G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

Sorry, I’m only on the forum half hours scarcely here and there.
Besides, I’m sure that I’m not the only one which need to be convinced.

And, to help your cause, I would add that a 5 IPCs plain combat unit is still missing in the roster.
Maybe a 5 IPCs Marines would  fit the bill. IDK. (There was one a long time ago in IronBlitz computer version. A2-3 D2 M1 C5,  +1A on amphibious assault, not absolutly sure)
For now, my general reluctance is that Marines is Infantrymen unit.
5 IPCs, in my mind, is more for some kind of light tank or mobile artillery unit.

And the fact you mentionned about not willing to risk a costly unit is also a symptom of a high cost issue. Infantrymen, even Marines, are not meant to be protected but to be used as fodder around Artillery and Tank. You see what I mean?

Yes, I see what you mean. Just disagree. I feel like the subject has been pretty well exhausted and explored from all angles on this thread. Best thing to do now is to set up a game and actually try the units out. Otherwise we’re just spinning our wheels.

@regularkid:

Yes, I see what you mean. Just disagree. I feel like the subject has been pretty well exhausted and explored from all angles on this thread. Best thing to do now is to set up a game and actually try the units out. Otherwise we’re just spinning our wheels.

In fact, there is maybe more than 1 working units which can figures Marines or more.
My first option would be to search for the more appropriate ones at 4 IPCs, which could be carried both on Cruiser and Battleship. A few would work, I hope so but cannot be sure.

5 IPCs gives more options on combat values.
I believe your 5 IPCs Marines unit carried on CA and BB works simply because it is a bit sub-optimized due to high cost and low combat values.

If there is no choice than a 5 IPCs unit, then I would prefer it gets better combat/move values.
To make this new unit more appealing.

@Lit:

I also agree with the need for a 5 IPC land unit. Why not just have the mech inf cost a 5 and give it the ability to transport an artillery.

Just some ideas 8-)

On the last point:
Mech Infantry
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35525.msg1386182#msg1386182

@Young:

New G40 unit profile created through discussion and collaboration.

Mechanized Infantry

Cost - 5 IPCs
Move - 2
Attack - 1 (2 when combined with an artillery or tank unit)
Defense - 2

Special abilities:

_Each mechanized infantry unit may pull an artillery unit up to 2 spaces during the combat movement phase, or non combat movement phase (both units must originate from the same territory).

Mechanized infantry may blitz when combined with a tank (both units must originate from the same territory), however, mechanized infantry may not pull artillery units when blitzing with a tank._

I’m thinking that Mech Inf unit can become that one above.
So, this will be easier to simulate the Panzer-Grenadier units on the eastern front with Mech Inf+Tank bonus A1 combined arms.

On the other side, 2 Mech Inf units should be put on board TP.
This would help Allies.
@Young:

@wittmann:

I think Allied TTs should be able to transport a Mech with an Armour.
Its Inf� � were all Mechanized by the time it� � got around to landing amphibiously anyway. Would help enormously in North Africa.

I was thinking along those same lines…

When using transports, Mechanized infantry can be used like regular infantry.

Possible combinations for a fully loaded transport are as follows…

Infantry / Infantry
Infantry / Mech Infantry
Infantry / AA Artillery
Infantry / Artillery
Infantry / Tank

Mech Infantry / Mech Infantry
Mech Infantry / Infantry
Mech Infantry / AA Artillery
Mech Infantry / Artillery
Mech Infantry / Tank

What I like about this is, we are changing Mech Infantry units which will benefit the Axis as well as the Allies.

Finally, with only Artillery at 4 IPCs, it makes better sense to add another 4 IPCs unit.
Here, I’m still thinking a Marines/Elite unit. (Combat values to be determined.)
And this time, there is no need to give M2 paired with Mech, since Artillery gets +1M from Mechanized Infantry.

That way, Infantry at 3 or Marines at 4 IPCs units would have Move 1.
We get some kind of Mechanized Artillery with Mech-Arty combined arms, without adding a new unit.
Get a significant unit on the sweet 5 IPCs spot.

The Marines/Elite I have in mind would be something like:
@Baron:

So this Marines idea keep a boosted unit for German’s shock trooper as asked by LHoffmann, here is what can be imagined:

Elite Infantry: as Marines/Rangers/Shock troop:
Cost 4
Attack 1-2
Defense 2-3
Move 1

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 additional bonus when making an amphibious assault.

Combat bonus:
Gets +1A combined arms when paired 1:1 with Artillery.
Gets +1A/D combined arms when paired 1:1 with Tank.

Maximum attack value remains 2.

No limit production on Elite units.

What do you think?

@regularkid:

Yes, I see what you mean. Just disagree. I feel like the subject has been pretty well exhausted and explored from all angles on this thread. Best thing to do now is to set up a game and actually try the units out. Otherwise we’re just spinning our wheels.

The issue is more theorethical than practical, IMO.

I believe Marines at A1 D2 M1, +1A on amphibious, 5 IPCs (and no Artillery boost), can work.

But I want to find a balanced Marines at 4 IPCs, with no high attack at 3 (with Arty as Pacific Marines) nor a single Marines able to attack @2 coming from a BB or a Cruiser.

With any +1A on amphibious assault, it gives attack @2 when doing a debarkment from Cruiser or BB. That’s the issue.

Hence, I cannot give to a Marines unit this explicit bonus while trying to keep a Cruiser and BB carrying capacity.

I’ve been doing some more thinking about this whole special infantry unit concept, and I’m starting to conclude that we’re perhaps approaching the concept from the wrong direction.

As we can see from the many pages of discussion threads that have been devoted to this subject for the past couple of weeks, this unit is proving to be very problematic.  I’m beginning to think that many (though not all) of the problems with this unit can be traced back to one common cause: the concept of creating it as a single unit that would apply to every nation.  This concept was originally proposed for purposes of simplicity.  What seems to be emerging, however, is that this concept is actually creating more problems than it solves and is boxing us into a corner.  And upon further thought, it seems to me that the “problem” which this concept was intended to solve may not actually exist in the first place.  Let me try to explain what I mean by this.

As I understand it, the “simplicity of a single unit” concept was based on the premise that it would be much easier for special infantry to be represented on the game board (whether physical or electronic) if it consisted of a single unit than if it consisted of half-a-dozen nationally distinct units.  At first glance, that seems an obvious conclusion.  But let’s actually look at this more closely.  And to do so, let’s compare the practical elements of two different alternatives: the concept of having a generic special infantry unit that applies to everyone, and the alternative model of each country having its own distinct special infantry unit.

In doing this comparison (which follows below), it won’t be necessary to get into the details of what specific price or capabilities each unit has.  It won’t be necessary because I’ll be talking about these units at a broad conceptual level, not at the level of how many dollars each unit costs or what specific attack value it has or whether it gets an amphibious attack bonus or whether it can be transported by cruiser or anything like that.  The argument I’ll be making doesn’t depend on any of those specific numbers or factors.  The argument I’ll be making simply reflects the much more general concept that any A&A unit is defined by its particular package of characteristics (whatever those happen to be), and that units should be considered to belong to different types if they have different packages of characteristics.  These different types can be similar to each other if their characteristics are similar, or very different from each other if their characteristics are very different, but they still remain distinct unit types.

In doing this comparison, I’ll also use – just for purposes of discussion – some hypothetical nationally-distinct special infantry unit types.  They’re just examples, and I’ll limit them to just five countries.  The examples are somewhat arbitrary, in the sense that different options for each country might exist…let’s say, for example, using Siberians troops rather than Guards units for the Soviets.  Again, the examples and their specific numbers aren’t important at this time, since we’re talking about these units at a broad conceptual level; this is just to give us something concrete to work with for this particular comparison.

The units I’ll use for the nationally-unique special infantry forces are:

US / Marines
UK / Commandos
USSR / Guards
Germany / Waffen SS
Japan / SNLF

The generic special infantry forces, by contrast, would look something like this:

US / Generic elite infantry
UK / Generic elite infantry
USSR / Generic elite infantry
Germany / Generic elite infantry
Japan /  Generic elite infantry

Let’s start by looking at the issue of unit identification.

Whether you’re playing on a physical board or on an electronic one, any elite infantry unit – whether generic or nationally-unique – has to be represented by a sculpt or icon which has some kind of visual country coding (because otherwise the players wouldn’t be able to tell which unit belongs to what country).  There are three basic ways to do this:

• At its simplest, the unit has a single generic “international” design, but each country has it in its own distinctive colour.

• At the next level of sophistication, the unit looks like each nation’s normal distinctive infantry design, but in a variant colour (like the dark green Marines in the original Pacific game).

• At the highest level of sophistication, the unit has a distinctive design for each nation, and is also colour-coded using the standard colors of the player powers.

The point to take from this is the following one: regardless of whether you have a single generic special infantry unit (US Generic, UK Generic, USSR Generic, German Generic and Japanese Generic) or five different nationally-unique special infantry units (US Marines, UK Commandos, USSR Guards, German Waffen SS and Japanese SNLF), you still need five sculpts or icons that are distinct from each other (even if only by colour).  Otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to tell which special infantry unit belongs to which country, unless you go purely by the context of territories which are 100% under one power’s control.  The old generic-design light grey AAA unit from the older A&A games worked that way: such a unit, located in (let’s say) a 100% Soviet-controlled territory, could only be interpreted as being a Soviet AAA gun.  The special infantry unit we’re talking about, however, is a mobile unit that can make combat moves into enemy-held territories that might conceivably contain enemy special infantry units – at which point telling them apart could get very messy.  It’s much cleaner and more practical to give these special infantry units a distinct appearance of some sort.  You’re therefore not simplifying anything by restricting yourself to a generic unit rather than having nationally-unique ones because, one way or the other, you need to have five distinguishable sculpts or icons.  So it’s a completely even draw between one option or the other.

Now for the issue of crowding.

It’s been argued that the Global 1940 map – whether as a physical board or as an electronic map – doesn’t have the space to accommodate a whole bunch of special infantry units (five if we limit them to the US, the UK, the USSR, Germany and Japan, and eight if we also give such units to Italy, ANZAC and France), and therefore that we need to use a generic unit to prevent crowding.  That argument, however, disregards the fact that, no matter whether the special infantry units are generic or nationally-unique, each nation only uses one type, not five (or eight) types.  If, let’s say, we give the US a generic special infantry unit, what will it look like on the map in a US-controlled territory?  It will look like one sculpt (or icon).  Now let’s say that we give the US a nationally-unique special infantry unit.  What will it look like on the map in a US-controlled territory?  It will look like one sculpt (or icon).  So it’s one versus one, and therefore you’re no better off or worse off regardless of which option you use.  And regardless of the option used, you will only ever have a maximum of two special infantry unit types in any given contested territory: the attacker’s and the defender’s.  You’ll have two if the special infantry units are generic, and you’ll have two if the special infantry units are nationally-unique.  Once again, you’re not making any gains one way or the other.

The one single element which does involve a greater degree of complication when we use nationally-unique special infantry units, as opposed to generic ones, is that we’re dealing with five (or potentially eight) different sets of costs and combat values and special abilities.  But here again, keep in mind that each individual player doesn’t have to keep track with five (or potentially eight) different sets of unit characteristics.  He only has to keep one set of characteristics in mind at all times: those of his own special infantry unit.  He can ignore the others unless he’s about to go into combat against an enemy force that contains an enemy special infantry unit, in which case its combat characteristics can simply be looked up in a table.  And he can completely ignore the costs and special movement abilities of the special infantry units of the other powers because it’s not his responsibility to purchase or move them.

I’ve never used TripleA, so I don’t know if the coding of five (or eight) special infantry units poses any difficulties as opposed to the coding of one.  My guess – and it’s only a guess – is that it might be easier to code these as five (or eight) separate unit types, rather than as one unit type that has five (or eight) sets of special characteristics depending on the context.  But as far as the physical board game goes, all that would presumably be required would be a table for the special infantry unit giving its characteristics for each power.

What I’ve basically been arguing above is that, as far as I can tell, having  five (or potentially eight) nationally-unique special infantry units doesn’t in most respects appear to be any more complicated than having a single generic special infantry unit.  Since both options appear to stack up evenly against each other in terms of simplicity and practicality, we can therefore consider the question of how these options stack up against each other in other ways.

As the debates of the last couple of weeks have shown, the generic option actually creates a host of problems in terms of historical accuracy, inter-nation consistency, unit purchase attractiveness, naming conventions and so forth.  I won’t repeat all the arguments of those debates (because that would take too long, and because you can read them in detail by clicking back through the thread), but basically the problem is twofold.  If on the one hand we try to create a purely generic unit that could plausibly apply to any nation, we tend to end up with unit that has a vague name and weak abilities.  If on the other hand we try to create a unit that’s more specific in its abilities (say, a Marine), then we end up with a unit whose capabilities can’t be well reconciled with the actual WWII use of special infantry in all countries (say, the Waffen SS).  And if we try to fix the latter problem by introducing unit differentiation, then we end up with a unit that isn’t generic after all…which is the very thing that we’ve supposedly been trying to avoid in the first place.  Pretty much all of those contradictions and inaccuracies disappear, however, if we simply give each nation its own distinctive type of special infantry.  And as a bonus, we get units whose names are not only more interesting than “generic elite infantry” but also convey a clearer idea of just what kind of special troops we’re dealing with (assuming that their abilities are modeled on those of the actual units that were used historically in WWII).

I think a generic unit is feasable. All the other units are. I’ve been testing this one lately.

Elite Infantry: A1, +1 bonus when paired with artillery or armor on a 1:1 basis. May only receive 1 bonus at a time. D2, M1, +1 when paired with mech infantry on a 1:1 basis. May blitz when paired with armor and mech. BBs and CAs may transport 1 elite each. May move 2 elite up to 3 TTs into an existing combat when starting at an AB. Must move both units to same TT. Other land units (non air) must be in existing combat. C4.

Maximum attack is 2. Requires 2 units to receive movement and attack bonus during same turn. No bonus for amphibious attack.

I’m not opposed to nation unique units. They would be a lot of fun. It would probably require more playtesting for balance, but hey getting there is half the fun.

Thanks Barney for this all purpose Elite Infantry.
According to where it used it provides an acceptable narrative I believe.

On doing specific unit according to each power, maybe there can be two types only:
1 Marines unit for Sea Powers and 1 Shock, stormtrooper, unit for Land Powers.
USA, UK, ANZAC, JAPAN and ITALY would be considered Sea Powers
USSR, CHINA?, GERMANY would be considered Land Powers.

Paratroopers can be considered separatly.

With only 2 types of special Infantry and only one type per Power, it is easier to keep tracks of TUVs.

Or  2 new types of units?
One set of Marines type unit:

United States / US Marines
United Kingdom / Royal Marines
Soviet Union / Soviet Naval Infantry
ANZAC /    Naval Beach Commandos
France / Fusiliers Marins
China / [Not applicable]
Germany / Marine Stossrupp Abteilung
Japan / Special Naval Landing Forces
Italy / San Marco Regiment

And one set of Elite/special Infantry unit:
United States / US Rangers
United Kingdom / Commandos
Soviet Union / Guard
ANZAC /   Commandos?
France / ???
China / [Not applicable]
Germany / Waffen-SS or Panzer-Grenadiers?
Japan / ???
Italy / ???

@Baron:

On doing specific unit according to each power, maybe there can be two types only:
1 Marines unit for Sea Powers and 1 Shock, stormtrooper, unit for Land Powers.
USA, UK, ANZAC, JAPAN and ITALY would be considered Sea Powers
USSR, CHINA?, GERMANY would be considered Land Powers.

That’s roughly similar to what I was proposing in my post from yesterday, though I didn’t express it in terms of a two-type model.  What I was proposing was to give each country one nationally-distinct elite infantry unit, representing an actual elite-type force used by that country during WWII, with game values and capabilities reflecting (in a very general sense) the capabilities which that particular force had during WWII.  Each choice would be done on a country-by-country basis, with the aim of selecting an elite force that would be interesting to play, whose name would be easily recognizable, and that could be considered a good representative of each country.

Naturally, the choice for the land powers would tend to fall on Army-type forces (though it wouldn’t absolutely have to fall on such forces, if a more interesting option was available).  So for instance, in Germany’s case the highest-profile choice would probably be the Waffen SS, which was fundamentally a land force.  For the sea powers, forces with amphibious capabilities are the first option that comes to mind…though in their case, the first option isn’t necessarily the best one and usually isn’t the only serious potential contender.  For the US, the Marines would be a good fit (and for me personally would be my favourite), but the Army’s Rangers would be a viable alternative.  For the UK, the situation is both similar and more complicated: the Royal Marines are an obvious choice, but the Commandos would be contenders too (though their role was different), and so would the SAS (whose role was likewise different).  And so forth.

I agree that the elite infantry unit should be viewed entirely separately from the paratrooper concept.  Paratroopers already exist in G40, as a tech upgrade of the existing normal infantry unit, and to me that sounds perfectly fine.  Under the G40 rules, paratroopers aren’t really a new and distinct type of unit; they’re basically normal infantry who, under certain restrictions (including restrictions on how many infantry can be treated this was), are given a special movement bonus.  As a tech upgrade, that’s actually a lot more limited in scope than some of the other tech upgrades, because some of those upgrades automatically affect all of your units everywhere.  The paratrooper tech is similar to the airbase unit or the naval base unit, in the sense that airbases and naval bases give a movement boost to some units but not to others, and that they do not change the boosted units from one unit type to another unit type.

So I don’t think that adding a distinct elite infantry unit (on a one-per-country basis) would complicate things unduly, in the sense that we wouldn’t be dealing with three fundamentally different infantry types (regular infantry, paratroopers, and elites).  We’d really be dealing with two fundamental types: normal infantry (some of whom have a paratrooper movement bonus) and elite infantry.

I don’t think, however, that we should give two elite infantry units to each country (one Marine-type and one non-Marine type).  First, that would create unit-type overload .  Second, it would go against the idea that the elite unit should be something with a high recognition factor, high prestige, and which had high importance in WWII.  Every WWII major combatant did, to some extent, have Marine-type forces…but some of them were a lot less important (and less visible) than others.  In the list that I compiled, for instance, you’ll find the United States Marines and the Italian San Marco Regiment.  Everybody’s heard of the USMC (and quite a few people are familiar with the music and words of the Marine Hymn), but personally I’d never heard of the San Marco Regiment and I had to do some digging to come up with them for my list.  Ditto for the Australian Naval Beach Commandos, who were even harder to find than the SMR.  The fact is that not every WWII major combatant nation had elite forces in every branch of its services, so it would do a disservice to the whole concept of elite forces to try to shoehorn into that category forces which, in real life, weren’t actually all that important.

And besides, the question “If you had to pick just one, which one would you pick?” is usually a more interesting intellectual exercise than an all-you-can-eat buffet-type situation in which you can choose as many options as you like.  :)

Just to follow up on the "“If you had to pick just one, which one would you pick?” element of my previous post: I’ve posted below a (mostly) blank table which people can copy and use as a template for their suggestions…but I’ve filled in one of the lines with a suggestion of my own.  The suggestion is for Global 1940’s oddball power, China, which unlike everyone else only has infantry sculpts of its own in the game box.  Giving China an elite infantry unit might be fun, and on the practical side might help China resist Japan a little more effectively.

I’ve looked around to see what historical Chinese forces might qualify for the role.  There’s not a lot to work with, since Chinese forces were so pathetically equiped compared to Japan.  (Also, a typical Chinese “division” was in fact only about half the size of a Japanese one.)  My first thought was use Mao’s Eighth Route Army, which is probably the only Communist military force in history to have ever seen its doctrine and methods deliberately copied by a US Marine Corps unit (the 2nd Marine Raiders Battalion, a.k.a. Carlson’s Raiders) and to have been mentioned by name in glowing terms in an American WWII-era popular movie (Gung-Ho, featuring Randolph Scott and a very young Robert Mitchum).  But the Eighth Route Army, for all its high profile, was basically just a guerrila force.

A better (but somewhat ironic) choice for this Chinese elite unit would actually be the German-trained divisions of China’s National Revolutionary Army, because they genuinely were considered China’s elite forces.  There were eight fully (or almost fully) trained divisions of this type at the time of the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, and twelve more partially-trained ones.  Some got used up fairly rapidly; the 88th, for instance, took heavy losses during the Battle of Nanking in 1937.  These elite forces didn’t have a single all-encompassing name, so for purposes of convenience they could be called the NRA German-Trained Divisions.  I’ve used that term in the table below.

Proposals for the elite infantry-type unit of each power:

United States /
United Kingdom /
Soviet Union /
ANZAC /
France /
China / NRA German-Trained Divisions
Germany /
Japan /
Italy /

The reason airborne units should be considered elite is because they had specialized training and performed a special job. Regular infantry were not airborne qualified. If the player wants to use airborne units then they have to pay a little more for there special ability. This represents the added training required for airborne units.

While unique units are cool and I’ve played fun games that have them, it does add more complexity simply by having to remember more. Countries had different tanks, bombers, fighters, aaguns, etc… that are all treated equally in the game. For consistency it would seem best to have one unit that performs these special tasks. The special unit is somewhat self regulating. Russia will use it for land as will Germany for the most part. Japan will primarily use it for naval use. US will have a mixture.

If you want to invest in special units, then you get to use their special abilities. If during the war a country had decided to spend the time and money to create these special units they would have. Obviously some countries did.

@Lit:

My view on elite/commando infantry is that they generally did not cost anymore industrial resources than regular troops, rather they are special because of the endurance and toughness of the men selected for the unit. Only a fraction of the military age population could serve in these units. Why not have them cost 3, since they require no more industrial input than regular infantry, but then limit the total numbers each nation can build too a fraction of there IPC production(IPC being a rough estimate of population) for instance for every 10 IPC you can maintain one commando infantry. Perhaps also require they are built over the course of 2 turns to simulate the additional training time.

…

@Narvik:

@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.

@Baron:

@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.

…
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.

…

@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.

From a game perspective, an interesting and very specialized unit would be like this one.
It has low cost but also lower combat values to balance with its carrying capacity on Cruiser and Battleship.
Try to see the game at army group level, Marines combat unit division are certainly smaller than a full fledge army unit. That is why I suggest low offense / defense values except in the one combat situations which gives Marines their reputation: amphibious assault.

Marines as simply Marines and nothing more
Cost 3
Attack 1-2
Defense 1
Move 1

Sea movement bonus:
1 Marines unit can be carried on 1 Battleship or 1 Cruiser.
Transport can load 2 Marines or 1 Marines plus any other 1 ground unit.
Gets +1A on amphibious assault only.

No combined arms with Artillery.
No production limit number.

That way, 2 Marines for 6 IPCs, A4 D2 on amphibious assault will be better cost ratio than regular Infantry paired with Artillery A4 D4 C7.
But, in defense, 2 Marines Defense @2 cannot hold the ground as 2 Infantry Defense @4.

And also 2 Marines being weaker if going inland combat by themselves because of the no pairing bonus with artillery. But they stay on par 1:1 compared to a single Infantry on offense.

Also, in amphibious assault, Marines will be probably taken amongst first casualties compared to regular infantry because it is the same attack factor than Inf with Artillery (but have a lesser defense factor (very low 1), unless you keep them to move on a Cruiser or BB and want to spare TP to turn back home for new supply on next turn. So, such Marines unit will more often die during debarkment and regular Infantry will last longer, in anticipation of next assault going inland.

So, it provides a different kind of tactical combat with 2 Marines on TP and still keeping Inf+Art a competitive combination too.

D1 was to reflect the smaller number of soldiers involved per unit compared to standard Infantry unit.
It is not for lesser morale but for less logistics and support required by this unit.
Lower defense @1, come from the lesser number of individuals being less equiped than regular Infantry unit.
Attack @2 on amphibious assault is balanced by lower defense @1 to allow a more balanced Cruiser and Battleship carrying capacity. This unit have a better attacking factor because of abilities, training and surprise tactics despise their fewer number of soldiers. They can do a lot with less but not for an extended period.

In addition, their lower defense factor would make them amongst the first casualty during counter-attack which can figure for they high risk mission they undertake.

@CWO:

Each choice would be done on a country-by-country basis, with the aim of selecting an elite force that would be interesting to play, whose name would be easily recognizable, and that could be considered a good representative of each country.

I agree that the elite infantry unit should be viewed entirely separately from the paratrooper concept.  Paratroopers already exist in G40, as a tech upgrade of the existing normal infantry unit, and to me that sounds perfectly fine.

Yes. I agree entirely. This is an excellent compromise and probably the best solution. Leave paratroopers alone as they are, a tech or special ability and not a particular unit/sculpt.

@CWO:

So I don’t think that adding a distinct elite infantry unit (on a one-per-country basis) would complicate things unduly, in the sense that we wouldn’t be dealing with three fundamentally different infantry types (regular infantry, paratroopers, and elites).  We’d really be dealing with two fundamental types: normal infantry (some of whom have a paratrooper movement bonus) and elite infantry.

I don’t think, however, that we should give two elite infantry units to each country (one Marine-type and one non-Marine type).  First, that would create unit-type overload .  Second, it would go against the idea that the elite unit should be something with a high recognition factor, high prestige, and which had high importance in WWII.

Perfect analysis. This essentially reflects what I was driving at, however, it will add a national flavor to each, rather than being roundly generic.

I would even argue that Elite units only be available to Big 5 (or 6 including Italy) Powers. Or the UK could supply them to ANZAC.

The units would reflect historical specialties and ‘a good representation’ of each Power’s special warfighting ability. For Germany - Waffen SS, for USA - Marines, etc… Each would have characteristics based on historically founded use. (Eg… US Marines would have amphib advantage that the Waffen SS lacks and Waffen SS has land advantage that US Marines lack)

I do think that, for simplicity and consistency, cost for all “Elite” level units should be the same.

@LHoffman:

I would even argue that Elite units only be available to Big 5 (or 6 including Italy) Powers. Or the UK could supply them to ANZAC.

It’s funny that you mention this because my classified plastic trays of sculpts at home include an “Other Infantry” tray where I’ve put the variant-colour versions of the normal US, UK, USSR, Germany and Japan infantry units, which have been issued in several different colours over the years before the current colour standard was established.  The ANZAC, Italian, Chinese and French infantry units have only ever been issued in one colour, as far as I know, so they’re not in that tray.

I don’t include in that tray the Big Five colour variations which I don’t like (like the olive-brown Americans) or which are too limited in number to be worth counting (like the salmon pink British).  As I recall, the variants in that tray are the dark green American troops supplied as Marines in the original Pacific game; the blonde British troops; the dark brown Soviet troops; the grey German troops; and the amber/yellow Japanese troops.  (One of the ironies of the current colour convention is that the “standard” German pieces are black, which puts the older grey ones in the position of being “special” troops, even though in principle it should be the regular Wehrmacht troops that are grey and the (presumably Waffen SS) special troops which are black.)

I haven’t included three of the variant colours in that tray because I’m thinking of using them (and their associated equipment units) for other purposes: the cherry-red Japanese ones for the Axis minors, the seafoam-green British ones for the Allied minors, and the wine-purple Russian ones for the Mongolians.

I am of the mind that how to represent a given unit is easier than determining how they function and what their cost is.

There are many ways to represent normal infantry versus elite infantry; a person can pick and choose as they like. Using special HBG pieces, different color shades or paint schemes… lots of possibilities.

Marc, I see no reason why you couldn’t make your normal German infantry the grey ones and the SS units black. Its totally up to you.

@LHoffman:

Marc, I see no reason why you couldn’t make your normal German infantry the grey ones and the SS units black. Its totally up to you.

I should have put a smiley after my “irony” comment because it was just meant to be a quirky observation, not an issue that I was actually bothered about.  I actually like black much better than grey as the standard colour for Germany’s main forces: it looks stylish, and it differentiates very clearly from the other sculpt colours on the map.  Besides, since the black troop and equipment sculpts in my collection vastly outnumber the grey ones (and offer a much greater range of unit types), so it makes practical sense of them to represent the Wehrmacht and the grey ones to represent the Waffen SS.  (I’m reminded of the Mad Magazine parody of the original Star Wars film, in which somebody – making reference to the Imperial Stormtroopers – comments that in this movie the bad guys wear white.  The person he’s talking to asks, “Well, what about this Darth Vader guy?”  The first person answers, “Well, his armour did start out white, but with all of his dirty work…”)  :-D