Marines

Re: Do you want US Marines ?

How about an elite unit (marine, commando, SS, guard, etc.) the same ability for every country?

Elite unit: Att: 2 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost: 4, give +1 att. to one artillery or one tank, on the second round of an assault (amphibious or terrestrial). Think of it like the time to get used to the environnement and the geography of the terrain, or being able to reach and pass the shore to fight inland.

For example, if a marine unit paired with an artillery survived his first round of landing assault; on the second round, it attacks at 2, but artillery attacks at 3, instead of 2.
It is the same if it was teamed up with a tank. On first round, the tank attacks at 3, and on the second round it attacks at 4.
In summary, it works like artillery but gives better punch on costlier unit.

What do you think?

I was thinking about it in a different way:
Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att. when paired with Art (same as Inf) or Arm (special ability).
In addition on the second round of an assault give +1 att. to Art. (and even +1 att. TacBomber, max.: @4)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are like any ordinary Inf, but with others it becomes a more deadly and efficient group.

So, when a US elite unit (the marines) makes an amphibious assault with an Arm, at first they att. 2 instead of only 1 for regular Inf.
After the first round of coastal bombardment, if the elit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (Att @3) and TacB (Att. @4).

I’m now reluctant to give a +1 att. to Arm, because the fantastic “4” seems restricted to bomber and BB in many A&A versions.
Since, this unit already receive a +1 Att when paired with Arm, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
I also prefer not to give a permanent Att @2 because I don’t think that an Inf unit, even better trained, is able to do as damage as an Art unit.

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.
What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

I revised the precedent post:

I was thinking about it in a different way:
Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att when paired with Art (same as Inf) or with an Arm (special ability).
After the first round and the rest of the battle, they  give +1 att to Art or Elite unit. So after the first round (of amphibious assault and coastal bombardment), if the Elite unit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (att:3).
If their is only two Elite units, then both get +1 Att, thus getting 2E units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.
For example, after first round of battle,
1 “marine” unit gets Att:2 and 1 paired Art get Att: 3.
Also this unit paired with an Armor will get this same attacking punch
Marine Att:2 and Armor Att: 3 on the very first turn and keep it after.
(It can be a way to represent the used of some kind of amphibious vehicule to get on the beach and a better coordinate work.)

The idea is that unit is better trained to work with other kind of arms on the battlefield.
Alone they are almost like ordinary Inf, but with others, it becomes a more deadly and efficient group.

So, when a US Elite unit (the marines) makes an amphibious assault with an Arm, at first they Att: 2 instead of only 1 for regular Inf.

I don’t want to give an additional +1 att. to Arm, because the fantastic “4” seems restricted to bomber and BB in many A&A versions.
Since, this unit already receive a +1 Att when paired with Arm on the first round of a battle, it can demonstrates the better coordination of “Marine trooper” with tanks during an amphibious assault and after.
And it is possible to put on a transport 1 Elite Unit and 1 Armor, and get the same offensive punch (2+3) than 1 Art and 1 Armor, but you cannot put both units in the same transport.
Another tactical interest over Inf+Arm (1+3) at 9 IPCs!
USA will certainly see what’s in it for them.

I also prefer to give a basic Att:1 because I don’t think that an Inf unit alone, even better trained, was as deadly as an Art unit or the defending troops waiting on an island, not until they get a real foothold. Or, unless they were helped by Art or Arm on the first round (almost like any ordinary Inf).

Is this historically accurate about how the marines works on the battlefield? I don’t know, but I hope.

In game terms, I think it keeps the balance.
You can chose:       Inf+ Art, cost 7 for 4 attack points and 4 on defense.
Or you can prefer Elite + Art, cost 8 for 4 attack points on first round,
                                                         5 attack points after (if they survive the first
                                                          round) and 4 on defense.

This match of Elite+Art (8 IPCs) can be as effective on offense than Art+Arm (10 IPCs) but not on the first round and move only at 1.
Also, on defense, it’s only 4 points instead of 5 for Art+Arm.
Though, Elite+Arm (10 IPCs) can be as effective as Art+Arm (10 IPCs) for the same cost.
And alone, Elite unit is no better than regular Inf but cost 1 more IPCs, thus it keep Art an interesting buying because alone Art: att2/def2 vs E unit: att1/def2.
So nobody will buy only this Elite unit but it will keep interest in buying more Art.

What do you think about this different way to look at the marines?

Now I think we can introduce them in 1942.1, 1942.2 and even 1940.

You could give improved attacking stats but stipulate that only so many Marines can be on the board at one time. Additionally they can transport three to a transport if only Marines are carried by said transport. On the other hand you could give them a sneak attack.

@toblerone77:

1- You could give improved attacking stats but stipulate that only so many Marines can be on the board at one time.
2- Additionally they can transport three to a transport if only Marines are carried by said transport.
3- On the other hand you could give them a sneak attack.

About 1)
I intended to not limit the number of bying on this unit, that’s why I’m trying to give it limited capabilities. No attacks at “3” or “4”, etc.

About 2)
That is an interesting idea, but restricted to “marines” units, and not appropriate for “Elite units”.
So, it makes it mainly usable by UK, USA and Japan. In this way, I think it will unbalance the game.

Although, I was inspired by this idea, that’s why I suggested to add +1 to Attack when paired with Armor. Thus, a transport with 1 Elite unit can brings up to 5 points to attack instead of only 4 (Inf@2+Art@2) / (Inf@1+Arm@3).

It is not  the 3@2 for amphibious assault =6, but it has better offensive punch.

About 3)
It sounds interesting… Can you be more specific about it?
Is it like paratroopers first shot @2, then @1 for the other rounds?

Thanks for your reply.

Giving Marines a sneak attack like say submarines or something that reflects thier elite status in combat would be accurate. You could even do this without changing attack/defense stats.

My transport idea came from the fact that Marines even today aren’t supplied with the best equipment and operate with a lot less logistics than any other branch of the armed forces.

Depending on which game we are playing Marines could also have the ability to be deployed directly on naval bases rather than only at ICs.

Some of my ideas a just general and need to be fleshed out a bit more. HBG gave me the ability to put some of these into fruition.
I know there are going to be some who will bring balance into the equation and rightfully so, but try running a solo game there may be counters to any said advantage that could be worked out. Again I’m using HBG sculpts to build Axis units to balance this out.

Just another idea: Try using the Dark green sets from HBG as Marines also. of course that then complicates things but adds the Marine flavor to the game. I am also in the process of adding paratroopers, marines and engineers to Germany, Japan and Italy SO I FEEL YOUR PAIN! LOL

Hope this helps.

@toblerone77:

My transport idea came from the fact that Marines even today aren’t supplied with the best equipment and operate with a lot less logistics than any other branch of the armed forces.

Depending on which game we are playing Marines could also have the ability to be deployed directly on naval bases rather than only at ICs.

I know there are going to be some who will bring balance into the equation…

I didn’t know about this fact.
Interesting this special ability. Sure, it will help USA against Japan for a faster deployement.
However, I won’t mix it with a three marines transport.

Yes, I’m always trying to keep balance and historical inspiration together while introducing new units or new rules for a game like 1942.2 (or even 1940).

If you have some ideas about HBG units, let’s share.

Actually, it’s a documentary about escort carrier in Atlantic warfare (and HBG Casablanca) that makes me think about introducing new units in my A&A games.

Well I bought the Axis minor infantry with a panzerfaust to reperesent Axis engineers/marines, I bought yellow, brown, and dark grey. I bought the infantry with a field cap and rifle in the same colors for paratroopers or marines. I also bought the FMG Italain medium/bomber transport for use as a transport. I bought OOB He-111s in orange and black from AA41 to use as transports for Japan and Germany. Mind you that I haven’t worked out all the details and now that we have more German units I will probably change my original vision of thier implementation. I also bought some red JAP infantry to represent Japanese Marines this will stay for sure. In additon I bought a whole bunch of thier US sculpts in OD and Dark Green for other uses.

As far a marines go they need either a mobility/deployment advantage or a combative advantage to make them worthwhile as a game mechanic. Otherwise they simply add flavor to the mix.

I have also considered making the USMC as a separate minor player balancing it with the Afrikakorps for the Axis and giving control to the Russian or UK player for the USMC and Japan for the Afrikakorps depending on which AA version we’re playing. Of course these would be funded by Germany or US resepective to thier player countries.
You may ask why?: 1. If the US/German player must fund a force which they have not control over it simulates to difficulties for the logistics the commandr of both forces faced. 2. Having the USMC for the Allies and Afrikakorps for the Axis gives either side unique challenges and advantages. 3. It gives the Russian player something fun to do if they control the Marines.

I need to think on this a bit more but I think I have some great ideas about marines. My Great-uncle was a Marine Paratrooper in WWII and would’ve been assigned to a very elite unit until it was scrapped by the allies due to cost and logistics. Some of the stories he told my Grandmother really reflected the animosity the Marines held for MacArthur and the Army. What I learned mostly is that the Marines were able to do much more with less logistically and new how to fight harder than the boys in the ETO. While the Army in the PTO were in hell the USMC was in the the basement of Hell.

Using this as a guideline I’m trying to incorperate this into my game stats. I’ll keep you posted.

@toblerone77:

I need to think on this a bit more but I think I have some great ideas about marines. My Great-uncle was a Marine Paratrooper in WWII and would’ve been assigned to a very elite unit until it was scrapped by the allies due to cost and logistics. Some of the stories he told my Grandmother really reflected the animosity the Marines held for MacArthur and the Army. What I learned mostly is that the Marines were able to do much more with less logistically and new how to fight harder than the boys in the ETO. While the Army in the PTO were in hell the USMC was in the basement of Hell.

Using this as a guideline I’m trying to incorperate this into my game stats. I’ll keep you posted.

Very, very interesting…
Maybe, we must think about USMC units as more than just better infantry but, instead, it represents a better organized integrated force, with some Art, some Arm and some fighters in it but still meanly infantry.

So, it can be Ok to give them Att@2 or even @3 in certain circumstances.
But I don’t forget this: it cannot be a replica of Art (A2/D2/M1/C4).
And it is still strange to get Att@2 in amphibious assault but only Att@1 on regular ground battle while the first was “the basement of Hell”.

I’ve never liked A&A’s version of marines.  The attack on a “2”, but only in amphibious assaults, didn’t ring true to me.  Yes, marines specialize in amphibious assaults, but why would they be better in combat in one of the most difficult environments than when they fight in a more traditional situation?  If they kick butt in an amphibious attack and warrant a “2” then they should kick similar butt in standard attacks instead of reverting to a “1.”

Maybe A1/2* D2/3* M1 C3/2.5* Special: Marines may be puchased at 2 for 5 IPCs and directly on transports when puchased at the same time adjacent to any one teritory that includes an IC and NB. Marines may attack at 2 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault when accompanied by destroyers, cruisers, or battleships. Marines attacking with fighters or tactical bombers increase by +1 on a 1:1 ratio when tac bombers or fighters orginating from an AC are involved in combat. Marines defending a territory with a NB have a +1 added to two or less Marines.

NAs: Globe and Anchor- The first time Japan attacks Hawaii during the game the US may have 2 Marines placed in WUSA after the conclusion of the attack. (Once per game.)
Old Glory Raised- If the US captures and holds Iwo Jima for one round of play the US recieves 2 Marines unit to be placed at either WUSA or Hawaii. (Once per game.)

@toblerone77:

Maybe A1/2* D2/3* M1 C3/2.5 Special: Marines may be puchased at 2 for 5 IPCs and directly on transports when purchased at the same time adjacent to any one teritory that includes an IC and NB.* Marines may attack at 2 on a 1:1 basis during an amphibious assault when accompanied by destroyers, cruisers, or battleships. Marines attacking with fighters or tactical bombers increase by +1 on a 1:1 ratio when tac bombers or fighters originating from an AC are involved in combat. Marines defending a territory with a NB have a +1 added to two or less Marines.

NAs: Globe and Anchor- The first time Japan attacks Hawaii during the game the US may have 2 Marines placed in WUSA after the conclusion of the attack. (Once per game.)
Old Glory Raised- If the US captures and holds Iwo Jima for one round of play the US recieves 2 Marines unit to be placed at either WUSA or Hawaii. (Once per game.)

IMHO, the cost seems too low for a unit that has special ability over regular infantry…
Marines A2 when paired with a combat ship DD, CA, BB for the entire battle?
Maybe for the opening cycle? (If we think about the intense bombardment that precede amphibious assault during WWII in PTO. Marines can still move under the intense gunnery fires of their support ships.) Works like Art support but only for the Marines and only on the first round.
(For the following rounds, if their is 2 Marines together, they gain A2 as long as they are paired?)
So your idea can be added to mine as another possible condition to get bonus Att+1 for this special unit.
Even a lone Marines unit get 1 A2 on first round if they’re is any one support ship.

Elite unit: Att: 1 Def: 2 Move: 1 cost 4, receive +1 att when paired with Art (same as Inf) or with an Arm (special ability).
After the first round and the rest of the battle, they  give +1 att to Art or Elite unit.
So after the first round (of amphibious assault and coastal bombardment), if the Elite unit survive the defender rolls, it provides better targeting for Art (att:3).
If their is only two Elite units, then both get +1 Att, thus getting 2E units Att: 2 Def: 2, as long as they are paired.

I’m not sure about the historicity of tactical aircrafts support.
I think their coordination between air force and ground troops wasn’t so developped.
Maybe it is better to give bonus Att+1 to Arm so they get @4 when paired 1 on 1 with Marines unit.
I saw that HBG have Sherman Flame Tank with the Marines miniature.
Their is also LVT…

@Baron. I s hould have qualified what I meant. +1 for marines would simply mean that if you attack ten marines and the landing had 1dd, 1 bb and say a fighter that three of the marines would attack at +1. Marines could easily call in close air support or call a fire mission when available during WWII.

The advantage of buying marines in that way means you don’t need to have artillary that is essentially cargo in a sea battle. In my example if you had attacked with ten destroyers you’d essentially have ten arty without having to buy them or risk losing a fleet due to less escorts. Naval support for marines is useless in land battles. Therefore your arty still has it’s need and usefulness. The marines keep thier unique and primary role of conducting naval warfare while not being cost ineffective. So buying marines makes more sense in the PTO. You can have more destoyers and less arty but similar firepower while still having escorts for your transports.

@toblerone77:

@Baron. I s hould have qualified what I meant. +1 for marines would simply mean that if you attack ten marines and the landing had 1dd, 1 bb and say a fighter that three of the marines would attack at +1. Marines could easily call in close air support or call a fire mission when available during WWII.
The advantage of buying marines in that way means you don’t need to have artillary that is essentially cargo in a sea battle. In my example if you had attacked with ten destroyers you’d essentially have ten arty without having to buy them or risk losing a fleet due to less escorts. Naval support for marines is useless in land battles. Therefore your arty still has it’s need and usefulness. The marines keep their unique and primary role of conducting naval warfare while not being cost ineffective. So buying marines makes more sense in the PTO. You can have more destroyers and less arty but similar firepower while still having escorts for your transports.

You touch the point.
In a way, the usual buying of 1 Inf+1 Art on a transport is the competitor of Marines unit in PTO. And in a sense, it simulates a better Att of Inf vs Inf+Arm in ETO.
Since it costs 3+4 IPCs (A2+A2), if 2 Marines cost 4+4 IPCs, you must get something for your 1 additional IPC. (Maybe that’s why you suggest 2 Marines for 5 IPCs?)

I disagree  about DD, CA or BB support Marines att +1 for more than one round.
However, I agree for Art, Arm and even Fgt or TacB giving a bonus +1 Att.
So, for you, is it a Marines @1+1 or a Marines unit @2+1?

I was also thinking about this:

Marines may be purchased at 2 for 5 IPCs and directly on transports when purchased at the same time adjacent to any one teritory that includes an IC and NB.

Does it change something to be on land or on the transport?
It is only different for aircrafts on carrier or on land, but not realy for Inf or Marines.
So it give no advantage here, except for the naval base (ex.: Hawaii) some sea-zones away.

Their is still this Marines only unit:

A1 D2 M1 C4 attacks @2 during amphibious assault.
We can add this ability only after the first round.

If supported by DD, CA, BB on the first round, it keeps @2?

But what can we do about it when paired with Art? Arm? or even Fgt/TBom?

Marines @3 only after the first round?

And that is high vs Inf D2…

Rule from AAP:

From Axis and Allies Pacific

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.

Baron why would you buy a marine unit if it costs as much as a gun? You can already bombard with your cruisers and battleships. The whole point is that a marine uses a “fire mission” ability that no other unit has making it worth it when your taking islands and hopping off and on in defenseless transports.

If a marine costs as much as artillery or armor or mech infantry they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach. Even if they are +1 every round they would be if they were army units with artillery support plus they would have a shore bombardment!

@toblerone77:

Baron why would you buy a marine unit if it costs as much as a gun? You can already bombard with your cruisers and battleships. The whole point is that a marine uses a “fire mission” ability that no other unit has making it worth it when your taking islands and hopping off and on in defenseless transports.

If a marine costs as much as artillery or armor or mech infantry they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach. Even if they are +1 every round they would be if they were army units with artillery support plus they would have a shore bombardment!

Hi toblerone77,
Do you imply that Marines don’t get the shore bombardment of the first round?
Instead, they get only the +1 for each paired Marines with a support ship for all the rounds of battle?

You said:

they need to be more powerful somewhere. That somewhere is the beach.

But it seems that historically as well as physically, the beach is where any men even marines are the more vulnerable.
That’s why I suggested the “Marines” or “Elite units” get their main bonus after the first round.

Another problem as I learned about Iwo Jima is that after the Marines reach the beach and the island, the support ships has to cease fire because they will hit their own troops instead of the enemy entrenched inside caves.

That why I see a reason to limit the bombardment to the first round only.
No more support from ships after first round (wether troops are too far inland, or wether they can be hit by friendly fire.)

Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical.  A cost of four is too high inthe mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.

So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO

@toblerone77:

Basically Baron the marines in the A&A series IMO have been crap and nonsensical.  A cost of four is too high in the mechanics of the game when it essentially has worse stats than artillery. So you have to give it an advantage that artillary does not have. Its fire power, mobility or special ability. It HAS to be worth buying and apply to it’s historical role. The marines were powerful because they could respond rapidly via the USN. Making a marine that can do the same thing for more money or less for more money just doesn’t work for me. So I don’t know they have to have an advantage that makes sense. I can add marines for flavor from HBG which is fine. The OT was to design a marine unit which was cost effective and worth while. I personally don’t get overly hung up on absolute balance with this game. I try to go big picture.

So I don’t know I don’t think your idea is bad but personally if I’m buying essentially a regular infantry unit to get a combined forces roll of two or less for a couple rounds I’m not buying. Marines should be cheap and powerful under the right circumstance IMO

I agree with you.
The goal of this tread, I believe, is to think a variety of possibilities.
Probably maximise every option that appear in the process.

Another way to reduce the cost to 3.5 IPCs each: must always buy 2 Marines for 7 IPCs.
Marines: A2 D2 M1 C7 for 2 units.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with support ships to attack @3 on first round.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to attack @3 after first round.

Now I have the impression that it is too cheap…

For the cost maybe you better get:
Marines: A1 D2 M1 C7 for 2 units.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with 1 Marines so both get A2.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with support ships to get +1 attack on first round.
Can be paired on a 1-on-1 basis with Art/Arm/Fgt or TBom to get +1 attack after the first round.

So, even if you loose 1 unit during amphibious assault it can still get A1+1 (for 1@2) with support ships/ or with Fgt or TBom.

Is it more of your taste?