. If you give some Marine units to USA and UK to begin the game, you really should give them to Japan also since the Japanese Special Naval Landing Force also existed pre-1941.

To back up my previous statements, it says in the Wikipedia article that the SNLF conducted more parachute drops than parachute detachments in the Japanese Army. FWIW

The SNLF was overall a very small force, much more so than the US Marine Corps… however, to reiterate, we would be making a stretch to include Elite units anyway and every nation should be able to buy them if desired.

[baron Münchhausen]

@CWO:

@Black_Elk:

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.

My main objection on this Marines unit is such a high attack factor of a Tank level which can be obtained by packing 1 Marines and 1 Artillery aboard TP.
For 8 IPCs, you get A3 +A2 during amphibious assault.
For 10 IPCs, the same Marines, in amphibious assault, A2 + Tk A3 is way much weaker.
That explains why an optimized buyer put US Marines on Europe side to break Atlantic Wall.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

@LHoffman:

Oh, and for reference, my system would look something like: �

Elite Infantry �A2+ �D3 �M1 � $5 - A3 when paired 1:1 with Armor units. NO bonus for Artillery support. Possible Cap on total number allowed on board per Nation.

Attack should be reg infantry max and reflect combined arms component with Armor for a +1**. To me, a structure like A2 D1 $4 for Elite is essentially a less capable infantry unit at higher cost. In no way should Elite infantry have an inferior defense to normal infantry. If anything it should be higher to reflect their status and resolve.**

D1 was to reflect the smaller number of soldiers involved per unit compared to standard Infantry unit.
It is not for lesser morale but for less logistics and support required by this unit.
Also, the land movement bonus come from the less numbered, less equiped special Infantry unit.
Attack @2 is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser carrying capacity.

This unit have a better attacking factor because of their abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldier. They can do a lot with less but not for an extended period.

In addition, their lower defense factor would make them amongst the first casualty during counter-attack which can figure for they high risk mission they undertake.

I believe I’m more conservative on combat points.
Such A2-3 D3 M1 C5 would be stats for Heavy Artillery unit in my HR not special infantrymen with light weapons.

This is reasonable and on second thought I may need to revise my numbers. However, when I drew up the above unit profile, it was with the thought of an SS Corps/Division in mind… not really an airborne or commando style unit. For those, yes, they are lighter armed and have survivability issues based on their insertions. However, simply as an Elite infantry unit within the overall army, they would have the same supply and mobility of any other unit. E.g… they are not behind enemy lines somewhere and have full access to supplies, communications, mobility and friendly support.

The attack could probably be reduced to normal max for infantry A2 (no bonus for tanks). But I am pretty insistent on defense of 3. More than attack, Elite units are renowned for their penchant of fighting determinedly and to the death in defense. Their roll should reflect that. If Defense drops to 2, then they are no different from regular infantry.

[baron Münchhausen]

Building a 5 IPCs unit for SS division,
I would agree with your numbers.
A2 D3 M1 C5.
But Elite must works on most situations discussed before too.
That is the issue.

[LHoffman]

@Baron:

Building a 5 IPCs unit for SS division,
I would agree with your numbers.
A2 D3 M1 C5.
But Elite must works on most situations discussed before too.
That is the issue.

Yes, that is what I am now trying to reconcile.

Considering the lighter armed and limited supply aspect of airborne troops, it may be necessary to have them be a separate unit entirely - if they are even designated as a separate unit at all. The problem with paratroopers is that they are very tactical use formation not meant for outright battle against massed formations. Meaning, I don’t think the intention is to use 2 paratrooper divisions to attack 2 infantry Corps behind the enemy’s lines.

Marines and Elite Army units could readily be interchangeable and therefore combined as it relates to game representation. I would not propose a different roll value for Elite infantry in an amphib assault; it would be the same A2 D3 spread as if they were fighting on land. Maybe this is what Marc was talking about before and I responded in a different fashion. If so I apologize for the confusion.

[barney]

@Baron:

Elite Infantry: Marines/Rangers (Shock troop):
(Reduced survivability on defense)
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1-2

Sea 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.

Land movement bonus:
Gets Move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank or Tank+MI).

No combined arms with Artillery.

No production limitation.

This would probably be the simplest way to go. I think you’d have to go to 5 bucks though and give it D2. Essentially you’re getting a A2 D2 M2 unit. You can then think of it as any type of elite unit you want.

[baron Münchhausen]

The problem is that intuitively
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 2
Cost 5
Is too near an hypothetical Mechanized Artillery (Artillery with +1M).
You only need to add a +1A bonus to Infantry or Mechanized Infantry paired 1:1 and… so be it.

[barney]

yea it kinda screws them on the amphib attack as well.

[baron Münchhausen]

@barney:

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.

@LHoffman:

…
However, when I drew up the above unit profile, it was with the thought of an SS Corps/Division in mind… not really an airborne or commando style unit. For those, yes, they are lighter armed and have survivability issues based on their insertions. However, simply as an Elite infantry unit within the overall army, they would have the same supply and mobility of any other unit. E.g… they are not behind enemy lines somewhere and have full access to supplies, communications, mobility and friendly support.
The attack could probably be reduced to normal max for infantry A2 (no bonus for tanks). But I am pretty insistent on defense of 3. More than attack, Elite units are renowned for their penchant of fighting determinedly and to the death in defense. Their roll should reflect that. If Defense drops to 2, then they are no different from regular infantry.

Thinking along this Marines idea but including a more boosted unit for German’s shock trooper as asked by LHoffmann, here is what can be imagined:

Elite Infantry: as Marines/Rangers/Shock troop:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2-3
Move 1-2

Sea 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 additional bonus for making an amphibious assault.

Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Mechanized Infantry +Tank (blitz along with Tank+MI).

Combat bonus:
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.
Gets +1D combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.

Maximum attack value remains 2.

No limit production on Elite units.

---

That way,  an amphibious assault by BB or Cruiser only remains weak, same as regular Infantry A1 D2.

On TP, the Marines-Rangers is better with Tank (viewed as Amtrack for this amphibious ops), A2 D3 + A3 D3.

On land, they need Mechanized Infantry to get M2.
And the best trio is as Rangers/Shock troops with MI+Tank, A2 D3 + A1 D2 + A3 D3.
But paired with Tank only, this Elite unit cannot get Move 2.