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.
@CWO:
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.
@Baron:
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.
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.
@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.
@Baron:
Elite Infantry: Marines/Rangers (Shock troop):
(Reduced survivability on defense)
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 1
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.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.
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.
yea it kinda screws them on the amphib attack as well.
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.
…
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.
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.
I appreciate CWO Mark and your lucid analysis. Having play tested marines (Cost 5, attack 1, defend 2, no artillery support, +1 amphib attack bonus, can travel on battleships and cruisers, as well as transports) with a standard G40 starting setup, I can attest that they do not get spammed or used in a manner that would be considered grossly ahistoric.
yea it kinda screws them on the amphib attack as well.
Not sure what this means. Also, I still don’t understand why these units are being given a movement bonus with mechs. If you characterize them as ‘marines,’ it makes no sense at all. And if you characterize them simply as all-purpose “elite infantry,” they lose their unique historicality. The explanation of “They’re highly motivated” seems a little weak.
yea it kinda screws them on the amphib attack as well.
Not sure what this means. Also, I still don’t understand why these units are being given a movement bonus with mechs. If you characterize them as ‘marines,’ it makes no sense at all. And if you characterize them simply as all-purpose “elite infantry,” they lose their unique historicality. The explanation of “They’re highly motivated” seems a little weak.
It meant that on amphibious assault Artillery is better than the unit Barney suggested.
About my last idea, on Marines-Ranger/Schock troop:
OK, what happened if we left aside bonus move from MI (thinking of it as this smaller unit is carried along with regular troops, or getting a supply of Trucks or any appropriate vehicule to move 2)?
Is it an interesting unit to buy at 4 IPCs?
A1 rising to A2 with Tank, is not interesting compared to Artillery.
D2 which rise to D3 with a 6 IPCs Tank D3, not better than 1 Art and 2 Inf, A5 D6, 3 hits.
With M2, Elite+ MI+Tank= C14, A6 D8, 3 hits becomes a tactically viable and optimized mix of units.
C14, 2 Art, 2 Inf M1 = A8 D8, 4 hits
If any mobility capacity have to be denied to Rangers and Marines, at least this type of unit gives more interesting capacity with Tank and still allows to be carried on Cruiser and Battleship.
That is the main specialty of Marines, being on board Warships.
Since they are in smaller number than any Army soldier unit put on TP, Marines stay at same value
when making an amphibious attack from warships.
However, I would consider Marines-Rangers as a specialized unit which works better in coordination with Tank and armored tracked vehicules.
Hence, this also works for Waffen-SS (shock troop) unit cooperating with Panzer divisions.
So this Marines idea keep a 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
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 when making an amphibious assault.
Combat bonus:
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A/D combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.
Maximum attack value remains 2.
No limit production on Elite units.
Having play tested marines (Cost 5, attack 1, defend 2, no artillery support, +1 amphib attack bonus, can travel on battleships and cruisers, as well as transports) with a standard G40 starting setup, I can attest that they do not get spammed or used in a manner that would be considered grossly ahistoric.
@Baron:
Playtest it and see for yourself. Maybe you will have a different experience than me. My experience has been that the unit works perfectly with a cost of 5.
The way I have it set up in the mod is that the unit gets transported on both cruisers and battleships.
What was exactly the combat value of the Marines you play-tested, Kid?
Was it this?
Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 5
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship or Cruiser.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Cannot combine with +1A Artillery bonus in any other situation.
If it is the case, the unit is weaker than regular infantry.
The high cost come from is combined arms with cruiser and nothing else.
It should be revised.The comparative calculations I made between such Cruiser and Escorted TPs showed that it is always better to built Cruiser with Marines.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1470463#msg1470463
This unit is too specialized and, at 5 IPCs, too weak in regular combat compared to regular Infantry.
It is broken.
That explains why it is not spammed with Cruiser able to carry one.
If the intent is to introduced a new unit, make it an interesting one.
Once the amphibious assault is done, this unit bring nothing but weak fire power offense and defense.
3 IPCs Infantry is able to attack @2 with Artillery bonus, while this 5 IPCs unit stay @1.
If it is put at 4 IPCs, what make it OP with Cruiser is the amphibious attack @2.
To keep a balanced attack with Cruiser similar to A2 for 5 IPCs ratio, and still be a working competitive unit in other kind of combat, you can make it that way:
Slighlty above A2/5 IPCs odds survival, 66% vs 33%
Marines
Attack 1
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 3
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship or Cruiser.
Gets no bonus during amphibious assault, and cannot be supported by Artillery
Cannot get Artillery bonus in any other situation.
OR,
Slighlty below A2/5 IPCs odds survival, 33% vs 66%
Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 4
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship or Cruiser.
Gets no bonus during amphibious assault.
Get +1A when paired 1:1 with Artillery in any situation.
I disagree with the statement (stated in a previous post) that “That is the main specialty of Marines, being on board Warships.” That’s not the function or the specialty of Marines. “Being on board warships” is, in and of itself, a pointless function. Warships don’t carry anyone or anything that serves no purpose. Even the ship’s cats traditionally carried aboard Royal Navy ships have a function: catching rats and mice. Marines are basically – to put it in perhaps overly simplistic terms – “the Navy’s infantry”, meaning military personnel who fulfil infantry-type functions (such as figthing with rifles) but who are part of (or attached to, or associated with, or “first cousins” of, depending on the country) the Navy rather than the Army. As such, they’re sometimes found on warships…but they’re not there just for the sake of being on the ship. (I explained in a previous post what the functions of a shipboard Marine detachment is, so I won’t repeat that information.)
And I also disagree with the concept of a Marine unit that “Gets no bonus during amphibious assault.” To me, this would throw out the window the whole point of having Marines. Expertise at making amphibious assaults is, as far as I know, the capability that the USMC traditionally sees as being its crown jewel, as the warfighting method that it can do better than any other service. It’s not for nothing that the Marine Corps War Memorial near Arlington National Cemetery is a huge bronze statuary replication of the iconic WWII photograph of a group of Marines raising the US flag on Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima.
“Being on board warships” is, in and of itself, a pointless function. Warships don’t carry anyone or anything that serves no purpose.
The general context was game rather than historical comments.
Inside A&A OOB, no Infantry can be put on board warships.
That would be a totally new features to allow a Infantry/Marines unit to travel by Cruiser or Battleship.
The idea is to find a game narrative which can stick to units maneuvers and tactics on gameboard.
OOB G40 or 1942, it is Inf+Art on TP in Pacific which figures for Marines.
The opportunity to travel a new kind of Infantry unit by CA and BB can be enough distinctive features to say this is not a standard infantry unit.
And I also disagree with the concept of a Marine unit that “Gets no bonus during amphibious assault.” To me, this would throw out the window the whole point of having Marines.
There is many ways to provides an advantage to a specific unit.
Some can be complex and other simpler.
Giving a direct attack bonus labelled for a specific action is a way.
Creating features in which an optimizing player will use such unit for amphibious assault even if their is no direct bonus for it, is another way.
How the narrative can be consistent or not historically with how the unit is used in game seems to me the main guideline.
On an Historic POV, I wonder how worse were the Army amphibious assault under gen. Mac Arthur in Pacific.
As I said earlier, at a large scale perspective can we really say that Marines were better on 2:1 compared to regular Army soldier in amphibious assault?
@Baron:
On an Historic POV, I wonder how worse were the Army amphibious assault under gen. Mac Arthur in Pacific.
As I said earlier, at a large scale perspective can we really say that Marines were better on 2:1 compared to regular Army soldier in amphibious assault?
There were no Marines in Europe, still the Allies amphibious assaulted Morocco, Sicilly, Southern Italy, Northern Italy and Normandy. Germany made an amphibious assault on Norway with mountain troops riding on the deck of Destroyers. I cant see how Army men should be lesser than Marines.
The main difference is that the Army unit got horses for the supply chain, while the Marines travel light and depends on ships for supply. But I cant see how a Landing Craft with Army soldiers have less fighting power than a Landing Craft with Marines.
The designer Larry Harris suggests in his own Forum, in the Therorycrafting.1 thread, that 2 Marines units in one Tranny can attack two different territories, that of course must be adjacent to the seazone the Tranny is located in. Just sayin
@Baron:
On an Historic POV, I wonder how worse were the Army amphibious assault under gen. Mac Arthur in Pacific.
As I said earlier, at a large scale perspective can we really say that Marines were better on 2:1 compared to regular Army soldier in amphibious assault?
That’s more or less a circular argument, regardless of whether or not the Marines were better at making amphibious landings in the Pacific that MacArthur’s Army troops. If we assume that the Marines were better at making amphibious landings, then this justifies giving the A&A Marines an amphibious assault bonus. If we assume that the Marines were not better at making amphibious landings, then there’s no reason to have Marines in the game at all because you can get the same amphibious landings results by using regular infantry carried on transport ships (with the added advantage that regular infantry are cheaper than Marines).
And just to anticipate a possible counterargument: No, it wouldn’t work to say, “It’s okay for the Marines to have no special amphibious assault bonus compared to regular infantry being landed from transport ships because Marines have the advantage of being carried by battleships and cruisers.” It wouldn’t work because that’s not a real advantage. As I explained in a previous post, Marine landing parties created from shipboard detachments are INFERIOR to proper amphibious assault forces. To quote my November 19th post on this subject:
Landing a full-sized, fully-fledged Marine division from amphibious assault transport ships is very different from putting ashore an improvised landing party composed of the Marine detachments of a handful of major warships. Such an improvised landing party would have several disadvantages over a proper amphibious assault force: it would be much smaller; its men would not have trained together as a unit (since they’re from different ships); its men would not have gone through months of intense preparation aimed at seizing a specific objective (amphibious assaults require lengthy, careful planning and training to be successful); and Marine contingents on warships don’t have access to large numbers of landing craft and AMTRAC vehicles (which are crucial to full-blown amphibious landings).
@CWO:
And just to anticipate a possible counterargument: No, it wouldn’t work to say, “It’s okay for the Marines to have no special amphibious assault bonus compared to regular infantry being landed from transport ships because Marines have the advantage of being carried by battleships and cruisers.” It wouldn’t work because that’s not a real advantage. As I explained in a previous post, Marine landing parties created from shipboard detachments are INFERIOR to proper amphibious assault forces. To quote my November 19th post on this subject:
Landing a full-sized, **fully-fledged Marine division from amphibious assault transport ships is very different from putting ashore an improvised landing party composed of the Marine detachments of a handful of major warships. **Such an improvised landing party would have several disadvantages over a proper amphibious assault force: it would be much smaller; its men would not have trained together as a unit (since they’re from different ships); its men would not have gone through months of intense preparation aimed at seizing a specific objective (amphibious assaults require lengthy, careful planning and training to be successful); and Marine contingents on warships don’t have access to large numbers of landing craft and AMTRAC vehicles (which are crucial to full-blown amphibious landings).
Actually, that is your, I still believe, very accurate description and comparison which make it very wrong for me to give a full blown +1A bonus to a single Marines unit performing an amphibious assault from a Cruiser or Battleship. So, I have to keep a low A1 for Marines in that case.
Hence, searching another way to describe how planned Marines assaults from Transports can be better than army.
Assuming that 7 IPCs Inf A2 + Arty A2 cannot be beaten because it opens the way to Marines spam, there was an unused gap on TP: Marines + Tank is the way to describe the unique offensive advantage provides over Infantry+ Tank, figuring standard army soldier.
Marines A2 + Tank A3 cost 10 vs Infantry A1 + Tank A3 cost 9.
This unit, for instance, fits the requirement coming from your historical description, even without giving any explicit additional bonus in amphibious assault:
@Baron:
Elite Infantry: as Marines/Rangers/Shock troop:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2-3
Move 1Sea 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 when making an amphibious assault.Combat bonus:
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A/D combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.Maximum attack value remains 2.
No limit production on Elite units.
In that case, Marines have similar attack A2 +A2 with Arty than Infantry.
So, Marines can work with such Arty unit but the best performance is with Amtracs (figured by Tank).
Also, Marines carried by CA or BB wasn’t a real advantage (over regular troops), historically speaking.
But, Marines carried by these two warships is in-game advantage over Infantry carried by defenseless TP.
@CWO:
And just to anticipate a possible counterargument: No, it wouldn’t work to say, “It’s okay for the Marines to have no special amphibious assault bonus compared to regular infantry being landed from transport ships because Marines have the advantage of being carried by battleships and cruisers.” It wouldn’t work because that’s not a real advantage. As I explained in a previous post, Marine landing parties created from shipboard detachments are INFERIOR to proper amphibious assault forces. To quote my November 19th post on this subject:
Landing a full-sized, fully-fledged Marine division from amphibious assault transport ships is very different from putting ashore an improvised landing party composed of the Marine detachments of a handful of major warships. Such an improvised landing party would have several disadvantages over a proper amphibious assault force: it would be much smaller; its men would not have trained together as a unit (since they’re from different ships); its men would not have gone through months of intense preparation aimed at seizing a specific objective (amphibious assaults require lengthy, careful planning and training to be successful); and Marine contingents on warships don’t have access to large numbers of landing craft and AMTRAC vehicles (which are crucial to full-blown amphibious landings).
Marc, we agree on so much, but not on this. From a gameplay perspective, the ability of a single marine to amphibious assault from a warship creates precisely the dynamic you want. Play testing is everything. When you actually play test the rule, what you find is that “marine detachments” on a battleship or cruisers are most commonly used to snatch up undefended or lightly defended coastal and island territories. Due to their cost (5 PUs in the G40 balance mod), it is rare for players to send these units unaccompanied into heavily defended positions.
Historically, small marine detachments from warships were used in precisely this manner, and sometimes even played decisive roles in significant engagements. Take, for example, the Battle of Madagascar (an allied invasion that is often played out with our G40 Vichy Mod (shameless plug)). From Wiki:
The French defence was highly effective in the beginning and the main Allied force was brought to a halt by the morning of 6 May. The deadlock was broken when the old destroyer HMS Anthony dashed straight past the harbour defences of Diego Suarez and landed 50 Royal Marines amidst the Vichy rear area. The Marines created “disturbance in the town out of all proportion to their numbers” and the Vichy defence was soon broken. Diego Suarez was surrendered on 7 May, although substantial Vichy forces withdrew to the south.
Attached is the G40 Balance Mod (with Marines and Vichy Rule Set) as a playable saved game (everything explained in game notes). Enjoy.
Please Kid,
tell us from your play-test experience:
1- how your 5 IPCs Marines unit is better than any Marines at 4 IPCs?,
and
2- how it is mandatory to give it an attack factor @2 when attacking slightly defended or undefended territory?
This could help sell your salad, and gets a more general acceptance over it.
