G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

@regularkid:

@Black_Elk:

From a gameplay standpoint I think elites would be most interesting with a mobility advantage, eg as a special way to get another pip into the fight that wouldn’t otherwise be available with normal infantry. That’s why I like the concept of loading one onto a battleship ‘marine’, or being able to jump 3 tiles from an airbase ‘paratrooper’ or paired with mech to blitz ‘ranger/stormtrooper’ basically able to make a specialized combat move that normal infantry can’t make. I’m not convinced of the need for an air transport unit. I’m sure we could create one that worked well enough, but it seems a bit overkill to me for sculpt requirements when we could just use the AB and restrict the range to a 3 tile jump, with a limit on the number of paras that can jump tied to the base directly.  Tiles could include both land territories and sea zones, I think 3 tiles would be more than sufficient.
To keep with CWOs point about support from regular ground, you could say that such jumps can only occur in territories where a normal ground attack is occuring. This would prevent paras from skipping around and unrealistically capturing entire regions by themselves.

This is exactly how the “airborne attack” tech already works in G40. It allows you to drop up to two infantry 3 spaces away from an airbase into any territory where a ground attack is already happening.
As for elites dying in large numbers, I’m not sure why this is a dynamic we would want to go out of our way to create (to the point where we’re constructing elaborate rule-sets around it). If the unit costs enough and/or has other limitations (e.g., no artillery support), it won’t be spammed.

I agree with bolded quotes.
I prefer Air Base dropping Elite/paratrooper because it seems a better way to figures how it worked in WWII.
Para units must be moved via land or sea in AB’s TT then use for airdropped attack as support for bigger land invasion.
No way to transport such unit via Air Transport.
Easier to implement on TripleA.
Air Transport should stay optional house ruled. (I have my own HBG set of ATPs.)
In addition, ATP increases the complexity level of balancing things out.

@regularkid:

As for elites dying in large numbers, I’m not sure why this is a dynamic we would want to go out of our way to create (to the point where we’re constructing elaborate rule-sets around it). If the unit costs enough and/or has other limitations (e.g., no artillery support), it won’t be spammed.

Part of what was behind the idea of the high casualty rate, though I didn’t really explain that part in detail, was to simulate the fact that paratroop operations are high-risk gambles (a concept that could be extended to other operations by elite forces).  The purchase price of a unit, no matter how high it might be, is a stable element that’s easy for a player to calculate and that stays the same from round to round.  The player knows that if he wants to buy x number of paratroopers, it’s always going to cost him y dollars per man.  So there’s no risk or suspense in that kind of decision-making.  Casualties are a different matter because of their unpredictability.  Purely for discussion purposes, let’s say that that elite forces have a built-in casualty bracket ranging – just to invent some figures – from a minimum of 40% to a maximum of 80% when they’re used in combat (meaning the total percentage losses suffered by an elite unit in a given map territory during the entire battle from start to finish).  The player knows that his elite forces will deliver an extra-powerful punch (that part is certain) and the player knows that he’s going to lose a lot of those elite troops (that part is certain too), but he doesn’t know exactly how many he’s going to lose (since that part is uncertain).

One way to look at it would be to express the cost/benefit ratio of elite forces in terms of percentages, in the following way.  Based on their high-performance combat values (a predictable advantage that never changes), on their high cost (a predictable disadvantage that never changes), and on their high casualty probabilities (an unpredictable disadvantage that changes from battle to battle), a player who suffers 40% elite casualties in a battle could be considered to have “won” his gamble (gotten great value for his investment), a player who suffers 60% elite casualties in a battle could be considered to have “broken even”, and a player who suffers 80% elite casualties in a battle could be considered to have “lost” his gamble (paid a disastrously excessive price for his investment).    Which is the whole point of a gamble: the potential high gains have to be large enough to compensate for the potential high losses (because otherwise players would never take the risk of using elites), and the potential high losses have to be large enough to offset the potential high gains (because otherwise the player would always automatically use elites, since he’d be foolish not to use a unit that gives lots of bonuses and whose use involves no risks or negative consequences).

One way to increase risks and the casualty odds on paratrooper as Marc suggested should be to consider paratrooper as special flying unit which must submit to preemptive AAA fire @1 before its attack roll.
So each Elite Infantry airdropped unit would suffer an additional 1/6 (17%) higher casualty rate compared to regular ground units.
Of course AA defense is still limited in number and would apply to plane before paratroopers.
Ex.: OOB AAA get up to 3 preemptive @1, if 2 Elites from AB and 2 planes are attacking, if all 3 rolls get 3 hits (very lucky shots), then only 1 Elite will survive and can make its attack roll @2.

That way, UK may prefer to use his Elite Infantry as Marines via TP or BB instead of paratroopers but, if there is not enough TP space, use them as paratrooper at risk of being AA fired becomes an option.

What do you think people?

For Marines, I rather consider that optimized attack Elite+Tank on 1 TP, imply that first casualty will be higher at 4 IPCs than usual 3 IPCs for Inf+Tank on 1 TP.

@Black_Elk:

From a gameplay standpoint I think elites would be most interesting with a mobility advantage, eg as a special way to get another pip into the fight that wouldn’t otherwise be available with normal infantry. That’s why I like the concept of loading one onto a battleship ‘marine’, or being able to jump 3 tiles from an airbase ‘paratrooper’ or paired with mech to blitz ‘ranger/stormtrooper’ basically able to make a specialized combat move that normal infantry can’t make.

Is it the Elite Infantry you prefer, instead of the other which gets M2 paired with Tank or the last Elite which gets M2 for NCM only?

Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper:
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 2
Move 1-2
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:
Up to two Elite Infantry can start from an active Air Base to make a paratrooper attack drop up to 3 TTs away in an enemy territory attacked by other ground units.
Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry (only).

No other combined arms.

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.

Paras should be like this, up to 3 Paras can combat move up to 3 spaces away from a working AirBase. I know the OOB rules says 2 units, but it can scramble 3 fighters, so lets keep numbers that everybody can remember.

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.

Of course you can drop Paras only in any territory within range of your AB. They don’t need a back up force coming from adjacent territory. In the Battle of Crete, the Italian amphibious assault failed, because the Brits had a lot of battleships in the seazone. Then the Germans dropped Paras from planes. The first men in chutes would usually capture an airfield, and the following up forces would land on that airfield, so 3 Paras from an AB don’t just represent 100 000 men with chutes, it represent men landing in gliders or air transports landing on newly captured airfields too.

The attack on Norway was pretty much the same. After the coastal guns sunk a lot of German ships, thousands of paratroopers that had been stand by in Germany would cross the North Sea, which is a long distance, and drop in Southern Norway. After the battle of Narvik got stuck, the Germans got reinforced by paras that jumped out over the mountains and snow. In this case Paratroopers would follow up and reinforce the initial amphibious assault. Not the other way around.

When it comes to Marines, I think all surface warships can carry one Marines unit. Both Germany and Japan used Destroyers to let infantry cross short seazones, because they were short on Trannies, and Destroyers were more suitable to carry infantry than Battleships. On the Amphibious Assault on Norway, thousands of German infantry would ride on the deck of Destroyers. But important to remember, they can only do this for a short distance. No warships can cross the Atlantic or the Pacific with infantry on the upper deck, they would freeze to death. That’s why they build Trannies.

In case you want my IMHO, the current amphibious assault rules have room for improvement. The A&A 1914 rules are way better. Defending artillery should fire pre-emptive against the landing party.

Regarding the Marines-aboard-ships rule concept, this idea sounds a bit like the real-life practice of major US Navy ships carrying what are called “Marine detachments”.  The Royal Navy has a similar tradition of carrying detachments of Royal Marines.  This snippet from Wikipedia…

Throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries, Marine detachments served aboard Navy cruisers, battleships and carriers. Marine detachments (generally one platoon per cruiser, a company for battleships or carriers) served their traditional duties as ship’s landing force, manning the ship’s weapons and providing shipboard security. Marine detachments were augmented by members of the ship’s company for landing parties, such as in the First Sumatran Expedition of 1832, and continuing in the Caribbean and Mexican campaigns of the early 20th centuries. Marines would develop tactics and techniques of amphibious assault on defended coastlines in time for use in World War II. During World War II, Marines continued to serve on capital ships. They often were assigned to man anti-aircraft batteries. When gun cruisers were retired by the 1960s, the remaining Marine detachments were only seen on battleships and carriers. Its original mission of providing shipboard security finally ended in the 1990s as the battleships were retired and nuclear weapons were withdrawn from deployment on aircraft carriers.

…sounds about right.  Another reason for ships carrying Marines (which was a seriously practical one in the old days when disciplining sailors meant tying them to a mast and lashing them, but isn’t as much of a pressing consideration today) is that in the event of a mutiny the captain would have greater success at ordering his Marine contingent to shoot the rebellious sailors than he would have at ordering other sailors to shoot their buddies.  See the movie Battleship Potemkin for an illustration of this principle…with the novel twist, however, that the Russian Marines in that movie – guns raised and pointed at the mutineers – ultimately disobey the order to fire and instead join their brother sailors in revolting against the Tsar’s officers.  (It didn’t help that one of the tyrannical officers, seeing the Marine firing squad wavering, furiously yelled at them, “Shoot, you dogs!”  Bad move.)

@Narvik:

In case you want my IMHO, the current amphibious assault rules have room for improvement. The A&A 1914 rules are way better. Defending artillery should fire pre-emptive against the landing party.

If it is possible to implement this pre-emptive feature for Artillery, I would like such.
This could imply Paras have to submit to AAA pre-emptive fire @1 and unloading troopers have to submit against pre-emptive Artillery fire @2.

@Narvik:

When it comes to Marines, I think all surface warships can carry one Marines unit. Both Germany and Japan used Destroyers to let infantry cross short seazones, because they were short on Trannies, and Destroyers were more suitable to carry infantry than Battleships. On the Amphibious Assault on Norway, thousands of German infantry would ride on the deck of Destroyers. But important to remember, they can only do this for a short distance. No warships can cross the Atlantic or the Pacific with infantry on the upper deck, they would freeze to death. That’s why they build Trannies.

On carrying capacity, I rather prefer units with clearly distinctive features giving each of warships a more singular identity.
Cruiser is a gunboat which have more range and AA capacity.
Battleship is a gunboat with heavier armor and Marines carrying capacity.
Destroyer is a cheap warship meant for escort duty and for Anti-Sub Warfare.

Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.

Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

Giving cruiser a carrying capacity open a balancing cunundrum with Marines vs Infantry and TPs.
A real can of worms.

@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.

Paras should be like this, up to 3 Paras can combat move up to 3 spaces away from a working AirBase. I know the OOB rules says 2 units, but it can scramble 3 fighters, so lets keep numbers that everybody can remember.

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.

Of course you can drop Paras only in any territory within range of your AB. They don’t need a back up force coming from adjacent territory. In the Battle of Crete, the Italian amphibious assault failed, because the Brits had a lot of battleships in the seazone. Then the Germans dropped Paras from planes. The first men in chutes would usually capture an airfield, and the following up forces would land on that airfield, so 3 Paras from an AB don’t just represent 100 000 men with chutes, it represent men landing in gliders or air transports landing on newly captured airfields too.

@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.

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).

The way Airborne Forces currently works. 2 inf can attack up to 3 spaces from a AB as long as other land forces, not just air, are also attacking. (Note: as long as other non air land units can attack,  first enemy TT does not prevent airborne attack.) They are subject to 1 rd of AA fire, same as planes, before attacking.

Triplea will allow a A1 +1 w/airborne, amphib or when paired w/armor and/or mech, D2, M1 +1 w/armor and/or mech, C4 or ? unit. You’d have to activate the mechanized inf tech. Which means mech would have to be taken off the list or it would activate as well. If you wanted a panzergrenadier type unit, you could have elites activated by mechs for movement and attack while the armor activates the mech for blitz. I think you could have the elite blitz along with them if that’s what you wanted. Not 100% sure. I think if you went with the tank boosting the elite there would be less reason to buy mechs. Although they can M2 by themselves and the elite would need the tank present.

As far as having them take a higher casualty rate I think you just have to let the chips fall the way they do. Either make them more expensive or limit the amount that can be built. I would vote for letting BBs pack them around, but if you add CAs and CVs I think you’d end up with fleets of elites and no transports. Maybe a transport shuck to feed the fleet but IDK like anything you’d just have to try it.

Thanks Barney for all the infos on Triple A possibilities.
Is it possible to give a regular defense @1 to a ground unit?

I ask because I changed very little from another kind of shock troop above.
Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Shock troop:
(Reduced sustainability)
Cost 4
Attack 2
Defense 1
Move 1-2

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:
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 need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.

Land movement bonus:
Gets Move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank.
No combined arms with Artillery.
No limit number.

@barney:

The way Airborne Forces currently works. 2 inf can attack up to 3 spaces from a AB as long as other land forces, not just air, are also attacking. (Note: as long as other non air land units can attack,  first enemy TT does not prevent airborne attack.) They are subject to 1 rd of AA fire, same as planes, before attacking.

I’m glad that there is AAA defense against AB’s paratroopers.
Are they rolled separately from aircrafts?

The answer to both questions is yes Baron, although maybe you want to elaborate on your first question ? So if you send 2 airborne units and 2 bombers against 1 aagun it would ony shoot 3 times.

@barney:

The answer to both questions is yes Baron, although maybe you want to elaborate on your first question ? So if you send 2 airborne units and 2 bombers against 1 aagun it would ony shoot 3 times.

And attacker can either choose to lose bombers or airborne, so airborne can be used as AA fodder to protect costlier bomber?

correct

@barney:

I would vote for letting BBs pack them around, but if you add CAs and CVs I think you’d end up with fleets of elites and no transports. Maybe a transport shuck to feed the fleet but IDK like anything you’d just have to try it.

It is precisely for this reason that 5 is the correct cost for these units. And there’s no reason not to allow cruisers to transport them as well. Have play tested this scores of times with many different players. The cost of 5, with transport ability by cruisers and battleships results in exactly the type gameplay one would hope to see with these units–for island hopping and as a compliment to larger landing forces comprised of conventional units. If you’re going to lump all of the “elite” abilities into a single unit, then arguably the price should be even higher.

@regularkid:

@barney:

I would vote for letting BBs pack them around, but if you add CAs and CVs I think you’d end up with fleets of elites and no transports. Maybe a transport shuck to feed the fleet but IDK like anything you’d just have to try it.

It is precisely for this reason that 5 is the correct cost for these units. And there’s no reason not to allow cruisers to transport them as well. Have play tested this scores of times with many different players. The cost of 5, with transport ability by cruisers and battleships results in exactly the type gameplay one would hope to see with these units–for island hopping and as a compliment to larger landing forces comprised of conventional units. If you’re going to lump all of the “elite” abilities into a single unit, then arguably the price should be even higher.

I believe you.
But still I find 5 IPCs is a high price for light infantry footman.

Also, Marc insisted on these points:
@CWO:

To me, the basic problem with paratroopers is that, to be realistic, the rules would have to ensure that they could only be used in situations in which ground troops could reach and reinforce them quickly; otherwise, the whole paratrooper force would be declared lost.  Paratroopers were tricky to use: they could carry out operations of great importance that were impossible for conventional troops (like seizing vital bridges behind enemy lines), but they didn’t have a lot of staying power because they were too lightly armed and carried too few supplies.  They were considered elite forces – in part because it takes a lot of nerve to jump out of airplane in the middle of the night over enemy territory, in part because they would initially operate without ground support, and in part because the ever-present possibility of scattered landings meant that they had to be able to function alone or in small groups if they couldn’t connect with the other men in their unit – but they weren’t indestructible and they didn’t have the firepower of a regular infantry division. So using them was always a gamble.  Used correctly and relieved quickly by ground forces (as in D-Day), they could be a game-changer.  Used incorrectly (as at Arnhem), they were toast.

@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).

If Elite/Marines unit is realistically weaker than Infantry unit most of the time, but cost 1 IPC higher to pay for special loading capacity on warship and airdropping via Air Base, do you believe it could work at 4 IPCs?

I’m thinking something like:
Elite Infantry/Marines/Paratrooper/Shock troop:
Cost 4
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.
No combat bonus when making an amphibious assault.

Air movement bonus:
Up to 3 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 does need to be attacked by other ground units.
Must submit to pre-emptive AAA fire first.
No combat bonus when airdropped.

Land movement bonus:
Gets move 2 if paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry or Tank (blitz along with Tank, too).

Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Mechanized Infantry.
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.
Maximum attack value stays 2.
No limit number on Elite units.

That way, in an amphibious assault Marines will be first casualty compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor with a lesser defense factor (A1 D2 C3 vs A1 D1 C4), unless you need to move them at all cost on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply.
Their ability to be moved with warships is outweight by the fact they get a weak attack factor at 1, the same as a single regular Infantry, so on a 1 Marines vs 1 Infantry, it stays a risky A1 vs D2.
And keeps realistic odds of survival 25% for Marines vs 63% for defending Infantry.
Instead of 40-40-20% when A2 vs D2.

But, they are much more able than regular Infantry when they get access to heavier weaponry, hence +1A with Art, MI, Tank.

I really see this unit more like raiders than garrison troops.
They don’t have enough number, support and logistics to defend with the same value as regular Infantry.
@CWO:

Perhaps a general solution that could be applied to all elite-type units (not just to paratroops) to keep them from being overpowered would be to give them combat values (including some sort of casualty-determination modifier to the combat procedure) which would combine two features.  One feature would the advantage that elite forces tend to have, and one would be the disadvantage the elite forces tend to have:

- The advantage: elite units “punch above their weight”, in the sense that they are more effective than normal troops at doing certain things.  For example, Marines are better than regular infantry at making amphibious assaults.
**- The disadvantage: elite units (for example Marines, Rangers, paratroopers, and units that are used as “shock troops”) tend to suffer much higher casualty rates than regular infantry because of the jobs they are given are often exceptionally difficult and dangerous.**Examples include the Marines at Iwo Jima, the Rangers at Pointe-du-Hoc on D-Day, and the D-Day paratroopers.
…
One of the things that characterizes elite units, however, is that they are actually prepared to take those levels of casualties yet keep functioning.  …
And if I’m not mistaken, the USMC’s combat doctrine has recognized for a long time that Marines can expect to be given very tough objectives to tackle, and that taking these objectives may involve high casualties and may imply trading lives for time.  (Incidentally, Japan’s WWII-era Special Naval Landing Forces, or SNLF, were sometimes described as “Japanese Imperial Marines,” but in actual fact they were basically just Navy personnel armed with Army weapons.  They were apparently less capable than regular infantrymen, not more capable).

So as far as house rules go, the upshot could be that elite forces cost more than regular troops, have more fighting punch than regular troops (or have specialized kinds of fighting bonuses, depending on the type of elite force involved) and therefore can potentially bring special advantages to a combat situation…but they have a built-in casualty rate probability range that’s very high.  This high casualty rate would keep them from becoming overpowered (because they’re always getting killed off in large numbers), so such elite forces would definitely come with a sizable cost/benefit trade-off that would make a player think twice about buying them in large numbers. After all, elite forces by definition are always a small (and expensive) subset of a country’s armed forces; otherwise they’d be called standard forces.

With carrying capacity for both CA and BB, both units have less distinctive features but Marines clearly becomes soldier on board warships giving an identity to this Elite unit vs Infantry.
Cruiser is a gunboat which have more range and AA capacity.
Battleship is a gunboat with heavier armor.
Destroyer is a cheap warship meant for escort duty and for Anti-Sub Warfare.

Cruiser
Cost 12
Attack 3
Defense 3
Move 3, no NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @3
Preemptive AA@1 up to 2 planes, 1 roll per plane max.
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

Battleship
Cost 20
Attack 4
Defense 4
Move 2, +1 NB bonus
Offshore bombardment @4
2 hits
Load 1 Elite/Marines Infantry

As far as I understand Elite Infantry/Marines comparison with Infantry issue, I see two opposite directions as a way to give such and such combat values.

One way is more symbolic and iconic manner. It gives abilities and combat values based on a few comparison between regular army soldier and Marines soldier.

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.

The first makes me think about some tough kind of Elite A2 D2 M1-2 vs Inf A1-2 D2 M1.
The other makes me introduced a weaker Elite A1-2 D1 M1-2 vs Inf A1-2 D2 M1.

In the first, I was thinking at an individual level of comparison.
On the second, I was thinking at strategic level when the number of men and types of weapons available to them is the main factor to assess unit strength. And this much more prevail over individual differences, good or bad.

Any criteria to assess combat values one way or the other?