G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Here’s another update:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/00bksz

There are 4 maps.
Td no armor or mech builds at new or captured minors.
TdMECH You can build armor and mechs
TdMECHSHIPYARD same as above with shipyard prices
TdMECHVICHY same as MECH with regularkid’s Vichy rules

All maps have updated game notes.The following is the same for all.

Russia/Japan NAP
Removed the 3 PU cost to declare war. Changed the Lend-Lease NO to SZ 5 and control of Amur. You get a extra buck if Japan declares on Russia but not if Russia declares on Japan. SZ 80 also gets a extra buck. SZ 5 has no convoy symbol for now.

The Strategic Islands NO for the US and Japn has been removed.

The All Island Conquest NO goes into effect for the Allies after Japan takes them and after turn 4 for Japan.

Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.

Left the valueless island boost to 1 objective the same for now. If It’s a J1 it won’t matter anyway, otherwise it may influence Japan to consider her options.

Militia is the same. You probably wouldn’t have to worry about China spamming them if they were unlimited since they don’t have the dough. I wouldn’t want to see a pile of them in Moscow or Italy or anywhere else though. Thought about boosting UKPs build limit to 4 to counter the J1, but you can still get a Russian mech force there pretty quickly. Anyway they’re the same for now.

Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "

I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.

As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.

@barney:

Added an Elite unit. A2, D2, M1, C5. Gets the +1A with artillery.
Battleships can transport 1 elite or marine and transports 2.
US has the option to pack 1 armor and 1 mech or 2 mechs on their transports.

Marines are the same. Not entirely an arbitrary number. As Midnight explains " There were six USMC infantry divisions raised during WWII, that’s where the 6 USMC pieces comes from. In truth, SNLF infantry were actually less heavily armed and were broken into smaller units than USMC units, but Japan did have 8 “heavy” or over strength infantry divisions. To give Japan a unit similar to the USMC unit, I designated those 8 “heavy” divisions as SNLF. Again, SNLF isn’t the best name as they were mainly small groups of temporary occupation forces drawn from sailors, but for game purposes it gives Japan an elite unit with a cool name. So again, the numbers come from the 6 USMC divisions and 8 “heavy” Japanese divisions. "

I found 8 to be a little much for gameplay hence their reduction. Didn’t do any heavy research but I imagine ANZAC had some royal marines. I know the UK did. So they each get 1 for game purposes.

As always you can edit or ignore any units you want.

If Elite cost 5 and are boosted by Art +1A for A3, there is no difference with Marines A1 doing debarkment +1A with Art+1A = A3, except for 1 IPC lower.

To make a real play-test for Elite Infantry viability, it should be 4 IPCs and no Arty boost.
That was the core of my idea: no A3 footmen unit.
Otherwise, better keep Marines as they are.

yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out.

Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.

@barney:

yea I thought about that Baron. It seems like you might as well go with inf and arty instead though. I do’nt think you’d want to play with both marines/elites anyway. We’ll see how things shake out. Looks like that tranny you want to have AA capability should be possible. Will try and add it next time around.

It was intentional. Arty and Infantry stay the optimized buy.
That way, there is no Elite Infantry at 4 IPCs spam.
The first bonus is that Elite hit as hard as Arty but take the place of an Infantry in TP.
Hence, you  can hit harder A5 with Tank (A2+A3).  For a single TP, there is no other way to max out the ground attack. So, if a player want the highest punch for an amphibious assault, the best combos will be Inf and Art in many TPs plus Elite Infantry on every TP loaded with one Tank.

The second bonus is coming from being carried on a Battleship.
Even a Naval group with BB and TP, provides a way to bring 1 additional ground unit can be enough attractive to buy a 4 IPCs Elite Infantry to put on board BB.

These two features appear to me balanced, distinctive and have limit by itself.
Pacific Marines don’t have it because for 8 IPCs, Marines and Arty, you already get the stronger punch A5, there is no need for Tank with them, since Marines acts like Tank on Amphibious assault for 2 IPCs less. A real deal! That’s why an artificial limit is required to not spammed them.

On AA gun put on TP, it is a good news.  :-)
Don’t forget, it is not a preemptive AA @1 but a regular AA @1 defense.
IDK if it is possible to get it that way. I still hope so.
And TP should also worth 1 hit against warships but zero defense.
Probably easier to start from scratch with a regular unit and give it A0 D0, 1 hit, then built the AA code as its only defense. Then adding carrying capacity.
Thanks man for all your efforts and work.
It is a precious contribution to such a project, you have no idea.

It could be a real game changer which can increase the naval dynamics.

have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).

5 Pus may seem high, until you actually play it. To put it in perspective, the availability of this unit means that Germany effectively starts the game with 3 transports (1 conventional transport, and 2 capital ships), and Japan starts the game with 7. The ability to forgo constructing transports is a huge bonus, that is well worth the premium of 5 Pus.

A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.

Also, regarding this new option for US transports forcarrying mechs and tanks, it isn’t needed. And faction-specific rules really should be avoided.

@regularkid:

have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).

5 Pus may seem high, until you actually play it. To put it in perspective, the availability of this unit means that Germany effectively starts the game with 3 transports (1 conventional transport, and 2 capital ships), and Japan starts the game with 7. The ability to forgo constructing transports is a huge bonus, that is well worth the premium of 5 Pus.
A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.

Also, regarding this new option for US transports forcarrying mechs and tanks, it isn’t needed. And faction-specific rules really should be avoided.

If Marines are really A1 D2 M1, A2 during amphibious assault, no arty bonus?, they should cost 4 IPCs.
If they are too convenient on board Cruiser and Battleship, they shouldn’t rise to 5 IPCs.
Your diagnosis is right about it, but the cure I suggest is different.
The issue is that Cruiser should not get this carrying capacity at all.
That way, Germany effectively starts the game with only 1 conventional transport, and 1 capital ships (3 units: 2 Infs+ 1 other), and Japan starts the game with 3 conventional transports and 2 capital ships (8 units: 5 Infs+3 others).

The comparative calculations I made between such Cruiser and Escorted TPs showed that it is always better to built Cruiser with Marines.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1470463#msg1470463
On next play-test only use Battleship to carry 4 IPCs Marines, I believe it is far less OP.

I agree about not giving specific carrying TP bonus to US.
But it worth the try before changing MI features to all nations TPs.
If it is not that useful a change for USA strategy (in Africa and Europe), which should benefit the most, then keep OOB TP capacity.

Maybe Japan and Italy can use TP able to carry 2 MIs, too.
If it is more advantageous for these two Axis than USA, then it should stay OOB.
Axis seems well on top in this game.

Unless Black Elk wants a deeper Redesign, in which cheaper boats for Allies (SS5, DD6, TP7, CA9, CV12, BB15) can compete with a fast Axis expansion in Asia and Africa due to this TP able to carry 2 MIs or 1 MI+ 1 Tank.
So, maybe it worth a try if all nations get this TP capacity.

I agree that paratrooper can be a one way ticket without airbase.
But unloading Elite from BB in an island without NB and not allowing to reembarke seems weird.

I’m pretty sure that limiting Elite to Battleship transport is enough to self-limit their usefulness, even if they have similar value than Arty, A2 D2 M1 C4, but with no combined arms combat bonus.

1 Elite moving with big plane (StB), 1 with big warship (BB), seems an interesting theme.
Any other idea for moving them by land?
I can’t think about other thing than Mechanized Infantry pairing with 1 Elite somehow.

Using bases to cap the number of Elite units that can be used at a time seems more convenient to me than using the associated units. For example, instead of a bomber or Battleship spam resulting in a cascade of airborne and marine attacks, you could cap it 1 Elite per base per turn.

Maybe this should be tied to 1 Elite per major IC+base per turn, you get 2 Elites when you have both AB and NB in major IC TTy.
So, if minor IC can’t produce them, it is a way to show how it is home-made dedicated and highly trained unit.

@Black_Elk:

Well if the marines take the island, they can build a seabee Naval Base the following round. Subdue the oposition. Or wait for a normal transport to pick them up after.

Pairing elites to a mobile ground unit is interesting. This could be a cool way to give them a land role in addition to their role at sea and in the air. I would go armor rather than mech though. This would restore some functionality to the expensive 6 ipc tank.
If you wanted to create a cap restriction similar to the naval and air base restriction, then you could tie this ability to the minor/major factory unit.

If it goes with armor moving 2, then at 4 IPCs, it can hardly be A2, it will be better than MI.
And it gets less simpler with air and amphibious attack.

Or it could be A1 D2 C4 and like ordinary Inf, getting +1 with Artillery.
Only better mobility with Tank, Bomber, Battleship.
But at such lower basic combat value, I would allow +1M with Mech Inf too.
And Elite doesn’t need to be that restricted with BB.
Limiting production to 1 per turn per major IC plus base would be enough.

I’m maybe too negative.
If there is 1 Elite unit per base with major IC per turn,  this give only a few elite units.
This Elite unit can be simply
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Cost 4
Can load 1 on Battleship with NB or 1 on StBomber to airdrop with AB.
Can move 2 when paired 1:1 with Tank, and blitz along with Tank.
No bonus with Artillery.

This last Elite Infantry could work for Marines, paratroopers, Royal Marines and British commandoes, and SS troopers.

I suggest that there is none of them in set-up.
They will build slowly each game turn, from intensive training due to on war status.

Maybe a DOW could be needed to allow this unit purchase?

Yea I don’t really like the idea of a 3A infantry unit either. The marines aren’t too bad since they can only do it on amphib but…I don’t think I’d go with cruisers packing them around though. You’d have half the fleet capable then which doesn’t seem ideal.

An elite air/sea unit for 4 bucks. A2 D2 M1 C4 no arty boost, battleship can pack 1. Is also a paratrooper. Most games I’ve seen with paratroopers they’re dropped from bombers which is pretty powerful. Or you could stay with the current rule where they get dropped from the AB. I don’t really like that one.  You could drop them from an air transport with no attack value. I know some people do that and which is the way I’d probably go.

Having the Bases activate them might be a little tricky. Unlike the SBRs though I think you could do it.

Or you could stay with the current rule where they get dropped from the AB.

Is it a Tech or a basic feature on TripleA?
I thought it was a Tech.

For TripleA, using AB as paratrooper/elite infantry launcher can be ok as a basic feature.
The Tech could allow for still ordinary infantry to be airdropped.

It’s a tech. You could just give it to everybody though.

Black Elk:

Agree with everything you said, except on one point: With a purchase price of 5 PUs, and the stats I described earlier, no further restrictions are needed (and, as a general matter, the less “special” rules u put on a unit, the better). I can speak from experience cuz I’ve actually play tested the unit with several players over the last few days. The unit does not get spammed. It does, however, get used in its historic function. I think allowing air drop is good, as is renaming the unit “Elite Infantry” rather than “Marine.”

@Black_Elk:

My preference would be for no purchase limit, since that seems to me rather unprecedented for A&A, at least since the earliest rulesets of Classic.

The USMC may have had 6 divisions in the war, but I’d rather preserve these units as a generic “Elite” type, and not pigeon hole them into a specific description as marines etc. I think trying to create exact ratios for a unit sculpt to historical division numbers is always problematic. Better I think to leave the purchasing as normal, without limits, and leave it up to the players discretion to decide how many to buy.

If the 5 ipc cost is the sweet spot rather than 4, then perhaps just increase the functionality/ability of the unit so they can also serve as airborne? Another combat role beyond just the amphibious invasion. I think this would be the ideal solution, since it gives the US for example,  a way to have these units used in Europe without breaking with whole Marines only in the Pac thing.

Perhaps these units could have their abilities associated with units at bases rather than just with units. For example, Elite ‘marines’ can only embark on the battleship if it moves from an opperational naval base. Or similarly Elite ‘paratroopers’ can only hitch a ride on a bomber if it takes off from an airbase. Or something along those lines. This seems a bit easier to me than introducing a separate class of infantry for each nations potential elite infantry. Just make it into a catch all.

Basically I’d put the focus on the potential strategic movement advantage, rather than the attack/defense value for the cost. Even if they had the same value as a normal infantry unit in combat, the ability to move in ways that normal infantry can’t would be a pretty strong incentive to buy some, without unleashing a spam that might occur if the unit is significantly stronger than the inf artillery combo. We don’t want the elites to totally eclipse infantry as the go to ground purchase, especially for nations that have to move across the sea to reach the action.

Using bases to cap the number of Elite units that can be used at a time seems more convenient to me than using the associated units. For example, instead of a bomber or Battleship spam resulting in a cascade of airborne and marine attacks, you could cap it 1 Elite per base per turn.

An Elite at an NB is considered a Marine, an Elite at an AB is considered airborne.

This would encourage the building of naval bases in the Pacific to move Marines around on battleships. And if used as a paratrooper, tying the elites to the AirBase rather than the bomber would place some limits on their use, like Germany in the dark skies for example.

@regularkid:

have playtested marines extensively now. The correct cost is 5 PUs for a marine that can be loaded on a battleship/cruiser, and attacks at 2 when in an amphibious assault (with no artillery support permitted).

A side benefit of a 5 PU cost is you do not need to put limits on the number of marines built, because it is self-limiting.

Is it what you have in mind Kid?
Marines/Paratrooper
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 5
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Gets +1A when airdropped, but cannot be supported by Artillery.
Can combine with +1A Artillery bonus in other situation.

If it is the case, I don’t see why this couldn’t be at 4 IPCs.
Here is a slightly different Elite unit:

Elite Infantry
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Cost 4
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Gets +1A when airdropped, but cannot be supported by Artillery.
Can get +1A Artillery bonus when paired 1:1, in all other situations.
Can move 2 when paired 1:1 with Tank, and can blitz along with Tank.

How this unit can be OP, I don’t see.

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.

As far as artillery support is concerned, either the unit has it or the unit doesn’t have it. Because of XML limitations, you can’t have artillery support selectively in some situations and not others. And, honestly, when you start to draw rules distinctions that finely, you risk getting lost in the weeds a little bit.

The way I have it set up in the mod is that the unit gets transported on both cruisers and battleships. I haven’t integrated paradropping, so I don’t know what impact it would have.

As far as having the unit blitz with tanks, again, I don’t understand why this is necessary? What exactly are you trying to simulate?

@regularkid:

Playtest it and see for yourself. Maybe you will have a different experience than me. My experience has been that the unit works perfectly with a cost of 5.

The way I have it set up in the mod is that the unit gets transported on both cruisers and battleships.

What was exactly the combat value of the Marines you play-tested, Kid?
Was it this?
Marines
Attack 1-2
Defense 2
Move 1
Cost 5
1 unit can be loaded on 1 Battleship or Cruiser.
Gets +1A during amphibious assault, but cannot be supported by Artillery
Cannot combine with +1A Artillery bonus in any other situation.

If it is the case, the unit is weaker than regular infantry.
The high cost come from is combined arms with cruiser and nothing else.
It should be revised.

The comparative calculations I made between such Cruiser and Escorted TPs showed that it is always better to built Cruiser with Marines.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1470463#msg1470463

On next play-test only use Battleship to carry 4 IPCs Marines, I believe it is far less OP.

That’s it exactly.

The mod is attached as a SavedGame if u’d like to try it. Game Notes explain all revisions. Would be interested to hear your playtest experience :)

G40BalanceMod (VichyFranceandMarines).tsvg

@regularkid:

As far as having the unit blitz with tanks, again, I don’t understand why this is necessary? What exactly are you trying to simulate?

@Baron:

@regularkid:

Barney:

Just had a Eureka moment! Forget marines traveling 3 to a transport (which u seem lukewarm on anyhow). And forget the 3-capacity transport, while were at it. Just muddies the waters, and there is already a lot there that needs to be tested.

Here is the epiphany:  in addition to attacking at 2 during amphibious attacks, Marines are the only units that can be transported on battleships and/or cruisers (1 to a ship)!

Can be accomplished in XML by giving transports 11 carrying points, and giving battleships and cruisers 4 carrying points. Marines have 4 carrying cost, Infantry 5, other units 6.

U like?

Interesting idea which should be tested, regularKid.
For both Cruiser and Battleship units.

This additional transportation move could also fit into my
universal Elite/Marines/Paratrooper unit:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Cruiser or 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.

Air movement bonus: Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.

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

No other combined arms.

On amphibious assault, this unit imply a +1 extra-punch per TP carrying Tank on offense:
A2+A3 = A5 compared to Inf + Art, A2+A2 / Inf + Tk, A1+A3.
And 1 Inf + 1 Elite Inf gives A1+A2 in all circumstances, less than 1 Inf + 1 Art, A2+A2,
but better than 1 Inf + 1 usual Marines outside beachlanding A1+A1.

This higher attack factor for Marines/Elite unit with Tank can be explained by the use of amphibious specialized mechanized weapons, such as LVTs / Amtraks, landing crafts, etc.

It won’t be spammed because 1 Inf + 1 Art cost 7 IPCs and gives the same Attack factor @4 than 1 Marines and 1 Art, or 2 Marines which would cost 8 IPCs, 1 IPC more.

---

Giving extra +1 move paired with Tank would be too strong compared to 1 MI +1 Tk combination (A4 D5 M2 C10) vs previous idea 1 Marines + 1 Tk (A5 D5 C10).
However, a +1 bonus move with MI is quite distinctive.

This Elite Infantry at 4 IPCs gets :

1. the basic attack factor of an improved Infantry combined with Artillery (A2) without the need of combined arms, which is far below any @3 value,
2. on amphibious assault, gives the same attack factor than a usual Pacific Marines without the OP combined arms with Artillery attack @3, but you keep the higher A5 combo with Tank,
3. some special combined arms movement features on Sea, Air and Land, a kind of SEAL unit before the letter.

At A&A Strategic level, this Elite Infantry unit could represent all kinds of special forces with extra training which can do more with less logistics than Regular army men.

Here is where on this thread I started talking Elite Infantry:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36518.msg1458486#msg1458486

Elite unit represent all kind of special forces: highly motivated, intensive training, less logistic to deploy but able to do more with less compared to regular infantry unit.
It should work like a SEAL unit.
So, it becomes interesting to build some not for amphibious or airdrop but for land attack.
I want something which could work as Marines, US Rangers, paratrooper or SS trooper.

Here is a weaker and less complex bonus for Land movement

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Rangers:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1 in CM, 2 in NCM
Sea movement bonus:
1 Elite unit can be carried on 1 Battleship.
Transport can load 2 Elites or 1 Elite Infantry plus any other 1 ground unit.

Air movement bonus:
Can be air dropped from an Air TP in CM (or must start from an active Air Base) to make a paratrooper attack drop in the first enemy territory.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 in Non-Combat Move only.

No other combined arms.