Elite Infantry

[CWO Marc]

I could be wrong about this, but it’s my impression that heavy bombers in WWII were never used as paratroop transports, nor even medium bombers for that matter.  A big bomber like, let’s say, the B-17 looks spacious enough when viewed from the outside, but its interior consists mainly of two things: a small amount of space for the crew, and a large amount of space occupied by machinery and bomb racks.  Paratroopers can’t be loaded into bomb racks; they need to sit on long benches along a level floor, with a door nearby from which they can jump (by which I mean a door in the side of the fuselage, not a hatch in the floor).

[Young Grasshopper]

Well if we end up filtering this down to getting air transport units of every color for every nation… we might as well kill this idea, because trying to find sculpts for new G40 units is a nightmare. So it’s either use an existing unit, or an imaginary unit.

[CWO Marc]

I wasn’t saying that the game’s bomber sculpts shouldn’t be used as paratroop transports.  What I was saying is that it’s unrealistic to have a unit that can switch back and forth between being a strategic bomber and a paratroop transport, which is what the “Strategic Bombers become Air Transports when used this way” part seemed to imply.  The two unit types should be kept distinct, even if the same sculpt type is being used in both roles.  A player who, let’s say, buys 1 B-17 as a bomber and 1 B-17 as a transport should be limited to using them in those roles, rather than being able to covert them into 2 bombers or 2 transports when it suits him to do so.  In exchange for the loss of flexibility, the obvious gain would be that the transport could be priced more cheaply than a bomber, which would be an incentive to buy one.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

I wasn’t saying that the game’s bomber sculpts shouldn’t be used as paratroop transports.  What I was saying is that it’s unrealistic to have a unit that can switch back and forth between being a strategic bomber and a paratroop transport, which is what the “Strategic Bombers become Air Transports when used this way” part seemed to imply.  The two unit types should be kept distinct, even if the same sculpt type is being used in both roles.  A player who, let’s say, buys 1 B-17 as a bomber and 1 B-17 as a transport should be limited to using them in those roles, rather than being able to covert them into 2 bombers or 2 transports when it suits him to do so.  In exchange for the loss of flexibility, the obvious gain would be that the transport could be priced more cheaply than a bomber, which would be an incentive to buy one.

Understood, so the challenge becomes how to differentiate the same unit with the same color as two separate unit types.

[the_jetset]

Hey guys,

I would go with “KISS” on this one.  Transport planes are already in the game … we just don’t see them.  So are transport trucks and trains etc …  Therefore, we shouldn’t need to add this unit.  Anyway, transport planes where only used for airdrops when there was an airdrop mission … when no mission was on hand, they where used for transporting cargo.

Airborne operations on any significante scale were MASSIVE undertakings.  Overlord, “Market” from Market Garden and Varsity were the three big ones from the Allies … But even the German operations in the earlier part of the war were still pretty big deals.   All of these required good air-bases.

I would say that the best way to model these wouldn’t be to have a “Transport Plane” unit … which adds more complications to the game.  Instead, it could be pretty well modeled with an air-base.  Actually, I think an air-base would be pretty critical.  I understand YG’s concerns with stating that you would have to spend extra time and IPCs to first construct an airbase.  That is a historically correct statement:

Iwo Jima and Okinawa weren’t captured because we wanted to just remove the Japanese soldiers from those islands.   We wanted to build AIR BASES and staging grounds on those islands for launching Operation Downfall, the Allied invasion of Japan.  If Downfall would have proceeded, we would have launched massive paratrooper air-drops together with amphibious assaults and strategic bombing raids … all launched from the air-bases that we would have first had to construct on those islands.

I really like the YG’s idea for an “Elite Infantry” unit.  1st because it requires a separate unit to be built and costs extra IPCs.  But also because it can be used as both a Marine and Airborne unit … this makes it a lot more simple.  …  Going with that “Simple” and elegant solution, I would keep the OOB rule of having airborne drops be staged from a working airbase.  This eliminates the need for adding a transport plane and keeps things more historically accurate.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

Understood, so the challenge becomes how to differentiate the same unit with the same color as two separate unit types.

Buy a package of Avery 1/4-inch removable round colour-coding labels ($6 for a pack of 1,152, meaning 2 cents per label) from any Staples store and apply a label to each sculpts you want to use as a transport.  Remove the labels after the game, or leave on for similar use later.

[Young Grasshopper]

@the_jetset:

Hey guys,

I would go with “KISS” on this one.  Transport planes are already in the game … we just don’t see them.  So are transport trucks and trains etc …   Therefore, we shouldn’t need to add this unit.  Anyway, transport planes where only used for airdrops when there was an airdrop mission … when no mission was on hand, they where used for transporting cargo.Â

Airborne operations on any significante scale were MASSIVE undertakings.  Overlord, “Market” from Market Garden and Varsity were the three big ones from the Allies … But even the German operations in the earlier part of the war were still pretty big deals.   All of these required good air-bases. Â

I would say that the best way to model these wouldn’t be to have a “Transport Plane” unit … which adds more complications to the game.  Instead, it could be pretty well modeled with an air-base.  Actually, I think an air-base would be pretty critical.  I understand YG’s concerns with stating that you would have to spend extra time and IPCs to first construct an airbase.  That is a historically correct statement:

Iwo Jima and Okinawa weren’t captured because we wanted to just remove the Japanese soldiers from those islands.   We wanted to build AIR BASES and staging grounds on those islands for launching Operation Downfall, the Allied invasion of Japan.  If Downfall would have proceeded, we would have launched massive paratrooper air-drops together with amphibious assaults and strategic bombing raids … all launched from the air-bases that we would have first had to construct on those islands. Â

I really like the YG’s idea for an “Elite Infantry” unit.  1st because it requires a separate unit to be built and costs extra IPCs.  But also because it can be used as both a Marine and Airborne unit … this makes it a lot more simple.  …  Going with that “Simple” and elegant solution, I would keep the OOB rule of having airborne drops be staged from a working airbase.  This eliminates the need for adding a transport plane and keeps things more historically accurate. Â

May have to go with this…

[the_jetset]

Also … another point for using Airbases as a requirement for launching air assaults instead of introducing a new Transport Plane unit … one of the major tools for inserting an airborne force into an operation wasn’t the parachute, it was the glider.  And those definitely required a nice, big, organized base of operations for launching in any significant numbers.

[Young Grasshopper]

@CWO:

@Young:

Understood, so the challenge becomes how to differentiate the same unit with the same color as two separate unit types.

Buy a package of Avery 1/4-inch removable round colour-coding labels ($6 for a pack of 1,152, meaning 2 cents per label) from any Staples store and apply a label to each sculpts you want to use as a transport.  Remove the labels after the game, or leave on for similar use later.Â

May go with R&D paratrooper rule after all, but may need this idea to differentiate Elite infantry from Regular infantry.

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

May go with R&D paratrooper rule after all, but may need this idea to differentiate Elite infantry from Regular infantry.

Measure the diameter of the round base on the A&A infantry sculpts and see if it’s less than 1/4 inch.  If so, stick one of those Avery labels under the base of your Elite Infantry units in a centered position; the label will protrude slightly all around the base, thus identifying the special unit.  If the bases are too wide, stick the label under them off-centre so that it protrudes slightly on one side.

[Young Grasshopper]

I changed post #1 significantly.

Who wants to bomb bases now?

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is a post which gives my POV:
@Baron:

@Lit:

My view on elite/commando infantry is that they generally did not cost anymore industrial resources than regular troops, rather they are special because of the endurance and toughness of the men selected for the unit. Only a fraction of the military age population could serve in these units. Why not have them cost 3, since they require no more industrial input than regular infantry, but then limit the total numbers each nation can build too a fraction of there IPC production(IPC being a rough estimate of population) for instance for every 10 IPC you can maintain one commando infantry. Perhaps also require they are built over the course of 2 turns to simulate the additional training time.

…

@Narvik:

@Baron:

The other way, still impressionistic, try to be more accurate at strategic and unit level to figure how 1 army group/division is different from a Marines group/division in combat value.

First, the army group is equipped with heavy infantry weapons like field artillery, grenade launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns etc etc that delivers a heavy punch, while the Marines and Paratroopers only have their rifles and must gamble on surprise and tactics.

Second, the army group got trucks and horses to supply them with ammo and stuff so they keep a good combat perseverance over long time, while the Marines and Paras only have food and ammo for 2 days of fighting.

To not ruin this very abstract game, I figure that Marines and Paras can only have special abilities in the combat move and first round of combat. After that they act like regular infantry.

About the Marines, I think they should roll 2 or less as standard during amphibious assaults, but shore bombardment from a Battleship or Cruiser can boost a matching Marine to a 3 or less as hit. Field artillery should of course not be allowed to boost any unit during amphibious assaults, since it takes a lot of time to move them ashore and get them working. Its not like a tank that just drive ashore and start shooting. Anyway I strongly believe in the A&A 1914 rules that let defending artillery fire one pre-emptive round at the landing party when they are swimming defenseless to the beach. Amphibious assaults against defended shores are actually very weak attacks, and it strongly favors the dug-in defenders in the bunker line. Its the Panzer blitzkrieg attack against surprised defenders in plain fields that are true strong attacks.

@Baron:

@Narvik:

Pay attention. First, if Elite units should have a production cap, then so should tanks and battleships too. There are no good reason a nation can spam the map with Bombers or Battleships, but only build one or two Elite units during the game. Second, if Elite units must be taken as first casualties, then so should tanks and planes too. It is very ahistorical that after a great battle, millions of infantry are dead but all the tanks and bombers survived. Actually in the real war it was the other way around, so the idea is not bad, but it sure break the old A&A tradition of owner picking casualties.

…
Yes, Marc is correct, Paras are light armed, but sometimes surprise is stronger than heavy guns. I figure the surprise factor justifies a first roll of 2 or less as hits.

…

@CWO:

Based on actual WWII USMC practice, I’d say that Marine detachments should be limited to aircraft carriers and battleships and perhaps also to cruisers, and they should be restricted to one Marine per ship maximum. Minor warships didn’t carry Marine detachments, and the major warships which did carry them only carried them in small numbers. The only ships that should be allowed to carry more than one Marine should be the transport ships, and that’s because the Marines on trannies aren’t shipboard detachment, they’re the payload of an amphibious assault force.

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).

Going that way imply a totally different direction IMO, something like this:

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Shock troop:
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
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.

Air movement bonus:
Up to three Elite Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory which doesn’t need to be attacked by other ground units.
Gets +1A on the first combat round when airdropped.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.

Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).

Gets +1A combined arms with Artillery.
Gets +1A combined arms with Tank.

No limit number.

That way, in an amphibious assault Marines will be first casualty compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor but a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you need to move them on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply.

From a game perspective, an interesting and very specialized unit would be like this one.
It has low cost but also lower combat values to balance with its carrying capacity on Cruiser and Battleship.
Try to see the game at army group level, Marines combat unit division are certainly smaller than a full fledge army unit. That is why I suggest low offense / defense values except in the one combat situations which gives Marines their reputation: amphibious assault.

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

So, it provides a different kind of tactical combat with 2 Marines on TP and still keeping Inf+Art a competitive combination too.

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.
Lower defense @1, come from the lesser number of individuals being less equiped than regular Infantry unit.
Attack @2 on amphibious assault is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser and Battleship carrying capacity. This unit have a better attacking factor because of abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldiers. 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.

In this case, such Elite Infantry cost 3 IPCs but receiving a boost to M2 when paired to MI, maybe better if MI cost is 5  IPCs.
That way, you keep an iconic unit at 5 IPCs.
I know your MI is able to tow 1 Artillery unit 2 spaces.

[regularkid]

Grasshopper, I’m inclined to agree with the other commenters that it would be better to retain the paradrop mechanics of the OOB tech (i.e., launching paradropping units from airbases, without a separate transport-plane unit). CWO’s observation that soldiers can’t be loaded into a bomber bay is on point and made me LUL.

Regarding “Paratroopers may only be used if the hostile territory has at least 1 enemy land unit, and the operation is supported by either a ground attack, and/or amphibious assault” makes me sad cuz it means that Germany’s largest paratroop operation (Battle of Crete) can’t happen.

[regularkid]

@CWO:

and partly because you said this unit is inspired by the G40B [whatever that refers to] Marine unit.

My dear fellow, get with the times! :P
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37799.0

[Young Grasshopper]

@regularkid:

@CWO:

and partly because you said this unit is inspired by the G40B [whatever that refers to] Marine unit.

My dear fellow, get with the times! :P
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37341.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37553.0
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=37799.0

That’s my bad… didn’t (explain) the new tag for balance mod till later.

[Young Grasshopper]

This is a hybrid unit inspired by G40B’s (Global 1940 Balanced) Marine unit…

NEW ELITE INFANTRY UNIT

Cost = 5 IPCs

Attack @1 (@2 during amphibious assaults on islands, but not supported by artillery)
Defend @2

Airborne assaults
During combat movement, up to 2 elite infantry units may launch from any friendly operational airbase to conduct an airborne assault up to 3 spaces away. These spaces are counted as if an air unit were to take off from the launch point, and drop them into a hostile territory. Paratroopers may only be used if the hostile territory has at least 1 enemy land unit, and the operation is supported by either a ground attack, and/or amphibious assault.

Amphibious assaults
Elite infantry may be loaded onto Cruisers and Battleships at a capacity of 1 per ship, as well as regular transports with the same capacity rules as oob (1 elite infantry = 1 regular infantry). During amphibious assaults, elite infantry attack @2 but are not supported by artillery, nor do Cruisers and/or Battleships get bombardments when unloading elite infantry.

[regularkid]

@Young:

This is a hybrid unit inspired by G40B’s (Global 1940 Balanced) Marine unit…

NEW ELITE INFANTRY UNIT

Cost = 5 IPCs

Attack @1 (@2 during amphibious assaults on islands, but not supported by artillery)
Defend @2

Airborne assaults
During combat movement, up to 2 elite infantry units may launch from any friendly operational airbase to conduct an airborne assault up to 3 spaces away. These spaces are counted as if an air unit were to take off from the launch point, and drop them into a hostile territory. Paratroopers may only be used if the hostile territory has at least 1 enemy land unit, and the operation is supported by either a ground attack, and/or amphibious assault.

Amphibious assaults
Elite infantry may be loaded onto Cruisers and Battleships at a capacity of 1 per ship, as well as regular transports with the same capacity rules as oob (1 elite infantry = 1 regular infantry). During amphibious assaults, elite infantry attack @2 but are not supported by artillery, nor do Cruisers and/or Battleships get bombardments when unloading elite infantry.

Not bad. Not bad at all. For what its worth, battleship/cruisers retain their bombard abilities in g40b when unloading marines–the marines hit the shore via landing craft after all. Interestingly, the US Marine Corps has been extremely vocal in opposing the decommissioning of battleships, for their Naval Surface Fire Support abilities (source: https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/marines-lose-battleships-firepower). There doesn’t seem to be any compelling reason (historical or gameplay) to deny them the benefit of shore bombardment, which is part of the fun!

[Young Grasshopper]

Fair enough… done.

[Ozymandiac]

@Young:

Understood, so the challenge becomes how to differentiate the same unit with the same color as two separate unit types.

If I would want to test this houserule on tabletop, I would just take a bit of cotton wool from my First Aid kit and put a little bit on the soldiers’ rifles. It’s cheap and stays on as long as you want.

[the_jetset]

I like it YG!  (With the Naval Bombardment re-included)

I have too much to stuff into my next game.  But I think I’m going to include this into my house rules set as well for the games to come later.  I’ve got an old Risk game with infantry sculpts …. used to use them to represent Neutrals … but now you have me thinking of a new use for them!