G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

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of providing shipboard security finally ended in the 1990s as the battleships were retired and nuclear weapons were withdrawn from deployment on aircraft carriers.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?

@Baron:

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like you can’t consistently boost the attack for the elites. If you have +1A with armor or mech any excess armor/mech will boost marines an additional +1A. Boosting +1A from AB boosts all units. So if you have no boost from AB and there are armor/mech that aren’t already paired up in the battle they will  give the airborne units +1A. However, if there are marines attacking as well they will receive the extra boost before the airborne will.

So a A1 D2 elite could have the marines get the +1A and be able to ride on other ships. Airborne gets it’s 3M from AB and 3 per since they only hit at 1 ? Rangers could get +1M from mechs and tanks and be allowed to blitz with tanks ? So you could have a armor, mech, elite blitz together.

You could have a separate marine unit but that would make for 3 infantry units, 4 if you use militia. Probably would clutter things up too much.

Or you could allow tanks to give +1A in this order: Ranger, marine, airborne. The marine would get boosted to 3 only if there were more tanks than rangers present. If there is more armor than marines airborne would get the boost. All units would attack at 1 if there is no armor and they are not in marine mode. 2 units with A3 on amphib is pretty powerful though. You could make the tank -1 on the amphib attack. That should help.

It might be best to give a standard A2 and have no attack bonuses only movement. Mechs could give +1M, mech and tank would allow blitzing, ships other than transports can transport. 2 Airborne get to move 3 from AB.

Number wise having mechs boost attack and tanks movement would probably work best. Kinda the opposite of what one might initially think. For a land battle I could see mech’s mobility improving a elite’s attack and obviously infantry riding on tanks could justify the movement. Mech boosting a amphib attack is a little harder to see, but if you blend the strategic with the tactical it makes sense. Mechs boosting airborne makes sense with the mech units being able to reinforce them sooner.

Without getting into any details about actual combat value numbers (since that’s never been been my strong suit), my suggestion would be this: to have a small number of distinct types of elite forces, each with a distinct type of bonus that would apply only to a special kind of situation.

I agree that it’s not a good idea to have a single all-purpose “generic elite” unit.  This would be awkward for several reasons.  First, we would lose the attractive element of being able to use specific names.  To me, words like “Marine” or “Ranger” are a lot more fun to use than just “elite.”  Second, the “generic elite” unit concept would inaccurately blend together multiple types of military forces that had little or nothing in common with each other.  (For example, an illustration of the fact that a Marine isn’t the same as a paratrooper is that, in WWII, the US Marine Corps had its own paratrooper unit, the Paramarines.  This was a specialized unit; normally, Marines aren’t jump-qualified.)  Third and lastly – and on a lighter note – keep in mind that all military units (and some more so than others) can be very touchy about being confused with other military units.  To see this principle in operation (and I really advise against doing this in real life), just try walking up to a US Marine and saying, “Hi, Soldier!”

On the other hand, it would also not be a good idea to have dozens and dozens of types of elite forces, all with their own distinct combat value.  This would get hopelessly out of hand, and it wouldn’t bring anything useful to the game.

A happy medium would be to identify a few basic types of elite forces, each one built around certain clear concepts.  I’ll use just two examples below, but a few other types could be added. Note that under each “general” type of elite unit, you could have nationally distinct groups of those units.  Those nationally distinct groups would all have the same combat values (to keep things simple); the only different thing about them would be their names.

Marines: This unit would be built around some kind of amphibious-assault bonus, with suitable cost/benefit trade-offs to make sure that their bonuses are balanced by some sort of penalty.  The unit type would apply to forces like the United States Marine Corps, the UK’s Royal Marines, France’s “fusilliers marins”, and so forth.

Paratroopers: This unit would be built around some kind of airborne-assault bonus, with suitable cost/benefit trade-offs to make sure that their bonuses are balanced by some sort of penalty.  The unit type would apply to forces like the US 82nd and 101st Airborne, the German Fallschirmjaeger units and so forth.

An important point to keep in mind is that the special bonuses of these units should only apply when these elite units are used in their particular specialized roles.  Players would be allowed to use elite units as regular infantry (something which desperate armies who are losing a war sometimes do), but in such a case the special bonuses of the elites would not apply.  And players would not be allowed at all to use an elite of one type as an elite of another type; for example, a paratrooper with an airborne-assault bonus would not be allowed to be used as a Marine with an amphibious-assault bonus.

@CWO:

Without getting into any details about actual combat value numbers (since that’s never been been my strong suit), my suggestion would be this: to have a small number of distinct types of elite forces, each with a distinct type of bonus that would apply only to a special kind of situation…
…Third and lastly – and on a lighter note – keep in mind that all military units (and some more so than others) can be very touchy about being confused with other military units.  To see this principle in operation (and I really advise against doing this in real life), just try walking up to a US Marine and saying, “Hi, Soldier!”…

Yea trying to combine 3 units into 1 is difficult. Different branches use different words is right. My favorite is the Army has a latrine, the Navy has a head and the Air Force has a bathroom. :)

@Black_Elk:

Right now OOB there are no sailers airmen or marines, they are all just ‘infantry’ soldiers, so anything is probably a step up from that right?

Actually, sailors and airmen and Marines are not soldiers.  Sailors and airmen and Marines are, respectively, Navy personnel, Air Force personnel and Marine personnel.  Soldiers are Army personnel. But the crucial concept here, for A&A game purposes, isn’t the distinction between service branches, it’s the distinction between military personnel who fight (and move) primarily on foot using personal and/or man-portable weapons (infantrymen) and military personnel who fight (and move) in other ways.

The A&A Infantry unit represents (logically enough) infantrymen.  Army soldiers who fight and move primarily on foot are infantrymen, and Marines who (in a given mission) fight and move primarily on foot are (technically) infantrymen too…though they’d probably prefer being referred to as “Marine serving in an infantry role.”

Almost every other A&A unit represents either a crew-served non-man-portable heavy weapon (like an AAA gun) or a vehicle-type weapon platform (tanks, ships and aircraft all being such platforms).  They all have military personnel inside (or alongside) them, but in an operator role.  And those platforms aren’t necessarily manned by guys from the service branch that one normally associates with that particular weapon type.  Tanks are conventionally thought of an Army weapon, which in most cases they are, but the USMC has some tanks of its own; the fact that they’re tanks doesn’t make them Army vehicles, and the fact that they’re operated by Marines doesn’t make them ground troops with a talent for amphibious landings.  Ditto for Marine ground-support attack aircraft.

The one A&A unit which is a bit fuzzy in this regard is the Mechanized Infantry unit – a problem complicated by the fact that the sculpts represents everything from trucks to half-tracks.  Strictly speaking, these units still represent infantrymen in the sense that they’re troops who fight on foot, but unlike conventional “foot-sloggers” these guys make their longer-distance operational moves in vehicles.  The correct term in a WWII context would actually be “motorized infantry”.  “Mechanized infantry” in the modern sense usually means troops who normally fight from inside their machines (called infantry fighting vehicles) rather than just using them as taxis from which they dismount to fight (in which case the vehicles are called armoured personnel carriers if they’re tracked).

But anyway, part of the point I was trying to make in my previous post was that a “generic elite” unit would sound a bit dull from a labeling point of view, but the more important point I was trying to make was that a “generic elite” unit would be problematic in terms of its combat bonuses and other special features.  If every single elite unit on the board, used for every purpose, has a single unvarying set of values, then the problem becomes: which bonues does it have?  If it’s something that’s very general (say, a bonus of +1 on attack in any situation), then that’s fine.  But if it’s something more specific (say, a a bonus of +1 on amphibious assaults), then by definition you’re no longer dealing with a “generic” elite unit, you’re dealing with a specialized one (in this case a Marine) who has a bonus that would not apply to a different type of specialized unit (say a paratrooper).  In such a cse, the elite unit would be usable in one role but not in another.  An even more problematic option would be to create an elite unit that has all the bonuses of all the elite types, and therefore is usable in all roles: amphibious assaults, parachute landings, and anything else.  The problem with this kind of “many-elites-in-one” unit is that it’s unrealistic – unless perhaps we’re talking about James Bond, who as we all know can do anything from flying a fighter plane to making HALO jumps to fighting hand-to-hand against enemy scuba divers.