I wasn’t saying that your idea was bad.
But yes, that makes sense.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
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 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.
-
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#msg1470463This 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.
-
Would rather show you, than tell you, Baron. An actual game is worth a thousand words. ;)
Do you ever go to the TripleA lobby? If so, I am there often. Hit me up for a game anytime.
-
Sorry, I’m only on the forum half hours scarcely here and there.
Besides, I’m sure that I’m not the only one which need to be convinced.And, to help your cause, I would add that a 5 IPCs plain combat unit is still missing in the roster.
Maybe a 5 IPCs Marines would fit the bill. IDK. (There was one a long time ago in IronBlitz computer version. A2-3 D2 M1 C5, +1A on amphibious assault, not absolutly sure)
For now, my general reluctance is that Marines is Infantrymen unit.
5 IPCs, in my mind, is more for some kind of light tank or mobile artillery unit.And the fact you mentionned about not willing to risk a costly unit is also a symptom of a high cost issue. Infantrymen, even Marines, are not meant to be protected but to be used as fodder around Artillery and Tank. You see what I mean?
-
Yes, I see what you mean. Just disagree. I feel like the subject has been pretty well exhausted and explored from all angles on this thread. Best thing to do now is to set up a game and actually try the units out. Otherwise we’re just spinning our wheels.
-
This post is deleted! -
Yes, I see what you mean. Just disagree. I feel like the subject has been pretty well exhausted and explored from all angles on this thread. Best thing to do now is to set up a game and actually try the units out. Otherwise we’re just spinning our wheels.
In fact, there is maybe more than 1 working units which can figures Marines or more.
My first option would be to search for the more appropriate ones at 4 IPCs, which could be carried both on Cruiser and Battleship. A few would work, I hope so but cannot be sure.5 IPCs gives more options on combat values.
I believe your 5 IPCs Marines unit carried on CA and BB works simply because it is a bit sub-optimized due to high cost and low combat values.If there is no choice than a 5 IPCs unit, then I would prefer it gets better combat/move values.
To make this new unit more appealing. -
@Lit:
I also agree with the need for a 5 IPC land unit. Why not just have the mech inf cost a 5 and give it the ability to transport an artillery.
Just some ideas 8-)
On the last point:
Mech Infantry
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35525.msg1386182#msg1386182@Young:
New G40 unit profile created through discussion and collaboration.
Mechanized Infantry
Cost - 5 IPCs
Move - 2
Attack - 1 (2 when combined with an artillery or tank unit)
Defense - 2Special abilities:
_Each mechanized infantry unit may pull an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during the combat movement phase, or non combat movement phase (both units must originate from the same territory).
Mechanized infantry may blitz when combined with a tank (both units must originate from the same territory), however, mechanized infantry may not pull artillery units when blitzing with a tank._
I’m thinking that Mech Inf unit can become that one above.
So, this will be easier to simulate the Panzer-Grenadier units on the eastern front with Mech Inf+Tank bonus A1 combined arms.On the other side, 2 Mech Inf units should be put on board TP.
This would help Allies.
@Young:@wittmann:
I think Allied TTs should be able to transport a Mech with an Armour.
Its Inf� � were all Mechanized by the time it� � got around to landing amphibiously anyway. Would help enormously in North Africa.I was thinking along those same lines…
When using transports, Mechanized infantry can be used like regular infantry.
Possible combinations for a fully loaded transport are as follows…
Infantry / Infantry
Infantry / Mech Infantry
Infantry / AA Artillery
Infantry / Artillery
Infantry / TankMech Infantry / Mech Infantry
Mech Infantry / Infantry
Mech Infantry / AA Artillery
Mech Infantry / Artillery
Mech Infantry / TankWhat I like about this is, we are changing Mech Infantry units which will benefit the Axis as well as the Allies.
Finally, with only Artillery at 4 IPCs, it makes better sense to add another 4 IPCs unit.
Here, I’m still thinking a Marines/Elite unit. (Combat values to be determined.)
And this time, there is no need to give M2 paired with Mech, since Artillery gets +1M from Mechanized Infantry.That way, Infantry at 3 or Marines at 4 IPCs units would have Move 1.
We get some kind of Mechanized Artillery with Mech-Arty combined arms, without adding a new unit.
Get a significant unit on the sweet 5 IPCs spot.The Marines/Elite I have in mind would be something like:
@Baron: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 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.
What do you think?
-
Yes, I see what you mean. Just disagree. I feel like the subject has been pretty well exhausted and explored from all angles on this thread. Best thing to do now is to set up a game and actually try the units out. Otherwise we’re just spinning our wheels.
The issue is more theorethical than practical, IMO.
I believe Marines at A1 D2 M1, +1A on amphibious, 5 IPCs (and no Artillery boost), can work.
But I want to find a balanced Marines at 4 IPCs, with no high attack at 3 (with Arty as Pacific Marines) nor a single Marines able to attack @2 coming from a BB or a Cruiser.
With any +1A on amphibious assault, it gives attack @2 when doing a debarkment from Cruiser or BB. That’s the issue.
Hence, I cannot give to a Marines unit this explicit bonus while trying to keep a Cruiser and BB carrying capacity.
-
I’ve been doing some more thinking about this whole special infantry unit concept, and I’m starting to conclude that we’re perhaps approaching the concept from the wrong direction.
As we can see from the many pages of discussion threads that have been devoted to this subject for the past couple of weeks, this unit is proving to be very problematic. I’m beginning to think that many (though not all) of the problems with this unit can be traced back to one common cause: the concept of creating it as a single unit that would apply to every nation. This concept was originally proposed for purposes of simplicity. What seems to be emerging, however, is that this concept is actually creating more problems than it solves and is boxing us into a corner. And upon further thought, it seems to me that the “problem” which this concept was intended to solve may not actually exist in the first place. Let me try to explain what I mean by this.
As I understand it, the “simplicity of a single unit” concept was based on the premise that it would be much easier for special infantry to be represented on the game board (whether physical or electronic) if it consisted of a single unit than if it consisted of half-a-dozen nationally distinct units. At first glance, that seems an obvious conclusion. But let’s actually look at this more closely. And to do so, let’s compare the practical elements of two different alternatives: the concept of having a generic special infantry unit that applies to everyone, and the alternative model of each country having its own distinct special infantry unit.
In doing this comparison (which follows below), it won’t be necessary to get into the details of what specific price or capabilities each unit has. It won’t be necessary because I’ll be talking about these units at a broad conceptual level, not at the level of how many dollars each unit costs or what specific attack value it has or whether it gets an amphibious attack bonus or whether it can be transported by cruiser or anything like that. The argument I’ll be making doesn’t depend on any of those specific numbers or factors. The argument I’ll be making simply reflects the much more general concept that any A&A unit is defined by its particular package of characteristics (whatever those happen to be), and that units should be considered to belong to different types if they have different packages of characteristics. These different types can be similar to each other if their characteristics are similar, or very different from each other if their characteristics are very different, but they still remain distinct unit types.
In doing this comparison, I’ll also use – just for purposes of discussion – some hypothetical nationally-distinct special infantry unit types. They’re just examples, and I’ll limit them to just five countries. The examples are somewhat arbitrary, in the sense that different options for each country might exist…let’s say, for example, using Siberians troops rather than Guards units for the Soviets. Again, the examples and their specific numbers aren’t important at this time, since we’re talking about these units at a broad conceptual level; this is just to give us something concrete to work with for this particular comparison.
The units I’ll use for the nationally-unique special infantry forces are:
US / Marines
UK / Commandos
USSR / Guards
Germany / Waffen SS
Japan / SNLFThe generic special infantry forces, by contrast, would look something like this:
US / Generic elite infantry
UK / Generic elite infantry
USSR / Generic elite infantry
Germany / Generic elite infantry
Japan / Generic elite infantryLet’s start by looking at the issue of unit identification.
Whether you’re playing on a physical board or on an electronic one, any elite infantry unit – whether generic or nationally-unique – has to be represented by a sculpt or icon which has some kind of visual country coding (because otherwise the players wouldn’t be able to tell which unit belongs to what country). There are three basic ways to do this:
-
At its simplest, the unit has a single generic “international” design, but each country has it in its own distinctive colour.
-
At the next level of sophistication, the unit looks like each nation’s normal distinctive infantry design, but in a variant colour (like the dark green Marines in the original Pacific game).
-
At the highest level of sophistication, the unit has a distinctive design for each nation, and is also colour-coded using the standard colors of the player powers.
The point to take from this is the following one: regardless of whether you have a single generic special infantry unit (US Generic, UK Generic, USSR Generic, German Generic and Japanese Generic) or five different nationally-unique special infantry units (US Marines, UK Commandos, USSR Guards, German Waffen SS and Japanese SNLF), you still need five sculpts or icons that are distinct from each other (even if only by colour). Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to tell which special infantry unit belongs to which country, unless you go purely by the context of territories which are 100% under one power’s control. The old generic-design light grey AAA unit from the older A&A games worked that way: such a unit, located in (let’s say) a 100% Soviet-controlled territory, could only be interpreted as being a Soviet AAA gun. The special infantry unit we’re talking about, however, is a mobile unit that can make combat moves into enemy-held territories that might conceivably contain enemy special infantry units – at which point telling them apart could get very messy. It’s much cleaner and more practical to give these special infantry units a distinct appearance of some sort. You’re therefore not simplifying anything by restricting yourself to a generic unit rather than having nationally-unique ones because, one way or the other, you need to have five distinguishable sculpts or icons. So it’s a completely even draw between one option or the other.
Now for the issue of crowding.
It’s been argued that the Global 1940 map – whether as a physical board or as an electronic map – doesn’t have the space to accommodate a whole bunch of special infantry units (five if we limit them to the US, the UK, the USSR, Germany and Japan, and eight if we also give such units to Italy, ANZAC and France), and therefore that we need to use a generic unit to prevent crowding. That argument, however, disregards the fact that, no matter whether the special infantry units are generic or nationally-unique, each nation only uses one type, not five (or eight) types. If, let’s say, we give the US a generic special infantry unit, what will it look like on the map in a US-controlled territory? It will look like one sculpt (or icon). Now let’s say that we give the US a nationally-unique special infantry unit. What will it look like on the map in a US-controlled territory? It will look like one sculpt (or icon). So it’s one versus one, and therefore you’re no better off or worse off regardless of which option you use. And regardless of the option used, you will only ever have a maximum of two special infantry unit types in any given contested territory: the attacker’s and the defender’s. You’ll have two if the special infantry units are generic, and you’ll have two if the special infantry units are nationally-unique. Once again, you’re not making any gains one way or the other.
The one single element which does involve a greater degree of complication when we use nationally-unique special infantry units, as opposed to generic ones, is that we’re dealing with five (or potentially eight) different sets of costs and combat values and special abilities. But here again, keep in mind that each individual player doesn’t have to keep track with five (or potentially eight) different sets of unit characteristics. He only has to keep one set of characteristics in mind at all times: those of his own special infantry unit. He can ignore the others unless he’s about to go into combat against an enemy force that contains an enemy special infantry unit, in which case its combat characteristics can simply be looked up in a table. And he can completely ignore the costs and special movement abilities of the special infantry units of the other powers because it’s not his responsibility to purchase or move them.
I’ve never used TripleA, so I don’t know if the coding of five (or eight) special infantry units poses any difficulties as opposed to the coding of one. My guess – and it’s only a guess – is that it might be easier to code these as five (or eight) separate unit types, rather than as one unit type that has five (or eight) sets of special characteristics depending on the context. But as far as the physical board game goes, all that would presumably be required would be a table for the special infantry unit giving its characteristics for each power.
What I’ve basically been arguing above is that, as far as I can tell, having five (or potentially eight) nationally-unique special infantry units doesn’t in most respects appear to be any more complicated than having a single generic special infantry unit. Since both options appear to stack up evenly against each other in terms of simplicity and practicality, we can therefore consider the question of how these options stack up against each other in other ways.
As the debates of the last couple of weeks have shown, the generic option actually creates a host of problems in terms of historical accuracy, inter-nation consistency, unit purchase attractiveness, naming conventions and so forth. I won’t repeat all the arguments of those debates (because that would take too long, and because you can read them in detail by clicking back through the thread), but basically the problem is twofold. If on the one hand we try to create a purely generic unit that could plausibly apply to any nation, we tend to end up with unit that has a vague name and weak abilities. If on the other hand we try to create a unit that’s more specific in its abilities (say, a Marine), then we end up with a unit whose capabilities can’t be well reconciled with the actual WWII use of special infantry in all countries (say, the Waffen SS). And if we try to fix the latter problem by introducing unit differentiation, then we end up with a unit that isn’t generic after all…which is the very thing that we’ve supposedly been trying to avoid in the first place. Pretty much all of those contradictions and inaccuracies disappear, however, if we simply give each nation its own distinctive type of special infantry. And as a bonus, we get units whose names are not only more interesting than “generic elite infantry” but also convey a clearer idea of just what kind of special troops we’re dealing with (assuming that their abilities are modeled on those of the actual units that were used historically in WWII).
-
-
All sound arguments. To clarify when I raised the issue of crowding, it wasn’t 1 generic unit to 1 nationally distinct unit that concerned me, it was 1 generic unit to like 2 or 3 generic units (Marine type units, Paratrooper type units, Ranger type units etc for everyone.) If you only want to assign one special infantry type per nation, then I agree crowding is a non issue.
Unit identification should be relatively simple too, as long as the new units appear sufficiently distinct from the regular infantry unit. I suggested in the past that a sculpt in a crouched or prone position rather than standing might be a good way to go for that.
In all the most recent physical games every unit (not just infantry) have national designs. In tripleA the naval units have an international universal design, same deal for a few othe units like artillery and aaaguns. I think I favor a distinct shape over a distinct color as the main way to tell these proposed special infantry units apart (nation to nation) since we already have a whole rainbow of colors in play and some nations can look rather similar at a glance if just going by color. I think the main limitation here for the physical game is what sculpts HBG has on offer, since for tripleA we can create new graphics with relative ease.
Regarding the combat costs and abilities of those units if they differ from nation to nation, I think the paradigm you presented is actually the reverse of what was concerning me. It’s not on attack, where the pre-planning confusion enters into things, but rather on defense. Trying to determine what pips are potentially coming against you on the opponents turn and what sort of TUV to risk on the subsequent defense after you occupy a territory. That’s where it becomes particularly important to know what each nations unit can do, and how much they’re worth. If the charts are easy to reference, and the total number of unit types isn’t too many (eg just one special type per nation) it may not be a major issue.
I think at this level of play, most people would find that, as long as it’s only 1 type per nation, the tracking of different unit abilities on a per nation basis isn’t too terribly onerous. It’s not really any different than the way technology can introduce additional different ‘national’ abilities for certain units, once the tech has been activated in the OOB game. And here at least, those values wouldn’t be changing mid way through the game.
So in short, yeah I’m on board. If we wanted to have 1 type for each nation that seems doable…I’d suggest retaining the same cost though, even if the combat abilities and names are different, so at least the TUV would be easier to calculate.
-
I think a generic unit is feasable. All the other units are. I’ve been testing this one lately.
Elite Infantry: A1, +1 bonus when paired with artillery or armor on a 1:1 basis. May only receive 1 bonus at a time. D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech infantry on a 1:1 basis. May blitz when paired with armor and mech. BBs and CAs may transport 1 elite each. May move 2 elite up to 3 TTs into an existing combat when starting at an AB. Must move both units to same TT. Other land units (non air) must be in existing combat. C4.
Maximum attack is 2. Requires 2 units to receive movement and attack bonus during same turn. No bonus for amphibious attack.
I’m not opposed to nation unique units. They would be a lot of fun. It would probably require more playtesting for balance, but hey getting there is half the fun.
-
Thanks Barney for this all purpose Elite Infantry.
According to where it used it provides an acceptable narrative I believe.On doing specific unit according to each power, maybe there can be two types only:
1 Marines unit for Sea Powers and 1 Shock, stormtrooper, unit for Land Powers.
USA, UK, ANZAC, JAPAN and ITALY would be considered Sea Powers
USSR, CHINA?, GERMANY would be considered Land Powers.Paratroopers can be considered separatly.
With only 2 types of special Infantry and only one type per Power, it is easier to keep tracks of TUVs.
Suggested Topics
