Marines

@Baron:

@toblerone77:

Thinking about your thoughts on beach combat. This could be simulated by giving defenders a first round reprisal or sneak attack. personally the problem I see in all the AA series is that the PTO islands aren’t worth attacking as hard as other targets elsewhere.

If it is the case, like a preemptive strike (with no retaliation for the killed attacker) from defenders in islands, I think it will hinders a PTO strategy and create stalemate of not enough ground units to capture those islands (for no IPCs). USA will even more turn is war effort against Germany in Atlantic (10 IPCs in Western Europe).

Even with an offensive armada, with many Fgt, CA, BB it is still the Inf that capture territory. For each two Inf killed, it means a useless transport wich need to turn back toward USA/Hawaii. It’s a long chain of communication when USA wants to make “Islands hopping”.

I tought about an other way to simulate the difficult beach assault:
“When an invasion was amphibious only, the defender can “soak” 1 hit from any attacking units including bombardment, aircraft or ground attack, without loosing any defending unit.”
I tought about this rule with PTO in background, but it should be used also in ETO. Africa, Western Europe, etc. And there I think it will be too much in favor of the Germany. I never test this “house rule” on amphibious only assault.

So, this means that the attacker need more punch on offensive to killed fastly all the defending units, because the more cycles of attack and defense the more chance the attacking ground units can be crippled and whole invasion strategy compromise because of lack of Infantry.

An other interesting house rule that can be introduce in conjunction with marines unit:
@Koningstiger:

Amphibious assaults: Each defending unit defends at +1 during the first cycle of combat (each time it is attacked). Simple, effective and makes amphibious assaults a lot riskier!

Worth also thinking about it when introducing Marines units:

@KillOFzee:

Re: Revised Amphibious Assaults
This rule makes for a more realistic take on assaulting beaches or Islands.

During an Amphib Assault, on the first round of combat, attacking infantry cannot be supported by artillery. Also defending artillery is defends on 3 during the first round. Every round afterwards combat continues as normal.

This rule has solved the “easy sea-lion” problem in some of our Europe games, and it encourages the Germans to actually defend Normandy rather than stack up in France. It doesn’t really affect small Amphib Assaults, because only the first round changes.

@skinny1:

Would Marines in AA42 with the rules from AA Pacific, not AAP40, be viable if the Japanese had a Fukkaku Defense?
“The Japanese introduced the tactic of endurance engagements intended to inflict maximum casualties. This tactic called Fukkaku included bunkers and pillboxes connected by tunnels.
All your infantry on islands defend on a 3.”

This is taken from here:  http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=15052.0

Would Marines work in AAP40 under the same circumstance?

Thanks.

I found other interesting suggestions here, with Larry Harris comments:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062&start=40

I REALLY like the suggestion of giving the defender a +1 to all units on the first round of amphibious assaults. I share your concerns about anything that makes the game more defensive, but I will argue below that this is OK.

First off, if you are interested in pursuing this, I recommend the following variant:

“Units which are amphibiously assaulting suffer a -1 penalty on the first round of combat.”

This has four advantages over the +1 to defenders.

• First, it is more flavorful. Put the penalty on the attackers.
• Second it is more realistic. Let unsupported infantry attack at a 0. The first stages of a landing are more about getting boots on the ground than getting anything effective out of them (Just watched “Saving Private Ryan” last night).
• Third, since it doesn’t affect planes, it will be less impactful than boosting defense, if you’re worried about it shifting game balance.
• Fourth, it makes it very simple rules-wise when you have attacks which combine a land attack with an amphibious attack (just give a -1 to the units actually coming from the sea). Also, if you do implement a Marines rule (which I think you should NOT do, BTW) you can just exempt the marines from the penalty.

Now, whichever of these you might choose to use, these are the reasons I think it’s a good plan from a gameplay point of view.

1. It would make Sea Lion a little harder. From what I’m seeing here, right now it’s a mainstream strategy where I think it should be a bit more of a fringe strategy or gambit of opportunity.
2. It gives us more of a Fortress Europe feel. If Germany wants to build an Atlantic Wall, they need to garrison Normandy, Holland, Western Germany, and Denmark, making their expenditures 4 to 1 against Allied expenditures (not really, with transport costs, but still…) This just throws a little bone to Germany.
3. Germany might actually be able to hold onto Norway for a decent time.
4. I haven’t playtested the new Med setup, but Egypt always felt vulnerable to a combined land and naval assault. This would help the Brits a smidge.
5. It has always been a disappointment to me that we don’t see a bitter defense of the Japanese Pacific islands (in most of my games, they get stripped for extra infantry). Maybe with this rule and airbases, it might finally become a viable strategy to garrison them.

As for making the game more defensive, I have several mitigating arguments.

1. For a decent sized attack, this rule amounts to a reduction of 1-2 expected hits. Enough to make the attack slightly more expensive, but not game-breakingly so
2. It scales with attack size. With small attacks, it’s almost irrelevant.
3. In many cases you’re defending multiple territories, which already gives an attacker with naval mobility a huge force advantage.

I think I totally agree with your approach.
-1 assigned to the attacker. I must let you know that this is rather radical new rule and it will be an up hill round to ever incorporate the concept into the game, but who knows. Thanks…
LH-a

IL amends the rule about giving +1 to all defending unit of an amphibious assault:

The bonus is only for +1 for each landing unit, if you got less units then thats fine… they are +1

For my part, I will add: giving for 1st round of an amphibious assault Def+1 to all ground units defending (Inf/Art/MecInf/Arm) and only up to the number of attacking landing units.

About this new rule:
“Units which are amphibiously assaulting suffer a -1 penalty on the first round of combat.”

Maybe we can just halfed the penalty:
So we get 1@1 for every 2 Inf on 1 first round of an amphibious assault.
So on solo Inf beach invasion, this Inf get 0@1.
If their is 2 Inf, they get 1@1.
If their is 4 inf, they get 2@1 on the first round.
If their is 6 inf, 3@1 and so forth…

Every units wich Att2 or more must still suffer -1att in the first round.
Thus 1Inf and 1Art get only 2@1 on the first round.

Marines unit: negate -1att first round of amphibious penalty for this unit and another paired with.
Cost: You can upgrade (train) any 2 regular units (Inf/MecInf/Art/Arm) marines units for 1 IPC.
In this manner, with 2 marines you can prevent 2 other units from suffering first round penalty.
For example, on the first round of amphibious assault, a regular Inf+Art will get 2@1 (7 IPCs).
One marines Inf unit + same Art will fight 2@2 (3.5+4= 7.5 IPCs).

1 Inf+1 Arm: 0@1+1@2 (9 IPCs) vs 1 Marines Inf+1 Arm: 1@1+1@3 (3.5+6= 9.5 IPCs).

Thus, for 1 IPC, this give back 4 attack points for the first round of an amphibious assault.

You just have to put some “marines token” under regular unit or exchange regular for specific miniature.

What do you think of this totally different way to add marines and amphibious rules in A&A?

It worths the attention:
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4062&start=56

kcdzim wrote:
Gotta say I like this more than marines or defense +1.

The only problem with this system is that it doesn’t in any way solve the problem if the Land Units have any support.

Let us have a quick example: 1 American Aircraft Carrier with 1 Ftrt & 1 TacBmr, 1 Cruiser, 1 Transport with 1 Inf and 1 Art attack an island with 1 Japanese Infantry on it. Inf attack on 1 (assuming Art is still allowed to support whilst disembarking…)and Art on a 1.

Result: ��� Inf killed; 33.3% chance of an Inf loss to the Americans.

With the alternative system (+1 Def), the same death occurs for the defenders (100%), but the chance of an American casualty becomes 50%,

Even with a second defending Inf, the problem is essentially the same with the decreased Attack system:

Cruiser: Att 3
Fighter: Att 3
TacBmr: Att4
Infantry: Att 1
Artillery: Att 1

vs

Infantry: Att 2
Infantry: Att 2

Result? Almost certain loss of both Japanese Inf and probable (approx 66%) loss of 1 US Inf (chance of losing both is just 11.1%).

With an increase Def instead:

Cruiser: Att 3
Fighter: Att 3
TacBmr: Att4
Infantry: Att 2
Artillery: Att 2

vs

Infantry: Att 3
Infantry: Att 3

Now there is a better chance (25%) that both the American Land Units will be hit even though both Japanese units still go down.

The point:

It’s the CASUALTIES that matter, and with even a modicum of support, these American forces of 1 Inf and 1 Art can take three or so islands under the current system before running out of troops. With a defender bonus (even for one round), there would be sufficient casualties to stop them after just one or two islands.

In point of fact, we also use the reduced Attack system as well as the bonus to defenders in our heavily-house-ruled game. This makes using one’s navy to hammer (for example) French-based German armies less of a cheap victory. The point being here that in the real world, one can retreat from the coast to avoid naval shelling, but in the game, one can’t and one can lose ALL one’s units if the enemy navy is big enough.

But anyway…back to the Cruiser/Destroyer/Submarine issues! :wink:

---

Caractacus.

It’s the CASUALTIES that matter, and with even a modicum of support, these American forces of 1 Inf and 1 Art can take three or so islands under the current system before running out of troops. With a defender bonus (even for one round), there would be sufficient casualties to stop them after just one or two islands.

Essentially, it is for this reason that I prefer this rule about amphibious assault:

@Baron:

I tought about an other way to simulate the difficult beach assault:
“When an invasion was amphibious only, the defender can “soak” 1 hit from any attacking units including bombardment, aircraft or ground attack, without loosing any defending unit.”
I tought about this rule with PTO in background, but it should be used also in ETO. Africa, Western Europe, etc. And there I think it will be too much in favor of the Germany. I never test this “house rule” on amphibious only assault.

So, this means that the attacker need more punch on offensive to killed fastly all the defending units, because the more cycles of attack and defense the more chance the attacking ground units can be crippled and whole invasion strategy compromise because of lack of Infantry.

An other interesting house rule that can be introduce in conjunction with marines unit:
@Koningstiger:

Amphibious assaults: Each defending unit defends at +1 during the first cycle of combat (each time it is attacked). Simple, effective and makes amphibious assaults a lot riskier!

An other more damaging rule than the preceding for the amphibious assault:

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=9146

Something simple that my group has adopted is all ground units in an amphibious assault only attack at a 1 in the first round of combat. This represents the vulnerable situation and the difficulty of landing troops and equipment on the beach. We have used this for several games now and we like it. Gives the feel of realism in a simple and elegant way. Try it, you’ll like it!
KSLyons88

Reply: That would probably put the dagger into Sea Lion, but the **axis might try to defend the coast instead of just stacking Paris for a counter attack on the beaches.

Yes, this is the problem with not having addressed this issue before - we have bulked up the UK to prevent Sealion instead of making Amphibious Assaults more difficult…

At this point, if we were to implement a penalty to Amphibious Assaults, we would make it well nigh impossible to invade the UK.

I would have preferred to introduce penalties to the attackers making an Amphibious Assault or give a bonus to land units defending - by simply adding units to the UK all we have done is solve this problem for the UK, it has done nothing to prevent Bombardment spamming elsewhere on the board, and it has also meant that the island-hopping campaign on the Pacific board is a non-starter - almost all Japanese players send Transports around their islands removing their garrison infantry, not reinforcing them since they know that they will likely fall to any attack in round 1 due to Naval Bombardment.

But there you go.

---

Caractacus.

Very well put Caractacus, in order to make a change to amphib of this nature you would have to adjust the starting units yet again (and there’s no way that will fly).

A while back (just before G40 came out), I remember a proposal to allow coastal artillery to roll its 2 as a pre-empt kill shot in the first round of battle in def of an amphib (if successful, attacking units would be removed before they fire). It was a minor change that could have had an effect on the beaches.

Just not sure if Germany would attempt to stack the coast (Normandy) w/art. Now if art got to fire at 3 in the first round (no kill shot) for coastal def would most powers including Germany do it?

WILD BILL**

http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Think out loud: Island Hopping

I agree a single move between Japan and Hawaii - Probably hurts the game

I think I like the notion of Island Hopping -
Good
a) It really happened
b) it’s kind of cool
c) makes us use more of the board
Not Good
a) Might make things tale even longer
b) How to shape/force the behavior ? (two 5/7 NOs, and 3 Solomon NOs prob not enough)

I Tried this thought – "Amphibious Assaults must come from an Adjacent Square with at least some land in it. " Theme/Justification: Logistic staging area

Problems:
WUS can only be attacked from Canada/Mexico
Gibraltar, Morocoo, England, Normandy Can’t really be attacked from US
Gibralter, Morocoo , Can’t be attacked even from England

So My “Solution”

All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.
Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

(I also play with marines which negate a round of defensive minuses in amphib assaults an stack these benifits)

Far from perfect, but paired with the NOs – I see Japan and or the US approaching Tokyo, Honolulu, Sydney via Island chains

A build up in England before Normandy , and a little tougher fight to get into N. Africa.

thoughts ?

I think we are trying too hard here.

Just use the simple tried and true rules from the original Pacific.  Simple, easy to understand, and workable.

@BJCard:

I think we are trying too hard here.

Just use the simple tried and true rules from the original Pacific.  Simple, easy to understand, and workable.

LOL my opinion is it’s not that complex but also not that simple. Whats the point of a weaker Marine when compared with artillery?  If they both cost the same what’s the point?

@Praetorian:

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.”  **

I don’t forget this initial post, it has some truth in it.
Is it possible to create a unit which is both good in regular combat and amphibious?

@BJCard:

I think we are trying too hard here.

Yes, it probably seems like it because I post some ideas from others (to read them in a same tread) that are creatives but somewhat complex or unbalancing in a way or another.

I’m trying to get a bigger picture here, I have some preferences but my mind is not made.

Actually, a simple unit  which pass over the obstacle about strange marines better in amphibious than regular combat:
Elite: A2 (better than reg Inf) D2 C4 (same as Art…) but give +1 Att to… ???
Suggest: +1 Att. when paired with Art or Arm/ and even one other Elite.
It give this unit a real advantage in both kind of battle.
Variation*: less simple but more historically grounded, *it only received this bonus after the first round (reaching the beach).
It gets the same punch as the Pacific unit (Att. 3 with Art in amphibious battle).
Also, paired with 1 Arm, it worth the 4 IPCs price for the Att punch from a transport: 6 (A3+A3) Att points + 5 (D2+D3) Def pts= 11 pts for 10 IPCs instead of 1 Art (A2D2C4) + Att. (A2+1=3D2C4) points. = 9 points for 8 IPCs.

Do you want to buy them now?

For me, the problem still is 1@3 for a mainly Inf unit. I found this a bit powerfull.

Interresting combination of 2 rules and a way to promote islands hopping:

http://harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4222&start=48

Darby wrote:
All Amphibious Assaults
a) Are at -1 for land amphibious launched land units for the first two rounds.
b) Defenders fire at +1 for the first round.

Amphibious Assaults staged from an adj. tt with some land in it - negate one round of Offensive minuses, and negate the Defensive pluses.

I REALLY like that it still allows people to do the 3 move assaults, but makes it more difficult.

Here’s a few changes I suggest:

On all amphibious assaults, all attacking units in the land battle have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat and all defending units in the land battle have their defense value increased by 1 for the first round of combat (These include Shore Bombardments and Anti-Aircraft Guns). If all transports unloading units on the amphibious assault have moved one or less spaces this turn before unloading, all units attack and defend without these modifiers.

---

�A lie never lives to be old.� � Sophocles

mantlefan
Post subject: Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 pm

The Changes do well to clarify … but I’m still wondering if we want to reward coming from a bit of land that serves as a logistic staging base.
The way you have it worded – A fleet can wait in a sea zone for a turn before attacking – No benefit as compared to attacking Honolulu from The Marshalls or Japan from Iwo Jima
(Besides the benefit of course of being able to put you land units safely on the islands while waiting to attack rather then at risk on transports.)

Do we want to reward Island hopping as well as just slow assault speed ?

Also I don’t think all attacking units should be minus just ones from transports
a) planes should not really get a minus
b) units from adj. flanking land tts should not get minuses (eg. Landing in Normandy - support from Holland)
c) Shore Bombard should be at full if applicable
etc.

hat might work, but it still harms the UK in London more than it helps Japan IMO. I like the idea where you can still attack if you want, but your troops fight worse if it’s done long range. How about a fusion?

Land units unloading into a enemy territory from transports that have moved 3 spaces that turn have their attack value reduced by 1 for the first round of combat. Land units (including Anti-Aircraft guns) that are defending in an amphibious assault have their defense values increased by 1 for the first round of combat, as long as at least one of the Transports unloading into the territory has moved 3 spaces that turn